Century of Slander

The first species, Homo primigenius, or the ape-man, the ancestor of all the others,
probably arose in the tropical regions of the old world from anthropoid apes. Of these
no fossil remains are as yet known to us, but they were probably akin to the gorilla
and orang of the present day. The three following woolly-haired species, and of them
the Papuan Negro mentioned next are, among living races, the nearest to Homo primigenius.
— Ernst Haeckel, Pedigree of Man, Freethought Publishing, 1883.

Indigenous peoples, especially the natives of Terra del Fuego, Papua and Australia, should hire some sharp lawyers and go after evolutionary biologists — maybe even after Darwin’s estate or Haeckel’s. You see, not only have evolutionists been heaping baseless slander on these people for over a century, they published countless science books full of slander like that, made a living off it, and furthered their careers by it.

In his 1865 book Prehistoric Times, John Lubbock gave a quick summary of the state of the art, at the time, of the evolutionist’s thinking on indigenous peoples:

Travellers and naturalists have varied a good deal in opinion as to the race of savages
which is entitled to the unenviable reputation of being the lowest in the scale of civilisation.
Cook, Darwin, Fitzroy, and Wallis were decidedly in favor, if I may so say, of the Fuegian;
Burchell maintained that the Bushmen are the lowest; D’Urville voted for the Australians
and Tasmanians; Dampier thought the Australians “the miserablest people in the world;”
Forster said that the people of Mallicollo “bordered the nearest upon the tribe
of monkeys;”
Owen inclines to the Andamaners; others have supported the North
American Root-diggers; and one French writer even insinuates that monkeys are
more human than Laplanders.
(pg. 445-446)

While we can’t guess in what context this french author meant that monkeys are more human than Laplanders, we can be sure that an evolutionist like Lubbock will repeat it so as to give his reader a not too subtle suggestion that Laplanders are a transitional form between monkeys and man. A few decades later on, in History of Creation (volume 2, 1887), we find Haeckel lecturing more explicitly on the ‘indigenous peoples = monkeys and apes’ equation, which had by then become a grand theme of evolutionary biology…

At the lowest stage of human mental development are tlie Australians, some tribes
of the Polynesians,, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes…
some of the wildest tribes in southern Asia and eastern Africa have no trace whatever
of the first foundations of all human civilization, of family life, and marriage. They live
together in herds, like apes, generally climbing on trees and eating fruits; they do not
know of fire, and use stones and dubs as weapons, just like the higher apes… They
have hardly risen above the lowest stage of transition from man-like apes to ape-like men,
a stage which, the progenitors of the higher human species had already passed through
thousands of years ago.
(pg 363-364.)

Haeckel then suggests that it isn’t a bad idea to classify these indigenous peoples with the animals rather than humans.

Now, if instituting comparisons in both directions, we place the lowest and most ape-like
men (the Austral Negroes, Bushmen, and Andamans, etc.), on the one hand, together
with the most highly developed animals, for instance, with apes, dogs, and elephants,
and on the other hand, with the most highly developed men Aristotle, Newton, Spinoza,
Kant, Lamarck, or Goethe we can then no longer consider the assertion, that the mental
life of the higher mammals has gradually developed up to that of man, as in any way
exaggerated. If one must draw a sharp boundary between them, it has to be drawn between
the most highly developed and civilized man on the one hand, and the rudest savages on
the other, and the latter have to be classed with the animals. This is, in fact, the opinion
of many travellers, who have long watched the lowest human races in their native countries.
Thus, for example, a great English traveller, who lived for a considerable time on the west coast
of Africa, says: “I consider the negro to be a lower species of man, and cannot make
up my mind to look upon him as a man and a brother, for the gorilla would then also have to be
admitted into the family.”
(pg 365.)

Notice how, in the last part, Haeckel takes a statement intended as invective against “the negro”, and turns it into a point for evolution. It is as if we would cite a teacher heaping opprobrium on his class of sixth-graders, “look at those morons, they’re no better than baboons” and present it in a science book as a piece of scientific evidence for man’s origin from apes. History of Creation was, after all, a science book, and an acclaimed one at that. The rest of the book contains many nuggets of evolutionary wisdom, such as these:

“The chimpanzee builds himself a house or shelter almost equal to that of some savages…
So long, indeed, as he was confined to the tropics, he may have found a succession of fruits,
and have lived as the monkeys do now. Indeed, according to Bates, this is the case with some
of the Brazilian Indians. “The monkeys” he says “lead in fact a life similar to that of the Pararauate
Indians.” (pg 475-476.)

This is an easy sort of science isn’t it? Just sit back in your arm-chair, light up a spliff or a crack-pipe, and make up any sort of analogy between indgenous peoples and monkeys or apes that your heart desires. Haeckel, as well as others, got very much mileage out of it. In Wonders of Life (1905), Haeckel explores new dimensions of this kind of anthropological science:

The lowest and oldest savages come very close to the anthropoid apes from which
they have descended, in bodily structure
and habits… The value of the life of
these lower savages is like that of the anthropoid apes, or very little higher… Other scattered
remnants of these ancient negroid dwarfs, which approach closely to the anthropoid apes
All recent travellers who have carefully observed them in their native lands, and studied their
bodily structure and psychic life, agree in this opinion… Their only interests are food and
reproduction, in the same simple form in which we find these among the anthropoid apes.
(pg 392-393.)

What an astonishing statement! So now, it isn’t just that savages are similar to apes in “mental life,” “habits” or “interests”, but “bodily”, anatomically! These indigenous people, according to Haeckel and others, are anatomically similar to apes! By Jove, if you thought that evolution science was improving and ‘correcting itself’ since 1839 when Darwin said comparable idiocies about the Fuegians, you thought wrong!

Speaking of that, in Voyage of the Beagle, Darwin famously relates his impressions of the natives of Terra del Fuego. Since then, the Fuegians, like the Tasmanians and others, have been a staple in the evolutionist’s pantry of ‘primitive almost-ape-men’ who are ‘nearer to our monkey ancestors’ etc. And they have been a regular target of evolutionary slanders by biologists who need to make their daily bread somehow. Darwin was actually making a ridiculous analogy between civilized men versus Fuegians on the one hand, and domesticated animals versus wild ones on the other. David Stove explains…

When Darwin first encountered the Yahgan Indians in their homeland of Tierra del Fuego,
he was thunderstruck. “I could not have believed how wide was the difference between
savage and civilised man: it is greater than between a wild and [a] domesticated animal”…
But in fact Darwin was mistaken about the Yahgans: indeed, just about as completely
mistaken as it would have been possible to be. We know this from the testimony of a man who
was born and spent most of his life among them. This was Lucas Bridges, whose parents were
Christian missionaries to the Yahgans, and the first white settlers in Tierra del Fuego, only a
few decades after the Beagle’s visit.

Darwin, and everyone else on the Beagle, believed that the Yahgans were cannibals. In fact they
were so far from being so that, among them, even to eat the flesh of a condor earned opprobrium,
because that bird might have eaten human flesh. Their language, Darwin wrote, “scarcely deserves
to be called articulate”. But Lucas Bridges’ father compiled a Yahgan dictionary of 32,000 words,
which did not pretend to be complete at that. Darwin thought the Yahgans were careless and even
brutal towards their children; in fact they were intensely devoted to them. Their religion was as
important to them as it is to every primitive people; Darwin was unaware of its very existence.
And as for their everyday social life, much of it was, even by Darwin’s own description, “just like home”.
There was, for example, lying and detestation of liars; theft aid recognition that theft is a crime;
men who alienated the affections of other men’s wives, amid general disapproval; and so on. All of
which was no doubt equally true of the civilised people on board the Beagle, even under the command
of that most formidable autocrat, Capt. Robert Fitzroy.

Yet Darwin actually said, as we have just seen, that the difference between the Yahgans (say) and
the people on the Beagle (say) is greater than the difference between a wild and a domesticated animal!
Just a few weeks earlier, he had had a blazing row with Fitzroy, as a result of which he thought he
might be obliged to leave the ship. Now suppose Fitzroy had marooned him among the Yahgans, with
only the clothes he stood up in. There would then have been only two ways he could have survived:
by being sustained, like a Yahgan child, by the generosity of the adults; or by getting food every day,
as the adults did, without even the assistance of fish hooks or bows and arrows, in one of the most
appalling climates and inhospitable terrains on earth. Then he would have seen the world rightly! In
particular he would have seen rightly the difference between civilised and savage man. He would have
seen that if the Yahgans were wild animals, or something more foreign still, then so was he; and that,
since he clearly was not that, then neither were they…

Marooning Darwin with the Fuegians. Now there’s a fine idea! With Haeckel too. A few years of living among the savages would have set those two aright. Perhaps they would have been cured of that detestable habit of theirs, of comparing Fuegians, Australians and Africans to apes and monkeys.

Although Lucas Bridges’ account refutes — long long ago — everything that Darwin said about the Fuegians, and everything that Haeckel said about the Fuegians, and everything that any other evolutionist said about them, especially those tales where the Fuegians were held up to be an example of some kind of near-ape… and yet despite this… why should Lucas Bridges’ account, or any other account stop an evolutionist? Clearly, the evolutionist Ed Clodd (his real name, not making it up) had no need of Lucas Bridges and his account. This is what Clodd says in Story of Creation, 1904.

Yet even in brain-structure the differences between [man] and the chimpanzee are slight when
compared with the differences between the brain of the chimpanzee and the lemur. It is in the
deeper furrows and the more intricate convolutions that the distinction lies; but even
here the gap between civilised and savage man is greater than that between the savage and
the man-like apes.
Therefore, in following evolution to its highest operations and results,
the comparison lies between the several races of mankind. Darwin… describes
the Fuegians, who rank amongst the lowest savages, as men “whose very signs and expressions
are less intelligible to us than those of the domesticated animals, men who do not possess the
instinct of those animals, nor yet appear to boast of human reason, or at least of arts consequent
on that reason”. Such races are somewhat nearer to the ape than to the European,
and it is from like accounts of existing savages that we may form a rough picture of primitive man.
(pg 183-185)

And so, we see that evolutionists have had a really, really hard time staying away from this particular crack-pipe.

