Syamsu's Objection to Natural Selection...

Actually it's you have been doing the painting, my arguments are quite specific.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

All right, let's get serious.How about addressing how fundamentalist "seige mentality" thinking - where the fundamentalist religion reinforces the idea that the followers are involved in the earthly "front" of a spiritual war - justifies drastically immoral behavior as a "wartime necessity"? I mean, if you think you're at war with the Devil, killing a few hundred kids is easy to write off as "collateral damage", especially if they were probably going to go to hell anyway.

...I have neither been painting (can't draw a straight line ) nor are your arguments specific...in fact the contradictory tripe you have been spewing here is more like stream of consciousness than debate.So Mr. specific argumentation guy...you going to specifically show us how religious inspired mass murder has never occurred as this seems to be a part of what you are implying i.e. that naturalism = mass murder and religion = peace and good will.

How do you get from relating behavioural trends back to
evolutionary 'history' to racism & sexism?

quote:

---

A very large part of the website you refer to consists of denying that evolutionary psychology proscribes morality, with chapter titles such as "Is evolutionary pscyhology racist?", "Is evolutionary psychology sexist?". Why do you think that all that denying is there?

---

Because people like you automatically misunderstand what Evolutionary Psychology is all about, naturally.

quote:

---

Is it because that "psychological adaptations for aggression correspond to our folk notions of 'selfishness.",

---

Yes, exactly.From the website:http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/selfish.html(emphasis added in bold)

quote:

---

There is a narrow range of psychological adaptations whose properties do correspond to our folk notion of selfishness. When critical resources are limited, organisms which are able to obtain adequate supplies of these resources will out-reproduce those that don't. Obtaining such resources will often involve direct conflict between organisms, such as fighting for food or mates. Genes that code for fighting abilities that would allow organisms possessing those genes to out-compete other organisms for scarce resources will increase in frequency. So, the fact that some resources are limited means that strategies like aggression are likely to evolve in many species. Psychological adaptations for aggression correspond to our folk notions of 'selfishness', but it should be noted that these adaptations evolved by the same process as every other adaptation. The genes underlying these adaptations are no more 'selfish' than are the genes underlying any other adaptation.

---

quoteor is it because of some other reason?[/quote]Like I said above, lots of people will misunderstand, like you have, and these are the kinds of questions they have to answer.

quote:

---

Evolutionary psychology does not actually deal in the selfishness of hair and arms, as far as I'm aware, they focus on behaviour.

---

"Hair and arms" are not "selfish".However, the genes that code for hair and arms might be considered 'selfish' if they outcompete other genes by surviving in a species.

quote:

---

It is actually very common for racist, and sexist propaganda to carry explicit denials that it is racist or sexist. Nazi propoganda, which had a very rationalistic bent, is full of such things.

---

So, even though there is no sexist or racist content in the website, you have determined that is, in fact, racist and sexist.They would have to put a lot of denial and explanations in there if people like you wouldn't intentionally misunderstand and misrepresent things in order to serve your own nutcase agenda.

quote:

---

What they should have done is give a broad overview of the history of the application of Darwinism to psychology,

---

Why?

quote:

---

and then discuss how evolutionary psychology tends to influence people's opinions on things.

---

They have:http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/hate.html
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/...cts/human/epfaq/determinism.html
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/racism.html
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/sexism.html
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/...ts/human/epfaq/sociobiology.html

quote:

---

As it is the website shoves things like nobelprizewinner Konrad Lorenz selecting people in Posen under the carpet, and basically says that if you let your values be influenced by evolutionary psychology, then that's your fault,

---

BINGO!! CORRECT!!! GIVE SYAMSU A PRIZE!!!

quote:

---

and not the fault of evolutionary psychologists porting shoddy racist, sexist pseudoscience.

---

I take back the prize I just gave you.A whole website explaining, in detail and very scientifically and logically, every single possible objection you have about Evolutionary Psychology and you wave it away.

quote:

---

It is simply ludicrous to say that evolutionary pscyhology is free from racism and sexism as some kind of factual statement.

---

All science is free from racism and sexism.The people who conduct science are not free from it, but the scientific method is there to pretty much eliminate bias.

quote:

---

It is an ideal for it to be free of racism and sexism, and evolutionary psychologists and Darwinists generally have made no significant effort to achieve that ideal.

---

Yep, we're all a bunch of racists and sexists, Syamsu. Hunderds of thousands, maybe millions of people, all Nazis and all supporting the killing of eveyone who isn't an Aryan.Anyone ever mentioned "delusions of grandeur" or "delusions of persecution" to you?

I was acquitted! They never proved a... erm. Just ignore that last, okay?

It only seems that way because you use broad strokes, yourself like that, but I don't.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

"All science is free from racism and sexism."You can't make the bad man go away by definining science to be impervious to racism or sexism. You have no argument, get lost or something....regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

In other words (since yours were typically uninteligible)..you concede the point that you cannot substantiate that religion has not been used as a justification for mass murder?...and broad strokes are not required...we could even look at specific denominations or factions of specific religions if you prefer.

She has a great argument.... what you do not have is a clue as to what science is...get one or get lost yourself.[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 07-24-2003]

I see, you support that argument also, well then you obviously have no credibility also.You use the method therefore you are not racist or sexist, you wish.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 07-24-2003]

quote:

---

There was a schoolshooting in the USA some years back where one of the shooters wore a t-shirt with the words "Natural Selection". His personal writing revealed an obsession with the theory.

---

Presumably he was trying to see who in his school was fit enough to withstand bullets?Doesn't sound like a problem with natural selection. Sounds like a problem with an insane kid. Do you think that if he had never heard of NS, he never would have harmed a fly?Reminds me of the recent news story about the kids who dressed up as Neo and Morpheus, and started a shooting spree, saying it was because of the Matrix. The usual parents groups started spouting off about how the Matrix should be kept from children so it doesn't infect any other tragic youngsters.Never mind that the tragic youngsters were a couple of freakin' sociopaths, who would have found any excuse they needed so they could kill some people. If they hadn't seen the movie it would have been something else. Maybe it would have been Jesus. Maybe natural selection. Maybe they would have watched some old reruns of Full House and decided that Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen were commanding them to kill.This kid with the natural selection shirt no more represents the ideas of evolution than the nutcase who got picked up for bombing a gay bar a couple months ago represents the teachings of Christ. They were loonballs who wanted to kill, and they made the logic of their inspiration conform to their desire, not the other way around.[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 07-24-2003]

quote:

---

ou can't make the bad man go away by definining science to be impervious to racism or sexism. You have no argument, get lost or something....

---

The definition is legitimate when you're talking about a method and not people. The question is, can you even attempt to define religion as free of racism and sexism? Racism, maybe (though historically the argument would fall apart); sexism, not likely at all. Besides, if you want to discount arguments by definition, you should probably delete about 90% of your posts here.[This message has been edited by zephyr, 07-24-2003]

Syamsu?Post 197? My serious argument?I await your illogical, one-sentence dismissal.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-24-2003]

quote:

---

You use the method therefore you are not racist or sexist, you wish.

---

No, that's not even close to what I said.A person using the scientific method correctly could, of course, be racist or sexist.Used correctly, good scientific methodology corrects for the personal biases of the humans conducting the research. Even if someone uses poor methodology, other people, when trying to replicate their results, will uncover the poor work.Now, are you going to completely ignore every single point I raise in every single post I construct to reply to your accusations?I think you are a sexist, Syamsu. you hate me because I am a woman. you refuse to answer my points, and it MUST be because you are a horrible religious sexist.