Charles Darwin's Education from Wikipedia

I read the Wikipedia article on Darwin's education this morning. It was excellent. It was exceptionally detailed, but very readable. I have updated my little sketch with a link to the Wikipedia's page.

Another lecture done

My colleague Jim Hofmann, Professor and Chair of Liberal Studies at Cal State U, Fullerton, had me over on Tuesday to talk with his class, "Evolution and Creation." Jim and I met years ago when taping video interviews about creationism. The website linked above has a massive compilation of links to all sides of the evo/creato debates. My topic was "Geological Features of Great Age." I will try (again) to figure a way to post my Power Point slides to "Stones and Bones." If anyone knows how to do this, please teach me.

I was a bit ragged this time, I fear. I was getting ready for my UFO abduction audition: I had a colonoscopy scheduled Thursday morning (crack of dawn pun suppressed).

More "Steves" sign the Steve's List

The NCSE Project Steve has passed the 1,200 signatory mark (as of today, 7th April, 2012 there are 1,202).

The happy occasion was duly marked by The Sensuous Curmudgeon, who writes a pro-science blog well worth reading.

TV Debates

I was invited to do an internet TV (what's that?) debate hosted by the Salvation Army. I was apparently invited because I am on the Center for Inquiry speakers list.

Regarding the 'other side,' I made the following remark, "Personally, if I were to just sit down for a chat it would be with Sean McDowell. Ray Comfort knows his arguments are lame, and his "facts" are false. He doesn't care. Consequently, all he does is repeat the same things he has repeated for over a decade. With Ray, it is just a job."

I'll keep you updated.

The paper debunking Joe "the surgeon" Kuhn is evolving. A ten page draft text mostly about origin of life research had 121 references. This was too much science. So, the new idea is to have a short article on all three of Kuhn's screw-ups (OOL, Irreducible Complexity, and No Transitional Species), with all the hard science parts in a separate text(s) to be hosted on-line.

Edited 12 noon, 7 April;

The debate is on with Sean McDowell. The video taping will be 23 April, and the discussion posted sometime in June. You can see Sean McDowell in action debating Jim Corbett on this link. My opinion of Jim Corbett was not improved watching his performance versus Sean McDowell.

I am almost really done with my Joe Kuhn paper

Really.

I have not posted for weeks, and I appologise my ass off. But I had a 44 page draft that had to get squished into a 10 page final. That is killing me.

It is nearly there.

This is an excellent example of why creationists have an advantage lying. They lie. Every breath they take is a lie. I took 14 pages of text, and over 100 references just to debunk 1.5 pages of creatocrap from Joe the Surgeon. And, I still don't know if the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings will publish my work. They published the creatocrap....

Sherry Rowland died last night.

Sherry Rowland, the theoretical chemist who predicted that CFCs were going to destroy the Earth's ozone, died last night from complications related to Parkinson's Disease.

I recall having lunch with a group of UCI chemists soon after Rowland and Molina's Nobel Prize was awarded. He mentioned that the weirdest thing was writing a check to the IRS (the Prize is taxable income) larger then than the price of his house.

The Rowland lab was just down the hall from my 4 feet of grad student lab space in the early '70s. When he and Molina's work was first being published, the chemical industry approached and promised any amount of "research" money if they would agree to stay silent. They refused to be bought. Next, there were Republican led "hearings" in Congress accusing Roland of being a communist trying to destroy America's industry. The same pigs are leading the anti-climate change gang today.

Discotute "Dissent From Darwin"

I had this in the "draft" file. I am still grinding on Joe the Surgeon, but I offer this as an alternate bit of creationist debunking.

I realized I was repeating myself again. The creationist was Joe Jensen posting to the evocreato discussion at "Bangert: The evolution of a misguided 'choice' The topic was the Discotute "Dissent From Darwin" bullshit. So, I thought that I should post the current version here to save time.

The Discotute "Dissent from Darwin" has far more "egghead PHDs" in totally unrelated fields, like history, or sociology, or philosophy, meteorology, or electrical engineering, than they have any professionals competent to judge the data supporting the theory of evolution. In reply to this nonsense, we began "Project Steve." The Project Steve statement unequivocally presents that Evolutionary Theory is the sole organizing principle for all of biological science. We limited the signatories to only people named Steve. (Or cognates, like Stephanie, or Estiban). To make it even harder, we limited signatories to real scientists in relevant areas as opposed to the "anything, or anybody" rules for the Discotutes. (We altered the rule when Nobel winner Stephen Hawkins wanted to join. The new rule allows any Nobel Prize winner named "Steve" to sign on. All eligible Nobelists have signed).

Just today, Steve #1186 is Dr. Stephanie Wissel. Interestingly, Project Steve member #1184 is Prof. Steve Murphree. What makes this interesting is that Dr. Murphee was earlier a signatory of the Discotute "Dissent" list, in his own words, "a choice that I now genuinely regret."


Regarding the weakass "Dissent From Darwin," Charles Darwin could have signed it himself. Read the so-called "dissent"

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Darwin actually had no idea how genetics actually worked, so objecting to "random mutation" would not have bothered him at all. Modern (competent) scientists know that mutations are restricted by the chemistry of nucleic acids, and the structural chemistry of proteins, this ultimately being the chemistry of amino acids. Even so, "random" mutations in the form of SNPs are nearly always silent. This forms the foundation for Kimura's neutral theory.

Darwin was well aware that "natural selection" was not the only force to "account for the complexity of life." In fact, he wrote four books detailing other factors. He wrote two on artificial selection, which is the basis of all agriculture and dates to the late Neolithic. He wrote one on orchids where he proposed the concepts (later confirmed) of co-evolution, and mutualism. And, in 1871 Darwin published a book on Human evolution which introduced the concept of sexual (today we say "behavioral") selection.

So, Darwin would have had no problems with "random mutation," and wrote 4 books about 3 kinds of evolutionary selection beyond "survival of the fittest." And, he was constantly an advocate of the notion that we should, "carefully examine the evidence." And So Am I. When we do carefully examine the evidence, ID creationism is bunk.

This might explain conservative reality denial

I read with great interest, and a bit of dread, this essay by Chris Mooney, "The Republican Brain: Why Even Educated Conservatives Deny Science - and Reality," Saturday 25 February 2012. It was a preview of his forthcoming book of the same name.

I was favorably impressed with Mooney's 2005 book, The Republican War on Science New York: Basic Press. And will probably read this next one. But, if his premise is correct, that conservatives cannot learn, I'll be a bit depressed.

PS: the Kuhn paper is almost done, and I'll be back to blogging. Really!

More Speciation- but they are still just bacteria

The single-celled Bacteria and Archaea constitute the largest, and most successful forms of life on Earth. And, they have been for at least 3.5 billion years. For those inclined to read this sort of thing;

Hinsby Cadillo-Quiroz, Xavier Didelot, Nicole L. Held, Alfa Herrera1, Aaron Darling, Michael L. Reno, David J. Krause, Rachel J. Whitaker

Patterns of Gene Flow Define Species of Thermophilic Archaea
PLoS Biol 10(2): e1001265. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001265

The paper has relevance to origin of life studies, and speciation mechanisms.

PS: The paper rebutting creationist Joe the Surgeon is progressing. I'll submit it directly to the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings before posting more here at Stones and Bones.

Other critiques of Joe the Surgeon

Joseph A Kuhn died July 20, 2014.

Joe Kuhn, MD wrote an extended bit of creatocrap that I have been debunking- bit by bit. They are; Part 1, and Part 2. I still hope to have Part 3 (of five) ready today.
This is more like Part 2.1

The Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings had invited Charles Stewart Roberts, MD, to provide a pro-science commentary published in the same edition.

Since then, Baylor UMC Proceedings has also presented a pre-print rebuttal by Gregory G. Dimijian, MD. I find it rather significant that the Baylor folks have already linked this from their current issue's Table of Contents.

Two other critiques are on-line, one by Jerry Coyne, and one by "Afarensis."

I think there is much more to say.

One question that I really have no idea of how to answer is "Why?" Why would any editor allow this crap to run in their journal?

One possibility is that they wanted to expose Joe Kuhn.

Parallel Universe: bibliolatry v. reality

A few months ago I wrote a short item about Mail-oder Theology Degrees. My friend Richard Hope left a comment,

It's like there's a parallel universe in which it's the title that counts, regardless of its provenance. Pure Kent Hovindry. Hey--"Hovindry" as a term for it. That's more succinct than my previous term, inflationary credentialism.

As it happens, the notion that creationists live in an alternate (if not exactly 'parallel universe' since I think they are skewed) has some other promoters. Karl Giberson, and Randall Stephens wrote an OpEd for the New York Times last October 17th, which mentioned

"... many evangelicals created what amounts to a “parallel culture,” nurtured by church, Sunday school, summer camps and colleges, as well as publishing houses, broadcasting networks, music festivals and counseling groups. Among evangelical leaders, Ken Ham, David Barton and James C. Dobson have been particularly effective orchestrators — and beneficiaries — of this subculture. "The Evangelical Rejection of Reason," (The New York Times, October 17, 2011).