Hawking and Islamic TV

In discussions with evolutionists and other worshippers of science, you will sooner or later have to make some type of philosophical argument. Perhaps about the nature of truth or being, or the meaning of life or whatever. And you will have to respond to philosophical arguments and assertions, such as, ‘you can’t prove anything’, ‘people are apes’, and so on. If, however, you defend your views with philosophical propositions and arguments, you will sometimes meet the astonishing retort: “philosophy is rubbish.” Be prepared for an ignorant lecture about the value of human thought throughout the ages…

Philosophy? Hahaha. Hey how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin? Fee-Lo-so-Fee.
Hahaha. That’s just gobbledygook isn’t it? Epistemology? Is that like
magic? Metaphysics? That’s a kind of astrology or alchemy, right? Isn’t
that like witchcraft or something? Hahaha, you believe in that crap?
Tell me, how many diseases has philosophy ever cured? Did
metaphysics send probes into outer space? Did epistemologists
discover antibiotics? Hahah, philosophy! Plato? Aristotle? It’s just
nonsense and worthless talk. It is better to study Darwin’s book
Origin and Science, boy.

To further the Darwinian cause, it’s important to ridicule and to de-legitimize philosophy as an intellectual force this way, because you don’t want people applying critical thinking to the toughest questions of life — such as questions about meaning, purpose, consciousness and causality. Darwinism in particular demands a rejection of classical western philosophy. It’s better to mindlessly accept the Darwinian explanation of things without thinking too hard about it. And if we do accept the Darwinian explanation of things, our brains, being merely rearranged monkey-brains, have no business mulling over metaphysics. For, as Darwin said, who would bother to “trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” Philosophy is, at best, worthless banter and the idle speculations of the re-arranged minds of monkeys.

Philosophy is useless. That’s what a growing number of scientism cult members say. Steven Weinberg, for example, thinks that philosophy is mostly useless. Stephen Hawking goes a bit farther. He says that “philosophy is dead”. Imagine that, 2500 years of human thought is casually written off as worthless, not to mention “dead”, by these people.

Do you know who else sweepingly writes off philosophy this way? The clerics at Al-Rahma Islamic TV. No surprise there, because as far back as in the 12th century, Islamic thinkers came to the conclusion that western philosophy was useless — just as Weinberg and Hawking and countless other devotees of scientism have presently concluded, nine centuries later. And we see how well this turned out for Islamic civilization. We should emulate them. Follow in their footsteps, no? They are 9 centuries ahead of us on the road prescribed by the adepts of scientism.

Al-Rahma Islamic TV: Philosophy Is a Worthless Science!

About the question asking about the ruling of studying philosophy.
I say that if you are not obliged to study philosophy, then don’t
study it. Philosophy is just a nonsense worthless talk and there is
no value for such “philosophy.” There is no value for such philosophy,
and there is no value for all these sciences. It is better to study Allah’s
book (Quran), and the Sunna of your prophet Mohammed (Peace be
Upon Him.)

Brutal Skulls

Remember the Loony Tunes episode where Marvin the Martian accidentally turns Bugs Bunny into a Neanderthal rabbit? Classic stuff. That picturesque impression of Neanderthals is deeply ingrained in many of us, except perhaps in the latest generation of youngsters who don’t watch Bugs Bunny. They have been fed a sanitized, less cartoonishly absurd, more politically friendly view of Neanderthal man from evolutionists who wish everyone would forget what they used to say about Neanderthal man. But… let’s not forget.

Lest some of you forget that embarrassing knuckle-dragging ape-man stuff, here is a quick refresher from McCabe’s excellent fake science book Prehistoric Man pg 30 onward:

…earlier than… 10,000 years ago, human beings wandered over the greater part
of Europe… They were below the cultural level of the Australian native. Their beetling
eye-ridges, retreating foreheads, heavy chinless jaws, and protruding teeth, are quite
in accord with their stone implements, and betray a very low level of mental culture.
They had no agriculture, no bows and arrows, no tamed cattle, no pottery, no woven
texture, and probably — as we shall see — no clothing and no articulate speech… From
the earliest remains found, these men are given the name of the Neanderthal race.

The general physical and mental character of this race is now firmly established…
they belonged to an extraordinarily primitive type of man. All controversy as to the
normal human character is now over, and the skeleton is admitted to be that of a man
of the early part of the Old Stone Age. The thigh-bones were very heavy and much curved,
and they and the other bones indicated very powerful muscles and a very moderate height.
The man stood about 5 feet 3 inches, his legs slightly curved, and his limbs and chest of
great power. His large teeth bulged outward, and there was little chin. Two thick bony
ridges stood out far over his eyes, and his forehead was extremely low. The skull might
contain 1,220 cubic centimetres of brain matter, which is much the same as that of an
Australian native. Some writers have represented that this is a fair capacity for a man of
5 feet 3 inches, and greater than that of many Veddahs and Andamanese. The latter,
however, have very slight frames to control, unlike the Neanderthal man. As Huxley said,
the skull was “the most brutal of all human skulls” at the time it was discovered.

The next most important discovery was at Spy, in Belgium… complete skeletons of the
Neanderthal type. One skull is slightly better than the other (which some authorities
attribute to difference of age), but both have the heavy frontal ridges, and the low,
retreating forehead, the powerful chinless jaw, and the bulging teeth of the Diisseldorf
skeleton. The men were evidently adults, but the mental capacity was low, and the great
mass of the brain was thrown behind. The thigh-bones were thick and curved, and they
and the other bones indicated very powerful muscles. We had the same suggestion of a
squat, powerful, stunted savage, with brain and facial features going back toward those
of the ape.

More recently finds of great importance have been made in France and Germany, and the
character of early Paleolithic man may be regarded as fixed… Professor Klaatsch regarded
the remains as the most primitive yet discovered… The familiar early Paleolithic characters
— heavy frontal ridges, retreating forehead, bulging teeth, and retreating chin — were very
strongly developed… The Heidelberg jaw belongs to the earliest part of the Pleistocene…
While the teeth, which are preserved in it, stamp it as distinctly human, the massiveness of
the jaw and complete absence of chin bring it closer to the ape-type than any other. It is
midway in profile between the jaw of the gorilla and that of an Australian native… There is
very strong reason to regard this jaw as intermediate in type, between the Ape-man of Java
and the Neanderthal man, if not entirely on a level with the former.

The most recent find of importance… The skull was extremely thick, and had the Neanderthal
features (eye-ridges, low forehead, absence of chin) very strongly developed… it is… nearer
to the Ape-man than any of the others. Here the pithecoid features have definitely shaded
into the human, but the beetling ridges over the eyes, the low forehead, the chinless jaw,
and protruding teeth, still recall the gorilla or the chimpanzee.

That’s how evolutionists used to sell Neanderthals to the public: as ape-men. Part man, part gorilla, part chimpanzee. A Neanderthal was a “squat, powerful, stunted savage, with brain and facial features going back toward those of the ape.” “The massiveness of the jaw and complete absence of chin bring it closer to the ape-type than any other” “It is midway in profile between the jaw of the gorilla and that of an Australian native” “it is… nearer to the Ape-man than any of the others,” “the beetling ridges over the eyes, the low forehead, the chinless jaw, and protruding teeth, still recall the gorilla or the chimpanzee.”

You know, if you said that, thousands of years ago, gorillas roamed all over Europe, people would say you’re crazy. Perhaps that proposition doesn’t sound ridiculous enough. Tell them that, thousands of years ago, “pithecoid” savages or chinless semi-humans who grunted a lot, were perpetually hunched-over, had nightmarish dentition and “brutally” retreating foreheads, with such powerful musculature as would make Vasily Alexeyev look like a weakling, roamed all over Europe… people would say, right, that sounds reasonable.

On the positive side, without all this ape-man stuff, we would have been deprived of some good cartoon moments.

By the way, how can a skull be “brutal”? Does that even make sense?

May Haeckel Expunge your Superstitions!

Haeckel. The name sounds like a curse.

Way back in 1878, Rudolf Virchow predicted that if Haeckel wasn’t stopped, his biological fantasies would bring doom upon a future generation of Germans. “Imagine what shape the theory of descent takes in the head of a Socialist.” This is a scary and uncanny prophecy, when you think about the Nazis and their biological politics that were to come. Modern research shows that the Nazis were influenced by Haeckel’s work. How could they not have been? He was one of the most popular and most widely read figures of the pre-war era. The generation of Germans prior to the rise of the Nazis learned evolutionism from him. Which brings us to another prophetic comment, this time by an atheist, Van Buren Denslow. Unlike Virchow, whose prophecy came true in the way he forsaw, Denslow’s prophecy about Haeckel turned out true in a way he may not have forseen. In his book Modern Thinkers (1880, introduction by Ingersoll), he says this about Haeckel:

…it is not without reason that we designate the recent work of Ernst Haeckel on
“The Evolution of Man,” the English translation of which has just been published by
Appletons, the greatest scientific work of the century. Throughout
this work Haeckel evinces a bold and manly scientific recognition of the fact that, as
its discoveries come to be accepted and digested, Christian and all other teleological
theologies are brought to an end… [Haeckel's] “Evolution of Man” is a very great and
masterful work. It secures to its author the very front rank among naturalists and
materialistic philosophers. It will be read with avidity by millions, and its effect
upon human thought cannot be predicted — except to say that it will be lasting and profound.

At the beginning of Aveling’s translation of a collection of Haeckel essays called Pedigree of Man there appears a curious advertisment by the “Freethought Publishing Company”. The advertisment is a good example of the sort of self-delusions under which atheists labor and how easily they wander off into the weeds all by themselves:

In issuing, under the name of the “International Library of Science and Freethought,”
a series of books of which the present volume is the sixth (Volume V., being a continuation
of Mr. Bradlaugh’s commentary on Genesis, is now preparing for the press), the Freethought
Publishing Company desires to place at the service of English Freethought the weapons
wielded against superstition in foreign countries as well as those forged in England itself.
The writings of foreign scientists are not as well known in England as their merit deserves;
there are some valuable text-books — such as those of Gegenbaur and of Thome — which
have their place on the bookshelf of the student; but the aim of the Freethought Publishing
Company is to issue such works as will reach the general reader, as well as the scientific
student, and render Buchner, Haeckel and others as well-known to the English public as are
Huxley and Darwin. German science is one of the glories of the world; it is time that it should
lend in England that same aid to Freethought which in Germany has made every educated man
a Freethinker.

This induction of Haeckel into the world’s hall of glories was published in 1883. But it was known long before then that Haeckel was a fraud. Haeckel’s reputation as a scientist began to erode as early as 1868 when he was first accused of doctoring illustrations. But do not think that Haeckel’s forgeries of science were limited to illustrations of embryos. His essays and major works are so full of confabulations, demagoguery, pseudo-scientific rot and misleading illustrations that nothing of his — not a page — can be trusted. Huge slabs of made-up stuffing line his writings on primate anatomy, ape-men, protoplasm, the races of man, embryology, the origins of life, the habits of savages, the history of man, the history of civilization and religion, phylogenic trees, etc. Even his work on monera was fake. Why, Haeckel even conned a rich american benefactor to finance a search for more ape-man fossils in Java. Haeckel spent the money doing something else, and in his defense he claimed that man’s descent from apes was so well established it needed no further proof from fossils. So, Haeckel made every educated German a freethinker, they say. This doesn’t offer much evidence to support the “freethinker’s” typical portrait of himself: as being someone with superior mental faculties — compared to the next guy — to sort fact from fiction, science from superstition and rational thought from delusion.

You Need a Root Canal, Mivart

Have you ever wanted to read Origin of Species but were put off by the mountains of bad english and tedious, badly-punctuated paragraphs that seem to go nowhere? Was your resolve to read Darwin weakened when you faced the fact that all his works were like this? Nevertheless, whatever be your scientific credentials, you will never be taken seriously by evolutionists unless you read every word Darwin wrote. Which they, mind you, have not done. Help is on the way! In 1884, Nathan Sheppard put together a decent compilation of material from Origin and Descent that will get you up to speed with less pain. It’s called Darwinism as Stated by Darwin Himself.

Right after the interesting preface by Sheppard, there are two pages of testimonials titled “DARWIN AND HIS THEORIES FROM A RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW.” These are quotations that are intended to suggest to you, the reader, that what follows is not designed to damage your faith, and that Darwin’s theories are not only compatible with Christianity, they are an expression of it. Doesn’t this alarm you? Doesn’t it make you immediately suspect the opposite? That this is a scam, and the rest of the book is in fact not compatible with Christianity and intended to damage your faith? Darwin himself is a good example. His faith in God diminished in proportion to the growth of his conviction in his theories about evolution, until nothing remained. Despite all those testimonials and disclaimers, the effect of Darwinism on Darwin’s own faith was thoroughly corrosive.

The first testimonial is by Canon Prothero. Speaking of Darwin, he says:

“Surely in such a man lived that true charity which is the very
essence of the true spirit of Christ.”

I’ve heard all sorts of absurd praise and accolades for Charles Darwin. There’s a website, for example, that suggests Darwin invented an early form of the internet. Huxley put Darwin on the same pedestal of wisdom next to Socrates. Wallace said of him “there are none to stand beside him as equals in the whole domain of science.” Is all this exaggeration necessary? As if that’s not painful or embarrassing enough, one biographer exclaimed in a fit of evolutionary passion that Darwin was “the finest englishman in all England,” while Sheppard adds, in his preface, that “science never had a champion whose temper and behavior were more nearly in accord with the practical injunctions of the Christian religion.” This is an odd thing to say about a man who didn’t believe in God or Christ, didn’t go to church, and thought that the Bible was rubbish.

Nevertheless — and I’m sure the astute thinker already foresaw this as inevitable — someone, Prothero in this case, compares Darwin literally to Christ. Darwin laid down his life for me and you, dear reader. Doesn’t all this make you feel somewhat ill? Here’s a remedy. Let’s put a testimonial consisting of a few words by Darwin himself, right up on that page next to Prothero…

“the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world…
was no more to be trusted than… the beliefs of any barbarian.”
“the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible
do miracles become… I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity
as a divine revelation.” “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought
to wish Christianity to be true” “Everything in nature is the result of
fixed laws.” “Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant
inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so
strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully
developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their
belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and
hatred of a snake.” “I do not believe… in Jesus Christ as the
Son of God.”

On the second page of testimonials we have a strikingly deceptive one which is worth discussing at length:

“Christian believers are found among the ranks of evolutionists
without apparent prejudice to their faith. Professor Mivart, the
zoologist; Professor Asa Gray, the botanist; Professor Le Conte
and Professor Winchell, the geologists, may be named as among
these. — The Presbyterian.

How strange to include Le Conte in this list. In his view, there were only three religions compatible with evolutionism: atheism, deism and pantheism. More of him in a future post.

Mivart’s name is brought up as a witness to the compatibility of evolution and Christianity. But. to inject some sudden reality into this rosy picture, let’s add a testimonial from Benn’s History of English Rationalism in the 19th Century, volume 2, pg 348-349:

Among the scientific professors [at Kensington University]
were Richard Proctor, the astronomer, and St. George Mivart,
the biologist. Both embraced the theory of evolution. Proctor
soon afterwards became an agnostic and a vehement assailant
of all Christian theology.

All right, so Proctor went off the deep end. What of Mivart? Mivart was a famous biologist and a member of the Royal Society. Sometimes he is portrayed as an enemy of evolutionism, and, at other times when it suits evolutionists, he is portrayed as one of the fold. Mivart was not a follower of Darwin. It seems that Mivart came to believe in evolution independently, and developed his own ideas of the mechanisms of evolution and published them in a book called The Genesis of Species. In his book Mivart sharply blasted Darwinian natural selection and Darwin’s theory of Pangenesis. His criticisms, as T.H. Morgan put it, “hit the mark.” Having no answer, Darwin turned to Huxley and kindly asked him if he may ruin Mivart in some way, by dragging him into a theological debate, or otherwise damage his reputation by making a public spectacle out of him. That way Darwin and Co. could dismiss Mivart’s objections as mere theology, unworthy of a response from a scientist.

The real crime against evolutionism that Mivart committed was not his critiques of natural selection or of pangenesis. It was this: Mivart believed that evolution and Christianity were compatible. He maintained and expounded this position in much of the latter part of Genesis of Species. How this compatibility was to be achieved, we shall soon see, but this is the issue that attracted Huxley’s rage in the form of flaming balls of rhetoric raining down on Mivart’s silly head. Did you think that an evolutionist would be happy to hear you say that evolution and religion (Catholicism in this case, since Mivart was Catholic) are compatible? Of course not. Huxley insisted that,

“In addition to the truth of the doctrine of evolution, indeed, one of its greatest merits in my eyes,
is the fact that it occupies a position of complete and irreconcilable antagonism to that vigorous and
consistent enemy of the highest intellectual, moral, and social life of mankind–the Catholic Church.”

Do you appreciate the mind-boggling irony of this? In Sheppard’s book, evolutionists used Mivart as an example of the happy coexistence of Christianity and evolution, while previously they were vilifying and dragging Mivart through the mud for saying that Christianity and evolution can coexist.

Anyway, Mivart was mocked, ridiculed and slandered in the newspapers by Huxley. His reputation was ruined. Things went downhill for him after that. I don’t think Darwin, or any Darwinist, has ever gotten around to answering Mivart’s objections to natural selection. It’s clear from reading Genesis of Species (1870) that Mivart was a rationalist and an apostate Christian. And it’s quite clear that evolutionism was the cause of this. For example pg 317,

We find then that no incompatibility is asserted (by any scientific writers worthy of mention)
between “evolution” and the co-operation of the Divine will; while the same “evolution” has
been shown to be thoroughly acceptable to the most orthodox theologians who repudiate
the intrusion of the supernatural into the domain of nature.
A more complete harmony
could scarcely be desired.

A principle of reasoning that appears throughout Mivart’s later writings is that only scientists are qualified to comment on scientific issues, and things like the Ressurection, or the Virgin Birth are not theological issues, but scientific ones. Therefore, we should rather believe what a scientist (like him) has to say about it than Gospelists, Church fathers, Popes, theologicans, saints, etc.

If I recall correctly, Genesis of Species was put on the Vatican Index. Mivart then wrote some very odd articles, eg, Happiness in Hell which attracted the attention of Church officials. In a series of letters, Cardinal Vaughan presented Mivart with an ultimatum: either sign a confession of orthodox Catholic faith, or be excommunicated. The fascinating exchange of letters between Cardinal Vaughan and Mivart are published right here in this fantastic book: Under the Ban: A Scientist’s Heresies Condemned by the Church. This little book is a gold-mine of insight into the religion of evolutionism, and where it leads. The Cardinal, more than an intellectual match for Mivart, is straightforward in his position, but observe Mivart’s weasly, squirming evasions. ‘That tooth is rotted away with heresy to the core, Mivart, come now, you need a root canal!’ ‘Oh no, there’s nothing wrong with ME, doctor, it’s the medical and dental profession that has a problem…’ At first he seems to be shocked that someone should ask him to sign a profession of faith. Who, me? But then, it becomes exceedingly clear, as their correspondence develops, that Mivart repudiates every core belief of Catholicism and Christianity in the widest sense. Here is a partial list of doctrines that Mivart abandoned or considered too absurd to believe: the Fall of man, Adam and Eve, the Virgin Birth, the Prophesy of Isaiah, the infallibility of the Scriptures, the authority of the Church, Hell, miracles, the Resurrection of Christ, the Redemption, and so on. He also believed that worshipping Zeus, Isis, Athena or Apollo is just as good as worshipping God. In fact one gets the impression, from reading his essay Continuity of Catholicism that Mivart didn’t believe in a personal God at all. Finally, his whole philosophic outlook, which has led him to apostacy, can be summarized neatly by the following quote from Under the Ban:

As to the old, worn-out saying, “There can be no discrepancy between science and religion,”
it is quite true if religion is always careful to change its teaching in obedience to science, but not otherwise.

Mivart never did sign the profession of faith. He was excommunicated.

Why is England still here?

‘If men evolved from apes, why are apes still here?’ They say that’s a very bad question. It supposedly reveals a lack of comprehension of evolution, along with yokel-like incomprehension of anything. One shouldn’t ask this question, they say. In fact, this question tends to stir up immediate dramatic results in the form of hysterical reactions, and lots of them. Try it yourself. This is, by itself, a sufficient reason to have a closer inspection of it and the responses to it.

The usual answer to ‘if men evolved from apes, why are apes still here’ is something like this:

England is still here, isn’t it? If America came from England, why is England still here, you blithering moron?

What sort of response is this? Taken at face value, it implies that England’s existence is the explanation of why apes are not extinct. The argument can be cast like so,

Apes exist because England exists.

This is a reductio ad absurdum, and it is one way to meet the evolutionist’s response. But perhaps the evolutionist meant his response as an analogy. America is analogous to humans, England is analogous to apes, and ‘came from’ (which I put in bold above) is analogous to ‘evolved from’. But you can immediately reduce the analogy to stupidity by putting back the intended “evolved from” in the place of the more nebulous manner whereby the evolutionist phrased it: “came from”. We can go further, though. Since man supposedly evolved from apes by random variations and natural selection, we can put it this way…

England is still here, isn’t it? If America evolved from England by random variations and natural selection, why is England still here, you blithering moron?

America did not so evolve from England, and this simple fact dispenses with the analogy and the evolutionist’s response to the question. So we see that, despite being a supposedly foolish question that no thinking person would ever ask, ‘If men evolved from apes, why are apes still here?’ is not addressed by the usual one-liner type darwinian responses. Rarely will you see a serious response to the fabled “why are there still apes?” question. I suspect there is a good reason for that, for to contemplate a serious response to it would involve the contemplation that there is something wrong with what Darwin said, and perhaps much more, and that cannot be so. So it’s better to just insist that the analogy is a good one.

If the evolutionist insists that the analogy is a good one, we can (and should) indulge him…

Long ago there was an England. England copulated with a foreign power and left many offspring, who likewise left many descendants. But, to paraphrase Darwin in single-quotes for the rest of this tedious exercise, ‘…each nation-state strove to increase in a geometrical ratio. Each at some period of its life, during some season of the year, during each generation or at intervals, had to struggle for life and to suffer great destruction.’ Soon the earth became full of nations struggling for food and struggling to reproduce as many offspring as they possibly could, in a geometric ratio preferably.

‘Natural selection, always intently watching each slight alteration in politics, economy or national make-up; and carefully preserving each which, under varied circumstances, in any way or in any degree, tends to produce a better nation. We must suppose each new state to be multiplied by the million; each to be preserved until a better one is produced, and then the old ones to be all destroyed.‘ ‘In nations, hereditary variation will cause the slight alterations in constitutions, laws, method of government, etc, and generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions of years; and during each year on millions of nations of many kinds; and may we not believe that a nation like America might thus be formed as superior to England, as the works of the Creator are to those of man?’ ‘Natural selection was daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations of these offspring nations, rejecting those that were bad, preserving those that were good.’ ‘As natural selection acts by life and death, by the survival of the fittest, and by the destruction of the less well-fitted nations’, it preserved and accumulated nations with a twinge of America-ness while old England-like variations, being inferior, were rigidly destroyed in the struggle for existence. Thus was America born.

So, why is England still here?

In Science, Nothing is True

Did you ever see the David Lynch movie Eraserhead? In it, there’s a weird looking (to understate it) girl singing “In heaven, everything is fine.” You could have a darwinian version of the movie, Evolutionhead, where she sings “In science, everything is false.”

If you ask an evolutionist to prove something that he insists you should believe, he will probably reply “you can’t prove anything in science.” If you ask him to consider proposition p, ‘monkeys changed into people’, and to state clearly whether p is true, he will likely say,

there’s no “truth”, because there’s no “absolute truth”
in science, so nothing is true. Truths in science are provisional,
so don’t ask stupid questions like that again.

Let’s examine some of that. It is true that, at the time of writing this, Obama is president. This is common knowledge obtained by hearsay and the TV. So we see that common knowledge contains truths. But, according Darwinians, science does not. Isn’t science supposed to be an improvement over sommon knowledge, hearsay and watching the TV? Not according to them.

So what does a Darwinist mean when he says “nothing is true in science”? Why would he say something like that? Well, it’s obvious. What he really wants to say is “nothing is true in Darwinism”; but that sounds like a really unconvincing argument for evolution, so he recasts it as “nothing is true in science.” He thereby drags all of science down with him into the despondent mire of Darwinism. But now, ha ha, at least he doesn’t have to feel obliged to back up his rhetoric with proof or demonstrations of truth, since those things are impossible, and irrelevent, anyway.

What does the evolutionist mean by “absolute truth”? Probably nothing, because he’s parrotting some rhetoric he heard from another evolutionist. But we can take it to mean that the truth of p doesn’t depend on contingencies, or that p is necessarily true, or that p is true and it is impossble to be mistaken about it. But you didn’t ask if p is absolutely true, or if p is necessarily true, or anything like that. All you wanted to know was if p is true, plain and simple. Adding modalities that aren’t there to begin with (such as absolute, necessarily, impossible to be wrong etc) are standard tricks of sophists. Watch out for them.

What about “provisional” truths? What are “provisional” truths? There are no such things, except in Marxism. Something is either true or not, and these may be unknown. A “provisional” truth is something which is either unknown to be true, or even false, yet accepted as if it were true. That is done by pretending that p is true. If you close your eyes, suspend your disbelief and enter the land of make-believe, p becomes provisionally true. This, ultimately, is how the evolutionist wants to convert you to his faith. It’s much simpler than laboring to provide proof, sound arguments, relevent evidence, etc. So when an evolutionist asks you to accept evolution of monkeys into chessmasters as “provisionally true,” you can take it to mean this: he doesn’t know if it is true, and it may well be false, but he wants you to pretend that it’s true.

Now this is all very amusing and ironic because at some point in your conversations with evolutionists they will harangue you about religion. Ha ha ha, religion is stupid, how can you believe in that stuff, none of it is true, ha ha, none of it can be proved, try science books instead, ha ha ha. But look here, evolutionist, didn’t you say exactly the same about science?

That is how Darwinians want science to be: submerged in philosophical ether. They insist on it. They insist that nothing can be proved, nothing is true and nothing is known in science. It’s all speculation, though some speculations (like evolution) should be raised to the level of “provisional truths” by popular delusion.

The 3rd International Eugenics Congress

Sometimes they called them conferences, sometimes they called them congresses. These were large international gatherings organized by the IFEO, the International Federation of Eugenic Organizations. Leonard Darwin was the first president of IFEO, then came Davenport, followed by Ernst Rudin (the Nazi.) The third conference was held in New York, and the exhibit was held at the the American Museum of Natural History. At the exhibit there appeared a fine bust of Charles Darwin with the inscription

Charles Robert Darwin, 1809-1882, master demonstrator of organic evolution. Darwin demonstrated the close parallel between man’s actual improvement of domestic plants and animals and the possible improvement of human family stocks. He believed that the most substantial advance in human progress would be made when man appreciated that he could, to a limited degree, control his own future racial evolution.

The New York Times published a review of the 3rd congress. Here it is.

Genes and Eugenics, NY Times, Aug 24, 1932.

After having gloomily predicted the decline of mankind unless something is done to stop the socially unfit from propagating, the eugenists ended their third international congress in New York. Thereupon the geneticists opened their sixth international congress at Ithaca, N.Y., to discuss the mechanism of heredity. In a single week we are thus granted the opportunity of comparing the theories and methods of two schools. On the one hand, much loose about sterilizing the feeble-minded and restricting marriages of undesirables; on the other, earnest experiments in shuffling genes, the ill-understood atoms of life, to learn how idiocy and genius may arise in the same family.

To its founder, Galton, eugenics was the study of the agencies under social control that affect the race for better or for worse. In time, eugenics seems to have become a disguise for race prejudice, ancestor worship and caste snobbery. The eugenically inclined Wethams[1] can write of the dangers that lie in giving scholarships to “those who win them too suddenly and completely out of their natural class,” and of the necessity of protecting classically trained men who cannot get on in the world, but who have “the guarantee of character and the intruitive sense of masterfulness that are the usual concomitants of the man of good family.” And there is the arch-eugenist, Major [Leonard] Darwin, who sent a paper to be read at New York, frankly admitting that he would like to see a caste system introduced “so rigid as to prohibit all movement between the social strata” in order to remedy the “harm done… by educational facilities generally.”

These are the views of staunch of the now discredited doctrine that social salvation lies with the supposedly pure Nordics. Moderates at the New York congress were more disposed to admit that, without an improvement in the economic environment, eugenics is a mere hope than than to harp on desirable grandfathers and grandmothers. Although it is not likely that the hightly technical addresses on breeding plants, mice and fruit-flies to be read at Ithaca will provide as much popular material as, for example Professor Osborn’s argument on the curbing of birth control and the encouraging of birth selection, they will indicate clearly enough that eugenics can become a practical creed only when the geneticist has discovered how the defective genes in all of us can be identified.

[1] W. Cecil Dampier Wetham and his wife, members of the Cambridge Association for the Care of the Feeble-Minded and other eugenics organizations. Authors of books on eugenics.

Welcome

Welcome to a vast world of bad science that you probably didn’t suspect existed. Painfully bad. We are going to examine the evolutionists of earlier generations, the books they wrote, and the kind of science they did. A preliminary summary of results is presented in the Euvolution page. It should convince you that most of the great evolution scientists of the olden and not so olden days, and much of Darwin’s family, were dangerous sociopaths,  scientific frauds, totalitarians, evil conmen, or simply mad scientists misleading the public. I hope you enjoy reading it, but try not to throw up as your preconceptions of the integrity of evolutionary biologists are forever shattered. Much more material is coming soon.