tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post8467281061686126916..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Eugenics and the Station for Experimental Evolutionmregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-79953628120170169212014-01-10T01:44:39.469-05:002014-01-10T01:44:39.469-05:00Wonderful blog, Dr Egnor. God bless.Wonderful blog, Dr Egnor. God bless.National Velourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15142359587875219081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-61631489107452855852014-01-09T18:06:24.671-05:002014-01-09T18:06:24.671-05:00Why doesn't Michael Egnor respond to Diogenes ...Why doesn't Michael Egnor respond to Diogenes critique in the comment section on this blog as opposed to on ENV.com? Is it because the lack of commenting area at ENV allows Egnor's statements to go without rebuttal?<br /><br />Also, why do people who feel the need to comment saying he is Christian and then some start attacking his ''Christian'' beliefs? Within the first 15 words on this website it says he is a Catholic. Believe it, or not, there is a difference to people who are one or the other lol Immediately dismissed comments who couldn't, or chose not to, differentiate between the two as it does a disservice in showing your ability to comprehend data correctly.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563868204870628435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-82992626671941288442014-01-09T18:04:45.467-05:002014-01-09T18:04:45.467-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01563868204870628435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-10661192801538691532013-12-23T09:00:46.032-05:002013-12-23T09:00:46.032-05:00"... it's not a pleasant job, but someone..."... it's not a pleasant job, but someone has to do it.."<br /><br />Yes that's the problem,it's great that you can do it. I can't control my gag reflex very well when I read their blogs.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-18016510310286341042013-12-22T21:45:15.008-05:002013-12-22T21:45:15.008-05:00Coyne's site makes me sick too. That's why...Coyne's site makes me sick too. That's why I respond to him-- it's not a pleasant job, but someone has to do it. <br /><br />El Booto is always welcome!mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-21387746414683163642013-12-22T20:12:34.211-05:002013-12-22T20:12:34.211-05:00This is getting old so I'll end it;
I have t...This is getting old so I'll end it;<br /><br /> I have to stop going to Coyne's web site, it's making me sick. He calls Catholics a hate group. What an angry, arrogant atheist! For that El Booto comes back one more time. <br /><br /><br />Jerry: Good morning El Booto, it's time to put my foot inside of you.<br />El Booto: Nooo, I'm not that kind of boot. I'm calling police!<br /><br /><br />PS...To Michael (blog owner)<br /><br />If you don't mind El Booto can come back every time you mention Jerry Coyne in your post.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-17986295300854807172013-12-22T08:54:46.768-05:002013-12-22T08:54:46.768-05:00... also Cattel was a supporter of the eugenics........ also Cattel was a supporter of the eugenics... It seems that the ACLU had been able to find only eugeneticists to support Scopes.<br />Did the teacher know who he was meeting?<br /><br /><br />domicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02775415782548456535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-4969898813747447302013-12-22T08:41:50.191-05:002013-12-22T08:41:50.191-05:00of course all those who seek to deny the link betw...of course all those who seek to deny the link between eugenics and evolution forget that Scopes was first supported by the major representatives of the eugenics movement.<br />From Larson' book on the Scopes Trial:<br />"In June of 1925 Scopes came to New York to meet with American Civil Liberties Union officials. There, Scopes was introduced to Osborn , Charles Davenport and J.M. Cattell of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.<br />To demonstrate scientific support for the cause, Scopes made public appearances in New York with three of America's best-known evolutionary scientists: the paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, the psychologist J. McKeen Cattell, and the eugenicist Charles B. Davenport. All three men helped shape the public response to the upcoming trial..."<br /><br />"The ACLU invited twenty prominent progressive educators to serve on a Tennessee Evolution Case Fund advisory committee to help raise money for the defense. All twenty accepted the invitation, including the two senior statesmen of American higher education, president emeritus Charles W. Eliot of Harvard and president emeritus David Starr Jordan of Stanford..."<br /><br />"Davenport's involvement in the Scopes case began with a Science Service article entitled "Evidences for Evolution" that appeared in scores of newspapers across the country ... Davenport represented a logical choice for writing the initial article because, as America's lead eugenicist, he had a vital stake in defending the teaching of evolution. The textbook used by Scopes, Hunter's Civic Biology, featured Davenport's research into the evolutionary improvement of humans "by applying to them the laws of selection," and stressed the importance of proper "mate selection" in this process. "<br /><br />Davenport, Osborn for the scientific support; Eliot, Jordan for the economic support.<br />Without them the Scopes Trial would have been otherwise..domicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02775415782548456535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-46468026520040427482013-12-22T08:17:14.563-05:002013-12-22T08:17:14.563-05:00diogenes,
Morgan, Jennings... please could you go...diogenes, <br />Morgan, Jennings... please could you go on?<br />Could you explain why five of the first six presidents of the American Society of Human Genetics, founded in 1948 were also directors of the American Eugenics Society?<br /><br /><br />domicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02775415782548456535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-68543546368127401642013-12-21T13:14:32.295-05:002013-12-21T13:14:32.295-05:00El Booto: I was wondering, how did I evolve?
