“Despite the fact that social Darwinism bears Darwin's name and his works were widely read by social Darwinists, the theory also draws on the work of many authors, including Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics. Darwin himself gave serious consideration to Galton's work, but thought the ideas of "hereditary improvement" impractical. Aware of weaknesses in his own family, he was sure that families would naturally refuse such selection and wreck the scheme. He thought that even if compulsory registration was the only way to improve the human race, this illiberal idea would be unacceptable, and it would be better to publicize the "principle of inheritance" and let people decide for themselves.[2] In The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex of 1882 he described how medical advances meant that the weaker were able to survive and have families, and commented on the effects of this, while cautioning that hard reason should not override sympathy, and considering how other factors might reduce the effect”

Herbert Spencer's ideas, like those of evolutionary "progressivism", stemmed from his reading of Thomas Malthus, and his later theories were influenced by those of Darwin. However, Spencer's major work, Progress: Its Law and Cause (1857) was released two years before the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, and First Principles was printed in 1860. In regards to social institutions, there is a good case that Spencer's writings might be classified as 'social Darwinism'. He argues that the individual (rather than the collectivity) is the unit of analysis that evolves, that evolution takes place through natural selection, and that it affects social as well as biological phenomena.

In many ways Spencer's theory of "cosmic evolution" has much more in common with the works of Lamarck and Auguste Comte's positivism work than Darwin. Darwin's theory is concerned with populations, whereas Spencer's deals with the way an individual's motives influence humanity. Darwin's theory is probabilistic, i.e., based on changes in the environment that sooner or later influence the change of individuals in a collective sense, but do not have any single, specific goal. Spencer's is deterministic (the evolution of human society is the only logical consequence of its previous stage), fatalistic (it cannot be influenced by human actions), universalistic (social evolution follows a single path, it cannot skip or change any stages) and teleological (there is a final, perfect society that will be eventually reached). Darwin's theory does not equal progress, except in the sense that the new, evolved species will be better suited to their changing environment. Spencer's theory introduces the concept of social progress—the new, evolved society is always better than the past.”

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

“God doesn't exist at all or if he does exist he exists as per these limitations; he is either all-powerful or merciful. However the cannot be both. If God exists, he is ignorant of mankind or doesn't care about him one bit. Even if God existed, he is more evil than good."

“It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God, but to create him.”
“Religion is a byproduct of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity?"

"I do not believe in God, but I do not disbelieve in her either." If anybody can confirm this and provide a date of the interview, please send it in. Thanks.
“Science can destroy a religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the nonexistence of Zeus or Thor, but they have few followers now.”

“I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent.”

“A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets.”
“The statement that God created man in his own image is ticking like a time bomb in the foundations of Christianity.”

“I have encountered a few creationists and because they were usually nice, intelligent people, I have been unable to decide whether they were really mad, or only pretending to be mad. If I was a religious person, I would consider creationism nothing less than blasphemy. Do its adherents imagine that God is a cosmic hoaxer who has created that whole vast fossil record for the sole purpose of misleading mankind?”

The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He's drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

Tonight, University of Wisconsin welcomes professor Richard Dawkins to our campus as part of the Distinguished Lecture Series. Mr. Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, is best known in this country for his best-selling work, “The God Delusion.” I will be attending the lecture tonight, and I whole-heartedly encourage everyone — religious and non-religious people alike — to attend as well.

While Mr. Dawkins is best known as an atheist, I suspect that if you asked him, the word “atheist’” would not be the first term he would use to describe himself. If you get anything from his lecture tonight, I hope you recognize that Mr. Dawkins is not a nihilist, out to promote despair and desolation. “The God Delusion” is an explicit attack on religion, but in his earlier works — “The Blind Watchmaker,” “Climbing Mount Improbable” and especially “Unweaving the Rainbow” — Mr. Dawkins reveals he is most interested in understanding the wonder and majesty of the universe.

Read Full Article (Here).

Evolution moves in fits and starts, shaping species through random genetic mutations that can help them survive or even hasten their death. But although the mutations occur by chance, the process can create surprisingly similar results. Now, in a startling twist, new research has provided an example in which evolution didn’t just result in similar outcomes — it actually repeated itself, occurring the same way twice. Scientists at Rockefeller University and the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center have shown that nearly the exact same mutation occurred twice, in two monkey species that live on opposite sides of the world from each other. And while the change evolved independently in each case, in both species it plays a distinct role in how the animals fend off disease.

What surprised the researchers even more is that TRIMcyp is present in monkey species that evolved on different continents. Pigtail macaques live primarily in Southeast Asia, owl monkeys only in Central and South America. “This indicates that an intuitively unlikely evolutionary event occurred not only once but twice, in two primate species separated by 35 or so million years of evolution,” Bieniasz says. “This is a remarkable example of evolutionary convergence, and it underscores the potent selection pressure that can be applied by retroviruses.” Not only that, but their finding has the potential to guide researchers toward an effective animal model of HIV infection — something the field currently lacks.

He (writes: “Even though the dominant faith - by a massive margin – is Christianity, only 17% thought the influence of religion was beneficial. That is even fewer than those who claim that they believe in a personal God. And yet when we asked which of the main religions was ‘most effective’ in getting its message across, most thought it was Christianity. Only 10% cited Islam compared with 32% who said Christianity.”

In the survey 43% said they never prayed, 31% hardly prayed, and 10% prayed every night. “More than half of those who say they believe in a personal God cannot be bothered to pray to him every night,” writes Humphrys. (Full Article)