Personal religious belief falls outside the scope of evolution, as well as science in a general sense. Testing whether something is sacred is an absurd notion. And yes, a concept that we should al cooperate with each other because we will all gain from it as a species, is as close to the idea that all humans are entitled to certain rights as you’ll be able to get to this belief in scientific terms.

How can something be a pseudoscience when the whole scientific establishment accepts it?

Scientific establishments change over time. And the “convincing” arguments Sewell makes is due to his distortions of political and social histories. He and his fans are seemingly unaware of 19th century creationists and evolution curriculums worded as the prototypes of today’s Intelligent Design handbooks, arguing that Darwin’s theory was taught as orthodoxy since it was published, something we know to be a serious corruption of well documented history.

Evolved moral sentiments offer an inadequate foundation for a system of universal human rights, or for minorities to assert their rights against a tyrannical majority.

That is a really bad quote if you wanted to show Sewell as a profound thinker or any sort of serious debater. It rests entirely on proof by assertion, i.e., he said it so it has to be true. In reality, the idea that all of us carry advantageous genes and should be mixing them as much as possible to accelerate our evolution and breed out disease or genetic conditions afflicting inbred populations fantasizing themselves to be some kind of “superior race” is pretty much the biological justification for universal human rights. If you read some of the links, you would’ve seen this explained in great detail already, several times. But than again, I understand. Research is hard work. Being a defender of a loudmouth pundit trying to make a few quid on appeasing creationists by dragging Darwin’s name through the mud, only requires enough time to copy two quotes and throw out a few indignant grumbles.

“Does he not know that natural selection would actually dictate that we’d have a vested interest in working with each other for our mutual benefit so we can survive and spread our genes? This is one of those collections of words which are supposed to mean something profound, but end up making vacuous, nonsensical statements.”

Your the one making vacuous nonsensical statements here. Because the idea of cooperating with the other beneficial members of a society for mutual benefit is a long shot from believing that ALL human life is sacred and entitled to certain rights.

Sewell goes to great and convincing lengths to demonstrate that the things he mentions were not pseudosciences at the time. How can something be a pseudoscience when the whole scientific establishment accepts it? By that standard, all science is potentially pseudoscience, since much of it will one day be discredited at least in part in favor of something better.

Here’s a quote to chew on:

“The Darwinist ideology simply cannot supply the moral and ethical basis for a democracy we want to live in. Evolved moral sentiments offer an inadequate foundation for a system of universal human rights, or for minorities to assert their rights against a tyrannical majority. They cannot supply the demands of justice; and can provide no grounding for human dignity in the face of runaway genetic technology. A little altruism here, a touch of reciprocity there and the odd example of cooperation for good measure is not enough when there is no compelling reason why the strong should not oppress the weak for their own satisfaction or amusement.”

-The Political Gene, pg. 234

Accounts of Darwin do declare inherent racism as part of his ethos, just as a thorough reading of the New Testament will reveal Jesus rebuking a Canaanite woman pleading for healing. These are posturings of era & must be examined in their full social context. Likewise the inherrant nature of some of the human species will channel effort into destructive, selfish behaviour & use religious or other beliefe system dogma & or scientific theory & discovery to advance their actions; just as ethical science or much religious or other belief systems will foster altruistic thought & deeds. Evolution & time will decide if a particular strand of this existential behaviour will become predominant within the human species or whether it will be an ongoing battle.

Free discussion & opinion are championed within democratic society & the battle of ideas is another part of the evolutionary lineage. Surely what really matters is unbiased truth – proof.

Most people (in US and Europe) today believe in theistic evolution. It just means that there’s no necessary clash between evolution and religion.

Thank you for adding the emphasis on what you wanted the link to say rather than actually reading a little further in the sentence and noting that what was being taught was Theistic evolution, which was creationism sprinkled with some science, aka intelligent design. A deity manipulating living things so they evolve into humans was not Darwin’s theory. It was a socially acceptable mashup of the times and one that today’s creationists want to be taught in the classroom.

You don’t get to pick out the snippet you want, then declare that it proves your point.

Time and again I have tried to correct you on this, but all you do is resort to insult.

Right. Because it was me who compared you to a Holocaust denialist and told you to grow up, all the while proclaiming how it was my job to keep scientists honest and accountable in my position as the Overlord of all Science.

And your behavior is not at all strange. Anyone would engage in a daily debate on a little random blog on the web pointing out that a specific pundit from the UK said that Darwin inspired homicidal maniacs and how stupid and transparently commercial it was. Just read the column and the interview. It’s there in black and white.

…complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

vise

Theistic evolution…there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution)

Which was mostly likely taught after the theory of evolution was broadly accepted… (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education#Early_law)

If I have been of no help, I shall gladly stand back and continue to watch the fireworks!

PS. I’m on my work computer which hates me…so I can’t hyperlink, sorry :(

I think it is you who has the reading difficulty.

The link you provide says exactly what I have been saying all along – that from shortly after Darwin published the Origin of Species onwards evolution was taught in US public schools.

Here’s the quote:

With the widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution in the 1860s after being first introduced in 1859….. public schools began to teach science that was reconciled with Christianity by most people, but considered by a number of early fundamentalists to be directly at odds with the Bible.

i.e. evolution was taught in US schools from the 1860s.

So, by the time of Scopes (1925), evolution had been taught in US public schools for well over fifty years. Yet you argued that the US public were ’stunned’ by the idea of teaching evolution in schools in 1925. Time and again I have tried to correct you on this, but all you do is resort to insult.

Will you now please accept that in 1925 teaching evolution was the norm in US schools and that creationist attempts to ban it were the exception rather than the rule?

I am not a shill for any author or publisher. I was drawn to this subject because I have a professional involvement in medical and science policy and in social responsibility in medicine and science.

Are you telling me that because I go by what a reference says and you make loud and absolute proclamations citing the voices in your head when you disagree, accusing me of lying in your hysterics, I should be compared to a Holocaust denier?

You’re either a paid shill for Sewell’s publisher, an overly passionate imbecile with no reading comprehension, or both. I’m leaning towards the last option at this point.

Again, if you bothered to actually do anything but spout off once in a while, you would find a brief history of how evolution was taught in the U.S. and the fact that the Butler Act rose out of the dispute between scientists and creationists and that evolution was not taught as an orthodoxy as per your claim. At this point, my humble advice would be stop making a rabid fool of yourself sooner rather than later.