Syamsu's Objection to Natural Selection...

Syamsu, Sure, it doesn't make it right, & it isn't sciences fault that people derive morality from a device that simply seeks to provide explanations. It is an inappropriate extension of science to do so.Do you think it's right that Hitler should exterminate a race on the basis of NS? If not, then you agree with me, non? Like I say, an inapropriate extension, & as Schraf points out, people generally just jump on the bandwagon to support ideas they already possess so they can claim their ideas are scientifically supported.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

The evidence that they get confused is by my own experience, which I see reflected in Hollywood movies and the like that talk about Natural Selection in passing. I hope you're not going to bring up that layman-professional scientist distinction again, since Darwinist professional scientists are among the worst for confusing it, like Konrad Lorenz.Mendel wrote in the same timeperiod, and he wrote a lot differently then Darwin, so that argument is wrong also. There is more formalism now, but still the main influential works are proza, like Dawkins selfish gene, or Gould's books. Can you name me a single Darwinist paper which is regarded as influential within the science of Darwinism?You yourself suggested that racism comes from a biological instinct of xenophobia. That is what I mean by monopolizing morality. Children should then be taught to overcome this inborn xenophobia, etc. you can make an ethics teaching program from it that is basically indistinguishable from religion.Your last point is just invalidating basic biology, where this variation is not mentioned at all.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

I guess you are saying what you think ought, and I'm describing real psychology, and real Darwinism.

---

Well, my husband, and several of our frineds, are "real" research Psychologists, and accept the ToE, and none of them talk about any of this in their work, nor have they or I ever encountered anything like you describe in any professional work of any reputable scientist.Unless you would like to show me with citations the this alleged widespread attitude that you seem so certain exists among thousands and thousands of Psyuchologists and Biologists, and indeed all life sciences, then you probably aught to give it up.You have no evidence, Syamsu, that scientists regularly use the ToE in the social and political way you describe.

quote:

---

But then it's not very clear if you think science ought to be free of valuejudgement,

---

It's not too clear????I just said that "science doesn't ever proscribe morality. NEVER."

quote:

---

because you don't protest too loudly about Darwin's bible "The Descent of Man", in which you can read such things as who you should marry, what the highest state of morality is for a person, why we shouldn't kill inferiors except in special circumstances etc.

---

As it has been explained to you at least one hundered times by now, current Evolutionary theory does not include all of the conversaitional, loos writings of Darwin. He wrote at a time before science was formalized and professionalized.His personal views are not part of current theory. Period.You will not find his comments on who to marry in current theory.You will not find any mention about states of morality in current theory.You will not find anything about killing inferiors in current theory.Show me that these things are prevelant in current evolutionary work, if you don't believe me.

quote:

---

Were people abusing science when they derived support for theology about human rights from gravity theory? I don't think so.

---

What the hell are you talking about?What is "human rights theology"?What kind of support was derived from gravitational theory to support any theology?

quote:

---

So you see it's not a question of abuse, people are free to derive morality from science if they wish,

---

Yes, people are free to derive morality from anything they like.The point I am trying to get you to understand is that no scientific theory, including the Theory of Evolution, contains within it any proscription for behavior or moral judgements.If people take moral messages away from a scientific theory, like you seem to have, then they have left the scientific arena completely.Science does not address morality, nor ethics, nor aesthetics.

quote:

---

it's just that with Darwinism unlike with Gravitation the morality is forced upon them, in the ways as explained before.

---

How is the descision someone makes about how to apply a non-moral, purely biological description in a moral way (a way which is unintended by the originatior) "forced" upon them?

quote:

---

The idea that the "science" of evolutionary psychology, which is the latest application of Darwinist and especially selfis gene ideas applied to people, is free from racism, sexism or politics, is completely naive.

---

I have pointed out your misunderstanding of what Evolutionary Psychology is before, Syamsu, but you apparently did not absorb that information.http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/evpsychfaq.html(emphasis added)

quote:

---

Edward H. Hagen, Institute for Theoretical Biology, Berlin

​

Is evolutionary psychology a form of Social Darwinism?

​

No! As explained above in the section on racism, the evolutionary psychology theoretical framework strongly suggests that all individuals possess essentially identical adaptations, cognitive or otherwise. However, social hierarchies appear to be ubiquitous in both human and non-human social groups. How do they arise if all individuals possess the same capabilities? These capabilities can be degraded or enhanced by age, sex, access to social and material resources, injury, disease, birth defects, etc.--the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. The fact that social hierarchies exist, and that evolutionary theory may help explain why, in no way justifies their existence, nor does it validate any particular ranking of individuals. Evolutionary psychology is not a moral framework! It is a framework for understanding human nature.

---

Well handily the majority of people aren't called upon to work in evolutionary biology, which is just as well if they are going to keep making subjective value judgements about the fitness of a flask of E. coli. You just seem to be reiterating the point that a lot of people misunderstand the implications of evolutionary theory. I think the instances of moralistic darwinist demagogues are sparse on the ground, certainly compared to the fact that there is someone in practically every church on the planet prepared to lay down the law about what is and what isn't moral. Certainly Darwinist will hold their own personal views on morality but it is by no means commonplace for them to preach about it, except perhaps on discusion boards.

Many of the pinoneers in psychology were Social Darwinists, and they mixed the Social Darwinism with psychology. Anyway, your screechings have no value for further discussion.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Do you think it's right that Darwin in "Descent of Man" talks about belief in an all seeing and knowing being helping to lift morality higher in times past? Is that science?Actually I think the rest of science is pretty dissatisfied with the standard of objectivity in Darwinism as well, not just creationists.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well maybe Konrad Lorenz, Ernst Haeckel, and Charles Darwin were better left out of evolutionary biology as well then if you argue like that. Darwinist demagogues are commonplace.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Actually I find Syamsu , and many other creationists, to have a fatal flaw in that they rely selectively on older work that supports their claims.

---

That's all I was really getting at.

quote:

---

You yourself suggested that racism comes from a biological instinct of xenophobia. That is what I mean by monopolizing morality. Children should then be taught to overcome this inborn xenophobia, etc. you can make an ethics teaching program from it that is basically indistinguishable from religion.

---

You can, but religions are amongst the most xenophobic
social structures on the planet, and can be the basis for
racism (like the anti-semitic nature of Nazism).Xenophobia is not about what is 'different' but what is 'foreign'
(in the sense of not-of-one's-own-group rather than of a
different nationality).

quote:

---

The evidence that they get confused is by my own experience, which I see reflected in Hollywood movies and the like that talk about Natural Selection in passing.

---

This is your opinion, and not necessarily actually there -- perhaps
you could elaborate with specific examples.I wasn't, by the way, going to mention laymen-professional
distinctions, since we are discussing the effect of Darwinian
evolutionary theory on the popular consciousness this would be
inapproriate.

quote:

---

Your last point is just invalidating basic biology, where this variation is not mentioned at all.

---

ToE is a part of basic biology -- and it talks about variation
all the time.Mendel's work (ancient as it is) talks specifically about
variation and proposes mechanisms for it.Genetics is the study of genomes and mentions variation.You are avoiding the question -- again. One must conclude that
you do not have an answer to it.

quote:

---

Can you name me a single Darwinist paper which is regarded as influential within the science of Darwinism?

---

If by Darwinist you mean evolutionary then there are whole
journals dedictaed to evolutionary research!!!!Because you have not read them, doesn't mean they don't
exist. I am beginning to beleive that you have not read
much beyond popular press and antiquated texts.Darwin's work is important for the vision -- we all know it is
prosaic and filter accordingly.

Wow, three names, I'm impressed, that certainly seems like a monopoly to me and no mistake. What were Darwin's ten commandments again?

Perhaps Syamsu could once and for all tell us what this 'basic biology' he keeps talking about is. It obviously doesn't include evolution, ecology, genetics or immunology. I guess it must be gross anatomy and physiology mostly.

Ah so then evolutionary ethics teaching would be less xenophobic then the established religions? I think not, and I should only have to point to history of Social Darwinism to substantiate that there is no apparent reason to believe that.Kevin McDonald up until recently was a respected evolutionary psychologist, who had some thesis about Judaism as a eugenic religion. He was respected until he testified on behalf of a holocaust denier about some things. People couldn't actually tell from his work if it was scientific or not, they had to have the added information that he testified for a holocaust denier, after which it was quickly dispatched as pseudoscience.The Fight Club has some mention of Natural Selection. Actually I should ask you what movie doesn't have an explicit or implicit mention of Darwinism. It's very common.I read on the evolutionary psychology website, among continuos denials that it proscribes morality, that the "folk" notions of selfishness, correspond with evolutionary psychologist notions of selfishness, but that evolutionary psycholigists concept of selfishness applies more broadly, also to hair, and arms and the like.I'm talking about a Darwinist paper that is influential which could replace the works of proza in providing fundamental understanding of Natural Selection.Again, variation is either not mentioned at all, or it is mentioned differently then Darwinist variation in basic biology about any organism. It's of course ludicrous that biologists should have to refer to variants all the time. They don't.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Hmmm why am I not surprised that Symansu's solid evidence for his position is the movie Fight Club? And do you take your ethics cues from Ace Ventura Pet Detective or Debbie Does Dallas?

quote:

---

Again, variation is either not mentioned at all, or it is mentioned differently then Darwinist variation in basic biology about any organism. It's of course ludicrous that biologists should have to refer to variants all the time. They don't.

---

Can you substantiate this quote since you claim to know this for a fact? I mean some of us here are biologists and know hundreds of others and have never heard any of them stating anything remotely similar to your "standard definitions"...so please provide a list of a hundred or so biologists (that are actually alive now) and what they have to say about evolution.

quote:

---

Ah so then evolutionary ethics teaching would be less xenophobic then the established religions? I think not, and I should only have to point to history of Social Darwinism to substantiate that there is no apparent reason to believe that.

---

I never said that it would. I was simply refuting your claim that
religous teachings were a means of eradicating racism. I'll point
again to the God-fearing south of the good-ole US of A.Teach our children that differences don't matter much in
inter-personal dealings and perhaps we'll get somewhere.

quote:

---

Kevin McDonald up until recently was a respected evolutionary psychologist, who had some thesis about Judaism as a eugenic religion. He was respected until he testified on behalf of a holocaust denier about some things. People couldn't actually tell from his work if it was scientific or not, they had to have the added information that he testified for a holocaust denier, after which it was quickly dispatched as pseudoscience

---

Never heard of him. Was it discounted on scientific or political
grounds though?

quote:

---

The Fight Club has some mention of Natural Selection. Actually I should ask you what movie doesn't have an explicit or implicit mention of Darwinism. It's very common.

---

Once Upon a Time in The West, The Wild Bunch, The Public Enemy,
The Roaring Twenties, The African Queen, Citizen Kane, Singin' in
the Rain, The Wizard of Oz, Ben Hur, The Adventures of Robin Hood,
Jumanji, Love and Death, Bananas, A Funny Thing Happened on the
Way to the Forum, The General, Way Out West, The Tall T,
The Searchers, El Dorado, Spider-man, Star Wars, The Greatest
Story Ever Told, King of Kings, The Bible:In the Beginning, Quo Vadis,
....

quote:

---

Again, variation is either not mentioned at all, or it is mentioned differently then Darwinist variation in basic biology about any organism. It's of course ludicrous that biologists should have to refer to variants all the time. They don't.

---

That's because the branches of biology to which you are referring
are looking for GENERAL relationships!!!They are deliberately filtering out variation to look at the norm.The question you are avoiding is:If natural selection is a description of nature how can one
justfy leaving out a part of that description? (At least when
describing a relevant aspect of nature).

I think life would be somewhat different if we were to take our ethical queues from Debbie Does Dallas (also I doubt that there is
much mention of Darwinism in that particular work)