It is fucking true, you jerk... You accept your FAITH uncritically
while you want
others to abandon theirs. What a stupid lad you are.

robin wrote:

I am so glad, every now and then, when a thoughtful person happens by
to lend me support. I hope I am not rude or hurtful in my choice of
words, patiently defending my perspective against the True Believers,
the fundies and bashers on talk.origins. You say I defend Darwin and
accept Darwinian evolution uncritically, with 'blind faith' as it were.
I hope that is not true. For your information, there are many shades on

It is fucking true, you jerk... You accept your FAITH uncritically
while you want
others to abandon theirs. What a stupid lad you are.

robin wrote:

I am so glad, every now and then, when a thoughtful person happens by
to lend me support. I hope I am not rude or hurtful in my choice of
words, patiently defending my perspective against the True Believers,
the fundies and bashers on talk.origins. You say I defend Darwin and
accept Darwinian evolution uncritically, with 'blind faith' as it were.
I hope that is not true. For your information, there are many shades on

It is fucking true, you jerk... You accept your FAITH uncritically
while you want
others to abandon theirs. What a stupid lad you are.

'Darwinism' - and I would hope that even when we disagree, we can still
learn from each other.

One charge brought against this perspective, right from the start, has
been that it is a "low" perspective, justifying the passions, the
socalled "lower nature" of man, his animal side. In other words,
heresy, to them. The theologians later made the same charge against
Freud. With Darwin, it was sex and race. "Why do you keep harping on
sex and race?" My response, as was Thomas Huxley's, "Maybe because
they are central. Maybe because sex and race are at the heart of it
all." Darwin, ever-honest, had the integrity to admit in the titles of
his two great works (on evolution; 1859 and 1871), that he realized
race and sex are key to the entire question of the origins of life on
earth, and the evolution toward human life in particular.

Except for the very simplest of organisms, reproduction by sexual
pairing multiplies geometrically the possibilities available for
variation and differentiation. Unlike non-sexual reproduction (ie,
daughter cells), sexual reproduction vasltly enlarges the scope of
possibility (permutation, combination) by, as Stephen Jay Gould had it,
"shuffling the deck." Darwin was conscientious enough (not shy) to
chose the words in his titles WITH CARE. His 1859 work was interested
in asking why. (why favoured races are preserved, and survive). His
1871 work dealt more particularly with human, humanid and humanoid
(family, genus, species). Thus, Selection in Relation to Sex. Yes
orthography and taxonomy change over the decades. Some of you fault
Darwin for his misclassification, or his idiosyncratic spelling, or his
casual citation of references. Or you fault the constant harping on sex
and race. The sex card, the race card.

Racial purity? Dangers of sexual amalgamation between races? Let's be
careful we are not uncritically swallowing the pathological errors and
"science" advanced by such white supremacists as de Gobineau and
Houston Stewart Chamberlain ... or their modern Black Supremacist
counterparts advancing comparable myth (melanism, etc).