I Have A Funny Feeling

For new people to this site (and we get many of them everyday) I've written a book that can be ordered right now on Amazon and shipped in seven days. A link to it along with some blurbs can be found here. I've noticed a kind of glee that Christian apologists have had with the so-called new atheists to date, who are lining up to answer them. They claim to be winning the argument hands down, easily, in the popular culture.

I have a funny feeling their job just got harder.

45 comments:

AIGBusted said...

You should post a sample chapter on your blog. That would definitely double your dollars and your audience.

Harry McCall said...

With over 2 trillion dollars as a yearly budget, the Christian religion business has vast amounts of revenue fueled from its weekly services with hundreds of thousands of professional ministers depending heavily on their denomination’s health and retirement systems to protect themselves and their families. As such, Christian truth is also subjectively fueled, not by the quest for objective truth, but by a conflict of interest.

To cover their asses, main line conservative denominations employ professional apologetic mercenaries to try and handle the never ending attacks from the secular world. Such conservative mind sets were first begun within the Protestant denominations themselves such as in the late 19th century when the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. tried Charles Augustus Briggs (1841 - 1913 who have helped edit the Hebrew Lexicon (Brown, Driver, Briggs) and major commentary series The International Critical Commentary) for heresy. In the end, Briggs was striped of his clerical functions in 1893 and joined the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1899.

About the same time the Roman Catholic Church began the Biblical Commission under Leo XIII in 1902 to address the Historical Critical issues such as the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and the Synoptic Problem. However, due to Vatican II and the reforms set in motion under Pope John XXIII, the Commission was re-defined in 1971 as the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith“.

Reactions soon followed in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod in the 1970’s when Concordia Seminary was purged of its liberal critical scholars who, in exile, formed their own seminary Christ Seminary Seminx.

In the same manner, the largest denomination in the U.S., the Southern Baptist Convention, began a purge of liberal professors in the late 70’s and early 80’s in which schools who valued objective truth as well as academic freedom (like Furman University) left the Convention.

As I discussed in an earlier post here at DC, the problem between truth in the secular world and “truth” in Christianity is defined by the theological term “Dogma”, or simply put, a religious truth established by Divine Revelation and subjectively defined within each ecclesiastical authority. Thus, while Christian dogmatic truth hardly ever agrees with secular truth, sectarian ecclesiastical “truth” also hardly ever agrees within its own subjectively formed philosophical system called theology.

An example here are the Christian “truths” worked out in two major multi-volumes works: That of the Catholic scholar Karl Rahner (1904 - 1984) whose 6 volume Sacramentum Mundi can be contrasted with the Presbyterian scholar, Karl Barth’s (1886 - 1968) Kirchliche Dogmatik published in English as “Church Dogmatics” in 13 volumes. As such, the Christian world is exploding with “truth” as reveled by its ever expanding 20,000 plus denominations and sects who feel only they individually have all the God’s “truth”.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

"They claim to be winning the argument hands down"

The thing for me is: they can win all the arguments they want, and I'm not saying they do, but that still will not make me experience God, even if I want to. If God's wisdom is foolish to men, then why do they even argue?

Can't wait for the book. I'm excited that it's coming soon!

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Dear Harry,

I liked your comment. I find it challenging and will think whether to respond to it in my next blog on christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com.

I do have one question though, cannot you position your point to any ideology? Science or politics or humanities all make various claims that they have the "truth" for whatever they may be addressing and yet have widely differing and even contra-dictionary views internally?

Thanks, Rev Phil.

Lee Randolph said...

HI Phil,
Science or politics or humanities all make various claims that they have the "truth" for whatever they may be addressing and yet have widely differing and even contra-dictionary views internally?
truth is in the eye of the beholder. There is always room for doubt, especially since your perception of the world come to you through biological conduits. You may be colorblind, tone deaf, autistic, etc and you (or anyone else) takes the info and makes the call on when they consider it 'truth'. We all take data and compare 'truths' that the data support and choose to accept the one that we are most comfortable with. Some truths are counter-intuitive, but in all cases, the truth is subject to revision based on new information. For example, I may say "its hot in there" but when you go in to the room you find its not. Maybe the A/C kicked on or whatever but in any case, conditions change. In science if there is some 'controversy' (such as with string theory) people are carful to call it a theory until there is enough evidence that reliable predictions can be made, then it becomes somewhat of a principle. Science is a self-correcting process. Its a process of progress. Thats why when you get sick you go to the doctor instead of the preacher.

With religion, as we are discussing on your blog, all the data is in favor of the atheist, and the logic too.

for example, why should anyone believe the bible over the vedas?
there is no non-circular or non-subjective answer to this. YOu believe in it based on how much evidence you are comfortable with, the hindu rejects it because it doesn't meet what he's comfortable with, and I reject them both because they are mutually exclusive (in a way) and neither one has any evidential advantage over the other.

Stick around, I'm planning on dissecting gen 3 using data analysis and decision making techniques and we'll see how it measures up. And in the next day or so, I'm going to publish a hypothesis matrix that shows unequivocally that Jesus was a human sacrifice. Maybe it won't faze you, maybe your comfortable with it, but there are some christians that just don't accept it. And they shouldn't. Because human sacrifice is so bad its illegal in all 'civilized' countries. It must be one of them so called 'universal morals'.

goprairie said...

"They claim to be winning the argument hands down, easily, in the popular culture."
They only 'win' by repeating the same erroneous illogical words over and over. How many times right here have I and others argued about the two conflicting genesis stories but we keep hearing that the one is an expansion of details of one day of the other, yet the issue of the timing of animals vs. man won't go away. yet they still insist it is literal truth, even tho it obviously can't be. john, you are a wanted man but the weapon is false words, so the attacks shouldn't hurt too badly! now. off to see if it made the deadline before amason cancelled my order again.

John W. Loftus said...

Amazon is a basket case. I just learned they never had any books to begin with. The books haven't yet been shipped there from the printer. But it will be available somewhere mid-August. I'm more impatient than anyone on this, but have patience, please.

Harry McCall said...

Rev. Phil, Please see my reply to your comment given as a main post: Truth: Absolute or Relative?

Edward T. Babinski said...

Hi Rev. Phil,

The way Christians bully one another with umcompromising doctrines and dogmas is far more pervasive and worse than mere EXPULSION (to cite the name of a recent pro-I.D. film), for in their case it's EXCOMMUNICATION.

Religious Organizations Allowed by Law to Discriminate on Basis of Religion

Christian institutions of higher learning continue to fire (or not rehire) professors for teaching evolution, and/or for disagreeing with ANY of the beliefs of the religion of the institution at which they work.

For instance Bob Jones fires any employees who are caught attending a church that features "contemporary Christian music," and it's perfectly legal.

The California Supreme Court, unanimously decided, "We can discern no fundamental public policy that places limits on a RELIGIOUS employer's right to control such speech," i.e., in the case of a recently converted Evangelical who couldn't stop speaking about "God" to everyone on the job at a Catholic Healthcare West Medical Foundation. The employee was fired, and the institution, being a religious institution, has the legal right backed up by the Calif. Supreme Court to fire that employee.

Wheaton College, an Evangelical institution, fired a professor recently who converted to Catholicism. They also let go a Christian biology professor who would not compromise and attempt to incorporate Genesis into his biology class. He viewed Genesis as a religious myth, and could find no point of accommodation between the Genesis story and the history of life on earth.

Another recent case is that of Prof. Richard Colling, a long time biology professor at Olivet Nazarene University, and author of the book, Random Designer:
http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2007/09/when-acceptance-of-biological-evolution.html

See also an earlier case:

Documents Related to the Evolution Trial of Dr. Terry M. Gray in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC):
http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/

And these cases:

Would your Church allow you to Publicly Support Evolution?

http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com/2008/03/would-your-church-allow-you-to-publicly.html

I also have a personal email from someone in a geology dept. of a large Christian university (whose church's denominational view is young-earth creationist) who says every geologist he works with in that department is an old-earther and pro-evolutionist but none of them can come out of the closet for fear of losing their jobs and creating immense controversy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The following two paragraphs are from Christianity Today's website:


"The ordeals of … professors at the more than 100 evangelical Protestant institutions in the United States that require such faith statements—orally or in writing—have spurred charges that they violate academic freedom," writes Beth McMurtrie. "Do they, in fact, defy the academic ideal of open intellectual inquiry? Are the statements—some of them generic—subject to such broad interpretation that they can be used to punish whatever teaching or lifestyle choices administrators may dislike?"

The occasion for the article is Patrick Henry College's denial of accreditation because it requires all teachers to believe and teach seven-day creationism. But McMurtrie's article touches on just about every major conflict over Christian college faith statements in the last five years. There's Wheaton College's dismissal of anthropology professor Alex Bolyanatz; Seattle Pacific University's rescinding an offer to English professor Scott Cairns; Earl Ross Genzel's forced resignation from Messiah College; and successful battles by Greg Boyd at Bethel College and Howard J. Van Till at Calvin. This is an article that goes beyond generalizations and actually names names.

Below is a link to the original article in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

Do Professors Lose Academic Freedom by Signing Statements of Faith? Critics say the oaths at some religious colleges are intellectually confining
By BETH McMURTRIE
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i37/37a01201.htm

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hi Lee and Edward,

Good stuff and stimulating for me.

Firstly Lee, You say this in your blog,

"With religion, as we are discussing on your blog, all the data is in favor of the atheist, and the logic too.

for example, why should anyone believe the bible over the vedas?"

The answer I think is simple and objective. The Veda or ancient Aryan religion was in essence a depiction of the universe filled with the projections of man experience and ideas about himself.

The God's of the vedas were seen as superhuman with cosmic abilities that could be invited as guests to feast on oblations.

Whilst this religion died out in Greece through the philosophy of Thales to Socrates it did continue on sphere of the ancient hindu thinkers.

Furthermore the chief motivation of the Vedic Philosophy has been the search for a basic unity of thinking underlying the manifold of the universe.

The objective difference between this and the Bible is that the Bible claims a historic reality, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I cannot see how one has no evidential standing over the other. The Rg-Veda makes no evidence claim in space and time. The Christina God does. I am totally in opposition with you here. I cannot see how they both simultaneously self cancel each other out when one makes not such claim and the other does.

Truth is verifiable it is not solely in the eyes of the beholder, though that is the premise of science is it not.

I would love to hear more on this Lee.

Dear Edward,
I feel your comment needs no answer for I am in complete agreement. The way some of my brothers and sisters treat one-another is shocking and to me personally repulsive. I think you are right to assert this.

But while I do agree with you the same can be said, though not with the same force, about scientific evolutionists. Benjamin Madley in his work, Patterns of frontier genocide 1803–1910: the Aboriginal Tasmanians, the Yuki of California, and the Hero of Namibia. United States of America: Journal of Genocide Research 2004, describes how evolution was the principle through behind the slaughter of my native inhabitants, the Tasmanian Aborigines.

Yet I find my self not blaming evolution rather people. I would never think Beethoven a bad composer simply because I heard an orchestra play his 5th symphony poorly. Likewise Christian's though behaving badly does not necessarily reflect on the God they worship.

Thanks guys,

Rev Brown.

DingoDave said...

Lee Randolf wrote:
-"In science if there is some 'controversy' (such as with string theory) people are carful to call it a theory until there is enough evidence that reliable predictions can be made, then it becomes somewhat of a principle."

Dear Lee,
I've always felt uncomfortable with the expression 'string theory'. I know you didn't invent the term, so please don't feel that I am having a go at you personally.
I would much prefer that it was referred to as the 'string hypothesis'.

If I slightly rephrase your statement you will no doubt get an idea of where I am coming from when I say this.

'In science if there is some 'controversy' (such as with string 'theory') people are carful to call it a 'hypothesis' until there is enough evidence that reliable predictions can be made, then it becomes a 'scientific theory'."

Now for some definitions of terms,

"Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena."
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

"According to the United States National Academy of Sciences;
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation [then] becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Sorry if I appear to be overly picky, it's just that Theists often misconstrue the differences between scientific theories and hypotheses.
It particularly irks me when I hear creationists describe the 'theory of evolution', as being something akin to some harebrained hypothesis that you and I might have cooked up over a couple of beers at our local pub last night.

Sorry about the rant, but I just wanted to clarify that for the benifit of any creationists who might be reading this thread.

Cheers.

DingoDave said...

Ref. Ed Babinski's comment at 9:11 PM, August 04, 2008:

The situation is even worse than I suspected in these American religious universities.

I have always been apalled by the 'Answers in Genesis' statement of faith, which reads in part;

"Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of Creation.
The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
The “gap” theory has no basis in Scripture.
The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of Biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into “secular” and “religious,” is rejected."
And finally, the 'Pièce de résistance' of their overwhealming stupidity;
"No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. "
http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

How's THAT for academic freedom, and for allowing the evidence to inform the conclusion? You American freethinkers appear to have your work cut out for you in trying to reverse this alarming trend within your institutions of 'higher learning'.

Good luck to you, and I wish you all the best. You may have whatever limited support I can offer in this matter.

Regards, David.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Dingo,
no problem, I'm just glad you're contributing! Keep up the good work, and I invite you to straighten me out when I need it!

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Phil,
vedas not historical?
maybe you missed the court case in india regarding some work on a natural land formation that was built by Lord Ramas army of monkeys. Please don't tell me you don't believe in Lord Ramas Army of Monkeys or I will have to throw the illegal procedure flag on you.

Here is the link to my article on it.
Hindu God 1, Scientists 0

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Phil,
Truth is verifiable it is not solely in the eyes of the beholder, though that is the premise of science is it not.
A key concept of science and in reasoning day to day is 'defeasible reasoning'. Conclusions are subject to revision based on new information.

I am sure that between us there is some truth that we don't agree on simply because our criteria for evidence is different.

The "truth" of the "holy spirit" is one topic I can think of.

In this case, the truth of the holy spirit is in the eye of the beholder is it not?

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hey Lee,

Thanks again for your comments and objective argument.

Vedas is a historical book there is no doubt, but where in the work does it elaborate to anything historically tangible? We can test the claims of Jesus from the bible, and that I believe is the purpose of this blog. We cannot test the claims of the Vedas because the originate and remain in the metaphysical. The Christian God simple does not. This God breaks through.

Secondly, I think I would agree that our criteria for evidence would be very similar if not perfect. Rather than speak about the truth of the Holy Spirit, I suggest that we both come up with a list of criteria and compare, are you up for the task? We can then apply both criteria to atheism and Christianity alike?

Let me know, I'll come back to the blog in a couple of days to see.

Regards, Phil.

Lee Randolph said...

Hi Phil,
We can test the claims of Jesus from the bible, and that I believe is the purpose of this blog.
why, yes it is, so which one did you have in mind?
Could we start with one and iterate through a few?

Shygetz said...

reverend phillip brown said: Science or politics or humanities all make various claims that they have the "truth" for whatever they may be addressing and yet have widely differing and even contra-dictionary views internally?

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."--Phillip Dick

Science doesn't claim to approach "truth" (scare quotes intentional); it claims to describe reality, which I would consider objective truth. Humanities, politics, etc. all talk about subjective opinions, which are defined as "truths" when people of sufficient aggregate political power agree with them. Two wholly different breeds of "truth".

The objective difference between this and the Bible is that the Bible claims a historic reality, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

That is not the only historic reality that the Bible claims...shall we get into the creationist details of the Bible, the false histories of the Old Testament, the apparent contradictions in the details of the various Gospels, etc.? So, in this sense, the difference between the Vedas (and I will assume you are describing the Vedas correctly, as I am unfamiliar with them) and the Bible is that one is essentially art, and therefore truth-neutral, while the other is demonstrably false.

But while I do agree with you the same can be said, though not with the same force, about scientific evolutionists. Benjamin Madley in his work, Patterns of frontier genocide 1803–1910: the Aboriginal Tasmanians, the Yuki of California, and the Hero of Namibia. United States of America: Journal of Genocide Research 2004, describes how evolution was the principle through behind the slaughter of my native inhabitants, the Tasmanian Aborigines.

That is a filthy lie, sir, and I demand you retract it. I have read the paper by Prof. Madley, and at no point does he lay any blame at the feat of the theory of evolution. In fact, not once does he mention evolution or Darwinism in his paper. He attributes the genocides to zero-sum economics of frontier expansion, enabled by ideological racism. In fact, the attitudes of the colonists that the aboriginals were subhuman is directly refuted by evolution.

It is true that anthropologist Francois Peron said Tasmanian Aborigines were "constituting in a measure the link between man and the monkey tribe"; a-ha! Proof of vile evolutionists using their science to promote genocide! Except for the fact that Peron published this hateful screed in 1807, two years before Charles Darwin was even born! I will eagerly await your retraction and apology.

Yet I find my self not blaming evolution rather people. I would never think Beethoven a bad composer simply because I heard an orchestra play his 5th symphony poorly. Likewise Christian's though behaving badly does not necessarily reflect on the God they worship.

Evolution (and science in general) makes no claims to morality; it's job is to describe reality as it is, not what reality ought to be. Does Christianity similarly make no claims to morality? Christianity fails in its claim to make its followers more moral, so I judge it ineffective.

Rather than speak about the truth of the Holy Spirit, I suggest that we both come up with a list of criteria and compare, are you up for the task? We can then apply both criteria to atheism and Christianity alike?

I would suggest you use the standard rationalist criteria that people use for every non-spiritual facet of their lives; all positive claims must be justifiable by the weight of the evidence. For simplicity's sake, I would start at the very beginning (a very fine place to start) with Genesis 1, and go on from there. First empirically verifiable claim of the Bible; which existed first, water or light? Bible says water (Gen 1:2-3). Shall we examine evidence, or would you just like to go ahead and concede the first round?

My question to you is, how many false statements do we have to find in the Bible before you will cease to view it as a reliable source?

Andrew said...

How about that review, Johnny?

I'll bet there will be a lot more.

I have a FUNNY FEELING about it!

John W. Loftus said...

Andrew, I don't care. It won't matter much at all to me now. I know you must do what you must do in defense of your delusional belief system, even lie to protect it. But that's why you are banned from here, because you purposely lie about your faith rather than deal with the issues seriously.

eheffa said...

Rev. Brown..

The objective difference between this and the Bible is that the Bible claims a historic reality, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I would agree that the "Truth" of Christianity rests or falls on the veracity of the Historical events of the Life of Jesus Christ (as depicted in the Canonical Gospels). This "historical reality" as you phrase it is not however all that easy to substantiate.

Was Jesus Christ a real live figure of history or a legendary creation? Unless you are looking for "excuses" to believe, the sort of concocted & dubious evidence presented by apologists like Strobel or McDowell fall far short of the mark in establishing anything "historical" in the gospel Jesus stories.

Yes. Christianity is an historically based faith but the "history" is far from clear or reliable. Despite the wishful thinking of the "majority" (hordes) of conservative Biblical scholars, it is by no means clear when or how the anonymously penned, gospel accounts were written.

Do you really think that God would create an "historical faith" with such a poorly documented history?

As a Christian, I went looking for the evidence of this vital history. I was surprised to find that what I thought were well established facts around the history of Jesus of Nazareth were of a pretty dubious quality & smelled strongly of fabrication - many years after the fact.

I won't bore you with all the details of my own search for the historical truth of Christianity except to say that when I looked with an open mind, it became very clear to me that this is not a faith with any evidence for its historical authenticity. In the end, I have come to believe that the evidence is better for a mythical christ than any real historical Jesus behind the religion we call Christianity. I am no longer a Christian, because of this realization.

I would suggest that, unless you want your faith shaken, you should continue to call Christianity "historical" but don't scratch at that little pearl too much, because it won't bear too much close scrutiny.

-evan

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

shygetz said... Science doesn't claim to approach "truth" (scare quotes intentional); it claims to describe reality, which I would consider objective truth. Humanities, politics, etc. all talk about subjective opinions, which are defined as "truths" when people of sufficient aggregate political power agree with them. Two wholly different breeds of "truth".

Interesting, why then do you think Kuhn’s work on scientific revolutions puts science like this…

“This conservative resistance to the attempted refutation of key theories means that revolutions are not sought for except under extreme circumstances. Popper's philosophy requires that a single reproducible, anomalous phenomenon be enough to result in the rejection of a theory (Popper 1959, 86-7). Kuhn's view is that during normal science scientists neither test nor seek to confirm the guiding theories of their disciplinary matrix. Nor do they regard anomalous results as falsifying those theories. (It is only speculative puzzle-solutions that can be falsified in a Popperian fashion during normal science (1970b, 19). Rather, anomalies are ignored or explained away if at all possible. It is only the accumulation of particularly troublesome anomalies that poses a serious problem for the existing disciplinary matrix. A particularly troublesome anomaly is one that undermines the practice of normal science. For example, an anomaly might reveal inadequacies in some commonly used piece of equipment, perhaps by casting doubt on the underlying theory. If much of normal science relies upon this piece of equipment, normal science will find it difficult to continue with confidence until this anomaly is addressed. A widespread failure in such confidence Kuhn calls a ‘crisis’ (1962/1970a, 66-76).”

It would appear that I am not alone. Kuhn himself ascertains that Science is “subject” to the conservative element within its own paradigm. The same as, politics and humanities…

Shygetz said… That is not the only historic reality that the Bible claims...shall we get into the creationist details of the Bible, the false histories of the Old Testament, the apparent contradictions in the details of the various Gospels, etc.

Yes we can. Please see my blog christianityversusatheism.blogspot.com for answers on these issues. I would love to know which “false” (scare quotes intentional) histories you are talking about?

Shygetz said… That is a filthy lie, sir, and I demand you retract it. I have read the paper by Prof. Madley, and at no point does he lay any blame at the feat of the theory of evolution. In fact, not once does he mention evolution or Darwinism in his paper.

I am very sorry that you have digressed to this cheap trickery. I assume that intelligent people will not be persuaded by you level of emotion and aggression. I will answer and will certainly not remove. Shygetz, I did assume that people who are on this blog would realize that to maintain a theme or subject does not necessarily mean that you are required to articulate that theme directly.

However let me quote several paragraphs in the article in question to prove my point. Something you failed to do.

“By claiming that so-called “primitive” peoples and cultures are fated to vanish when they come into contact with white settlers, a deadly supposition emerges: the extinction of indigenous people is inevitable and thus killing speeds destiny.”

“While visiting Tasmania in 1836, the Reverend Thomas Atkins attributed the “almost extinct” condition of the168. Aborigines to the “universal law in the Divine government” that “savage tribes disappear before the progress of the civilized races” (Atkins, 1869, 10).”

“Whites spoke of Aborigines as “horribly disgusting,” lacking “any traces of civilization,” “constituting in a measure the link between man and the monkey tribe,” or “undoubtedly in the lowest possible scale of human nature, both in form and intellect” (Backhouse, 1843, p 79;
Cunningham, 1827, p 46; Péron, 1809, pp 67–68; Prinsep, 1833, p 111)”

“A missionary named Elger suggested “that the average German looks down upon the natives as being about on the same level as the higher primates (baboon being their favorite term for the natives) and treats them like animals. The settler holds that the native has a right to exist only in so far as he is useful to the white man” (Drechsler, 1966, p 349).”

“Ideological racism was not the primary motivation behind these frontier
genocides. However, it provided the context in which settlers and their advocates attempted to annihilate indigenous people who rose up against them.”

I think that’s enough, and the staggering quotation at the end makes my point when I said, … “describes how evolution was the principle through behind the slaughter of my native inhabitants, the Tasmanian Aborigines.”

If evolution was not the primary principle, (not motivation looks like my quotes were correct after all) then what does Madaly mean by Ideological racism? Could you answer this Shygetz? Surely the context of quotes directly from the article must indicate evolution. Or does higher primate constitute and different ideology? One perhaps I and you are not aware of?

Shygetz said… Does Christianity similarly make no claims to morality? Christianity fails in its claim to make its followers more moral, so I judge it ineffective.

Where in the Bible does it say that the follows of Christ will be more moral than anyone else. Maybe you are thinking of saved? Seems like you may be guilty of the same crime you accused me of. Should I ask for the same apology and retraction?


Shygetz said… First empirically verifiable claim of the Bible; which existed first, water or light? Bible says water (Gen 1:2-3). Shall we examine evidence, or would you just like to go ahead and concede the first round? My question to you is, how many false statements do we have to find in the Bible before you will cease to view it as a reliable source?

Again please see my blog for answers here, and I will also like to offer the same consideration to you. Would you like to concede the first round?

Thanks Shygetz good questions however blanket emotion and forward aggression will not promote constructive dialogue. Winning the argument can mean killing the man but it is pointless in finding truth.

Regards, Rev. Phil.

DingoDave said...

Phillip Brown wrote:

-"Benjamin Madley in his work, Patterns of frontier genocide 1803–1910: the Aboriginal Tasmanians, the Yuki of California, and the Hero of Namibia. United States of America: Journal of Genocide Research 2004, describes how evolution was the principle through behind the slaughter of my native inhabitants, the Tasmanian Aborigines."

I'm with Shygetz on this one Phillip. The quotes you supplied do not support your assertions. They are pathetic.

Darwin's 'On The Origin of Species' was not published until 1859, yet you quoted sources pre-dating Darwin's book by decades.

-"While visiting Tasmania in 1836 the Reverend Thomas Atkins attributed..."

-"“Whites spoke of Aborigines as “horribly disgusting,” lacking “any traces of civilization,”...
Backhouse, 1843, p 79;
Cunningham, 1827, p 46; Péron, 1809, pp 67–68; Prinsep, 1833, p 111)”

These quotes prove nothing except that the people involved were simply racist white folk, as nearly all white folk were in those days. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific 'theory of evolution by natural selection'. To suggest otherwise IS incredibly dishonest of you, and Shygetz was quite right for calling you on it.

-"A missionary named Elger suggested “that the average German looks down upon the natives as being about on the same level as the higher primates (baboon being their favorite term for the natives) and treats them like animals. The settler holds that the native has a right to exist only in so far as he is useful to the white man” (Drechsler, 1966, p 349).”

Once again, there is nothing about the theory of evolution in that quote. Just more typical European racism, which had been prevalant for millenia before Darwin came along in case you hadn't noticed. In fact the theory of evolution by natural selection flies in the face of such racist attitudes, because it teaches us that All humans belong to the same species, and that we are all intimately related to one another. If anything, such attitudes are more reminiscent of ARTIFICIAL SELECTION, which farmers and dog breeders have been practicing for thousands of years. There's no need to get Darwin, or the theory of evolution involved at all.

Evolutionary theory makes observations about how nature works, it does not advocate principles such as genocide or 'ideological racism'. Religions and traditional nationalistic xenophopbia do a fine job of doing that all on their own.

-"Surely the context of quotes directly from the article must indicate evolution. Or does higher primate constitute and (a) different ideology?"

Terms like 'higher primate' were used long before Darwin proposed his theory, and have nothing to do with the mechanisms of evolution, or natural selection. The fact that you believe terms like 'higher primate', or 'more evolved' represent what evolution is all about, simply highlights your fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Evolution is not like some kind of ladder, which ultimately leads to humans, but is more like a branching bush, with every contemporary species being equally evolved in their own way.

Your ignorance about evolutionary theory is breathtaking Phillip. I suggest that you stick with what you know, and leave doing science to the scientists, who DO know what they're talking about. The very least you could do is read some of the more popular, non-technical literature about the theory, so that you at least gain a basic understanding of what it's all about.

Would you care to make that retraction now, or are you determined to continue publicly flaunting your igorance and arrogance for all the world to see?

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hi Dingodave,

Thank you for your candid honesty.

Wow again very aggressive and filled with emotion.
Your judgments of me and my knowledge of evolution are surprising as I have never published them. Surely you are not just relying on these comments to make assertions about my own understanding of evolutionary theory based on natural selection. If so are you not guilty of the names you have labeled me with? Maybe arrogant and ignorant should be applied elsewhere.

Your only objection to me in this comment is that sources used by Malady in his work pre date Darwin. THAT'S IT! Nothing else. Is that why I'm ignorant and should stay within my own field. Evolution rises and falls with this man and any source quoted before it cannot have reference to evolution? Please tell me you have more than that? Please tell me you know that Charles Darwin was the first to invent the working mechanics for evolution, i.e. natural selection, not invent the theory?

You and shygetz have still not answered what racist ideology Madaly is referring to. Rather you are attuned to stick to dates that predate Darwin. Madaly is referring to these sources to heighten his point. Evolution! No where have I mentioned natural selection, or Charles Darwin, rather the theory that predates him. The Racist Ideological paradigm.

Have you read the article in question or are you just going off these quotes?

If this is the case then perhaps you can explain to me why the theory of evolution, and I have never suggested natural selection, this has been yours and shygetz own idea, was around long before Darwin. And this has been the understanding of the term both here and in Madaly's Racist Ideology. Furthermore perhaps you could tell me the social/political environment that was around that did receive Darwin's work in England and why they did? Furthermore then perhaps we can discuss Madaly's use of the term Racist Ideology rather than just quote dates that predate an evolutionary God (Darwin).

Lastly could you could inform why you think I am arrogant and ignorant. I presume Ignorant of evolution via natural selection? And arrogant why?

Dingodave whilst I appreciate you passion, clearly there is nothing substantial in your comment. Rather like you buddy shygetz you have resorted primarily to name calling. Lets leave that in the play ground.

Even a breathakingly ignorant evolutionist can see that...

Regards, Rev. Phil.

DingoDave said...

Phillip Brown wrote:

-"Your judgments of me and my knowledge of evolution are surprising as I have never published them. Surely you are not just relying on these comments to make assertions about my own understanding of evolutionary theory based on natural selection."

Based on what you have written so far, I think that I have a pretty clear picture of your understanding of evolutionary theory, or rather, your lack of it.
But hey, surprise me, how much HAVE you studied the subject?

-"If so are you not guilty of the names you have labeled me with? Maybe arrogant and ignorant should be applied elsewhere."

The words arrogant and ignorant are adjectives, not names. By the way, the words I used were 'ignorance' and 'arrogance', which are nouns, not names. If you don't believe me, then look the words up in a dictionary. You do appear to be ignorant of evolutionary theory Phillip. [Ignorance // n. Lack of knowledge (about a thing) - Oxford Compendium.]
If I had called you an ignoramus, then THAT would have been name calling. But if the shoe fits...? : )

-"Your only objection to me in this comment is that sources used by Malady in his work pre date Darwin. THAT'S IT! Nothing else. Is that why I'm ignorant and should stay within my own field."

Partly.

-"Please tell me you know that Charles Darwin was the first to invent the working mechanics for evolution, i.e. natural selection, not invent the theory?"

Charles Darwin didn't 'invent' anything, he merely explained it. And yes, he was the first to publish that the primary mechanism driving evolution is natural selection, apart from one passing reference in an obscure gardening journal by one other guy whose name escapes me right now.

-"No where have I mentioned natural selection, or Charles Darwin, rather the theory that predates him. The Racist Ideological paradigm."

"But while I do agree with you the same can be said, though not with the same force, about scientific evolutionists. Benjamin Madley in his work, Patterns of frontier genocide 1803–1910: the Aboriginal Tasmanians, the Yuki of California, and the Hero of Namibia. United States of America: Journal of Genocide Research 2004, describes how evolution was the principle through (sic.) behind the slaughter of my native inhabitants, the Tasmanian Aborigines."

Do you even bother to read your own posts Phillip?

-"Have you read the article in question or are you just going off these quotes?"

I'm going off those quotes, because if they were the best that you could come up with, then I believe that Shygetz was correct in what he said to you.

-"If this is the case then perhaps you can explain to me why the theory of evolution, and I have never suggested natural selection, this has been yours and shygetz own idea, was around long before Darwin."

It wasn't around long before Darwin, you dolt! (there Phillip, THAT WAS name calling). And 'natural selection' is right at the heart of Darwin's theory. Without the concept of natural selection, the IS no 'theory of evolution'.
His book's full original title was, 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life'.
You are simply digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself as time goes by. And by the way, before you jump all over it, Darwin's use of the word 'Races' refers to different species or sub species of flora and fauna, not people.
ARTIFICIAL selection was known and practiced long before Darwin, but not the concept of NATURAL selection. That was the true genius of his work, and that is why his work is so highly respected within the scientific community.

-"Furthermore perhaps you could tell me the social/political environment that was around that did receive Darwin's work in England and why they did? Furthermore then perhaps we can discuss Madaly's use of the term Racist Ideology rather than just quote dates that predate an evolutionary God (Darwin)."

What has any of that got to do with your ignorance of evolutionary theory? The British scientific establishment accepted Darwin's theory, because the evidence he presented was very convincing. And Darwin isn't considered to be some kind of a 'god' by biologists, any more than Louis Pasteur is a 'god' to microbiologists , or Einstein is a 'god' to astrophysicists, or Edward Jenner is a 'god ' to epidemiologists, or Sir Charles Lyell is a 'god' to geologists.
Darwin was wrong about some things, and right about most. However evolutionary science has progressed enormously since Darwin's day. If Darwin were alive today, he probably wouldn't even recognise some of the advances that have been made in the field, since he first published his books on the subject.

-"Lastly could you could inform why you think I am arrogant and ignorant. I presume Ignorant of evolution via natural selection? And arrogant why?"

Ignorant, because anyone who has even the faintest inkling about what evolutionary theory actually teaches, would never have written the things that you did. And arrogant, because after being corrected by Shygetz, you flatly refused to even consider retracting you words.

You preachers really aren't accustomed to being contradicted or corrected are you?

DingoDave said...

A small correction to my previous post.

I meant to type;
"Without the concept of natural selection, there IS no 'theory of evolution'", not the is...

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hey Dingodave.

Again aggressive and full of wrong assumptions and incorrect statements. Let me correct you.

Lets us begin firstly with you correcting me. Thank you for not NAMING me but DESCRIBING me. I do not find it constructive for dialogue. I find my motivation moving to discussing things with polite people and not aggressive people whom simply wish to win the hour.

Secondly, Dingodave again I ask to answer my previous question. You appear at the end of all your comments to think you have one the argument yet again you have not answered my previous questions. You spent some time correcting my grammar but not attending to content will we continue to digress to the point where you arguing with me over the placement of a full stop? or cannot you answer my previous question?

Thirdly, you said this...It wasn't around long before Darwin, you dolt! (there Phillip, THAT WAS name calling). And 'natural selection' is right at the heart of Darwin's theory. Without the concept of natural selection, the IS no 'theory of evolution'.

Obviously again all you seem to have in your arsenal is names. The theory of evolution had its beginnings some 300 years previous to Charles Darwin, let me quote...

Fabrica launched a new tradition in anatomy in Europe, in which anatomists trusted only their own observations and explored the body like a new continent. Vesalius’ discovery of the important differences between species also helped usher in the science of comparative anatomy, in which researchers studied animals to find their similarities and differences. In the process, they gradually began to recognize humans as being one species among many, with a few unique traits but many others shared in common with other animals. Some 300 years after Vesalius first shook off the blind obedience to Galen, Darwin used that vast stock of anatomical knowledge to build his theory of evolution.

I cannot see how 300 years previous indicates "NOT LONG" Again looks like dolt is miss-placed. Moreover, Dingodave I suggest you look at your facts about evolution before mouthing off at others DESCRIBING them as ignorant. Clearly you yourself are highly ignorant about the history and implications of past Evolutionary theory and have been content to assume that current reading gives you authority to dispel others, when you yourself are severely lacking.

Lastly, the acceptance of Darwinian theory was in reaction to Paley's Divine Design theory. Let me quote from the very Pen of Charles Darwin "The Old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the Law of Natural selection has been discovered."

Let me correct you again Dingodave. (I find it funny that you DESCRIBE me ignorant about evolutionary theory but it is I who is correction you on your ignorance). The theory of Evolution via Natural Selection proposed by Charles Darwin in his work 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life', was accepted, NOT AS YOU say, because the scientific community were convinced, but because the popular success in England was due to his ideas coinciding with advanced Whig social thinking in matters of competition, free trade, and the natural superiority of the English middle classes and their social values. Precisely what Madaly was referring too.

Darwin's science provided a theoretical foundation for Victorian liberalism, by endorsing values and outlook. His scientific brilliance arrived later.

Well Dave, I suspect that preachers do not like to be corrected. However again you have failed to correct me. Do you think you may be the one digging himself deeper and deeper in? Or it si you who do not like to be corrected?

Rev. Phil.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hey Dingodave.

Again aggressive and full of wrong assumptions and incorrect statements. Let me correct you.

Lets us begin firstly with you correcting me. Thank you for not NAMING me but DESCRIBING me. I do not find it constructive for dialogue. I find my motivation moving to discussing things with polite people and not aggressive people whom simply wish to win the hour.

Secondly, Dingodave again I ask to answer my previous question. You appear at the end of all your comments to think you have one the argument yet again you have not answered my previous questions. You spent some time correcting my grammar but not attending to content will we continue to digress to the point where you arguing with me over the placement of a full stop? or cannot you answer my previous question?

Thirdly, you said this...It wasn't around long before Darwin, you dolt! (there Phillip, THAT WAS name calling). And 'natural selection' is right at the heart of Darwin's theory. Without the concept of natural selection, the IS no 'theory of evolution'.

Obviously again all you seem to have in your arsenal is names. The theory of evolution had its beginnings some 300 years previous to Charles Darwin, let me quote...

Fabrica launched a new tradition in anatomy in Europe, in which anatomists trusted only their own observations and explored the body like a new continent. Vesalius’ discovery of the important differences between species also helped usher in the science of comparative anatomy, in which researchers studied animals to find their similarities and differences. In the process, they gradually began to recognize humans as being one species among many, with a few unique traits but many others shared in common with other animals. Some 300 years after Vesalius first shook off the blind obedience to Galen, Darwin used that vast stock of anatomical knowledge to build his theory of evolution.

I cannot see how 300 years previous indicates "NOT LONG" Again looks like dolt is miss-placed. Moreover, Dingodave I suggest you look at your facts about evolution before mouthing off at others DESCRIBING them as ignorant. Clearly you yourself are highly ignorant about the history and implications of past Evolutionary theory and have been content to assume that current reading gives you authority to dispel others, when you yourself are severely lacking.

Lastly, the acceptance of Darwinian theory was in reaction to Paley's Divine Design theory. Let me quote from the very Pen of Charles Darwin "The Old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the Law of Natural selection has been discovered."

Let me correct you again Dingodave. (I find it funny that you DESCRIBE me ignorant about evolutionary theory but it is I who is correction you on your ignorance). The theory of Evolution via Natural Selection proposed by Charles Darwin in his work 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life', was accepted, NOT AS YOU say, because the scientific community were convinced, but because the popular success in England was due to his ideas coinciding with advanced Whig social thinking in matters of competition, free trade, and the natural superiority of the English middle classes and their social values. Precisely what Madaly was referring too.

Darwin's science provided a theoretical foundation for Victorian liberalism, by endorsing values and outlook. His scientific brilliance arrived later.

Well Dave, I suspect that preachers do not like to be corrected. However again you have failed to correct me. Do you think you may be the one digging himself deeper and deeper in? Or it is you who do not like to be corrected?

Rev. Phil.

Evan said...

Boy Rev. Phil you sure do think you know a lot. I would get back to theology and avoid science if I were you. At least in theology there aren't many facts that keep you from idle speculation pushed off as truth.

You say:

The theory of evolution had its beginnings some 300 years previous to Charles Darwin, let me quote...

This really displays staggering hubris. However to be exact it also mis-dates the origin of evolutionary ideas by millenia. The real father of "evolution" was Anaximander who was an Ionian Greek living in the 6th century BCE, before Socrates.

In fact, he was not the only Greek to suggest evolution, Xenophanes and Aristotle also suggested it.

So ... please let me know, is Christianity a result of Anaximander's theory of evolution, since it resulted in the wholesale destruction of huge populations of pagans in the Roman Empire after Constantine took over?

That argument has just as much validity (if not MORE) than yours does as at least Anaximander predates the slaughter and was read by the ancients as part of a curriculum.

Therefore if you want to credit evolution with genocide, you need to start with its pre-Christian origins. The only "innovation" Darwin gave to evolutionary ideas was the idea of descent with modification by means of natural selection, but of course you admit firmly above that this is not what you are talking about when you are talking about evolution.

The fact that Darwin's innovation was the most productive idea in the history of the life sciences and has led to incredible advances in our scientific understanding of our place in the world, its history and the nature of organic life as it is lived should absolve him of responsibility for things that occurred prior to him formulating his theory.

So take up your arguments against your real foe, Anaximander. Many modern scientists are happy to admit that Anaximander's theories are flawed and should not be considered authoritative.

DingoDave said...

Phillip Brown wrote:

-"Vesalius’ discovery of the important differences between species also helped usher in the science of comparative anatomy, in which researchers studied animals to find their similarities and differences. In the process, they gradually began to recognize humans as being one species among many, with a few unique traits but many others shared in common with other animals. Some 300 years after Vesalius first shook off the blind obedience to Galen, Darwin used that vast stock of anatomical knowledge to build his theory of evolution."

People had long recognised that we are but one species among many. So what? And of course, comparitive anatomy was one of the lines of evidence which Darwin included in making his case for his theory. Once again, so what? What Vesalius, and those who followed after him began to recognise, were homologous structures, that's all. This doesn't even come CLOSE to the insights which Darwin eventually revealed in his theory of evolution.

-"Clearly you yourself are highly ignorant about the history and implications of past Evolutionary theory..."

There WAS no 'past evolutionary theory' Phillip. That's the whole point!

-"Lastly, the acceptance of Darwinian theory was in reaction to Paley's Divine Design theory."

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the evidence Darwin presented, had nothing to do with it's acceptance? Seriously?

-""The Old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the Law of Natural selection has been discovered."

Truer words were never spoken. But they would mean nothing if the evidence for common ancestry, and natural selection wasn't there to back up that conclusion. So what's your point?

-"Evolution via Natural Selection proposed by Charles Darwin in his work 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life', was accepted, NOT AS YOU say, because the scientific community were convinced, but because the popular success in England was due to his ideas coinciding with advanced Whig social thinking in matters of competition, free trade, and the natural superiority of the English middle classes and their social values. Precisely what Madaly was referring too."

That certainly may have had a bearing on it's acceptence among certain sections of the affluent, educated middle classes, but it was certainly not the determining factor amongst the scientific community. The scientific community was convinced by the evidence which Darwin presented, and not primarily, as you seem to be implying, by political expediency.

-"Secondly, Dingodave again I ask to answer my previous question."

I assume you mean this. "You and shygetz have still not answered what racist ideology Madaly is referring to."

Your question makes no sense to me, because the theory of evolution is NOT a racist ideology. That's why I didn't address it. I wasn't going to even dignify it with a response.

-"Darwin's science provided a theoretical foundation for Victorian liberalism, by endorsing values and outlook. His scientific brilliance arrived later."

What particular 'values' and 'outlook' are you suggesting that Darwin's theory 'endorsed'?

-"Well Dave, I suspect that preachers do not like to be corrected. However again you have failed to correct me. Do you think you may be the one digging himself deeper and deeper in? Or it si you who do not like to be corrected?"

You're projecting again Phillip.

By the way, just out of interest, are you a creationist, or an 'intelligent design' advocate?

Shygetz said...

It would appear that I am not alone. Kuhn himself ascertains that Science is “subject” to the conservative element within its own paradigm. The same as, politics and humanities…

IF I accept this as true (and I only agree with it partially), it does nothing to refute that science does not attempt to solve the problem of "ought", unlike politics and humanities. Your point is still false.

However let me quote several paragraphs in the article in question to prove my point. Something you failed to do.

Not a SINGLE quote you list says anything about genetic descent or natural selection, and as mentioned before, predate the theory of evolution. They all talk about cultural racism, dehumanizing the Aboriginals (which, I restate, is directly contrary to evolutionary theory). Red herrings.

If evolution was not the primary principle, (not motivation looks like my quotes were correct after all) then what does Madaly mean by Ideological racism...Surely the context of quotes directly from the article must indicate evolution. Or does higher primate constitute and different ideology? One perhaps I and you are not aware of?

He means racism built upon the xenophobic or exceptionalist cultural influences of the time that have been used to dehumanize a culture's opponents long before evolutionary theory made it's debut (for example, the popular idea that dark skin was the "mark of Cain"--taken from your religion, I beleive). Look in your Old Testament and you will see that, even then, people would equate their enemies with animals (lots of examples in 1 and 2 Kings). Evolutionary theory is factually opposed to exceptionalism and racism, as it demonstrates the similarities of humans on the biological scale.

Where in the Bible does it say that the follows of Christ will be more moral than anyone else.

Galatians 5:22-23 to start with.

Again please see my blog for answers here, and I will also like to offer the same consideration to you. Would you like to concede the first round?

I direct people to verifiable science, you direct people to your blog. Hmmm...no, I think I will not concede just yet and leave this one to the judges in the audience. But I do suggest that you place your arguments here, rather than try to gin up traffic to your blog. After all, you did come into my electronic house, not vice versa.

If this is the case then perhaps you can explain to me why the theory of evolution, and I have never suggested natural selection, this has been yours and shygetz own idea, was around long before Darwin. And this has been the understanding of the term both here and in Madaly's Racist Ideology. Furthermore perhaps you could tell me the social/political environment that was around that did receive Darwin's work in England and why they did? Furthermore then perhaps we can discuss Madaly's use of the term Racist Ideology rather than just quote dates that predate an evolutionary God (Darwin).

First of all, have you bothered to write Madaly and ASK HIM what he meant by "racist ideology"? Or do you just assume he meant evolution? And second, considering that Darwin was the one who discovered natural selection, and considering that many of your quotes deal with selection (albeit of a most artificial kind, but such nuances seem to slide wholly over your head), the lack of selection in what little evolutionary thought existed renders your arguments silly. Third, even though a few people mentioned the idea of common descent, essentialism (things always existed in their current form) was BY FAR the dominant school of thought in Europe pre-Darwin. Darwin didn't JUST bring into light natural selection--that part of evolution wasn't accepted until the mid-20th century--he also compiled the most compelling case for common descent ever seen, which is why his work brought about the rapid acceptance of evolution, but people still didn't accept his explanation for how it happened. So, even though evolutionary thought didn't start with Darwin, it was highly unpopular before Darwin and can HARDLY be blamed for inspiring societal racism, which predates ALL evolutionary thought by a long shot.

Have you read the article in question or are you just going off these quotes?

Read the whole thing. Linked to it, too. It neither mentions NOR IMPLIES evolution as a driving force in the genocides, and none of your pathetic attempts to link them together have been the least bit convincing.

Lastly could you could inform why you think I am arrogant and ignorant. I presume Ignorant of evolution via natural selection? And arrogant why?

Well, considering you think evolutionary theory supports ideological racism when it, in fact, directly contradicts the assumptions behind racism, I would say that yes, you are ignorant AT LEAST of evolutionary theory. And you are arrogant in presuming that you know about evolution when you clearly do not, and your presumption that you can read Madaly's mind when you claim he meant evolution when he said "ideological racism".

Obviously again all you seem to have in your arsenal is names. The theory of evolution had its beginnings some 300 years previous to Charles Darwin, let me quote...

Er, your quote is about comparative anatomy, which does NOT require evolution, but merely similar body plans. Darwin used similar body plans (along with geography, zoology, and other factors) to syntehsize his defense of common descent and his theory of natural selection, but common descent was very much a fringe view at best prior to Darwin's work.

Lastly, the acceptance of Darwinian theory was in reaction to Paley's Divine Design theory. Let me quote from the very Pen of Charles Darwin "The Old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the Law of Natural selection has been discovered."

Um, no again. Darwin subscribed to the teleological argument (which FAR predates Paley...he just made a popular book containing the argument) before he did his studies. His work wasn't in response to Paley (or Cicero, who made the same argument in 1st century BC), but it did refute Paley, which is all your quote shows. How dishonest of you to pretend it says something else...

The theory of Evolution via Natural Selection proposed by Charles Darwin...was accepted, NOT AS YOU say, because the scientific community were convinced, but because the popular success in England was due to his ideas coinciding with advanced Whig social thinking in matters of competition, free trade, and the natural superiority of the English middle classes and their social values. Precisely what Madaly was referring too.

Really? Evidence, please. Because there were numerous scientific debates, most notably involving biologist Richard Owen, regarding the scientific merit of the claims. True, various clergy and social/political activists tried to use or refute the theory to support their own goals, but the scientific acceptance of the theory was for scientific merit (which is why it is STILL accepted today, even after decades of rigorous testing and multiple minor revisions).

Darwin's science provided a theoretical foundation for Victorian liberalism, by endorsing values and outlook.

Was Darwin's science true or false?

Well Dave, I suspect that preachers do not like to be corrected. However again you have failed to correct me.

No, you have merely failed to accept correction, and decided to persist in error.

Thanks Shygetz good questions however blanket emotion and forward aggression will not promote constructive dialogue. Winning the argument can mean killing the man but it is pointless in finding truth.

When a man lies, even for Jesus, it is proper to call him a liar. You falsely accused a scientific theory that did not even exist yet for prompting evil acts, when it is far more likely that the evil acts were rationalized by religious means.

And I am still waiting for your answer to the question...which came first, light or water?

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hi Dingodave and Evan,

Thanks again for the comments.

Lets deal with them in oder.

(1) Evan, I am well aware of the history of the "idea" of evolution. But if you bothered to read the comments carefully then you will notice my sparing partner Dave and I were previously commenting with reference to Charles Darwin.

It is significant to quote Vesalius’ as his work was used by DARWIN. This was the context of the comments. Darwin did not use Anaximander in the direct sense.

(2) You said... Therefore if you want to credit evolution with genocide, you need to start with its pre-Christian origins.

Let me be clear Even again I will re-state my point. Madalay and myself are stating that "evolution" when used as an racist ideology can lead to genocide.

No, evolution is not the cause of genocide and I never suggested or claimed it was, rather the "principle" behind the cause can, like any ideology from communism to paganism. I am growing weary of re-quoting myself...

Rev. Phil said. describes how evolution was the principle through behind the slaughter of my native inhabitants, the Tasmanian Aborigines.

Notice the word principle, and behind, very deliberate. I did not say cause or motivation which you seem to decided I did suggest. Perhaps this is why you think I should stay in theology, you are making you own decisions about what I have said.

(3) Lastly, I would love to dialogue about Christians and their slaughter of Pagans. Perhaps we could begin with the slaughter of Christians under Nero which pre-dates these things you are mentioning.

(4) Thanks for suggestion I should stick with theology, I agree I am far more at home. However it is hard to dialogue with Atheists on the grounds of theology when they don't converse in theology! This is because they don't believe in it. Do you have a suggestion for further dialogue? Maybe you could talk theology?

And now to Dave.

(1) You said, People had long recognised that we are but one species among many. So what? And of course, comparitive anatomy was one of the lines of evidence which Darwin included in making his case for his theory. Once again, so what?

(1a) So what, Dave you are almost contradicting yourself. Even Evan has taken time point out how long the idea of evolution has been around. I assume he did not correct you personally because you colleague is being polite.

(1b) So What, Dave this was the basis of your previous comment. You know the one where you "described" me ignorant and arrogant, for suggesting the Ideological principle behind racists slaughter in Australia was evolution. The one where your ONLY defense was to say Darwin was Published in 1859 and therefore the article was invalid and I was Liar!

(2) You said Charles Darwin didn't 'invent' anything, he merely explained it. And yes, he was the first to publish that the primary mechanism driving evolution is natural selection, apart from one passing reference in an obscure gardening journal by one other guy whose name escapes me right now.

Now you say... There WAS no 'past evolutionary theory' [before Darwin] Phillip. That's the whole point!

Which one is it Dave?????????

You have said one thing and now you say another. I'm not even sure what you really think?

(3) You said... That certainly may have had a bearing on it's acceptence among certain sections of the affluent, educated middle classes, but it was certainly not the determining factor amongst the scientific community. The scientific community was convinced by the evidence which Darwin presented, and not primarily, as you seem to be implying, by political expediency.

Dave the affluent middle class you refer to held the scientific sway in London at the time. I suggest you read some recent diaries, letters and notebook publications for a clearer picture. Darwin's facts were primarily influenced by these social forces at the time not his scientific conclusions.

(4) You say this... I assume you mean this. "You and shygetz have still not answered what racist ideology Madaly is referring to."

Your question makes no sense to me, because the theory of evolution is NOT a racist ideology. That's why I didn't address it. I wasn't going to even dignify it with a response.

Response, Dave, Ideology as the idea of evolution is "My Conclusion" not yours. I am asking for you understanding. This was your point in the previous blogs... Again my question is "What Ideology is Madalay referring to if not evolution? Am I wasting my time? You say and argue with aggression that it cannot be evolution but give not suggestion as to what it otherwise is? You have not read the article and offer no interpretation. I am starting to believe my time is better spent elsewhere.

(5) Dave said... I wasn't going to even dignify it with a response.
Maybe if you understood the question and re-read the comments you could dignify it with a response.

(6) Dave said... You're projecting again Phillip? What projection Dave? So far you have described me as
(6a) ignorant,
(6b) arrogant
(6c) a dolt
(6d) projecting

Yet you cannot answer my one question and I have serious doubts as to whether you understand the question at all. Furthermore you are now contradicting your self from your previous blogs. Where is the projection?

(7) 'Creationist' or 'intelligent' design are box categories. I believe answering this question in any form will produce more discussion on this comment string when I should get back to my own Blog. I do believe in Evolution though just not an Atheist.

Thanks Dave and Evan.

P.S. Personally glad we kept the names and aggression down. Look forward to dialoguing with you further.

Out of interest how long have you been an Atheist?

Evan said...

I do believe in Evolution though just not an Atheist.

Staggering. You believe that Darwin was correct that mankind arose through common descent with apes from prosimian ancestors by the method of natural selection, yet you believe that God guided that process, is that correct?

Further, you seem to act as if false accusations of Christians as criminals by Nero were of the same scale as the genocides by post-Christian imperial Rome. I suggest you read a bit more history.

DingoDave said...

OK Phillip, I have now read Benjamin Madley's article, 'Patterns of Frontier Genocide 1803–1910' and I feel that I must tell you that Shygetz was quite correct for calling you on your monumental bullshit. Nowhere in Madley's article does he imply that the white settlers performed their heinous crimes under the auspices of Darwin's theory of evolution.
That sir, was a barefaced lie, and it beggars my imagination how you could have the sheer gall, and shameless affrontery to try to defend such an interpretation. Madley attributed the settlers actions to their belief in their inherent racial and moral superiority, systemic xenophobia, the battle for resources, and the 'will of provenance'.
All of which concepts come straight from the pages of the Bible, not Darwin's theory of evolution.

Madley's article is an almost exact mirror image of the picture you attempted to paint of it to the people reading this thread.

Here is a brief summary of the first part of his article, in which describes the fate of the Tasmanian Aboriginies. It is typical of the rest of the article.

"Ideological racism was not the primary motivation behind these frontier genocides. However, it provided the context in which settlers and their advocates
attempted to annihilate indigenous people who rose up against them...
Conflict between indigenous people and settlers often revolves around two interlocking economic issues: access to natural resources and control of territory...
In the frontier genocide pattern, two political issues dominate an indigenous people’s decision to go to war: the mistreatment of women and the physical abuse of other members of indigenous society...
Physical abuse also generates political frustration and vengeful emotions.
Like economic competition, the mistreatment of indigenous people creates a zero-sum competition between indigenous and settler societies...
George Augustus Robinson described the sealers’ treatment of Aboriginal Tasmanian women as “the African slave trade in miniature”...
The enslavement of Aboriginal children also provoked agitation for war. Settlers stole children for labor or to serve as pets. The practice was widespread enough that two successive Tasmanian Lieutenant Governors made speeches
condemning the practice...
Beginning in 1826, the Aboriginal Tasmanians fought a desperate guerilla war. They sought redress of economic and political grievances as well as revenge...
Melville noted that “These poor creatures had been treated worse than were any of the American tribes by the Spanish,” and that “… they could no longer brook the treatment they received from the invaders of their country”...
Guerilla warfare also set the stage for genocide by confronting European-style armies with tactics for which they were ill-prepared and against which they could not swiftly concentrate superior firepower. Unable to quickly vanquish an indigenous insurgency, colonial forces turned to genocide in wars that seemed difficult to win within the constraints of conventional rules of engagement...
Evidence, such as the murder of 30 indigenous Tasmanians at Mount Victory by settlers, perhaps suggested to the government that settlers’ genocidal tactics provided a solution to the military stalemate by making every white a potential soldier with a license to kill Aborigines...
During and after military campaigns, settler governments initiate the final phase of frontier genocide by incarcerating indigenous people in ethnic gulags...
In 1829 Robinson began negotiating with Aboriginal Tasmanians to lure them out of the interior and onto reserves. The process,which included both voluntary migration and forced removal, was completed on February 3 1835, when Robinson reported to Arthur: “The entire Aboriginal population are now removed [to Flinders Island]”...
Tasmanians Robinson removed from the interior had died on Flinders Island or its predecessors Gun Carriage Island and Green Island. Robinson blamed “the sad mortality which has happened among them since their removal” on “the will of providence”...

I can't believe the depths to which you Christian apologists are willing to sink, in order to defend you absurd superstitions, and to slander the good name of one of the most profound and enlightning scientific discoveries the people of the world have ever had the privelege of being presented with.

Your misrepresentations of this fine article are nothing short of reprehensible. Shame on you!

DingoDave said...

Phillip Brown wrote:

-"It is significant to quote Vesalius’ as his work was used by DARWIN. This was the context of the comments. Darwin did not use Anaximander in the direct sense."

Vesalius' work was also used by surgeons and physicians. So what's your point? It's doubtfull that Darwin used Anaximander in ANY sense. He was influenced by the work of the political economist Thomas Malthus more than anything else.

-"Let me be clear Even again I will re-state my point. Madalay and myself are stating that "evolution" when used as an racist ideology can lead to genocide."

What utter crap. Madley never once mentioned evolution in his entire article. He did however mention the concept of 'divine providence'.

-"No, evolution is not the cause of genocide and I never suggested or claimed it was, rather the "principle" behind the cause can, like any ideology from communism to paganism. I am growing weary of re-quoting myself...Notice the word principle, and behind, very deliberate. I did not say cause or motivation which you seem to decided I did suggest. Perhaps this is why you think I should stay in theology, you are making you own decisions about what I have said."

Gravitational theory is the principle behind why people tend to die after falling out of third story windows. The germ theory of disease is the principle behind which people tend to die after being infected with the ebola virus, or bubonic plague. Does that mean that the scientific theories which explain these events, are in any way responsible for those deaths? Of course not. Pull my other leg, it plays Jinglebells.

-"Lastly, I would love to dialogue about Christians and their slaughter of Pagans. Perhaps we could begin with the slaughter of Christians under Nero which pre-dates these things you are mentioning."

The Neronic persecution of Christians was like 'having a bad hair day', when compared with the ongoing and relentless persecution of pagans and heretics by the Catholic church once it attained the power to do so.

-"So what, Dave you are almost contradicting yourself. Even Evan has taken time point out how long the idea of evolution has been around. I assume he did not correct you personally because you colleague is being polite."

Vague speculations about human origins had been floating around long before Darwin, just as vagues speculations had been floating around that all matter is composed of atoms. But vague speculations, and unsubstantiated hunches, are nothing like scientific theories. And it is the THEORY of evolution which I have been referring to. And How many of the common people of Europe would have even heard of Anaximander, Xenophanes or Aristotle, let alone read any of their nebulous speculations about the subject.

-"So What, Dave this was the basis of your previous comment. You know the one where you "described" me ignorant and arrogant, for suggesting the Ideological principle behind racists slaughter in Australia was evolution. The one where your ONLY defense was to say Darwin was Published in 1859 and therefore the article was invalid and I was Liar!"

I have addressed that issue in my previous post. The ideological principles for the genocide of the tasmanians had nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evoulution and EVERYTHING to do with principles which we find explicitely expressed within the pages of the Bible.

-"Now you say... There WAS no 'past evolutionary theory' [before Darwin] Phillip. That's the whole point! Which one is it Dave?????????...You have said one thing and now you say another. I'm not even sure what you really think?"

A passing, unsubstantiated speculation in an obscure gardening journal, does not a scientific theory make. And you seem to be overlooking the fact that I mentioned this reference was made in an OBSCURE gardening journal, with a tiny readership. You also appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding about what constitutes a scientific theory.

Allow me to explain.

"Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers....
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena."
http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

-"Dave the affluent middle class you refer to held the scientific sway in London at the time. I suggest you read some recent diaries, letters and notebook publications for a clearer picture. Darwin's facts were primarily influenced by these social forces at the time not his scientific conclusions."

Rubbish. The affluent middle classes may have influenced popular opinion, but they did NOT dictate either the acceptance or rejection of scientific hypotheses, or scientific theories by the scientific community.

-"Response, Dave, Ideology as the idea of evolution is "My Conclusion" not yours. I am asking for you understanding. This was your point in the previous blogs... Again my question is What Ideology is Madalay referring to if not evolution?"

Racist, xenophobic, introspective, misogynistic bigotry is the ideology to which Madley was referring. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, his article mentions nothing about Darwin's theory of evolution, or ANY theory of evolution for that matter as being used to justify the genocide of ANY of the peoples mentioned in his article. Those genocides were perpetrated for the most part, by God fearing, Bible believing Christians, using Biblical principles.

-"Dave said... You're projecting again Phillip? What projection Dave?"

"Well Dave, I suspect that preachers do not like to be corrected. However again you have failed to correct me...Or it si you who do not like to be corrected?"

-"Yet you cannot answer my one question and I have serious doubts as to whether you understand the question at all. Furthermore you are now contradicting your self from your previous blogs. Where is the projection?"

I believe that I have now answered your question both in this post, and in my previous one. I also believe that it is you who has grossly misconstrued the thrust of Madley's article, not me.
And how have I contradicted myself?

-"Out of interest how long have you been an Atheist?"

About 20 years.

DingoDave said...

Phillip Brown wrote:

-"I do believe in Evolution though just not an Atheist."

Evolutionary theory refutes the existence of Adam and Eve, their magic garden, the talking snake, original sin, and a whole host of other stories which are found in the opening chapters of the book of Genesis. How do you reconcile these conclusions with the myths contained in Genesis?
If there was no Adam and Eve, no magic garden, no talking snake and no original sin, then what is it that we humans need to be saved from? Doesn't it make the supposed sacrifice of Jesus completely superfluous? Do you believe in a literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve/Garden of Eden/original sin story, or do you consider it to be merely symbolic? If you consider it to be only symbolic, then your whole theological edifice is in more trouble than 'Skippy in a bushfire'.

As Richard Dawkins so eloquently put it in his television series 'The Root of all Evil';

"Oh, but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn't it? Symbolic?! So Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual? Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any other conclusion than "barking mad".

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hi Dave.

Quick response.

No! Now your doing what you say I'm guilty of. No where in the article does it mention what you said... Racist, xenophobic, introspective, misogynistic bigotry is the ideology to which Madley was referring.

You are now trying in vain to do what you accuse me of.

Let me quote madalay again...
By claiming that so-called “primitive”peoples and cultures are fated to vanish when they come into contact with whitesettlers, a deadly supposition emerges: the extinction of indigenous people is inevitable and thus killing speeds destiny. While visiting Tasmania in 1836, theReverend Thomas Atkins attributed the “almost extinct” condition of Aborigines to the “universal law in the Divine government” that “savage tribes disappear before the progress of the civilized races” (Atkins, 1869, 10).

He argues, and this is the point of his article the "myth" which is the ideological racism, is the primitive cultures fated to vanish upon contact with white settlers.

Now Dave the key words highlighted by Madalay are "primitive" and this is linked with "fated to vanish" what is the ideology behind that which leads to "killing speeds destiny".

You have answered in this way.

Racist, xenophobic, introspective, misogynistic bigotry is the ideology to which Madley was referring.

Lets look at your conclusions with reference to the above quote.

(1) Racism. So if the myth is racist Madalay is arguing that the discrimination and prejudice of a race states that primitive cultures will be fated to vanish? So killing is in line with discrimination Racism?

(2) xenophobia, So the myth is the fear of people which states that primitive cultures will vanish, so we should kill them.

(3) Introspection, the examination and investigation of ones own emotional and mental process leads to the theory that primitive cultures will vanish?

(4) misogynistic, the hatred of women leads to primitive cultures are fated to vanish?

(5) bigotry, Intolerance to those who hold different opinions leads to the theory that primitive cultures are fated to vanish.

Come on Dave, lets be honest. Your not making sense but just swearing off.

Funny how you picked up "Divine government" and decided that this means bible believing people.

Again I need to quote the article...

Reverend Thomas Atkins attributed the “almost extinct” condition of the Aborigines to the “universal law in the Divine government” that “savage tribesdisappear before the progress of the civilized races” (Atkins, 1869, 10).

Madalay here dave is describing what a witness (Atkins) described. This is not his conclusion. His statement/conclusion was in the previous paragraph. The "myth" of inevitability. The Ideology that things will vanish whilst the stronger remain. Sound familiar?
Atkins saw the "myth" as "divine government." Madalay sees it as inevitability. We are talking about Maladay

This is your conclusion to the article which stated these comments.

Those genocides were perpetrated for the most part, by God fearing, Bible believing Christians, using Biblical principles.

I would love you to justify this. but the sheer stupidity of your answers previously and your flamboyant conclusion indicate there is no need.

Clearly Dave you object in this is other than mine. You have spent time now trying to ridicule, as does Evan, my union of evolution and God.
Whilst your started this comment without reading the article in question, you were happy to disagree and ridicule.
Your aggression and tone is not-constructive. Your answers to my questions do not make sense.
Your maneuvering from the subject to the person is tedious.
You get aggressive and resort to name calling and now swearing.

You are leaving me with no option but to spend time with people who are well thought out, Polite, play the ball not the man, and who are generally interested in dialogue.

I don't think this is what you are on about. I hope in future comments and blogs these things can be addressed.

Regards, Rev. Phil.

DingoDave said...

Phillip Brown wrote:

-"No! Now your doing what you say I'm guilty of. No where in the article does it mention what you said... Racist, xenophobic, introspective, misogynistic bigotry is the ideology to which Madley was referring."

I stand corrected on my choice of words, and I can understand why you're confused. I freely admit that I didn't choose my words carefully enough. I was in a hurry when I wrote that sentence, and I got careless.

Please allow me to re-phrase it for you, and then see if it makes any more sense to you.

"Racist, xenophobic, inward-looking, sexist bigotry."

Racist: a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others
Xenophobic: extreme dislike or fear of foreigners, their customs, their religions, etc.
Inward-looking: interested only in one's self; not interested in others
Sexist: discriminatory on the basis of sex (usually said of men's attitude toward women); a chauvinistic belief in the inferiority of women
Bigotry: an unreasonable belief that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong

Do you believe that these words accurately describe the mentality of those early settlers?
Read the article again Phillip. Madley describes all those behaviours within his article in excruciating and heartbreaking detail. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the early settlers, as described by Madley, incorporated all of those characteristics, and more.

-Let me quote madalay again...
"By claiming that so-called “primitive”peoples and cultures are fated to vanish when they come into contact with white settlers, a deadly supposition emerges: the extinction of indigenous people is inevitable and thus killing speeds destiny. While visiting Tasmania in 1836, the Reverend Thomas Atkins attributed the “almost extinct” condition of Aborigines to the “universal law in the Divine government” that “savage tribes disappear before the progress of the civilized races...Now Dave the key words highlighted by Madalay are "primitive" and this is linked with "fated to vanish" what is the ideology behind that which leads to "killing speeds destiny."

I challenge you to show me where Darwin ever used the words 'Divine Government', 'Fated', or 'Destiny' in any of his writings with regard to the 'Ideal' of the intentional extermination of other races. These are theological / metaphysical concepts, which were never discussed in any of Darwin's literature.
The quote you offer is from a Christian missionary. Do you suppose that his opinions and conclusions might have been coloured by his theological and religious beliefs? Just maybe?

-"Funny how you picked up "Divine government" and decided that this means bible believing people."

I didn't imply that 'divine government' meant "Bible believing people", rather, that Bible believing people have always traditionally believed in 'divine government' and the inevitability of God's unchangeable plan for the Earth and it's people, which in this case was thought to involve the inevitable extinction of the so called 'savage tribes' and 'primitive peoples'.

Divine government has more to do with Biblical metaphysical speculations than evolution, and considering that the early settlers (and their administrators) were overwhealmingly Christian, why are you surprised that I picked up on that phrase? The term 'divine government' has no place within the theory of evolution, or within science in general, which only deal with natural phenomena.

-"Madalay here dave is describing what a witness (Atkins) described. This is not his conclusion."

I'm aware of that. But what you fail to acknowledge is that Atkins was merely repeating the mindset of the early settlers. A similar mindset was prevalent all over Europe long before Darwin came along. Those ingrained attitudes informed the early settler's actions. They were not thinking scientifically, but superstitiously, within the context of their religious beliefs.

-"His statement/conclusion was in the previous paragraph. The "myth" of inevitability. The Ideology that things will vanish whilst the stronger remain. Sound familiar?"

Ideology / n.
1 the system of ideas at the basis of an economic or political theory. eg. (Marxist ideology).
2 the manner of thinking characteristic of a class or individual. eg. (bourgeois ideology).
3 visionary speculation.

Of course the phrase sounds familiar, but that's just what it is, a myth. Science doesn't deal in myths, but guess what book does? Nothing in Darwin's literature states that we humans MUST INEVITABLY wipe out more primitive cultures. However, even Darwin himself (being a man of his time) assumed that it would more than likely happen eventually.

Much has been made of the following line from his book 'The Descent of Man'. In The Descent of Man, Darwin lamented: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races".
And he was largely correct.

"In context however, Darwin was not urging anyone to exterminate anyone else. Darwin was parroting a view that can be traced back 60 years before his Origin of Species was ever published, a view held in common by BOTH creationists and evolutionists from 1800 to the 1930's. Patrick Brantlinger in his book, 'Dark Vanishings: Discourse on the Extinction of Primitive Races, 1800-1930', examines this commonly held view, namely, that all "primitive" or "savage" races around the world were doomed sooner or later to extinction. Humanitarians, according to Brantlinger, saw the problem in the same terms of inevitability (or doom) as did scientists such as Charles Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley as well as propagandists for empire such as Charles Wentworth Dilke and James Anthony Froude. Brantlinger shows that by the 1890s, especially through the influence of the eugenics movement, extinction discourse was even applied to "the great white race" in various apocalyptic formulations. With the rise of fascism and Nazism, and with the gradual renewal of aboriginal populations in some parts of the world, by the 1930s the stereotypic idea of "fatal impact" began to unravel, as did also various more general forms of race-based thinking and of social Darwinism. "One of the most impressive aspects of Brantlinger's book is its ability to trace the uniformity of extinction discourse across a number of ideological and political contexts. [Not just 'Social Darwinist' ones.]" - John Kucich, University of Michigan
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:BIWBeFZMqVoJ:www.edwardtbabinski.us/darwin_hitler.html+darwin+primitive+races&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=au

We humans have evolved the capacity for rational forethought and empathy. Darwin recognised and acknowleged this fact.

Darwin wrote; "Man, from the activity of his mental faculties, cannot avoid reflection...Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well-developed, or anything like as well-developed as in man. - 'The Descent of Man'

-"This is your conclusion to the article which stated these comments. "Those genocides were perpetrated for the most part, by God fearing, Bible believing Christians, using Biblical principles.
I would love you to justify this. but the sheer stupidity of your answers previously and your flamboyant conclusion indicate there is no need".

Read your Bible Phillip. Especially the Old Testament.
The Bible endorses practices such as racial and national segregation and discrimination, the concept of a superior 'chosen' race, genocide, slavery, discrimination against women, discrimination against the handicapped, discrimination against those of different religions, the indiscriminate slaughter of women and children, the taking of foreign prisoners of war to be used as sex slaves, the condemnation of children for the trangressions of their ancestors, unprovoked wars of aggression, the confiscation of foreigner's lands and property, the wholesale destruction of foreigner's dwellings and possessions, prohibitions against mixed marriages, discriminatory economic practices, and much more.

How much of the Bible have you actually read Phillip? If you haven't read it all the way through, then I would strongly urge you to do so. You might be shocked at what you discover.

-"You have spent time now trying to ridicule, as does Evan, my union of evolution and God."

What else can I do? You have set yourself a nearly impossible task, which would involve such monumental mental contortions, that I fail to see how it could be possibly be done.
Have you really given the issue careful thought? For example, do you believe the garden of Eden stories, with the mud man, and the rib woman, and the magic trees, and the talking snake? If so, how do you square that with your belief in evolutionary biology, which flies directly in the face of such primitive myths? I know that I can't reconcile the two, so perhaps you could share your secret with me as to how you manage to do it.

-"You get aggressive and resort to name calling and now swearing."

Don't be so thin skinned Phillip. This is an online atheist debate forum, you've got to expect a bit of thrust and parry. 'Sticks and stones', and all that. Our arguments will stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of how I present my own arguments.

-"You are leaving me with no option but to spend time with people who are well thought out, Polite, play the ball not the man, and who are generally interested in dialogue."

What do you think my lengthy responses to you have been, if not dialogue? If I wasn't interested in talking to you, do you think that I would have spent the time that I have, responding to your posts. You made an outrageous claim, and you've been called on it. Deal with it. That's what this forum is all about.

I've yet to be convinced that the theory of evolution had anything to do with the extermination of the Tasmanian Aborigines, or any of the other peoples mentioned in Madley's article, but if you have any further evidence or arguments to present in support of your hypothesis, then I'll be happy to consider them.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Dave,

I am humbled and immensely impressed by your comment.

THANKS!

I must also admit, my quotation of this article was in my honor thesis which I received the highest mark for my grade year.

I agree with you in part... and would furthermore love to dialogue with you. But again Dave the ideology is in question! Yes you are so right. The heartbreaking truth is that the all the traits you called into question are evident. However, I am not debating Darwin, for him I have the highest regard. The debate is evolution (not Darwin) used as a racist ideology. Just like Christianity has been used as a racist ideology in the past. This has been my point.

You said.. I challenge you to show me where Darwin ever used the words 'Divine Government', 'Fated', or 'Destiny' in any of his writings with regard to the 'Ideal' of the intentional extermination of other races. These are theological / metaphysical concepts, which were never discussed in any of Darwin's literature.
The quote you offer is from a Christian missionary. Do you suppose that his opinions and conclusions might have been coloured by his theological and religious beliefs? Just maybe?

But I wish to reply, I'm not arguing against Darwin, or Christian Missionaries, rather the theory of evolution. For which Darwin is the chief champion. But not the first.

You said...
I didn't imply that 'divine government' meant "Bible believing people", rather, that Bible believing people have always traditionally believed in 'divine government' and the inevitability of God's unchangeable plan for the Earth and it's people, which in this case was thought to involve the inevitable extinction of the so called 'savage tribes' and 'primitive peoples'.

I am sorry for I assumed that you did mean 'divine government' meant Bible believing Christians.

You said...
Divine government has more to do with Biblical metaphysical speculations than evolution, and considering that the early settlers (and their administrators) were overwhealmingly Christian, why are you surprised that I picked up on that phrase? The term 'divine government' has no place within the theory of evolution, or within science in general, which only deal with natural phenomena.

I would like to know what evidence you have for this? In my reading of history divine government has meant a culmination of theology with evolution.

You said...
I'm aware of that. But what you fail to acknowledge is that Atkins was merely repeating the mindset of the early settlers. A similar mindset was prevalent all over Europe long before Darwin came along. Those ingrained attitudes informed the early settler's actions. They were not thinking scientifically, but superstitiously, within the context of their religious beliefs.

Dave what evidence have you that this was the prominent mindset of the early settlers? I assumed it was an isolated statement to show an isolated mindset.

You said...
Of course the phrase sounds familiar, but that's just what it is, a myth. Science doesn't deal in myths, but guess what book does? Nothing in Darwin's literature states that we humans MUST INEVITABLY wipe out more primitive cultures. However, even Darwin himself (being a man of his time) assumed that it would more than likely happen eventually.

THANKS DAVE. THIS HAS BEEN MY POINT.
I was never arguing that Madely was referring to Darwinian facts. Rather to the theory of Evolution in general. Though thank-you for acknowledging that
Darwin's theory can be used, just like Christianity, in an unhelpful demonstrative manner.

You said...
Read your Bible Phillip. Especially the Old Testament.
The Bible endorses practices such as racial and national segregation and discrimination, the concept of a superior 'chosen' race, genocide, slavery, discrimination against women, discrimination against the handicapped, discrimination against those of different religions, the indiscriminate slaughter of women and children, the taking of foreign prisoners of war to be used as sex slaves, the condemnation of children for the trangressions of their ancestors, unprovoked wars of aggression, the confiscation of foreigner's lands and property, the wholesale destruction of foreigner's dwellings and possessions, prohibitions against mixed marriages, discriminatory economic practices, and much more.


Dave, I have read the Old Testament and what's more studied it in significant detail in an academic institution for many years with atheistic opponents in abundance. All your objections I believe I can Dialogue with though may not answer.

I agree Dave I am constantly shocked by what I read in the Bible and the problems that is presents and furthermore could probably give you more problematic reasons evident in the bible that you could fathom. However, these are again different problems that what is present in this blog and comments.

You said...
What else can I do? You have set yourself a nearly impossible task, which would involve such monumental mental contortions, that I fail to see how it could be possibly be done.
Have you really given the issue careful thought? For example, do you believe the garden of Eden stories, with the mud man, and the rib woman, and the magic trees, and the talking snake? If so, how do you square that with your belief in evolutionary biology, which flies directly in the face of such primitive myths? I know that I can't reconcile the two, so perhaps you could share your secret with me as to how you manage to do it.

You are right Dave and I agree, but I must be able to take on one issue at a time. Otherwise I shall be snowballed sooner than I can say what I tried to say to you in this first blog which has now moved into other issues. I can only deal one at a time!

You said...
Don't be so thin skinned Phillip. This is an online atheist debate forum, you've got to expect a bit of thrust and parry. 'Sticks and stones', and all that. Our arguments will stand or fall on their own merits, regardless of how I present my own arguments.

You are right, 'sticks and stones' but arguments that included slander are again not-constructive. Your arguments will stand and fall as will mine but name calling and defamation have no part in it! All they do is loose the dialogue.

You said...
What do you think my lengthy responses to you have been, if not dialogue? If I wasn't interested in talking to you, do you think that I would have spent the time that I have, responding to your posts. You made an outrageous claim, and you've been called on it. Deal with it. That's what this forum is all about.

Again Dave, in your opinion you think it is outrageous yet I believe you have failed as has everyone else on the blog and in the comments to convince me why? You yourself have just apologized. And yet you end with stating that you are not convinced by my argument. But offer no solution to my original question, which was the initial problem to the blog.

Please Dave, If my statement was outrageous then offer an alternative? You have not done this? And still after all these comments you have not done this. The only thing you have done is make fastidious claims on your part and question me in other areas.

I must conclude therefore that the claim is evidently by your omissions not-outrageous.

Lastly you say...
I've yet to be convinced that the theory of evolution had anything to do with the extermination of the Tasmanian Aborigines, or any of the other peoples mentioned in Madley's article, but if you have any further evidence or arguments to present in support of your hypothesis, then I'll be happy to consider them.

I would be happy to search for evidence if you can renounce my claims from the article. This has been the issue and still remains the issue. Let us remain of point Dave, I eagerly await your response.

Thanks Dave.

Re. Phil.

DingoDave said...

Dear Phillip, thank you for your kind words. I'm glad that you didn't take too much offence at my forthright approach in this debate.

You wrote:

-" I am not debating Darwin, for him I have the highest regard. The debate is evolution (not Darwin) used as a racist ideology...But I wish to reply, I'm not arguing against Darwin, or Christian Missionaries, rather the theory of evolution. For which Darwin is the chief champion. But not the first."

I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase 'arguing against evolution'. Do you mean the natural phenomenon, or the scientific theory which explains it?

If you're arguing against the natural phenomenon, then you might as well be arguing against any other natural phenomenon which we experience in our every day lives.
If you're arguing against the scientific theory, then you might as well argue against Newton's laws of motion, or Einstein's theory of relativity, in which case I don't see the point, considering that you've already indicated that you accept the theory to be correct.

And Darwin WAS the first to articulate the theory of evolution by natural selection. Before Darwin it didn't exist, so please stop insisting that it did. If you are willing to put 'vague hunches' or 'idle speculations' into the same category as a full blown scientific theory, then you could just as well say the same thing about nearly every other scientific theory.

We know that racism, imperialism, and xenephobia were around long before Darwin, and these alone are more than sufficient to explain the treatment which the Tasmanian Aboriginies suffered at the hands of the white settlers.

I agree that people have misunderstood and mis-applied (hijacked might be a better term) Darwin's theory for their own social and political purposes. However, that is not the fault of the theory itself, any more than it is the fault of the 'atomic theory of matter' that it has been used to create explosives, poisons, and chemical weapons. Nor is it the fault of the 'germ theory of disease' that it has been used to intentionally spread diseases, or to construct biological weapons.

The theory of evolution is merely the EXPLANATION for WHY we see what we see happening around us in nature, regarding living things. It is NOT an 'ideology', and I fear that you have committed a fundamental category mistake by perceiving it to be such. I'm surprised that the people who reviewed you honours thesis didn't recognise this and take you to task about it. (but I won't tell them, if you don't).

Perhaps I should define what I mean by the term 'category mistake'.

Category mistake;
"If all (propositional) mistakes could be said to involve some sort of misascription of properties, then in a sense all mistakes are "category mistakes": putting a thing into a class to which it does not belong. But a "category mistake" in the philosophical colloquial [sense] seems to be a very severe form of misascription, involving the endorsement of what is in fact logically impossible." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

Please re-read the definition of the word ideology, and I think you'll see what I'm getting at.

Ideology / n.
1 the system of ideas at the basis of an economic or political theory. eg. (Marxist ideology).
2 the manner of thinking characteristic of a class or individual. eg. (bourgeois ideology).
3 visionary speculation.

I hope that it's clear to you by now that the 'theory of evolution' is none of these things. In summary, a 'scientific theory' is an 'explanation', not an ideology. Up until now, we appear to have been arguing at cross-purposes.

The theory of evolution certainly helps to explain WHY people behave in the ways that they do, in fact there is a whole scientific discipline called 'evolutionary psychology' which is dedicated to studying and explaining this very thing. It should not however be construed to be ADVOCATING or ENDORSING any particular course of action, and in fact it takes pains not to do so. The theory of evolution is merely the explanation for the current state of life's diversity, which demonstrates that all modern species are genetically related, and that we are all descended from a common ancestor. That's all it is. Period.

Racism, imperialism, and xenophobia have been prevalent in human societies for as long as they have existed, however these societal tendencies have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. They are sociological phenomena which are more closely related to the disciplines of anthropology and sociology, rather than evolutionary biology or evolutionary theory.

The genocides, pogroms, purges and discriminations which people have committed, and still commit , and the eugenics programmes of days gone by, cannot be attributed to the theory of evolution by natural selection, because they are in fact examples of ARTIFICIAL selection, which as you know has been practiced for millenia by virtually every agricultural society which has ever existed.

-"You (David) said...
'Divine government has more to do with Biblical metaphysical speculations than evolution, and considering that the early settlers (and their administrators) were overwhealmingly Christian, why are you surprised that I picked up on that phrase? The term 'divine government' has no place within the theory of evolution, or within science in general, which only deal with natural phenomena.'
I would like to know what evidence you have for this? In my reading of history divine government has meant a culmination of theology with evolution."

No branch of science concerns itself with metaphysical speculations, including evolutionary biology. It's not their job. And no branch of science admits the possibility of divine intervention in the outcomes of their observations or experiments, otherwise those results would be rendered meaningless. Likewise, the conclusions arising from those observations and experiments would be rendered uncertain and unfalsifiable, and then could no longer be called science.

Science operates on the strict application of the principle of metaphysical naturalism, and any (so called) science which does not abide by this principle, is automatically relegated to the category of 'pseudoscience'. The people who have commited racist attrocities, and who have attempted to use the theory of evolution to justify their actions, are guilty of practicing 'pseudoscience', and it is THEY who should be condemned, rather than the theory itself, which on it's own simply helps to explain how the universe operates, just like any other scientific theory does.

-"Dave what evidence have you that this was the prominent mindset of the early settlers? I assumed it was an isolated statement to show an isolated mindset."

Atkins' views were representative of the outlook of virtually every European of his day, including expatriots such as himself, the early settlers, and their administrators. I should have perhaps written that Atkins was merely 'articulating' the mindset of the early settlers, rather than 'repeating' them. The ideas of 'manifest destiny', and 'divine government' are concepts which are fundamental to Christian theology and Yahweh's supposed divine plan for the universe. They have nothing to do with science, or a correct understanding of evolutionary theory. Darwin blew these assumptions to pieces with his theory of evolution.

-"THANKS DAVE. THIS HAS BEEN MY POINT.
I was never arguing that Madely was referring to Darwinian facts. Rather to the theory of Evolution in general. Though thank-you for acknowledging that Darwin's theory can be used, just like Christianity, in an unhelpful demonstrative manner."

'Evolution' is the fact, and the 'theory of evolution' is the explanation. Just as 'atoms' are the fact, and the 'atomic theory of matter' is the explanation. They are inseperable, yet distinct from one another. It is vital for you to recognise these distinctions and relationships, otherwise we will be arguing at cross-purposes.

-"Dave, I have read the Old Testament and what's more studied it in significant detail in an academic institution for many years with atheistic opponents in abundance. All your objections I believe I can Dialogue with though may not answer."

If you can't answer my objections, then why should I give the Christian hypothesis any more credence than I would those of astrology, or homeopathy, or alchemy?
If you can't answer my objections, then why should I even consider subscribing to your philosophy at all?

-"I agree Dave I am constantly shocked by what I read in the Bible and the problems that is presents and furthermore could probably give you more problematic reasons evident in the bible that you could fathom. However, these are again different problems that what is present in this blog and comments.

Ditto the above.

-"You are right Dave and I agree, but I must be able to take on one issue at a time. Otherwise I shall be snowballed sooner than I can say what I tried to say to you in this first blog which has now moved into other issues. I can only deal one at a time!

Fair enough.

-"You are right, 'sticks and stones' but arguments that included slander are again not-constructive."

What did I write that was slanderous? I described your argument as bullshit, and I described part of your initial statement as a lie. And I stand by that.
Madley's article did NOT "describe how evolution was the principle behind the slaughter of the Tasmanian Aboriginies". This is merely your interpretation of it.
If you think that the word lie is too strong, then perhaps I might be better off describing your initial statement as a 'fundamental misinterpretation'.

-"Please Dave, If my statement was outrageous then offer an alternative? You have not done this?

I hope that I have done so in this post.

-"I must conclude therefore that the claim is evidently by your omissions not-outrageous."

Please allow me to re-post the relevant part of your initial comment. Make of it what you will.

-"Benjamin Madley in his work, Patterns of frontier genocide 1803–1910: the Aboriginal Tasmanians, the Yuki of California, and the Hero (sic) of Namibia. United States of America: Journal of Genocide Research 2004, describes how evolution was the principle through (sic) behind the slaughter of my native inhabitants, the Tasmanian Aborigines."

I still maintain that the theory of evolution was NOT what Madley was describing as being the 'principle behind which the slaughter of the Tasmanian Aborigines took place', but that it was rather the result of the racist, imperialistic, xenophobic, inward-looking, sexist, bigoted, superstitious mindsets which were endemic to nearly everyone of European extraction who migrated to the newly settled colonies at the time.

Best regards, David.

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Dear Dave,

Thanks for your blog. Excellent objections and all worth responding to at a different time.

However again and again and again Dave you still have not answered the origional question.

The issue is. "If not evolution as the racist ideology then what?"

You said...

I still maintain that the theory of evolution was NOT what Madley was describing as being the 'principle behind which the slaughter of the Tasmanian Aborigines took place', but that it was rather the result of the racist, imperialistic, xenophobic, inward-looking, sexist, bigoted, superstitious mindsets which were endemic to nearly everyone of European extraction who migrated to the newly settled colonies at the time.

But again and again and again Dave I ask you as Madley argues, "the myth [principle] of primitive cultures fated to vanish" was the if not evolution then what?

Please answer?

You respond lastly only with,

result of the racist, imperialistic, xenophobic, inward-looking, sexist, bigoted, superstitious mindsets.

Yet none of these ever predicts the presumption of primitive cultures or the implication that they will vanish.

Again I ask Please answer?

Regards, Phil.

DingoDave said...