We have to award priority to Giberson, and Stephens, if only by one day.

It is no surprise that Giberson and Stephens are attacked in the fundy press, or that one attack comes from creationist historian, Discotute Richard Weikart "Should We Believe the Intellectuals?"

I hope to attend to that over the weekend, as well as Joseph Kuhn: Part 3.

Joseph A. Kuhn, MD. Part 2.

Joseph A Kuhn died July 20, 2014.

I am fraking “Dissecting Darwinism” by Joseph A. Kuhn, MD, published in Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings (BUMC Proceedings).


Kuhn makes various errors of fact and logic throughout his introductory pages. Mostly the result of sloppy thinking, and ignorance. For example, Kuhn said that ‘neo-Darwinism’ “reflected knowledge of reproduction and recombination, leading to potentially greater shifts in species.” What it reflected was a rejection of Lamarckian ideas of heritable acquired characteristics. Kuhn wrote that the “modern synthesis” was “proposed in 1950 to incorporate the knowledge of genetics, systematics, paleontology, and other fields.” Actually, the modern synthesis was proposed mathematically in the 1930s to merge genetic and evolutionary theory. Prior to this, genetics was promoted by antievolutionists as an alternative explanation to the diversity of species. The modern synthesis is built on the realization that the unit of evolution is an inter-reproductive population, taxonomically equivalent with “subspecies.” The term itself was introduced in a 1942 book by Julian Huxley titled, “Evolution: The Modern Synthesis.” (I have highlighted below the earlier papers by the most influential contributors). Major contributors were; R.A. Fisher, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (1930), J.B.S. Haldane; ten papers between 1924 and 1934 collectively known as “A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection,” see also, “Possible Worlds and Other Essays” (1928), Wright, Sewall (1932). "The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution" Proc. 6th Int. Cong. Genet 1: 356–366.

Reading these authorities, and other contemporaries, one learns that the field of paleontology is nearly ignored by evolutionary theorists at the time. The resulting revolution in systematics, or taxonomy really waited until the 1970s. This brings up Kuhn’s next error (at least big enough to irritate me). He wrote, “These mutations can occur gradually or rapidly via a term called saltation or punctuated evolution (sic).”

What is first irritating is that ‘terms’ don’t cause mutations. Second, there is nothing outside the fevered minds of creationists called “punctuated evolution.” The idea of ‘punctuated equilibria’ was introduced very dramatically by "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism" (1972) pp 82-115 in "Models in paleobiology", edited by Schopf, TJM Freeman, Cooper & Co, San Francisco. Steve Gould, and Dick Lewontin in their 1979 paper, “The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossion paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme.” (Proc R Soc Lond B 205 (1161): 581–598) extended the idea to argue that their punctuated equilibria idea could accommodate apparently non-adaptive mutation. Then “saltation” is not at all related to “punctuated” anything, it is derived from the Latin for “leap” is the notion of single-step speciation. This actually is known to happen, particularly common in speciation by plant hybrids. For example, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas. (I have dozens of other examples of observed emergence of new species on this link).

I am tired, and the weather sux. So there is sadly much more time to spend tomorrow on “Joseph A. Kuhn, MD. Part 3.”

Freaking Weird Stupid Shit

I posted a reply to a twit creationist a few weeks ago. It was entitled "A British creationist asked." I used a public domain photo of some guys from Papua New Guinea to reply to the question, "Why do we wear clothes?" What I particularly liked was that this family was waiting to greet the next batch of Christian missionaries to their village.

There has been a steady stream of perverts using Google images searching for "Naked little boys," "Naked family," "Naked Africans," "Naked men," and so on.

Yo' stupid!

Dey aint neked!

Oh goody: Bruce R. Booker's Degrees and Affiliations

So, a few days ago I received an email from Rabbi(?) Booker. It seems he had been trying to get in contact to let me know he was unhappy with my two paragraph review of his education, and that he had composed a stunning (29 page) refutation, "Bruce R. Booker's Degrees and Affiliations." Most of it is a cut-n-paste job, and I cannot help but wonder if this follows a pattern of Booker's early scholarship. I have no idea. If one of my students passed this in for credit, I would have flunked them.

Some weeks ago, I posted a short comment about Mail order theology degrees. The focus was on the educational qualifications of a creationist pastor, Graham Lovelady, of Ogden Utah. I wondered at what sort of education this genius must have received to be able to reject the work of thousands of dedicated scientists, and millions of pages of scientific results. I found that Lovelady had his "graduate degree" from a mail-order house called "Biblical Life College and Seminary." It turned out that the Biblical Life gang has their own in-house psychotherapy, which made it all the more interesting.

In my post, I reviewed the qualifications of some of the faculty members of Biblical Life College, based on their website vita. One of these was Bruce R. Booker.

Here is what the mail-order house has to say about "dr" Bruce R. Booker, Associate Professor of Hebraic Heritage Studies (retrieved Feb. 7, 2012):

B.B.S.—Biblical Life College & Seminary | M.A.—Columbia Pacific University | Ph.D.—Columbia Pacific University | Th.D. - Biblical Life College & Seminary.

Dr. Booker received s’micha (ordination) as a Messianic Rabbi through United Messianic Jewish Alliance. He currently serves as the Messianic Rabbi of Beth Yeshua Messianic Fellowship, Priest River, Idaho. Bruce has led several Messianic fellowships and congregations since 1989, including Beth Shalom Messianic Congregation, Sandpoint, Idaho, and Beth Shalom Messianic Congregation, formerly of Colton, CA - currently in Rancho Cucamonga, CA.

He is the author of several books including: THE LIE Exposing the Satanic Plot Behind Anti-Semitism, A Merciful Severity - A Study of Christian Anti-Semitism through the Centuries, God, Give me Patience NOW!, A Call to Holiness, and What If?

So, what do have here?

Four degrees from unaccredited mail-order schools, two of them supposedly "doctorates." As I wrote earlier;

Colombia Pacific University (CPU) was closed by court order in 2000, but the court did not review degrees awarded between 1978 and mid-1997. The first implementation of the 1989 Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Reform Act was in 1991. Columbia Pacific University was given a provisional "grandfather" status until its degree programs, and faculty qualifications were reviewed. When this was done in 1996, this so-called school was found to fail minimal standards for a degree-granting institution.

So, “Doctor” Booker has quite a distinguished academic pedigree, one degree from an unaccredited correspondence school, two more from another unaccredited correspondence school that was ordered to cease and desist by the State of California for unethical, and unprofessional practices (i.e. awarding fake degrees), then back to the first correspondence “college” for another ‘doctorate,’ and then joining the faculty of his unaccredited alma mater.

There really is nothing to add. Rabbi(?) Booker's 29 page screed adopted the view that my post was all about himself, and not "pastor" Lovelady, or so-called "teleios therapy." For some additional fun, you might look over Booker's C.V.

Joseph A. Kuhn, MD. Part 1.

Joseph A Kuhn died July 20, 2014.

Some creatocrap was smeared on the Internet today. (Yes, what a surprise). The bit I examined was from the Discotute touting “peer reviewed” papers supporting ID creationism. Most of the papers the Discotutes promote as “supporting intelligent design” creationism don’t really do such a thing. So, I started reading the paper at the top of their list, “Dissecting Darwinism” by Joseph A. Kuhn, MD, published in Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings (BUMC Proceedings).

I didn’t get very far before I read, “John Hunter proposed a gradual formation of species through mutation 70 years before Charles Darwin published his observations in On the Origin of the Species. Therefore, history reveals that surgeons are uniquely capable of gathering information, making observations, and reaching conclusions about scientific discoveries.” (The secondary reference is eventually found to a popular press book).

Needless to say really, but Dr. Kuhn is a surgeon, and so by his logic also “uniquely capable” because over 200 years ago, John Hunter was an accomplished scientist and surgeon. What should we then conclude about the career of Josef Rudolf Mengele? When I was a professor of medicine in psychiatry, we often marveled how surgeons imagined they were “uniquely capable” in all aspects of life. Kuhn goes on to brag that physicians are the “the brightest minds, based on competitive test scores and undergraduate performance.” Since his audience are most likely physicians, I am sure this claim is accepted as sage wisdom. Kuhn does provide one early chuckle when he writes, "In fact, the physician represents the penultimate expert on applied molecular pathways as they relate to human conditions." The "penultimate" anything is the "next to last." Of course this egotist thinks it meant the 'most superior,' but that will always be the actual scientist who did the actual research that physicains learn to apply clinically.

Kuhn does do the full bore creationist dance, which I'll return to in Part 2.

I was more curious that Darwin never mentioned John Hunter. In all the later editions of “Origin of Species,” Darwin began with a “Historical Sketch” of evolutionary thinking. His remarks on the speculations of Buffon regarding the species question explain why he was less impressed with Hunter as well. Darwin wrote it was unnecessary to go into details with Buffon because he did not, “enter on the causes or means of the transformation of species.” It was this which Darwin's theory addressed.

The collected papers from John Hunter (1728-1793) mentioned by Kuhn were published in 1861, edited, and augmented by Richard Owen. “Essays and observations on natural history, anatomy, physiology, psychology, and geology, Volumes 1, 2” John Hunter, and Richard Owen. London: J. van Voorst, 1861. In his “Introduction to Natural History,” Hunter makes the observation at the beginning of a section titled, “On the Origin of Species,” that “Are we not led on to the wolf by the gradual affinity of the different varieties in the dog? Could we not trace out the gradation of the cat, horse, cow, sheep, fowl, etc. in a like manner?”

This section is very brief, merely two paragraphs. In the second, Hunter approached a point similar to Darwin when he speculated that the East Indian cattle were probably the more primitive, as they had fewer varieties, and were “… more likely to go through varieties in new countries [i.e. under new external influences] than in its original country.” Owen is often portrayed as an opponent of Darwin’s, so I was surprised that in a footnote to this section, he remarked “The best attempt to answer this supreme question in zoology is has been made by Charles Darwin in his work entitled “On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection” 1859. (Footnote 2, Page 37).

I read nothing in the rest of the 399 pages of Volume 1 that Kuhn could have confused with mutation, or heritable variation, natural selection (or any other selection than agricultural). Since Kuhn's assertion apparently relied on a secondary reference, and even that rather vague, I decided to plow on through the entire ~1000 pages.

The second volume of “Essays and observations on natural history” is a 491 page text on comparative anatomy, and a number of Appendixes. Hunter in his opening essay urged that only those well versed in human anatomy should under take comparative studies. I personally went in the opposite direction, dissecting fish by the hundreds before I studied much human material, and I should add that my interest was nearly entirely on bones. Hunter and I would agree on this latter focus, as he wrote on page 2 of his comparative anatomy regarding the skeleton. On the same page, Hunter wrote, "... I dare say that the different manner of living gives rise to the different formation of the viscera." He later added that an animal's 'external matter,' "... relate to the way of life that each animal is adapted to..." To this, Owen added a footnote saying, "A question still under controversy. The advocates of the 'Transmutation' or 'Natural Selection' hypothesis may take Hunter's words in their literal sense, and claim him as of their party." (Footnote 1, Page 2).

Hunter did not finish 3 pages before his examination of humans took a powerfully racist turn. He wrote that “white” men were “the most perfect of that genus” as we have the largest hands, and heads. These were the features he felt indicated “perfection” in humans, and he asserted that “The negro from Africa has both a small head, and very small hands and feet.” Even so, these obviously false statements compare well against the notorious modern “scientific” racist J. Philippe Rushton. Rushton claims to have “proven” that a large penis results in low intelligence and criminality, and thus Africans are stupid criminals due to big penises. Compare these beliefs with Charles Darwin, who wrote in "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex" (John Murray, London, 1871), "It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant." Also, "By the way, a Negro lived in Edinburgh, who had traveled with Waterton and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently; he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man." -- Charles Darwin, Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882 (restored edition)(1958), Nora Barlow editor, p.51., Or, "I do not see that an orthognathous face would cost more than a prognathous face; or a good morale than a bad one." (LETTER 412. TO FRANCIS GALTON. Down, January 4th, 1873).

However, there was nothing that I read which justified Kuhn's claim that Hunter, "proposed a gradual formation of species through mutation." Maybe if Kuhn knew how to provide a proper citation, we could learn what he referred to in his paper. In psychiatry, we called it "making shit up."

There was one feature of particular interest to any student of the relationship between scientific advancement, and religious bias. In 1855, Richard Owen gave a lecture to the Royal College of Surgeons as part of his appointment as the Hunterian Professor of Anatomy. The talk was examining a yet unpublished manuscript by Hunter, “On Extraneous Fossils,” written from Hunter’s address on fossils given in 1793 to the Royal Society of London. In the latter paper, Hunter described his results from treating various recent bones, and shells and similar fossil specimens with different acids. Hunter was particularly interested in what he called “the animal substance.” From his descriptions, I suspected this “animal substance” is mostly collagen, and osteocalcin, and this seems to be confirmed in Hunter’s essay “Of the Preparation of Bones,” when compared with "Chemical Technology and Analysis of Oils, Fats, and Waxes" (Kowitsch, 1895).

The address in 1793 was never published. Owen explained that the the Society editors objected to Hunter's conclusion that the the Earth was very ancient. Variation in the degree of fossilization among the thousands of specimens Hunter examined had clearly led him to conclude that this was the result of processes across “many thousand centuries.” A Major Rennell wrote to Hunter on behalf of the Royal Society requesting that the time frame be altered to “many thousand years” so as to not alienate young earth creationists. Instead, Hunter withdrew the paper from publication only months before his death on October 16, 1793. This early example of how creationism impedes scientific understanding of Nature was new to me.


I will say that refuting creatocrap can occupy the days I am not fishing.

Here is a link to Part 2.

More about Nazi Darwinists

A nitwit on the Washington Post comment section wrote:

"Darwin’s theory is “godless” and that such thinking is linked to Nazi atrocities . . ."

This is ridiculed in this article.
What is the basis of the tie between Darwin and Hitler?
Darwin's cousin and devout follower was Galton.
Galton founded the science of Eugenics, that horrid 'science' that approved of steralizing or otherwise eliminating the 'undesirables' in society, thereby preventing the continuance of their 'inferior genetic material'.
Hitler adopted Galtons 'science', and carried it to it's logical conclusion.

That is all easily verifiable historic fact.

My reply:

The "easily verifiable historic fact(s)" offered by Trainor are all false with the exception that Francis Galton was Darwin's distant cousin, and he did found the Society for Eugenics.

1) Evolutionary biology, like chemistry, and geology are "godless." For that matter, plumbing, and automechanics are equally "godless."

2) There is no link between Darwin and Hilter, or the Nazis. In fact the Nazis banned the entire works of Darwin, and Ernst Haeckle, the leading German evolutionary theorist soon after taking power. Die Bucherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published these collection evaluation "guidelines" during the second round of "purifications" (saüberung).
6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).

Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279
6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)

3) Galton and Darwin differed strongly on the biological nature of heredibility. More significantly, Darwin tried to discourage Galton's Eugenics idea. Galton's original concept was to create a trust fund that would pay some people to have children, and others not to have children. Darwin noted that such a program would undoubtedly fail, both in print and in private letters to Galton. In his January 4th, 1873 letter to Galton, C.R. Darwin wrote, "I am not, however, so hopeful as you. Your proposed Society would have awfully laborious work, and I doubt whether you could ever get efficient workers." and, "But the greatest difficulty, I think, would be in deciding who deserved to be on the ("preferred marriage," gh) register. How few are above mediocrity in health, strength, morals and intellect; and how difficult to judge on these latter heads. Darwin concluded that discussion with, "I do not see that an orthognathous face would cost more than a prognathous face; or a good morale than a bad one." By this, that "moral" worth was not a biological feature, and that there could be no difference between a European, jutting chin (orthognathous), or an rounded (prognathous) African one.

4) The Eugenics Society never promoted the notion of forced sterilization. We should note the following opinion of Major Lenard Darwin regarding the practice of Eugenics, "It is true that both infanticide and the subjection of women have been common enough in many countries and in all ages; but they will never be reintroduced into civilized countries. A highly developed moral sense and great freedom of choice are two of the most precious attributes of man, and the necessity for preserving them rules out these stockyard methods.” “What is Eugenics” (1928 pg. 23), THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF EUGENICS New York, 1932) Major Leonard Darwin (1850 – 1943), Chairman of the British Eugenics Society between 1911-1928. Sadly, Major Darwin was too great an optimist.

The expression "stockyard methods" is particularly significant. The Nazi program was never informed by evolutionary theory, but did impliment agricultural methods on human breeding. We can find the same idea employed in ancient Sparta, with the same lack of success.

5) It was the American Eugenics movement motivated by late 19th century racism that promoted forced sterilization, and anti-immigration laws. Of particular importance was Republican king-maker Madison Grant. A multi-millionare, he had been Teddy Rosevelt's college roommate, and life long friend. Grant wrote a book, "The Passing of the Great Race," published in 1916, that was one of only two books by nonGermans allowed on the Nazi reading list for anthropology. I highly recommend Jonathan P. Shiro's recent biography of Madison Grant, "Defending the Master Race" (2009 University of Vermont Press).

6(and last) I would like to read how Trainor squirms out from Hitler's clearly stated belief in creationism- the fixed, immutable nature of created kinds, as created by God. There are pages of citations irrefutably showing that Hitler's private, and public presentations were explicitly creationist, and Christian. Just four examples follow;

"The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

"From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.

A glance in Nature shows us, that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is(now)" Tabletalk entry for 27 February 1942

"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x

“The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.” Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi

The Nazi Office of Racial Policy held thousands of public meetings a month promoting anti-semitism and attacking “muddle-headed humanitarianism” (Humanitätsduselei) or, what we call “liberalism” today. The theoretical models and dominant metaphors Hitler drew from did not include evolution at any event, but the Germ Theory of Disease, and Christianity. In 1938 the Nazi "Office of Racial Policy" publication "Inromationsdienst," Martin Luther’s advice on the “proper” treatment of Jews was given prominent display:

"... to put their synagogues and schools to fire, and what will not burn, to cover with earth and rubble so that no-one will ever again see anything there but cinders ... Second, one should tear down and destroy their houses, for they do also in there what they do in their schools and synagogues ... And third, one should confiscate their prayer books and Talmud, in which idolatry and lies, slander and blasphemy is taught” From Proctor 1988: 88.

The founder of Protestant Christianity was a greater inspiration to the Nazis than any scientist. Science, politicized by the same conditions that radicalized both Left, and Right in Germany, was used as justification for actions long advocated as “Christian.”

A good read in the morning

I hope to go fishing today. But, this was a good news item to wake up with on my screen;

"Resurrecting extinct proteins shows how a machine evolves"

Another Steve leaves the Dark Side

Last October I noticed that Professor C. STEVEN Murphree wrote a letter-to-the-editor published today in the "Daily News Journal" of Rutherford County, Tennessee. Titled "Theistic evolution' can be an alternative for believers," Dr. Steve Murphree (Belmont University) wrote,

This was once my position (ID creationism, gh), one that I held until after I became a biology professor, and I do not fault Mr. Myers or others who came to hold it in much the same way that I did. I was at least as passionate though not as fearful about Darwinist control as Mr. Myers, and 10 years ago I signed the Discovery Institute's "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," a choice that I now genuinely regret.

I suggested at the time that Prof. Steve should consider becoming one of the "Project Steve" Steves.

Well, today he did, and is welcomed as the 1184th Steve. That is one more Steve for truth, and one less for the Discotute's bogus appeal to authority, the "Dissent from Darwinism."

A British creationist asked;

A creationist recently posed to me the notion that "evolution" could not "explain" the following features of humans, while the Bible made it all so clear.


The union of one man and one woman

Biblical polygamy was common. Only in the writing of Paulists is there the (very late) late addition that Christian priests (Bishops, and Deacons) should be monogamous. (And don't forget this, 1 Corinthians 9:29. But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; 30. and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; 31. and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away. 32. But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33. but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34. and his interests are divided.

So, obviously you should not be married anyway.


 The creation of man and woman

Which man and which woman? Homo erectus? Australopithecus? Ardipithecus? Earlier?

Creationists famously cannot tell us which Hominid fossils are "real humans" and which are "really just apes." Since in all scientific categories, we are apes, this seems something creationists need to work on a bit more.


The 'inner' witness of the law (conscience), & Morality and justice


Biblical morality changed dramatically of over time. Maybe it evolved. It seems we share core elements of this with other apes, and even rats;

Inbal Ben-Ami Bartal, Jean Decety, Peggy Mason
"Empathy and Pro-Social Behavior in Rats" Science 9 December 2011: Vol. 334 no. 6061 pp. 1427-1430

T. Romero, M. A. Castellanos, F. B. de Waal
2010 "Consolation as possible expression of sympathetic concern among chimpanzees" Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 12110.

Alan G. Sanfey
2007 "Social Decision-Making: Insights from Game Theory and Neuroscience" Science 26 October 2007: Vol. 318 no. 5850 pp. 598-602
(The above are all publicly available, and are just a tiny introduction to a large literature).

In the same issue of Science as Bartal et al, is
Jaak Panksepp "Empathy and the Laws of Affect" (pp.1358-1359),

and

Marcus Alexander, Fotini Christia "Context Modularity of Human Altruism" (pp. 1392-1394).

Basically, most mammals are responsive to the distress of con-specifics, with Humans arguably the both the most altruistic, and the most vicious. Human altruism is fostered across ethnic boundaries by simple propinquity, or face-to-face interactions. Strictly mathematical analysis, Game Theory, provides a likely explanation why this has evolutionary advantage.

