|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Forum: Darwnist Ideology | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I wonder however if HM Morris' had his alliance of Christian Colleges that have CREATIONIST SPECIALITY TECHNICAL DEPTS (say geology on the west coast and biology in the east etc) that( with a high amount of on line connectivity in this, my, version), the changes in THESE may indeed proceed independently of any "social" Darwinism ongoing concern elsewhere or extincting, while it might in that retrospect should it happen be hard to extract the origin of the Christian College Community's biology from an extripated social Darwinism. It seems to me that the geology could be however phenomenologically not tied so in origin. This is the future of c/e not e/c but we live in the here and now with few c-e n/or e-c.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Ok, Syamsu, let's suppose for a second that darwinist ideology exists and has had a negative effect on society. Now, tell me, what bearing does this have on the truth of the theory? And, secondly, assuming evolutionary theory is true; should we lying to people about it due to its negative effects?
"You're Green, You're Ugly and the Gods Hate You."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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 it2. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Dude,
So supposedly this is a serious reply, but of course it's drivel. I thought I'd try and give you the benefit of the doubt, and this is your response? How about you try again, and see if you can manage to respond in a more constructive manner? Jack.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6474 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: It is nice to see you are still a liar and a hypocrite. First, every single one of us has initially taken your point seriously and made constructive arguments against them. Eugenics is an interesting subject and would make for an great debate. But not when a complete ignoramus like you wishes to spew utter bullshit over and over again. YOU HAVE IGNORED EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF COUNTER EVIDENCE. You have even ignored evidence about eugenics presented to you which could actually support some of your claims. You have made it clear over and over again that not only are you completely ignorant of basic biology, but are particularly clueless about natural selection. You are so ridiculous that mark24 got you to agree with a common definition of natural selection repeatedly and then you still did not even realize it. You have also made it clear that you would prefer to make your stupid assertions without actually ever reading the books you claim are so damning for evolution i.e. willful ignorance i.e. stupidity.
quote: 1. You should admit that you have never even cracked a book open on the subject of natural selection and you have repeatedly refused to educate yourself. You even made it clear you do not know what the primary literature in evolutionary biology is i.e. claiming that Richard Dawkins book is primary literature..LOL!2. Your meandering posts have lead you alternatively to agree with exactly the opposite of your own position (i.e. mark24) or to ramble on incoherently. You are about as precise as a drunk at the Oktoberfest trying to play darts in the dark. quote: It is clearly beyond your incredibly limited capacity to actually learn anything about biology, evolution, natural selection or the history of eugenics and then come here and make your case. A pity since the subject is ultimately interesting...however, you are not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: Gosh, that incredibly obvious factoid has sure brightened up my day. Of course, it has the square root of f*ck-all to do with what you asked me, which was what the better theory would be, between two you outlined. And I answered you: whichever is better supported by the available evidence. And you seem to have a problem with this idea. May I ask why?
quote: I was wondering how long it would take someone to notice that.
quote: Syamsu, you might not want to go opening doors on this forum that lead to people thought of as ridiculous being driven out of town. Just a little heads-up, y'know? Cuz I love you, big guy. "Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river." -Anya
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: Then why in the name of holy buggering blistering toad-humping hell did you ask?
quote: And you're still not listening. The better theory is the theory supported by evidence. Case closed. You might prefer a different theory, but unless you have evidence to support it, tough. freakin'. luck. You might as well try to investigate whether 2 + 2 is prejudiced against adding up to 5. "Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river." -Anya
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
quote: Believe me, we do not miss the inane basics of your argument. But you are correct that after repeating those inane basics endlessly, and finally calling our serious arguments drivel (in odd comparison to your inane ones), we become your sulking detractors.
quote: It should simply be "not reproduce" any more of these wasted moments in life, arguing with a person who will not only contradict himself and not notice, but finally ends in ad hominem and silence. Every once in a while you have a point Syamsu, and you may always be interested in interesting topics. The problem seems to be that when it comes to this Social-Darwinism thing, or socialism in general, you lose your mind's good footing. For a person railing against those who do not look for evidence discrediting their own position, you manage to miss a truckload when its delivered right before your eyes. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
Syamsu,
Incidentally, I saw this post while lurking at II today:
Steven Carr writes: From Hitlers Tischgespraeche im Fuehrerhaupquartier by Henry Picker (one of the actual stenographers), translated by me from the German on page 127
'From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.' So it seems that Hitler wasn't completely bowled over by the concept of human evolution either (not that it makes any difference to the validity of the theory in any event). It might be an idea to concentrate on the ideological consequences of asserting that your kind (or your particular "race") are the dominant, superior lifeform on the planet and part of a "special creation". Then again, the argument that creationism (or more widely, religion) is not without its negative social consequences never seems to be addressed by you. PE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024