Joined: Jan. 2006
|Quote (Bob O'H @ Mar. 25 2007,10:05)|
|P.S. Someone else can have fun with Dense O'Lry's "I can't be bothered to read what I'm criticising" post. I can't be bothered to criticise what I'm reading.|
You are right. She doesn't seem to have followed the link to redstaterabble] where Dembski's "mistake" was dealt with.
and she certainly did not follow the link to the original Darwin Text.
Before we decide, let's do what Dembski and his readers didn't. Let's read the passage in context. Here's a link to the Project Gutenburg online text of Descent of Man.
As you can see, the first sentence cited by Dembski (The reckless, degraded...) is Darwin summarizing the views of Greg and Galton. The rest of the paragraph is Darwin quoting Greg.
Does Darwin do this because he agrees with Greg and Galton? No. He cites their arguments in order to refute them. They argue that if evolution were true, the Irish would "multiply like rabbits" and the good frugal Scots would, by their habit of marrying late, become extinct. In effect, Greg and Galton are making a powerful argument against evolution in man.
Instead she argues that Darwin must have been a racist because he was a British Toff, which is racist in itself. But if all "British Toffs" were racist as she claims, why single out Darwin for special treatment?
edit: Bob O''H, did you try escaping the apostrophe with a second apostrophe? Databases don't usually escape with backslashes.