[_ Old Earth _] Darwin and his "mammy"

[kendemyer]

It appears as if Darwin was rather odd in his behavior.

I cite the following:

Darwin, in later years, called his wife...."Mammy" and displayed other symptoms of unresolved conflicting Oedipal Freudian nonsense that make it fairly clear that he married to have somebody to play mom. In their letters, Emma was "always the mother, never the child, Darwin always the child, never the father."[1] This is definitely immature, and immature people are self-centered.

1. Charles Darwin: A Man of Enlarged Curiosity by Peter Brent

taken from: http://www.aspartametruth.com/automatic ... er_19.html

I also cite:

Firstly, it legitimised Darwin's constant claims upon his wife's attention - who seems, quite early on in their marriage, to have been appointed both wife and surrogate mother.....

Peter Brent cites a passage in a letter from Charles to Emma dated 1848 which runs as follows:

"My dearest old Mammy ... Without you, when sick I feel most desolate .. Oh Mammy I do long to be with you and under your protection for then I feel safe."

It is hard to realise, as Brent says, that that this is a thirty-nine year old man writing to his wife and not a young child writing to its mother.24

taken from: http://www3.mistral.co.uk/bradburyac/dar9.html

Apparently though sometimes his "mammy" could not calm him.

I cite:

As yet, these bouts of illness- headaches, nausea, vomiting, eczema (and boils)- were infrequent. Yet during these attacks he was seized with profound anxieties, although reason told him these were groundless. He would awaken terror-stricken in the night, then try to reason himself back to serenity......

This fits right in with it: "He had irrational furies - recalled one that overcame him when, very tired one evening, he was listening to the piano - and at other times felt anger so overwhelming that it drove him to involuntary movement..."[1]

1. Charles Darwin: A Man of Enlarged Curiosity by Peter Brent

taken from: http://www.aspartametruth.com/automatic ... er_19.html

 

[ThinkerMan]

Also of importance....

Einstein had hangnails (thus, his Theory of Relativity is wrong).

Newton had conjuctivitis as a teenager (therefore, all his mathematical formulae are wrong).

Jonas Salk wet his bed as an adult (as a result, his vaccine for polio actually doesn't work).

Pythagorus was a pagan who didn't believe in Yahwah or Jesus (thus.........a(squared) + b(squared) DOES NOT EQUAL c(squared).

You are right....we must judge all person's empirical accomplishments on the basis of some personality flaw they may or may not had have.

 

[cubedbee]

There's nothing in this post about creation or evolution. Please take care to post things in approrpiate forums so as to not waste the time of every single person who might actually be interested in discussing creation and evolution.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

You mean to tell me that it was really Charles Darwin (and NOT Al Jolson) who came up with this little ditty:

"Mammy how I love you, how I love you, my dear old Mammy."

Wow.

 

[Barbarian]

I know of a well-respected Baptist minister in Dallas, who calls his wife "mom." If you had children, it would be obvious to you why this happens.

Kendemeyer is a rather unusual person, with some um, interesting ideas.

 

[kendemyer]

TO: Barbarian

I am not a Freudian by any means but I don't think Darwin's "mommy problem" was a reach.

Here is the reason why:

Peter Brent cites a passage in a letter from Charles to Emma dated 1848 which runs as follows:....

Oh Mammy I do long to be with you and under your protection for then I feel safe."

It is hard to realise, as Brent says, that that this is a thirty-nine year old man writing to his wife and not a young child writing to its mother.24

taken from: http://www3.mistral.co.uk/bradburyac/dar9.html

Given the letter of Darwin, I don't think the biographer Brent was overreaching.


TO: Thinkerman

I believe that some in the church of Darwin romantize "Darwinism" and have turned it into a quasi religion even so far as to promote it with bumper stickers. That is why giving this history of science information never is not illogical no matter how badly some people wish to say it was.


Let me demonstate the quasi religion status of "Darwinism". Here is the lookup information at Wikipedia for Darwin:

Charles Darwin (1809–1882)  renowned naturalist and thinker.

taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin

Compare this to Newton:

Isaac Newton

taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton

Perhaps Newton was not a thinker! :D

Now no doubt some of the members of the church of Darwin are upset that one of their icons has been injected with some historical realism.

However, I like history and I think it serves a useful purpose in the creation-evolution debate. I find that history, particularly the history of science, gives one perspective so one knows the limits of science so one can discern facts from mere opinions for example.

I would also argue that many people have highly emotional and romanticized views of history that cloud their reasoning. That is one of the reasons I like the Bible. It is a book of no allusions. It points out the flaws of its main characters. It calls man a depraved sinner in need of a new heart and human history bears this out (although men are said to have consciences and the Holy Spirit is said to convict men of sin) .

Here is one example of what I am talking about:

In school the play "To inherit the wind" is presented often as historical fact or near fact in schools. At least in the case of my school I know this was true. It isn't. This play adds to the fictional romanticized version of the whole creation-macroevolution hypothesis controversy for those on the macroevolution hypothesis side of the aisle.

Here is some historical commentary about the trial:

Scopes Monkey Trial
http://www3.mistral.co.uk/bradburyac/tennesse.html

Inherit the Wind: an historical analysis
by David Menton
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... scopes.asp


Now if science is a social endeavor (and it is) if humans use emotion in their decision making (which I believe they do ) I think it helps to have a realistic historical view and a reasonable view of science in general. If you view scientist or particular science journals or the scientific community or a particular scientist with reverential awe and try to shield out any foibles or weaknesses I think this is very misguided. I think it helps to have a solid base of the history of science so you are not emotionally overly wedded to a particular paradigm. Science community paradigms do fall. History shows this. I think some people forget this and "worship the experts" or a particular paradigm. I think the scientist Alan Hayward makes some good points about experts (facts and opinions, predictions, reliability in various fields, opinions about the past, etc ). Here is his writings on the subject:

Can we trust the experts?
http://www.godstruth.org/chap13

Thus, I believe the history of science while certainly not a replacement for data can help people view expert opinion more realistically.

Now is it reasonable that some evolutionist rashly make accusations of illogical fallacies regarding creationists when historical discussions of Darwin are brought up? Now it clearly is not. Darwin should not be some sacred cow that is immune from historical investigation. If only the evolutionist were as open and frank as the Bible (Bible character weaknesses) in regards to critically examining people such as Darwin and others.

 

[ThinkerMan]

TO: Thinkerman

I believe that some in the church of Darwin romantize "Darwinism" and have turned it into a quasi religion even so far as to promote it with bumper stickers. That is why giving this history of science information never is not illogical no matter how badly some people wish to say it was.

Since I subscribe neither to the "church of Darwin" nor have bumper stickers (I find them tacky), I think you are painting with a broad brush concerning all evolutionists.

Also, "science information" is wildly different than what you presented. Your OP had zero to do with "science information", and was simply a misplaced ad hominem attack.

Now no doubt some of the members of the church of Darwin are upset that one of their icons has been injected with some historical realism.

I couldn't give a hoot about Darwin as a person. He could have been the most racist, sexist, child-beating pedophiliac in the world, and it wouldn't change the verocity of his theories (though perhaps, one could argue, the motive for his theories.).

The refined theories of Darwin are what are important....and they have been independenly verified and studied. I can go to Galapagos and see the same things he did.

I would also argue that many people have highly emotional and romanticized views of history that cloud their reasoning. That is one of the reasons I like the Bible. It is a book of no allusions. It points out the flaws of its main characters. It calls man a depraved sinner in need of a new heart and human history bears this out (although men are said to have consciences and the Holy Spirit is said to convict men of sin) .

I just hope you apply the same historical skepticism to the bible that you do to science.

As a literalist, I am sure you hold that St. Matthew actually wrote the Gospel that is attributed to him. Likely that St. Peter actually wrote Peter II. An objective historical analysis of that might lead otherwise.

It was largely that historical analysis that lead to my initial skepticism about the the bible's claims. I just hope you have done your due diligence in checking it out for yourself.

Here is one example of what I am talking about:

In school the play "To inherit the wind" is presented often as historical fact or near fact in schools. At least in the case of my school I know this was true. It isn't. This play adds to the fictional romanticized version of the whole creation-macroevolution hypothesis controversy for those on the macroevolution hypothesis side of the aisle.

Here is some historical commentary about the trial:

Scopes Monkey Trial
http://www3.mistral.co.uk/bradburyac/tennesse.html

Inherit the Wind: an historical analysis
by David Menton
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... scopes.asp

Yep...it's a play. Fiction. Ain't it entertaining?

I don't personally know of anyone how has claimed it as fact.

Now if science is a social endeavor (and it is) if humans use emotion in their decision making (which I believe they do ) I think it helps to have a realistic historical view and a reasonable view of science in general. If you view scientist or particular science journals or the scientific community or a particular scientist with reverential awe and try to shield out any foibles or weaknesses I think this is very misguided. I think it helps to have a solid base of the history of science so you are not emotionally overly wedded to a particular paradigm. Science community paradigms do fall. History shows this. I think some people forget this and "worship the experts" or a particular paradigm. I think the scientist Alan Hayward makes some good points about experts (facts and opinions, predictions, reliability in various fields, opinions about the past, etc ). Here is his writings on the subject:

Can we trust the experts?
http://www.godstruth.org/chap13

Thus, I believe the history of science while certainly not a replacement for data can help people view expert opinion more realistically.

Yes. Science makes errors. Please quote me a scientist who states otherwise.

However, the ad hominem nature of your OP belies any attempt at determining the verocity of the underlying scientific claims of Darwin....or perhaps even more importantly, the refined TOE that is generally subscribed to today and derived from Darwin's initial theories.

Now is it reasonable that some evolutionist rashly make accusations of illogical fallacies regarding creationists when historical discussions of Darwin are brought up? Now it clearly is not. Darwin should not be some sacred cow that is immune from historical investigation. If only the evolutionist were as open and frank as the Bible (Bible character weaknesses) in regards to critically examining people such as Darwin and others.

Your missing the point. I, for one, and not denying any character claims you are making about Darwin. I just don't give a hoot.

It is irrelevant.

However, the bible, being presented a moral tome, IS subject to character examinations. And I find them uncompelling.

 

[Ray Martinez]

Hi Ken:

The OP is certainly relevant because Darwinists always go ad hom/argue the man, but when it is done to their sweetheart suddenly they cannot take a bit of their own medicine.

Darwin was a deranged hateful person, who had no degree in science, and his efforts reflect these observations.

The hypocrisy of the evos here is so obvious as they never miss a chance to smear their opponents.

Ray Martinez

 

[Barbarian]

The OP is certainly relevant because Darwinists always go ad hom/argue the man,

If you challenge a scientist on evolution, do you think he'll tell you what a wonderful guy Darwin was, or do you suppose he'll start telling you about evidence?

If you chose the former, you don't know very much about science or scientists.

Darwin was a deranged hateful person,

His contemporaries seemed to respect and like him. His family seems to have loved him, and he was (rare among his social class) opposed to slavery.

His work on barnacles remains the classic description in the literature, and he is honored for solving the mystery of Pacific atolls.

These do not seem consistent with your opinion of him.

The hypocrisy of the evos here is so obvious as they never miss a chance to smear their opponents.

Funny how people doing that, never realize it. :wink: