 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » Darwinism: A Theory That Belittles Women... |
|
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Frankie Lee... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 1:06 am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum... at (no spam) dcemail.com>
wrote:
[quote]http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/social_weapon/social_weapon...
THE SOCIAL WEAPON: DARWINISM
A THEORY THAT BELITTLES WOMEN
The alleged scientific support that Social Darwinism provided for
racism, fascism and imperialism, as well as communism, is a familiar
subject that has been much written about. But one lesser known fact is
that a great many Darwinists, including Charles Darwin himself, have
believed in the error that women are biologically and mentally
inferior to men. The mental difference that Darwinists claim to exist
between the genders is of such a dimension that some evolutionists
even divided them into different physical species: men being Homo
frontalis and women Homo parietalis.137
Darwin described women as an "inferior" species, according to his own
lights, because his world view was based on natural selection.
According to this unscientific and irrational view, men are
proportionately more fit than women to compete in war, find a mate,
and obtain food and clothing; while women have remained at a distance
from such activities. According to this scientifically baseless
deduction, natural selection exerts a stronger influence on men, so
they achieved a superior position in all spheres, and evolved further
than women. As the following pages will show, Darwin proposed these
illusory deductions not on any scientific findings, but merely on the
basis of evolutionist preconceptions.
Darwin wrote that being married to a woman provided the man with a
"constant companion, a friend in old age, ... an object to be beloved
and played with, better than a dog anyhow." These words neatly
summarizes Darwin's view of women. Below: A picture of Darwin and his
wife
Many researchers have revealed that Darwin's views on natural
selection encouraged sexual discrimination. For instance, professor of
history and philosophy of science Evelleen Richards concluded that
Darwin's views of women's nature fed into his evolutionary theorizing,
"thereby nourishing several generations of [so-called] scientific
sexism."138 The evolutionist scientific writer Elaine Morgan states
that using various branches of science such as biology and ethnology,
Darwin encouraged men to think that women were "manifestly inferior
and irreversibly subordinant."139
As the evolutionist scientist John R. Durant has stated, the two main
consequences of the theory of evolution are racism and sexual
discrimination:
Darwin rested his case upon a judicious blend of zoomorphic and
anthropomorphic arguments. Savages, who were said to possess smaller
brains and more prehensile limbs than the higher races, and whose
lives were said to be dominated more by instinct and less by
reason ... were placed in an intermediate position between nature and
man; and Darwin extended this placement by analogy to include not only
children and congenital idiots but also women, some of whose powers of
intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation were
"characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower
state of civilization."140
The errors made by Darwin that Durant referred to appear in The
Descent of Man:
It is generally admitted that with women the powers of intuition, of
rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strikingly marked
than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic
of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of
civilisation.141
When one considers Darwin's general views about women and marriage,
one can clearly see how he regarded women as second-class citizens.
This unscientific opinion was also reflected in his theory of
evolution. This is how he described why marriage was useful:
… children—constant companion, (friend in old age) who will feel
interested in one, object to be beloved and played with—better than a
dog anyhow—Home, and someone to take care of house—Charms of music and
female chit-chat. These things good for one's health.142
In short, Darwin regarded marriage desirable because "a woman's
friendship is better than a dog's." His statements about marriage made
no reference at all to features such as friendship, affection, love,
devotion, loyalty, closeness, sincerity and trust between two people
who spend their lives together. About marriage, Darwin also had this
to say:
… loss of time—cannot read in the evenings—fatness and idleness—
anxiety and responsibility—less money for books, etc.,—if many
children, forced to gain one's bread ... perhaps my wife won't like
London; then the sentence is banishment and degradation with indolent
idle fool.143
A human being is an entity with a soul breathed into him or her by
God, and who therefore possesses such feelings as love, affection,
compassion and respect.
… And He has placed affection and compassion between you… (Surat ar-
Rum, 21)
These unconscionable statements are perfectly natural, coming as they
do from one who saw no difference between human beings and animals,
and thought that women and children in particular were actually closer
to animals. Someone who regards his wife and children as an inferior
species will of course feel little affection for them, make few
sacrifices on their behalf, and take no interest in them for as long
as it is to his advantage not to do so. In fact, Darwin's statements
show once again that there is no room for human love, closeness and
friendship in Darwinian morality.
Darwin claimed that men were superior to women:
God has created men and women equal. Men and women can each enjoy
great success by acting in the light and the reason imparted in them
by faith.
The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is
shown by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes
up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or
imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists
were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting,
sculpture, music, ... history, science, and philosophy ... the two
lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of
the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his
work on "Hereditary Genius" that if men are capable of a decided pre-
eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in
man must be above that of women.144
Anyone, male or female, who does right actions and is a believer, will
enter the Garden. They will not be wronged by so much as the tiniest
speck. (Surat an-Nisa', 124)
Of course, Darwin had no scientific basis for proposing this, but his
biased and prejudiced claims about women spread rapidly among his
scientific contemporaries.
The materialist Carl Vogt, a professor of natural history at the
University of Geneva, accepted all the conclusions drawn by Darwin,
without subjecting them to any scientific analysis, and claimed that
"the child, the female, and the senile white" all had the intellectual
features and personality of the "grown up Negro."145 Vogt went even
further, proposing that they were actually closer to animals than men.
According to Vogt, a woman was "a stunted man" whose development had
been obstructed because her evolution had come to a premature halt.146
Vogt even concluded that the gap between males and females increases
with civilization's progress and is greatest in the advanced societies
of Europe.147 Darwin was greatly influenced by Vogt's rantings, and
felt honored to count him among his most important supporters.148
Many times in history, there have been mostly successful efforts to
keep women in the background, due to the ignorance and backwardness of
the societies in question. However, this is something that stems
entirely from the influence of the established culture. There is
absolutely no biological retardation, as Darwin and his supporters
maintained, since God has created men and women equal. To claim that
men are superior, and to use this allegation to treat women as second-
class citizens, is a primitive behavior practiced by societies that do
not live by religious moral values. In our day, when equal
opportunities are ensured, there are countless examples of women known
to be just as successful, intelligent and capable as men.
Gender Discrimination Based on Skull Measurements
In order to demonstrate that women were "inferior," some evolutionist
scientists sought to prove that they had smaller brain capacities.
Some resorted to such humiliating and illogical methods as measuring
women's skulls. They imagined that the greater the size of the brain,
the more advanced the level of intelligence (which is now known to be
invalid), compared their skulls, and declared the women to be
inferior. This was actually one of the unscientific methods referred
to in Darwin's book:
As the various mental faculties gradually developed themselves the
brain would almost certainly become larger. ... the large proportion
which the size of man's brain bears to his body, compared to the same
proportion in the gorilla or orang, is closely connected with his
higher mental powers ... that there exists in man some close relation
between the size of the brain and the development of the intellectual
faculties is supported by the comparison of the skulls of savage and
civilised races, of ancient and modern people, and by the analogy of
the whole vertebrate series.149
According to the claim put forward by Darwin, studies on skull
measurements and brain volumes (under the primitive scientific
conditions of his time) would furnish data supporting the theory of
evolution. Yet actually, the scientific results ran totally contrary
to this claim. Different skull measurements or brain volumes provided
no information to support the theory of evolution. Indeed, it is now
conclusively accepted that such measurements do not constitute any
valid comparison.
One scientist who imagined that he could allege that women were
inferior by using craniology (the science ...
read more »
[/quote]
Great article. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James A. Donald... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:06:18 -0700 (PDT), Sound of Trumpet
<soundoftrumpet at (no spam) dcemail.com> wrote:
[quote]http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/social_weapon/social_weapon08.php
THE SOCIAL WEAPON: DARWINISM
A THEORY THAT BELITTLES WOMEN
[/quote]
Nope, a theory that quite accurately makes politically incorrect
predictions about women, which predictions are confirmed by casual
observation, common sense, and careful analysis of statistics.
Women tend to have capabilities optimized for very small group
dynamics, which is to say, maintaining families and raising children,
while men tend to have capabilities optimized for success in a larger
sphere, which is to say, attaining greatness.
And thus, we see more men at the top, and necessarily, more men at the
bottom, because men have more of what it takes for great success, and
less of what it takes for ordinary success. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James A. Donald... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:06:21 -0700 (PDT), tg <tgdenning at (no spam) earthlink.net>
wrote:
[quote]Why don't you tell us which are the most virtuous while you're at it?
[/quote]
Men are more virtuous at qualities that make them valuable in
leadership roles and as employees, as members of large groups, such as
personal honesty. Women are more virtuous at qualities that make them
desirable in small group relationships, such as conscientiousness. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| LGHeath... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrumpet at (no spam) dcemail.com> wrote in message
news:fb320781-67f6-4f19-b039-c19540d0da70 at (no spam) o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/social_weapon/social_weapon08.php
THE SOCIAL WEAPON: DARWINISM
A THEORY THAT BELITTLES WOMEN
The alleged scientific support that Social Darwinism provided for
racism, fascism and imperialism, as well as communism, is a familiar
subject that has been much written about. But one lesser known fact is
that a great many Darwinists, including Charles Darwin himself, have
believed in the error that women are biologically and mentally
inferior to men. The mental difference that Darwinists claim to exist
between the genders is of such a dimension that some evolutionists
even divided them into different physical species: men being Homo
frontalis and women Homo parietalis.137
Darwin described women as an "inferior" species, according to his own
lights, because his world view was based on natural selection.
According to this unscientific and irrational view, men are
proportionately more fit than women to compete in war, find a mate,
and obtain food and clothing; while women have remained at a distance
from such activities. According to this scientifically baseless
deduction, natural selection exerts a stronger influence on men, so
they achieved a superior position in all spheres, and evolved further
than women. As the following pages will show, Darwin proposed these
illusory deductions not on any scientific findings, but merely on the
basis of evolutionist preconceptions.
Darwin wrote that being married to a woman provided the man with a
"constant companion, a friend in old age, ... an object to be beloved
and played with, better than a dog anyhow." These words neatly
summarizes Darwin's view of women. Below: A picture of Darwin and his
wife
Many researchers have revealed that Darwin's views on natural
selection encouraged sexual discrimination. For instance, professor of
history and philosophy of science Evelleen Richards concluded that
Darwin's views of women's nature fed into his evolutionary theorizing,
"thereby nourishing several generations of [so-called] scientific
sexism."138 The evolutionist scientific writer Elaine Morgan states
that using various branches of science such as biology and ethnology,
Darwin encouraged men to think that women were "manifestly inferior
and irreversibly subordinant."139
As the evolutionist scientist John R. Durant has stated, the two main
consequences of the theory of evolution are racism and sexual
discrimination:
Darwin rested his case upon a judicious blend of zoomorphic and
anthropomorphic arguments. Savages, who were said to possess smaller
brains and more prehensile limbs than the higher races, and whose
lives were said to be dominated more by instinct and less by
reason ... were placed in an intermediate position between nature and
man; and Darwin extended this placement by analogy to include not only
children and congenital idiots but also women, some of whose powers of
intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation were
"characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower
state of civilization."140
The errors made by Darwin that Durant referred to appear in The
Descent of Man:
It is generally admitted that with women the powers of intuition, of
rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strikingly marked
than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic
of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of
civilisation.141
When one considers Darwin's general views about women and marriage,
one can clearly see how he regarded women as second-class citizens.
This unscientific opinion was also reflected in his theory of
evolution. This is how he described why marriage was useful:
… children—constant companion, (friend in old age) who will feel
interested in one, object to be beloved and played with—better than a
dog anyhow—Home, and someone to take care of house—Charms of music and
female chit-chat. These things good for one's health.142
In short, Darwin regarded marriage desirable because "a woman's
friendship is better than a dog's." His statements about marriage made
no reference at all to features such as friendship, affection, love,
devotion, loyalty, closeness, sincerity and trust between two people
who spend their lives together. About marriage, Darwin also had this
to say:
… loss of time—cannot read in the evenings—fatness and idleness—
anxiety and responsibility—less money for books, etc.,—if many
children, forced to gain one's bread ... perhaps my wife won't like
London; then the sentence is banishment and degradation with indolent
idle fool.143
A human being is an entity with a soul breathed into him or her by
God, and who therefore possesses such feelings as love, affection,
compassion and respect.
… And He has placed affection and compassion between you… (Surat ar-
Rum, 21)
These unconscionable statements are perfectly natural, coming as they
do from one who saw no difference between human beings and animals,
and thought that women and children in particular were actually closer
to animals. Someone who regards his wife and children as an inferior
species will of course feel little affection for them, make few
sacrifices on their behalf, and take no interest in them for as long
as it is to his advantage not to do so. In fact, Darwin's statements
show once again that there is no room for human love, closeness and
friendship in Darwinian morality.
Darwin claimed that men were superior to women:
God has created men and women equal. Men and women can each enjoy
great success by acting in the light and the reason imparted in them
by faith.
The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is
shown by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes
up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or
imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists
were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting,
sculpture, music, ... history, science, and philosophy ... the two
lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of
the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his
work on "Hereditary Genius" that if men are capable of a decided pre-
eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in
man must be above that of women.144
Anyone, male or female, who does right actions and is a believer, will
enter the Garden. They will not be wronged by so much as the tiniest
speck. (Surat an-Nisa', 124)
Of course, Darwin had no scientific basis for proposing this, but his
biased and prejudiced claims about women spread rapidly among his
scientific contemporaries.
The materialist Carl Vogt, a professor of natural history at the
University of Geneva, accepted all the conclusions drawn by Darwin,
without subjecting them to any scientific analysis, and claimed that
"the child, the female, and the senile white" all had the intellectual
features and personality of the "grown up Negro."145 Vogt went even
further, proposing that they were actually closer to animals than men.
According to Vogt, a woman was "a stunted man" whose development had
been obstructed because her evolution had come to a premature halt.146
Vogt even concluded that the gap between males and females increases
with civilization's progress and is greatest in the advanced societies
of Europe.147 Darwin was greatly influenced by Vogt's rantings, and
felt honored to count him among his most important supporters.148
Many times in history, there have been mostly successful efforts to
keep women in the background, due to the ignorance and backwardness of
the societies in question. However, this is something that stems
entirely from the influence of the established culture. There is
absolutely no biological retardation, as Darwin and his supporters
maintained, since God has created men and women equal. To claim that
men are superior, and to use this allegation to treat women as second-
class citizens, is a primitive behavior practiced by societies that do
not live by religious moral values. In our day, when equal
opportunities are ensured, there are countless examples of women known
to be just as successful, intelligent and capable as men.
Gender Discrimination Based on Skull Measurements
In order to demonstrate that women were "inferior," some evolutionist
scientists sought to prove that they had smaller brain capacities.
Some resorted to such humiliating and illogical methods as measuring
women's skulls. They imagined that the greater the size of the brain,
the more advanced the level of intelligence (which is now known to be
invalid), compared their skulls, and declared the women to be
inferior. This was actually one of the unscientific methods referred
to in Darwin's book:
As the various mental faculties gradually developed themselves the
brain would almost certainly become larger. ... the large proportion
which the size of man's brain bears to his body, compared to the same
proportion in the gorilla or orang, is closely connected with his
higher mental powers ... that there exists in man some close relation
between the size of the brain and the development of the intellectual
faculties is supported by the comparison of the skulls of savage and
civilised races, of ancient and modern people, and by the analogy of
the whole vertebrate series.149
According to the claim put forward by Darwin, studies on skull
measurements and brain volumes (under the primitive scientific
conditions of his time) would furnish data supporting the theory of
evolution. Yet actually, the scientific results ran totally contrary
to this claim. Different skull measurements or brain volumes provided
no information to support the theory of evolution. Indeed, it is now
conclusively accepted that such measurements do not constitute any
valid comparison.
One scientist who imagined that he could allege that women were
inferior by using craniology (the science of skull measurement) was
Paul Broca. Regarded as one of the founders of physical anthropology,
he was one of those who employed and supported such primitive methods
as measuring the skulls of human groups and attaching values to them.
150 In the light of these supposedly scientific measurements, Broca
went on to display the following distorted logic:
In general, the brain is larger in mature adults than in the elderly,
in men than in women, in eminent men than in men of mediocre talent,
in superior races than in inferior races ... Other things equal, there
is a remarkable relationship between the development of intelligence
and the volume of the brain.151
Broca was particularly interested in the skull differences between men
and women. In a prejudiced manner, he analyzed the skull measurements
he collected and came up with the assumption that women were
intellectually inferior.152 Broca also claimed that the difference in
brain size between men and women was increasing. Yet he had not the
slightest evidence to confirm or support that claim, and in order to
support it, he resorted to an equally unscientific assumption: that
the increasing difference was "a result of differing evolutionary
pressures upon dominant men and passive women."153
Today, even evolutionists admit that Broca's conclusions have no
scientific value. Gould offers the following comment:
Germans using compasses and ruler for skull measurements to determine
who was, and was not, Aryan.
… they [Broca's facts] were gathered selectively and then manipulated
unconsciously in the service of prior conclusions.154
To put it another way, Broca had "unconsciously" interpreted the data
he obtained in a preconceived way, in light of the deceptive theory of
evolution.
Another evolutionist who used skull measurements and regarded women as
inferior was Gustave Le Bon, one of the founders of social psychology.
Le Bon said:
In the most intelligent races ... are a large number of women whose
brains are closer in size to those of gorillas than to the most
developed male brains. This inferiority is so obvious that no one can
contest it for a moment; only its degree is worth discussion. ...
Women ... represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and ...
are closer to children and savages than to an adult, civilized man.
They excel in fickleness, inconsistency, absence of thought and logic,
and incapacity to reason. Without a doubt there exist some
distinguished women ... but they are as exceptional as the birth of
any monstrosity, as, for example, of a gorilla with two heads;
consequently, we may neglect them entirely.155
As with so many other claims, Darwinists were totally mistaken in
these regarding women. Contrary to what evolutionists imagine, women's
tender, compassionate and considerate way of thinking does not mean
they are backward, but actually shows them to be superior. Programmed
to regard human beings as a species of animal, evolutionists may
regard such features as evidence of backwardness, but such attributes
are most important to increase the quality of human life. Human
characteristics, whose existence evolutionists never wish to admit,
permit advances and progress in a great many spheres, including art,
literature and technology.
Science Again Refutes Darwinism
Measuring people's skulls and classifying them according to race and
gender has been totally invalidated by science, since skull and brain
size have nothing to do with intelligence or mental capacity.
In nature, in fact, there is clearly no direct relationship between
brain size and intelligence. For example, elephants and whales have
much larger brains than humans. In addition, the cranial capacity of
present-day human beings ranges from about 700 cc to 2,200 cc.156 Yet
these differences do not establish different levels of intelligence
among people.
Apart from skull measurements, genetic science has also revealed that
Darwin's claims about the differences between men and women are
incorrect. According to the laws of inheritance, a man passes on his
genes to both his male and female offspring. If the man possesses
biologically "superior" characteristics, as Darwin maintained, then
his daughter will possess those same superior features. But Darwin and
his contemporaries knew so little about genetics that Darwin was even
able to suggest that "the characteristics of a species acquired by
sexual selection are usually confined to one sex."157 Darwin also made
ignorant suggestions to the effect that such superior qualities as
genius, the higher powers of imagination and reason are "transmitted
more fully to the male than the female offspring."158
Darwin's theses were based not on science, but on the culture and
primitive scientific understanding of the Victorian age.
According to Qur'anic Morality, Men and Women are Equal, and
Superiority is Defined by Heedfulness
.... I will not let the deeds of any doer among you go to waste, male
or female... (Surah Al 'Imran, 195)
In terms of Qur'anic moral values, there is no difference between men
and women. God has imposed equal responsibilities on both, and holds
both responsible for the same matters. Whether one is a male or female
does not make a person superior in the sight of God, but fear and deep
love of and devotion to Him, and proper moral values do. In one of His
verses, our Lord reveals that regardless of gender, those who exhibit
the best behavior will receive the best reward for their moral values:
Anyone, male or female, who does right actions and is a believer,
will enter the Garden. They will not be wronged by so much as the
tiniest speck. (Surat an-Nisa', 124)
But as for those who believe and do right actions, We will not let the
wage of good-doers go to waste. (Surat al-Kahf, 30)
God has also set out the attributes that any believer needs to
possess:
The men and women of the believers are friends of one another.
They command what is right and forbid what is wrong, and perform
prayer and give the alms, and obey God and His messenger. They are the
people on whom God will have mercy. God is Almighty, All-Wise. (Surat
at-Tawba, 71)
As revealed by God in the verse, every human being has the same
responsibilities. Those men and women who fulfill them, who turn
solely to God and have faith, have been imparted these glad tidings:
Their Lord responds to them "I will not let the deeds of any doer
among you go to waste, male or female..." (Surah Al 'Imran, 195)
The mental characteristics that Darwinists use as criteria are
abilities given by God, irrespective of gender. In one verse, God
reveals: "You who believe! If you fear [and respect] God, He will give
you discrimination..." (Surat al-Anfal, 29) As this verse reveals,
judgment—and thus, intellect—develops not according to gender, but
according to fear of God.
Everyone, male or female, who acts with the reason given by God, may
achieve success in many areas and acquire superior characteristics. A
true believer, however, most seeks to earn God's mercy, compassion and
Paradise.
137. Jerry Bergman, "The History of Evolution's Teaching of Women's
Inferiority;" http://www.rae.org/women.html
In this article, Bergman— who has published more than 400 articles in
numerous scientific journals and newspapers and known for his works
criticizing Darwinism—examined Darwin's and his contemporary
evolutionists' view toward women and compiled some of their statements
despising them. By doing so, he exposed, with quite striking evidence,
an unknown aspect of Darwin and Darwinism.
138. Evelleen Richards, "Will the Real Charles Darwin Please Stand
Up?" New Scientist, (Dec. 22/29 1983): p. 887
139. EIaine Morgan, The Descent of Woman, New York: Stein and Day,
1972, p. 1
140. John R. Durant, "The Ascent of Nature in Darwin's Descent of Man"
in The Darwinian Heritage, Ed. by David Kohn, Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1985, p. 295.
141. Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, New
York: D. Appleton and Company, 1871 (1896 ed.), p. 326.
142. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882,
New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1958, pp. 232-233.
143. Ibid.
144. Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, p.
564.
145. Carl Vogt, Lectures on Man: His Place in Creation, and the
History of Earth, edited by James Hunt, London: Paternoster Row,
Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1864, xv, p. 192.
146. Stephanie A. Shields, "Functionalism, Darwinism, and the
Psychology of Women: A Study in Social Myth," American Psychologist,
no. 1 (1975): p. 749.
147. Evelleen Richards, "Darwin and the Descent of Women," in David
Oldroyd and Ian Langham (Eds.), The Wider Domain of Evolutionary
Thought (Holland: D. Reidel, 1983), p. 75.
148. Ibid., pp. 74, 49.
149. Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, p.
54.
150. Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, p. 83.
151. Ibid., pp. 83, 188.
152. Ibid., p. 104.
153. Ibid.
154. Ibid., p. 85.
155. Ibid., pp. 104-105.
156. Wayne Jackson, More Skull-Duggery, October 7, 2002,
http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/skullDuggery.htm
157. John Hurrell Crook, "Sexual Selection, Dimorphism, and Social
Organization in the Primates," in Campbell (Ed.), Sexual Selection and
the Descent of Man 1871-1971 Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1972.
158. Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, p.
565.
Now all of this forgoing mass of clips and quotes, invalidates Darwin's
Origin of Species and evolution, how, pray tell? Oh,why yes, I do believe
someone has previously pointed out your most well worn and often used tool,
is the ad hominem.
Later Larry |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Free Lunch... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:47:53 -0700 (PDT), Frankie Lee
<leeahkwee at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
[quote]On Nov 1, 1:06 am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum... at (no spam) dcemail.com
wrote:
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/social_weapon/social_weapon...
THE SOCIAL WEAPON: DARWINISM
A THEORY THAT BELITTLES WOMEN
[/quote]
[lies deleted]
[quote]
Great article.
[/quote]
Morally reprehensible liars who hide behind their religion tend to agree
with each other when they tell lies that make them feel good about their
false doctrines. You are still evidence that your religion is false. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Olrik... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:03 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Budikka666... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Fact: there is nothing genderist in the Theory of Evolution. All the
theory is, is a description of how the *fact* of evolution works.
Fact: The Bible is one of the most misogynistic books ever printed.
End of story.
Fact: Sound of Trumpet once again proves to be a vacuous, cowardly,
hypocritical, LYING piece of trash. Nithing new here.
End of story. Case closed.
Budikka |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| thomas p.... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Terry Cross wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 10:07 am, Free Lunch <lu... at (no spam) nofreelunch.us> wrote:
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:06:18 -0700 (PDT), Sound of Trumpet
soundoftrum... at (no spam) dcemail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/social_weapon/social_weapon...
THE SOCIAL WEAPON: DARWINISM
A THEORY THAT BELITTLES WOMEN
[nonsense deleted]
Darwin wrote that being married to a woman provided the man with a
"constant companion, a friend in old age, ... an object to be beloved
and played with, better than a dog anyhow." These words neatly
summarizes Darwin's view of women. Below: A picture of Darwin and his
wife
And I see you have addressed that with your sharpest logical tool --
ad hominem.
TCross
[/quote]
Confusing the theory of evolution with the personal views of Darwin
(accurate or not) concerning women is not very logical or honest. How
exactly does his theory justify the personal views that have been claimed? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| thomas p.... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
James A. Donald wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:06:18 -0700 (PDT), Sound of Trumpet
soundoftrumpet at (no spam) dcemail.com> wrote:
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/social_weapon/social_weapon08.php
THE SOCIAL WEAPON: DARWINISM
A THEORY THAT BELITTLES WOMEN
Nope, a theory that quite accurately makes politically incorrect
predictions about women, which predictions are confirmed by casual
observation, common sense, and careful analysis of statistics.
[/quote]
Nope, the theory supports no such predictions.
snip |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Terry Cross... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 3:44 am, Budikka666 <budik... at (no spam) netscape.net> wrote:
[quote]Fact: there is nothing genderist in the Theory of Evolution. All the
theory is, is a description of how the *fact* of evolution works.
Fact: The Bible is one of the most misogynistic books ever printed.
[/quote]
Fact. Moses (or his inventors) hated women and feared sex. He/they
was/were obsessed.
[quote]End of story.
[/quote]
Unfortunately that is not the "end of story." It continues in Israel
today, where women cannot initiate divorce regardless of the grounds.
Israel is highly "genderist."
TCross |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Terry Cross... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 12:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 2:12 pm, Tim Miller <replytonewsgr... at (no spam) invalid.invalid>
wrote:
[quote]Terry Cross wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:44 am, Budikka666 <budik... at (no spam) netscape.net> wrote:
Fact: there is nothing genderist in the Theory of Evolution. All the
theory is, is a description of how the *fact* of evolution works.
Fact: The Bible is one of the most misogynistic books ever printed.
Fact. Moses (or his inventors) hated women and feared sex. He/they
was/were obsessed.
So, xtians hate women?
[/quote]
Followers of Moses hate women. Luckily, the Jews tempered most of the
worst Mosaic doctrines in their own teachings, and Mohammad tempered
the Law for the Arabs. But Jewish Orthodoxy would like to reestablish
the Temple, in which case Jewish women must apologize to God for each
menstrual period and every child born.
Christianity becomes offense to civilization when it turns against the
teachings of Jesus and back toward Judaism, teaching that Israel is
"the promised land," that the Jews are "the chosen people," and
defining righteousness by the Law of Moses. Then the world goes nuts
with wars and cruelty, pretty much as you see today.
TCross |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Terry Cross... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 4:11 pm, Tim Miller <replytonewsgr... at (no spam) invalid.invalid>
wrote:
[quote]Terry Cross wrote:
On Nov 1, 2:12 pm, Tim Miller <replytonewsgr... at (no spam) invalid.invalid
wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:44 am, Budikka666 <budik... at (no spam) netscape.net> wrote:
Fact: there is nothing genderist in the Theory of Evolution. All the
theory is, is a description of how the *fact* of evolution works.
Fact: The Bible is one of the most misogynistic books ever printed.
Fact. Moses (or his inventors) hated women and feared sex. He/they
was/were obsessed.
So, xtians hate women?
Followers of Moses hate women.
So, you xtians hate women? Is THAT what you're saying?
[/quote]
You really seem to have trouble with simple communications.
Some Christians follow Jesus, some follow Moses. No one could follow
both without extraordinary intellectual gymnastics.
Jews follow Moses tempered by the Talmud rabbis. Muslims follow Moses
tempered by Mohammad. True followers of Jesus do not follow Moses.
TCross |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Terry Cross... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 4:33 pm, Free Lunch <lu... at (no spam) nofreelunch.us> wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:28:36 -0800 (PST), Terry Cross
tcros... at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
On Nov 1, 4:11 pm, Tim Miller <replytonewsgr... at (no spam) invalid.invalid
wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Nov 1, 2:12 pm, Tim Miller <replytonewsgr... at (no spam) invalid.invalid
wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:44 am, Budikka666 <budik... at (no spam) netscape.net> wrote:
Fact: there is nothing genderist in the Theory of Evolution. All the
theory is, is a description of how the *fact* of evolution works.
Fact: The Bible is one of the most misogynistic books ever printed.
Fact. Moses (or his inventors) hated women and feared sex. He/they
was/were obsessed.
So, xtians hate women?
Followers of Moses hate women.
So, you xtians hate women? Is THAT what you're saying?
You really seem to have trouble with simple communications.
Some Christians follow Jesus, some follow Moses. No one could follow
both without extraordinary intellectual gymnastics.
What is the name of the Christian denomination that follows Moses?
[/quote]
None follow Moses completely. But the commandment, "Thou shalt not
suffer a witch to live," is Mosaic Law, not Jesus. Stoning the
Adulteress as shown in Zorba the Greek is a Mosaic Law that Jesus
repudiated.
As Baptists and other Protestant denominations swing toward Mosaic Law
(for example, all those who support the US war on Muslim people), they
lose sight of the teachings of Jesus.
The lines are not easy to draw because the process of admixture
between the two religions was underway with the influence of Paul
Tarsus, who was a Pharisee. Paul, like Moses, preached death to
unbelievers (in some writings).
TCross |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James A. Donald... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 03:44:32 -0800 (PST), Budikka666
<budikka1 at (no spam) netscape.net> wrote:
[quote]Fact: there is nothing genderist in the Theory of Evolution.
[/quote]
Evolution predicts that differing roles in reproduction will result in
a wide range of physical and mental differences, which differences are
pretty much what tradition says they are. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tim Miller... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Terry Cross wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 3:44 am, Budikka666 <budik... at (no spam) netscape.net> wrote:
Fact: there is nothing genderist in the Theory of Evolution. All the
theory is, is a description of how the *fact* of evolution works.
Fact: The Bible is one of the most misogynistic books ever printed.
Fact. Moses (or his inventors) hated women and feared sex. He/they
was/were obsessed.
[/quote]
So, xtians hate women? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:37 pm
|
|