Negative Impacts on Society

I think two issues are being confused here, who get's to decide what is good science, and what is actually good science.The Lysenko affair is more of an issue of centralised dictate of science, then it is of Lysenko's science not being very good IMO. If we would have centralised dictate of Darwin's "Origin of Species" / "Descent of Man", then we might have gotten the same kind of thing, because Darwin's work also contains wholy erronuous ideas like the heritability from habits, and pangenesis (Darwins idea that from every part of the organism information is gathered up to the sexcells for reproduction), and some racism and eugenicism to top it of. Besides the theory of Natural Selection isn't very well formulated in Darwin's work either.So I think the Lysenko affair shows that each individual should have the power of decision what knowledge goes into their head, or not. It more supports the idea that students can decide what to learn for themselves, and they would choose creationism in large nubmers I suspect.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsuregards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Schrafinator:
"The fact that religious people have always tried to control what is taught in schools in order to impose their particular religious dogma upon all children, it is imperative that our secular government regulate what is taught. Children used to have to recite and memorize Christian Bible passages and also participate in school led Christian prayer."Now add some talk about religion is the opium of the masses, and you have a communist speech for the secular communist government imposing Lysenkoism on everybody. The Supreme Court ruled Intelligent Design theory scientifically invalid, now that's the bizarre nature of American society IMO, where the courts rule science. Next they will be bringing Johnson and Behe to trial for proliferating this false theory?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

That the court ruled ID theory invalid I understood from Schrafinator's post I was replying to.If we would go that route of prosecuting Johnson and Behe, there would be a large backlog of cases of Darwinists teaching bad science and immoral ideology.But it's not the point obviously, in a free society individuals can decide for themselves what to think, and extended from that, what to learn. I'm not even so sure government shouldn't pay for religious education. If you're talking about native Americans and native American beliefs in stead of Christians and Christianity for instance, then somehow it becomes more clear to me that it's evil to root out religion from education. It doesn't seem okay for government to lay such a large claim on people's lives, taking so many years and hours in the day of a person, and the cultural heritage being completely ignored. I think this problem can largely be taken care of with vouchers, you just pay for the education you want. There couldn't be a Lysenko affair in a voucher system.Actually I think the only good argument against a voucher system is that possibly science could become too powerful once it is infused with the force of democracy from vouchers in education, leading to too many people with too powerful scientific knowledge. Considering how free market and individual choice caused explosions of growth and development in other areas, I think this is a justified concern. But maybe more extended copyright laws could temper a voucher system.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Darwinists already had their sort of Lysenko affair. Back in the earyly 20th century most American students were taught eugenics as a logical extension of evolution theory in the most widely used textbook at that time. There were also eugenic birthcontrol policies, and eugenic immigration policies besides that.Some years ago the NABT (national association of biology teachers) proposed to formulate evolution theory using the words impersonal, and unguided process. We could with equal merit call gravity impersonal and unguided, but we don't, because it's a ludicrous formulation of a scientific theory.So you see, Darwinists are perfectly capable of delivering bad science to students, and this will be solved in a voucher system because
1. there will be more customerreview of curriculum, more peerreview if you will
2. it isn't such a big problem if somebody bough the exactsame education as the hitleryouth in the hitlerschools had with their voucher, because it is then an individual choice. When something like eugenics, or the ridiculous formulation of evolution by the NABT is enforced by a state or nation, then you get weird trends in intellectual climate of opinion, the problem is not manageable.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

YOU are going off topic. I find this very annoying people following me around. I guess it's okay if you warn people about me, if that's your thing, but don't bring up so much drivel to substantiate your warning.Dawkins wrote, "we are born selfish, therefore we have to teach altruism." Clearly this means that overwhelmingly selfish genes, lead to selfish behaviour at the individual level, and not altruistic behaviour much, which is why the altruistic behaviour has to be TAUGHT, according to Dawkins.So actually you misrepresent Dawkins, time after time. You could argue against that by saying you've read Dawkins book, , but anyway this is in no way such a clearcut issue in your favour that you can warn people of with it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well somebody brought up the Lysenko affair. That was ages ago too, so how come I can't bring this up which happened at about the same time?Well okay then I propose that we formulate evolution theory as:- the stupid process that originates new speciesThis has not been invalidated on equal terms.Anyway you have basicly abdicated your inaleinable right to an opinion on it, by saying people need not decide for themselves what to learn. You will need to find some expert to formulate an opinon for you.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Dawkins also writes in the context that we shouldn't expect much help from our genes if we want an altruistics society.You are wrong, I am right, face up to it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It's from the preface of Dawkins "Selfish Gene". It is just from memory and it is perfectly acceptable that I mention it like this because 1. it is very annoying to bother when somebody is following you around to argue something again, and again, and again. I quoted the whole passage as in copy and paste on some other occasions. 2. it is uncontested that Dawkins wrote this, or words to that effect 3. this is an internetforum, not a publication in a book.It would be great if Darwinists had a modicum of introspection, besides having selfcorrection (or rather being corrected by the holocaust). I see that you are applying that methodological naturalism. You methodologically throw out the evidence you don't like. That's why naturally the Darwinist eugenical textbook doesn't get admitted, but the Lysenko affair does. The textbook was not intentionally bad, and Lysenko was? You have no credibility anymore with me.I'm sure physicists are laughing at you out loud for saying it's sort of ok to enter the word stupid into the formulation of a theory, and you're not the first evolutionist either. It's only the evolutionists in science who are this absurd. You should have just denied the absurdity of course. People are perfectly justified to take something like for instance an earthquake personal. There's nothing science can say about it because they can't go beyond choice, and or randomness, which is where personality comes from according to common knowledge.You can just read the introduction that highly credentialled scientists in the discipline give to see that evolution is bad science, and discard it. But what would happen under a vouchersystem is that there would be many versions of Darwinist theory to choose from. Some would be like the Hitler youth was taught, and some would be atheist like you apparently favor, and some would be more in tune with the ideal of neutrality in science.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I don't have it wrong about Dawkins, Mark has it wrong, you are simply nitpicking at formalities to disguise the truth.I highly doubt that pysicists would chuckle in agreement with "stupid gravity" since the originator of the theory Newton, was inclined to think that he was thinking the thoughts of God after Him. So you see even in gravity theory the personal is not denied, eventhough gravity theory tends to push personality back to the "first cause" at the origin of the universe. Evolution theory generally doesn't push personality back to a first cause, evolution would turn out very differently if done over again, according to Gould. So actually there is much more room for evolution being personal, unlike in gravity theory where everything is predetermined. So the assertion of credentialled scientists of lack of personality in evolution just betrays partial atheism someplace, or denial of God whole.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Nitpicking at a formality, and then saying I have it wrong, is misleading. I represented Dawkins opinions truthfully. Isn't it about time you recognize the totally obvious, that you are yourself heaped in prejudice of all sorts. To recognize that you strongly tend to argue towards preconceived points of view in stead of taking a straightforward path from the evidence presented. If you would recognize your own prejudicial tendencies, then you might be more aware of intentional and unintentional prejudice in science theories.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I read it back, you were nitpicking and then you said I was wrong, eventhough the meaning is similar. I truthfully represented Dawkins opinion, you saying I was wrong is deceit. How can you stoop so low, I never do deceitful things like that.Actually what you say that was my point in my previous post, that your argument shows you to be an example of a bad scientist, who simply doesn't seriously consider their own prejudices, or prejudices and weaknesses in the science they accept. It's the Darwinist conception of science, fight tooth and nail to defend your theory, your education, your position.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I didn't ignore that. Dawkins says we ought to teach altruism because we are born selfish. That is already making a morality, and we can see the morality that follows from it in books from people like Susan Blackmore, evopsych selfhelp books etc. Dawkins confuses the colloguial meaning of selfishness, with the technical meaning of selfishness, this is why it is moralistic.How you all can be so incredibly stupid not to see it is because you are all, without any exception whatsoever in my experience, completely unable to think of an argument that doesn't support your preconceived position. Now some guy wants to ridicule the relationship of Darwinism to eugenics and Nazism again.... completely anti-historical, anti-science, liarous, pathetic.Dawkins also uses this morality in a more social setting, and of course he encourages that we all become this way through evolutionary pscyhology.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It's deceitful to say I have it wrong, when I have it basicly right, of course.You never mentioned the difference between "have to" and "should try to" before. Obviously you are just being the intelligent lawyer trying to come up with smart things to defend tooth and nail, in stead of trying to go straight to the truth of the matter. You are dishonest.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You can capitalize all you want, but you are not making an argument. I already explained numerous times how this morality of Dawkins works.
In some time, when you feel down, you will selfidentify with your genes, and you will seek to conquer your selfish genes. You might go to a psychologist who will tell you to do this. You will believe this nonsense, this will be your mission, your religion, the broad context in which you will frame important decisions in your life. Your altruism will be a manufactured rationality, your selfishness will be disguised to you as the morally neutral workings of nature and will grow and grow. etc.Notice that Dawkins gives a (faulty) more or less technical definition of selfishness after saying that selfishness explains greed and genorosity etc. So what would the technical definition of greed be? There is no technical defintion given, Dawkins mixes in with the normal colloquial meaning of greed. So where does greed figure in this supposedly morally neutral theory. A theory without any moral implications whatsoever, but which still explains greed?Again, you have no case, you jump to a conclusion you like. You do not think about things that might undermine your preconceived position.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are not addressing my argument Primordial Egg. Dawkins talks about explaining greed and loving etc. How come you don't address that? Is that because it would undermine your position?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu