Elitism and Nazism

Again my point is similar to that which has already been said by many mainstream evolutionists about "survival of the fittest" and Haeckel's biogenetic law. They are flawed and by their flaw they are conducive to social Darwinism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

("Descent of Man", C. Darwin, from Chapter XXI - General Summary and Conclusion)
"Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his
horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes
to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care. He is
impelled by nearly the same motives as the lower animals, when they
are left to their own free choice, though he is in so far superior
to them that he highly values mental charms and virtues. On the
other hand he is strongly attracted by mere wealth or rank. Yet he
might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution
and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral
qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in
any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of
inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end."
==========I'm sure I have been clear enough about what my argument is already, enlessly repeating it would weaken my argument.The creation vs evolution controversy is essentially political IMO, I count myself as a creationist. For as far as the science of it goes, I'm sure that creation is true as a principle to get something from zero, on the other hand evolution seems still very questionable to me.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The relationship between Darwinism and Social Darwinism is related to the usage of judgemental words in Darwinism, which usage is based on the flaw of having a comparitive theory over an individual one, and this flaw relates to the scientific validity of the theory.Besides, when a theory employs words such as god, or soul for physical properties then you can reject the theory just for that, regardless of content. The usage of selfish and goodness etc. by Darwinists, is questionable in the same way. Wordusage is also a criteria for the scientific validity of a theory.(edited to add: below is a translation of natural selection to star theory. All those words I've seen used in "scientific" Darwinist books)---
Why stars exist.On the origin of variety of stars, by means of Natural Selection
(the mechanism of differential lightintensity success of stars)The origin of the enormous variety in stars, and their extraordinary suitability to emit light into the environment has often been a subject of great scientific interest. Finally Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Darwin shed his own comparitive dimly light on the subject, one of the few great glimmerings in human understanding.First we take two variations of stars and measure their lightintensity. The difference would be for instance 5 units of lightintensity against 3 units.Second, there is no second, this is it, this explains the origin of variety of stars.The difference in goodness of stars in their perfection to emit light succesfully, is what lead to the great variety in stars we see in the sky. The superior stars which are the best, shine more light then the inferior ones. The purpose of a star is to emit light, that is why the star exists. It's every star's sole reason for being. In the ruthless struggle to emit light, stars don't help other, they are selfish. I do not advocate selfishness, it's just a factual observation that Nature made stars selfish.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 09-16-2003][This message has been edited by Syamsu, 09-16-2003][This message has been edited by Syamsu, 09-17-2003]

You are confused. That Darwin chose to make his theory comparitive is not about style, it's about content.The blame for the venacular language which is conducive to judgementalism is spread throughout the Darwinist scientific community, for continuing the style of judgemental language that Darwin started.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It is just to show that Darwinism is a very peculiar discipline within science, employing different standards then for instance in physics.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The flaw is that Natural Selection is comparitive in stead of individual. Why must I say things to you 4 times? (or more?)regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Of course they do compare brightness of stars, they just don't do it in the way Darwinists do it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

They don't use the word goodness interchangeably with the property to emit light, as Darwinists use goodness interchangeabley with rate of reproduction (or something).regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You said I had not identified a flaw, but I had identified the flaw numerous times already. You should have said you don't agree that it is a flaw.You have made it clear to me previously that you believe in the oppositional mode of debate, where each side only makes arguments that supports their side, in stead of looking at both sides. I think that is why your understanding of any criticism of Darwinism is shallow. Thankfully the subject is only Creation vs Evolution, I hate to think what bigotry and ignorance this kind of oppositional debatingstyle would generate when the subject would be something like Chrisianity vs Judaism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Actually Percy it's only you who has said that, repeatedly, I never said that, show me where otherwise.I have tied the judgemental language to the comparison. In comparing Darwinists note the one as better then the other. Look Percy, disregarding my argument, now you have no knowledge whatsoever why Darwinists use the words good, superior, better, best etc. You have created your own ingorance about Darwinism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

First of all this thread is focused on pre holocaust Darwinism, which was more liberal in it's choice of words.For the present the most prevalent definition of Natural Selection is differential reproductive success of variants. As good and bad are naturally joined to the word sucess (and failure) we should assume that the word good is still commonly used by Darwinists. From memory I've seen such usage in the talk.origins faq where it says something like: species don't behave for the good of the species, but for their own good. Then there is also Dawkins conceptions of gene-selfishness which is very influential. Clearly the judgemental words that Darwinists employ can't be regarded as a thing of the past.So far I consider it proven that:- the judgemental language that Darwinists employ is related to their usage of comparison, to compare reproductive success of variants, saying one is better then the other.- that influential Darwinist scientists have blurred the distintion between Darwinism and Social Darwinism in their prosaic works- That Natural Selection was one of the central rationalisations of the world in Nazi ideology.Of course what's not proven is that the comparison is faulty. Some years ago I saw Gould on TV commenting on how strange it was to have a theory based around comparison, referring to evolution by Natural Selection. Gould still accepts Natural Selection, but he does acknowledge the peculiarity of the theory vs other science-disciplines in relying on comparison this way. He also critized Dawkins for extrapolating too much from Natural Selection, because according to him the fundaments of the theory are not strong enough for that. Gould also criticized adaptionist explanations of Darwinists, in relation to the usage of the term Natural Selection at the Wannsee conference, where top-nazi's worked out the practicalites of the order from Hitler to kill the Jews.So as before, similar arguments as I make have been made by mainstream evolutionists. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an essay that said the same thing as I do about selection having to be defined on an individual basis in stead of a comparitive basis, since several evolutionists on this forum have said to me that fundamentally selection should in fact be understood on an individual basis.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think I can say that a white moth fits a white tree for reproduction, without comparing to variants. I don't think I need the comparison.You would say that the haemoglobine molecule is around an average mean in the population? I don't think you quite understand that differences in genes are discrete and not generic. The generic differences seem to be a phenotypical function of controlling genes.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Again, I think I can determine if or not the white wingcolor of the white moth contributes to reproduction of said moth by observing it, without comparing with other moths. That is the meaningful information.Gee Zephyr do you really think I hadn't thought about competition? Have you ever thought about the absence of competition between variants? That variants by their difference are more likely to use different sort of resources then samestructured organism, and therefore compete less. Such as nylon eating bacteria and their ancestors.1. You can't tell me what the differential reproductive success of nylon / non nylon eating bacteria is.
2. If you could tell me then that number would have no scientific meaning. It is 1:10 so what, it's 10:100000 so what, no meaning there
3. You would seem to ignore the simple observation that eating nylon contributes to reproduction. Again, the comparison has no fundamental scientific value.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I don't think that is true, I think most people understand by now. I think you are the only one who still doesn't understand. The comparison leads to the judgemental words, and in turn the judgemental words are conducive to social darwinism.I don't have to convince anyone here that the usage of words such as goodness, or selfish in a science theory are inherently questionable by the ideal of of neutrality in science. Everyone here shares this standard already.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Actually people are arguing that Natural Selection doesn't act on an individual, but only acts comparitively. If they weren't arguing that, then the question how Natural Selection should be defined would soon be settled by the rules in organizing knowledge in favour of the non-comparitive approach.Gould doesn't agree with my viewpoint. Like I said, he still supports the comparitive approach eventhough he notes the peculiarity of it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu