Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Origin of Species To Be Given For Free, With FUD 48

Posted by samzenpus
from the evolution-pains dept.
PhrostyMcByte writes "November 24th will mark the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, the pivotal work that helped bring the theory of evolution through natural selection into popularity. Around this same time, Growing Pains star Kirk Cameron is spearheading a plan to pass out 50,000 free copies at universities around the country. The catch? Each copy will be altered to include creationist propaganda and FUD targeting evolution and Darwin himself."

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Origin of Species To Be Given For Free, With FUD

Comments Filter:
  • If anyone who receives a free copy can't separate the science from the pseudo-science they deserve to look like idiots when they say "God created the world in six days because Darwin said so."
  • If memory serves me, On the Origin of Species mentions God 56 times and ever since the second addition affirms that evolution is a miracle of God. So I was left wondering how they could tie more God into the book. After a search on the net, I see Kirk is adding in mentions of Nazis and racism... how divine.
    • by noundi (1044080)

      If only I could get a hold of 1000 of those, do you people realise how expensive firewood is these days?

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      I see Kirk is adding in mentions of Nazis and racism... how divine.

      Because evolutionary principle/thought definitely had nothing to do with Nazi thought or racist thought....

      I don't know how you can get around eugenics as being something that seemed to come out of evolutionary concepts. I'm not trolling. I'm not even accusing evolution of being wrong or false or whatever. I'm saying that eugenics, which was behind Hitler/Nazi thought and to some extent behind racism - at least, if the racism is born out of other things (including religion, e.g., antisemitism) - seems to

      • by iYk6 (1425255) on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @08:09PM (#30053766)

        I see Kirk is adding in mentions of Nazis and racism... how divine.

        Because evolutionary principle/thought definitely had nothing to do with Nazi thought or racist thought.... I don't know how you can get around eugenics as being something that seemed to come out of evolutionary concepts.

        Eugenics requires evolution. Evolution does not require eugenics. Cybersex requires a computer. But computers do not require cybersex. You can write a motherboard manual without mentioning cybersex anywhere. In fact, cybersex tips would be out of place in a motherboard manual. A book on Nazis would probably include eugenics and evolution, but there is no reason that a book on evolution would need to mention Nazis or eugenics.

        I'm saying that eugenics ... seems to be a logical progression from evolutionary thought.

        I disagree. The idea that inferior genes will naturally die out does not logicically lead to we must kill everyone with inferior genes.

        why not help evolution along and get rid of these inferior races.

        If they really believed what they were saying, it seems more likely that they would let evolution run its course.

        • Speak for yourself. Cybersex requires a computer. But computers do not require cybersex

          My computer is salient and lonely - it NEEDS cybersex, you ignorant clod!

          Inferior genes aren't necessarily selected out out in the evolutionary model. As long as it doesn't prevent reproduction and the host themselves surviving long enough to reproduce, it's going to stay in the gene pool. Example - if there was a gene that caused the host to drop dead at 50 in 100% of cases- that's not going to be weeded out. Heck

        • by BobMcD (601576)

          I'm saying that eugenics ... seems to be a logical progression from evolutionary thought.

          I disagree. The idea that inferior genes will naturally die out does not logicically lead to we must kill everyone with inferior genes.

          When you're running a government, it is absolutely a logical choice. What would be more preferable between suffering the damage caused by allowing the natural course of things or taking measurable action towards a given result? If you need a local example, look at the meddling our own governments do in the economy. This too would work itself out in time, and yet we meddle, because that is what people want out of a government.

          This is why I wouldn't personally object to this point being made in the preface

        • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

          Eugenics requires evolution. Evolution does not require eugenics.

          Good point. Evolution certainly does not require eugenics. I argue still, though, that evolution will lead to eugenics. Perhaps not inevitably, but it seems that it an evolutionary worldview would certainly lend itself to the practice of eugenics. IMO, an evolutionary worldview does not logically lead to a practice of environmental preservation. I said that below though, so I guess I'm repeating myself. And writing my comment from the bottom up, ha. :)

          I disagree. The idea that inferior genes will naturally die out does not logicically lead to we must kill everyone with inferior genes.

          Fair enough.

          If they really believed what they were saying, it seems more likely that they would let evolution run its course.

          The same could be said about climate c

      • by HBoar (1642149)

        I'm saying that eugenics, which was behind Hitler/Nazi thought and to some extent behind racism - at least, if the racism is born out of other things (including religion, e.g., antisemitism) - seems to be a logical progression from evolutionary thought.

