Forum: Darwnist Ideology

I'm a bit surprised at this quote, because I scanned the book myself for some time looking for relevant things in a library in a town I was visiting. In the same book Hitler also refers to Natural Selection as justifying his war in the East, and calling Christianity a direct opposite of Natural Selection. Also, in "Mein Kampf" Hitler comments on the creation vs evolution controversy saying something like, that he's really not qualified to make a decision on the matter, but that the difference is inconsequential because in either evolutionist or creationist scenario there had to be a first of everything.I guess the quote is signficant, because it tends to prove that Hitler did not read either Haeckel or Darwin directly, as Gasman strongly speculated he did. But of course this doesn't negate the evidence Gasman gives of Haeckel's influence on the Volkish movement, some of the authors in which movement we know for sure Hitler read much.I do comment on particular negative consequences associated with creationism sometimes, but it's a different issue. I see creationism in a broad perspective of beliefs about creation, not solely biblical creationism, but for instance beliefs of native Americans as well. There would also be a creation vs evolution controversy, if native american beliefs were dominant in the USA, or if any other religion was dominant. Now if there was a general theory of creationism like I outlined before, then I might do the same thing, investigate it for ideological content and effects. A general theory of creationism would look for the origins of something in terms of decisionevents, where it became to be certain that it would be. For instance we might say that from point x in spacetime it became a certainty that there would be planets at later point y in spacetime, and prior to point x this wasn't certain at all. It was determined there and then, that there would be planets later on. Some work has been done on a theory like that, and wouldn't you know it, it falls closely in line with a literalist interpretation of Genesis, including the days, due to time being relative. But there is no complete general theory of creationism yet for me to investigate. Such a general theory of creationism might well create another controversy between science and religion, especially if it were so that we would have another truckload of ideological content in the general theory of creationism, as we have in the general theory of evolution. Ideological content which we all agree is not supposed to be in a science theory, but I can't say that there isn't supposed to be talk about the value of things in a religion, now can I.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Actually you do miss the basic things, have to be told over and over, as Mr Jack demonstrates once again. How can someone be so prejudicial to ask if we should lie to people about evolution being true due to it's negative consequences, after having just been shown that evolutionists knowingingly, ignorantly or neglectfully supported a eugenics textbook for American schoolkids for a long time?As for Socialism, if I remember correctly, I was talking about extended family social finances vs national social finances. I was talking about having social monies be distributed by extended families in a regulated way, so you would have the upward mobility that families provide, and not the tendency for totalitarianism and an overbearing government that comes with centralized control of all social money, vs your boring idea to revive the old goat of socialism once again to fight the nonexistant evil capitalists. There is no tendency for totalitairianism by putting all social monies in one big pot you say, eventhough obviously it concentrates most all social financial power in one or a few points, in a few hands.Only my opinions about these two different things, Darwinist ideology, and social fiances in extended families, is well developed. It's only these 2 things that have my special intellectual interest. You would have to do better then run of the standard lines to discredit my argument about it, because I've considered the standard lines of argument against them already of course.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This is my assesment of the creation vs evolution debate.Evolutionists, specifically Darwinists, have produced very little knowledge in 150 years. The knowledge they have produced is shoddy and highly intermixed with ideology. The ideology was instrumental in attrocities, most notably the holocaust. Also, nothing has fundamentally changed, Darwinists are still producing little and shoddy knowledge with a high ideological content, and we can reasonably expect the ideology to be instrumental in attrocities once again.On the other hand creationists have been mainly been the defenders of common values, such as equality, the wonder of creativity, freedom of choice, that they have provided and continue to provide an extremely valuable service to more advanced science in providing an independent framework of thought, which is routinely used by scientists as an important referencepoint to explore the more fundamental aspects of their theories.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But it's not the point to lift a few papers, you have to give a broad assessment in response, like I gave a broad assessment. I wonder how you are going to do that, are you gonna say that Darwinists were deeply involved in mixing in ideology in their works in the beginning, but they have cleaned up their acts since then?In a few years again we might look at Chinese genocides and find that fanatic Darwinist ideologists urging progress, filled the beliefs vacuum left by an ailing atheist communist ideology. This is not some unlikely scenario. The anti-religious attitudes of the government, coupled with unrestrained popular demand for progress, might well give oppurtunity to Darwinist ideologues. China has adopted farreaching eugenic laws, but it's unclear to me what role the Chinese science establishment played in adopting those laws, and particularly what role Darwinist scientists played, because I can't read Chinese, and China is not very open about it's policies. Are you going to change sides in the creation vs evolution debate if it were to happen? Or are you then still going to say that the creation vs evolution controversy is a dispute about some facts, in stead of the political conlfict it really is?For as far as the shoddy science goes:- Darwinists held back Mendellism the basics of genetics for up to 72 years- having not found much of any intermediate fossils in 150 years, they finally decided to follow the evidence that indicates punctuated equilibrium. the known fossilrecord was essentially the same as it was over 150 years in broad scopes, however it took about 150 years to say what the record says, because of Darwinist opposition.- one of the major goals of Darwinism, creating new species in the lab, has been largely unsuccesful- the discovery of controlgenes although not inconsistent with Darwinist theory, makes the theory less useful, and is not in line with Darwinist expectations according to it's discoverer- after 150 years Darwinists know that there is a unit of selection that is being selected on, however they are still not clear about what the unit of selection is, gene, individual, population, species or matingcouple.- the science of how organisms relate to one another in biological systems is badly underdeveloped, due to Darwinists being preoccupied with finding specks of sands on the beach, finding and naming yet another specie or variant, and placing it in a historical lineage.Now you name a big thing Darwinists did, or a collection of small things that amounts to a big thing, in response to this sample of scientific faults of Darwinism. And let's not forget that it's the ideological content that's the main wrong of Darwinists, which is now continued mainly in evolutionary psychology and selfish gene theory, and natural selection theory.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are not giving a broad assesment of the creation vs evolution controversy. I want to see if you're going to run of the standard lines, enlightened science vs dogmatic religion. I want to see if you have the gall to completely shove Darwinist ideology under the carpet, or if you are going to reduce it to some footnote in the controversy. IMO you can't mention Darwinist ideology and not let it dominate your assessment of the controversy. You can't just ignore all those corpses, in favour of focusing on what, the virtues of methodological naturalism?There is ideology in the prejudicial definition of Natural Selection itself, so I assume all the papers you mentioned are ideological this way. You neglect to mention evolutionary psychology of course.I have never heared of the great synthesis being the only way to understand Mendel's laws, I have read that Darwinists ignored, and denied Mendel, and that those biologists who accepted Mendel, became to be known as mutationists, in stead of Darwinists. Anyway I will not address each and every point. The point you failed to understand said that Darwinists have neglected particular fields of study, most importantly the study of how organisms relate to one another in a biological system.As before, my knowledge of the eugenics movement seems to be broader then yours. You seem to fail to mention anything meaningful about it in your rambling. Yes there was a eugenics movement prior to Darwin. As I noted before in this thread, Darwin, Wallace and Spencer all independently got much inspiration for their highly similar theories of the mechanism of evolution from a eugenics essay. So eugenics being at the conception of Darwinism means eugenics existed prior to Darwinism obviously. You might say that one of the bad things that eugenics produced was Darwinism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You seem to have missed the topic of the thread which is the role Darwinist ideology plays in the creation vs evolution controversy. You stil have not given a broad assessment of the creation vs evolution controversy, I still don't know what role you attribute to Darwinist ideology in it. I'm beginning to think you don't have a broad assesment of the creation vs evolution controversy.In *broad* terms Darwinism produces little. We don't know the differential reproductive success of most every variant organism and we don't care to know, You must have read comments like that on the futility of Natural Selection theory in the literature several times. The comments about the study of the relationship between organisms being underdeveloped due to Darwinism I've seen several times also. Natural Selection doesn't really cover extinction, because there's always one that keeps reproducing, while the other may usually go extinct. Extinction is important in studying ecological systems, so a Darwinist is out of the scope of vision of his theory when studying it. Also, only since punctuated equilibrium have evolutionists begun to see the largely unchanging systems, stasis, as data. Before that the logic of evolution was, what does not evolve is of no interest. etc. etc. The points still stand as far as I'm concerned. They are the considered opinions of people I find reliable, evolutionists mostly, and they make sense to me in context of what I know of the logic and research interests of Darwinist science.As before the ideology in the definition of Natural Selection is in the reliance on comparison between organisms, in stead of simply focusing on the relationship of the organism with the environment. I won't explain here again exactly how that is so, but I will note again that you don't know which is the better theory.I'm not really sure how to interpret the many big achievements of Darwinism you mentioned. It seems you mentioned finding DNA as some kind of achievement of Darwinism where you talk about morphologies. I think this discovery is more in line with Mendel, and the information conception of creationists, and that Darwinists needed to reconfigure the generic gradualism they presupposed was characteristic of hereditary material when DNA was discovered. Even granting that these discoveries can be titled to evolutionism / Darwinism, that your job is not completely useless, in broad perspective the negative aspects still dominate IMO, for the reasons mentioned before.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Clearly you're just making single observations and you're not making those observations into a broad perspective where you have to look at all data, and not just the data that suits you. The focus on extinction is a recent development due to the catastrophic extinction that's happening now. When I read an ecologist complaining that her science is underdeveloped, while in the same article she says that Natural Selection is basicly irrellevant in the current wave of extinctions, because it happens too fast for any species to adapt and escape extinction, then I can put 2 and 2 together to make 4. The reason it's underdeveloped is because it doesn't fall in the scope of Darwinist / evolutionist theory. This conclusion I make then falls in line with other things I read such as Gould saying that only recently have evolutionists begun to consider stasis as data, and complaints of mutationist evolutionists in the 1920's that Darwinism tends to drive biologists into the lab, in stead of out in the field investigating the relationships between organisms. These are all broad observations evolutionists made about their own science, while you are just giving single observations all the time. So is it your honest opinion that the science of how organisms relate to one another in biological systems is not badly underdeveloped like that evolutionist I read said it was, or do you just disagree about the reasons why it is badly underdeveloped?Your opinion on CvE is likewise shallow. That evolution theory conflicts with (a particular) literalist reading of the Bible doesn't remotely seem a sufficient explanation for the "popularity" of the debate. I may well find other sciences that are in conflict with the particular kind of literalist interpretation of the bible on some points, but no such big controversy results from it. As before you can't detach the evolution vs creation controversy from broadly held opinions about immorality linked to evolutionism / Darwinism, as talked about in many books and movies by people who are not dogmatic creationists.As twice before, I've already met your demand to show the ideology in the papers by showing the ideology in the definition of Natural Selection before.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well I don't have the link handy saying that the particular field of science is badly underdeveloped, but I will simply assume that your contrary opinion is biased, seeing that you are almost drowning in your own vitriol saying it.Once again you forget that in Darwinism when talking about extinction, you have to have a comparitive unit of selection which does not go extinct. You can't actually focus on the extinction itself within a Darwinist framework of reference. Extinction is evolution because the genes are forever lost? Is that the study of nonexistant evolution? You are not making sense.You call me a liar, then you prove it. If I remember correctly I've given you the link to that kind of criticism of Darwinists tending to go into the lab in stead of the field, when discussing Darwinists denial of Mendel's theory. I assume you don't know that Darwinism "eclipsed" somewhere early 20th century, which means it was briefly out of favour with the scientific community in general.But enough, you must go now and quibble about dates with some creationist, which is what evc is really all about, according to you.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But it's not really the point in science to describe in terms of theories that don't apply. When there is no natural selection, then the theory doesn't apply, as mostly it doesn't meaningfully apply with extinction, stasis etc. and the research in those areas is badly underdeveloped.About 100 percent of organims that live and have ever lived aren't and won't be ancestors in any way to any new species, even assuming evolution theory is true. Of course the 100 percent is rounded of, but it's a very small number. You can look at a planet and confidently say the law of gravity applies to that planet, you can look at an organism and confidently say the theory of evolution doesn't apply to that organism, or the theory of origin of species through natural selection doesn't apply.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I'm sure that eventually reliable quotes will turn up saying the field is underdeveloped, and then once again it's shown that it's just another case of you talking about you being the expert and the other person knowing nothing, as you always do, no matter what either you or the other person actually knows. Like with the book the selfish gene, where I was right about the content, and the other guy wrong, or about eugenics where you began to talk about the totally irrellevant vichy regime in France etc. etc.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Yeah whatever. I just read Raup, of the dinosaur meteor theory, saying that the study of extinction was neglected. You have no clue.Mark24 was wrong about what was in the book where I was right, he failed to notice that altruism was a limited exception according to Dawkins. I don't think Mark appreciates you bringing this up again and again.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I see, so first you accuse me of quoting out of context for quoting that Dawkins says "we are born selfish" and that "altruism has to be learned" that genetic altruism is a limited special exception, and then you say that it's your personal theory that people aren't generally genetically selfish, that they are decisively genetically altruist through family kinselective genes. You confuse Dawkins opinion with your own.I'm not wrong about Dawkins. I made a short criticism of it in terms of systemacy of knowledge, and although that criticism of mine may be shaky, it's the sort of investigation that is meaningful. (aside from criticizing it for it's ideological content). Nobody here who is supposedly always right about Dawkins, where I am supposedly always wrong and ignorant about Dawkins, knew how to answer that criticism of the selfish gene on points of systemacy of knowledge. The weakness of response surprised me, maybe I began to actually believe that people here actually think about what Dawkins wrote, like they imply they do. I must remind myself that the authorititive gibbering many people engage in here is mostly empty posing.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Dawkins doesn't deserve to be read, but I read the blind watchmaker, and parts of the selfish gene.It seems to me that my criticism of Dawkins concerning ideology and systemacy of theory, is more to the point then the theoretical meandering about families Mark engages in. I was rather surprised about the weak response to my criticism of the systemacy of selfish gene theory. I should remind myself again that the authoritive gibbering you all commonly engage in, is mostly just empty posing. It seems unfair that evolutionists don't actually criticize Darwinist ideological pseudoscience such as Dawkins selfish gene. That they seem to actually support Darwinist pseudoscience as a weapon against traditional religion, as history also shows in the case of Haeckel, Lorenz, Galton, Darwin etc.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Obviously what you need to do is reference some article on the web which talks about the state of the field of study. So far I have your word and Mammuthus word, against that of Raup, and the other ecologist I read, and implied from Gould and the logic of Darwinism.Extinction caused by a comet impact doesn't seem such an original idea to me if you're focused on extinction, yet the full study of this idea is quite new.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Abortion and gay marriage aren't clearcut issues. You might better argue in terms of the racism that existed and continues to exist in the south of America, where creationism is also widespread. As before you have to see creationism in a multicultural context. If the beliefs of native Americans would be dominant then the devils associated with those beliefs would be in the forefront. They are champions of equality and freedom of choice and the wonder of creativity in respect to the evolution versus creation controversy.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 02-20-2004]