Jerr...El Booto: I was wondering, how did I evolve?<br /><br />Jerry : You didn't evolve, you were made.<br /><br />El Booto: You filthy creationist!<br />Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-54924788862661165042013-12-20T23:21:17.478-05:002013-12-20T23:21:17.478-05:00Egnor started this post with the intention of equa...Egnor started this post with the intention of equating "evolution" with "eugenics." However, creationists know and have always said directly that <b>eugenics is about micro-evolution, while modern evolutionary theory is about macro-evolution.</b> That's why creationists supported eugenics, and they stated that clearly.<br /><br />Here is firebrand preacher T. T. Martin. In his creationist book <i>Hell and the High Schools</i> (1923), he blamed evolution for every social evil (young people in high schools are acting lasciviously and sensuously! Immorality is everywhere! Not like in the good old days.)<br /> <br />T. T. Martin explains the difference between evolution and selective breeding: <i>“<b>Evolution is not the improvement of the species, development within the species. Everybody believes in that</b>; that is the reason we educate our children; that is <b>the reason we line-breed our hogs and our poultry.</b> The man who calls these things Evolution is either a hypocrite or an ignoramus."</i> [T. T. Martin, <i>Hell and the High Schools</i> (1923), <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20110312100223/http://salmun.cwahi.net/wrel/rchrist/theol/sp_is/sac/hhs/hhs.htm#02" rel="nofollow">Chapter 2</a>]<br /><br />Creationists today try to claim that evolution is the same as eugenics, but T. T. Martin and old-time creationists say that anyone who tries to argue that is a hypocrite who belongs in Hell-- or worse:<br /><br /><i>"... hell is almost too good for <b>the whining hypocrite</b>... who will talk about Evolution and make it mean simply the development of the embryo ...or who will talk of <b>the improvement of the species as Evolution.</b> If that is Evolution, why all this parading of Evolutionists as being learned? Every old farmer believes in the development of a stalk of corn from a grain of corn... <b>every one of them [farmers] believes in the improvement of the species. No, reader, that is not Evolution, AND THE LAST ONE OF THEM KNOWS IT</b>, and they stoop to this miserable, hypocritical camouflaging in order to save their faces and continue to be supported by our taxes, or the hard-earned money of Christian people in our religious colleges; or others stoop to <b>this miserable, hypocritical camouflaging</b>, in order to protect these pseudo-scientists [evolutionists] from the wrath of the people and help keep them in their positions."</i> [T. T. Martin, <i>Hell and the High Schools</i> (1923), <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20110312100223/http://salmun.cwahi.net/wrel/rchrist/theol/sp_is/sac/hhs/hhs.htm#04" rel="nofollow">Chapter 4</a>]<br /><br />There you have it. If you try to claim that evolution is eugenics, T. T. Martin in 1923 called that "<b>miserable, hypocritical camouflaging</b>" and anyone who tries it is <b>"either a hypocrite or an ignoramus."</b>Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-31285724470427186622013-12-20T22:59:55.333-05:002013-12-20T22:59:55.333-05:00Eugen,
Georgie Boggs is easy to mock. He's a...Eugen,<br /><br />Georgie Boggs is easy to mock. He's a self-named admiral in a fictional navy, who has a tendency to go off on irrelevant tangents.<br /><br />You certainly don't know enough.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-40828475221506749402013-12-20T22:50:16.609-05:002013-12-20T22:50:16.609-05:00I'll give more detail on scientists against eu...I'll give more detail on scientists against eugenics. I covered Clarence Darrow already (I incorrectly gave the date of "The Eugenics Cult" as 1925; it was 1926, although Darrow opposed eugenics as early as 1925, the year of the Scopes Trial.)<br /><br />Let's start with <b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._H._Morgan" rel="nofollow">Thomas Hunt Morgan</a></b>, evolutionary biologist, who did all those experiments on fruit flies, proved genes are carried on chromosomes, founded the modern science of genetics, and won a Nobel Prize in 1933. <br /><br />Mark Borrello writes on Morgan's opposition to eugenics: “Further, the scientific leader of the developing field of classical genetics, Nobel laureate T. H. Morgan, resigned from the committee on Animal Breeding of the American Breeders Association in 1915 because of what he called <b>the unsubstantiated and reckless use of genetics to support social and political conclusions.