It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Have Atheists Hijacked Darwin's Evolution??

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fuzzy Wabbit

Once again atheism and science are two distinct subjects that are worlds apart from one another.


Atheism and Science are NOT worlds apart from each other no more than you could tell us EXACTLY how many feet they are from each other or miles. Who told you they are worlds apart? I think you haven't seen that same sentiment just by pulling the string and having to listen to the lions share of atheists on these boards speak not just in support of science but AS science or as if they are all scientists merely because they are atheists and don't you know? Haven't you heard? Atheists use logic and reason and they refer to themselves as "the science" community"!

Clear Skies is only testifying to what she has seen here and you conversley,, haven't seen much other than to split hairs about the geographical distance Science is to Atheism.

Personally,, I would agree with you only I'd say Atheism is galaxies apart from Science sharing no affinity at all.



As for religious persecution, that pendulum swings both ways. Does the Salem Witch Trials and the Spanish Inquisition ring a bell? Religious zealots are not as Christian as you may like to believe.


Oh the twelve woman killed during the salem witch trials yeah that sure is convincing that religion is "evil' and if you do your research the spanish inquisition has nothing on Stalin state government of Atheism or Pol Pot or the Khamir rouge


Evolution has nothing to do with genocide or religious persecution.


Grasping at straws? I don't think so and either did those participating in the nuremburg trials. Hitlers fascination with Darwinism which piqued his interest in eugenics and the advent of jewish genocide, the Holocaust.

You don't see religious persecution? HA HA HA visit any blog where the movie "expelled" is the topic thread and LO and BEHOLD!

You'll see plenty of persecution of the religious and that is just one example




posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by TALIN
 





Grasping at straws? I don't think so and either did those participating in the nuremburg trials. Hitlers fascination with Darwinism which piqued his interest in eugenics and the advent of jewish genocide, the Holocaust.


People like Hitler were not interested in evolution,they were interested in Social Darwinism which,if you follow the link below,isn't even the same thing.
www.abovetopsecret.com...





Atheists use logic and reason and they refer to themselves as "the science" community"!


Some atheists do,not all.





and if you do your research the spanish inquisition has nothing on Stalin state government of Atheism or Pol Pot or the Khamir rouge


The Inquisition existed for about 400yrs,modern dictators don't even come close to the terror and fear they caused simply because they didn't have power for 400yrs!



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 





Atheists have been forced into defending evolution because creaionists keep putting evolution and a disbelief in god together. Creationists keep saying that evolution must be wrong because it goes against the bible. They conflate the big bang, abiogenesis and evolution all in one sentence. This is what has drawn atheists out into this battle.



Though many say that now,and probably in the past too,the official stance of faiths such as the Catholics,say that evolution is possible but members shouldn't forget that God started it all and Adam was the first human.


The Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a decree ratified by Pope Pius X on June 30, 1909 that "special creation" only applied to man,not to the other species.




The Church does not forbid that...research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter....

The question of the origin of man's body from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but they should do so cautiously....

Catholics must believe, however, that the human soul was created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person....

All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in "polygenism," the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans (that there were many Adams and Eves).

Pius XII,encyclical Humani Generis.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 


The official stance is pointless when the aderhents of the faith don't go along with it. Creationists abuse evolution and put evolution and atheism together so what are atheists meant to do? If the lie is repeated that belief in evolution makes you an atheist, and that evolution is responsible for atheism, then atheists are forced out to defend themselves and evolution.

So in the end it's the fault of the theists who have wrongly put the two ideas together.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 





The official stance is pointless when the aderhents of the faith don't go along with it. Creationists abuse evolution and put evolution and atheism together so what are atheists meant to do? If the lie is repeated that belief in evolution makes you an atheist, and that evolution is responsible for atheism, then atheists are forced out to defend themselves and evolution.


Very true.
I know it may seem like i'm making creationists out to be innocent in all of this,believe me,i know they're not.

I suppose what i mean by atheists hijacking evolution is that some have gone from defending themselves against religion,to using it as an argument/weapon against religion in the never ending God debate to prove that he/she/it/they do not exist.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorthWolfe CND


1) It is not Darwin's Evolution. It's a concept put forth, and later proved by Charles Darwin.



No, you are wrong, it IS Darwinian evolution, now you can split hairs about this till the cows come home whether it is a form of lamarkism or spin off of this guys theory or that guys but by and large, most people especially atheists, associate "evolution" as Darwins . The fact is, one can not even say the word "evolution" without thinking of the name "Darwin"



Why would Atheists hijack anything? There are more religious people studying and working in evolution of species, then there are Atheists. "We" are not organized, "we" do not have a leader, "we" do not have an agenda...


Yeah yeah yeah Atheist's are like herding a bunch of cats blah blah blah (yawn) yet when anyone starts a thread attacking evolution or its current High Priest Richard Dawkins, they come in droves, not like cats but like cattle moreover your assertion they don't have a leader or they don't have an agenda is a self refuting statement givejn that YOU are not THEM or "WE" as you put it. Just who is "WE" if they are not organized and they don't have a leader, perhaps you should be, you certainly seem to know what they are "all" like and I find that a little hard to believe a consensus like that can be postulated without having them all be organized enough to share with you what they are "all" not like.



There are more religious people studying and working in evolution of species, then there are Atheists.


Wrong AGAIN,,




Sir — The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total.

Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample [1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2].



Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists
Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 27.7 15 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7 68 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17 20.8

Belief in human immortality 1914 1933 1998
Personal belief 35.2 18 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4 53 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29 23.3
Figures are percentages.
www.stephenjaygould.org...



They don't have an agenda?

Wrong again,,

Just see what was the largest group of opposition during Dover VS Kitzmiller and you discover Atheists have a very efficient lobby a very vocal group of leaders and keeping ID out of public schools is one of many items on there agenda in addition to removing In God We Trust from our currency, the word God from our country if they could swing it. They have many organized groups such as Dawkins "OUT" campaign and another called "Brights".

They often enlist the aid of the A.C.L.U. TO ACCOMPLISH such worthy objectives like removing the ten commandements from Government Court Houses, and during the holidays you can often see well organized groups of Atheists taking on the REALLY big problems we face in this country like complaining about Nativity scenes and suing Government Officials because they were insulted someone said God Bless you after an Atheist sneezed.

I could go on but I think you get the point.

You don't speak for Atheism as if they are the Borg and say they are not a collective in the same statement without looking incredulous.









[edit on 5-10-2008 by TALIN]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   


Creationists abuse evolution and put evolution and atheism together


No it is "Demigod of the damned" Dickie Dawkins , "Deacon of the deplorable" Daniel Dennet & their awful atheistic altar boys that demand evolution and atheism go together. Their are theistic evolutionists who are still creationists because they believe God created evolutionary processes. Atheists hijacked a scientific theory and made it their naturalistic "religion" of Darwinism. They have to put their faith in something...



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
I suppose what i mean by atheists hijacking evolution is that some have gone from defending themselves against religion,to using it as an argument/weapon against religion in the never ending God debate to prove that he/she/it/they do not exist.


Not quite. The theists have tried to put the ideas together and use it against atheism, the logical response to this is to defend evolution. This has led to the ideas being synonymous even though they shouldn't be. I'm afraid it really is the theists fault for attacking a scientific theory without evidence and then extending that theory to attack a philosophical position.


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
No it is "Demigod of the damned" Dickie Dawkins , "Deacon of the deplorable" Daniel Dennet & their awful atheistic altar boys that demand evolution and atheism go together. Their are theistic evolutionists who are still creationists because they believe God created evolutionary processes. Atheists hijacked a scientific theory and made it their naturalistic "religion" of Darwinism. They have to put their faith in something...


Wrong again i'm afraid. Please see my above points. Dawkins didn't put evolution with atheism, it was well before that that religious zealots put them together. Even worse you are completely misrepresenting dawkins!!! Dawkins has said over and over that evolution doesn't disprove god, it just disproves the earth being 6000 years old. It shows transitional fossils over and over and a very good map of species evolution.

Dawkins defended evolution and then it was tied in with atheism and he was left with the rather sad position of having to tie the two together and defend both at once. I must admit i wish he'd made it very clear that the two were different and had defended them seperately.

Abiogenesis disproves creation and if you want to argue about that then go for it as the theories are still very open. Evolution has nothing and i repeat NOTHING to do with abiogenesis. To equate evolution with abiogenesis requires either complete ignorance or propaganda.

Then again even abiogenesis doesn't disprove a god! that's the beauty of a god, you cannot disprove it.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



Dawkins didn't put evolution with atheism, it was well before that that religious zealots put them together. Even worse you are completely misrepresenting dawkins!!!


Whoops! it is you that is completely misrepresenting Dawkins.

In the BBC special "The trouble with Atheism" he directly states he became an atheist from "understanding Darwin."

At 2:50 in this video.





Abiogenesis disproves creation a....


Abiogenesis doesn't even merit being called a viable theory. It only disproves itself. It's just wishful thinking and wild speculation.

It may not technically be connected to "evolution" however it is very much connected to Naturalism which most Darwinists are adherents to. Without abiogenesis (which is an absurdity of the highest order) there are no naturalistic explanations for life without invoking outside intervention.

:shk:



[edit on 10/5/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TALIN
They don't have an agenda?


Who scientists?

Yeah, to explain stuff as best they can.

Amazing the number of atheist scientists c.f. public, though, must be something to do with the analytical scientific approach to knowledge.


Wrong again,,

Just see what was the largest group of opposition during Dover VS Kitzmiller and you discover Atheists have a very efficient lobby a very vocal group of leaders and keeping ID out of public schools is one of many items on there agenda


Not sure atheists were. The clergy project found enough religious leaders (10,000) to support the crazy notion of actually teaching science within the science classroom, whilst keeping pseudoscientific claptrap out.

Indeed, the killer witness at Dover (apart from Mike 'foot in mouth' Behe) was no atheist - Ken Miller is da man.

Anyway, atheism =/= science or evolution, but the approach to science does overlap with the approach of many atheists. I reject the god hypothesis just like garage-dwelling dragons and other pseudoscientific BS.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


OK bigwhammy if you're going to quote me please do it completely and without bias because i said clearly.


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Then again even abiogenesis doesn't disprove a god! That's the beauty of a god, you cannot disprove it.


Quote mining like you just did is completely unfair.


Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
It may not technically be connected to "evolution" however it is very much connected to Naturalism which most Darwinists are adherents to. Without abiogenesis (which is an absurdity of the highest order) there are no naturalistic explanations for life without invoking outside intervention.


You've dismissed abiogenesis without saying why, calling it absurd without giving reason. You are quite correct, without abiogenesis there would be no other explanation, but we do have abiogenesis.

The Dawkins video you list is quite unfair. Whilst Dawkins may have become an atheist after reading evolutionary theory, it doesn't mean that evolution and atheism are synonymous. In the end you can believe in evolution and believe in god if you so choose. It's very easy if you believe in god to say that god set up evolution. Why is that so hard to come to terms with?

I'm not an atheist because of evolution for example, evolution doesn't even factor into my atheism. It's nice knowing how things evolved but it doesn't explain how life came about and it was never meant to explain that.

[edit on 5-10-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Abiogenesis doesn't even merit being called a viable theory. It only disproves itself. It's just wishful thinking and wild speculation.

It may not technically be connected to "evolution" however it is very much connected to Naturalism which most Darwinists are adherents to. Without abiogenesis (which is an absurdity of the highest order) there are no naturalistic explanations for life without invoking outside intervention.


A. This is completely off topic!

B. What's your basis for this conclusion? If you are going to insist on derailing this thread, at least have source material to back up your own 'wild accusations'.

You are proof that it is not the atheists who have hijacked evolution, but creationists who have done so, twisting it to suit your own ends.

Now, just as a reminder, the topic of discussion is 'Have Atheists Hijacked Evolution', let's see if we can stay on topic. If not, there are a ton of threads where you can argue about the validity of evolution, try going there.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I think this thread not only answers the OP's question, it substantiates it with undeniable proofs and evidence. This is some impressive detective work you have done here Big Wham

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 5-10-2008 by TALIN]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

A. This is completely off topic!

B. What's your basis for this conclusion? If you are going to insist on derailing this thread, at least have source material to back up your own 'wild accusations'.

You are proof that it is not the atheists who have hijacked evolution, but creationists who have done so, twisting it to suit your own ends.


No it is your inability to follow previous posts regarding questions posed to Bigwham that apparently YOU see as an opportunity to whine and cry foul making accusations of his intent to derail the thread.



Now, just as a reminder, the topic of discussion is 'Have Atheists Hijacked Evolution', let's see if we can stay on topic. If not, there are a ton of threads where you can argue about the validity of evolution, try going there.


How about you try apologizing for your false accusations and presumptuous assertions.

Here you did it again.



B. What's your basis for this conclusion?


You asked him again his conclusion regarding abiogenesis and are we to expect when he answers it YOU go jumping off the deep end crying about derailing the thread? I mean it's a clever trick and all but it's old hat and very overdone around here. Nice try though

STAY FOCUSED

ok Thanks



[edit on 5-10-2008 by TALIN]



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TALIN
 


Really it does? Because i'm an atheist and yet i'm not an atheist because of evolution. Evolution is nice but it doesn't remove god from the equation and only some atheists use it in that way. It's unfair to use this theory as a disproof of god, it shouldn't be done.

However some atheists use it in this way because people are constantly attacking evolution. I suppose you could say atheists have been forced to evolve to defend evolution lol.



posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by TALIN
 


Really it does? Because i'm an atheist and yet i'm not an atheist because of evolution. Evolution is nice but it doesn't remove god from the equation and only some atheists use it in that way. It's unfair to use this theory as a disproof of god, it shouldn't be done.

However some atheists use it in this way because people are constantly attacking evolution. I suppose you could say atheists have been forced to evolve to defend evolution lol.


Read your own post and you see where you give yourself and atheists away

You said

It's unfair to use this theory as a disproof of god, it shouldn't be done.


As much as I agree with that statement, the FACT it is done all the time and when you say atheists have evolved to defend evolution I first have to decide why are Atheist so about defending it in the first place.

I don't subscribe to that asinine theory that because one is an atheist he automatically has a genetic predisposition toward an interest in Science with a focus on the biological sciences and their genetically superior logic and reason with a larger left hemisphere of the brain.

I have seen too many times Atheists assuming because one doesn't agree with evolution then they have'nt read anything about it or are too stupid to understand it and as always of course, this person is a "fundie" or "xian" or creationist said in a tone that evokes utter angst and disdain like a vampire to holy water. It's actually quite comical to watch their reaction and snob like arrogance we have already seen in meltonins post suggesting scientists are atheists because of their analytical approach brewhaha PFFFFFT Baloney.

No it is more likely the reason for supporting it so is that it answeres away the Christian God making irrelevnt. Or to be more specific borrowing from your own phraze again they have evolved to defend evolution so much so they have adopted it as their own religion hence they have "Hijacked it"



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TALIN
No it is your inability to follow previous posts regarding questions posed to Bigwham that apparently YOU see as an opportunity to whine and cry foul making accusations of his intent to derail the thread.


A. I wasn't talking to you.

B. It is apparent that this is becoming a 'Atheist vs. Creationist' over the validity of evolution thread, when it is apparent, if you bothered to read the OP, that it is not supposed to be. As I said, there are a ton of threads for that debate. Try taking that debate there. And that applies to all parties concerned in this derailment, both atheist and creationist.


How about you try apologizing for your false accusations and presumptuous assertions.


The apology should come from those who are derailing the thread, not from someone who would actually like to read what other have to say on the topic of the OP.


Here you did it again.



B. What's your basis for this conclusion?


Quote mining??? Come on, isn't that old hat??? Especially if you are going to put in the full quote at the beginning of the post.

How about you take your own advice: STAY FOCUSED

More importantly: STAY ON TOPIC

ok Thanks



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts


A. I wasn't talking to you.


1) So you don't know that I know who you were talking to or do you think I need your approval. Sorry guy,,when I see you trying to make mountains out of molehills instigating what ever kind of attention you can garner from Mods to either whammyor myself as you are trying here, perpetuating the same juvenile tactics of an agent provocateur with a pet peave you keep insisting we are petting a lot. Ill say this again homicide, if you don't like people derailing threads with minutia, then I suggest,,,


STOP BRINGING IT UP!



It is apparent that this is becoming a 'Atheist vs. Creationist' over the validity of evolution thread, when it is apparent, if you bothered to read the OP, that it is not supposed to be.


No what is apparent is that YOU keep trying to turn this into a derailment thread, now we have tried DESPERATLEY not to upset you any further with talk about evolutions validity and as much as I would like to get back to the subject the OP is intended, YOU on the other hand can't seem to stay focused. I see you like to use my words, my comments and I must agree the most factual intelligent things you have said in your post, you have either quoted me saying or copied.


B. As I said, there are a ton of threads for that debate. Try taking that debate there. And that applies to all parties concerned in this derailment, both atheist and creationist.


Oh My My WILL YOU GET PAST THIS CRAP ALREADY! If you got something to say then SAY IT! The ONLY one desperate to effing derail this thread is YOU! NOW KNOCK IT OFF!



The apology should come from those who are derailing the thread, not from someone who would actually like to read what other have to say on the topic of the OP.



Ya know what, I am trying to get on with the OP but "SOMEONE" just CAN'T get over his obsession with the idea of thread derailment, and then he insists he wants to debate the OP but his obsessive compulsive behavior seems to border on fetish perhaps a fantasy of a derailing dominitrix or maybe you have a need that isn't being met by your current "partner" maybe you were beaten by a derailer as a child,

I DON'T KNOW AND I DON'T CARE! with



Quote mining??? Come on, isn't that old hat??? Especially if you are going to put in the full quote at the beginning of the post.


Ok now again I see you have accused Big wham of quote mining and now you are accusing me when the post I had got the quote from was right above mine in the full context of the original post! Look it is painfully obvious, as much as you whine and complain and bitch about derailing and quote mining, the FACT is,, YOU HAVE NO INTENTION of ever getting past your pet peaves and silly antics, if you feel like gettiing serious you LET ME KNOW, otherwise I got better things to do than answer questions you raise only to have you accuse me of derailing a thread just for answering a question YOU brought up on a topic YOU can't seem to get past and move on but I WILL .





More importantly: STAY ON TOPIC




Umm what? this isn't the derailment thread?

- TALIN
PS; umm oh btw,, we're done!




[edit on 6-10-2008 by TALIN]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
Clearskies.



Hitler's views on evolution dictated that there were inferior races, who were threatening to interbreed with the higher races and 'taint' them.


Yes,its called Eugenics,not Evolution.


Eugenics;
wiki

The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[3] drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin.


After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Galton built upon Darwin's ideas whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest; and only by changing these social policies could society be saved from a "reversion towards mediocrity," a phrase he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now common "regression towards the mean."


Darwin subscribed to the the theory that the weak should not breed and degenerate the races, but argued that it would hurt the 'noble' conscience of those who CHOSE to limit the negative effects. And furthermore that the ONLY salvation in the evolution of mankind, was that those with deformities didn't marry and procreate as much as the 'fit'.

Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. ... We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.[4]


So, you tell me, where is the connection between Hitler and Darwin.
It's just that Darwin didn't have the moral capacity to kill the weak and speed up evolution?

W.S. Gilbert; "Darwinian Man, though well-behaved,
At best is only a monkey shaved!"



[edit on 6-10-2008 by Clearskies]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 


Some selective quoting going on in your post.

Taken from the same source.


Galton devoted much of the rest of his life to exploring variation in human populations and its implications,at which Darwin had only hinted.In doing so,he eventually established a research programme which embraced many aspects of human variation,from mental characteristics to height,from facial images to fingerprint patterns.This required inventing novel measures of traits,devising large-scale collection of data using those measures,and in the end the discovery of new statistical techniques for describing and understanding the data gathered.



Taken from page 155 of A Life of Sir Francis Galton.

Galton was encouraged to investigate topics that had long interested him,which "clustered around the central topics of Heredity and the possible improvement of the Human Race." From the outset Galton seemed to have been convinced that nature,not nurture,determined human ability...


books.google.co.uk... e5aiBwoA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA155,M1


Darwin only hinted because it was not relevant to his field of study.And,as the above quote shows,Galton obviously had these ideas before he read his cousins book.







[edit on 6-10-2008 by jakyll]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join