BadEagle.com Header Image

 

Bad Eagle Journal

Darwin, Race, and Politics

by David Yeagley · August 12, 2007 · 45 Comments ·

Most people do not know the purpose behind Charles Darwin’s famous book, The Origin of Species. In fact, they don’t even know the full title of the book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, first published in 1859 (London). In the sociological context of the world in which Darwin lived, it is abundantly clear that that book’s primary purpose was to justify the white European Christian dominance in the world. Never before had any “species” of humanity accomplished so much, so quickly, and so permanently. Darwin’s book is a classic example of the political nature of science, and the perfectly biased purposes that underlie the most highly professed “objectivity.” Science, like the arts, is a dependent enterprise, not for the free market. Sicence depends on grants, on funding, on the outside opinions and predilections of others.


Charles Darwin, 1809-1882

There are many such cases to cite. Remember the political context of the famous “Lucy” discovery? “Lucy” is the small collection of bones found in 1974 by Donald Johanson. It was in Afar, Ethiopia. Lucy was black. Three and a half million years old black. Johanson’s preeminently politically correct book, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (1981) was sensational. It was marketed with scintillating sentiments. Lucy was “the oldest, most complete, best-preserved skeleton of any erect-walking human ancestor ever found.” She was declared “a new species,” and she would require a completely new assessment of the origins of the human race, etc. But, the real message was clear enough: Lucy validated the 1960′s Civil Rights movement of the American Negro. Lucy was just another “beautiful” element designed to make black folks feel better about themselves. Lucy was presumed “black,” because she was found in Ethiopia. She wasn’t at all human, either, but, was presumed an ancestor of all humanity, because she was the oldest. (Oddly, not even Richard Poe, in his inimitable Black Spark White Fire [1997] even so much as mentions Lucy, or Johanson. Poe of course attempts to attribute all things civilized to the Negro race.)


Donald Johanson, with his beloved Negress, “Lucy.”

Darwin (1809-1882) certainly lived at a time when the white race was exceedingly self-conscious of its whiteness. Success terrorized the white race. The coruscate of America had dazzled the Collective Conscious of humanity, and had to be accounted for in a way that exempted the white Christian civilization from both credit and responsibility, from honor and guilt. In a way, Darwin’s Origin of Species declared that the white race was simply the “fittest,” and therefore rose to the top, and “survived” most effectively.

Of course, the economic element was not included in Darwin’s assessments. As Richard Hofstadter later pointed out in Social Darwinism in American Thought (1944), the opposite is actually true. The fittest don’t survive among the human species at all. They only rise to a temporary dominance. (Pat Buchanan’s The Death of the West [2001] tends to support the same idea.) The masses of poor only multiply the more, while the superiors intelligently leave off excessive reproduction to secure the best material advantage for their few offspring. The poor survive and dominate through mass numbers, and the economic burden they inevitably place on the guilt-ridden white European Christian culture.

Be that as it may, the Darwin theory of evolution is so untterly unscientific and disproven at this point it is mentioned only as an example of the bias and prejudice of science as an enterprise.

But then, science lives on. Global warming is probably the most politicized–that is, biased–form of “science” in our modern times. Nothing could be more unscientific in its concept, its historical track record, and in its obvious political influence. It is perhaps pure politics. Extracted from environmental concerns, which are legitimate, global warming is a fantasy employed strictly for political purposes.

Finally, on the matter of “Intellegent Design,” the designated term for people who believe in the Biblical Creator but who are trying to market the belief in less than biased-sounding terms, I would say theirs is a bit redundant. “Design” means intelligence, by definition. There is no “design” without a designer. Nevertheless, creationists, if they indeed believe the account in Genesis, must be willing to believe that it all came about in 144 hours, not eons of time. That’s what the Bible says, and means. And they must believe that the divinely appointed memorial for creation is the sabbath, the seventh day of the week. It isn’t Sunday. This is not an irrelevant concern, at a time when Christians are fighting to protect religious freedom, freedom speech, and freedom from governmental interference. I would think the safest course to pursue is to fight to preserve the truth of the Biblical record–for just what it says, never mind whether one is allowed to teach it in public schools.

The Bible also makes declarations about the origin of race and nationhood. These must be accepted as well as the account of creation. Any other fight for religious freedom will inevitably include the rights of murderous Muslims. In other words, it isn’t religious freedom that’s the prize. It’s truth. Truth is what should be fought for. “Religious freedom” is an abstraction that includes our enemies.

I hope I have made myself clear.

Posted by David Yeagley · August 12, 2007 · 11:16 am CT · ·

Tags: Bad Eagle Journal




Read More Journal Posts »

45 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Ray // Aug 12, 2007 at 5:12 pm   

    “Be that as it may, the Darwin theory of evolution is so utterly unscientific and disproved at this point it is mentioned only as an example of the bias and prejudice of science as an enterprise.”

    Then, pray tell, why can’t you get yourself to relinquish your adoration for the social aspects of Darwinian theory. Time and time again, you do just what the nineteenth century evolutionists did, and classify human cultures and races on a grading scale from “lowest civilized to “highest civilized,” according to Western European/pseudo Christian standards. You fit right in with the racialists/evolutionists of the late-ninteenth/early twentieth century sciences.

    Don’t you find it strange that the most “devout” Christians, while frothing out the mouth concerning biological evolution, gleefuly embrace applying Darwinian theory to human culture and society? Perhaps it’s a case of good old fashioned cognitive dissonance, no?

  • 2 David Yeagley // Aug 12, 2007 at 6:14 pm   

    Good to see you Ray. I was about to write you off line, wondering where you were. (I do get ticked off once in a while, for which I duly apologize–to all.)

    I suppose I am implying a serious indictment here of popular Christianity. (Lots of Catholics do believe in hard core evolution, combining the great ages of evolution with the idea that it just took God a long time to create.)

    “Fittest,” among men, means weapons as well as numbers. Technology. Animals don’t develope this, really. I don’t believe in grand, macro evolution, but only micro. I don’t think there is any major changes of kinds, but only variations within species. (Too many links missing!)

    Are we pressed to say that superiority is a matter of technology? Power has to do with powder? Powder power, there’s a new clip.

    Do you concede any kind of superiority at all? Maybe that’s the real question.

  • 3 Rafael // Aug 12, 2007 at 9:02 pm   

    Superiority? What sort of inferiority complex is tormenting you, Dr. Yeagley? My cat believes she is superior because I feed and shelter her. Could you convince her otherwise? Every individual creature considers its own life superior to every other by necessity.

    By your own dogma, different races are only able to interbreed – by the intelligent design of a “superior” being! We can only avoid it through deliberate ignorance of what a “superior” creator provided for us. You have a dangerously inadequate understanding of science.

    ID could not even present any evidence to hold up in a courtroom, read the transcript! Scientific theories only give way when more effective ones are presented – with evidence. They must demonstrate more effective and efficient methods of investigation resulting in consistently more accurate predictions which can be verified independently.

    Intelligence also requires intent. ID requires you to think disease mechanisms must have been intended to destroy us, by a “superior” intelligence. The only thing that has allowed us to survive is our insatiable curiosity which eschews religious fascism in favor of reason and the rules of logic to discover the truth about the world for ourselves. ID has never proven, nor predicted anything. It only proposes that we abandon the pursuit of scientific knowledge before it can further humiliate religious leaders.

    To discard science simply because it has not yet answered every question in barely a century of research, demonstrates the abysmal ignorance and childish impetuosity of prima donna celebrities incapable of dealing with the inconvenience and complexity in life.

    It is science that showed us we are all made from the stuff of stars. No religion has ever approached a truth as magnificent as that. Science is difficult. Religion is simple.

  • 4 Tom // Aug 12, 2007 at 9:07 pm   

    “…on the matter of “Intellegent(sic) Design,” the designated term for people who believe in the Biblical Creator but who are trying to market the belief in less than biased-sounding terms…”

    This column is another Sunday sermon, an attempt at proselytizing disguised as intellectual discourse. It’s trying to market belief in Christianity in less than biased-sounding terms. However, the brand of Christianity that is being sold is the that of the missionary.

    Darwin’s theories are the antithesis of the Christian teleological argument. Such heresy is rewarded with dismissal by Christians who look to Genesis for their origin. The end result is quite simple, belief in Darwin means disbelief in God-the-Creator and vice-versa.

    However, this blog entry is just a sermon on belief in the Christian faith. The use of a quasi-intellectual discussion of Darwinism is a smoke screen to preach anti-intellectualism and Creationism.

    If this is an Indian blog, then this is a sermon directed toward Indians. And if this is directed toward Indians then we are being told to drop our pagan religions and become Christians. It’s as though we were missionary or boarding school Indians who needed to be “saved”.

    Thanks for thinking of me but I don’t need the American white man’s Christian beliefs system. I’d rather stay Indian.

  • 5 comanchemoon // Aug 12, 2007 at 10:39 pm   

    ME Too Tom! I’d rather stay Indian.

    And being Spiritual is even more simple!

    Simply put, Walk in the way in which God leads you.

    CM

  • 6 David Yeagley // Aug 12, 2007 at 11:02 pm   

    Well, I must have been crystal clear in my remarks. No responses could have been more impertinent. That fact that I feel surprised should tell me how solipsistic I really am, at times, anyway.

    Rafael, I will not grant you the term “science” as a blanket term. Too much of it simply isn’t science. In turn, you should not render “religion” as a catch-all for anything that isn’t “science.”

    Science has no canon, by your own admission of it’s ever changing venues and conclusions. Religion is supposed to have a canon, but many Christians don’t buy that, either. No, this was the farthest thing I’ve ever said from evangelical Christianity. To rebuke the hypocrisy of popular Christianty is not a sermon on the real thing. All I said was that Christians should either believe what Genesis says, or leave it alone. Don’t believe it.

    Tom, I’m not bound by Comanche believes. Originally, there weren’t any. No sun, no mother earth, no “spirituality.” That’s what was fabulous about the original Comanche. So many other things were tried on, just like clothes. Beliefs, ribbons, army attire (as in the Comanche gourd regalia), whatever.

    Religion has nothing to do with being Comanche. Other tribes, yes. But not the old way of the Comanche. That’s what I feel, anyway. A lot of beliefs we have today were rather obviously borrowed from other tribes, as we came in to proximity with them. A person can believe whatever he wants.

    Your Indian religion makes you Indian? That’s kind of a new one, coming from a modernized man, isn’t it? The religion makes the man? The man is the culture? Sounds bloodless to me. Anyone can be Indian. Any race. That’s what the Negroes are telling the Cherokee.

    CM, who is God? Comanche had no god. You’re talking Creator? Something other than the Hebrew Creator? Who? What’s the story?

  • 7 Rafael // Aug 13, 2007 at 12:47 am   

    And neither will I grant you the authority to redefine the common meaning of words for your own rhetorical sophistry, Dr. Yeagley.

    Science does indeed use a canon of specific method, which the proponents of ID have shown they are utterly incapable of employing:
    http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

    Science does not claim knowledge of an ultimate metaphysical truth and has no opinion on the existence, or non-existence of a god, creator, or supernatural forces which cannot be observed or measured. It only shares the best understanding of what truth it discovers with the common people, arrived at by the most informed minds using the most accurate tools.

    There is nothing so ridiculously pompous and solipsistic as claiming possession of an “ultimate truth” that is incapable of change. It has proven very effective in amassing great worldly empires by religious leaders bilking sweet old ladies though.

    Choosing to believe in the literal truth of the bible precludes any benefit whatever in what has been gained since whichever version you choose as inviolable was last edited. Even Jesus understood that the transmission of metaphysical truth was more effective as parable, allegory and metaphor. Perhaps you could learn from him.

  • 8 "Greetings, my son!" // Aug 13, 2007 at 3:01 am   

    Whoa!

    You certainly have me wondering if I need to re-address my knowledge of Darwin’s “evolutionary” hypothesis. I think it fascinating to point out that Darwin tried to say clear of the word “evolution.” The word did not even appear in his book until the fifth edition, ten years after the first.

    In a nut shell, I was always confident that Darwin’s, “The Origin of Species” was attempting to theories that living things were what they were because their forms had undergone long evolutions from simpler ones — Man was included as he made clear in another of his books, “The Desent of Man.”

    From my understanding of Darwin’s thoughts, it must be fully understood that he was extremely impressed by Malthus’ vision of the murderous competition of mankind for food. He took Malthus’ vision and theorized the qualities which made success likely in hostile environments ensured the “natural selection” of those creatures embodying them.

    The term “survival of the fittest” was a terrible, unfair representation of this man’s work.

    Also, no question about it, from that time forward, Darwin’s work, plus biblical criticism and geology made it very difficult for many to accept the Bible as literally true — The “mythology of science” was created, and the advances in material goods and services impressed mankind to the point of creating a new religion.

    Darwin needs to be lionized as well as cursed! And I need to read more on his work, based on your post.

  • 9 "Greetings, my son!" // Aug 13, 2007 at 3:01 am   

    Whoa!

    You certainly have me wondering if I need to re-address my knowledge of Darwin’s “evolutionary” hypothesis. I think it fascinating to point out that Darwin tried to say clear of the word “evolution.” The word did not even appear in his book until the fifth edition, ten years after the first.

    In a nut shell, I was always confident that Darwin’s, “The Origin of Species” was attempting to theories that living things were what they were because their forms had undergone long evolutions from simpler ones — Man was included as he made clear in another of his books, “The Desent of Man.”

    From my understanding of Darwin’s thoughts, it must be fully understood that he was extremely impressed by Malthus’ vision of the murderous competition of mankind for food. He took Malthus’ vision and theorized the qualities which made success likely in hostile environments ensured the “natural selection” of those creatures embodying them.

    The term “survival of the fittest” was a terrible, unfair representation of this man’s work.

    Also, no question about it, from that time forward, Darwin’s work, plus biblical criticism and geology made it very difficult for many to accept the Bible as literally true — The “mythology of science” was created, and the advances in material goods and services impressed mankind to the point of creating a new religion.

    Darwin needs to be lionized as well as cursed! And I need to read more on his work, based on your post.

  • 10 Kidist // Aug 13, 2007 at 8:43 am   

    There are many such cases to cite. Remember the political context of the famous “Lucy” discovery? “Lucy” is the small collection of bones found in 1974 by Donald Johanson. It was in Afar, Ethiopia. Lucy was black. Three and a half million years old black. Johanson’s preeminently politically correct book, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (1981) was sensational. It was marketed with scintillating sentiments. Lucy was “the oldest, most complete, best-preserved skeleton of any erect-walking human ancestor ever found.” She was declared “a new species,” and she would require a completely new assessment of the origins of the human race, etc. But, the real message was clear enough: Lucy validated the 1960′s Civil Rights movement of the American Negro. Lucy was just another “beautiful” element designed to make black folks feel better about themselves. Lucy was presumed “black,” because she was found in Ethiopia. She wasn’t at all human, either, but, was presumed an ancestor of all humanity, because she was the oldest. (Oddly, not even Richard Poe, in his inimitable Black Spark White Fire [1997] even so much as mentions Lucy, or Johanson. Poe of course attempts to attribute all things civilized to the Negro race.)

    This is a very interesting article on many levels. Please bear with me.

    I suspect a lot of it is written tongue-in-cheek, although the message is quite serious.

    Lucy was black.

    Lucy is essentially pre-human, and her “race” is not clear.

    It was in Afar, Ethiopia. Lucy was black.

    The Afar people are hardly “Negro”:

    Afar girl

    Afar Girl 2

    Lucy was presumed “black,” because she was found in Ethiopia.

    Ethiopians, at least of the highland, northern groups, are hardly “Negro.”

    Lucy was just another “beautiful” element designed to make black folks feel better about themselves.

    So, in the 1+1=5 version of the Negro reality, this is another.

    But, the serious issues is thus:

    Black Americans usurp the history of Ethiopia, and her religion, Kings, people etc… to try to prove themselves that they are beautiful.

    That’s OK by me, after all. But then, they change it, falsify it, and rewrite it to suit their needs. What they do has nothing to do with Ethiopia. Black Americans didn’t participate one inch in the history of Ethiopia. It is all an ego trip that bears nothing with reality.

    I see this happen all the time: Cleopatra is Black. Look at the Black King out there in Ethiopia. Let’s take over the religion and give it our Rasta Voodoo Twist. Oh (and this comes from the infamous Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem) — taking the name, but unable to acknowledge the culture or history.

    So, yes, Blacks (Jamaican, American) are always usurping. And this happens to whites too. I wouldn’t mind it, if they would only be honest and reverent about it.

  • 11 David Yeagley // Aug 13, 2007 at 9:17 am   

    Here is an extract from Darwini’s autobiographical work, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin

    Interesting. “The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.”

    Sounds like “evolution” takes faith, too. After all, none of us were there to witness the beginning. And it is the nature of a created being that he cannot witness his own creation. We’re forever dependent on the word of others for our own identity!

  • 12 David Yeagley // Aug 13, 2007 at 9:43 am   

    Kidist, I’m been fishing comments out of the junk pile again! Mine including. I can only hope people will have patience with this MoveableType control settings.

    What an fabulous commentary you make! It should be on the front page of the NYTimes! It is so, so true.

    However, I don’t feel obligated to think that Lucy was black. There is no real proof of that. There is no proof of macro-evolution, either. Lucy was some kind of primate, apparently. But, then, are gorillas to be considered Negro also, from the same ancestor? Now, who would not be offended at that thought? But that is exactly what this so-called “science” suggests. Common ancestry.

    All humans came from Lucy, and all apes came from the same kind of strain of bipod hominids. This is all rather foolish imagination, some vicarious identification with animals. It think it is some kind of escape-ism, a hiding of conscience, a fleeing from self-consciousness. All very Freudian, actually. Evolution thought is a manifestation of Freudian psychological theory, really. It is giant Oedipal Complex, in “scientific” action before our eyes!

    But, I’m no scientist. I’m a mythicist! I see things in allegory, symbol, archetype, myth, intuition. My intuition doesn’t lead me to the apes, however.

  • 13 Rafael // Aug 13, 2007 at 1:38 pm   

    “But, I’m no scientist. I’m a mythicist! I see things in allegory, symbol, archetype, myth, intuition. My intuition doesn’t lead me to the apes, however.
    ” proclaims Dr. Yeagley. — Aye, there’s the rub!

    What unmitigated hubris to presume that YOUR intuition is “superior” to the proven conclusions of the most qualified minds using factual evidence.

    Lucy lived before racial differentiation emerged in the species. Can you still admit to accepting even micro-evolution now? It is the content of your very own mitochondrial DNA, living inside you right now, that binds you to a common ancestral “negress,” as you would put it. However distasteful that may be to your intuition, it is irrefutable. It is based on proven principles of medical microbiology, not fossil records.

    Perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us by explaining the “superior intelligence” of placing hind legs in whales and finger bones in dolphins. Darwin was hardly the flawless patriarch writing in stone that creationists require. The basic principles he proposed have merely been repeatedly confirmed by branches of science which did not even exist in his day.

    Isaac Newton devoted far more time and effort pursuing alchemy than mathematics and physics. Should we demonize him as well? When irregularities were found in the orbits of the outer planets, it did not “prove” that the biblical geocentric universe was superior. Those who refuse to accept that the bible is full of factual errors are simply incapable of rational thought.

    Evolution is merely the mechanism which best describes the evidence. Creationists have failed to propose any mechanism other than magic and are perpetrating mass child abuse in our education system.

  • 14 Tom // Aug 13, 2007 at 3:02 pm   

    You wrote: “Religion has nothing to do with being Comanche. Other tribes, yes. But not the old way of the Comanche. That’s what I feel, anyway.”

    I thought I’d check the veracity of your statement by using the search engine method of truth verification you described in your August 10, 2007 posting (“Over a million entries on “Canadian+Mohawk” on Yahoo.”). Sorry, but I used Google:

    “Godless + comanches” returned 899 web pages

    I wasn’t sure if this proved or disproved anything so I tried:

    “Canadian + comanches” which returned 1,450,000 hits.

    Then, just for fun I tried:

    “Conservative + christian + white + mexican + christian + comanche + oklahoma city” and I got 18,100 pages! But guess who’s name appeared in the top three spots?

    So if I added “gay”… :)

  • 15 David Yeagley // Aug 13, 2007 at 3:42 pm   

    Tom, it is my contention that what made the Comanche absolutely unique was the absense of organized thought or religion, or any abstraction that was outside the most pragmatic, most practical use in daily living. When we first were noticed by others, anyway, we apparently had no visible religion or politics among us. If we did live in the southern Rockies for untold amount of time, when we came out, we were stripped of all superfluity. This was man, naked, in the world. A tabula rasa. A reversion, a recovery of pure human experience and nature. No frills, only thrills.

    Now, can I suggest some other “search” words? I don’t think you’re going to find anything under Comanche religion.

    Our secrets are implied in our language. I’m learning more about this. It tends to confirm my intuitions in this matter…

  • 16 David Yeagley // Aug 13, 2007 at 3:49 pm   

    Raph, very little in “science” is irrefutable. Honest scientists always confess that their work is theory.

    There are basically two kinds of science:
    1) temporal
    2) laboratory

    1) That which involved historical reconstruction, that which involves imaginary recreation of events, through analogy and projection. The past cannot be replayed, ever. This would be cosmology, astronomy, paleontology, anthropology, geology, etc.

    2) that which can be tested by experiment. Chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc.

    True, scientists try to combine the laws of No.2 and apply them to No.1, but, this is still theory. You certainly can’t assume all laws proven today were operative from all time before. Evolution itself shows that. There have been no observable changes of life forms (kinds) since humanity has consciously observed anything at all. There have been but variations within species. This is all that has been observed.

    The rest is pure fantasy. Or, are you somehow able to witness the eons passed in some trance?

  • 17 Tom // Aug 13, 2007 at 6:51 pm   

    You wrote: “…(I)t is my contention that what made the Comanche absolutely unique was the absense(sic) of organized thought or religion, or any abstraction that was outside the most pragmatic, most practical use in daily living.”

    …and this is based on…

    “When we first were noticed by others, anyway, we apparently had no visible religion or politics among us.”

    There’ s a story from the Pima. One day the white man rode up to an Indian and said, “Hi, what do you people call yourselves?” The puzzled Indian, who had no idea what they were saying, said, “Pimache?”, which translates as “I don’t know.” From that day, the white man called these Indians the Pima.

    Relying on anecdotal observations from people who can’t communicate with people they observe equals little to nothing.

    “If we did live in the southern Rockies for untold amount of time, when we came out, we were stripped of all superfluity. This was man, naked, in the world. A tabula rasa. A reversion, a recovery of pure human experience and nature. No frills, only thrills.”

    Ah, it’s just so Shangri-la, romantic and Adam and Eve-like! And this is based on…

    “Our secrets are implied in our language. I’m learning more about this. It tends to confirm my intuitions in this matter…”

    Fluent in Comanche are we? That’s great!

    But if not, well, that’s “the absense(sic) of organized thought.” But I guess that would make you a traditionalist, as well.

  • 18 Rafael // Aug 13, 2007 at 9:19 pm   

    My apologies, Dr. Yeagley, for assuming you were a serious, sincere person. Your abominable understanding of even the basics of science is really unforgivable for someone of your alleged education. What possible background or experience to you claim in any science, with ” “, or without ” “?

    The fatal flaw in relying solely on earthbound imagination and intuition to evaluate the nature of the universe, is that it is wholly incapable of grasping the enormity of scale in time and distance we have measured. Nothing in our worldly experience compares with it. It can only deceive us. For creationists, that would qualify it as a tool of the devil, wouldn’t it?

    There is a fundamental, qualitative difference in the definition of the specific term “scientific theory,” used in the formal practice of the profession, and the common misuse of the word “theory,” in popular culture to impart the illusion of substance to what is otherwise nothing more than fantastical, unsubstantiated conjecture. Hypothesis is a more appropriate term, since it only based on a rudimentary observation and has yet to be tested and confirmed by consistent results.
    Blurring the two only serves to poison the public debate.

    There is indeed a time machine, Dr. Yeagley. Every time you look up at the sky, you are seeing the past. The fundamental laws of physics still apply in the most remote recesses of space and time, so far detected. Physical materials do indeed contain footprints that betray where and when they have been and we can indeed measure it as remote witnesses. It does not require your personal comprehension or consent for carbon atoms to divulge their dating secrets.

    You neglected the most important kind of science — applied science. Principles confirmed by repeated results in the laboratory are repeatedly thrown against the real world under all possible conditions and still keep on ticking. It is true that any scientific principle may be refuted, but only through a more rigorous application of science.

    Of course, I could be mistaken. I suppose anything is possible. There is always String Theory and the popular misconceptions about multiple, alternate universes and dimensions existing simultaneously. Perhaps you are in your own personal “superior” Twilight Zone. You should sharpen you powers of observation. The next time you are out and about, you might just stumble onto the Teddy Bear picnic. What color is the sky where you are?

  • 19 David Yeagley // Aug 13, 2007 at 10:59 pm   

    Very little subtance in your remarks, Raf. Very little. I’m still looking for something. Blank refutations are not sufficient. They impress ignorant people, so, maybe you should go on some lower level discussion board. In fact, go to a real science board. Then you’ll see where you really stand. You play word games. I think you appear dishonest, and fake about it. This is the result of unsubstantiated refutations. All bravura.

    I gave very specific philosophical challenges, to which you responded with ablsolutely nothing. Did you not comprehend what I said?

    You cannot replay the past. You’re understanding (and everyone else’s) of the past is based on analogy and projection. You cannot demonstrate one second of the past in the laboratory.

    If you cannot understand this, it is useless to try and reason with you. You are sophomoric about science. Certainly not an open minded scientists. (Is there really any other kind–worthy of the name?)

  • 20 Phi // Aug 13, 2007 at 11:26 pm   

    “You are sophomoric ”

    Why don’t you all cut crap and Just say what you mean?

  • 21 "Greetings, my son!" // Aug 14, 2007 at 12:26 am   

    That’s my theory and I’m sticking with it.

    Yeah that’s the ticket. Well, at least until another theory comes along that disproves the theory I now fancy.

    My theory is that one of the many reasons for the theory pointing to Africa as the nascence of mankind; is simply based on the fact that old monkey bones are easier to find on the plains of sparsely populated Africa.

    Try finding potential missing links in downtown Rome where God probably felt most comfortable to create man. Or, perhaps try finding human-monkey-ape-bones in Peking, or rainforests.

    Maybe some of the commenters on this board are related to Lucy, but my spectacular Italian self was created in God’s image. And whether he created me by setting “natural selection in motion,” or yanking a rib out of Adam — there is not a scintilla of Dark Continent-monkeyshines in me…nary a drop!

  • 22 "Greetings, my son!" // Aug 14, 2007 at 12:26 am   

    That’s my theory and I’m sticking with it.

    Yeah that’s the ticket. Well, at least until another theory comes along that disproves the theory I now fancy.

    My theory is that one of the many reasons for the theory pointing to Africa as the nascence of mankind; is simply based on the fact that old monkey bones are easier to find on the plains of sparsely populated Africa.

    Try finding potential missing links in downtown Rome where God probably felt most comfortable to create man. Or, perhaps try finding human-monkey-ape-bones in Peking, or rainforests.

    Maybe some of the commenters on this board are related to Lucy, but my spectacular Italian self was created in God’s image. And whether he created me by setting “natural selection in motion,” or yanking a rib out of Adam — there is not a scintilla of Dark Continent-monkeyshines in me…nary a drop!

  • 23 Rafael // Aug 14, 2007 at 12:38 am   

    All you offer is your personal fantasy and illusions. How do you expect to find agreement on that?
    If the past cannot be recreated in its entirety, then any other means of accessing it are meaningless? How ignorant is that?

    You have thrown down the gauntlet for christians: either accept Genesis completely, or not at all. You are either with us, or against us. Gee, where have I heard one that before? Do you suppose there might have been a good reason for abandoning the doctrine of Papal infallibility?

    It amuses me that you can’t see that you have so much in common with the radical Islamists produced by the madrassas. Blind faith, taught through fear of eternal damnation for challenging the the veracity of proclamations which cannot be verified until after death.

    Will you admit that anything of substance has been gained since the rules of logic were first set down by Aristotle over 2300 years ago, and can you admit that the bible contains many factual errors? If it does, then isn’t it likely there may be more that have not yet been discovered? If it does not, then there is really no point in inviting questions, is there? Isn’t that actually the ultimate dilemma you are trying to resolve?

    Wasn’t it the Arabs who preserved much of the knowledge of antiquity from fires of christian righteousness, and eventually became the seeds for the Enlightenment? They made the mistake of choosing religion over reason as a model for society. Change is still possible, just like it was for the christians, and it will be just as ugly a process.

    As far as your feigned concern over religious freedom goes, we are the ones burdened with the responsibility to set the example for Islam, as it enters the same fires of reformation Christianity did over 500 years ago. Our fatal mistake was to presume that there was a military solution. The simple fact is, it really is a matter for developing responsible civil law enforcement in all nations after all.

  • 24 "Greetings, my son!" // Aug 14, 2007 at 1:26 am   

    Actually, Rafael it is more plausible that the the Irish saved civilization than the Arabs.

    How could a people that do not even have words to express the distictions of sacred and profane, spiritual and temporal, save a civilization whose traditions takes for granted?

  • 25 "Greetings, my son!" // Aug 14, 2007 at 1:26 am   

    Actually, Rafael it is more plausible that the the Irish saved civilization than the Arabs.

    How could a people that do not even have words to express the distictions of sacred and profane, spiritual and temporal, save a civilization whose traditions takes for granted?

  • 26 Rafael // Aug 14, 2007 at 2:18 am   

    The Irish certainly played an important role, but they did not do it single handedly.
    The ancient roots of the sciences were preserved by first being translated into Arabic from the Greek. Algebra and alchemy are Arabic words and the vast majority of star names still in academic use are of Arabic origin.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1310/is_1989_Nov/ai_8171041

    The point being that the creationists of old were intent on destroying that knowledge.

  • 27 "Greetings, my son!" // Aug 14, 2007 at 4:03 am   

    I disagree Rafael.

    “Every year millions of Americans celebrate St. Patrick’s Day, but they may not be aware of how great an influence St. Patrick was on the subsequent history of civilization. Not only did he bring Christianity to Ireland, he instilled a sense of literacy and learning that would create the conditions that allowed Ireland to become “the isle of saints and scholars” — and thus preserve Western culture while Europe was being overrun by barbarians.”

    You see, it was the pagan barbarians destroying the libraries, not creationists. It was Christianity that established literacy and learning throughout Europe.

  • 28 "Greetings, my son!" // Aug 14, 2007 at 4:03 am   

    I disagree Rafael.

    “Every year millions of Americans celebrate St. Patrick’s Day, but they may not be aware of how great an influence St. Patrick was on the subsequent history of civilization. Not only did he bring Christianity to Ireland, he instilled a sense of literacy and learning that would create the conditions that allowed Ireland to become “the isle of saints and scholars” — and thus preserve Western culture while Europe was being overrun by barbarians.”

    You see, it was the pagan barbarians destroying the libraries, not creationists. It was Christianity that established literacy and learning throughout Europe.

  • 29 "Greetings,my son!" // Aug 14, 2007 at 6:30 am   

    Me thinks the Arabs owe much more than they ever gave.

    “There were three main cultures the Arabs assimilated and fused into what we call Muslim civilization: Indian, Persian, and Greek. From India, the Arabs picked up two concepts essential to the evolution of mathematics: the place value digit and zero. Both of these were vital to being able to do much more complex calculations than the old system of using letters represent numbers.

    From the Persians, the Arabs inherited the full scope of Near Eastern cultures that extended back to the early days of Sumer. Much of Muslim art and literature was heavily influenced by Persia. The classic One Thousand and One Arabian Nights, with such tales as Sinbad the Sailor and Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, dates from this period. Poetry also flourished, although it should be noted that the Arabs already had a strong poetic tradition before the conquests. Even such games as Backgammon, Chess, and Polo came to Islamic civilization by way of Persia.

    The Greeks also contributed substantially to Muslim culture in the fields of philosophy, math, science, and architecture. Mohammed had said nothing wastes the money of the faithful more than building. However, the Muslims were great builders who owed much of their architectural skill and style to the Greeks. It takes little imagination to see the relationship between the dome of a Moslem mosque and the dome of a Byzantine church such as the Hagia Sophia.’

    http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/asia/6/FC46

  • 30 "Greetings,my son!" // Aug 14, 2007 at 6:30 am   

    Me thinks the Arabs owe much more than they ever gave.

    “There were three main cultures the Arabs assimilated and fused into what we call Muslim civilization: Indian, Persian, and Greek. From India, the Arabs picked up two concepts essential to the evolution of mathematics: the place value digit and zero. Both of these were vital to being able to do much more complex calculations than the old system of using letters represent numbers.

    From the Persians, the Arabs inherited the full scope of Near Eastern cultures that extended back to the early days of Sumer. Much of Muslim art and literature was heavily influenced by Persia. The classic One Thousand and One Arabian Nights, with such tales as Sinbad the Sailor and Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, dates from this period. Poetry also flourished, although it should be noted that the Arabs already had a strong poetic tradition before the conquests. Even such games as Backgammon, Chess, and Polo came to Islamic civilization by way of Persia.

    The Greeks also contributed substantially to Muslim culture in the fields of philosophy, math, science, and architecture. Mohammed had said nothing wastes the money of the faithful more than building. However, the Muslims were great builders who owed much of their architectural skill and style to the Greeks. It takes little imagination to see the relationship between the dome of a Moslem mosque and the dome of a Byzantine church such as the Hagia Sophia.’

    http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/asia/6/FC46

  • 31 David Yeagley // Aug 14, 2007 at 8:52 am   

    Raph, I don’t know how familiar you are with BadEagle.com, but we have forums. Registration is free. This is a good dialogue we have going, but, my blogs change frequently. The conversation will be archived. Things move more slowly on the forums…I recommend we continue this there.

    Now, you referenced the cosmos as a time machine: by Aristotelian logic, let me ask you, What proof do you have that the cosmos existed before you were born? Sound existential? Maybe. You have none. We accept reality on the basis of someone else’s word. You accept your birth and your identity as analogy. Someone told you who you are. You see other births, you know how it works, so, you assume yours happened the same way, by analogy.

    You did not witness creation. Someone here, before you, told you it all existed during his life, and you believe him.

    In fact, the people who lived the earliest, chronologically, would logically have a better understanding of the origin of things, because they were nearest to the time. But, no, you want to think that our cumulative knowledge today is superior. Talk about arrogant. Talk about fantasy.

    Pure logic is antithetical to the theory of origins. Pure logic is inapplicable to much of what is called “science.” I’m not concerned with culture, literature, or even history. Why bring that up? Are you losing ground in logic or something?

    You have no proof of anything, not scientifically. I personally believe logic excels science. Science rather is based on logic–sometimes. Often not. I also think logic is quite overrated. I’m saying here that your asertion of science and logic is quite self-contradictory.

    You just have a beef with religion. Perhaps you’ve had a negative experience, or something. But this should not be allowed to prejudice your judgement.

    “Science” used to explain experience is an abuse in epistomology. Science does not exceed human experience, and as such, cannot be isolated as any particularly superior approach to organizing knowledge and data. That’s so juvenile.

    Technology will never surpass ontology, either. Human knowledge is ever and only human experience. There is no teleology in technology. If there is, it is nihilism, or the compaction of reality. (I created a theory of portable man-made black holes back in 1976,or 1978.)

    I’m saying evolution, macro-evolution, is utterly illogical, to say nothing of the fact that it is utterly unproven, and unprovable. Of course, the power words here are “logic” and “prove.” Perhaps they both need to be reexamined.

    You’re not talking technical. Why should I? Your oppositions are abstractions. I assume you tended toward the philosophical. I was apparently mistaken.

  • 32 David Yeagley // Aug 14, 2007 at 8:58 am   

    Tom, what exactly are you looking for, except to contradict me on some unidentified obligatory basis? If you do that faitfully, you’ll wind up contradicting yourself. Chasing the wind, as it were.

    You may of course apply everything you suggested about my ideas to your own as well. Dare ya.

    How can you talk about native “religion”? Religion is a white European term. Why even use it to talk about anything Indian? No Indians have “religion,” according to your syllogism.

    By the way, I’m still fishing comments, mine and others, out of the junk pile. No screening on my part. Controls set a bit tight. Otherwise, interminable spam…

  • 33 Phi // Aug 14, 2007 at 9:58 am   

    “there is not a scintilla of Dark Continent-monkeyshines in me…nary a drop! ”

    What ever you say.

    Mainland Italians (particularly southern Italians), Sardinians, and Sicilians all have sub-Saharan admixture. There is a veritable closet-full of information on this. The Hbs found in Sicilians is predominantly the Benin strain, known as #19. This strain originated in Benin or nearby regions of Central West Africa. Most of the following are studies that can be found in our Admixture Index.

    Ciao Bebe

  • 34 Rafael // Aug 14, 2007 at 10:15 am   

    How do I know anything existed before I was born? Really now. You are grasping at straws, Dr. Yeagley and you have now reached the point of argument, ad absurdum. How do you know that you even exist? You would rather toss reason into the trash rather than to admit your errors.

    You certainly can no longer know that god exists with an attitude like that. What a dismal view of gods wonderful gift you have, that we can only spiral downwards in time.

    I tried talking technical, but you refuse to answer the most simple questions. You only deny to the point of obstruction. Let me try once again. Are there any factual errors in the bible? Oh. I’m sorry. I forgot already. You don’t have any proof that the bible even exists!

  • 35 David Yeagley // Aug 14, 2007 at 12:20 pm   

    Raph, your abjectly sophmoric. You’re throwing words around aimlessly. I can only assume you have no formal knowledge of logic or philosophy. I don’t know how to talk with you. You rely only on insult for validation.

    Life-as-accident. Big Bang theory? In this giant skein, “life” is an unaccountable, accidental form of matter which happens to interact oddly with air and light in particular. Life, to your thinking, must be indistinguishable from all other existence, animate or inanimate.

    I’ve had evolutionists on here before, and the same fallacies dominante their thinking–which are basically presuppositions of the validity of their present experience. Then they project these “laws” into the past, ad infinitum. This is the quintessence of presumption and aggression, and is quite silly when one considers the circumstance of each individual mind.

    You are too blind to admit that you depend, desperately, on someone else’s word. I on the other hand accepted this dependence long ago. It think it is an abject and critical err to pretend that no such dependency exists.

    Logic is man-made. Therefore, your braggadocio about the absurd is rather self-idolizing, don’t you think?

    We’re not arguing about existence. That’s your sophomoric contention. If you’d think about what I’m saying, you’d see that we’re arguing about methodology in theoretical reconstructions of the past.

    Phi: DNA? A bit myopic for this discussion. Lucy isn’t human. The idea that all LIFE has DNA connection is quite evolutionary. I thought Indians believed in “creation” of some kind. All aboriginal peoples do. Even white people do, before they invented “science.” They have their mythical tales of origin.

    Actually, I deal with these issues in a new book I have, ALTERED STATES. It will be on Amazon.com in a couple of weeks. I’ll announce it.

    Science is simply another tale of origins. Objectively speaking, it cannot be otherwise classified. It may think itself outside former classifications, but, that is only arrogance. All that man does is what man does. It’s never anything else.

  • 36 Tom // Aug 14, 2007 at 1:41 pm   

    You wrote: “How can you talk about native “religion”? Religion is a white European term. Why even use it to talk about anything Indian? No Indians have “religion,” according to your syllogism.”

    That’s true, so should I not use English as well?

    I have to abide by reductive principles in order to converse with those who know nothing else. I compare it to speaking a foreign language. “When in Rome…” and all that.

  • 37 Tom // Aug 14, 2007 at 2:10 pm   

    Sorry, forgot this part:

    You wrote: “Tom, what exactly are you looking for…”

    I’m looking for the Indian in this supposed Indian web site.

    It’s simply not enough to claim one’s site is “Indian”. Being some blood percentage doesn’t make one’s words Indian. And since you’re playing this Indian card on a global stage you owe it to Indians to consistently present recognizable Indian ideology.

    This particular piece highlights Darwin, creationism and Genesis. While this may be a heady combination at the Young America’s Foundation picnic, it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans at a pow wow or even an Indian Methodist church.

    Have you ever wondered why those invitations to speak at Indian functions aren’t on your answering machine?

    Better luck with future columns…

  • 38 David Yeagley // Aug 14, 2007 at 2:22 pm   

    You’re way out of touch, Tom. All the elders, the real elders of the real tribes–all are Christian. They all attend church regularly.

    It is very wrong to deny this. This is as much a part of Indian history as anything else.

    It certainly isn’t un-Comanche to try on someone else’s culture for size.

    Reconsider that part about your elders being Christian. Yeah, they all have their ‘versions’ of it, but they’re Christian. I’ve never been to even a pow-wow that didn’t open with prayer in the name of Jesus.

    Does this offend you?

  • 39 Rafael // Aug 14, 2007 at 3:46 pm   

    We all depend desperately on the words of others, Dr. Yag. Only imbeciles accept lies, once they are known to be lies though. Logic is indeed man-made and the most reliable truth detector in existence. It is far more important than knowing whether or not a god exists. People will often refuse to answer questions when they fear they may be caught in a lie.

    Are there factual errors in the bible, Dr. Yag??

  • 40 Phi // Aug 14, 2007 at 6:03 pm   

    Dr.

    “. I thought Indians believed in “creation” of some kind”

    Perhaps! Unless one is an Enlightened higher educated suburban armchair E-dian such as myself.

    I just find the European concept of racial purity ludicrous at best. Or would that be solipsistic also?

  • 41 David Yeagley // Aug 14, 2007 at 6:36 pm   

    Raph, I don’t know. Depends on what the measuring stick is. Remember, I’ve heard most of the arguments. After all, I went to Yale Divinity, and then studied more an Candler (Emory) Theology. I’ve heard all the disblief possible. There is no disbelief like that of professional professors of religion and theology. They cleanse themselves of “belief” in order to feel more respectable before the great and omniscient scientists.

    What an irony. It takes ten times the faith to believe in macro evolution as it does in special creation. Make that 20 times.

    Look, belief is an act of the will, not a verdict of logic. I was afraid to use that word logic with you, because I knew we have different ideas about it, it’s use, it’s methods, it’s conclusions, etc.

    Put it this way: if the existence of God could be proven, I would count that the very highest evidence that He in fact did not exist. That would mean he is the sole creation of man’s mind. A mere projection, subject to man’s self-created tools of thinking–which tools, by the way, to change, as to the things they create.

  • 42 Tom // Aug 14, 2007 at 7:08 pm   

    You wrote: “All the elders…all are Christian…(t)hey all attend church… they all have their ‘versions’…I’ve never been to even a pow-wow that didn’t open with prayer…”

    It’s been my experience that only children, the uninformed and the desperate argue in absolutes. Circle all that apply.

    So, “the real elders of the real tribes” (What are real tribes?) are your target audience? The 1990 Census found only 65% of Indians had a high school education. The National Congress of American Indians issued a report in 2000 on Indian Internet usage. They found 1/4 of all Indians live at poverty levels. On reservations, telephone service availability varied between 20 and 70 percent. And only 39% of rural households in Native communities had service. In a Cornell study on American internet usage, it found that only 15% of those over the age of 55 would use the internet if it was available.

    So, in short, the Internet is a luxury for Indian people. Many lack the education to fully utilize the Net. And even if it was available, 85% of the elderly would not use it.

    So, who is really your audience?

    “It certainly isn’t un-Comanche to try on someone else’s culture for size.” But in your case it seems to be the converse.

  • 43 "Greetings, my son!" // Aug 14, 2007 at 7:29 pm   

    Phi states to “Greetings, my son!”

    “What ever you say.”

    Keep that attitude and the world will be your oyster.

    It is not what they know about DNA that concerns me, it’s what they don’t know. And, Sicillians are not Italians, ask one — scratch one and you find a Arab. We Italians for the most part are grateful for the Scillian pride of not being Italian.

  • 44 "Greetings, my son!" // Aug 14, 2007 at 7:29 pm   

    Phi states to “Greetings, my son!”

    “What ever you say.”

    Keep that attitude and the world will be your oyster.

    It is not what they know about DNA that concerns me, it’s what they don’t know. And, Sicillians are not Italians, ask one — scratch one and you find a Arab. We Italians for the most part are grateful for the Scillian pride of not being Italian.

  • 45 David Yeagley // Aug 14, 2007 at 9:01 pm   

    Tom, I don’t get the connection between Indian poverty and Christianity. Are we less poor today than we were a hundred years ago? I think you skirted the issue entirely. Red Herring.

    Lots of old Indians have air-conditioning. And they’re Christian.

    Are you somehow a “better off” Indian, so that you don’t have to believe anything? You’re a better Indian than all your elders?

    Belief is a choice, not a compulsion. It certainly is today.

You must log in to post a comment.