More on the ‘Benefits’ of Evolution

September 4, 2007 in Answers in Genesis, Darwinism, evolution

Friends, (especially ladies)

Here’s another story of one of the benefits of Darwinian evolution. Not only has Darwinian evolution given us the glories of rape, racism, purposelessness, and more, it turns out it has also decided that women are ‘inferior’ to men.

This peer reviewed essay first appeared in Technical Journal in April 2000 and contains over 100 citations to other works. You can access it here: Inferior.

Here’s an abstract:

A review of the most prominent late 19th century writings by biologists focusing on Charles Darwin reveals that a major plank of evolution theory was the belief that women were intellectually and physically inferior to men.  Female inferiority was a logical conclusion of the natural selection worldview because men were exposed to far greater selective pressures than women, especially in war, competition for mates, food and clothing.  Conversely, women were protected from evolutionary selection by norms which dictated that men were to provide for and protect women and children.  Darwinists taught that as a result of this protection, natural selection operated far more actively on males, producing male superiority in virtually all skill areas.  As a result, males evolved more than females.  The female inferiority doctrine is an excellent example of the armchair logic that has often been more important in establishing evolutionary theory than fossil and other empirical evidence.

Sorry ladies.

jerry

16 Replies

  1. Joe

    September 4, 2007 at 11:14 am

    Do you think anyone believes that is true today?

    Reply
  2. dangoldfinch

    September 4, 2007 at 2:50 pm

    Joe,

    Does it matter if I believe that anyone believes it? That’s not the point of the essay is it?

    But, for the sake of the argument, I do believe that someone believes this is true today.

    What do you think?

    jerry

    Reply
  3. Joe

    September 4, 2007 at 3:36 pm

    I think this has nothing to do with the modern theory of evolution it is just an attempt by you to besmirch the character of those accept the modern scientific theory.

    Anyone who believes this needs to learn what evolutionary theory actually is.

    Reply
  4. dangoldfinch

    September 4, 2007 at 5:30 pm

    Joe,

    I don’t need to besmirch the character of anything, especially evolution and Darwinism. The character is what the character is and speaks for itself. I didn’t write paper, and it has been peer reviewed and has over 100 citations. Do you wish to comment on the essay or merely criticize my intentions?

    You are just afraid of contrary evidence. Besides, isn’t this what you and your friends do to those of us who actually know what evolutionary theory is conclude that it is a pack of lies created by the devil to undermine the Word of God? Isn’t it yours and Jon’s intentions to ‘besmirch’ my character and impugn those who believe in the ‘fairy tale’ of creation? We have a word for people like you: Hypocrite.

    That’s all you and others who have visited here have done: besmirch the character of those of us who still believe that we are made in the image of God and not evolved from the image of an ape or a ‘common ancestor’ due to random, guideless powers of the environment. Don’t you come here telling me what my intentions are you bag of wind.

    The modern theory of evolution is nothing but a regurgitation of the pre-modern theory of evolution. It’s all built on Darwin’s premise, like it or not. It is what it is.

    jerry

    PS-In short, you are just unhappy that there are people in the world like me who refuse to allow unbelievers like you to control the direction and flow of the conversation. I may not always get it right, but in the end, this is one place where atheism and evolution will not, finally, win the day.

    Do you dispute the findings of the article? Or did you even read it?

    Reply
  5. Joe

    September 4, 2007 at 7:18 pm

    “Besides, isn’t this what you and your friends do to those of us who actually know what evolutionary theory is conclude that it is a pack of lies created by the devil to undermine the Word of God? Isn’t it yours and Jon’s intentions to ‘besmirch’ my character and impugn those who believe in the ‘fairy tale’ of creation? We have a word for people like you: Hypocrite.”
    Unless you have an example where I besmirched your character I don’t think this is a very reasonable accusation. I have not once done so. I have merely pointed out how and why I think you are wrong.

    “The modern theory of evolution is nothing but a regurgitation of the pre-modern theory of evolution. It’s all built on Darwin’s premise, like it or not. It is what it is.”
    Much of the modern theory is just as Darwin explained it. I haven’t denied that. But nothing from the original or the modern theory supports the idea that women are “inferior”.

    “In short, you are just unhappy …”
    Do not believe that anything you do or say makes me unhappy.

    “Do you dispute the findings of the article? Or did you even read it?”
    I didn’t read it. I commented on your blog not the article. Does the article claim that modern evolutionary theory support the idea that women are inferior? If yes it is wrong, if no it is irrelevant. I am more interested in your motive for posting this.

    And now I click on it and see that the source is AIG. I won’t bother.

    Now you can support your above assertion that evolution has given us “given us the glories of rape, racism, purposelessness, and more”

    Reply
  6. dangoldfinch

    September 4, 2007 at 10:41 pm

    Joe,

    I have already written that Jon said evolution gives him no purpose. And, since evolution is ‘guideless’ it is only logical that it is purposeless. It has no aim, no goal. How can it possible instill purpose or meaning into a life.

    I cited an article about the Darwinian basis of Hitler’s genocide.

    As to rape: http://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Rape-Biological-Coercion/dp/0262201259

    I’m not trying to make you unhappy, but I would think anyone without hope, that is all atheists like yourself, would be unhappy. All you have to look forward to is death. To me, that is sad.

    I’ll find you another source since AIG is beneath you. Still, there’s a large amount of references from their peers. I’ll bet they even quote your hero Darwin a few times. I don’t know Joe, you might want to give it a shot. Or are you just too afraid to admit that someone else might know something you don’t?

    If ‘modern evolutionary theory’ is ‘just as Darwin explained it’ then how can the article be wrong? My motive for posting the essay is education. I want people to know what evolution teaches, not just what Darwinists like yourself say it teaches. My motive is to expose Darwinism as a perfect waste of time. Here’s a passage that describes your lot:

    “So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.” (Ephesians 4:17-19, NIV)

    jerry

    ps-as to besmirching your character or mine, well, I’d have to go back through all those posts and annotate all the times you have told me I don’t understand something or even the very fact that you are here of your own volition. You have though, don’t deny it.

    I think you don’t like AIG because they are faithful to the Scripture. You can’t argue with them because they hold fast to the Word of God. Your problem is with Scripture, not me or AIG.

    Reply
  7. Joe

    September 5, 2007 at 12:38 pm

    You didn’t claim that evolution gave no purpose you claimed that it took purpose away. There is a difference. Pancake recipes give no purpose either, but you are wise enough not to criticize them for that since that is not what they are for. Likewise it is not the purpose of a scientific theory to provide us with purpose. It is to provide us with an explanation for the way things are. This it does quite well.

    “I’m not trying to make you unhappy, but I would think anyone without hope, that is all atheists like yourself, would be unhappy. All you have to look forward to is death. To me, that is sad.”
    I am an atheist and I have many hopes just like anyone else. I have plenty to look forward to until I die.

    “I’ll find you another source since AIG is beneath you.”
    They are not beneath me, they are merely biased.

    “I’ll bet they even quote your hero Darwin a few times.”
    Darwin is not my hero.

    “I don’t know Joe, you might want to give it a shot. Or are you just too afraid to admit that someone else might know something you don’t?”
    Everyone knows things that I don’t know.

    “If ‘modern evolutionary theory’ is ‘just as Darwin explained it’ then how can the article be wrong?”
    I didn’t say that. Go back and reread what I did say please. The article is wrong because the theory of evolution does not predict or imply that women are inferior.

    “My motive for posting the essay is education. I want people to know what evolution teaches, not just what Darwinists like yourself say it teaches.”
    You are lying and misrepresenting evolutionary theory in order to discredit it. The proof is in the fact that no modern evolutionary biologists believe those things even if you were able to demonstrate they did in the 19th century. What relevance does that have to the reality of the theory today?

    “as to besmirching your character or mine, well, I’d have to go back through all those posts and annotate all the times you have told me I don’t understand something or even the very fact that you are here of your own volition. You have though, don’t deny it.”
    Saying you don’t understand something is not besmirching your character. Comparing someone to Hitler and inferring that they are sexist simply because they accept a scientific theory is besmirching someones character. If you can’t see the difference, I guess I cannot help you.

    I have not besmirched your character.

    “I think you don’t like AIG because they are faithful to the Scripture. You can’t argue with them because they hold fast to the Word of God. Your problem is with Scripture, not me or AIG.”
    I could care less what is written in some old book. What bothers me is people who ignore or misrepresent the findings of science because they are obsessed by what is written in some old book.

    The world was not created in six days, it is more than a few tens of thousands of years old. Get over it already. You can accept that and be a Christian. Relax and open your mind.

    Reply
  8. dangoldfinch

    September 5, 2007 at 3:48 pm

    Joe,

    Thanks for reading and replying.

    No, I cannot accept evolution and be a Christian. My mind is open to the Holy Spirit. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead his people into all truth. I have not been led by Holy Spirit to accept the lies of evolution that are continuously used to discredit the Word of God.

    If AIG is biased, what are you? What is Scientific American, Natural History, Nature, and all the other journals promoting the school spirit of Darwin? What are public education systems? Are they not biased too? Is your mind open to the fact that you might be wrong? Is your mind open to the fact that perhaps, just perhaps, evolution isn’t as sound a hypothesis as you assume?

    I did not claim you were sexist or comparable to Hitler. I said, in fact, that not all who believe those things are Darwinists. In fact, I also said, that most modern Darwinists would denounce Hitler. My point is this: There are sexists who base their theories on Darwin, there was a Hitler who based his theories of racial superiority on Darwin, there were slave owners who based their theories on Darwin (and some on the Bible too!).

    My point, Joe, is that just as people are fond of pointing out that Christians used the Bible to justify the Crusades and the Inquisition, so too have racists, sexists, and abortionists (and more) used the theories of Darwinian Evolution to justify their actions. You really need to learn how to read what someone is saying Joe before you accuse them of saying something they are not. I very carefully worded my sentences and added plenty of disclaimers to protect the innocent.

    I didn’t say that the theory predicted anything. I simply made reference to an essay someone wrote, in which they quote over 100 sources including Darwin, to make their case. Peer review the article, Joe. Show me where they are wrong, with peer reviewed support, and I’ll consider removing the link.

    By the way Joe, I really enjoy this conversation. It get’s testy sometimes, but I’m really learning a lot. I do appreciate your visits, and even though we are staunch opponents of one another’s philosophy, the debate is healthy and invigorating.

    Talk with you soon.

    your friend,
    jerry

    PS–I do need to relax, I’ll grant you that. Sadly, evolution hasn’t found a way to eliminate kidney stones either and I still have one lodged in that I think is moving.

    PPS–You should care what is written in an old book. I didn’t mispresent anything. I simply posted a link and an abstract to an essay someone else wrote. That’s all. I am obsessed with Jesus, My Savior and that means I will defend His truth. All human truth must conform to God’s Truth, and all human Truth is God’s truth. Any ‘truth’ that is not of God is a lie.

    Oh, how do you know the world wasn’t created in six days again? You were there? You can test that hypothesis in lab by using carbon dating techniques that are only as accurate as an assumed half-life, right? Actually, those who accept Big-Bang cosmology believe the universe to be closer to 14 billion years old, but even that assumes a beginning–a theory Hawking is not quite ready to accept. I’m not necessarily arguing about the age of the earth (although I accept Genesis 1 as truth); I’m arguing against philosophical and biological Darwinian evolution. I think that it stinks like so many of the dead bodies that litter the earth’s fossil record.

    Reply
  9. Joe

    September 5, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    “Is your mind open to the fact that you might be wrong? Is your mind open to the fact that perhaps, just perhaps, evolution isn’t as sound a hypothesis as you assume?”
    Absolutely. That is the one of the keys to science. Every theory is always open to revision based on new evidnece or simply because a better idea has come along. The theory of evolution is the best explanation we have for the evidence. That’s why I believe it is true.

    “My point, Joe, is that just as people are fond of pointing out that Christians used the Bible to justify the Crusades and the Inquisition, so too have racists, sexists, and abortionists (and more) used the theories of Darwinian Evolution to justify their actions. You really need to learn how to read what someone is saying Joe before you accuse them of saying something they are not. I very carefully worded my sentences and added plenty of disclaimers to protect the innocent.”
    So you are aware that this entire line of argument is a falicious attack that has nothing to do with the truth value of the attacked belief and yet you decide to use it to further your “side”? You need to get your head out of the defend-my-viewpoint-at-all-costs mode and get into the pursuit-of-truth mode. If you think that this is BS when used against Christianity why would you be so disengenuous to use it as a weapon against something you disagree with? Isn’t it worse than useless in both cases? Does it become useful just because this time it is pointed at your opponent instead of yourself?

    (For the record I have never used such an argument against any religion and have written of my discomfort and disagreement with it on my blog.)

    “Show me where they are wrong, with peer reviewed support, and I’ll consider removing the link.”
    if they are right they are irrlevant since they are talking about things that have nothing to do with the actual theory of evolution. The theory does NOT predict those things. So those things are irrelevant to its truth value. So the article and your linking to it has nothing to do with whether or not evolution is true. Which is why I am asking why you posted it. So why did you post it? What were you trying to show? What do you think this proves?

    “By the way Joe, I really enjoy this conversation. It get’s testy sometimes, but I’m really learning a lot. I do appreciate your visits, and even though we are staunch opponents of one another’s philosophy, the debate is healthy and invigorating.”
    I wouldn’t be here commenting if I wasn’t enjoying it. I am glad to hear that you are learning a lot. I am too. Discussion as long as it can advance beyond I’m right/You’re wrong is always very educational.

    “Sadly, evolution hasn’t found a way to eliminate kidney stones either and I still have one lodged in that I think is moving.”
    Ugh, I’ve had six. I envy you not.

    “You should care what is written in an old book.”
    Why should I give it any more concern than Greek mythology or ancient American Indian legends?

    “All human truth must conform to God’s Truth, and all human Truth is God’s truth. Any ‘truth’ that is not of God is a lie.”
    So let me ask you, is your mind open to the fact that you might be wrong?

    “Oh, how do you know the world wasn’t created in six days again? You were there? You can test that hypothesis in lab by using carbon dating techniques that are only as accurate as an assumed half-life, right?”
    Not just Cardon. Carbon is limited to dating around 100,000 years do to its short half-life. Radio-isotope dating is definetly the best method we have for dating things, but we also see processes that could only have occurred on billion year timescales occuring on Earth and throughout the universe. How else could we see things that are millions of light years away unless millions of years have passed?

    “Actually, those who accept Big-Bang cosmology believe the universe to be closer to 14 billion years old, but even that assumes a beginning–a theory Hawking is not quite ready to accept. I’m not necessarily arguing about the age of the earth (although I accept Genesis 1 as truth); I’m arguing against philosophical and biological Darwinian evolution. I think that it stinks like so many of the dead bodies that litter the earth’s fossil record.”
    Yes, 14 billion is the approximate age of the universe and 5 billion for the Earth. There certainly was some kind of beginning, though we have no way of knowing what may or may not have come before.

    What do you mean by “philosophical” evolution?

    Thanks

    Reply
  10. Anthony

    May 20, 2008 at 10:11 am

    The weapons of choice for proponents of “Intelligent” Design are a.) misinterpretation of data to fit preconceived ideas, and suggesting that since scientists are responding to Intelligent Design “theory” there must be something about it that is scientific.

    You’re arguments against evolution indicate a typical human logical falicies, and as the journal article’s author states of other such arguments,

    “This vividly demonstrates how important both preconceived ideas and theory are in interpreting data.”

    1.) The Original Theory of Darwinism is NOT modern evolution – and while the two have similarities, disproving his original theory does NOT disprove the modern one.

    2.) By looking only for evidence that proves a preconcieved notion, you forego finding evidence that disproves it, and reach a falseconclusion. This article ONLY looks at the flaws of PAST evolutionary theories, not the modern beliefs. It looks at individual scientist’s SOCIAL views, and how they used them to interpret data. In short, the article is arguing against its own subtance…

    3.) Blind, unquestioning faith requires that you ignore evidence – and requires that you disregard others beliefs, no matter how important or equally valid. For example – you assume that “The Bible” is the word of “God,” which of course requires you to believe that all other religious texts must be false.

    4.) The “Bible,” as is read in modern times, isn’t the original Bible. It isn’t even in the original tongue. The original interpretations are lost, do to time, translations, lost parts, misreadings, modern social and religious dogma, and a host of other problems. Even if you had actually read the ancient Aramaic, hebrew, and Latin, you can’t say it is “Fact” – you can only say that YOU “believe” the writings. Certainly, it is not a scientific document.

    5.) What makes science SCIENCE is that the theories are open to the possibility of being wrong, and therefore changing. In that regard, yes, you can never completely PROVE a theory. However, random speculation about how a theory might be wrong without any directly opposing evidence doesn’t disprove the theory.

    For example, the idea that life is too complicated to NOT have been designed is not a scientific idea, but rather a statement indicating the limits of an individual’s understanding of how life actually works.

    The simple fact of the matter is that there is not a single shred of credible, logical evidence to DISprove evolution. The only reason there is even a discussion is because scientists aare worried that the factual science they’ve worked so hard on will be replaced by a belief system that will send us back to the days false assumptions. Women are not inferior. Panda’s don’t have thumbs.

    Reply
  11. dangoldfinch

    May 20, 2008 at 10:51 am

    Anthony,

    Thank you for the thoughtful reply. The very fact that you believe what you wrote however demonstrates that we are already involved in a belief system that lingers in the days of false assumptions. Where did you get the idea that belief in Creation suggests women are inferior or that pandas do have thumbs?

    The only reason there is a discussion is because there is not ‘factual’ evidence. If there were evidence, factual–not circumstantial–there would be no discussion. I have no problem with science. Science is good. It comes down to evidence. If the evidence were in such abundance as atheistic Darwinists suggest, there would be no discussion. As it is, there isn’t.

    Statement 4 is, at best, a display of your ignorance of the nature of the Scripture and its transmission through the generations. I did a book review here on a book called Fabricating Jesus. Read the book or the review to get a better glimpse of why statement 4 is way, way, way off the mark.

    Statement 3 is false also because in my opinion all truth comes from the same source regardless of who wrote it down and preserved it. As it is, my belief is rather around a person named Jesus Christ. While the Bible is necessarily important and vital, I can survive without it because my faith is in Christ Jesus and not, necessarily, a book. Muslims, Jews, Hindus–no other religion makes such a claim about a person. That’s the difference my friend. Take away Jesus–well, then I have a problem. See the difference?

    Similarly, it is not my belief in Creation versus your belief in Darwinism tha makes the difference between us. The difference is faith in the Work of Christ on the cross. I have it; do you? I couldn’t care less if you believe in Creation by God in six days or not. What I do care about is if you believe in the work of Jesus at Calvary. That’s what will make the difference in your life and has in mine.

    Thanks for stopping by. Grace to you.
    jerry

    Reply
  12. jaja

    June 16, 2008 at 5:40 pm

    Jesus’ work? The death of Jesus (if he existed) only represents that your god wanted no more blood from animals (goats, oxes, etc.) he preferred to try human blood at least once

    Reply
  13. dangoldfinch

    June 16, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    Jaja,

    Uh, whatever.

    jerry

    Reply
  14. Edward

    November 11, 2009 at 3:35 pm

    The Simple fact of the matter is that there is logical, step-by-step proof for evolution as can be proven in the lab with Drosophila Melanogaster or E. Coli or any other organism with a sufficiently brief life-span.

    There is, however, no proof of there being a God or that any supernatural force created the world. It comes down to faith, and faith is itself a Social Reflex, just like the ideas of ‘Good and Evil’ or ‘Right and Wrong’. Believing in these values confers an advantage over those that do not believe in them. For example, a Law-abiding, righteous member of society such as yourself is more likely to pass on those Law-abiding characteristics to the next generation (in other words, you’re more likely to produce children) than someone who’s interpretation of these ideas is flawed, someone who would be viewed as a social outcast. Up until very recently in many communities active participation in Religion was the norm, and as such those who did not participate were, on the whole, less likely to pass on their specific characteristics to the next generation. Therefore, belief and active participation in a religion was advantageous. However, in the modern world, many people are not religious and so it is not unacceptable in many Communities to be atheistic, so atheism does not confer any disadvantage. Religion can therefore be explained by evolution.

    I look forward to your reply
    yours,
    Edward

    Reply
  15. Jake

    February 25, 2012 at 7:31 am

    You do not need to write a long essay to say that this is complete madness and not biased at all (sarcasm, for those not Intellectually capable of not understanding. Mainly aimed at those who agree with this idiotic ramblings). Complete and utter nonsense……

    Reply
  1. 1 Some other Essays and Blogs Concerning Evolution « Life Under the Blue Sky: The View From Below Pingback on Oct 24th, 2007 at 10:26 pm

    [...] the rest of the gang hurries to silence him or her. I at least appreciate honesty. Or read this or this or [...]


« Jon & John: Two of Kind
What My Friend Jon, the Evolatheist, said, pt 3 »

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: