To Waiting
An excellent post!!! Your paper should get an A++
Also, it was very well put (and you did not need to resort to name calling)!
Is there an award for posts? If so I nominate your post.
Would some of us be better off as Witnesses?
by Jerry Bergman 118 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Jerry Bergman
In response to: According to whom? Who gets to be the judge? You? Me? my answer would be neither of us but the facts as determined by a impartial investigation (and especially a scientific investigation). An example is, how do we know that the heart pumps blood? It was believed by most everyone that the heart was the "mind" and was the seat of the emotions (thus, when one got upset the heart would beat faster) until William Harvey proved that the heart is a pump that pumped the blood throughout the body. Everyone who is informed now acknowledges this (and if you doubt it, you can do experiments that prove it) although in a 1971 article the Watchtower tried to argue that the heart was in fact the seat of emotions! This blatant ignoring of reality was one of many reasons why I eventually left the Watchtower. They were wrong and it was not a matter of my or anyone else's opinion, but demonstrated fact. Likewise with religion, we should be able to at least prove in the same way some of the major ideas of a faith (and if any are proven wrong, this says that we should look elsewhere). If I said the heart pumps blood, and you said that is your opinion, I could prove it to you by experiment if you were willing to look into it. The key is provable fact, not opinion.
-
AlanF
Hi Jerry,
It's been many years since we last spoke. Hope you've been well.
In regards to this thread, I would like to see you present clear answers in this thread to the implications in the quotations from you by donkey, namely:
(1) "Evolution and racism are the same thing," declares Jerry Bergman ...
You responded to donkey in a general way, without specific reference to this quotation, as follows:
"I have already responded extensively to this slander. Please see http://www.rae.org/notracist.html"
I read the linked article and found no comments about this quotation. I would like to see your comments about it here.
(2) In an article about Nebraska Man, you apparently wrote that according to Osborn, "after seventy-five years of continuous search in all parts of our great Western territory of a [higher] primate. Evidence of this anthropoid ape-man was also proof that some primitive humans lived in America ..."
Donkey's quotation pointed out that the words in bold were not part of the original quotation, but apparently were your own additions: "The references to "ape-man" and "proof" were added, either by Bergman or by a source which he copied from. In fact, although Osborn did misidentify the Nebraska Man tooth as a primate, he deliberately did not make any claims to its status as an ape-man."
Given only the above information (and I have not done any more reading on this topic than what appears in this thread and in the link you supplied), one could conclude that you may be guilty of the same sort of misrepresentation you accuse "evolutionists" of in your link.
What do you say about all this? I would also like to know why you did not respond to these apparent problems when donkey specifically asked you about them.
AlanF
-
Jerry Bergman
Alan
Thanks for your note As you know, when a paper finally gets published, four or five reviewers go though it and the editor adds his two cents worth. What evidently happened is the source of the entire quote is wrong, not the quote, as I could not find it in the article cited anywhere (if you find it please let me know). Where the error happened I can not at this date determine. I checked my original manuscript and the controversial quote is not there. As I have published close to 600 articles and books etc, one who goes though each one will find mistakes such as this one. I have, when revising my own articles, found several myself. Part of the problem is we have had several typists at the college (some excellent, others far less accurate). I always check everything carefully, but sometimes mistakes slip by. I used to have graduate students do this work (a very common practice) and some of them were not very good (I could check their work, but than I may as well just do it myself). A typo (which is all that has been shown to have occurred) is quite different than trying to mislead someone as claimed. The quote adds nothing to the paper, and I can send you the original to verify this. The charge against me is slanderous and not accurate. How can one condone this? I commonly find errors in papers that I review and we do not go around accusing the authors of dishonesty, but, at the most, carelessness. One new study found that reference "misprints" are fairly common in the scientific literature (Simkin et al. New Scientist Dec. 14 2002. reviews the article). From what I have read, my reference misprints are below average (but not perfect). As to "Evolution and racism are the same thing," my papers on this are over 100 pages long so there is no way I can respond here. All I can do is send the papers as my response. Briefly, the key to Darwinism is selection, and for selection to occur there must be biological differences that effect survival. If all humans were equal, selection would not be able to operate except randomly. Darwin and his followers were very clear on this as I show in my work. The subtitle of Darwin's 1859 work was "or the preservation of the favored races in the struggle for life" an idea that he later applied to humans.
Edited by - Jerry Bergman on 30 December 2002 11:7:47
Edited by - Jerry Bergman on 30 December 2002 20:58:36
-
AlanF
Hi Jerry,
I still don't know quite what to think about your view on the two items I asked about. I'll comment so you can see why:
: As you know, when a paper finally gets published, four or five reviewers go though it and the editor adds his two cents worth. What evidently happened is the source of the entire quote is wrong,
Which quote? I asked about two different ones. From your comments it appears that you're talking about the "ape-man" and "proof" references. I'll assume that this is the case.
: not the quote, as I could not find it in the article cited anywhere (if you find it please let me know). Where the error happened I can not at this date determine. I checked my original manuscript and the controversial quote is not there. As I have close to 600 articles, one who goes though each one will find mistakes such as this one. I have, when revising my own articles, found several myself. Part of the problem is we have had several typists at the college (some excellent, others far less accurate). I always check everything carefully, but sometimes mistakes slip by. I used to have graduate students do this work (a very common practice) and some of them were not very good (I could check their work, but than I may as well just do it myself). A typo (which is all that has been shown to have occurred) is quite different than trying to mislead someone as claimed. The quote adds nothing to the paper, and I can send you the original to verify this.
I'd like to take you up on this. I must say, though, that it's hard to understand how a substantial insertion like this could occur. It's as if someone else, rather than you, were writing the article. I've had others type up material for me, and so it's entirely understandable when small typos occur. But for such a big insertion, it seems to me that someone would have had to deliberately alter your material so as to make you say what you had no intention of saying. Did that occur here?
: The charge against me is slanderous and not accurate. How can one condone this? I commonly find errors in papers that I review and we do not go around accusing the authors of dishonesty, but, at the most, carelessness. One new study found that reference "misprints" are fairly common in the scientific literature (Simkin et al. New Scientist Dec. 14 2002. reviews the article). From what I have read, my reference misprints are below average (but not perfect).
Fair enough. Then let me ask you directly: Do you agree that Osborn did not refer to "Nebraska Man" as an "ape-man" and that he did not say that this 'discovery' was "proof that some primitive humans lived in America"?
: As to "Evolution and racism are the same thing," my papers on this are over 100 pages long so there is no way I can respond here. All I can do is send the papers as my response.
I would appreciate that. Please email me if you want my address.
: Briefly, the key to Darwinism is selection, and for selection to occur there must be biological differences that effect survival. If all humans were equal, selection would not be able to operate except randomly. Darwin and his followers were very clear on this as I show in my work. The subtitle of Darwin's 1859 work was "or the preservation of the favored races in the struggle for life" an idea that he later applied to humans.
I suppose I'll have to read your entire set of papers, but when Darwin spoke of "races" in this context he was certainly talking about what we today call "species". I don't know what he later wrote about race with respect to humans, but whatever he wrote, it is of little importance with respect to modern notions of evolution. The best one can say is that one could argue that Darwin's ideas might be used as a basis for racism -- not a very sparkling conclusion. One could equally argue that the Bible is a basis for racism and slavery. History shows that plenty of self-procaimed Christians have done exactly that.
The point is that reducing a complex theory to a simplistic phrase like "evolution and racism are the same thing" is just as misleading and a misrepresentation of the facts as reducing Christianity to a simplistic phrase like "Christianity and human slavery are the same thing". Do you not agree?
Just to keep our discussion absolutely clear, do you now agree with the statement, "Evolution and racism are the same thing"? Briefly, why or why not?
AlanF
-
Gary1914
Jerry,
If I said the heart pumps blood, and you said that is your opinion, I could prove it to you by experiment if you were willing to look into it. The key is provable fact, not opinion.
The problem with your example is that the heart is a tangible object, thereby lending itself to experimentation to determine its true functions. Most religious beliefs are based on faith, speculation and heresay, none of which can be proved, scientifically or othewise.
For instance, you can probably prove scientifically that Jesus was a man, a Jew and walked the earth. So what? Was he really the son of God? Is there a scientific experiment that can prove that?
-
donkey
Jerry,
Thanks for your gracious reply. I sincerely appreciate it and at the same time apologise for my harsh tone in response to your first set of posts.
I tend to agree with the view point Alan articulated that having editorial changes or typo corrections is entirely different than what I read with regard to the quotes I posted. Are we willing to give the WT the same "out" and let them say that their errors and omissions fall in the same category?
Further, I respect your education - jealously so to be frank with you. But it is frustrating to me that you have that education, work as a scientist and yet you flittingly disregard the requirements of evidence in reaching your conclusions about God. Would you care to explain these and specifically why you picked Christianity.
Funnily enough in a way I do agree with you that SOME of the xJWs might have been better off as witnesses. Why is that? Is it because we know some JW's who treat us better than some of the xJWs have done? As far as my parents go I hope they stay JW's till the end because the consequences to them if they knew the truth about the "truth". I met with someone today and we were talking about religion and I told him that I have nothing better to offer him than his religion does, except that I feel no guilt from sin, live my life without considering what some mythical creator thinks, and I have lot more time to wrap myself into doing what I want to. On the other hand he has a hope for the future - I don't. If I sincerely believed in a hope (even if it was false) would I want it? Honestly, I don't know the answer to that.
Jack
-
Jerry Bergman
Yes I am talking about the "ape-man" and "proof" references. A "substantial insertion" did not occur. What happened is the correct reference was garbled and I cannot find it now! I have no reason to believe that the quote is wrong, but I have not bothered to look for it because it is a secondary source and not needed. I just quoted Osborn himself! Osborn referred to "Nebraska Man" as more than an "ape-man" but as a man-ape (stressing the man) and he did say that this 'discovery' was "proof that some primitive humans lived in America" in numerous places. One quote is from The Forum (Vol. 73 Je 1925 page 801) where he said Hesperopithecus was "irrefutable evidence that the man-apes wondered over from Asia into North America" I am sure I could find a dozed other quotes (and I noted several when glancing over my file of his articles) but it is getting late and I plan to do a whole paper on this (it is an example of what I have seen over and over)
I suppose I'll have to read your entire set of papers, but when Darwin spoke of "races" in this context he was certainly talking about what we today call "species". I don't know what he later wrote about race with respect to humans, (he wrote enough to cause big problems!!)but whatever he wrote, it is of little importance with respect to modern notions of evolution. (not true at all) The best one can say is that one could argue that Darwin's ideas might be used as a basis for racism -- not a very sparkling conclusion. (Much more than a basis) One could equally argue that the Bible is a basis for racism and slavery. History shows that plenty of self-proclaimed Christians have done exactly that. (Sure have!! And they should be called on the carpet for this!!) I need to send you my papers on this.
The point is that reducing a complex theory to a simplistic phrase like "evolution and racism are the same thing" is just as misleading and a misrepresentation of the facts as reducing Christianity to a simplistic phrase like "Christianity and human slavery are the same thing". Do you not agree? Yes and No. As I do more research my conclusion has become stronger! Simplistic phrases, though, can mislead
Just to keep our discussion absolutely clear, do you now agree with the statement, "Evolution and racism are the same thing"? Briefly, why or why not? Both deal with selection based on superior inferior concerns and judgments
-
Jerry Bergman
Donkey Thank you for your very gracious reply! I responded to some of your concerns but will respond more if you feel helpful. Also could you please please tell me where you found the section critical about my article on hesperopithicus? I would like to use it in an article but need the source (and do not want to get caught using the wrong source again!!!!!!) More later.
-
donkey
Jerry,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/misquotes.html is the link.
Do you have some way for me to contact you?