Robert: Incidently, the Aryan concept comes from evolutionist thought. As Farinata has so announced in a recent post, different races become different species. Evolutionism treats humans as animals. You are also a fan of that as well, aren't you?Robert;
This type of assertion is exactly the reason I stopped responding to your posts last autumn, but in this case you have really gone too far.
What Farinata said was, as usual, correct. Species develop when isolated populations acquire new phenotypic traits which prevent reproductive fertility. Isolation is often geographic, as Eldrige and Gould (1972) emphasise, but it can also be behavioral, as stressed by Mayr(1998). What this means- and I hope you listen very closely and really try to understand- is that any population which is split into two or more distinct regional populations living in different environments, will tend to develop independently of each other. In the absence of any continuing contact, the two separated populations will diverge. This is why plants and animals in England look different from plants and animals on the continent.
This, as Farinata pointed out to you, HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH (so-called) "races" of humans. "Race" is a social construct which involves aspects of culture, philosophy, psychology, food choices, etc. and is not biologically meaningful. Human "races" are not now, and have never been reproductively isolated, and therefore have not speciated and will not do so (at least until we colonize other planets-if we ever do-then it might become possible).
(As far as "treating humans as animals," given that the alternatives are vegetables and minerals, how would you prefer to be treated, like a cabbage or like a rock?)
You have consistently demonstrated that you really don't understand what evolutionary theory really means, and despite the numerous attempts several of us have made to explain it to you, you have resisted even trying to understand why biologists, anthropologists, paleontologists, geneticists and others accept the ideas.
I admit that I admire your simple faith. In a complicated and difficult world, such faith must be very comforting. It is not, however, science. Just as science can never hope to explain many of the phenomena that are so central to a religious understanding of the world, so to is faith incapable of explaining the phenomena of interest to science. These are fundamentally different sense-making systems and attempts to use one in place of the other just do not work.
What really bugs me is your assertion that evolution is in some way connected to fascism. In fact, since evolutionary theory demonstrates quite clearly that all humans, indeed all life forms, are intimately related, a clear understanding of evolution is the best possible defense against fascist thinking. This argument is simply a revival, in modern terms, of the one used by Bryan at the famous "Scopes" trial, in which he blamed Darwin for Leopold and Loeb. Ideas of "ubermenschen" and "racial" superiority predate Darwin by millennia. They were wrong and stupid when used by the Egyptians, they were wrong and stupid when used by the ancient Greeks, they were wrong and stupid when used by Hitler and today, Milosovich is still using wrong, stupid reifications of "race". Darwin is not to blame for this, and your suggestion that he is is simply more evidence that you haven't bothered to understand the theory that you are trying to critique.
Let me give you an example: I have not yet learned to read Japanese. I have therefore never read any original Haiku poetry. Does this give me the right to say that Haiku is not real? That it does not exist? That the people who wrote it were not real poets? No, of course not. I can say only that I am not familiar with the subject and therefore can not form an opinion of it.
You apparently have not had any opportunity to learn the basic principles of evolutionary theory, or indeed of any of the supporting sciences. You seem to have taken your information entirely from church pamphlets. That is fine, but you must be able to recognize that those pamphlets may not contain all of the information needed to make an informed decision. You are a relatively bright man, and it must be apparent to you that religious pamphlets also have a particular viewpoint and a particular agenda, and may therefore not be presenting all the information in a completely objective manner. Can you see that?
There are many ways to interpret the relationship between religious and scientific origin theories, and not all of them are conflict-oriented. Many deeply religious people (including Darwin himself, by the way) felt that evolution, like physics, was simply the discovery, by humans, of the techniques god used to make the world. These people assert that, while it may not be possible for us to completely understand the divine, it is sometimes valuable to use the big brains we have to at least try, rather than "burying our talents". Some believe that we can best appreciate those things which we understand. If god made the world, is it not appropriate for us to admire the handiwork from a position of understanding, rather than one of ignorance? You see what I'm saying? The "debate" is an artifact of the discourse between some humans and is not inherent in either Genesis or The Origin of Species.
If you choose to focus on conflict, well, that's your decision, but don't you think you'd be able to build a better argument if you actually understood the ideas you are trying to critique? Or are you afraid that if you actually studied evolution and what it is about, that it might convince you? If so, fine, just admit that you don't understand it and aren't willing to learn. That's an honorable solution. It's not acceptable to say "I haven't ever tried to understand it, and therefore _IT_ is wrong" which is what your arguments ultimately boil down to.
You also, I might add, project a very condescending tone and seem to be claiming a personal superiority over people who, face it, you have never met, don't know anything about, and never will. Many of your posts come off as hostile, rude and insulting. The fact that you try to end with a blessing does not make up for this. You can't spew a bunch of negatives and then add one positive at the end in hopes that it comes out equal; it doesn't. It comes across as hypocricy of the worst kind: the use of religion to justify hateful and insulting words and acts. Please refrain from this approach in the future, as it only alienates people and doesn't advance your cause in any way.
I'm not going to offer you a religious blessing because I really don't feel qualified to do so, but I do hope you think about what I've said.
-Floyd
