Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-15-2018 5:43 PM
215 online now:
Meddle, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle, Tanypteryx (5 members, 210 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 842,007 Year: 16,830/29,783 Month: 818/1,956 Week: 321/331 Day: 49/50 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
91011Next
Author Topic:   Why Only Creationism So Politicized?
mark24
Member (Idle past 3145 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 106 of 153 (72505)
12-12-2003 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Syamsu
12-12-2003 10:22 AM


Re: You Can Lead a Corpse to Water
Syamsu,

Again, the evidence I have provided earlier should be satisfactory.

You have pointed to whole scientific disciplines, but not provided any evidence as to specifically how they are being political. You have cited books, but failed to show exactlywhere the scientists are politicising. In fact, you haven't provided a single specific instance of scientists politicising whilst doing science.

Not one.

I find that most unsatisfactory, don't you?

At this point of weakness who of you will be able to resist rationializing your own personality in terms of selfish genes.... I come from the savanah..., that is who I am... that's what I am optimized for... I am born selfish, I must overcome my innate selfishness...

Thus proving you haven't understood the view Dawkins was attempting to expound. In fact, I doubt you've actually even read the Selfish Gene all the way through.

Does the word "altruism" mean anything to you? The explanation of that word was a large part of the point of the Selfish Gene.

Mark

------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-12-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Syamsu, posted 12-12-2003 10:22 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Syamsu, posted 12-12-2003 7:57 PM mark24 has responded

    
PE's been savaged
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 153 (72560)
12-12-2003 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by MrHambre
12-11-2003 6:05 AM


Re: You Can Lead a Corpse to Water
Let's not forget the merely passing familiarity he demonstrates with Richard Dawkins's Selfish Gene. Despite the fact he considers the work one of the cornerstones of technical biological literature and evolutionary theory, he's never read past the title. That's why he asserts that Dawkins (and therefore evolutionary theory in general) believes people are 'born selfish' since they have this 'selfishness gene.' Even if you tried to explain to him Dawkins's admittedly reductionist but useful metaphor of genes using organisms for their own propagation, you'd get nowhere. Just ask zephyr and Primordial Egg.

If memory serves me correctly, Syamsu was talking about the sort of people who might confuse an is with an ought (he'll sometimes refer to these people as "psychologists" or "paediatricians"), and never really admitting he was one of those very people.

I stopped debating him because it didn't look like he was reading my posts. I'm incredibly impressed with Mark and Mammuthus's persistence to be honest.

PE (BS)

------------------
This is Primordial Egg having to operate under a different name due to an unfortunate posting injury. This id will buthcered once I get my old one back


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by MrHambre, posted 12-11-2003 6:05 AM MrHambre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by NosyNed, posted 12-12-2003 3:15 PM PE's been savaged has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8811
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 108 of 153 (72562)
12-12-2003 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by PE's been savaged
12-12-2003 3:11 PM


Misplaced Persistance
I'm incredibly impressed with Mark and Mammuthus's persistence to be honest.

Myself, I'm not impressed. It is misplaced persistance. Syamsu is on my ignore list as he is a complete waste of time. He runs if you try to get a clear answer to a question (as has been noted by others). Why bother?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by PE's been savaged, posted 12-12-2003 3:11 PM PE's been savaged has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by PE's been savaged, posted 12-12-2003 3:24 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
PE's been savaged
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 153 (72564)
12-12-2003 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by NosyNed
12-12-2003 3:15 PM


Re: Misplaced Persistance
Why bother?

I'd love to know what was going on inside his head. Like most (note: not all) creationists, I think, he genuinely does think he's giving full and proper answers to questions, not being wilfully evasive.

The fact that he doesn't ever provide a single piece of evidence to back up any of his claims is insightful though.

(Guess this is OT though, don't want to derail the thread- I feel like a marked man after my resurrection).

PE (BS)

------------------
This is Primordial Egg having to operate under a different name due to an unfortunate posting injury. This id will butchered once I get my old one back


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by NosyNed, posted 12-12-2003 3:15 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3540 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 110 of 153 (72599)
12-12-2003 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by mark24
12-12-2003 11:00 AM


Re: You Can Lead a Corpse to Water
"We are born selfish" (Richard Dawkins, preface The Selfish Gene)

Of course those that make the ridiculous statement that I have not provided a single piece of evidence, are believers in the naturalistic fallacy, which makes any evidence to the point at issue an impossibility.

The rise of pseudobiological racism is inconceivable without the intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the Darwinian revolution. (Klaus Fischer, talk.origins)

There was considerable cross-fertilization of racial ideas between very respected academics on the one hand, and racial popularizers on the other. (Klaus Fischer: Nazi Germany, A new history)

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by mark24, posted 12-12-2003 11:00 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by PE's been savaged, posted 12-12-2003 8:16 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 112 by PE's been savaged, posted 12-12-2003 8:34 PM Syamsu has responded
 Message 113 by mark24, posted 12-13-2003 7:58 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
PE's been savaged
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 153 (72604)
12-12-2003 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Syamsu
12-12-2003 7:57 PM


deja vu
Syamsu,

quote:
"We are born selfish" (Richard Dawkins, preface The Selfish Gene)

We discussed this at length already - you might remember (this post?)

Remember, in that post, the entire preface of The Selfish Gene was linked to and in particular I higlighted:

This brings me to the first point I want to make about what this book is not. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. I stress this, because I know I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all toll numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case. My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true. This book is mainly intended to be interesting, but if you would extract a moral from it, read it as a warning. Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to.

You've taken less than a sentence out of the preface to imply a moral imperative which was the exact opposite of what Dawkins was saying. And you knew this was the opposite of what Dawkins was saying because we'd discussed this to death. Why would you do this?

It is a shame you bring this up again. Makes you look forgetful at best.

PE (BS)

------------------
This is Primordial Egg having to operate under a different name due to an unfortunate posting injury. This id will be butchered once I get my old one back.

[This message has been edited by PE's been savaged, 12-12-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Syamsu, posted 12-12-2003 7:57 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
PE's been savaged
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 153 (72607)
12-12-2003 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Syamsu
12-12-2003 7:57 PM


and another thing
I've just gone through the preface and found the ONLY use of the phrase "we are born selfish" in the preface. It occurs in this sentence:

Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.

Now there are three things worthy of note here:

1) if you had read the preface you have taken out a quote to deliberately distort what Dawkins was saying. This makes you a liar.

2) If you hadn't read the preface, my guess is that you took this phrase from my quote to you as linked to in my last post. This means that you could still read the whole sentence and are therefore a liar.

3) As far as I can tell, your only defence here is to say you didn't read the preface properly. But given that we discussed this at length previously, this too is near impossible to conceive. Which, I'm afraid, makes you a liar.

I don't get it. Why would you be so blatant about it?

PE (BS)

------------------
This is Primordial Egg having to operate under a different name due to an unfortunate posting injury. This id will be butchered once I get my old one back.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Syamsu, posted 12-12-2003 7:57 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Syamsu, posted 12-14-2003 3:36 AM PE's been savaged has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3145 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 113 of 153 (72765)
12-13-2003 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Syamsu
12-12-2003 7:57 PM


Re: You Can Lead a Corpse to Water
Syamsu,

"We are born selfish" (Richard Dawkins, preface The Selfish Gene)

I have the preface to hand for both editions & that quote is in neither, as far as I can see.

It hardly matters, of course, since Dawkins went to great length to show how altruistic behaviour can arise from selfish genes in chapters 6,7,8,9,10,12, & 13 of the Selfish Gene. But you'd know that having familiarised yourself with his works. In fact, this shows categorically that the "We are born selfish" quote is out of context.

Of course those that make the ridiculous statement that I have not provided a single piece of evidence, are believers in the naturalistic fallacy, which makes any evidence to the point at issue an impossibility.

What are you waffling about?

The rise of pseudobiological racism is inconceivable without the intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the Darwinian revolution. (Klaus Fischer, talk.origins)

So what? Once again it isn't biology promoting that racism. Failed again - Doh!

There was considerable cross-fertilization of racial ideas between very respected academics on the one hand, and racial popularizers on the other. (Klaus Fischer: Nazi Germany, A new history)

Again, so what? What's wrong with trying to determine the scientific validity of race? Not political. Failed again - Doh! And Nazi Germany isn't recent, is it? How quickly you forget you are supposed to be furnishing us with RECENT examples of biologists promoting politics. So far not a single example.

Not one.

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Syamsu, posted 12-12-2003 7:57 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3540 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 114 of 153 (72809)
12-14-2003 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by PE's been savaged
12-12-2003 8:34 PM


Re: and another thing
But, I'm not lying at all, Dawkins did say that "we are born selfish" AS SOME KIND OF SCIENCE FINDING. The context of referring to altruism makes it worse of course, because you might have argued that Dawkins uses the word selfish technically, distinct from the colloquial usage of selfishness. However by referring to altruism as a moral imperative in the context, Dawkins conflates the technical usage of selfishness with the colloquial usage.

I think in physics they use the word charm to denote the state of a quark. However this usage of charm is clearly distinct from the colloquial usage of charm. You don't see physicists relating the technical usage of charm, to the colloquial usage of charm, like Dawkins relates "selfishness" to selfishness.

There is a long and continuous history of evpolutionism being linked to politics, and ALL historians I've read so far, recognize this link. Which means that I believe none of you have ever read any history about the subject....

IMO this link is the reason that creationism is also much political. Creationism, in it's modern popularity like with the ICR, is a reaction against the deceitful politics associated to evolutionism, or to Natural Selection specifically. For this reason, in the creation vs evolution controversy, evolutionists are generally evil, and creationists are generally good.

Now why don't you go critize the talk.origins faq I referred to earlier, which is the real piece of lies, not my postings.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by PE's been savaged, posted 12-12-2003 8:34 PM PE's been savaged has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by mark24, posted 12-14-2003 6:41 AM Syamsu has responded
 Message 127 by Dr Jack, posted 12-15-2003 7:19 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3145 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 115 of 153 (72813)
12-14-2003 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Syamsu
12-14-2003 3:36 AM


Re: and another thing
Syamsu,

But, I'm not lying at all, Dawkins did say that "we are born selfish" AS SOME KIND OF SCIENCE FINDING.

Once again, "It hardly matters, of course, since Dawkins went to great length to show how altruistic behaviour can arise from selfish genes in chapters 6,7,8,9,10,12, & 13 of the Selfish Gene. But you'd know that having familiarised yourself with his works. In fact, this shows categorically that the "We are born selfish" quote is out of context."

Dawkins was not making an absolute statement at the exclusion of altruistic behaviours. What is clear from anyone who has read Dawkins is that he expounds the idea that it is genes that appear to act selfishly. The organisms that are the result of those genes may or may not act selfishly.

We are born selfish, we are also born altruistic. Dawkins didn't say anything untrue at all, he just didn't make a statement exclusive of altruism. How is it possible for someone to have read the Selfish Gene not to understand that? You really do make a fool of yourself, Syamsu. Does the word "context" mean nothing to you? You are engaged in a classic creationist misrepresentation, see chapters 6,7,8,9,10,12, & 13 of the Selfish Gene for details of your gross error.

There is a long and continuous history of evpolutionism being linked to politics, and ALL historians I've read so far, recognize this link. Which means that I believe none of you have ever read any history about the subject....

This is NOT what is under discussion. You are claiming that evolutionary theory itself is political. I would agree that there are plenty of people who have attempted to support their ideas with evolution, it's not in contention, but this is a comment on them, not evolutionary theory.

Mark

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-14-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Syamsu, posted 12-14-2003 3:36 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Syamsu, posted 12-14-2003 8:13 AM mark24 has responded

    
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3540 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 116 of 153 (72819)
12-14-2003 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by mark24
12-14-2003 6:41 AM


Re: and another thing
Once again, your reading of "The Selfish Gene" is simply false. Selfish genes normally give rise to selfish behaviour on the individual level, and BY EXCEPTION do they give rise to altruistic behaviour on the individual level. Since it is just an exception, this allows Dawkins to say that "we are born selfish" as generally true.

The point is inconsequential anyway, because it doesn't matter if Dawkins finds we are altruist, or that we are selfish, or that Aryans are altruist, and Jews are selfish, it's all the same fault of conflation.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by mark24, posted 12-14-2003 6:41 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Syamsu, posted 12-14-2003 11:54 AM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 119 by mark24, posted 12-14-2003 1:26 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3540 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 117 of 153 (72840)
12-14-2003 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Syamsu
12-14-2003 8:13 AM


Re: and another thing
Here's some historians work touching on the politization of evolutionary biology conveniently available online.

THE SCIENTIFIC ORIGINS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Gasman.htm

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Syamsu, posted 12-14-2003 8:13 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 12:19 PM Syamsu has responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8811
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 118 of 153 (72841)
12-14-2003 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Syamsu
12-14-2003 11:54 AM


Racism and Darwin
So what? Is there a religion that hasn't been used to defend racism. Is there anything that hasn't been misused in this way?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Syamsu, posted 12-14-2003 11:54 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Syamsu, posted 12-14-2003 10:16 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 121 by Syamsu, posted 12-14-2003 10:16 PM NosyNed has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3145 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 119 of 153 (72848)
12-14-2003 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Syamsu
12-14-2003 8:13 AM


Re: and another thing
Syamsu,

Once again, your reading of "The Selfish Gene" is simply false. Selfish genes normally give rise to selfish behaviour on the individual level, and BY EXCEPTION do they give rise to altruistic behaviour on the individual level. Since it is just an exception, this allows Dawkins to say that "we are born selfish" as generally true.

I hardly think familial altruism/kin selection is an exception, do you? It's pretty central to human behaviour patterns.

The fact remains that you quoted Dawkins out of context.

You said

Syamsu writes:

At this point of weakness who of you will be able to resist rationializing your own personality in terms of selfish genes.... I come from the savanah..., that is who I am... that's what I am optimized for... I am born selfish, I must overcome my innate selfishness...

You then quoted Dawkins as if he was making an absolutist comment, "we are born selfish" which he patently is not. You then agree that altruistic behaviour exists?

What or who are you arguing with?

The point is inconsequential anyway, because it doesn't matter if Dawkins finds we are altruist, or that we are selfish, or that Aryans are altruist, and Jews are selfish, it's all the same fault of conflation.

Right, so why make an inconsequential point in the first place? I could of told you your "point" in post 104 was pointless, what do you think I've been doing since? And what is being conflated?

OK, time to come up with the goods, Syamsu, you are claiming that evolutionary theory is becoming politicised. Provide shall we say, a cool half a dozen examples of biologists politicising on the strength of evolutionary theory? That's not unreasonable given your claim, is it?

Let me make clear what isn't acceptable, anything older than 20 years, it's supposedly b-e-c-o-m-i-n-g more political, & that means RECENT quotes, right? The other big no-no are non-biologists, or scientists not involved with evolutionary theory. They do NOT represent or embody the current theory. So we're NOT interested in what irrelevant scientists have to say about the ToE, OK?

Mark

------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Syamsu, posted 12-14-2003 8:13 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3540 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 120 of 153 (72890)
12-14-2003 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by NosyNed
12-14-2003 12:19 PM


Re: Racism and Darwin
-deleted doubleposting-

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 12-14-2003]

[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 12-14-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 12:19 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
67
8
91011Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018