Darwinists are not just puppy beaters, they are cruel to humans
Is this the sort of thing Darwinist Daniel Dennett advocates?
In 1906 the crowds thronged the monkey house exhibit at the Bronx Zoo (New York Zoological Park). Here were man’s “evolutionary ancestors” - monkeys, chimpanzees, a gorilla named Dinah, an orangutan named Dohung and an African pygmy tribesman named Ota Benga.
Ota Benga was brought from the Belgian Congo in 1904 by noted African explorer Samuel Verner along with other pygmies and displayed in an exhibit in the 1904 St. Louis world’s Fair. Ota Benga (or “Bi”, which means “friend” in his language) was born in 1881, had a height of 4 ft. 11in. and weighted 103 lbs. Although he was referred to as a boy he had been married twice. His first wife had been captured by a hostile tribe and his second wife died by a snake bite.
After the St. Louis exhibit, Ota found himself at the Bronx Zoo which at that time was under the direction of Dr. William T. Hornaday, who was considered a bit eccentric. Hornaday believed animals had nearly human thoughts and personalities, and he could read the thoughts of zoo animals. He “apparently saw no difference between a wild beast and the little Black man” and insisted he was only offering an “intriguing exhibit”. (Jerry Bergman, Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol 16, No 1 Dec 1993-Feb 1994 p. 49, quoting Carl Sifakis, “Benga, Ota: The Zoo Man”, in American Eccentrics, Facts on File, New York, 1984, p. 253)
The exhibit was immensely popular and controversial; the black community was outraged and some churchmen feared that it would convince people of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Under threat of legal action, Hornaday had Ota Benga leave his cage and circulate around the zoo in a white suit, but he returned to the monkey house to sleep.
In time Ota Benga began to hate being the object of curiosity. “There were 40,000 visitors to the part on Sunday. Nearly every man, woman and child of this crowd made for the monkey house to see the start attraction in the park - the wild man from Africa. They chased him about the grounds add day, howling, jeering, and yelling. Some of them poked him in the ribs, others tripped him up, all laughed at him.” (Creation Ex Nihilo, quoting Phillip V. Bradford and Harvey Blume, “Ota Benga: The Pygmy in the Zoo”, St. Martins, 1992, p. 269, from the “New York Times” Sept. 18, 1906) At one point, he got hold of a knife and flourished it around the park, another time he produced a fracas after being denied a soda from the soda fountain. Finally, after fabricating a small bow and arrows and shooting at obnoxious park visitors he had to leave the park for good.
After his park experience, several institutions tried to help him. He was placed in Virginia Theological Seminary and College but quit school to work in a tobacco factory. According to Hornaday (who probably had evolutionary racist views) “he did not possess the power of learning” (Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol 16, No. 1 Dec. 1993-Feb 1994, pp. 48-50).
Growing homesick, hostile, and despondent Ota Benga borrowed a revolver, and shot himself in the heart, ending his life in 1916.
Note the involvement of theistic Darwinists clergy (Samuel Verner was a missionary).
I recently heard of an outbreak of Ebola in Africa, the disease that kills you by liquifying your insides. That’s something that absolutely delights Darwinists like Eric Pianka.
These and other examples are Darwinist “science” at its finest.
[…] offer as evidence his most recent posts: A, B, C, […]
Pingback by On the whole of TEH INTERNETS, is there anyone who is more consistently stupid than Sal Cordova? « Notes from Evil Bender — January 31, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
Sal, I find your blog increasingly disturbing. For example, this post retells a story that has nothing to do with actual evolutionary science — and you know it. You also make a charge against Eric Pianka that is reckless and unsubstantiated. You continue to take a sentence from Darwin out of context at every opportunity. Elsewhere on the blog, your repeated slurs on my Congressional representative are sick.
It seems that your blog has been reduced to hateful rantings, ad hominems, and sick obsessions. I used to think you were mainly just wrong. Now, I don’t recognize you. I’m actually concerned. Do me a favor, and show the whole of this blog to someone who loves you and isn’t part of the evolution/ID/creationism debate. A relative, perhaps. Ask that person if this is healthy, and listen to the response.
Comment by Hermagoras — January 31, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
Thank you for your concern.
In that case you’re taking my rude comments too seriously.
I thought it was funny, maybe I have a sick sense of humor to repeat Congressmen Armey’s nick name for Barney Frank.
Would you prefer I refer to your representative as Barney Homosexual, since he’s so eager and proud to flaunt his lifestyle and values?
I think Homosexuality is inherited, but so are many diseases and defects. Celebrating and promoting homosexuality is like celebrating birth defects.
Once upon a time, homosexuality was considered a defect not a virtue. I donate to causes that help people with birth defects. I don’t promote defects as some sort of virtue. I don’t advocate that Homosexuals be mistreated any more than I advocate the mistreatment of the disabled, but I do object their promotion of their condition as something comparable to virtue. Perhaps a little more regret for their defective genomes and phenotypes would be more appropriate. That might help limit the spread of AIDS.
Calling homosexual behavior “gay” is double speak, and that is wrong. Homosexuals don’t strike me as being any more happy than any other group of people.
I had a homosexual uncle. I never referred to him as a fag. I had great respect for him. I can’t say the same for Barney.
Now that I’m getting involved in movie and drama productions, I probably will enounter lots of homosexuals. Good actors, for some reason, have strong homosexual tendencies. I don’t advocate they be deprived of opportunities to succeed in their work or any other endeavor. They are not any less a human being than a disabled person, but their condition is not something to celebrate, to label “gay” when mourning and remorse might be a more appropriate response.
Barney can do what he wants with his private life.
But his blaming of the failure of the sub-prime market on Wall Street executives when he was right there with them in the expansion of the subprime crisis is pure hipocrisy.
Barney represents the dregs of the current political process. I could have chosen others to pick on, but he seemed the easy target since his lack of moral fabric is so easy to spot.
He fails to acknoweledge he shares as much blame as the wall street executives for the sub-prime mess, and he seems quite happy to make the American taxpayers pay the price for the misdeeds he was a party to. Now Barney Homosexual is in cowardly denial and presents himself as some sort of hero fighting the villains of Wall street. He is no hero, he is a charlatan.
For the record, I decided briefly on the saying, “if you can’t beat em, join em.” I wrote option contracts on Goldman Sachs that would benefit from Barney Homosexual’s and Henry Paulson TARP. Paulson was the Golden boy of Goldman Sachs, and I made a nice profit from Barney Homosexual’s advocacy of TARP through derivatives Goldman Sachs stocks in December. Before TARP, I cashed out in February 2008 as I saw the mortgage crisis looming. So now I’m a scoundrel…[and if I only had access to Dr. Hoppe’s software, I’d be an even more profitable scoundrel]….
Homosexuality is a sickness, not a virtue. What is sick is viewing defects as some sort of virtue.
I don’t advocate mistreatment of homosexuals. My disdain is for those who promote personal flaws as some sort of virtue. If a man likes other men, he is not automatically a Fag in my book. But someone like Barney Homosexual, given his lack of morals in other areas, is hardly desrving of flattering titles.
I don’t give much thought to what I post here.
The science posts have been out there for the last 4 years, and apparently they haven’t registered on people like yourself. Why should I waste any more time posting insights that fall on deaf ears?
You complained that I was supposedly embarassed by my posting on Gambler’s Ruin. Do you think I care what your side thinks of me?
That statement by Darwin is false, and Felsenstein pretty much demonstrated it with his calculations. You just have to take your blinders off and you’ll see that was the case. Gambler’s Ruin is not Darwin’s gain as Felsenstein gallantly asserted. His calculations affirm the fact that selections doesn’t preserve “all” good traits nor eliminate all bad traits.
One can argue that Darwin didn’t really mean “all” given what he said a few pages later, but it’s not my fault Darwin speaks out of both sides of his mouth.
If the bad mutation rates are beyond the capacity of the population to weed out, and the good mutation rates are too low, then complexity increases are impossible. Gambler’s ruin becomes inevitable. We see this in evidence numerous times. Look up “mutational meltdown”.
Did you notice there haven’t been much refutations of Cornell Geneticist John Sanford’s book Genetic Entropy. The only “refutations” have been cheap shot equivocations.
Oh well, when the deterioration of the human genome is so blatantly obvious, we won’t be having these sort of arguments anymore.
You can keep believing that Darwinian selection is improving the human race and other biological species. The opposite (deterioration and extinction) is empirically demonstratable. Evolution (what ever amount there was after creation) is finished. Only deterioration and genetic entropy remain. Open your eyes! Count the number of new species emerging every year. Where is the evidence selection is making new species in large numbers. The opposite is what is happening.
Homosexuality in humans and animals is probably a consequence of genetic and phenotypic deterioration:
A great biologist wrote:
Homosexuality is a perversion of instincts, not a virtue. It is also more evidence Darwinian evolution doesn’t work in the way Darwin suggested, and Gambler’s ruin and genetic deterioration are more accurate descriptions of evolution.
I’m flattered that you may have once perceived me as a nice guy. I’m not. Sorry.
I appreciate your concern that I should be a lot more positive about others, but I’m not. I see PZ Myers and Shallini and the people who put Ota Benga in a zoo as fairly representative of what Darwinism is mostly about.
I perceive Darwinism as bigotry pretending to be science. Science is what I study in school. The science I study in school looks nothing like anything Darwin has written, and the science I have studied is not rife with anti-Christian bigotry.
Thanks again for your concern. You are correct to perceive that I occasionaly get depressed to see the like of Barney running the United States. But you can take comfort in the fact I intend to make financial profits from his misdeeds from now on.
Comment by scordova — February 2, 2009 @ 2:20 am
Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and Christopher Dodd are three of the most pathetic examples of the degeneration that has come to represent the Democratic party. Their new leader, Barack Hussein Obama has only one goal which is to turn the USA into the USSA and they are dedicated to the same proposition. With their help he may do just that.
Political liberals, like Darwinians, have no principles which is why they are also known as relativists. They worship chance, the antithesis of the Judeo/Christian ethic on which this once great nation was founded.
Let us pray that he does not succeed.
P.Z.Myers, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are living AntiChrists, candidates for exorcism.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a preent evolution undemonstratble.”
Comment by John A. Davison — February 2, 2009 @ 7:31 am
Well EB, “THE” is usually not spelled “TEH” and Internet is usually in the singular not the plural. Well done for English professor! Hehehe!
Comment by scordova — February 2, 2009 @ 9:55 pm