*Just published;
Catherine Crockford, Roman M. Wittig, Roger Mundry, and Klaus Zuberbühler
Wild Chimpanzees Inform Ignorant Group Members of Danger
Current Biology, December 29, 2011


Why we wear clothes

It was too hot, or too cold. In tropical climes, people wore very little. In traditional New Guinea, men wear little more than decorative items indicating social status. But they feel "naked" without them;

(A family group gathered to welcome Christian missionaries. Photo by Charmaine Tham, Feb. 14. 2007.
Used with permission).

Clothing always extends beyond health, or other utilitarian function, and instead represents social identities and status.

Why we build

Why do Beavers build, or birds build, or spiders build?

We humans do have instinctual segments that are much smaller, and being smaller are much more flexible in combination with each other.

Seven day week

The Seven-day, or planetary week is an astrological institution. Herodotus, wrote, "The Egyptians were the first to assign to each month, and each day a particular god." (The History, 5th century B.C.). The ancients recognized seven "planets" each associated with a particular god; Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupitor, Venus, and Saturn (listed in the presumed order used to name the days). We use these names even now.

Rabbi Averick and the origin of life

Rabbi Moshe Averick writes a very right-wing, creationist opinion column for an on-line magazine for right-wing Jews (there are some) called The algeminer. His recent article featured a slam on Prof. Jerry Coyne's blog "Why Evolution is True," particularly Coyne's critique of creationist David Berlinski. There is some fun to be had reading the comments following the Rabbi's article, particularly amusing is that Terri-Lynn McCormick, personally takes Averick to task for misrepresenting her husband, Noble Laureate Jack Szostak.

There are a number of factual, and logical errors in Rabbi Averick's opinion piece. His aversion to science makes me hesitate about dealing with the factual errors. So, for the moment, let's consider just the statement that, "... there are only two possibilities. An unguided naturalistic process or a creator who is outside of the physical universe. There are no other options."

First, the existence of life resulting from, "An unguided naturalistic process," does not exclude the existence of a supernatural creator. One can just as easily posit a creator who wove into the creation the capacity, even inevitability, of life from the moment of creation. Similarly, the Earth could conceivably have been seeded with life, which ID creationists regularly trot out as an example of "non-religious ID." (I am glad that Rabbi Averick has at least acknowledged that this is a mere rhetorical figment to avoid the US Constitution). But, even the various formulations of 'panspermia' ideas could be interpreted so as not to conflict with the existence of a supreme creator somewhere.

So, since the Rabbi is obviously wrong that there are just his two possibilities, what does this leave of his next argument that, "If we conclude that the first living organism could only emerge through intelligent intervention, that itself is the evidence of the supernatural creator." Well, there is really nothing left of it. If the natural origin of life cannot dispose of the existence of a creator, then he must actually demonstrate the physical effects, and some mechanism of detection of these miracles. No mere critique (or denial of evidence) of abiogenesis is competent to "prove," or "disprove" the existence of god(s).

If we only look at the claim that if no natural source of first life is possible, then there are gods, I see even more problems. The first is that a negative argument can never be proven. What possible evidence could there be that the natural origin of life is impossible. We can accept, in the absence of direct evidence, that life is very improbable, but this is not ever resolvable to "impossible." Creationist guru William Dembski tries to invent a statistic he calls the "cosmic probability bound" A similar idea is found in the writing of William Craig Lane, but without Dembski's pseudo-mathematic flourishes. The notion is that the physical universe is finite, and so there must be some external infinity that contains it. Creationists posit god(s), but in a similar sense, the super string theorists posit infinite universes.

Rabbi Averick claims that his work is done just by misrepresenting the positions of several scientists, and saying that since they have not created life in the last few decades his particular deity has been validated. And this is the last, and more severe of Rabbi's errors. If he rejects the natural, he has not advanced the existence, or acceptance of his favorite mysticism. The entire effort is wasted. There are hundreds, if not thousands of godlings with followers happy to claim credit for the creation of the universe, and life. The Rabbi, even ignoring his errors and omissions, will still need to contend with them. Unless, his only goal is to damp down the unease of his co-religionists. The simple creationist literalism he proposes is terribly vulnerable to science; the universe is billions of years old; the Earth is billion of years old; the universe, Earth, etc were not created in 6 days; there was no global flood. Without a congregation, Rabbis need to find new jobs. I personally find it better to improve my understanding of scripture, and dismiss trivial literalism.

(So far, the Rabbi has blocked my comment)

I was apparently too late to the party.

As an experiment, I tried to post a link today to the Rabbi's most recent piece of E-crap. That has not appeared either.

For another exposure of Rabbi Averick's lies, see Faye Flam's excellent piece.