Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Forum: Darwnist Ideology
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 1 of 265 (84947)
02-10-2004 6:19 AM


I request a forum be made on the subject of Darwinist ideology. In this forum things would be discussed like: the link of Darwinism to Social Darwinism / Eugenics, evolutionary psychology selfhelp books, peerreviewed papers on the effects Darwinism has on people's beliefs, etc.
Like I said before the issue of Darwinist ideology is central to the Creation vs Evolution controversy. There would be no big controversy if it weren't for the Social Darwinists, eugenicists, and now the evopsych selfhelp guru's.
Page Not Found | Illinois Institute of Technology
This link makes the case that Bryant, arguably the most renowned creationist ever in the evolution vs creation controversy, mainly argued against the immorality of Darwinism.
Loading...
This is the kind of teaching that Bryant argued against.
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Gasman.htm
This is the kind of thing that Bryant foresaw Darwinist ideology would lead to.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-10-2004 9:24 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 4 by Dr Jack, posted 02-10-2004 9:54 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 12 by truthlover, posted 02-10-2004 11:26 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 7 of 265 (84988)
02-10-2004 10:32 AM


deleted triplepost
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 02-10-2004]

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 8 of 265 (84989)
02-10-2004 10:32 AM


Why don't you all go to talk origins?
Go there, and enjoy the substandard vitriol you all seem so fond of.
For other people I encourage you to read the links provided, which substantiates that Darwinist ideology is, and is supposed to be, what the evolution vs creationism controversy is about.
There is no serious intelellectual who ignores the issue of Darwinist ideology, because the importance of the holocaust weighs quite heavy still with most intellectuals, and you can't ignore the input of Darwinist professionals and enthusiasts in ideology and effort in that horror. From the indoctrination of youth in Hitlerschools, to the T4 project to kill the disabled, and then to the construction of the concentrationcamps, the evidence is quite straighforward and broad.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-10-2004 10:40 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 10 of 265 (85001)
02-10-2004 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dan Carroll
02-10-2004 10:40 AM


Re: Why don't you all go to talk origins?
The Nazi party did not teach math, which was taught in regular schools, but they did teach Darwinism in the Hitlerschools. Go and read the links I provided, and then give a meaningful opinion in stead of the usual prattle.
Aside from that you have to judge on the real thing. What was taught to Americans was a racist eugenic ideolgized version of Darwinism. I suppose that the same people who put this kind of thing in the textbook, put the laws against immigration of Jews to America in the lawbook, and fashioned America's eugenic laws. This was then oppurtunely used by Hitler as validation of his own policies.
Even if it were so that Darwinism has been completely cleaned up since then, which is not the case, it is too late. Forever the creation vs evolution controversy will be dominated by that history, which is why we can't be without a forum on Darwinist ideology.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-10-2004 10:40 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-10-2004 11:14 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 18 of 265 (85324)
02-11-2004 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by truthlover
02-10-2004 11:26 AM


This is simply not true, most all creationists here at one time or another criticize evolutionism as being linked to immorality. You also can't possibly leave out Bryant, who'se arguably the main originator of the anti-evolutionist creationist movement in the USA.
Obviously you don't read the links I provided, which is because you have already made your mind up without looking at any evidence? There's a reasonably straight line of argument which says that you are on the wrong side, read about it, read the whole thing.
Again, the evcforum is going the way talk.origins has gone without expressly focusing on the issue of Darwinist ideology. I'm quite sure it has absolutely no credibility with any serious intellectuals this way, to ignore Bryant who was in the most dramatic confrontation between evolutionism and creationism to do date. To ignore the broad links to the holocaust, in favour of making inane arguments about baseballbats and math. A quite meaningless bit of faction fighting, the forum is becoming just another weird internet phenomenon this way.
"Prior to the 1920s, evolution had been criticized by many fundamentalists, though by no means all of them, as being a false doctrine. But the subject had not been a major issue for fundamentalists before the 1920s, and virtually no one had opposed the teaching of the subject, much less thought of waging a public campaign against it, before 1920. Rather, until the 1920s, evolution theory had simply been one among a number of things of which (some, but not all) fundamentalists disapproved.
Bryan changed all that by uniting the various fundamentalist factions of the times into a large unified public campaign to eliminate the teaching of evolution from American public schools. In doing so, he made opposition to the teaching of evolution in public schools, and opposition to evolution theory itself, a major do-or-die issue for fundamentalists. Thus, Bryan's reasons for opposing the teaching of evolution in public schools are, in large part, the reasons why fundamentalists first adopted opposition to evolution theory, and to its being taught in public schools, as a major issue."
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by truthlover, posted 02-10-2004 11:26 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-11-2004 9:43 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 20 by truthlover, posted 02-11-2004 10:20 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 25 of 265 (85599)
02-11-2004 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by berberry
02-11-2004 12:36 PM


The "crap" you refer to is standard history writing about the holocaust. You want to ignore the history of the holocaust because Darwinian medicine saved lives?
Actually I'm not aware of any Darwinist medicine, I only hear them make questionable policy initiaves like not giving any anti-HIV drugs to Africa, to slow down the rate of HIV resistance.
But apart from that an inquiry into Darwinist ideology will provide a more clear distinction between Darwinist theory and Darwinist ideology, it would be very helpful indeed, it will save lives.
"An impressive number of the most influential Volkish writers, propagandists, and spokesmen were influenced by or involved in some way with either Haeckel or his Monist followers. In the development of racism, racial eugenics, Germanic Christianity, nature worship, and anti-Semitism, Haeckel and the Monists were an important source and a major inspiration for many of the diverse streams of thought which came together later on under the banner of National Socialism.
"The contest itself, which ultimately led to the publication of ten volumes of influential social Darwinist tracts, was sponsored by the industrialist, Alfred Krupp, and its theme was: What can we learn from the principles of Darwinism for application to inner political development and the laws of the state?'2 The first prize was won by Haeckel's disciple, Wilhelm Schallmayer"
"Like Haeckel, he argued that any mixture of the races would lead to the biological deterioration of the Germans. Woltmann, like Haeckel, taught that life was a constant struggle for existence and for racial purity, and he sought to forearm Germany against biological decay."
"In obvious imitation of Haeckel, Ammon taught that Darwinism had to become Germany's new religion. It had to be accepted as a complete Weltanschauung and its ideas had to be encouraged in every facet of life"
"Ammon believed, of course, that it was the Germans who possessed superior racial and biological characteristics and he appealed for a return to the values and attitudes of the primitive Germanic tribes, who had led lives of natural bravery unencumbered by the errors and weaknesses of Christian civilization.11"
"And in another influential and widely read book which also received the approbation of Haeckel, Von Darwin bis Nietzsche (1895), Tille, who acknowledged his debt to Haeckel, explained the impact which the discovery of biological evolution had made on ethics, and agreed with Haeckel that all absolute ethical values had been obliterated by the discovery of evolution. Tille argued that only the unimpeded laws of nature could be the source of morality .14
Together with Haeckel, Krause edited the joumal Kosmos, the chief organ of the Darwinian movement in Germany in the 1870'S and in the 1880's. In addition, Krause had been the noted author of popular biographies of Erasmus and Charles Darwin. In these books he had attempted to demonstrate the continuity which he believed to exist between English and German Darwinism, and he became one of the most widely read popularizers of Darwinian ideas in Germany. But Krause was also at the same time an imposing figure in the Volkish movement. In the early 1890'S, and shortly before his death, he wrote two influential books in defense of Aryanism and Germanic ideology.
etc. etc. etc.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by berberry, posted 02-11-2004 12:36 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by berberry, posted 02-11-2004 11:23 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 27 of 265 (85614)
02-11-2004 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dan Carroll
02-11-2004 9:43 AM


So then answer me this:
the one reproduces more then the other,
the one reproduces or not
Which provides for better theory? Which one is standard Darwinist theory and why? I believe, ideological prejudice is why the one is standard, while the other isn't. It is not as clear as math, or gravity theory.
The question of ideology goes to address the question of all prejudice in theories. Apart from things like racism, a theory might be prejudiced towards a Newtonian view, in stead of relativistic Einstein view. But why should we identify groups of people by skincolor in stead of some other varying trait? etc.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-11-2004 9:43 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-12-2004 9:31 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 28 of 265 (85619)
02-11-2004 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by berberry
02-11-2004 11:23 PM


Actually this is not true. Go read talk.origins or the talk.origins faq, it is generally blatantly denied that Darwinism had much of any significance to do with Nazism. This is not the opinion of standard historians like Fischer, Gasman and others.
Chief responsible for this view on talk.origins is John Wilkins who writes such things as that social darwinism never really existed, because noone called themselves social darwinist, and then says that all investigation into the relationship of Darwinism to Social Darwinism is meaningless because of the naturalistic fallacy.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by berberry, posted 02-11-2004 11:23 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by berberry, posted 02-12-2004 12:05 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 29 of 265 (85628)
02-12-2004 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by truthlover
02-11-2004 10:20 AM


No creationist agrees with Bryant?
Wishful thinking I'm sure. The creation vs evolution controversy is carried on wide public support, it's not just Christian fundamentalists. In general public opinion the concern about the immorality associated with evolution theory is also widely held. I think this wider concern is what creationists are mainly supported by, what makes creationism so big.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by truthlover, posted 02-11-2004 10:20 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by truthlover, posted 02-12-2004 10:40 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 31 of 265 (85721)
02-12-2004 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by berberry
02-12-2004 12:05 AM


Because social-darwinism is the reason you are here discussing creation vs evolution. Without it the controversy wouldn't have the societal significance it does, and in all probability you wouldn't be here discussing creation vs evolution.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by berberry, posted 02-12-2004 12:05 AM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Mammuthus, posted 02-12-2004 9:49 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 46 by Brad McFall, posted 02-12-2004 2:52 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 47 of 265 (85995)
02-13-2004 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by truthlover
02-12-2004 10:40 AM


Ever go to the movies? Ever read a book? I'm pretty sure that the subject of "immorality associated with evolutionary theory" is on a hollywood shortlist of topical things to make the movie look interesting. When the crook says something like, it's a dog eat dog world, survival of the fittest, with sometimes more direct and broader reference to Natural Selection, like in the movie The Fight Club. Anytime the subject of "what's it all about" comes up in a movie, chances are high that Natural Selection would be referred to either explicitly or implicitly but still clear, and most always it is noted as the morality of crooks. Actually if I remember correctly The Fight Club presents Darwinist ideology as a crooks ideology, but then it presents the crooks as being really the good guys.
Again you must have heared the reference to survival of the fittest a thousand times in movies and tv this way, and maybe even a few times with people you know. Back in the early days of Darwinism the phrase survival of the fittest might have been seen as denoting progress and good things.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by truthlover, posted 02-12-2004 10:40 AM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Jack, posted 02-13-2004 6:05 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 48 of 265 (85998)
02-13-2004 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dan Carroll
02-12-2004 9:31 AM


For your information, standard Natural Selection theory is based around the one reproducing more then the other.
Obviously your prattle contributes nothing of intellectual interest, so please go to the unmoderated talk.origins. I'm quite sure your contributions will be much appreciated there, so why not go?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-12-2004 9:31 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-13-2004 9:10 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 50 of 265 (86005)
02-13-2004 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Silent H
02-12-2004 12:37 PM


I'm pretty sure all of you detractors have been told one time or another by me, that I consider most of the opinions you gave me as worthless. You egg each other on to engage in careless discussion, and vitriol, to try to ridicule my argument, and be done with it. Typically I would then say something like your arguments are prattle, which might lead you to give a more serious reply. But you are all already too overconfident of your position by your attitude of ridicule to make a good argument. More importantly without any exception you all NEVER try to make arguments, or look for evidence that discredits your own position. Consequently the serious argument you all give is always badly underdeveloped. Typically I will then become bored with repeating the most inane basics of the argument which you all have missed, and I will at some point then also note your serious argument as drivel. This is when you all become the sulking detractors that you are now.
Which of my detractors knows the answer to the question I gave some posts ago? Should it be reproduce more then the other, or should it be reproduce or not reproduce?
To engage in such a discussion you would have to:
1. admit that you aren't clear about the scientific merit of the fundamentals of Natural Selection, that you have to investigate it
2. make precise argument
The first is inconceivable without dispensing the highly factional oppostional attitude you all have, the second would be too much work. So you are all stuck sulking in your prattle and drivel holes.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Silent H, posted 02-12-2004 12:37 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Mammuthus, posted 02-13-2004 8:55 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 57 by Silent H, posted 02-13-2004 12:20 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 51 of 265 (86006)
02-13-2004 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dr Jack
02-13-2004 6:05 AM


So supposedly this is a serious reply, but of course it's drivel.
What's all that in the history books for crying out loud if not Darwinist ideology? How can you doubt it's existence?
What bearing could it have on the truth of theory? well let me think for a nano-second to flesh out the most inane basics of the argument which your factional attitude forbids you from doing.
1. the theory might itself be ideologically compromised, such as the definition survival of the fittest is faulty and the fault is sustained ideologically, as many evolutionists have argued.
2. the theory might be conducive to ideology because it employs language indistinguishable from common judgementalism, with words such as good, goodness, bad, selfish.
3. the main works in Darwinist theory are prosaic, and carry ideological content many times indistinguishable from the scientific hypothesis, as by Dawkins "the selfish gene", or Konrad Lorenz "the socalled evil" or Darwin's "Descent of Man"
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dr Jack, posted 02-13-2004 6:05 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Dr Jack, posted 02-13-2004 6:50 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 58 by Primordial Egg, posted 02-13-2004 1:25 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 55 of 265 (86056)
02-13-2004 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Dan Carroll
02-13-2004 9:10 AM


Well I'm not going to answer now how the one is better then another because that would be off-topic. I'm just saying that subjects like that are of obvious importance in the creation vs evolution controversy. To investigate if a theory is really neutral, or if it carries some hidden prejudices that are ideologically derived and sustained.
Since Spencer, Wallace and Darwin all indepently were inspired to a large extent by Maltus essay on population growth (which is retropsectively classified as a Social Darwinist work) in formulating their highly similar theories of evolutionary mechanisms, it's not unreasonable to suppose that the basic standard theory of selection might contain some ideological prejudices, derived from Malthus original Social Darwinist essay.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-13-2004 9:10 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-13-2004 10:28 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024