Facts vs. media fictions about Terri's actual condition

Religions > Atheism > Facts vs. media fictions about Terri's actual condition

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 9 of 78

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"david ford"
Date:	25 Mar 2005 09:19:13 PM
Object:	Facts vs. media fictions about Terri's actual condition

The affidavit extracts below demonstrate the falsity of the old media's
erroneous allegation that 'no one is home' in Terri Schindler Schiavo.
Also, Terri can anticipate and feel pain.
A U.S. judiciary run amok and a shameless American Criminal Liberties
Union are intent on murdering via starvation an innocent/ guiltless and
defenseless woman.
Decency demands that this unjustified, court-imposed death sentence on
Terri Schindler Schiavo be stopped.
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
From
http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schindler-schiavo-docs-links-page.html
from the PDF "Affidavit of William Cheshire, Jr., MD 03-23-05":
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DUVALL
Before me this day personally appeared William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.,
who, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I, William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., have personal knowledge of the
facts stated in this declaration and, if called as a witness, I could
and would testify competently thereto under oath. I declare as follows:
I am a neurologist practicing in the State of Florida and am certified
by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. In regard to my
educational background, I received an A.B. in biochemical sciences from
Princeton University, an M.A. in bioethics from Trinity International
University, and an M.D. from West Virginia University. I completed an
internship in internal medicine at West Virginia University, a residency
in neurology and a pain fellowship at the University of North Carolina.
I am also an appointed volunteer with the Florida Statewide Adult
Protective Services team, in which capacity I was called on March 1,
2005, to provide an independent and objective medical review of
allegations of possible abuse, neglect, or exploitation of Ms. Theresa
Marie Schiavo.
Although no one from the Department of Children and Families has
inquired about my personal views about treatment decisions in cases of
persistent vegetative state (PVS), I would like to disclose that I came
into this case with the belief that it can be ethically permissible to
discontinue artificially provided nutrition and hydration for patients
in a persistent vegetative state. Having now reviewed the relevant
facts, having met and observed Ms. Schiavo in person, and having
reflected deeply on the moral and ethical issues, I would like to
explain why I change my mind in regard to this particular case.
.....
Based on my review of extensive medical records documenting Terri's care
over the years, on my personal observation of Terri, and on my
observations of Terri's responses in the many hours of videotapes taken
in 2002, she demonstrates a number of behaviors I believe cast a
reasonable doubt on the prior diagnosis of PVS. These include:
1. Her behavior is frequently context-specific. For example, her
facial expression brightens and she smiles in response to the voice of
familiar persons such as her parents or her nurse. Her agitation
subsides and her facial demeanor softens when quiet music is played.
When jubilant piano music is played, her face brightens, she lifts her
eyebrows, smiles, and even laughs. Her lateral gaze toward the tape
player is sustained for many minutes. Several times I witnessed Terri
briefly, albeit inconsistently, laugh in response to a humorous comment
someone in the room had made. I did not see her laugh in the absence of
someone else's laughter.
2. Although she does not seem to track or follow visual objects
consistently or for long periods of time, she does fixate her gaze on
colorful objects or human faces for some 15 seconds at a time and
occasionally follows with her eyes at least briefly as these objects
move from side to side. When I first walked into her room, she
immediately turned her head toward me and looked directly at my face.
There was a lot of curiosity or expectation in her expression, and she
maintained eye contact for about half a minute. Later, when she again
looked at me, she brought her lips together as if to pronounce the
letter "O," and although for a moment it appeared that she might be
making an intentional effort to speak, her face then fell blank, and no
words came out.
3. Although I did not hear Terri utter distinct words, she demonstrates
emotional expressivity by her use of a single syllable of vocalizations
such as "ah," making cooing sounds, or by expressing guttural sounds of
annoyance or moaning appropriate to the context of the situation. The
context-specific range and the variability of her vocalizations suggests
at least a reasonable probability of the processing of emotional thought
within her brain. There have been reports of Terri rarely using actual
words specific to her situational context. The July 25, 2003 affidavit
of the speech pathologist Sarah Green Mole, MS, on page 6, reads, "The
records of Mediplex reflect the fact that she has said 'stop' in
apparent response to a medical procedure being done to her." The Adult
Protective Services team has been unable to retrieve those original
medical records in this instance.
4. Although Terri has not consistently followed commands, there
appeared to be some notable exceptions. In the taped examination by Dr.
Hammesfahr from 2002, when asked to close her eyes she began to blink
repeatedly. Although it was unclear whether she squeezed her grip when
asked, she did appear to raise her right leg four times in succession
each time she was asked to do so. Rehabilitation notes from 1991
indicated that she tracked inconsistently, and although she did not
develop a yes/no communication system, did follow some commands
inconsistently and demonstrated good eye contact to family members.
5. There is a remarkable moment in the videotape of the September 3,
2002 examination by Dr. Hammesfahr that seemed to go unnoticed at the
time. At 2:44 p.m., Dr. Hammesfahr had just turned Terri onto her right
side to examine her back with a painful sharp stimulus (a sharp piece of
wood), to which Terri had responded with signs of discomfort. Well
after he ceased applying the stimulus and had returned Terri to a
