Get Ready For New Requirements In Faith

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I'm not at all worried about the atheists in as much as I am concerned about their message and their "hero" Darwin.  We're talking  about how honorable this anti-Christian racist is in our world today and how he has championed the "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"  Not really a Dali Lama, Martin Luther or St. Francis type of guy.

 

With that being said, opening the doors to accommodate these people in BSA will in fact negate the Duty to God issue as well as the 12th Law.

 

I hope you criticize Washington and Jefferson for owning slaves, and Lincoln's attitude towards blacks (he was born the same day as Darwin, after all).

 

 

And I assume you're against the Oceanography merit badge?

 

Oceanography merit badge requirements

...

7. Do ONE of the following:

...

b. Make a series of models (clay or plaster and wood) of a volcanic island. Show the growth of an atoll from a fringing reef through a barrier reef. Describe the Darwinian theory of coral reef formation.

[moosetracker 132]

Stosh - I might have missed the meaning behind your statement "We're talking  about how honorable this anti-Christian racist is in our world today and how he has championed the "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"  Not really a Dali Lama, Martin Luther or St. Francis type of guy", That is if Merlyn is interpreting it right that you feel Darwin was all for slavery or white superiority..  I would say for the times, he was not..  Here are some of his own personal words on the subject.

 

'"But I suppose you are all too overwhelmed with the public affairs to care for science. I never knew the newspapers so profoundly interesting. N. America does not do England Justice: I have not seen or heard of a soul who is not with the North. Some few, & I am one, even and wish to God, though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against Slavery. In the long run, a million horrid deaths would be amply repaid in the cause of humanity. What wonderful times we live in. Massachusetts seems to show noble enthusiasm. Great God how I should like to see the greatest curse on Earth Slavery abolished. ʉۥ Charles Darwin to Asa Gray (June 5, 1861) The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 9 1861 (1994), p.163

 

 

As for his being a atheist some say "yes", some say "no"  some say converted to atheism later In life, some say he was quiet on the subject (which sounds about right given all the supposition going around)..  Well he did study theology..  And I found this in an article, that at least pointed to what actual words Darwin wrote in books that may have suggested he was not a strict atheist when he did his research.. Whether he converted later, or if these are just the flowery speech of the times and when he speaks of a "creator of all things", that I do not know.. And looking around the internet, I don't think anyone really knows..

 

Dr. Darwin has been frequently called an atheist, whereas in every one of his works distinct expressions may be found showing that he fully believed in God as the Creator of the universe. For instance, in the ‘Temple of Nature,’ published posthumously, he writes: “Perhaps all the productions of nature are in their progress to greater perfection! an idea countenanced by modern discoveries and deductions concerning the progressive formation of the solid parts of the terraqueous globe, and consonant to the dignity of the creator of all things.†He concludes one chapter in ‘Zoonomia’ with the words of the Psalmist: “The heavens declare the Glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.â€

 

[packsaddle 753]

Darwin was a self-avowed agnostic. 

 

Edit: "I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.†Writing on the origin of the universe he stated, "I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic." Darwin

Edited April 30, 2015 by packsaddle

[AZMike 173]

No, that would be the total lack of reasons to think supernatural things exist.  Evolution isn't any more proof of the non-existence of gods than orbital mechanics, though either one might look that way if you think gods must be responsible for species or planetary movement.

 

Many cosmologists believe that quite a number of supernatural things exist, Merlyn - whole universes (billions and billions of them, as Carl Sagan might have said) that are outside nature, per the Multiverse Theories. These universes that exist outside our own universe cannot in any way be observed, examined, tested, only inferred on the basis of theories that only some regard as valid. (Gosh...sounds a little like religion.)

 

One could argue (and I have heard atheists try to do so) that such supernatural universes should still be included under the concept of "_the_universe" and cannot be considered supernatural, even though the concept clearly fits the first definition Merriam Webster gives us for "supernatural": "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe." 

 

Of course, that same claim of potential existence in a wider view of reality can be made for God, Heaven, Hell, and all the angels and saints: under the same argument, they could also be considered not as "supernatural," just another part of the wider nature that would have to be redefined as "all things that be."

Edited April 30, 2015 by AZMike

[AZMike 173]

'Race' in the sense used by Darwin refers to a subpopulation that has identifiable phenotypic differences that do not necessarily qualify for 'species-level' designation. In taxonomy the nomenclatural term of 'variety' or 'form' is sometimes used. In the distant past (Darwin's time) the term 'race' was also used in taxonomy. In sub-disciplines of organismal biology, terms like 'associations' or other terms borrowed from human sociology are also sometimes applied but they have almost none of the meaning as used in sociology. In Darwin's case, the 'races' he referred to applied to all organisms. You are making the assumption that it was directed specifically at the illusory concept we apply to humans and although he was aware of that and may well have reflected the prejudices of his time, you are misinterpreting its use in that particular example.

His first use of the term 'race' in the book, for example, is worded: "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage", which as we know today includes cabbage, brussel sprouts, cauliflower, and broccoli, all the same species. Later in the book he refers to "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants", none of which has the human connotation in mind. Darwin was fervently opposed to slavery and this caused great trouble for him at times. I think that in your desire to find fault you're finding it when it doesn't exist, at least in this case. 

 

Edit: Peregrinator, in many ways I'm still larval, lol.

 

Darwin has gotten a bad rap as a racist, as he was opposed to slavery. Some of his followers, however, took his ideas and ran with them into some pretty racist territory - such as his cousin Sir Francis Galton, who invented the pseudoscience of Eugenics, and whose ideas had a greater influence on Hitler and the Progressive Movement than Darwin ever did, and led to the American fad for laws against racial intermarriage, and for the forced sterilization of more than 60,000 Americans who were designated as "moral and mental defectives."

 

It's not well known, (and certainly not well-taught) in the educational system that William Jennings Bryan testified in the "Scopes Monkey Trial" because he saw the likelihood that Darwin's theories, as they were being interpreted (well, misinterpreted) by the German military and the Progressive movement in America would lead to increased militarization in Germany (he was correct) and increasingly acist policies against African-Americans and the rural poor, who were usually the target of eugenics laws in the U.S., whose proponents cited Darwinism (not religion) as a rationale for their policies (again, he was correct in this instance.) Bryan was not as big a Bible literalist as those whose only knowledge of the Scopes Trial came from watching "Inherit the Wind" believe (as his actual testimony showed), and was actually a Democrat who would be considered a classical liberal - he fought for the enfranchisement of African-Americans and women, opposed Big Banking, opposed colonialism, opposed "dark money" in political campaigns, and as a pacifist, opposed America's entry into WWI (a politically unpopular stance that led L. Frank Baum to satirize him by basing The Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz upon Bryan.)

 

Again, I agree with you, Packsaddle, that Darwin shouldn't be blamed for the interpretation that others made of his theories. But those interpretations did give support to some of the most horrid episodes of American and European history.

Edited April 30, 2015 by AZMike

[AZMike 173]

Darwin has gotten a bad rap as a racist, as he was opposed to slavery. Some of his followers, however, took his ideas and ran with them into some pretty racist territory - such as his cousin Sir Francis Galton, who invented the pseudoscience of Eugenics, and whose ideas had a greater influence on Hitler and the Progressive Movement than Darwin ever did, and led to the American fad for laws against racial intermarriage, and for the forced sterilization of more than 60,000 Americans who were designated as "moral and mental defectives."

 

It's not well known, (and certainly not well-taught) in the educational system that William Jennings Bryan testified in the "Scopes Monkey Trial" because he saw the likelihood that Darwin's theories, as they were being interpreted (well, misinterpreted) by the German military and the Progressive movement in America would lead to increased militarization in Germany (he was correct) and increasingly racist policies against African-Americans and the rural poor, who were usually the target of eugenics laws in the U.S., whose proponents cited Darwinism (not religion) as a rationale for their policies (again, he was correct in this instance.) Bryan was not as big a Bible literalist as those whose only knowledge of the Scopes Trial came from watching "Inherit the Wind" believe (as his actual testimony showed), and was actually a Democrat who would be considered a classical liberal - he fought for the enfranchisement of African-Americans and women, opposed Big Banking, opposed colonialism, opposed "dark money" in political campaigns, and as a pacifist, opposed America's entry into WWI (a politically unpopular stance that led L. Frank Baum to satirize him by basing The Cowardly Lion in The Wizard of Oz upon Bryan.)

 

If you actually read the textbook that John Scopes was charged with teaching (A Civic Biology Presented in Problems, 1914, by George Hunter) , it's a piece of racist claptrap, full of Eugenics nonsense. It ordered the "five races of men" into an evolutionary tree, with "the Ethiopian or Negro type" at the lower end of evolution and "the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America’ at the very top. The textbook claimed that crime and immorality are inherited through families, and that "‘these families have become parasitic on society. … If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race." Frankly, I'm glad that Scopes was charged with teaching from that textbook!

 

Again, I agree with you, Packsaddle, that Darwin shouldn't be blamed for the interpretation that others made of his theories. But those interpretations did give support to some of the most horrid episodes of American and European history.

Edited April 30, 2015 by AZMike

[Stosh 3452]

Darwin was a self-avowed agnostic. 

 

Edit: "I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.†Writing on the origin of the universe he stated, "I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic." Darwin

 

Well, in that case, besides not believing in a supreme being, he didn't make a good gnostic either.

[Stosh 3452]

Darwin has gotten a bad rap as a racist, as he was opposed to slavery. 

 

 

Unfortunately that is a lame excuse in that slavery, while based on race was a social/economic issue, not necessarily a racial issue.  It is a lot easier to support slavery when it is based on race and that race is deemed inferior.  However, even after the Civil War, all the so-called abolitionists of the north, went on to create far more stringent Jim Crow laws than any of the states of the South.  Those states with large metropolitan centers were the worst.  Slavery is wrong, but we don't want any of "those people" moving up north here.  They can stay where they belong.

 

We abolished slavery in 1860's, but we abolished racism in the 1960's.  Two entirely different arguments.  One can indeed be an abolitionist and still be racist.  This is probably why Lincoln's grand plan for the slaves was to send them back to Africa.  Make that statement today and you would be a racist.  Lincoln however, did temporarily "free" the slaves as an economic strategy to cripple the South's ability to continue the war.  Lincoln (the Great Emancipator) really didn't free anyone.  It wasn't until the Constitutional amendment was passed by 3/4ths of the states that slavery in America was abolished.  Slavery in Indian Territory did remain.  Remember, Lincoln did NOT free slaves in the slave states that supported the North, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri.  A number of "Northern" states still had legal slaves as well, i.e. New Jersey for example.

 

So to think that if Darwin was an abolitionist made him free of racism, is simply not an assumption that one could automatically make at that period of time.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Stosh

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Many cosmologists believe that quite a number of supernatural things exist, Merlyn - whole universes (billions and billions of them, as Carl Sagan might have said) that are outside nature, per the Multiverse Theories.

 

 

Of course I know that, but that's quite different from magical beings that created humans in a puff of smoke, particularly when there's evidence of human evolution.

[Stosh 3452]

Of course I know that, but that's quite different from magical beings that created humans in a puff of smoke, particularly when there's evidence of human evolution.

 

Isn't that the basis for the Big Bang Theory?  One minute nothing, next minute the universe?  What magical beings pulled that one off?

[moosetracker 132]

Darwin was a self-avowed agnostic. 

 

Edit: "I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.†Writing on the origin of the universe he stated, "I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic." Darwin

 Glad you edited that, I read it last night but it was so late my mind was gone, all I thought was "Well, if Packsaddle said..... ", Then after sleep I was thinking "Wait a minute, Packsaddle's statement with no backup makes it no better then anyone else's all over the internet.."..   Because of all these suppositions about the man, I appreciate quotes by Darwin himself..

 

Still this statement by Darwin leaves questions.. It shows he moved to this belief as he aged.. And what does he mean by "but not always" ?   Now, Stosh would say that meant on occasion he was atheist.. I on the other hand question if the "not always" points more towards wondering about the existence of God, due to what he wrote in his books, that pointed to a belief in God (unless these statements are just how everyone talked back then, or he was attempting to pacify the religious community.), and the fact he studied Theology (which some say was his father forcing him to.) Still even if it wasn't his passion, it would be difficult to believe an atheist could spend years studying a field he totally disagreed with..

 

 

Well, in that case, besides not believing in a supreme being, he didn't make a good gnostic either.

Explain.. What is a good gnostic suppose to act like, that caused Darwin not to make the grade?

 

Unfortunately that is a lame excuse in that slavery, while based on race was a social/economic issue, not necessarily a racial issue.  It is a lot easier to support slavery when it is based on race and that race is deemed inferior.  However, even after the Civil War, all the so-called abolitionists of the north, went on to create far more stringent Jim Crow laws than any of the states of the South.  Those states with large metropolitan centers were the worst.  Slavery is wrong, but we don't want any of "those people" moving up north here.  They can stay where they belong.

So you paint everyone in the North and the south as racist at this period in time... All of them, All of them... But, somehow Darwin should take the brunt of the blame, because...???  (guessing) he wrote a theory that OTHER people used to argue racism???.... Well then that does not bode well for the author(s) of the Bible and God himself, since the bible was used frequently to argue for slavery and racism, it showed God was all in favor of slavery.. 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Isn't that the basis for the Big Bang Theory?  One minute nothing, next minute the universe?  What magical beings pulled that one off?

 

Adding magical beings is the unnecessary part.  The big bang theory was developed because that's where the evidence leads.  Scientists prefer to say "I don't know" instead of adding magical beings.

[Gone 435]

Adding magical beings is the unnecessary part.  The big bang theory was developed because that's where the evidence leads.  Scientists prefer to say "I don't know" instead of adding magical beings.

 

So all that "stuff" that was created out of nothingness just happened? That's like saying the egg just showed up one day.

 

If that's not magic I don't know what is. That's the scientific equivalent of alchemy. 

[moosetracker 132]

Evolution with all of it's short-comiings still remains the cornerstone of atheistic "proof" for the non-existence of (G)od(s).  Man came into being without any help from mythical beings.  That takes it out of the realm of science and into religion, and they do it on purpose.

 

No, that would be the total lack of reasons to think supernatural things exist.  Evolution isn't any more proof of the non-existence of gods than orbital mechanics, though either one might look that way if you think gods must be responsible for species or planetary movement.

 

Of course I know that, but that's quite different from magical beings that created humans in a puff of smoke, particularly when there's evidence of human evolution.

Merlyn, you first say atheists do not use evolution as a reason for not believing in God, then you say human evolution is your proof there is no God...  Seems you are contradicting yourself and I will give Stosh one point "ding"...

 

Still what atheists use or don't use to prove their points really has no baring on whether a religious person can find no fault with the science of evolution, because atheist color their views totally different then religious people do..

[AZMike 173]

Of course I know that, but that's quite different from magical beings that created humans in a puff of smoke, particularly when there's evidence of human evolution.

And how did those first constituents of life "evolve," Merlyn.?

 

To avoid accepting that many atheists and agnostics do, in fact, believe in the supernatural, you've changed the definition from "supernatural" to "magic" now, I've noticed.