Dear Phillip,

I have written the following letter to Benjamin Madley. I await his response.

Dear Mr. Madley,

I would appreciate it if you could clarify something which you wrote in your excellent article entitled 'Patterns of frontier genocide 1803–1910: the Aboriginal Tasmanians, the Yuki of California, and the Herero of Namibia', which was published in the Journal of Genocide Research (2004), 6(2), June, 167–192.

In this article you wrote;

"Victors write history, and, in the final phases of frontier genocide, perpetrators create a myth to excuse their crimes. By claiming that so -called “primitive” peoples and cultures are fated to vanish when they come into contact with white settlers, a deadly supposition emerges: the extinction of indigenous people is inevitable and thus killing speeds destiny."

and,

"While visiting Tasmania in 1836, the Reverend Thomas Atkins attributed the “almost extinct” condition of Aborigines to the “universal law in the Divine government” that “savage tribes disappear before the progress of the civilized races" (Atkins, 1869, 10)

and,

"Ideological racism was not the primary motivation behind these frontier genocides. However, it provided the context in which settlers and their advocates attempted to annihilate indigenous people who rose up against them..."

I have an acquaintance who also admires your work, and based on the passages above, appears to have convinced himself that you were referring to Darwin's 'theory of evolution' as fueling the "ideological racism" which contributed towards the extermination of the Tasmanian Aborigines.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify this for me, as it seems to me to be a very strained interpretation of these passages.
Were you referring to Darwin's theory of evolution in any of the passages above, and if not, then what ideology or ideologies were you referring to?

Thanking you in anticipation of your assistance in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

David Armstrong

Reverend Phillip Brown said...

Hi Dave,

Sounds good. I wait his reply to.

But Dave you have misquoted me in the letter. I have not said what you are quoting and fear your eagerness to prove me wrong and answer my question has colored your letter. This is a real shame

You said..
appears to have convinced himself that you were referring to Darwin's 'theory of evolution' as fueling the "ideological racism" which contributed towards the extermination of the Tasmanian Aborigines.

Again Dave this was my original quote...
describes how evolution was the principle through behind the slaughter of my native inhabitants, the Tasmanian Aborigines.

You have asserted "Darwin" and "theory" in you letter which time and time again I have refuted as not being part of my point which you yourself conceded. The gross misrepresentation will of course lead Madley to disagree with me.

Could you please amend the letter and insert just evolution and perhaps you could also insert the general way I have been arguing for its contextual use?

Perhpas better I shall write to him myself and offer my real position.

I'm disappointed Dave, the least you could have done was to quote me in an honest manner.

Phil.

DingoDave said...

Dear Phillip,

You wrote:

-"Again Dave this was my original quote..."describes how evolution was the principle behind the slaughter of my native inhabitants, the Tasmanian Aborigines."
You have asserted "Darwin" and "theory" in you letter which time and time again I have refuted as not being part of my point which you yourself conceded. The gross misrepresentation will of course lead Madley to disagree with me...I'm disappointed Dave, the least you could have done was to quote me in an honest manner."

Phillip, I am at a complete loss as to what you mean by "describes how evolution was the principle behind...", if not the 'theory of evolution'.

Are you referring to the brute FACT of evolution (just like the brute FACT of gravity), or the supposed "ideological racism" which you have persisted in referring to throughout this entire discourse?
If you are referring to the brute FACT of evolution, then as I have already pointed out to you in previous posts, you might as well blame the brute FACT of gravity for the death of anyone who falls out of a third story window. A 'brute fact', is neither a principle nor an ideology, in which case your original statement, and your subsequent defences of it are simply an exercise in futility.
If you are simply referring to the brute fact of evolution, then where did all your talk about 'principles' and 'racist ideologies' come from, and why would you even bother to mention them in the first place?

Allow me to quote back to you some of your statements and questions, so that you can see just how jumbled and confused your arguments have been so far.

First your initial statement which fuelled this whole debate.

-"But while I do agree with you the same can be said, though not with the same force, about scientific evolutionists. Benjamin Madley in his work, Patterns of frontier genocide 1803–1910... describes how evolution was the principle behind the slaughter of... the Tasmanian Aborigines. Yet I find myself not blaming evolution rather people. I would never think Beethoven a bad composer simply because I heard an orchestra play his 5th symphony poorly. Likewise Christian's though behaving badly does not necessarily reflect on the God they worship."

Followed by,

-“Ideological racism was not the primary motivation behind these frontier genocides. However, it provided the context in which settlers and their advocates attempted to annihilate indigenous people who rose up against them.” I think that’s enough, and the staggering quotation at the end makes my point when I said, … “describes how evolution was the principle through behind the slaughter of my native inhabitants, the Tasmanian Aborigines.” If evolution was not the primary principle, (not motivation looks like my quotes were correct after all) then what does Madaly mean by Ideological racism? Could you answer this Shygetz? Surely the context of quotes directly from the article must indicate evolution. Or does higher primate constitute and different ideology? One perhaps I and you are not aware of?"

-"Your only objection to me in this comment is that sources used by Malady in his work pre date Darwin. THAT'S IT! Nothing else... Evolution rises and falls with this man and any source quoted before it cannot have reference to evolution? Please tell me you have more than that? Please tell me you know that Charles Darwin was the first to invent the working mechanics for evolution, i.e. natural selection, not invent the theory? You and shygetz have still not answered what racist ideology Madaly is referring to. Rather you are attuned to stick to dates that predate Darwin. Madaly is referring to these sources to heighten his point. Evolution! No where have I mentioned natural selection, or Charles Darwin, rather the theory that predates him. The Racist Ideological paradigm...If this is the case then perhaps you can explain to me why the theory of evolution...was around long before Darwin. And this has been the understanding of the term both here and in Madaly's Racist Ideology."

Do you mean the 'theory of evolution' rises and falls with this man? Because the FACT of evolution certainly doesn't.

-"Obviously again all you seem to have in your arsenal is names. The theory of evolution had its beginnings some 300 years previous to Charles Darwin, let me quote..."

-"Lastly, the acceptance of Darwinian theory was in reaction to Paley's Divine Design theory."

As opposed to Darwin's 'theory of evolution'?

-"Darwin's science provided a theoretical foundation for Victorian liberalism, by endorsing values and outlook."

-"Let me be clear Even again I will re-state my point. Madalay and myself are stating that "evolution" when used as an racist ideology can lead to genocide."

-"No, evolution is not the cause of genocide and I never suggested or claimed it was, rather the "principle" behind the cause can, like any ideology from communism to paganism."

'Evolution' itself cannot be mis-used as it is neither a principle nor an ideology. It is merely a brute fact. The 'theory of evolution' however, can be, and clearly has been.

-"So What, Dave this was the basis of your previous comment. You know the one where you "described" me ignorant and arrogant, for suggesting the Ideological principle behind racists slaughter in Australia was evolution. The one where your ONLY defense was to say Darwin was Published in 1859 and therefore the article was invalid and I was Liar!"

What do you mean when you say "the ideological principles behind racists slaughter in Australia was evolution..."?
Might you by any chance be referring to the 'theory' of evolution'?

-"Dave, Ideology as the idea of evolution is "My Conclusion" not yours... Again my question is "What Ideology is Madalay referring to if not evolution?"

Would you be referring to the 'theory of evolution' by any chance?

-Let me quote madalay again...
"By claiming that so-called “primitive”peoples and cultures are fated to vanish when they come into contact with whitesettlers, a deadly supposition emerges: the extinction of indigenous people is inevitable and thus killing speeds destiny"...He argues, and this is the point of his article the "myth" which is the ideological racism, is the primitive cultures fated to vanish upon contact with white settlers. Now Dave the key words highlighted by Madalay are "primitive" and this is linked with "fated to vanish" what is the ideology behind that which leads to "killing speeds destiny...He argues, and this is the point of his article the "myth" which is the ideological racism, is the primitive cultures fated to vanish upon contact with white settlers. Now Dave the key words highlighted by Madalay are "primitive" and this is linked with "fated to vanish" what is the ideology behind that which leads to "killing speeds destiny."

Would you be referring to the 'theory of evolution' by any chance?

-"The Ideology that things will vanish whilst the stronger remain. Sound familiar? Atkins saw the "myth" as "divine government." Madalay sees it as inevitability. We are talking about Maladay"

No Phillip.
Madley doesn't see it as inevitable, however the early settlers and their administrators did.
And by the way, when you use the word 'ideology', would you by any chance be referring to the 'theory of evolution'?

-"I agree with you in part... and would furthermore love to dialogue with you. But again Dave the ideology is in question! The debate is evolution (not Darwin) used as a racist ideology. Just like Christianity has been used as a racist ideology in the past. This has been my point. "

And what 'ideology' might that be?
Ditto the above.

-"The heartbreaking truth is that the all the traits you called into question are evident. However, I am not debating Darwin, for him I have the highest regard. The debate is evolution (not Darwin) used as a racist ideology. Just like Christianity has been used as a racist ideology in the past. This has been my point."

The 'theory of evolution' has been mis-used, but not 'evolution' itself which is merely a brute fact of life, just like gravity. In your opinion, has gravity been mis-used?

-"But I wish to reply, I'M NOT ARGUING AGAINST DARWIN, OR CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES, RATHER THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. FOR WHICH DARWIN WAS THE CHIEF CHAMPION. BUT NOT THE FIRST" (emphasis mine)

As I, and others have repeatedly said to you, there was no 'theory of evolution' prior to Darwin. There was however racism, imperialism, and xenophobia, which on their own were more than sufficient to have fuelled any racist ideology which resulted in the extermination of the Tasmanian Aboriginies. Whatever speculations may have been floating around before Darwin's day, were certainly NOT the theory of evolution. Add to this the fact that the early settlers and their administrators were indisputably and overwhealmingly CREATIONIST in their outlook, and your whole argument falls down in a screaming heap.

-"The issue is. "If not evolution as the racist ideology then what?"

Would you be referring to the 'theory of evolution' as being the 'ideology' by any chance?

-"But again and again and again Dave I ask you as Madley argues, "the myth [principle] of primitive cultures fated to vanish" was the if not evolution then what?"

You have dishonestly inserted the word 'principle' into Madley's words where it doesn't belong. A myth is not a principle.

I wrote;
"I still maintain that the theory of evolution was NOT what Madley was describing as being the 'principle behind which the slaughter of the Tasmanian Aborigines took place', but that it was rather the result of the racist, imperialistic, xenophobic, inward-looking, sexist, bigoted, superstitious mindsets..."
to which you replied,
"Yet none of these ever predicts the presumption of primitive cultures or the implication that they will vanish."

So then what does, if not the 'theory of evolution'? Which is what you have been clearly implying throughout our whole conversation, and as you CLEARLY STATED in one of your comments above. Theories and hypotheses make predictions. Principles and ideologies do not.

SO, IN WHAT WAY DID I MIS-REPRESENT YOU IN MY LETTER TO BEN MADLEY, PHILLIP?

Incidentally, I have recieved a surprisingly prompt reply from Madley, in which he states;

"Thank you for your recent e-mail.
In answer to your question: I was referring to "the myth of inevitability," (p.169) that is, the myth of inevitable extinction. I am not sure what impact Darwin's ideas had on the Tasmanian genocide, but I suspect that his ideas had a minimal impact."

Considering that the extermination of the Tasmanian Aborigines took place between 1803 and 1847, and that Darwin didn't publish his 'Origin of Species' until 1859, there is clearly no link between Darwin's theory of evolution and the Tasmanian genocide, as Madley has clearly indicated in his reply to me.

And even if I WERE to concede for the sake of argument, that Darwin wasn't the first to articulate the theory of evolution, your argument still fails, because Madley was clearly not referring to ANY kind of 'theory of evolution' in his article, but rather to 'the MYTH of inevitability' (not 'the principle'), and to the settlers' belief in the 'Universal laws in the divine government', along with their belief in the immutabe 'destiny' of 'divine providence'. None of which has ANYTHING to do with evolution, or any kind of 'theory of evolution' for that matter, but which has EVERYTHING to do with RELIGIOUS and THEOLOGICAL speculations.

So in conclusion, with regards to your original statement that, "Benjamin Madley in his work, Patterns of frontier genocide 1803 –1910, describes how evolution was the principle behind the slaughter of... the Tasmanian Aborigines", it is clear that Madley was NOT implying that 'evolution' was the 'principle' behind the slaughter of the Tasmanian Aborigines, but was in fact saying EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE!

You made a FALSE STATEMENT Phillip, just as Shygetz originally pointed out to you. Why not be man enough to admit it?

So, I'll ask you once again: Would you care to make that retraction now?

Feel free to contact Ben Madley if you wish, but I doubt whether he will be able to make any more sense of you arguments than I have.

Regards, David.

John W. Loftus said...

My book is now available at amazon! Help make it's debut a good one this week. Get it and be among the first to review it on your blogs.

Finally!