comfortable position, he says to her parents, "So, we're going to have
to roll her over...." Immediately Terri cries. She vocalizes a crying
sound, "Ugh, ha, ha, ha," presses her eyebrows together, and sadly
grimaces. It is important to note that, at that moment, no one is
touching Terri or causing actual pain. Rather, she appears to
comprehend the meaning of Dr. Hammesfahr's comment and she signals her
_anticipation_ of pain. This response suggests some degree of language
processing and interpretation at the level of the cerebral cortex. It
also suggests that she may be aware of pain beyond what could be
explained by simple reflex withdrawal.
6. According to the definition of PVS published by the American Academy
of Neurology, "persistent vegetative state patients do not have the
capacity to experience pain or suffering. Pain and suffering are
attributes of consciousness requiring cerebral cortical functioning, and
patients who are permanently and completely unconscious cannot
experience these symptoms."^6 And yet, in my review of Terri's medical
records, pain issues keep surfacing. The nurses at Woodside Hospice
told us that she often has pain with menstrual cramps. Menstrual flow
is associated with agitation, repeated or sustained moaning, facial
grimacing, limb posturing, and facial flushing, all of which subside
once she is given ibuprofen. Some of the records document moaning,
crying, and other painful behavior in the setting of urinary tract
infections.
.....
7. To enter the room of Terri Schiavo is nothing like entering the room
of a patient who is comatose or brain-dead or in some neurological sense
no longer there. Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90
minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness,
or volitional behavior, yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the
presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of
some things around her.
As I looked at Terri, and she gazed directly back at me, I asked myself
whether, if I were her attending physician, I could in good conscience
withdraw nutrition and hydration. No, I could not. I could not
withdraw life support if I were asked. I could not withhold
life-sustaining nutrition and hydration from this beautiful lady whose
face brightens in the presence of others.
The neurologic signs are in many ways ambiguous. There is no guarantee
that more sophisticated testing would definitively resolve that
ambiguity to everyone's satisfaction. There would be value, I think, in
obtaining a functional MRI scan if that is possible.
This situation differs fundamentally from end-of-life scenarios where it
is appropriate to withdraw life-sustaining medical interventions that no
longer benefit or are burdensome to patients in the terminal stages of
illness. Terri's feeding tube is not a burden to her. It is not
painful, is not infected, is not eroding her stomach lining or causing
any medical complications. But for the decision to withdraw her feeding
tube, Terri cannot be considered medically terminal. But for the
withdrawal of food and water, she would not die [well, she would not die
now-- everybody dies eventually, sometimes sooner rather than later. We
never know when we will go to meet our Maker. -df].
In summary, Terri [Schindler] Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a
variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous
neurologic diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she
has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and
indicative of a cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful
neurologic consideration, would not be expected in a persistent
vegetative state.
Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of
medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a
minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state. This
distinction makes an enormous difference in making ethical decisions on
Terri's behalf. If Terri is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that
she can feel pleasure and suffer, if she is capable of understanding to
some degree how she is being treated, then in my judgment it would be
wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water.
At the time of this writing, Terri Schiavo, as the result of the
decisions based on what I have argued to be a faulty diagnosis of
persistent vegetative state, has been without food or water for 5 days.
She is thus at risk of death or serious injury unless the provision of
food and water can be restored. Terri Schiavo lacks the capacity to
consent to emergency protective services and must trust others to act on
her behalf. If she were to be transferred to another facility, it would
be medically necessary first to initiate hydration and ensure that her
serum electrolytes are within normal values.
How medicine and society choose to think about Terri [Schindler] Schiavo
will influence what kind of people we will be as we evaluate and respond
to the needs of the most vulnerable people among us. When serious
doubts exist as to whether a cognitively impaired person is or is not
consciously aware, even if these doubts cannot be conclusively resolved,
it is better to err on the side of protecting vulnerable life.
Respectfully submitted,
William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., M.A., F.A.A.N.
[signature]
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this 23[rd] day of
March, 2005, by William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.
[notary stamp and signature]
======================================================================
articles: livelier ones are by Thomas Sowell and William Kristol. Eric
Cohen's is very thoughtful.
http://www.townhall.com
Cal Thomas: Schiavo case matters in symbol and substance
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adfseF68nkocU1%40individual.net
Justifications for taking of human life?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3aj33dF67kgcuU2%40individual.net
any atheists against Terri Schindler Schiavo's being starved to death?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adrlvF69l60hU1%40individual.net
1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope slide from devaluing some
human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to mass killings
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
ACLU: Legal Terrorists
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/27/195402.shtml
Terri Schindler Schiavo Case
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/16/223430.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
.

User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
Title: Re: Are Jews one of several [Darwin]"races"?	23 Jun 2005 02:44:39 AM

"Mitchell Coffey" <m.dot.coffey.at.starpower.dot.net@giganews.com> wrote in
message news:87mkb150d84n2sv70m2d2qgg3mt80a80ld@4ax.com...

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 04:39:33 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1119499963.263979.105740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural

More pseudo-argument and lame-***** bait questions
from Dave Ford. I wonder how many posts it will
take this time before he reverses his insinuations.

I wasn't aware he reverses his insinuations. If I read his posts I
usually don't follow more than a few posts deep in the thread. I
guess I missed that.

Yeah. Check out this highlight:

[me]Are you saying the above is
your actual view

[Ford] Yes. Though I have been known to try out other positions, and
when I do
that, those positions are my actual positions.

Here's more of the whole context:
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <oscar@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message news:...

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-38upb1F5r62geU1@individual.net...

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message

news:dford3-b1c67abe.0503050537.2186161c@posting.google.com...

I think that starting with simply physics, life can come from non-life
quite easily. I believe that there are many locations in the universe
where life has originated. We are not alone-- alien life exists.
Perhaps we have been or will be visited by aliens from other planets,
perhaps aliens much more advanced than humans.
There is much experimental evidence in support of my claim that life
can readily come from non-life starting with simply matter.
Considering the known laws of physics, there are strong theoretical
grounds for believing that life can come from non-life quite easily.

Do you agree with any of my above points?

Those are your 'points'?

Yes.

Are you saying the above is
your actual view

Yes. Though I have been known to try out other positions, and when I do
that, those positions are my actual positions.

That's interesting. You have what George F. Will terms
a 'versatility of conviction'.

So why do you try out other positions?
What makes you change position?

or are you equivocating/outright lying
to make your strawman bait more appealing?

Feel free to strengthen my above claims. I prefer to have strong,
well-supported positions. And I suspect that you do, too.

--
rb #2187

I didn't get a response to the above.
--
rb #2187
.

User: "Mitchell Coffey"
Title: Re: Are Jews one of several [Darwin]"races"?	24 Jun 2005 02:42:08 AM

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 07:44:39 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:

"Mitchell Coffey" <m.dot.coffey.at.starpower.dot.net@giganews.com> wrote in
message news:87mkb150d84n2sv70m2d2qgg3mt80a80ld@4ax.com...

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 04:39:33 GMT, "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
<stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote:

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1119499963.263979.105740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural

More pseudo-argument and lame-***** bait questions
from Dave Ford. I wonder how many posts it will
take this time before he reverses his insinuations.

I wasn't aware he reverses his insinuations. If I read his posts I
usually don't follow more than a few posts deep in the thread. I
guess I missed that.

Yeah. Check out this highlight:

[me]Are you saying the above is
your actual view

[Ford] Yes. Though I have been known to try out other positions, and
when I do
that, those positions are my actual positions.

Here's more of the whole context:

"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <oscar@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message news:...

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-38upb1F5r62geU1@individual.net...

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message

news:dford3-b1c67abe.0503050537.2186161c@posting.google.com...

Those are your 'points'?

Yes.

Are you saying the above is
your actual view

Yes. Though I have been known to try out other positions, and when I do
that, those positions are my actual positions.

That's interesting. You have what George F. Will terms
a 'versatility of conviction'.

So why do you try out other positions?
What makes you change position?

or are you equivocating/outright lying
to make your strawman bait more appealing?

Feel free to strengthen my above claims. I prefer to have strong,
well-supported positions. And I suspect that you do, too.

--
rb #2187

I didn't get a response to the above.

I've seen this, but I assumed it was his idea of a joke. He believes
that none of that stuff in his first paragraph is true, but that all
"evolutionists" believe it. I assume he interprets the unwillingness
of most "evolutionists" to be sucked into his carnival of lies as
tacit admissions that he is right, rather than as disgust driven
shrugs.
Mitchell Coffey
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Are Jews one of several [Darwin]"races"?	25 Jun 2005 12:16:38 AM

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1119499963.263979.105740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural

More pseudo-argument and lame-***** bait questions
from Dave Ford. I wonder how many posts it will
take this time before he reverses his insinuations.

Do you think publication of _Origin_ helped, or hurt, relations:
between humans?
between Germany and France?
between Germany and Jews?
Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.
.

User: "boikat"
Title: Re: Are Jews one of several [Darwin]"races"?	25 Jun 2005 01:29:47 AM

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1119676598.004082.87400@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1119499963.263979.105740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural

More pseudo-argument and lame-***** bait questions
from Dave Ford. I wonder how many posts it will
take this time before he reverses his insinuations.

Do you think publication of _Origin_ helped, or hurt, relations:
between humans?
between Germany and France?
between Germany and Jews?

Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.

More likely, the bigger influance was the Bible, in that respect, Herr
Goebbels.
Boikat
--
<42><
.

User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
Title: Re: Are Jews one of several [Darwin]"races"?	25 Jun 2005 12:46:25 AM

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1119676598.004082.87400@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1119499963.263979.105740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural

More pseudo-argument and lame-***** bait questions
from Dave Ford. I wonder how many posts it will
take this time before he reverses his insinuations.

Do you think publication of _Origin_ helped, or hurt, relations:
between humans?
between Germany and France?
between Germany and Jews?

Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.

Do you think aardvarks can play:
the oboe?
in Sousa marches?
Hello Dave! How ya' doin'? ;)
--
rb #2187
.

User: "Charles & Mambo Duckman"
Title: Re: Are Jews one of several [Darwin]"races"?	25 Jun 2005 02:09:43 AM

david ford wrote:

Do you think publication of _Origin_ helped, or hurt, relations:
between humans?
between Germany and France?
between Germany and Jews?

It's actually one monkey with a typewriter, not a thousand.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
.

User: "josephus"
Title: Re: Are Jews one of several [Darwin]"races"?	25 Jun 2005 04:20:26 AM

david ford wrote:

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1119499963.263979.105740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural

More pseudo-argument and lame-***** bait questions
from Dave Ford. I wonder how many posts it will
take this time before he reverses his insinuations.

Do you think publication of _Origin_ helped, or hurt, relations:
between humans?
between Germany and France?
between Germany and Jews?

Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.

Historically Origins was translated into many major languages. The
fact that Hitler or Mousalini (who was very educated ) would have know
it was important. It is a fact that any neural theory can be misused
to justify any number of atrocities ie. the inquisition, the hundred
year war, and the holocaust.
josephus
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Re: Are Jews one of several [Darwin]"races"?	27 Jun 2005 09:42:37 PM

josephus wrote:

david ford wrote:

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1119499963.263979.105740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural

More pseudo-argument and lame-***** bait questions
from Dave Ford. I wonder how many posts it will
take this time before he reverses his insinuations.

Do you think publication of _Origin_ helped, or hurt, relations:
between humans?
between Germany and France?
between Germany and Jews?

Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.

1. The classic 'theory of evolution by means of Darwinian natural
selection' isn't neutral re: human morality and conduct.
2. The theory is wrong.
3. Darwin has a lot of 20th-century blood on his hands.
.

User: "Deadrat"
Title: Re: Are Jews one of several [Darwin]"races"?	27 Jun 2005 10:13:45 PM

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1119926557.012706.36680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

josephus wrote:

david ford wrote:

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1119499963.263979.105740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of

Natural

More pseudo-argument and lame-***** bait questions
from Dave Ford. I wonder how many posts it will
take this time before he reverses his insinuations.

Do you think publication of _Origin_ helped, or hurt, relations:
between humans?
between Germany and France?
between Germany and Jews?

Darwin, Charles. 1859. _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for
Life_ (London: John Murray), 513pp.

1. The classic 'theory of evolution by means of Darwinian natural
selection' isn't neutral re: human morality and conduct.

This is a lie, and I suspect you know it. Science in general, and biology
in particular answers the questions "how does it work?" and "what is it?"
Ethics and morality -- "how should I act?" is another thing entirely.
Physics will tell you how to make an atomic bomb and what will happen
when you detonate one. Don't look to physics to figure out whether you
*should* drop one of them.

2. The theory is wrong.

If the theory is wrong, then what's your problem? But, of course, you
know that the theory is backed by strong evidence. Whether it's "wrong"
or "right" is a semantic argument.

3. Darwin has a lot of 20th-century blood on his hands.

Since Darwin died before the 20th century began, this is a perverse
statement. And it has been explained to you many times before that
no one, Darwin included, is responsible for the misquoting of his theory.
Stop lying.
Deadrat
.

User: "david ford"
Title: Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man	28 Jun 2005 10:44:36 PM

1. Is the 'theory of evolution by means of Darwinian natural
selection' correct?
2. Is it the case that humans 'evolved' over many years, entirely
apart from any sort of divine intervention whatsoever?
3. Is it the case that "the races of men had diverged while"
'evolving' entirely apart from any sort of divine intervention
whatsoever?
4. Is "the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man, based on
the single creation of Adam and Eve," correct?
5. Are humans the workproduct of the Judeo-Christian God, who has been
alleged to have created Adam and Eve as the first humans?
6. Are humans and the morality/"ethics of human society" the product
of:
Darwinian natural selection?
totally-blind, totally-mindless-at-every-level processes?
7. Did the Judeo-Christian God create humans and lay down ethical
guidelines for:
humans?
you yourself?
Proctor, Robert N. 1988. _Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis_
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 414pp. On 13-14, material
opening the section "From Social Darwinism to Racial Hygiene":
The publication of Charles Darwin's _Origin of Species_
[_by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of
Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life_] in 1859
represents a watershed in the history of biological
determinism in general and scientific racism in particular.
Prior to Darwin, it was difficult to argue against the
Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man, based on
the single creation of Adam and Eve. Darwin's theory
suggested that humans had evolved over hundreds of
thousands, even millions of years, and that the races of
men had diverged while adapting to the particularities of
local conditions. The impact of Darwin's theory was
enormous. Scholars in both Europe and America, excited
by the prospect of founding a science of man on
biological principles, began to apply the principle of
natural selection to the science and ethics of human
society. Opinions differed widely, however, over just
how Darwin's theory was to be applied.
.

User: "Deadrat"
Title: Re: Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man	29 Jun 2005 12:45:56 AM

"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-1120016676.023811.113660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

1. Is the 'theory of evolution by means of Darwinian natural
selection' correct?

2. Is it the case that humans 'evolved' over many years, entirely
apart from any sort of divine intervention whatsoever?

3. Is it the case that "the races of men had diverged while"
'evolving' entirely apart from any sort of divine intervention
whatsoever?

4. Is "the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man, based on
the single creation of Adam and Eve," correct?

5. Are humans the workproduct of the Judeo-Christian God, who has been
alleged to have created Adam and Eve as the first humans?

6. Are humans and the morality/"ethics of human society" the product
of:
Darwinian natural selection?
totally-blind, totally-mindless-at-every-level processes?

7. Did the Judeo-Christian God create humans and lay down ethical
guidelines for:
humans?
you yourself?

Proctor, Robert N. 1988. _Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis_
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 414pp. On 13-14, material
opening the section "From Social Darwinism to Racial Hygiene":
The publication of Charles Darwin's _Origin of Species_
[_by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of
Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life_] in 1859
represents a watershed in the history of biological
determinism in general and scientific racism in particular.
Prior to Darwin, it was difficult to argue against the
Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man, based on
the single creation of Adam and Eve.

Ah, the good old days before Darwin. No slavery, no wars of
extermination, just peace and brotherhood based on Adam and Eve.
Ahhhhh.

Darwin's theory

suggested that humans had evolved over hundreds of
thousands, even millions of years, and that the races of
men had diverged while adapting to the particularities of
local conditions. The impact of Darwin's theory was
enormous. Scholars in both Europe and America, excited
by the prospect of founding a science of man on
biological principles, began to apply the principle of
natural selection to the science and ethics of human
society. Opinions differed widely, however, over just
how Darwin's theory was to be applied.

The *impact* of Darwin's theory, possibly including its
misapplication? So we shouldn't investigate the nature of
the world because someone might misapply what we learn?
Deadrat
.

User: "Charles & Mambo Duckman"
Title: Re: Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man	29 Jun 2005 02:09:41 AM

Deadrat wrote:

The *impact* of Darwin's theory, possibly including its
misapplication? So we shouldn't investigate the nature of
the world because someone might misapply what we learn?

Of course. What the ***** is the matter with you? Just look how many people
died from falling off airplanes, buildings, bungee cords, bridges, cliffs,
roofs, sidewalks and even beds after the theory of gravitation was postulated.
--
Come down off the cross
We can use the wood
Tom Waits, Come On Up To The House
.

User: "Earle Jones"
Title: Re: Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man	29 Jun 2005 08:11:27 PM

In article
<dford3-1120016676.023811.113660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

1. Is the 'theory of evolution by means of Darwinian natural
selection' correct?

***
Scientific theories are neither 'correct' nor 'incorrect'. A theory
explains an observation. To be accepted by the scientific community, a
theory must be the best explanation of the observed evidence. The
scientific community accepts that the theory of evolution by means of
natural selection is the best explanation of the observed diversity of
life forms.
***

2. Is it the case that humans 'evolved' over many years, entirely
apart from any sort of divine intervention whatsoever?

***
Based on all observations made until now, yes.
***

3. Is it the case that "the races of men had diverged while"
'evolving' entirely apart from any sort of divine intervention
whatsoever?

***
You have not defined what you mean by 'races of men'. But no evidence
of any divine intervention has ever been observed.
***

4. Is "the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man, based on
the single creation of Adam and Eve," correct?

***
Not being a 'Judeo-Christian', I wouldn't know.
***

5. Are humans the workproduct of the Judeo-Christian God, who has been
alleged to have created Adam and Eve as the first humans?

***
There is no evidence than any 'God', Judeo-Christian or otherwise, ever
existed.
***

6. Are humans and the morality/"ethics of human society" the product
of:
Darwinian natural selection?
totally-blind, totally-mindless-at-every-level processes?

***
Probably neither.
***

7. Did the Judeo-Christian God create humans and lay down ethical
guidelines for:
humans?
you yourself?

***
See #5 above.
***
[clip the irrelevant]
earle
*
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any
field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts
the Scriptural record."
"The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is
divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually
true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not
only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches.
Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive
themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and
science."
And finally:
"The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture
is Scripture itself."
--Answers in Genesis -- "Statement of Faith"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
.

User: "George Evans"
Title: Re: Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man	01 Jul 2005 12:18:21 AM

in article earle.jones-3A5841.18112729062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com, Earle
Jones at

wrote on 6/29/05 6:11 PM:

In article <dford3-1120016676.023811.113660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

1. Is the 'theory of evolution by means of Darwinian natural
selection' correct?

2. Is it the case that humans 'evolved' over many years, entirely
apart from any sort of divine intervention whatsoever?

***
Based on all observations made until now, yes.
***

After your pedantic answer to question 1, I thought you might answer
question 2 "it appears so". By answering yes, you are coming pretty close to
saying the ToE is correct.
George Evans
.

User: "graham"
Title: Re: Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man	01 Jul 2005 09:18:24 AM

"George Evans" <georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BEEA1F7A.A4A%georgee3@earthlink.net...

in article earle.jones-3A5841.18112729062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com,
Earle
Jones at

wrote on 6/29/05 6:11 PM:

In article
<dford3-1120016676.023811.113660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

1. Is the 'theory of evolution by means of Darwinian natural
selection' correct?

2. Is it the case that humans 'evolved' over many years, entirely
apart from any sort of divine intervention whatsoever?

***
Based on all observations made until now, yes.
***

After your pedantic answer to question 1, I thought you might answer
question 2 "it appears so". By answering yes, you are coming pretty close
to
saying the ToE is correct.

George Evans

Well, can you come up with anything better?
Graham
.

User: "George Evans"
Title: Re: Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man	01 Jul 2005 03:29:16 PM

in article Qgcxe.137902$El.52083@pd7tw1no, graham at
g.dolbyyour@fingershaw.ca wrote on 7/1/05 7:18 AM:

"George Evans" <georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BEEA1F7A.A4A%georgee3@earthlink.net...

in article earle.jones-3A5841.18112729062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com, Earle
Jones at

wrote on 6/29/05 6:11 PM:

In article <dford3-1120016676.023811.113660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

1. Is the 'theory of evolution by means of Darwinian natural selection'
correct?

2. Is it the case that humans 'evolved' over many years, entirely apart
from any sort of divine intervention whatsoever?

***
Based on all observations made until now, yes.
***

After your pedantic answer to question 1, I thought you might answer question
2 "it appears so". By answering yes, you are coming pretty close to saying
the ToE is correct.

Well, can you come up with anything better?

I think so.
George Evans
.

User: "graham"
Title: Re: Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man	01 Jul 2005 06:00:24 PM

"George Evans" <georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BEEAF51A.BF0%georgee3@earthlink.net...

in article Qgcxe.137902$El.52083@pd7tw1no, graham at
g.dolbyyour@fingershaw.ca wrote on 7/1/05 7:18 AM:

"George Evans" <georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BEEA1F7A.A4A%georgee3@earthlink.net...

in article earle.jones-3A5841.18112729062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com,
Earle
Jones at

wrote on 6/29/05 6:11 PM:

In article
<dford3-1120016676.023811.113660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

1. Is the 'theory of evolution by means of Darwinian natural
selection'
correct?

2. Is it the case that humans 'evolved' over many years, entirely
apart
from any sort of divine intervention whatsoever?

***
Based on all observations made until now, yes.
***

After your pedantic answer to question 1, I thought you might answer
question
2 "it appears so". By answering yes, you are coming pretty close to
saying
the ToE is correct.

Well, can you come up with anything better?

I think so.

George Evans

Go ahead! Make my day!
Graham
.

User: "George Evans"
Title: Re: Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man	02 Jul 2005 06:55:28 PM

in article cWjxe.1846483$Xk.947622@pd7tw3no, graham at
g.dolbyyour@fingershaw.ca wrote on 7/1/05 4:00 PM:

"George Evans" <georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BEEAF51A.BF0%georgee3@earthlink.net...

in article Qgcxe.137902$El.52083@pd7tw1no, graham at
g.dolbyyour@fingershaw.ca wrote on 7/1/05 7:18 AM:

"George Evans" <georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BEEA1F7A.A4A%georgee3@earthlink.net...

in article earle.jones-3A5841.18112729062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com,
Earle Jones at

wrote on 6/29/05 6:11 PM:

In article <dford3-1120016676.023811.113660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

1. Is the 'theory of evolution by means of Darwinian natural selection'
correct?

2. Is it the case that humans 'evolved' over many years, entirely apart
from any sort of divine intervention whatsoever?

***
Based on all observations made until now, yes.
***

After your pedantic answer to question 1, I thought you might answer
question 2 "it appears so". By answering yes, you are coming pretty close
to saying the ToE is correct.

Well, can you come up with anything better?

I think so.

Go ahead! Make my day!

Creation with designed in partial adaptability.
George Evans
.

User: "Ferrous Patella"
Title: Re: Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man	01 Jul 2005 06:13:52 PM

news:cWjxe.1846483$Xk.947622@pd7tw3no by graham:

"George Evans" <georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BEEAF51A.BF0%georgee3@earthlink.net...

in article Qgcxe.137902$El.52083@pd7tw1no, graham at
g.dolbyyour@fingershaw.ca wrote on 7/1/05 7:18 AM:

"George Evans" <georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BEEA1F7A.A4A%georgee3@earthlink.net...

in article
earle.jones-3A5841.18112729062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com, Earle
Jones at

wrote on 6/29/05 6:11 PM:

In article
<dford3-1120016676.023811.113660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

1. Is the 'theory of evolution by means of Darwinian natural
selection'
correct?

***
Scientific theories are neither 'correct' nor 'incorrect'. A
theory explains an observation. To be accepted by the scientific
community, a theory must be the best explanation of the observed
evidence. The scientific community accepts that the theory of
evolution by means of natural selection is the best explanation of
the observed diversity of life
forms.
***

2. Is it the case that humans 'evolved' over many years,
entirely apart
from any sort of divine intervention whatsoever?

***
Based on all observations made until now, yes.
***

After your pedantic answer to question 1, I thought you might
answer question
2 "it appears so". By answering yes, you are coming pretty close to
saying
the ToE is correct.

Well, can you come up with anything better?

I think so.

George Evans

Go ahead [Punk]! Make my day!
Graham

Feel lucky?
--
Ferrous Patella (Homo gerardii)
T.A., Philosophy Lab
University of Ediacara
"Nature as God's "reality" show - what a concept!"
--A t.o. poster who wishes to remain anonymous
.

User: "Dubh Ghall"
Title: Re: Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man	01 Jul 2005 05:20:52 AM

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 05:18:21 GMT, George Evans <georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote:

in article earle.jones-3A5841.18112729062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com, Earle
Jones at

wrote on 6/29/05 6:11 PM:

In article <dford3-1120016676.023811.113660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

1. Is the 'theory of evolution by means of Darwinian natural
selection' correct?

2. Is it the case that humans 'evolved' over many years, entirely
apart from any sort of divine intervention whatsoever?

***
Based on all observations made until now, yes.
***

After your pedantic answer to question 1, I thought you might answer
question 2 "it appears so". By answering yes, you are coming pretty close to
saying the ToE is correct.

That is a neat bit of selective reading.
There is a "yes" in the reply, so ignore everything else that is said, the
qualification, and just read the "yes".
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan

Na bister 500,000
.

User: "George Evans"
Title: Re: Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man	01 Jul 2005 03:21:59 PM

in article mv5ac1534ojvum9imednibb7qbmtalr3ng@4ax.com, Dubh Ghall at
puck@pooks.hill.fey wrote on 7/1/05 3:20 AM:

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 05:18:21 GMT, George Evans <georgee3@earthlink.net> wrote:

in article earle.jones-3A5841.18112729062005@comcast.dca.giganews.com, Earle
Jones at

wrote on 6/29/05 6:11 PM:

In article <dford3-1120016676.023811.113660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:

1. Is the 'theory of evolution by means of Darwinian natural
selection' correct?

2. Is it the case that humans 'evolved' over many years, entirely
apart from any sort of divine intervention whatsoever?

***
Based on all observations made until now, yes.
***

After your pedantic answer to question 1, I thought you might answer
question 2 "it appears so". By answering yes, you are coming pretty close to
saying the ToE is correct.

That is a neat bit of selective reading.

There is a "yes" in the reply, so ignore everything else that is said, the
qualification, and just read the "yes".

Based on everything I observed it seemed like the last word. :-)
George Evans
.

User: "Lars Eighner"
Title: Re: Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man	01 Jul 2005 03:28:26 PM

In our last episode,
<dford3-1120016676.023811.113660@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented david ford
broadcast on alt.atheism:

1. Is the 'theory of evolution by means of Darwinian natural
selection' correct?

In the main. Being science, of course, many of the mechanisms
have been somewhat revised as new evidence has come to light.

2. Is it the case that humans 'evolved' over many years, entirely
apart from any sort of divine intervention whatsoever?

Exactly.

3. Is it the case that "the races of men had diverged while"
'evolving' entirely apart from any sort of divine intervention
whatsoever?

No. The evidence is very clear that the human species is not
divisible into races. Race, in human beings, is a political
concept that has no scientific basis.

4. Is "the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man, based on
the single creation of Adam and Eve," correct?

No. Of course, the "Judeo-Christian" conception includes that
certain human beings bear the Mark of Ham, making them suitable
only to be drawers of water and hewers of wood. Indeed, much
scripture is devoted to making distinctions between "us" and
"them."

5. Are humans the workproduct of the Judeo-Christian God, who has been
alleged to have created Adam and Eve as the first humans?

No.

6. Are humans and the morality/"ethics of human society" the
product of: Darwinian natural selection? totally-blind,
totally-mindless-at-every-level processes?

Natural selection is not "totally-mindless-at-every-level." It
is the simple-mindedness of memory and trial-and-error, but in
time that is a close approximation of intelligence.

7. Did the Judeo-Christian God create humans and lay down ethical
guidelines for:
humans?
you yourself?

Of course not.

Proctor, Robert N. 1988. _Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis_
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 414pp. On 13-14, material
opening the section "From Social Darwinism to Racial Hygiene":
The publication of Charles Dar