The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Talk:Darwin himself was racist (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Jump to: navigation, search
Discussion.png Post comment,
or browse more talk.
Please observe discussion policy and use talk pages only for reviewing articles.

Contents

This page needs to be cleaned-up.

--Chris Ashcraft 05:08, 28 January 2006 (GMT)

Hi Admin:

What exactly needs to be cleaned up ?

Both of us have edited this page numerous times and never had you mentioned this before. Because of this I was under the impression that the page is in order. But you must have something in mind - please tell me and I will promptly comply.

Thank You,

Ray Martinez



  • There are numerous paragraphs that consist of only a single sentence.
  • No URLs should be visible on the page (http://etc.etc.)
  • There are quotes not in italics.
  • There is an excessively large chunk taken from another website that is all in bold.

Generally, it should be rewritten and properly formatted to take care of these problems. --Chris Ashcraft 04:06, 1 February 2006 (GMT)


Your advice instantly became obvious after I read it. I have made corrections. I hope the page is now up to Creation Wiki standards. Source cites number 1, 2, and 3 are not exact quotes so I did not italicize. Both link samples of racist quotes from Darwin and others are too long to italicize since the doing so (in my opinion) makes a reader not want to read them ? Let me know. Thanks.

Ray Martinez


This page still needs a lot of work. For one, we should not be "giving them a taste of their own medicine" when that means to "whitewash", "downplay", and "rationalize". For another, it needs better layout and headings. And footnote-type references should not start a paragraph. The quotes don't need to be in italics if they are indented (start the paragraph with a colon, like this paragraph). The actual footnote references—(1), (2), and (3)—look like a series of numbered points rather than references. The references should be the links themselves. If I get time and you haven't done it yourself first, I will have a go at it tonight (i.e. in about seven hours). There is also too much personal opinion (i.e. too much subjectivity) and there is some more information that could go in there, such as a quote from Gould. Philip J. Rayment 01:43, 7 March 2006 (GMT)

content erased. Ray Martinez


Ray Martinez

Now now, Mr. Rayment is anything but a veiled Darwinist. He's spent countless hundreds of hours writing and editing creationism articles, and volunteering for creationist organizations. In this case, he made some very specific suggestions for improving the page, and offered to make them himself when he has the time. We're all on the same team here ... let's not take it personally, eh? Specifically, we're writing an encyclopedia here, not a blog; and we need to keep the tone of the articles as close to being "encyclopedic" as possible. Phrases like, "This article is going to give them a taste of their own medicine" are decidedly unencyclopedic. Claims like, "Darwin and Huxley were both racist" need to be backed with specific facts to show exactly what sort of racists they were, and put them in context (as most white folks were racist in those days, regardless of their views on creation-evolution). None of this is intended to weaken the point. In fact, it's intended to strengthen it by improving the content, presentation, and professionalism of the article. Ungtss 04:40, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
Thanks, Untgss. (Although I don't recall telling you that I've been "volunteering for creationist organizations". You are correct, though.)
I've made some changes. But the problems are more extensive than I first realised. Talk.Origins breaks the "evolution is racist" argument up into several sub-points, and this particular sub-point is specifically about whether or not Charlie himself was a racist. As such, any argument that evolution supports racism, or that any other evolutionist supports racism, is out of place in this article and would be better put in the Evolution is racist article.
Philip J. Rayment 10:20, 7 March 2006 (GMT)
Agreed. The views of Charlie and the implications of evolution itself are separate issues, and it's important to keep them separate, because Charlie was neither the first nor the last evolutionist, but just a popularizer. And as Talk.Origins correctly points out, Charlie's racism or non-racism is mere ad hominem and pretty much irrelevant to anything of consequence. I think we'd do well to focus our "The racist implications of evolution" arguments in an article of that title. What do you think, Mr. Martinez? Ungtss 16:28, 7 March 2006 (GMT)

I have no problem with improvement. I assumed Phillip meant what he wrote and wrote what he meant. Most of what he wrote here in Disccussion were accusations with no support. The new edit is very good.

The page suffered from the fact that I am spending every waking moment of my life attempting to finish a paper that has taken me 4 years to research. It is about 50 percent complete and I am trying to finish by April. It will be the most important Creationist paper ever written. I know everyone says that about their work, but, they are lying and they know it, and I am not.

Dr. Scott has falsified Darwinism and I am his pen. His falsification is invulnerable.

Also, it is invulnerable logic: AFTER Darwin rejects God as Creator his racism THEN "saw" the "similarity" between Africans and apes, hence the origin of the schismatic origin of mankind. This evidence will be covered in my paper using Darwinian historians. I see Philip retained this point.

Again, the new edit is very good.

Ray Martinez

<<I assumed Phillip meant what he wrote and wrote what he meant. Most of what he wrote here in Disccussion were accusations with no support.>>
I did mean what I wrote and wrote what I meant. Why do you think otherwise? I don't believe that my comments should be taken as "accusations". I offered what were, in my opinion, constructive criticisms. (And opinion is okay on the Talk page if not in the article.)
<<The page suffered from the fact that I am spending every waking moment of my life attempting to finish a paper ...>>
You wouldn't be suffering from a tendency to exaggerate, would you?
<<It will be the most important Creationist paper ever written.>>
WOW!
<<I know everyone says that about their work, but, they are lying and they know it, and I am not.>>
Actually, I don't know of anyone who has made that claim. And I don't believe that most would even think it, let alone be so, umm, bold as to say it.
<<Dr. Scott has falsified Darwinism and I am his pen. His falsification is invulnerable.>>
Who is Dr. Scott? And out of curiosity, where do you plan on having your paper published? I already want to read it!
<<I see Philip retained this point.>>
I did say that the article still needs more work. As for that particular point, I would agree that this article is an appropriate place, but the argument needs clarification, in my opinion (I'm not fully following it) and support.
<<Again, the new edit is very good.>>
I'm glad that you like it. However, I have pointed out that there is stuff in the article that should not be there, and Ungtss has asked for your thoughts on that. Do you have a problem with the stuff that is not connected directly with Charlie being removed?
Philip J. Rayment 02:01, 8 March 2006 (GMT)

Ungtss: The views of Charlie and the implications of evolution itself are separate issues, and it's important to keep them separate, because Charlie was neither the first nor the last evolutionist, but just a popularizer. And as Talk.Origins correctly points out, Charlie's racism or non-racism is mere ad hominem and pretty much irrelevant to anything of consequence. I think we'd do well to focus our "The racist implications of evolution" arguments in an article of that title. What do you think, Mr. Martinez?

Talk Origins is wrong and I wish to persuade and show you why. The page is about Darwin the racist. T.O. conveniently seeks to portray the mention of Darwin the racist to be an out of bounds ad hom attack. It is the truth. With this being fact why do you agree with T.O. ?

This is WHY I originally sought to give them a taste of their own medicine. We can erase the phrase and fulfill the spirit without stating it.

I agree we should separate page racist implications of evolution, BUT your comment above plainly says, or implies we should agree with T.O. and NOT? show Darwin a racist ? Whats the purpose of this page - then ?

Ray

<<Talk Origins is wrong and I wish to persuade and show you why.>>
Talk.Origins is not wrong in claiming that Darwin's views do not affect the facts of evolution, but I do believe that Ungtss goes too far. Showing that Darwin was racist does not prove that evolution is racist, but showing that most of the leading lights of evolution were racist does lend support to the idea that belief in evolution encourages one to be racist. If Darwin was the only example, it wouldn't prove much, but as part of a larger group, it is significant and valid to discuss.
Philip J. Rayment 01:39, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

Rayment: Actually, I don't know of anyone who has made that claim. And I don't believe that most would even think it, let alone be so, umm, bold as to say it.

Everyone feels this way about their work - not a matter of opinion. I exploit whatever validity to make the point about my paper - a point of confidence. A savvy reader should of understood this, but I take responsibility for not communicating the "metaphor" properly.

Rayment: Who is Dr. Scott? And out of curiosity, where do you plan on having your paper published? I already want to read it!

Dr. Scott was the brightest Biblical and historical scholar of all time. In 2001 he identified the true cause of the Theory of Evolution = penalty from God for denying Him Creator credit. The penalty is corroborated by the fact that the Emperor has no clothes.

CreationWiki/Chris Ashcraft has agreed to post my paper here with protected status. While a person has the right to change their mind I see no reason for this to happpen. I look forward to you and Chris reading my paper. Would you like an advance peek/excerpt ?


Rayment: I'm glad that you like it. However, I have pointed out that there is stuff in the article that should not be there, and Ungtss has asked for your thoughts on that. Do you have a problem with the stuff that is not connected directly with Charlie being removed?

No objection whatsoever - please do. I was grinding an out of context axe.

Ray

<<Everyone feels this way about their work - not a matter of opinion.>>
Unless you have asked everyone and they confirm your claim, it is a matter of opinion.
<<Dr. Scott was the brightest Biblical and historical scholar of all time.>>
I was hoping for something like where he's from (city, or at least state, or etc.), what he is a doctor of (i.e. some idea of qualifications), and where he is employed (university or etc.) and perhaps a first name. Do I take it from your use of the past tense that he is no longer with us?
I wouldn't mind an advance peek, if you don't mind me critiquing it if I feel it's warranted.
Philip J. Rayment 01:39, 9 March 2006 (GMT)


I've removed the non-Charlie stuff. The article can still do with some improvement, but I think that's all I'll do for the moment.
I'm still concerned with the claim (if I understand it) that evolution had its basis in Darwin's racism. This I gather is the contention of the planned paper, but until that paper is published, the claim remains unsupported assertion.
By the way, I had overlooked that you had mentioned a bit more about Dr. Scott in the article (now removed), including giving his first name and university (Gene Scott, Stanford University). That allowed me to look him up on the Internet [1], [2] [3], [4] and, to put it mildly (assuming I have the right person), he's not someone that I'd want to associate with. Please tell me I have the wrong person.
I have another concern, and that is to do with the Burhan quote. Is it an actual quote? The source site has it ending with speech marks, but not beginning with speech marks. The way it is written I suspect that it is not an actual quote. Does anyone know?
Philip J. Rayment 11:01, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

Rayment: By the way, I had overlooked that you had mentioned a bit more about Dr. Scott in the article (now removed), including giving his first name and university (Gene Scott, Stanford University). That allowed me to look him up on the Internet [5], [6] [7], [8] and, to put it mildly (assuming I have the right person), he's not someone that I'd want to associate with. Please tell me I have the wrong person.

The only issue is why are you so stupid as to give ANY credence to atheist smears as is witnessed in the first three links ?

Why do you believe such lies and nonsense - I thought you were some type of Creationist with a brain ?

Lloyd Jones: "Who is preaching the gospel ?

Whoever is being slandered."

Because you assumed as fact total tabloid lies of Darwinists, atheists, and Fundamentalists via posting such trash under a false guise of "innocence and finding out" you are grinding a hate axe -pure jealousy. Dr. Scott has a Ph.D. from Stanford, worlds leading authority in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Latin, Ethiopic, eminent theologian, Masters in Geology, ONLY person in Stanford's history to ask for a Ph.D. minor oral exam in Geography, having never taken a class, and pass, freeing up 45 units spent on Comparitive Religion. Dr. Scott's degree is cross departmental in Philosophy and Religion, from the University itself and not from any department. Doctortal dissertation: Theology of Reinhold Neibuhr. IQ in the high 190s.

Yet you, a person claiming to be a Christian with a brain, Googled around to make a decision based on atheist hate sites. Wikipedia is controlled by atheists and is not a source. No educated person or scholar views Wikipedia as a source, as is seen in their unsupported innuendos and smears.

Philip: I want nothing to do with a mental midget as yourself. You are a Fundamentalist = your disapproval of Dr.Scott and myself proves how right we are. Glad we didn't get it.

The Pharisees (type of established religious community in any era) smeared Jesus with "hath a demon" = you have done the same with a Preacher of the Gospel = looks like Dr. Scott is in good company with Jesus and you are in the company with the Pharisees whom Jesus said were of their "father the devil."

Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Paulinist, life-long student of Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D. Stanford University

So I did have the right person. :-(
I've read enough newspapers and other non-Christian and anti-Christian sources to know how they can twist and misrepresent, but also to be able to have some idea what is true and what isn't. I took into account that the sources were not Christian, but I couldn't readily find Christian sites that commented on him. I also tried looking for some of his teaching on his web-site, but the Doc Notes Library only had a list of notes, not the actual notes, and the Archive was not available.
Philip J. Rayment 13:39, 11 March 2006 (GMT)

Examples refuting Biblical Racism

Hi Philip:

We also know the birthright children of Joseph - Ephraim and Manasseh were born in Egypt. Joseph married an Egyptian woman, thus premogeniture was half-Egyptian going out the gate.

Acts 8 has the Apostle Philip converting the Ethiopian eunuch who then went back to Ethiopia and planted the seeds of conversion/gospel.

Mark was the Bishop of Alexandria before being martyred there.

These are just supporting cites/suggestions disproving Darwinian poison that the Bible is somehow racist.

Ray

I don't know why you directed those comments specifically to me, but I'm not sure that they are terribly useful. Let me explain.
Racism is usually a belief that people who are significantly different (in the eyes of the racist) are inferior. One point to come out of that is that racists will accept as equals people of other nationalities if they are "similar".
Your points about Joseph and Mark certainly involve people of other nationalities, but are they not "similar"?
Your point about the Ethiopian is with someone "different", but what is the evidence that he is being treated as an equal? Okay, the Ethiopian is certainly not being treated as "fit only for extermination" (as Ungtss put it), but is there an argument for him being treated as fully equal?
Just to clarify, I agree with you that the Bible is not racist; I am merely questioning how good these particular examples are at demonstrating that.
Philip J. Rayment 02:04, 8 March 2006 (GMT)

Rayment: I don't know why you directed those comments specifically to me

Because you are the author of the new edit ? The new edit included this:

Talk.Origins's characterization of Agassiz as a "staunch creationist" is misleading. While Agassiz rejected evolution, he also rejected many aspects of creationism, including the obvious indication in Genesis that all humans are descended of Adam and Eve. The Biblical Genealogy indicates that black Africans (called Cushites or Ethipians in the Bible) descended from Ham, son of Noah. Exodus reports that Moses himself married a Cushite woman, a cross-racial marriage, which Agassiz viewed as immoral. However, in the Exodus account, Jehovah upholds Moses's marriage as fully moral and acceptable. Agassiz also rejected the Biblical chronology, believing instead that the Earth had suffered a number of consecutive universally destructive catastrophes, of which the Global flood was only one, and not the last. Explaining his rejection of many aspects of Biblical creationism, Agassiz wrote, "Naturalists have a right to consider the questions growing out of men's physical relations as merely scientific questions, and to investigate them without reference to either politics or religion." (p. 171, The Panda's Thumb, Stephen Jay Gould).

Ethipians = misspelled ?

Why have you taken one auxilliary comment by T.O. and given it this much attention ? The subject is their attempted whitewashing of Darwin's racism. Agassiz is not the focus, this is WHY I dispensed with this sidetrack attempt by pointing out their rationalization. Darwin is the subject - not Agassiz. This amount of text dedicated to a red-herring plays right into their hands and has us on the defensive.

My Biblical contribution above is only intended for the Discussion, that is, when a person clicks here they can see that the Bible is really not racist contrary to evolutionist smears. I can re-write the portion after we erase everything not needed here.

Ray

<<Because you are the author of the new edit ? The new edit included this:>>
No, that edit was done by Ungtss. But I think it is a good edit and should be there. The point of this page is not to paint Darwin as a racist, but to respond to Talk.Origins rebuttal of that claim. As their rebuttal included an invalid claim about Agissiz, it is appropriate to rebut that claim of theirs.
Philip J. Rayment 01:49, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

Negative. The point of this page is to expose their rationalization of Darwin's racism and substantiate that he was. If not, change the title of the page.

I see my original opening logical remark has been restored. Agassiz is a red-herring, which certains have fallen for. T.O. is attempting to deflect away from the racism of their sweetheart and I cannot understand why you are falling for it. We who know history should be in charge of this aspect, but I do not want to steal any thunder away from my forth-coming paper that proves my point via Darwinian historians.

I find it unbelievable that you cannot understand that Agassiz is simply a Darwinian ploy to get the heat off of their sweetheart. This is naivete gone amok.

Ray

<<Negative. The point of this page is to expose their rationalization of Darwin's racism and substantiate that he was.>>
Isn't that what I said, in different words?
<<I see my original opening logical remark has been restored.>>
For all practical purposes, it was never removed. Or do you mean restored to being an opening remark?
<<Agassiz is a red-herring, which certains have fallen for. T.O. is attempting to deflect away from the racism of their sweetheart and I cannot understand why you are falling for it.>>
Agreed that T.O. is attempting to deflect, which is why that attempt demands a response. A forum such as this allows us to respond to all points made, rather than just being limited to responding to the main point. I agree that perhaps we should respond to the main point first and then the subsidiary points, and that is sort of why I put your opening remarks back to being opening remarks rather than the third point made. And perhaps the body of the article should be re-ordered like this as well. But the response to their red herring should still be there, rather than allowing T.O. to get away with that misinformation.
<<This is naivete gone amok.>>
It couldn't possibly be just a difference of opinion on how to respond to T.O.?
Philip J. Rayment 14:21, 10 March 2006 (GMT) P.S. I'll respond to your comments regarding Dr. Scott tomorrow.

Burhan Quote

Google only turned up 9 hits for that quote. One was on a website the other 8 were in different forums. They seem to all be posted by Mr. Martinez. PrometheusX303 14:27, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

The web-site you linked to is a different one than the one Ray Martinez linked to, but one is a direct copy of the other, complete with the missing-opening/extraneous-closing quote mark that made me question it in the first place. Thanks for that. If we are unable to substantiate that it is a direct quote, I think we should remove it. Philip J. Rayment 14:11, 10 March 2006 (GMT)

Agassiz

Administration has already conveyed desire of Rayment controlling this page. My thoughts are intended as advice. The Talk Origins page we are confronting is rather short. They admit Darwin is a racist, BUT seek to rationalize. I believe the page in its present form starts out good, however. I feel we have given too much attention to their rationalization/whitewash (Agassiz). We have taken the bait via an inordinate amount of text dedicated to Agassiz; we are on the defensive. An ordinary person/true agnostic surfing around for information/answers has no real idea who Agassiz is, unlike Darwin. By devoting so much opening text to the Talk Origins bait/rationalization we are falling for their obvious ploy to blend their sweetheart into a "so was everyone else" frame. For people we are attempting to reach: they don't care who this Agassiz is or was - they want to know about the famous person: Darwin.

I suggest we dispense with Agassiz more quickly and succintly. Re-focus the page back to its subject: Darwin the racist. As it stands now, Darwin the racist is lost after the opening remark = Talk Origins ploy of rationalization/whitewash/placing us on the defensive is successful.


Ray Martinez 3-11-06 [9]

As I see it, the purpose of the Talk.Origins refutation pages is not only to defend creationism, but to show that T.O's arguments are flawed. A common tactic of T.O and other evolutionists is to "turn the tables", like they tried to do by mentioning Agassiz. They are using the reader's ignorance of Agassiz against us by introducing a vague kernel of truth. This is something we must bring to the reader's attention. PrometheusX303 02:18, 12 March 2006 (GMT)
<<Administration has already conveyed desire of Rayment controlling this page>>
I'm sorry Ray, but some of your wording is difficult to follow. Are you saying that Administration reckons I want to control this page, or that Administration wants me to control this page? In either case, I can't see where you get that from.
<<An ordinary person/true agnostic surfing around for information/answers has no real idea who Agassiz is, unlike Darwin.>>
Granted that Agassiz is not as well-known as Darwin, but he is not a total unknown either. But that is beside the point. The very fact that they claim "a staunch creationist" was racist has the effect of undermining our case, even if the person they refer to was totally unknown. We need to counter that. However, I did previously indicate that the response to the Agassiz claim could be moved further down, and I have now down that. I would in fact have liked to break up the first quote from T.O. and answer each point separately, but Agassiz was the second of the three sentences, and the first and third sentences are saying much the same thing and it was appropriate to answer them together, so it was best to not break the quote up.
What do you think of the article now?
<<My thoughts are intended as advice.>>
We need to draw a balance between taking the initiative to alter an article, and discussing it on the talk pages before making alterations that others might not agree with. I have done a bit of both with this article, as I saw fit. But given that I had previously indicated that the Agissiz response could be moved down, and nobody else had objected to that, you could have felt comfortable about moving it down yourself, in my opinion.
Philip J. Rayment 13:10, 12 March 2006 (GMT)

Darwin Quote

The latest issue of Creation magazine happened to have the same quote from Darwin as the article, but I noticed that it was slightly different (the differences are in punctuation, capitalisation, and English/U.S. spellings only, apart from the indefinite article in one being the definite article in the other). I looked up the quote on http://www.gutenberg.org/, which had the text matching the Creation magazine quote, so I substituted that instead. But then I noticed that the page numbers were different, and realised that the differences could be attributed to the differences between English and American editions of his work. Gutenberg and Creation magazine had the English edition, whereas the quote was from the American edition. I decided to stick with the English one as that is what is available on the Internet to check, and Darwin was English after all, so this is as he wrote it rather than how the American publisher Americanised it. Philip J. Rayment 12:24, 12 March 2006 (GMT)


Further to the above, the Creation magazine reference gave the publication year as 1887, which is 13 years later than the American publication date, and five years after Darwin died. Searching the Internet, I found this site that listed publication as 1882, but that is still later than the American date. Then I found AboutDarwin.com - Darwin's Timeline, which lists John Murray as publishing the second edition on 13th November, 1874. Philip J. Rayment 12:41, 12 March 2006 (GMT)

References

I previously said that the references in the text would be better as links, but overlooked that not all of them had on-line sources that could be linked. So I changed them to shorter references in the text, referring to the "References" section at the end of the article. Independently, I also changed (and noted herein) the reference to Milton being an atheist to being an agnostic, as I had a source that described him thus. Ray Martinez subsequently expanded the references in the text to include the year of publication and reinstated the reference to Milton being an atheist, contradicting the other description of him being an agnostic (he left the latter intact). Part of my intention was to not disrupt the flow of the text more than necessary. (In Wikipedia there is a facility to have a footnote reference that refers to an article footnote, but CreationWiki appears not to have the module with that capability.) I have now shortened the in-text references to the format Surname year (of publication), page-number, in line with one way that it is done in other publications. Philip J. Rayment 12:52, 12 March 2006 (GMT)


Request for Admin Mediation and/or Decision

Request made by Ray Martinez

At Issue: Worldview status of page source Richard Milton.

Ray Martinez: I originally labelled Milton an atheist. [10] Please scroll down to my last edit and read description of edit. The reason I gave was "per major content in his book". I own a copy of "Shattering the Myths of Darwinism" (1997). However, Mr. Rayment has again revised Mr. Milton to be an agnostic (from Mr. Rayment's Discussion text above): "Independently, I also changed (and noted herein) the reference to Milton being an atheist to being an agnostic, as I had a source that described him thus."

Mr. Rayment states as the reason for changing Milton's status as an atheist to agnostic was because "I had a source that described him as such".

Admin: What source ? Why did he not cite this source ? My reason for labelling Milton an atheist was clearly stated as "per major content in his book". How does the former shaky and unsupported reason outweigh what Milton himself says in his book ?

Context: Milton responding to ad hom attacks by Dawkins and other atheists:

Page 269:

"Let me make it unambiguously clear that I am not a creationist, nor do I have any religious beliefs of any kind. I am a professional writer and journalist who specializes in writing about science...."

Dawkins and others cannot stand the fact that an atheist rejects the major tenets of Darwinism.

I also want to make a case against the absurdity of the agnostic label. First, for all intents and purposes, there is no such thing as an agnostic. The status was created and is used by atheists as an attempt to stake-out a position of objectivity that does not exist.


Dr. Gene Scott (Ph.D. in Philosophy/Religion and has a Ph.D. minor is psychology): "It is impossible to expose oneself to evidence and not form an opinion."


We know Huxley coined the term "agnostic". This famous atheist, tired of theist abuse in Victorian society, turned to the New Testament and stole the word "agnos" from Acts 17:23. In Greek the word means "unknown", Huxley twisted its meaning to mean "unknowable".[11] Big difference. Huxley was successful in convincing the establishment that God was unknowable, when in fact St. Luke was reporting that the ancient Greeks were carving out a place for any God that they might not know of. St. Paul, seizing this fact, told them that he could tell them who THIS God was.


Go here and read Dr. Bert Thompson's excellent essay on Huxley's corruption and intent.[12]

Desmond & Moore, page 657 (1991):

Darwin addressing a group of atheists: "Why do you call yourselves atheists ?...."Agnostic" was but "Atheist" writ respectable."

Darwin and Huxley were atheists. They knew the outing of this status refuted all their claims as nothing but the needs of their worldview packaged as evidence. In order to circumvent this irrefutable logic, Huxley invented "agnostic" to make people think they were neutral/"respectable".

This is why Dr. Scott rightly observes that everyone has an opinion. Are we to believe Milton, Darwin, and Huxley, being what age they may be have not formed an opinion ?

Milton plainly says he has no religious beliefs of any kind. He is an atheist.

Admin: I ask that you rule that Milton, based on the evidence in this appeal be viewed an atheist, and that I be allowed to re-edit the page accordingly without threat of arbitrary revision ?

Ray Martinez [13]


Outside opinion: How does it improve the article for us to speculate about his religious beliefs? Wouldn't it serve all the desired purposes if we were to quote his words and ideas directly, to let him speak for himself? Ungtss 19:48, 6 April 2006 (GMT)

Ungtss: What you have written is known as a substanceless one-liner, usually, these replies are caused by the inability to address or refute.

But I will address your drive-by.

First, you assume as fact that I have "speculated" about Milton's religious beliefs. This is a false belief about the fact. The fact I am referring to is Milton's own words in my text above. There is no speculation since the Milton quote is crystal clear, he said he has none.

With this being fact, why have you misrepresented what is crystal clear ? This is rhetorical. I suppose you will now evade and make excuses.

Where is your sudden concern for page veracity when Rayment changed Milton's status while citing nothing in support ?

It is clear to me you have bought the atheist con of agnostic as is seen in your drive-by and evasion of the content I wrote. I suggest you cough up some evidence to counter or, like you said, your reply is "outside opinion" devoid of any supported facts.

Ray Martinez


Ungtss: What you have written is known as a substanceless one-liner, usually, these replies are caused by the inability to address or refute.

I made a clear suggestion: this debate is pointless, because whether he was an agnostic or an atheist is irrelevent for the purposes of the article.

First, you assume as fact that I have "speculated" about Milton's religious beliefs. This is a false belief about the fact. The fact I am referring to is Milton's own words in my text above. There is no speculation since the Milton quote is crystal clear, he said he has none.

If a person has no religious beliefs of any kind, sir, they are an agnostic by definition. they "don't know." an atheist in fact holds a religious belief -- the religious belief that there is no god. Mr. Rayment is in fact correct. But that doesn't matter, because our label for his beliefs (or non-beliefs) is irrelevant to the article.

Where is your sudden concern for page veracity when Rayment changed Milton's status while citing nothing in support ?

The statements you have made about Mr. Milton's beliefs support Mr. Rayment's conclusions. To have no religious beliefs of any kind is to be an agnostic. You, of course, think that being an agnostic is a "con game" for being an atheist. That may well be true, but it's irrelevent to the content of the article. That's why I suggested what I did. Ungtss 20:58, 6 April 2006 (GMT)

It is clear to me you have bought the atheist con of agnostic as is seen in your drive-by and evasion of the content I wrote. I suggest you cough up some evidence to counter or, like you said, your reply is "outside opinion" devoid of any supported facts.

We're all on the same team here, Mr. Martinez. None of this need be taken personally. I'm just suggesting that this debate can be easily resolved by simply omitting any label for his religious beliefs, and letting him speak for himself. Ungtss 20:58, 6 April 2006 (GMT)

As I predicted, you have evaved the facts and blindly held to a false definition of agnostic. I am comforted that you had to avoid the referenced facts and points - each of them.

What is clear, also, is your blind allegiance to Mr. Rayment in spite of the facts. This is called prejudice.

For the second time: your suggestions are unsupported and contradicted by the facts in my Admin appeal. Evading them supports them. I am sorry you have initiated that you view this matter "personally".

My appeal was to Admin in case you forgot.

Ray Martinez

My appeal was to Admin in case you forgot.
I am an admin[14].
"Let me make it unambiguously clear that I am not a creationist, nor do I have any religious beliefs of any kind. I am a professional writer and journalist who specializes in writing about science...."
that quote does not state that he believes there is no God (the definition of atheism). that quote states that he's not a creationist, nor does he hold religious beliefs of any kind. it does not say he believes there is no God. Thus, you have not proven your case. Atheism is a religion. It is defined as such by the first humanist manifesto, and current constitutional law. To say one has no religious beliefs at all is to say one is neither atheist nor christian nor anything else, but simply an agnostic who "doesn't know." You're more than welcome to believe that agnosticism is just a front for atheism -- but you're not free to ascribe beliefs to people that they wouldn't ascribe to themselves.
My point here is not to argue with you about whether agnosticism is just a front for atheism, or even to argue with you about which one this guy is. my only point is to say that these debate is irrelevent to the content of the article, and we'd all do better to discuss something of substance, rather than sniping over who's an atheist and who's not.
Finally, please raise the level of your discussion out of the realm of anger and personal attack. we are all on the same side here. If you read the talkpage to Global flood, you'll find that Mr. Rayment and I disagree on many issues -- but I agree with him here. This is not a question of "blind loyalty." This is a question of facts, common sense, and the goals of CreationWiki. Let's keep our discussions limited to those realms, shall we? Ungtss 23:57, 6 April 2006 (GMT)
Request for Admin Mediation and/or Decision
Request made by Ray Martinez
For the record, I originally changed "atheist" to "agnostic" in the references and documented (briefly) why. Ray Martinez added "atheist" in the body of the article, but left "agnostic" in the references. The article now contradicted itself. I subsequently removed the "atheist" reference, and added more explanation as to why. If that was insufficient explanation, Ray Martinez had only to ask, and we could have tried sorting it out here instead of appealing to administration.
Mr. Rayment states as the reason for changing Milton's status as an atheist to agnostic was because "I had a source that described him as such".
Admin: What source ? Why did he not cite this source ? My reason for labelling Milton an atheist was clearly stated as "per major content in his book". How does the former shaky and unsupported reason outweigh what Milton himself says in his book ?

You could have asked for the source. It was from Carl Wieland in a book review. Clearly, he also read the book. Also, you did state that he was an atheist "per major content in his book", but (a) you did not state that you had personally read it (i.e. the view could be someone else's that you are repeating) and (b) if we follow Wikipedia's rule on this (and perhaps CreationWiki doesn't, admittedly), there should be no personal research. In other words, we should be able to document a view from somewhere else, not just offer our own opinion.
Milton plainly says he has no religious beliefs of any kind. He is an atheist.
As Ungtss has pointed out, this supports him being an agnostic, not an atheist. I sympathise with your position; in many cases an agnostic is an atheist who is not prepared to admit as much. But it is feasible for someone to simply not know whether or not God exists (even if they do lean one way or the other).
Philip J. Rayment 03:23, 7 April 2006 (GMT)

RAY: My appeal was to Admin in case you forgot.

UNGTSS: I am an admin

RAY: I appealed to Chris Ashcraft.

UNGTSS: that quote does not state that he believes there is no God (the definition of atheism). that quote states that he's not a creationist, nor does he hold religious beliefs of any kind. it does not say he believes there is no God. Thus, you have not proven your case.

RAY: Your opinion is refuted by the facts. You are unable to face your errors.

UNGTSS: To say one has no religious beliefs at all is to say one is neither atheist nor christian nor anything else, but simply an agnostic who "doesn't know."

RAY: This is confusion and willful avoidance of the arguments and evidence in my original appeal. Agnostic does not mean what you think it means. Again, you have been brainwashed by atheist clutter.

UNGTSS: You're more than welcome to believe that agnosticism is just a front for atheism -- but you're not free to ascribe beliefs to people that they wouldn't ascribe to themselves.

RAY: You are guilty and entangled in your own confusion. You have ignored the evidence and bought the error-laden definition of agnostic. What is even more disturbing is your inability to admit your misunderstanding even in the face of evidence.

UNGTSS: Finally, please raise the level of your discussion out of the realm of anger and personal attack.

RAY: Insult/misrepresentation caused by the inability to refute.

Milton plainly says he has NO religious beliefs of ANY kind = atheist. That does not mean he does not know = your logic starved error. You are special pleading to save face/inability to concede point.

There is no such thing as educated persons claiming agnostic. It is an attempt to stake-out a position of objectivity that does not exist. "It is IMPOSSIBLE to expose oneself to evidence and not form an opinion." You have ignored this fact and Desmond & Moore quote and Thompson's essay on Huxley while still holding to the atheist twist of agnostic all because you already spoke up for the error. You are exalting your subjective opinion while ignoring the facts produced by scholarship. Yeah, this is a Wiki format.

Because you have fought so hard to preserve a corruption/error, you are also attempting/daring Chris Ashcraft to cross you. You should have minded your own business. I believe Admin Ashcraft will not be swayed by your clandestine attempt to preserve errors and ignore evidence.

Dr. Scott: "We fight much harder for that which we have spoken up for than things we never said at all."

Dr. Scott: "There is no such thing as an objective historian (or scientist - R.M.) ...everyone has an axe to grind. Objective persons state their bias up-front so when it creeps into their conclusions the audience will know it."

Your ego is the problem here - the facts say so.

Ray Martinez

I have better things to do than get into an ego battle with you, sir. My opinion remains this: we should not label him either atheist or agnostic, but simply let him speak for himself. (In response to a comment made and later removed by Mr. Martinez:) Incidentally, I'm not a musician by trade: I'm an officer in the US Air Force. Music and creationism are my hobbies. Ungtss 19:03, 7 April 2006 (GMT)

fresh start

okay, Mr. Martinez, let's try and start fresh. we're all on the same team, here, friend. we're all creationists, and we're all trying to write a good article together.

I think we have two issues here:

  • Whether agnosticism is actually atheism in disguise;
  • Whether it is important for this page to identify this person as an atheist or agnostic;

Let's address the second issue first, because it's the most important for the future of the article. Can you please explain why you think it is important for the page to identify Milton as an atheist? Why is it better to say "Milton, atheist" than just to say, "Milton?" How does such an identification improve the article? What will be missing from the article if we don't tell the reader he's an atheist? Ungtss 21:25, 8 April 2006 (GMT)


Your 2nd Issue:

Ungtss: Can you please explain why you think it is important for the page to identify Milton as an atheist?

RAY: Because it is the truth.

We have words from Milton's own mouth. Words written in the context of answering ad hom rage by Dawkins.

Also, we know TEists are Darwinists in sheeps clothing. We need to promote the few atheist scholars who speak against Darwinism to counter the lies of TEists. My forth coming paper will prove TEists were predicted by God in the Bible and an honest atheist has a better chance at the judgement seat of Christ than the Judge Jones TEist masses.

The learning public needs to see that not all atheists buy Darwinian nonsense.

We know Velikovsky was an atheist and he did more to prove the Bible than most theist scholars.

This is about ONE word added near the name of Milton. Facts say the agnostic label is totally fallacious. If I were Mr. Rayment and someone posted the facts of scholarship that I posted I would have been converted to that position in a New York minute. In fact that is what happened to me some years ago. We know Internet atheist Johnny Skeptic argues the atheist position tooth and nail as an agnostic = pure b.s.

Instead, we have ego preserving error at the cost of truth.

Ray Martinez

Ungtss: Can you please explain why you think it is important for the page to identify Milton as an atheist?
RAY: Because it is the truth.
  1. It is also the truth that my computer runs Windows XP, but that fact doesn't go in the article because it is not relevant. Ungtss is asking about the relevance of putting Milton's worldview there.
  2. Both Ungtss and I dispute that it is the truth.
We have words from Milton's own mouth. Words written in the context of answering ad hom rage by Dawkins.

But those words do not say that he is an atheist. Him being an atheist is your interpretation of his words. Carl Wieland, Ungtss, and I understand them differently.
Also, we know TEists are Darwinists in sheeps clothing. We need to promote the few atheist scholars who speak against Darwinism to counter the lies of TEists.
I think I'm actually with you on describing what he is (that is, I think it is relevant to mention his worldview, although I disagree as to what that worldview is). With your paragraph that I've quoted the start of here, you do get on to the relevance of showing it, although I disagree with your logic.
The things that have the best chance of silencing the theistic evolutionists (=TEists?) are (a) the Biblical record properly understood, and (b) the scientific evidence. A handful of atheists/agnostics who are the exception who question evolution is not going to make a lot of difference in convincing them.
Facts say the agnostic label is totally fallacious.
No, your opinion says that. We disagree.
Philip J. Rayment 02:39, 12 April 2006 (GMT)
Okay, if Mr. Rayment agrees with you that his worldview is relevant to the article, then I will bow to the majority. I have a second proposal: why don't we say, "Milton, who claims to have no religious beliefs at all," since those are his exact words? I'm simply trying to find a solution to the disagreement that is acceptable to everyone and doesn't require us to get into a long, drawn-out debate about whether or not agnosticism actually exists. What do you think?
Instead, we have ego preserving error at the cost of truth.
It's dangerous to make assumptions about people's motives, friend: you haven't met me. I honestly believe there is a difference between an agnostic and an atheist, because i've met both types of people, and found that they hold different beliefs. Of course I may be wrong, but I'm certainly not arguing this for the sake of my ego. How sad it would be if my ego depended on the content of Creationwiki articles:(.
The learning public needs to see that not all atheists buy Darwinian nonsense.
Certainly they do. But let's begin by showing them people that claim to be atheists, who challenge the darwinian nonsense. For your future article, I strongly recommend Darwinism: Refutation of a Myth by Soren Lovtrup. He tears Darwinism to shreds on a purely scientific level -- and decries the religious dogmatism with which darwinists hold to their myth, and how easy it is for creationists to shoot it down. Ungtss 12:28, 12 April 2006 (GMT)

I have no desire to repeat myself endlessly. Mr. Rayment chooses to preserve his incorrectable ego at the expense of facts produced by scholarship (Dr. Scott/Dr. Thompson/Darwin's biographers etc.etc.). I am comforted to see opponents evade these scholarly facts = inability to refute.

Its not a matter of opinion: Agnostic is a word coined by Huxley while he changed the meaning from "unknown" to "unknowable". No educated person can claim this position as it was invented to cover the stigma of being atheist in Victorian society. Milton plainly says he has no religious convictions yet opponents must special plead as to what this means. How does Milton's own words lose to Wieland ? This is rhetorical.

My only complaint is with Administration who have not sided with scholarship but with indefensible error and Mr. Rayment's ego preservation. Like I said this is a Wiki format: amateur hour.

I wish I could erase my name from the editing of this page as it will stain my forth-coming paper. Whats the whole purpose of having sources if they are going to be ignored ? This protest will have to suffice.

Ray Martinez

Mr. Rayment chooses to preserve his incorrectable ego...
This is an attack on me personally rather than addressing my points.
I am comforted to see opponents evade these scholarly facts = inability to refute.
I have addressed the points I consider to be the most relevant.
Its not a matter of opinion: Agnostic is a word coined by Huxley while he changed the meaning from "unknown" to "unknowable".
I don't know whether or not you are correct on that, but it doesn't matter. A word is defined by its use, not its origin. If you are correct that the word started that way, it doesn't change the fact that it is used today to mean someone who doesn't know whether or not God exists. This is why I didn't address that point.
No educated person can claim this position as it was invented to cover the stigma of being atheist in Victorian society.
Again, why it was invented and how it is used today can be two different things.
Milton plainly says he has no religious convictions yet opponents must special plead as to what this means. How does Milton's own words lose to Wieland ? This is rhetorical.
You are conflating what Milton said with what you believe that amounts to. Milton's words don't lose to Carl Wieland's, but Milton doesn't say that he is an atheist; that is your deduction.
Philip J. Rayment 08:19, 14 April 2006 (GMT)

Administration


UNGTSS:

I have argued my case; and either by silence or resistance, Administration has ruled against me.

When Admin Ashcraft urged me to release the page to Mr. Rayment here [15] I promptly complied. When I discovered that you were an Admin and a USAF officer I immediately corrected/erased an inaccurate comment. However, Mr. Rayment after finding out who Dr. Scott was has not had the integrity to erase the hate links and insults he has posted in this Discussion text. Neither has Administration raised a voice or embarked on any action. This supports my charge that Mr. Rayment has an incorrectable ego. Now that Administration is aware of this smear existing against the greatest Creationist scholar of all time I await to see some type of action.

The point is I respect Administration; and like I said the same has ruled concerning the Richard Milton issue. I consider the issue over, and while I disagree, I support the decision of Administration. The case is closed.

Ray Martinez

Mr. Rayment after finding out who Dr. Scott was has not had the integrity to erase the hate links and insults he has posted in this Discussion text.
Actually, you have the order back to front. I posted those comments after I found out who he was. Other than your opinion, nothing has been presented to show that I was wrong in the opinion I formed, so I have no reason to retract anything I said. However, I don't agree with the strength of your description of my comments. Sure, some of the articles may have been somewhat biased against Dr. Scott, but I would not describe any of them as "hate" links.
This supports my charge that Mr. Rayment has an incorrectable ego.
It might, if I had been corrected by anything more substantial than another opinion.
Now that Administration is aware of this smear existing against the greatest Creationist scholar of all time ...
Now this is an example of the sort of thing I'm referring to, when I refer to a lack of evidence to support your opinion. You describe him (seriously, I believe) as "the greatest Creationist scholar of all time", yet provide no substantiation whatsoever for that claim. I have searched the Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, Institute for Creation Research, Creation Research Society, and CreationWiki (articles only) web-sites and as far as I can tell, Dr. Scott is not mentioned on any of them. So on what basis am I supposed to believe this grandiose claim?
Philip J. Rayment 09:44, 18 April 2006 (GMT)

Darwin Quote

Re your quotation: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. (Darwin 1887 p.156)."

What evidence do you have that Darwin was expressing a wish or hope here, rather than just describing what was going on in his day (like the observation that today many of the world's minority languages are dying out)? There are many passages where he expresses sympathy and/or admiration for aboriginal peoples. "Savage" seems to have been the commonly used word at the time, without the racist overtones it has today. --Drlindberg 10:44, 26 October 2006 (EDT)

Personal tools