The Dark Side of Charles Darwin

[catsmate]

[There doesn't seem to be any actual science in this book so I started the thread in R&P rather than SMM&T]

"Dr" Jerry Bergman has written a new book entitled The Dark Side of Charles Darwin. In doing so he appears to have finally given up an any attempt to maintain touch with reality, According to the page at the The Creation Science Society of Milwaukee covering the lecture he's giving pimping this work:

Dr. Jerry Bergman, PhD will give a two-part presentation. In part 1 he will elaborate on a book he has written entitled The Dark Side of Darwin. After a short break he will explain Atheism as it is found in the teachings of science. We are bringing Jerry all the way from Ohio for this presentation so we hope many of you will be coming to hear why the Creation view of Origins is so important in this day when the media and public education disallows any view other than evolution to explain how all life has come about in this world of ours.

Part 1:
•Charles Darwin’s major goal in developing his theory was religious, he wanted to "murder" god (his words).
•He was active in "converting" all he could to his theory of origins.
•Darwin plagiarized most of his major ideas.
•Darwin was a racist of the worst kind and believed the lower races (the blacks) would go extinct.
•Darwin was opposed to helping the sick, but realized this idea would not go over well.
•Charles felt a wife was better than a dog (really!).
•He was severely mentally and physically ill, likely an agoraphobic.
•As a young man he was sadistic and loved to kill animals with anything he had: guns, sticks, even hammers!

Part 2:
•It is well known and well recognized that evolution is the doorway to Atheism.
•About 98 % of leading life scientists are Atheist.
•A major reason given to become an Atheist was evolution.
•The whole point of the evolution creation account is to demolish the theistic creation account.
•It takes more faith to be an Atheist than a Creationist.
•Dr. Bergman will cover the Atheist creation story as developed by Hawking and others to document this.
•Orthodox Evolution is defined as from nothing to everything purely by chance, time, and the outworking of natural law (which also originated by chance, time and natural law).

It appears that in the religiously motivated attempt to discredit the reality of evolution "Dr" Bergman has resorted to puerile (and easily disproved) character assassination. I suppose this will play well to the average under-educated xianity sufferer.
Wow, just when you thought the loons couldn't sink any lower they manage this..............

 

[One Tenth]

Even if all those things about Darwin were true, what would that have to do with the reality of evolution?

 

[C_Felix]

Those of us who are dare to question and think know that poisoning the well isn't a valid counter-arguement.

 

[Cainkane1]

Even if all those things about Darwin were true, what would that have to do with the reality of evolution?

Not a darn thing. If Charles Darwin had been a serial killer his theory would still be sound. He was a child of his times and his opinions reflect this.

 

[Mojo]

Part 1:
•Charles Darwin’s major goal in developing his theory was religious, he wanted to "murder" god (his words).

I'd like to see his source for that. I suspect that it arises from a misreading of this:

At last gleams of light have come, & I am almost convinced (quite contrary to opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Wow, just when you thought the loons couldn't sink any lower they manage this..............

Nothing those intellectually castrated and dishonest morons do surprises me anymore....

 

[Beerina]

Even if all those things about Darwin were true, what would that have to do with the reality of evolution?

As I always say, the science is so solid, if the Bible contradicts evolution, so much the worse for the Bible.



You religious folk best get bizzy re-interpreting it so it does not conflict with evolution.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Even if all those things about Darwin were true, what would that have to do with the reality of evolution?

Isaac Newton was quite a dick, yet his work is still used to calculate orbital trajectories.

 

[MG1962]

•Darwin plagiarized most of his major ideas

This one jumped out at me - There is an old saying, We stand on the shoulders of giants. Darwin drew from others no worse than many since him. For example did Einstien plagiarize Newton, because they both spoke to gravity.

 

[Foster Zygote]

"Darwin was a racist of the worst kind and believed the lower races (the blacks) would go extinct."

Darwin was not imune to common 19th century European ideas regarding race. However, to call him "a racist of the worst kind" is just stupid. It seems to me that the worst kind of racist would be one who favored the extermination or enslavement of "lower races". As Darwin was opposed to the enslavement of Africans in the Americas he can in no honest way be called the worst sort of racist.

"Darwin was opposed to helping the sick, but realized this idea would not go over well."

************. Darwin was a philanthropist who gave considerable sums of his wealth to aid the poor and sick.

"Charles felt a wife was better than a dog (really!)."

I'll bet a trillion internets that this was delivered by Darwin as a joke.

"He was severely mentally and physically ill, likely an agoraphobic."

That must be why he liked nature so much.

"As a young man he was sadistic and loved to kill animals with anything he had: guns, sticks, even hammers!"

As a little boy he smashed bugs? The monster!!!

 

[Dinwar]

•Charles Darwin’s major goal in developing his theory was religious, he wanted to "murder" god (his words).

Pure fiction.

•He was active in "converting" all he could to his theory of origins.

Creationists often confuse "arguing persuasively" with "converting". Probably because they don't understand how someone can be swayed by evidence.

•Darwin plagiarized most of his major ideas.

If you read the book he's pretty good (for his time) at giving credit where it's due. I say "for his time" because it's a different style of citation, and pedantic morons have often used very minor citation errors to accuse someone of plagerism.

•Darwin was a racist of the worst kind and believed the lower races (the blacks) would go extinct.

Actually, he nearly got kicked off the Beagle for being too liberal in this reguard.

•Darwin was opposed to helping the sick, but realized this idea would not go over well.

I've seen zero evidence for this.

•Charles felt a wife was better than a dog (really!).

I have both. I agree. I'm not sure what the problem is....

•He was severely mentally and physically ill, likely an agoraphobic.

Pure fiction.

•As a young man he was sadistic and loved to kill animals with anything he had: guns, sticks, even hammers!

Most likely pure fiction. However, again, it was a different age, and people didn't consider killing animals out of the ordinary back then. Plus, "animals" includes insects, which many of us still kill with sticks, hammers, etc. As a young man I loved to hunt (still do, but don't get to very often), which means I loved to kill fluffy critters with a gun. Hardly a point against a naturalist to enjoy taking specimens.

•It is well known and well recognized that evolution is the doorway to Atheism.

Not really--the RCC, for example, considers evolution and religion to be compatable.

•About 98 % of leading life scientists are Atheist.

Most are also men--does that mean that evolution turns you male?

•A major reason given to become an Atheist was evolution.

This has no bearing on the validity of the theory.

•The whole point of the evolution creation account is to demolish the theistic creation account.

No, it's to explain those funny things like vistigial organs, intermediate forms, transition fossils, and the like.

•It takes more faith to be an Atheist than a Creationist.

Pure fiction.

•Dr. Bergman will cover the Atheist creation story as developed by Hawking and others to document this.

Equivocation. Are we discussing evolution or cosmology?

•Orthodox Evolution is defined as from nothing to everything purely by chance, time, and the outworking of natural law (which also originated by chance, time and natural law).

Right, because natural selection is pure chance.

This is the typical Creationist mish-mash of half-truths, outright lies, equivocations, and fallacies. Nothing new here.

 

[Arcade22]

Charles Darwin punched babies and kicked puppies. Do you support a baby puncher and a puppy kicker?

 

[qayak]

Is anyone going to this "lecture?" Hopefully there will be a Q&A period after where people can make this guy look like the idiot he is. Would be hilarious to see the faces of the religious idiots when they realize their secret meeting has been inflitrated by atheists!

Just sayin.'

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

"Charles felt a wife was better than a dog (really!)."

I'll bet a trillion internets that this was delivered by Darwin as a joke.

Can you ship those internets to Ireland? I thought this was one of the better known pieces of Darwin trivia, that he'd compiled a rather nerdy list of pros and cons before marrying his cousin.

Fully recuperated, he returned to Shrewsbury in July. Used to jotting down daily notes on animal breeding, he scrawled rambling thoughts about career and prospects on two scraps of paper, one with columns headed "Marry" and "Not Marry". Advantages included "constant companion and a friend in old age ... better than a dog anyhow", against points such as "less money for books" and "terrible loss of time."

 

[ehcks]

"•Charles felt a wife was better than a dog (really!)."

That one really stands out. It's one of his major points? It has nothing to do with anything, and I'm sure nearly every married man with a dog would agree.

I love my dog, but I'm sure if I had a wife I'd love her more. What is this statement supposed to show?

 

[whatthebutlersaw]

"•Charles felt a wife was better than a dog (really!)."

That one really stands out. It's one of his major points? It has nothing to do with anything, and I'm sure nearly every married man with a dog would agree.

I love my dog, but I'm sure if I had a wife I'd love her more. What is this statement supposed to show?

I think it's supposed to imply that Darwin saw a wife and a dog as about equal. I was going to post the quote that is drawn from, but Guybrush was faster. It is clear in the context that he did not.

And even if he had, it still would have had no bearing on whether evolution is plausible or not.

 

[Pardalis]

"Darwin plagiarized most of his major ideas."

Then why do Creationists focus solely on Darwin? Why don't they try to smear the ones who Darwin allegedly copied?

 

[Moon-Spinner]

As I'm sure everybody here realizes, almost every point made against Darwin in that list has nothing to do with whether or not evolution is valid, and there's no mention of the science supporting evolution. It's strictly a "Darwin was evil, so evolution must be wrong" type of argument.


As for the quote "Charles felt a wife was better than a dog (really!)" - it reminds me of the old commercial that ends with the husband saying "My wife, I think I'll keep her" - LOL - early 70s, can't remember what it was selling.

 

[Maledict]

"Darwin plagiarized most of his major ideas."

Then why do Creationists focus solely on Darwin? Why don't they try to smear the ones who Darwin allegedly copied?

My guess is that, in their mentality, they figure if they can discredit the "Big Shot" enough, that it'll do the same to his Scientific Theories.

Also, what Moon-Spinner said .

 

[Dinwar]

I think it's supposed to imply that Darwin saw a wife and a dog as about equal.

Typical Creationist nonsense. X>Y, therefore X=Y.