AiG: "Evolutionists will be Horrified" | Fundies vs Science
Emma Thorne | 3 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3ws5oY_EYo
0:32 Evolutionist is not a made up thing.
Back in 18th C. you had Oxygenists and Phlogistonists. By now, we are all Oxygenists.
You can legitimately characterise a school of thought as -ism, and its adherents as -ists. Unless the -ism is derived from a shorter word. You speak of Christians, not Christianists, of Catholics, not of Catholicists. Sometimes the school of thought is named for a founder, like Platonists or Aristotelians. Guess why "Darwinists" is a bad name?
Because that evokes "Social Darwinists" which is a completely different thing (though, unfortunately, related).
So, Neo-Darwinists? Well, not all Evolutionists agree to be called Neo-Darwinists. Lamarckians are out and so are, I think, the Gouldians, of punctuated equilibrium fame as well as the spiritual Evolutionists in the school of Alfred Russel Wallace.
So, I think Evolutionist is the best term, and if you prefer "everyone" or "all sane people" or "all real scientists" that's too bad, these "synonyms" for Evolutionist are simply very tendentious as supposed such.
0:53 Where exactly do you get "specifically the King James version" from?
I go to their site, to the label "Bible" and I find not one single article on King James.
Kent Hovind often goes out of his way to bash NIV, but while he self qualifies as King James-only, for one, he is not part of AiG, and for another, he seems to have no clue that for instance Douay Rheims often agrees with KJ against NIV.
There seems to be a meme that YEC are KJ-only-ists, while there is an overlap, they are not the same. The implication seems to be that if you used NIV or DR, you could easily find reasons to reconcile the text with millions and billions of years. Not so.
Robert Sungenis mentioned New American Bible as "a great translation - but don't read the footnotes" ... and I agree. At least on the latter part. Unless it's, as I did, to refute them.
I wrote the article: "New American Bible : Footnoted to Apostasy" which concentrates on Genesis 11. Yeah, basically all of the footnotes were saying "this isn't historical, get over it" but the text itself would argue for 292 years (I like some LXX versions better on this one, 942 years) from Flood to birth of Abraham. So, it's a bit annoying with people saying other people are YEC because they use the KJ. If I say God created our first parents, not a single generation existing before them, 7200 years ago, plus some, is that somehow not YEC because it's more than 6000 years?
1:19 "Manipulating science"
OK, where is the general picture ... science is a pristine virgin, and YEC's like Ken Ham are touching her butt?
Guess what scientists do in general? They manipulate science. They manipulate raw data to get some more significant and noteworthy truths out of these.
And the one scientists who are not allowed to do that are the ones that disagree with Evolutionists, go figure!
"To poke holes in specific parts of the theory of evolution"
Yeah, I manipulate well known facts (at least among linguists) to poke holes in the idea men developed language out of communications like chimps' and their "eek, eek" ... or however you like to spell it. So far, I think I am poking a pretty big hole into that idea, and a few days ago, I read the relevant passage in Descent of Man by You-Know-Who, and found it very cringeworthy. Another post of mine is:
"Darwin on Language"
where I poke holes in basically every paragraph he made. Courtesy of the style used by answer youtubes.
2:40 How you describe your new channel is pretty much how one could describe my (first, second and third) main blogs.
I try to "sell them" (not literally giving away literary ownership!) as "every subject, except soccer" ... and I add "I also have more specialised blogs" ...
3:14 Pagan origins?
Like Osiris born "December 25," when the Egyptian calendars never even had one which was 365.25 days?
Roman origins?
Like Saturnalia falling into the Advent Fasting season and Sol Invictus coming so late it is very probable a rip-off on a specifically Christian Christmas?
Don't forget to announce if you ever manage to get sceptical of Zeitgeist the movie!
6:00 Fundamentalism in Catholicism and Orthodoxy actually has no racist issues.
Fundamentalism in US Baptists? Well, there were two camps, there were Fundies in the North too, who were opposed to maintaining slavery in the US.
It just may be mentioned that:
- Wilberforce was a fairly Fundie Evangelical
- he was the campaigner leading to George III deciding to abolish slavery
- his sons include two converts to Catholicism, and one High Church Anglican who famously debated Huxley.
- Bonus - even in the very short passage of Darwin I reviewed for its ineptness about linguistics (about mainstream linguistic facts), Darwin managed one racist slur at the very minimum.
6:15 I confirm, his name is Calvin Smith.
And yes, there is a "University of Guelph", with Guelph being a city in Canada.
https://www.uoguelph.ca/
More precisely, Guelph, Ontario, has 143,740 inhabitants, last census that wikipedians updated with, and this means "city" is more appropriate than "town" ..
8:00 Did you notice the description of the circus manager who described her as basically ape-woman?
Wait in the video for the year when such shows were being made.
9:29 Wait till he comes to the year in which she performed.
Or wait, let's not. I'll give you a hint. She died, according to wiki, in 1860. One year after Origin of the Species, and therefore before Descent of Man.
What does this imply about her acting carreere? Most of it was before Origin of Species. This was the when she was, by her own husband, marketted as "Baboon Lady",[8] the "Dog-faced Woman", the "Hairy Woman", the "Ape-faced Woman", the "Ape Woman", the "Bear Woman", and "The Nondescript" - after 1854.
The thing is, in literature from the 19th C. you find hypertrichosis classified as an "atavism" - as a return to supposed ancestors that weren't quite human.
These were the years just before Darwin published one of his books that became popular.
10:33 "the parents realise the deception"?
Rebecca was behind it, and Isaac only realised it after the real Esau stepped forth and had both skin and voice match the known Esau.
12:59 Thank you very much for qualifying Haeckel as dodgy ... it so happens, when I was a teen or even a child, I came up against his ideas on embryology as "proof" for evolution.
13:41 "scientists are people ... there was a lot of BS"
Still is.
Point being made is, scientists being people means they could be and were influenced by the marketting of Julia Pastrana.
14:19 "Christianity's historic oppression of people"
Was perhaps becoming a theme a bit before I came into my teens.
I'm not over impressed by those takes on history.
Where did the previous bias against Christianity come from?
"Christians retarded science" - "if you don't allow us to sterilise blacks with mental immaturity" (and we define when someone's mentally immature), "you are just like the Christians who made people forget the earth was round" ...
14:43 You are forgetting how central Haeckel was as a promoter of Darwin.
So, as a matter of fact, was Galton. You know, the Social Darwinist who's one main reason I don't just call Evolutionists Darwinists. First cousin of Charles.
In the meantime, Georg Mendel, OSB, was central in promoting certain facts about genetics, and he wasn't racist. At all. And I mean back in precisely Darwin's day.
"So, we trust modern science"
O ... K ... like Jacques Monod? He was a Frenchman promoting Evolution and Atheistic Humanism around 1970.
He was contemporary to a Belgian, who knew a thing or two about cells, including genetics.
That Belgian didn't write on Evolution. Monod was basically the Carl Sagan or De Grasse Tyson of the day, at least in France. He considered the gene of an offspring could involve one mutation from dad, and one from mom. Like, he wasn't aware they would be on different chromosomes and so not on the same gene?
As said, this Carl Sagan X David Attenborough X De Grasse promoter of Evolution in France, he was that ignorant even of contemporary knowledge!
15:30 Are you aware that some of Calvin Smith's colleagues actually are scientists?
Like Georgia Purdom in genetics?
Andrew Snelling in geology?
It is very unlikely that Calvin Smith is "attacking science" - he is attacking Evolutionism, as one "scientific belief" that started out in memes and urban legends before it was formulated by Darwin in a "scientific" way ... (how Darwin just takes the retina for granted is so cringe).
15:47 I'm not sure it does go without saying that people were generally more horrible.
I mean, Gulags, Konzentrations-Lager, Lao-Gais ... the latter still functioning ... are not from the 1800's.
The 1800's saw fewer dead in wars fought in Europe not just than the 1900's, but also than the 1700's.
17:49 Let's see.
Do you ever give any explanations of where we Christians get our biasses from?
Do you ever refer to these without presenting actual evidence against Christianity?
Well, guess what Calvin Smith is doing? He's doing that the other way round. Manipulative ... manipulating social psychology and sociology of science ... isn't he?
18:37 You are missing that the "couple of scientists" involve:
Haeckel
and
Darwin.
19:25 No. He's not about "evolution is false" on this video. He's about pioneer evolutionists are evil. And stupid fashion victims.
In a Christian world view, a position being false and its pioneers being evil might tend to go together. That's why I ditched the Protestant versions of Christianity over reading up on the Reformations.
But this video is not about the falseness, it's about the evil start of evolution. Or Evolutionism.
19:57 "a couple of scientists who believed in evolution"
With Haeckel and Darwin we are dealing with very central promoters of it.
19:47 "How does that really relate?"
Like someone can so to speak feel like taking up a tangent?
20:02 "and everyone said nasty things"
Did they?
Back when I was drawn to Nazism (with some clear exceptions), like between 13 and 15, I considered euthanasia and eugenics nasty, but I reckoned "everyone" was that nasty ... except, Franco actually wasn't (on that plane). Dollfuss actually wasn't (and he wasn't doing secret mass killings in remote villages either, unlike Franco). Mussolini came pretty late to racist nastiness, more than the first half of his rule was free from it and I think eugenics as much as euthanasia was a no no with him even when he had really broken bad under influence of seeing Hitler's success as a luck charm and owing him for pulling him out of captivity.
That Social Democrats were saying nasty things in Hitler's day doesn't make Hitler excusable. So many others (and that involves people usually to always classified as Fascist) weren't.
20:41 I think you are missing out on when Atheist Evolutionism became a thing.
It was in a very racist era. And it contributed to making it even more racist.
21:38 "homophobic racist Christian groups do horrible things in the name of God"
Example?
Orlando nightclub shooting? Wait ... Omar Mateen wasn't a Christian.
Colorado Springs nightclub shooting? Wait ... Anderson Lee Aldrich ... has not been involved in church services for at least a decade.
Murder of Mollie Olgin? Wait ... David Malcolm Strickland's religious views aren't even mentioned - could he have been an Evolutionist?
If we go to racism, Norwegian police at first described Mr. Breivik as a Fundamentalist Christian. He was anything but. Evolutionist, doesn't believe in a personal God, wants Evolution to be taught in Norwegian schools, was excluded from Freemasonry the day after the attack on Utøya.
Christchurch mosque shootings ... Tarrant's manifesto "displays neo-Nazi symbols such as the Black Sun and the Odin's cross. The author denies being a Nazi,[111] describing himself instead as an "ethno-nationalist",[86][112][113] an "eco-fascist",[114] and a "kebab removalist", in reference to a meme exalting the genocide of Bosnian Muslims that occurred during the Bosnian War.[115] The author cites Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik, Dylann Roof and others as an inspiration."
He mentioned Roof.
Charleston church shooting ... "During a Bible study at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, Roof killed nine people, all African Americans, including senior pastor and state senator Clementa C. Pinckney, and injured one other person. After several people identified Roof as the main suspect, he became the center of a manhunt that ended the morning after the shooting with his arrest in Shelby, North Carolina. He later confessed that he committed the shooting in hopes of igniting a race war."
So, Roof was specifically killing Christians ...
So far, no single homophobic racist Christian group doing horrible things, unless you count holding up cardboards saying "God hates fags" - or shooting an abortion provider. A k a a murderer. Wonder if Robert Dear hadn't prevented an equal number of abortions (in any case not very many) if he had shot the professional killer in the leg or arm instead.
"that's exactly the same inference"
Except it is in the other case you mentioned not very factual. Unlike Calvin Smith's example.
21:50 "this group of white supremacists in the USA believes in God"
And they are also not Young Earth Creationists, but Old Earth Creationists or Theistic Evolutionists (not sure which).
They don't believe Adam was the first actual man. They are not orthodox Christians.
Were Darwin and Haeckel orthodox Darwinist Evolutionists?
22:01 You are being vague on purpose, could the purpose be to not admit you have no research to back up this "tu quoque" claim or "reductio in hypocrisiam"?
22:11 I agree it was not evolutionary science.
I also agree a medium in ancient Greece tricking Oedipus into fulfilling a horrible self fulfilling prophecy is not Psychoanalysis.
But the point is Freud actually took inspiration from the precise effects of this medium's activity. Heard of the Oedipus complex?
Calvin Smith's point is, the freak show is one of the less admissible but nevertheless actual inspirations for Charles Darwin's "science"
22:44 You know, a lot of those scientists at the time ...
a) believed in God
b) AND didn't go to Julian Pastrana's mummy freak shows, is that what you were saying?
Her body toured in 1972. In countries where far fewer believed in God then. Like in parts of US, in Sweden and in Norway.
Only in 1994 did Norway decide it could be a good idea to get her a decent burial. Yes, atheistic Norway, where the police recently tried to demonise Fundie Christians for the acts of a Norwegian de facto atheist.
Or where the children of a Romanian-Norwegian couple were taken away, until international protests before Norwegian embassies made Norway think again.
23:02 "Most scientists, at least at the start of that period, were religious, Christians."
Not most scientists promoting evolution.
If you want to go back in more or less normal family histories when Atheism takes over after Christian parents, you would probably go to 1900 to find early cases (on my mothers side, her maternal grandfather was atheist, not supported by his wife therein, and his daughter, my granny, was born 1911).
B U T if you want to go back equally in élite families, like scientists and so, you could probably go back at least 50 years earlier, like back to 1850 or so. And before that, you'd find quite a lot of half-Christian vaguely idealistically philosophical Theism that discounted more than half of what was in the Bible. Especially in Protestant countries.
Take Herbert Spencer. The actual inventor of Social Darwinism, and not a stranger to Darwin.
He was non-Christian well before Origin of the Species.
"Spencer's second book, Principles of Psychology, published in 1855, explored a physiological basis for psychology, and was the fruit of his friendship with Evans and Lewes. The book was founded on the fundamental assumption that the human mind was subject to natural laws and that these could be discovered within the framework of general biology. This permitted the adoption of a developmental perspective not merely in terms of the individual (as in traditional psychology), but also of the species and the race. Through this paradigm, Spencer aimed to reconcile the associationist psychology of Mill's Logic, the notion that human mind was constructed from atomic sensations held together by the laws of the association of ideas, with the apparently more 'scientific' theory of phrenology, which located specific mental functions in specific parts of the brain."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer
23:24 The image of God consists primarily in the mind.
Hence, her body was not a denial of her being so created.
24:11 Confirmation bias, when you can't admit Darwin was a jerk?
24:38 Less religious. Granted, if by religious you mean pious.
More rational? Seriously ...
"it has also become kinder"
Very belatedly and very tenuously.
And partly through some Christians getting through in the 70's against Social Darwinism.
25:05 "all but only the most irrational people"
Yeah, right ... YEC, bad. Unlike Calvin Smith, you don't really give convincing examples, here.
Than "ever before"?
No. Before the Renaissance, this was not likely to happen. Early Modern times started with Gonsalvus being marketted as a freak show and pet for royalties, who had hypertrichosis, very recent times show Norway very belatedly saying "let's bury Julia Pastrana" (who had hypertrichosis), but Early Middle Ages or even more so Late Antiquity was more like "Clodion became the ancestor of Frankish Kings" or "St. Christopher was one of the greatest martyrs" - to mention two known people from then who presumably had hypertrichosis.
There was no need for antiracist legislation before racism was invented.
25:26 No. In the 1800's, people in mental hospitals probably suffered a much rougher treatment, but that is because only the most serious conditions were put there (or pretended sham cases of such).
Like, even then it was too many, but the inflation in mental diagnoses has skyrocketed over last decades, DSM V is clearly thicker than DSM III, and more and more people are "protected" by being infantilised and pushed out of the normal protections of the law.
Don't tell me people are being treated so much better, it's simply not true.
School compulsion and its share of school bullying, as well as CPS and its abuses have also skyrocketed.
26:52 "Some greedy, horrible and probably racist scientists ..."
Like Charles Darwin, you mean?
26:58 It's more like "therefore we shouldn't believe in promoters of evolution" ... for this video.
27:24 He never said "rationality is bad" he said "rationalism is bad" ... actually not the same concept.
You know, rationality is about distinguishing concepts.
No comments:
Post a Comment