RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution - 6/10/2011 6:15:35 AM

Hillwilliam

Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: firmobeisance

Yes well I am all for American Exceptionalism - I like most things to be exceptional - and I hate to argue with the avatar lady, but I just wanted to observe...I mean you people do realize - it appears you are all sharp enough to know - just because Darwin had not yet quantified the idea of evolution, the concept would have existed and been pondered by such progressive minds as the founding fathers. To openly assume that the idea of evolution suddenly emerged with the publishing of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859 is, well, reactionary, to say the least. To do so, or even pretend to do so ultimately feeds the argument of those who would write history to suit their own needs. Just my two cents.

The earliest example I could find for change in animals over time is "Zoonomia" from 1794 to 1796. Erasmus Darwin. Yes, CD's grandfather. In it, he said that "species adapt to their environment driven by lust, hunger and danger"
Next was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck who proposed a theory of "acquired characteristics" in 1807. This means that, for instance, a group of animals that live in a mud flat would all develop bigger feet in response to environmental pressure.

Neither of these authors nor any earlier ones I could find proposed the emergence of new species. The pattern of thouight at the time was that all species alive in the present were there from the day of creation. Some had changed a bit and many had become extinct but there was literally nothing new under the sun.

Darwin's book was earthshattering because it proposed the emergence of NEW species over time. Noone had ever proposed that before.

Regardless, Our founding fathers predate these early documents and therefore they could not have rejected something because it hadn't been written yet.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to firmobeisance)

Post #: 41

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution - 6/10/2011 6:24:22 AM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

You can disagree with me Firm, I wont bite, unless begged. you are entitled to your opinion.

I dont usually get bitchy without a reason.
Now...
Until last night , I had never heard of american exceptionalism except as a perjorative/ sarcastic term and or inferiority complex from someone who hates the english
When I have time and inclination, I might educate myself further, altho usually I try to make my education about important things, like why isnt the government making better use of their time and coming up with ways to reduce the number of people out of work, and include decent healthcare for ALL your citizens.
Quite honestly , I dont give a damn about what the founding fathers might have pondered 200 + years ago.
other than that,
have a great day,
Welcome to the nasty section of the boards

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to firmobeisance)

Post #: 42

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution - 6/10/2011 7:22:48 AM

firmobeisance

Posts: 55
Joined: 5/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

The earliest example I could find for change in animals over time is "Zoonomia" from 1794 to 1796. Erasmus Darwin. Yes, CD's grandfather. In it, he said that "species adapt to their environment driven by lust, hunger and danger"
Next was Jean-Baptiste Lamarck who proposed a theory of "acquired characteristics" in 1807. This means that, for instance, a group of animals that live in a mud flat would all develop bigger feet in response to environmental pressure.

Neither of these authors nor any earlier ones I could find proposed the emergence of new species. The pattern of thouight at the time was that all species alive in the present were there from the day of creation. Some had changed a bit and many had become extinct but there was literally nothing new under the sun.

Darwin's book was earthshattering because it proposed the emergence of NEW species over time. Noone had ever proposed that before.

Regardless, Our founding fathers predate these early documents and therefore they could not have rejected something because it hadn't been written yet.

A few more cents then. Sounds like a lame Eastwood re-make. Perhaps your Google term did not contain the string "before" when you searched evolution/Darwin. I write that because my first hit contained the Erasmus Darwin theory you quoted. Did you encounter this link? http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh1.shtml
And I will quote:
"Contrary to many assumptions, evolutionary theory did not begin in 1859 with Charles Darwin and The Origin of Species. Rather, evolution-like ideas had existed since the times of the Greeks, and had been in and out of favor in the periods between ancient Greece and Victorian England. Indeed, by Darwin's time the idea of evolution - called 'descent with modification' - was not especially controversial, and several other evolutionary theories had already been proposed. Darwin may stand at the beginning of a modern tradition, but he is also the final culmination of an ancient speculation."

This link, to The Timeline of Evolutionary Thought, makes not specific argument, but it is valuable to demonstrate there was actually an evolution to evolution theory and also demonstrates that the concept was mentated far and wide and not just in Darwins particular genetic stream:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotmline.html

I doubt it matters to anyone else, but I prefer to quote .org's and .edu's over .com's and .net's.

Darwin's book was Earth shattering, because it quantified the idea of the emergence of new species. No one had previously assembled so thorough a volume on the subject. To micromanage evolution theory into nuances like whether a new foot defines a new species actually defines what you are trying to assert and pretty much supports exactly the conclusion from my previous post, so thank you for that. Not that I need to be correct or anything...but please be so kind as to bear in mind that I am not suggesting the founding fathers rejected or embraced anything, just that they had ample opportunity to consider the subject.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Quite honestly , I dont give a damn about what the founding fathers might have pondered 200 + years ago.

Well, to be entirely honest, no one can know what the founding fathers pondered, since none of them are available to give an accounting. What is pertinent, is that in light of that fact - which should seem patently obvious to any fourth grader - people continue to delight in assigning a dialog to those thoughts and how that thought train leads logically and inexorably to events of the present, as if to argue, "How could one could be so bold as to assume they could second guess Samuel Adams?"
And thank you for the delayed welcome, Lucy, the pleasure is mine. I read your posts often and comment rarely.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)

Post #: 43

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution - 6/10/2011 7:33:21 AM

xssve

Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline

They rejected quantum physics too - witchcraft!

If anything, they wrote the theory of evolution: consensus politics is very much in keeping with the theory of natural selection, no contradiction whatsoever, in fact, it has a pleasing synergy.

Classical Capitalism - not the top down, neo-capitalism being foisted off as capitalism, but bottom up, competitive capitalism is also very much in sync with the theory of natural selection.

In nature, no organism is "too big to fail", re: the dinosaurs, and "tradition" in the social sense, is strictly meaningless, except insofar as it optimizes adaptation.

Taken together, classical capitalism (Keynsian theory adds the reciprocal altruism/group fitness element), the Constitution and the Theory of Natural selection are all pretty much in synch, and based on a common set of principles.

< Message edited by xssve -- 6/10/2011 7:35:04 AM >

(in reply to firmobeisance)

Post #: 44

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution - 6/10/2011 7:42:04 AM

Hillwilliam

Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

I didn't google. I went to My bookshelves. The only person mentioned in your link prior to Erasmus (aside from the Greeks who did not propose new species but the change of existing ones)was Immanuel Kant. His work mentioned there was published ca 1785-1788. Again, post founding.

By the way. I agree with American Exceptionalism. Before the term was coined, I presented a paper when I was a grad student which asked the question "Why the sudden rise of this country of mongrels called the USA"?

My answer was hybrid vigor. When dissimilar gene pools combine, the offspring frequently demonstrates superior fitness compared to the parents. Larger, faster, stronger, healthier, etc.

Remember the old saying "Mutts are better dogs than purebreds" It's largely true from a health standpoint.

A similar thing has happened in Australia as well.

The paper didn't go over well for 2 reasons.

1. It was only a decade or so after Thomas Shockley had given a series of interviews that seemed to espouse eugenics and

2. I used the royal families of Europe as an example of "insufficient outcrossing and resultant loss of fitness"
Turns out one of the reviewers was a British Botanist who LOOOOOOVED her Royal Family.

Cant win em all I guess.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to firmobeisance)

Post #: 45

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution - 6/10/2011 8:00:49 AM

xssve

Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline

Organized religion is pretty much a form of intellectual inbreeding.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)

Post #: 46

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution - 6/10/2011 8:56:44 AM

firmobeisance

Posts: 55
Joined: 5/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

Organized religion is pretty much a form of intellectual inbreeding.

An interesting perspective and contextualized into the historical period this thread refers to, I can tell you one thing Samuel Adams wasn't thinking, "Let's go ahead and declare independence from the rest of humanity and simultaneously we will revolutionize the fabric of cultural and social interaction by redefining how all creatures came to exist...which incidentally has nothing to do with this notion of separation between church and state."

And that is REALLY cool about the bookshelves, I lost mine during the last apocalypse. Perhaps if you invested in some scrolls, or some stone tablets, you would have a more rounded collection, if not more dynamic. Not that anyone rewrites history in Wikipedia, or anything like that.

But I am not sure we are on the same page here. To me, American Exceptionalism implies direct benevolence and intervention on the part of God. As if to acknowledge and repay the country for piety and reverence. This would apply equally to mongrels empowered or crippled by gene combinations and would definitely be more valuable to the latter. A paper that argues in favor of American Exceptionalism might be more effective if it didn't cite such mechanisms as genetics and hybrid vigor and instead concentrated on examples of spiritualism and it's consequence.

But since I never presented any papers myself, I will acknowledge that it is entirely possible that the process is far more complex than I could possibly imagine. Why, it's almost as if I don't have any opinion at all, huh.

(in reply to xssve)

Post #: 47

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution - 6/10/2011 10:04:45 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: firmobeisance

Yes well I am all for American Exceptionalism - I like most things to be exceptional - and I hate to argue with the avatar lady, but I just wanted to observe...I mean you people do realize - it appears you are all sharp enough to know - just because Darwin had not yet quantified the idea of evolution, the concept would have existed and been pondered by such progressive minds as the founding fathers. To openly assume that the idea of evolution suddenly emerged with the publishing of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859 is, well, reactionary, to say the least. To do so, or even pretend to do so ultimately feeds the argument of those who would write history to suit their own needs. Just my two cents.

The founders may have pondered Linnaeus' works on classification of organisms but the concept that populations could evolve into new species was not yet formed. The first identfiable theory of evolution was Lamarck's published in 1802.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 6/10/2011 10:06:57 AM >

(in reply to firmobeisance)

Post #: 48

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution - 6/10/2011 10:53:56 AM

firmobeisance

Posts: 55
Joined: 5/25/2007
Status: offline

Right, and when Copernicus said the Earth orbited the Sun, he was just saying, "oh ya, God still exists, he just doesn't have us in the middle of the mix.'' It is recorded that he was denounced and almost condemned by the Dominican Church, weird how that works. Could it be at all possible, that based on his observations and experiences, the man contemplated origins other than divine? Because that all happened in 1546.
The distinction isn't whether or not the founding fathers embraced the idea of new species' emergence, it is that they rejected evolution, or perhaps they didn't, but that this decision somehow relates to works published by Charles Darwin, thereby invalidating the notion based on simple mathematics. *cough* swiftboat *cough*

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 49

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution - 6/10/2011 2:52:34 PM

xssve

Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ut I am not sure we are on the same page here. To me, American Exceptionalism implies direct benevolence and intervention on the part of God. As if to acknowledge and repay the country for piety and reverence.

This definition of "exceptionalism" strikes me as particularly fatuous, Inter caetera is a work of social Darwinism, not the same thing.

You mean like, wiping out the people who already lived here? That kind of piety and reverence?

Clearly, god didn't care much for them, but on the bright side, most of the people who escaped from European "piety" to come here, were treated even worse for the most part, barely better than animals - that would be "The Great Chain of Being", in case you want to look it up, it's one of the the philosophies the US Constitution repudiates in de facto fashion, along with one of it's corollaries, the "Divine Right of Kings".

You're gonna have to set the bar higher than that if you want to call it "exceptional" - self-centered dogmatic jingoism is banal at best.

< Message edited by xssve -- 6/10/2011 2:53:00 PM >

(in reply to firmobeisance)

Post #: 50

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution - 6/10/2011 2:56:17 PM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

having done some edumacating of my self, Im finding it to be anything but exceptional.
anyone surprised?
snicker

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to xssve)

Post #: 51

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution - 6/10/2011 3:13:20 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: firmobeisance

Right, and when Copernicus said the Earth orbited the Sun, he was just saying, "oh ya, God still exists, he just doesn't have us in the middle of the mix.'' It is recorded that he was denounced and almost condemned by the Dominican Church, weird how that works. Could it be at all possible, that based on his observations and experiences, the man contemplated origins other than divine? Because that all happened in 1546.
The distinction isn't whether or not the founding fathers embraced the idea of new species' emergence, it is that they rejected evolution, or perhaps they didn't, but that this decision somehow relates to works published by Charles Darwin, thereby invalidating the notion based on simple mathematics. *cough* swiftboat *cough*

Since Copernicus was a devout christian he certainly did not believe his work challenged the existence of a deity. His work was published in 1543 and it caused no outcry since it was mostly of interest to scholars and it was obvious to anyone who did the math, it got rid of the increasingly complicated epicycles needed to maintain the geocentric model. The Catholic church (Dominicans are part of the Catholic church) did not condemn the work until 1616 (more than 70 years after it was published) as part of the attack on Galileo.

However the shift from a geocentric to heliocentric model did not change the underlying assumption of stasis held by virtually all scholars until the early 19th century.

As an aside I've read a lot of Jefferson's writings on what is now called biology, primarily his Notes on the State of Virginia, and no where even in his presentation of mammoth and mastodon fossils does he ever even imply the possibility that species were capable of change. Since he was the leading naturalist of the Founders I assume any of the other leading figures, copious letter writers all, would have corresponded with Jefferson if they were entertaining such a remarkable concept. I can find no evidence of such a correspondance in any of the surviving Founders collected letters.

(in reply to firmobeisance)

Post #: 52

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution - 6/10/2011 3:16:20 PM

tweakabelle

Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

By the way. I agree with American Exceptionalism.

A similar thing has happened in Australia as well.

AFAIK there is no concept of Australian Exceptionalism. I might go so far as to suggest that such a concept would be profoundly un-Australian. We value egalitarianism here.

Australia's success derives from having a virgin continent, good climate, an abundance of natural resources, a smallish (relative to size) educated population prepared to work hard constantly renewed by immigration, geographical isolation (no aggressive neighbours to fight off) dynamic culture (as opposed to entrenched change-resistant European culture) and other tangible factors. Nothing to do with genes or a relationship with a deity I'm afraid to say.

I might note the presence of all the above factors in the USA until fairly recently.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 6/10/2011 3:21:37 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Hillwilliam)

Post #: 53

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution - 6/10/2011 3:20:53 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I can find no evidence of such a correspondance in any of the surviving Founders collected letters.

Whoa! ...hey, don't leave us hanging like that. Which ones are still alive? And where are they!?

K.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 54

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution - 6/10/2011 3:28:45 PM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

Doesnt Dave Barton claim to have them??? and that only he knows how to interpret them?

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 55

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution - 6/10/2011 3:33:12 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Doesnt Dave Barton claim to have them??? and that only he knows how to interpret them?

Anything's possible. Maybe he's keeping them in jars of piss in his art gallery.

K.

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Post #: 56

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution - 6/10/2011 4:43:33 PM

Hillwilliam

Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

By the way. I agree with American Exceptionalism.

A similar thing has happened in Australia as well.

AFAIK there is no concept of Australian Exceptionalism. I might go so far as to suggest that such a concept would be profoundly un-Australian. We value egalitarianism here.

Australia's success derives from having a virgin continent, good climate, an abundance of natural resources, a smallish (relative to size) educated population prepared to work hard constantly renewed by immigration, geographical isolation (no aggressive neighbours to fight off) dynamic culture (as opposed to entrenched change-resistant European culture) and other tangible factors. Nothing to do with genes or a relationship with a deity I'm afraid to say.

I might note the presence of all the above factors in the USA until fairly recently.

All I was saying tweak is that due to the fact that your ancestors came from all over, you folks seem to be a hell of a go getting, energetic, aggressive (in a good way) bunch of folks. I feel it is because of the varied genetic background.

Seriously, for a country with no more population than yours, how do you fare in international sporting events against countries with much larger talent pools to pull from?

You kick ass.

ETA, My views on exceptionalism is purely genetic. it has nothing to do with an alleged deity.

< Message edited by Hillwilliam -- 6/10/2011 4:44:56 PM >

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to tweakabelle)

Post #: 57

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution - 6/10/2011 4:46:17 PM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Doesnt Dave Barton claim to have them??? and that only he knows how to interpret them?

Anything's possible. Maybe he's keeping them in jars of piss in his art gallery.

K.

ok...watersports is fine, but stale bottled pee as art??? being the klutz I am I would kill mself with the fumes
gag

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 58

RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution - 6/10/2011 6:14:32 PM

firmobeisance

Posts: 55
Joined: 5/25/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve
You're gonna have to set the bar higher than that if you want to call it "exceptional" - self-centered dogmatic jingoism is banal at best.

Perhaps you are implying that I support or defend the notion of American Exceptionalism which is not the case. I do not believe God intervenes, although technically that only applies to floods. I do support clarity. This notion that evolution suddenly spontaneously emerged as a new species when Darwin published - or the fact that since Jefferson didn't write about change, proves the founding fathers were incapable of any belief system other than creationism, is well...I mean, y'all are kidding right? Toying with the newbie or something? You can't possibly believe this stuff. You are really going to sit there and tell me what Copernicus believed? Because he told you this or wrote it in a letter.
Be cause I got some really funky letters in my sent mail and in box, to and from many people here I hope to NEVER reveal. It doesn't mean they never existed or have anything to do with my belief system. And nice correction on the persecution date. It would be interesting to see you source the proof that it was over revenge and not heresy, kind of drifts into the realm of opinion though.

Love the Australian Exceptionalism though, that got a snort. Australia always seems so wicked cool, sorry about those recent floods. At least we can be confident they aren't in retribution for anything.

(in reply to xssve)

Post #: 59

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Founding Fathers rejected Evolution

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109