        That doesn't make sense. The only concept that is required to 'justify' eugenics is that a child inherits traits from his/her parents. I'm pretty sure even the most nutty creationist doesn't dispute this. The fact that this concept pretty much implies that evolution must occur is irrelevant.

        Now, if the Nazis had selectively killed off people with skinny, hairless arms with the aim of developing a new human like species with wings, your argument would perhaps be slightly more valid. But seeing as their a

      • by Jakeva (1429603)

        I see Kirk is adding in mentions of Nazis and racism... how divine.

        Because evolutionary principle/thought definitely had nothing to do with Nazi thought or racist thought....

        I don't know how you can get around eugenics as being something that seemed to come out of evolutionary concepts. I'm not trolling. I'm not even accusing evolution of being wrong or false or whatever. I'm saying that eugenics, which was behind Hitler/Nazi thought and to some extent behind racism - at least, if the racism is born out of other things (including religion, e.g., antisemitism) - seems to be a logical progression from evolutionary thought. Improvements come from lots of breeding/procreation -> must be going on today -> there must be "inferior" races currently alive -> why not help evolution along and get rid of these inferior races.

        You're totally right, as long as your point is that nazis used evolution as their reasoning. Not trolling either, just pointing out that the nazis were WRONG to try to help evolution along. The reason is that you can't possibly help evolution along. You would have to see the future, and you would have to see millions of years into the future, and along every different timeline created by every different combination of mutations in every species. Where would we be if the ridiculous little mouse hadn't out-

      • by DEmmons (1538383)
        i suppose the idea of eugenics could have seemed like a natural extension of evolution in earlier times, when people commonly thought of evolution as a process that necessarily makes things superior over time -- starting with some single-celled organism and proceeding to humans or something anthropomorphic, and culminating in, i suppose, gods or something. i always cringe when i hear the term "highly evolved" - it makes sense in certain usages but often is a hallmark of the misunderstanding of evolution. ev
    • The complete text is online [darwin-online.org.uk], the word God appears only three times, two of which are in a quotation of Bacon on page ii before the title page. The only appearance of the word God in the actual text is:

      He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication, in this particular manner, so as often to become striped like other species of the genus; and that each has been created with a strong tendency, when crossed with species inhabiting distant quarters of the world, to produce hybrids resembling in their stripes, not their own parents, but other species of the genus. To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an unknown, cause. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception; I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore.

      ... which is not exactly an expression of faith.
      Darwin did have deist beliefs at the time of the writing, which is reflected by his frequent references to a Creator, but that Creator is not necessarily theistic God.

  • Therefore he made lies and slander. As such, we may use these tools of God to promote our beliefs in him (not her). Anybody found promoting the idea that maybe, just maybe, that evolution was the tool by which God made life and that the 6 days of creation were not literal 24 hour periods will be stoned, as is also mentioned somewhere in the bible, so it must be biblical.

    FYI, just because Jesus didn't address the nuances on how we came to be doesn't mean it's not more important than his message of forgi
    • by bondsbw (888959)

      FYI, just because Jesus didn't address the nuances on how we came to be doesn't mean it's not more important than his message of forgiveness and love. Quite the opposite.

      I doubt it. Jesus focused on grace and forgiveness... he meant *exactly* that those things were more important. He didn't say that origin was unimportant, but in the grand scheme of things, it's in the past and we can get all caught up in it (which is exactly why creationists need to figure out their priorities). We will never understand it as he understands it anyway.

      Therefore he made lies and slander.

      Just because God creates the ability to sin, and God creates the definition of the sin, does not mean that God condones the sin.

      • by tacarat (696339)
        Sorry. I was sarcastically justifying the action of spreading misinformation by those in the article. I thought I laid it on thick enough to be obvious. If you know enough folks like that to take it seriously, you have my condolences.
  • by popo (107611) on Tuesday November 10, 2009 @08:42PM (#30054130) Homepage

    Shooting down evolution doesn't grant victory to Judeo/Christian creationism by default. Given that there are thousands of creation mythologies involving sometimes teams of deities, giant turtles, lumps of clay and supercomputers owned by mice -- I'm not sure what ad hominem attacks on Mr. Darwin will even accomplish.

    The real fun will begin when these uneducated nits attempt to rationalize their system over, say, Norse creationism. ( Odin laughs at your puny little Yaweh. )

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Idiomatick (976696)
      To anyone that has read up on norse creationism. It is WAY more badass than this 7day crap. Seriously, giant cows licking ice, hermaphrodite giants. bone mountains.
      • So in other words, myths that nobody claims are true are "cool" in comparison to Genesis, which many people do claim is true... and is rather "boring" as far as literature goes. You would almost think that the 7-Day stuff wasn't written from stuff dreamed up by humans.

        It's interesting that you bring it up, though. The Biblical account of creation is very different from most religion's accounts of creation-like times. The Biblical account is pretty ... "boring."

    • The real fun will begin when these uneducated nits attempt to rationalize their system over

      There are a lot of highly educated and intellectual "uneducated nits" on that side, both now and in the past.

      And incidentally, there are plenty of highly educated and intellectual people making the stupidest decisions today. They're typically in government, it would seem. I'm not sure what good "education" is if you end up making the same stupid decisions anyway...

  • Why must people keep saying Einstein a Catholic? (they do in the clip)

    Do they know something that Einstein didn't? I mean he did repeatedly deny his religiousness. Has proof come out that he was high at the time or something?
    • by tomhudson (43916)

      I mean he did repeatedly deny his religiousness.

      He also refused to believe in strange effects at a distance, and said that "God doesn't play dice with the universe." and 'Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."

      IOW, Einstein's religious thinking was a product of his time; he wasn't a hardline atheist. Just goes to show that even a genius can be f*ing stupid where they have a blind spot.

      • I have said the word God in past and used it as a metaphor for the universe, infact physicists today commonly do so. But it doesn't mean I am remotely religious.

        "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

        That seems a little more specific. The topic being his religious views rather than what
        • by tomhudson (43916)

          Fair enough, but take a look at his gut reaction to actions at a distance - both by derisively calling them "spooky actions at a distance" and saying "God does not play dice with the universe."

          That second phrase clearly expresses a dichotomy between "god" and "universe" that is a contradiction to the statement you quote, and leads me to believe that, wrt god, Einstein had a nice case of cognitive dissonance going.

          I mean, why reject a thesis on the basis of "god".

          Also, (and as aside note) the description

    • by Lakitu (136170)

      Everyone knows Einstein was persecuted for his Catholic ancestry, eventually being forced to leave Nazi Germany because of it.

  • With all the hoopla coming from both sides of the evolution argument, who, with no opinion, could see it as a pissing match?
    Both have zealots shouting "hooray for our side", pointing out the perceived flaws in the others fanfare. Neither have passed review to enter the magic land of fact.
    There is even a minority third party, drowned out by the warchants, prayers, and ancestral epithets; those who see evolution as part of YHVH business model.

    Until such a time as there is s

    • Great points, flyneye. Personally, I do believe in literal creation as described in Genesis, but if evolution were proved true beyond doubt (it has a long way to go), it wouldn't do anything to disprove God. As you pointed out, there are plenty (I'd say they're a strong minority) of people who believe in evolution guided by a Creator. Also, as someone pointed out earlier, disproving evolution doesn't do much in itself to help the Christian cause. I really appreciate the writings of C.S. Lewis, in which he d

    • by schon (31600)

      Neither have passed review to enter the magic land of fact.

      What?!?!? Evolution *is* a scientific fact. By definition. To reject it is to reject the existence of the computer that you typed that drivel into.

      Until such a time as there is some solid proof, the best thing to do is file a " no opinion yet" down at the head office and quit appearing to be complete fools.

      We've had proof of evolution for *YEARS*. The only ones appearing foolish are the idiots who don't understand science.

      We don't know there is God.

      Correct.

      We don't know there is evolution.

      Yes, we do - because there is no other scientific theory that can even approach explaining the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that exists. If you have another scientific theory that better explains genetics, the fossil rec

      • by flyneye (84093)

        Dear high blood pressure subscriber,
        Although science is furthered by usable theories( the field of physics is full of them for example) ,there is still no absolute proofs although the theoretical situations work as modules for more research, they remain theoretical for whatever reason.
        The evolution problem lies in lack of witness. The process of forensics no matter how thorough still leaves and even creates more questions. Fact is knowl

  • Hey, that's cool. If he wants to remix a book in the public domain, that's fine- he's well within his rights to do so. Passing it off as the original Origin of Species? Well, that's pretty-freakin'-dubious, especially considering the controversy around this, but I guess he's well within his rights to do that as well. A kind of 'Origin of Species 2.0' with full Christian-theology compatibility, I suppose you could say.

    But, of course, evolutionists are free to do the same to the Bible. Let's see how it might

  • God doesn't love those poor who are unable to afford an ivy league edumication. NOO BOOK 4 U

There is no distinction between any AI program and some existent game.

Working...