Forum: Darwnist Ideology

I see that you rewrote your post of the month nomination...It is a pattern among evolutionists to invent lawyer ploys to sabotage investigation of Darwinist ideology. There is the naturalistic fallacy which supposedly makes investigation of the relationship between darwinist theory and darwinist ideology meaningless, then it just doesn't exist, then genetic determinist is defined into non-existence etc.Obviously you all are just pontificating your authority to suppress investigation into an issue you don't like to hear about, the scientific demerits of Darwinism, and it's relationship to social Darwinism. But for anyone willing to entertain the notions, the evidence is very broad, and straightforward.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But you are simply wrong once more, Oyama doesn't believe all behaviour is genetically determined, nor did Gould, Rose, or Nabi say that of Dawkins, they just accused of him of making highly speculative ideas about a very high degree of genetic determination. Any very cursory reading on the web will show this. What's more you will also find other people who accuse Dawkins of deception for his renounciation of his ideas as genetic determinism.regards.
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I wasn't saying that everyone who accepts Darwinist theory as true suppresses investigation of the relationship of Darwinism to Social Darwinism, I was just saying that people here do, and on talk.origins. Like I said before in this thread, no serious intellectual ignores the link of Darwinism to social darwinism because of the history of the holocaust.You give a title of a book, but you don't argue what's in it, what's more elsewhere you make argument to the effect that any discussion of the relationship is meaningless, and you support others who proudly make the most inane simplistic statements as if that settles all that is to be said about the relationship.Anytime you want to go into the usual let's ignore Syamsu from now on mode of argument, go ahead. As before, people who mess up threads I start with meaningless, vitriolic, inane and simply false argument, simply go to talk.origins where you will find much more of that kind of stuff."The influence on the German industrialists and militarists of the first World War was from a form of philosophy that owed everything to Herbert Spencer and the German Romantics, and literally nothing at all to biological Darwinism"
(John Wilkins talk.origins)regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

"The rise of pseudobiological racism is inconceivable without the intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the Darwinian revolution." (K. Fischer, as quoted from an email an evolutionist published on talk.origins) He also wrote a standard history book on Nazism.I don't consider myself a serious intellectual of course, I haven't the time or sense of purpose to become one.What book I would love to read is a book on the systemacy of Natural Selection theory. A book which starts with positig a unit of reproduction, and then layer after layer introduces other concepts, such as competition, population, etc. in a formalised abstracted way.
But this book doesn't exist, or anything like it. What is there in stead is prosaic books, and evolutionists and creationists alike making insightful comments about Natural Selection on internetforums. Comments which are not in any books, but which they invent themselves. It is all amateur level in Darwinism, and that's about my level.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The science of how orgaisms relate to one another would be welldeveloped if they would have the basic frameworks to describe, and if they had described some of the bigger biosystems with it in some detail.I never make these claims that I have researched the field extensively, I just take the word of people in the field.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But it's all nonsense, cause you can see that in the end Dawkins gets away with writing we are born selfish, we should teach altruism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Oh so then you could tell me, or reference me if selection should be the one or the other reproduces, or if it should be the one reproduces or not. You see in a systematic overview I could see exactly the place of selection in the context of the system of knowledge built around reproduction. But you already answered this before, but then you weren't so happy that I quoted you as saying that selection is reproduction or no reproduction for the one.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Dan wrote:
"But the way in which people choose to use an idea for their own ends says nothing about the idea itself."It says among other things that Darwinism is highly conducive to ideology, because of obscure and emotive language in it like good, bad, success, selfish, goodness, struggle for existence etc. it says that Darwinism is prejudically focused on Malthusian scenario's of low resources, omitting scenario's of high resources. It says that statistically people who accept Darwinism tend afterwards not to believe in God whole, or deny the existence of God someplace. It says that people come up with eugenic ideas, which are on the face of it indistinguishable from Darwinist scientific writing, because of the use of words such as good and bad in Darwinist science. etc.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I guess it's a fair question to define Darwinist ideology and bring up some examples, but it would be delusional to suppose you have any genuine intellectual curiosity in the matter.I guess the typifications are:
- selfidentification with hereditary material
- awareness of selection as a law / process of nature that determines the fate / success of human society, and personal fate
- extreme (Darwinist/scientific) rationalism in making valuejudgements, as opposed to making valuejudgements based on emotionsSo a person who believes, like Darwin said, in selection as a force that scrutinizes every aspect of their being, which controls the working of society to a large extent, is a typical Darwinist ideologist. The thought "I am born selfish", or "my purpose is reproduction", might pass in the mind of such a person a dozen times a day. Which is not to say the Darwinist ideologist believes that selfishness is good, or that reproduction is very meaningful, but that the ideologist uses it as a startingpoint to derive morality / insight from, for day to day decisions.Examples of Darwinist ideology are the textbook of the Scopes trial, the chapter on Darwinism in the schoolbook of the Hitleryouth and possibly also the opening chapter about differences among people, Galton's and various others attempts to build a religion around Natural Selection, Dawkins meandering about selfish genes etc.Obviously that there are more theistic evolutionists then atheist evolutionist says nothing. How can you be so stupid to suppose it does?edited to add:
To define Darwinist theory can be a tricky business, because you can easily be accused of misrepresentation. I think the "official" definition is now differential reproductive success of variants. However after some questioning of Darwinists it's always added that competition must be a part of the equation, so it becomes differential reproductive success of competing variants. Where the variants can be variant allelles, traits, individuals, matingcouple, populations or species.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 02-26-2004]

*sigh* as before, I've already proven the existence of Darwinist ideology by referring to the works of historians about the relationship of Darwinism to Social Darwinism and then Nazism.That you keep on deluding yourself that Darwinist ideology doesn't exist is probably a defense mechanism to protect some beliefs you have about evolution theory or science. Anyway, it's not my responsibility to deal with such delusion as if it were a rational argument.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I will keep it in mind next time I go to Surabaya or Singapore. Obviously the Nganjuk library doesn't carry that title.But I don't have much reason to expect what is in it what you say is in it, because I have a longtime interest in the structure of natural selection theory, and the issues about the structure I talk about are not solved anywhere in all my reading on it. For instance in reviews of Gould's last book (reviews by evolutionists), once again the disarry of the structure of natural selection theory is shown up, going back to Popper's critique of it as a metaphysical research program.So far you have referenced an author that says the study of extinction is underdeveloped, and another author who indicates the study of biodiversity has been recently developed. You also side with commentary that Darwinist ideology doesn't exist, or that the relationship between Darwinism and Social Darwinism is meaningless. Obviously that kind of thing is not likely to change my mind, but rather tends to validate the position I already have.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Mark wrote:
babble, babble, babble.. and therefore it's perfectly valid for Dawkins to say we are born selfish and should teach altruism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Dawkins, Selfish Gene:This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction. It is designed to appeal to the imagination. But it is not science fiction: it is science. (pseudoscientific assertion of real science) Cliche or not, 'stranger than fiction' expresses exactly how I feel about the truth. (mixing up values with statements of facts) We are survival machines--robot vehicles (people and animals are especially not robots, plants are) blindly (deafly, stupidly, tastelessly) programmed to preserve the selfish molecules (reproduction cannot be construed to be selfish except in a semi Platonic sense) known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment (astonished at his own nonsense). Though I have known it for years, I never seem to get fully used to it. (one can never get used to mixing truth with fact like that, the emotionality associated to assertions of truth ensures that) One of my hopes is that I may have some success in astonishing others... (let the prozetylizing begin...)Chapter 1 - Why are people ? (why is grammar?, why are complete sentences?)
Page 1Intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason for its own existence. If superior creatures (as opposed to us inferior creatures) from space ever visit earth (lunacy), the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization (conflation of values with facts), is: 'Have they discovered evolution yet?' (megalomania, as in Dawkins is the most superior and civilized creature on the planet, because he knows evolution theory so well) Living organisms had existed on earth, without ever knowing why, for over three thousand million years before the truth finally dawned on one of them. His name was Charles Darwin. (false reference to authority: even Charles would *never* presume to know why people are here) To be fair, others had had inklings of the truth (conflation of value with fact), but it was Darwin who first put together a coherent (meandering) and tenable account of why we exist (curiously Darwin doesn't say why). Darwin made it possible for us to give a sensible answer to the curious child whose question heads this chapter. We no longer have to resort to superstition (in other places we don't know about we have to resort to superstitition) when faced with the deep problems: Is there a meaning to life? (pseudoscience alert!) What are we for? What is man? After posing the last of these questions, the eminent zoologist G. G. Simpson put it thus:'The point I want to make now is that all attempts to answer that question before 1859 are worthless and that we will be better off if we ignore them completely.' (brutal swipe at traditional religion as part of humanity)Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun (but then phycisists commonly disparrage the ideological zealots which dominate the discipline of evolution theory), but the full implications of Darwin's revolution have yet to be widely realized. Zoology is still a minority subject in universities, and even those who choose to study it often make their decision without appreciating its profound philosophical significance (Dawkins religion substitute). Philosophy and the subjects known as 'humanities' are still taught almost as if Darwin had never lived. (they tried Darwinism, but the results were bad) No doubt this will change in time. (let's have another round of social darwinism) In any case, this book is not intended as a general advocacy of Darwinism. (not intended but it is that) Instead, it will explore the consequences of the evolution theory for a particular issue. My purpose is to examine the biology of selfishness and altruism. (implied false dichotomy between seflishness and altruism, there are more options then altruism and selfishness, like mutual benefit, or mutual harm)Apart from its academic interest, the human importance of this subject is obvious. It touches every aspect of our social lives (Dawkins uses his theory in his social life), our loving and hating,(conflation of value with fact) fighting and cooperating, giving and stealing, our
Page 2greed and our generosity. (Dawkins uses his theory to explain his own greed, fighting, hating, loving, stealing, giving in his social life) These are claims that could have been made for Lorenz's (warcriminal) On Aggression (another book'o'pseudoscience), Ardrey's The Social Contract, and Eibl-Eibesfeldt's Love and Hate. The trouble with these books is that their authors got it totally and utterly wrong. (totally wrong but Lorenz's work is much the same as Dawkins) They got it wrong because they misunderstood how evolution works. (evolution theory, the science which holds the truth, which distinguishes the superior civilized from the inferior uncivilized) They made the erroneous assumption that the important thing in evolution is the good (conflation of value with fact) of the species (or the group) rather than the good (conflation) of the individual (or the gene). It is ironic that Ashley Montagu should criticize Lorenz as a 'direct descendant of the "nature red in tooth and claw" thinkers of the nineteenth century . . .'. (so actually others think that Lorenz is about the same as Dawkins) As I understand Lorenz's view of evolution, he would be very much at one with Montagu in rejecting the implications of Tennyson's famous phrase. Unlike both of them, I think 'nature red in tooth and claw' sums up our modern understanding of natural selection admirably. ( false / inconsistency, selection is most fundametally about reproduction, not about killing the other, which Dawkins states at the top eventhough he says differently here)Before beginning on my argument itself, I want to explain briefly what sort of an argument it is, and what sort of an argument it is not, If we were told that a man had lived a long and prosperous life in the world of Chicago gangsters, we would be entitled to make some guesses as to the sort of man he was, (being prosperous, the man was a lawyer no doubt) We might expect that he would have qualities such as toughness, a quick trigger finger, and the ability to attract loyal friends. These would not be infallible deductions, but you can make some inferences about a man's character (conflation of value with fact) if you know something about the conditions in which he has survived and prospered. (false defining, as character is the consequence of choice it is supremely unpredictable) The argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes. (again, plants are machines, animals and people have a nervous system) Like successful Chicago gangsters, our genes have survived, in some cases for millions of years, in a highly competitive world. This entitles us to expect certain qualities in our genes. I shall argue that a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness.(you measure that with the ruthlessness-meter ? this is about the point where it becomes a selfidulgence to read any further, so generally people should stop reading at this point)I have no doubt that Dawkins, like Haeckel, will become to be seen as a liability to evolutionism, and that evolutionists will just make up stories that Dawkins isn't actually a very ifluential evolution scientist, like they did with Haeckel.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

And as before, I provide meaningful argumentation about Dawkins, such as the false dichotomy selfish vs altruist, the false emphasis on killing the other over emphasis on reproduction, while you only provide faulty representation of his writings and completely meaningless assertions of authority.I read Dawkins blind watchmaker, the whole thing.Dawkins:
-biology is the study of complexity, planets are simple things, organisms are complex things. I can't explain how the one is more complex then the other, I can't measure complexity, but still the one is more complex then the other, and that's what biology is about.-To read, and become more stupid.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You have read Dawkins Selfish Gene, Mammuthus is an expert in the field of extinction, and so is Quetzal. This is no argument, or providing evidence, it is just pontificating authority. As we have already argued in this thread, you, like several people I've argued before you, misconstrued Dawkins book to say that people are basicly genetically altruist.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu