Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (108368)	9/16/2005 9:27:23 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 108807

The question remains as to why he chose "races" for the subtitle, since he does not seem to use that word very much in the text Um. I know posting on SI is pretty pointless in general, but I find it ironic that you are posting this in response to Message 21700435 . He used the word a lot. I went back and checked again, something like 40 times in the first chapter alone, about half the time qualified as "domestic race", which clearly means something like breed. One question is whether, if "Origins" is presented to young learners, we should also present Darwin's ideas of how it applied to the human race in "Descent." Darwin's ideas in "Descent" would be quite offensive, such as his graphic characterizations of "savages," and yet what justification is there for presenting part of his theory and censoring out other parts? Um. Nobody much reads Darwin in biology class, any more than they read Newton in physics. People are taught modern evolutionary theory, tightly bound with genetics, of which Darwin knew essentially nothing. Einstein spent most of his life working on unified field theories that never amounted to anything, do you think it's censorship that those theories aren't taught in introductory physics? It sort of looks to me like you're advocating an ad hominem attack on evolution, which seems not exactly scientific.