</b>” – [<a href="http://tinyurl.com/nx48z9m" rel="nofollow">Dancing with the Disco Institute</a>. Mark Borrello. Minnesota Citizens for Science Education.]<br /><br />Next let's consider bacterial geneticist <b>Herbert S. Jennings.</b><br /><br />Richard Conniff writes on Jennings' opposition to the American Eugenics Society: “[Pro-eugenics Economist Irving] Fisher received a sharp upbraiding from a member of his organization’s own immigration committee over “the shakiness of the evidence” used in its lobbying. <b>Herbert S. Jennings</b>, a geneticist at Johns Hopkins University, resigned from the AES [American Eugenics Society] in 1924, citing its “clearly illegitimate” arguments. Privately, he advised Fisher that <b>a eugenics society was no place for serious researchers, whose work depends on freedom “from prejudice and propaganda.”</b>”<br />[<a href="http://tinyurl.com/lco4977" rel="nofollow">God and White Men at Yale.</a> Richard Conniff. Yale Alumni Magazine. May/June 2012.]<br /><br />Wikipedia on Jennings' opposition to the racist Immigration Act of 1924: [Harry Hamilton] "Laughlin [of the Eugenics Record Office] provided extensive statistical testimony to the United States Congress in support of the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924. Part of his testimony dealt with "excessive" insanity among immigrants from southern Europe and eastern Europe. He was eventually appointed as an expert eugenics agent to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization... At least one contemporary scientist, bacterial geneticist <b>Herbert Spencer Jennings, condemned Laughlin's statistics as invalid</b> because they compared recent immigrants to more settled immigrants." [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hamilton_Laughlin" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia on Harry Hamilton Laughlin</a>]<br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-49251225061272892382013-12-20T22:38:51.564-05:002013-12-20T22:38:51.564-05:00Looks like Diogenes has totally pwned Egnor. Respe...Looks like Diogenes has totally pwned Egnor. Respect!<br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-58506649679433718072013-12-20T22:16:50.852-05:002013-12-20T22:16:50.852-05:00Egnor: The facts of the religious collaboration ma...Egnor: <i>The facts of the religious collaboration make it worse, not better, for the Darwinists.</i><br /><br />Sounds pretty desperate to me. Maybe you should lay off shilling for Disco 'tute. You get beaten up by <a href="http://tryingbiology.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/561/" rel="nofollow">pros</a> and amateurs alike. <br /><br />HooAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-64047930089228022422013-12-20T22:10:42.052-05:002013-12-20T22:10:42.052-05:00Diogenes, in his characteristic under-medicated wa...<i>Diogenes, in his characteristic under-medicated way</i><br /><br />It seems creationist M.D.s often make this assertion.<br /><br />Is it your recommendation as an M.D. that I should take psychotropic medication? Email me a prescription, perhaps?<br /><br />I shall inform the certification board.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-40981905181576984572013-12-20T22:08:25.233-05:002013-12-20T22:08:25.233-05:00Egnor: The facts of the religious collaboration ma...Egnor: <i>The facts of the religious collaboration make it worse, not better, for the Darwinists.</i><br /><br />Oh, I do wonder how that could follow. <br /><br />Lemme guess: Egnor will argue that the <b>creationists</b> I listed above, who promoted eugenics in their <b>creationist anti-evolution books</b> using <b>creationist anti-evolution</b> logic, were pro-eugenics because they were <i>"influenced by Darwinism"</i>!<br /><br />The proof that they were <i>"influenced by Darwinism"</i> being that they aggressively promoted eugenics in their creationist books with creationist logic.<br /><br />It's a syllogism:<br /><br />1. If anyone promotes eugenics, they were influenced by Darwinism.<br /><br />2. William J. Tinkle, A. E. Wilder-Smith, Rousas Rushdoony, Henry Morris, John C. Whitcomb, Walter Lammerts, Frank L. Marsh, and almost every major creationist 1920-1970 promoted eugenics.<br /><br />3. Therefore, almost every major anti-evolutionist 1920-70 was evolution-<i>influenced</i>.<br /><br />4. Conclusion: Darwin made us do it! <i>They compromised with Darwinism! That just proves we should never compromise with Darwinism!</i><br /><br />I'm goin' way out on a limb here, but I'll guess that Egnor will assume the conclusion in his Step 1.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-51957062133148200472013-12-20T22:02:42.847-05:002013-12-20T22:02:42.847-05:00Bachfiend
I don't know enough or care about e...Bachfiend<br /><br />I don't know enough or care about evolution to deny it.<br /><br />I noticed how you and another commenter are mocking Admiral Boggs. We shall fix that tomorrow.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-64149155826005141162013-12-20T21:31:59.895-05:002013-12-20T21:31:59.895-05:00Eugen,
Q: What's the difference in IQ betwee...Eugen,<br /><br />Q: What's the difference in IQ between an evolution-denier and a cowboy boot?<br /><br />A: Not much...bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-60391834021646713582013-12-20T21:27:47.078-05:002013-12-20T21:27:47.078-05:00Egnor,
"'Creationist' is a sloppy te...Egnor,<br /><br />"'Creationist' is a sloppy term"<br /><br />This is a bit rich, coming from someone who throws around the terms 'leftist', 'liberal', 'progressive', 'socialist', as though they all mean, or at least imply sympathy with, 'Marxism'.<br /><br />Even if the was a consensus amongst scientists that eugenics was good science, which I doubt (to actually know whether there was a consensus, you would have had to have a survey of scientists), how would religious collaboration make it worse?<br /><br />Anyway. All this talk about consensus is just a ploy to discredit evolutionary biology - descent with modification and common ancestry - which remains true, as any scientific theory can ever be considered to be true.<br /><br />Consensus isn't everything. It can be wrong. On a scale of reliability of opinion, I'd order opinions as follows:<br /><br />Your opinion (least reliable)<br /><br />My opinion<br /><br />The opinion of an expert with the appropriate knowledge and experience (could still be wrong, particularly if the expert has an agenda)<br /><br />The consensus of experts with the appropriate knowledge and experience<br /><br />The Truth. May never be known.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-61366088032963408292013-12-20T21:15:55.304-05:002013-12-20T21:15:55.304-05:00 Jerry Coyne seems an angry atheist who loves cowb... Jerry Coyne seems an angry atheist who loves cowboy boots. The only good thing he has is pretend daily conversations with the little cute cat.<br />Lets have pretend conversation between Jerry and his favorite cowboy boot El Booto.<br /><br />El Booto: You know Jerry, I been thinking: evolution is like your feet.<br />Jerry: How so, El Booto?<br />El Booto: They both stink.<br /><br />Eugen FCDEugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-20962091119643235692013-12-20T19:08:12.548-05:002013-12-20T19:08:12.548-05:00Actually, Diogenes, in his characteristic under-me...Actually, Diogenes, in his characteristic under-medicated way, has a point. There was considerable religious participation in eugenics, although "creationist" is a sloppy term. <br /><br />The facts of the religious collaboration make it worse, not better, for the Darwinists. <br /><br />I'll post on it shortly. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-12416645360070914022013-12-20T18:20:07.681-05:002013-12-20T18:20:07.681-05:00Domics,
I don't need to.
'Evolution'...Domics,<br /><br />I don't need to.<br /><br />'Evolution' wasn't a trademark protected word. A bust of Darwin isn't copyrighted. Anyone can use either in whatever way desired and there's no way of preventing it.<br /><br />A eugenics conference is only going to get attendees who think that eugenics is valid science. Opponents of eugenics aren't going to attend. They won't know if a statue of Darwin is displayed, unless its reported in the press (and they bother to read it).<br /><br />And anyway. Scientists don't worship Darwin. He was a very significant figure in science, but he still got things wrong, many things in fact.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-19007501117754154502013-12-20T17:37:08.368-05:002013-12-20T17:37:08.368-05:00Now now, Troy, "We'll torture you if you ...Now now, Troy, "We'll torture you if you don't believe" is the only evidence they've got. Go easy on them.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-67460994517722069922013-12-20T15:56:51.061-05:002013-12-20T15:56:51.061-05:00Is that what it means? Egnor thinks I might face e...Is that what it means? Egnor thinks I might face eternal torture by Jesus and his sadistic friends, and I might therefore wish for oblivion when that time comes?<br /><br />What kind of sick mind could think it is ever justifiable that anyone be tortured forever? The people who fabricated the Jesus character apparently did. So does Egnor it seems.troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.com