Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9033 total)
49 online now:
kjsimons, nwr (2 members, 47 visitors)
Newest Member: Johnny
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 885,081 Year: 2,727/14,102 Month: 392/703 Week: 45/168 Day: 14/31 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Only Creationism So Politicized?
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4454 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 9 of 155 (38550)
05-01-2003 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lpetrich
04-21-2003 12:39 PM


Part of the politicazition can be explained by evolutionists also being very politicized. William Jennings Bryant for instance, a two time presidential candidate, who demanded evolutionary theory to stop being taught, had to fight Darwinist imperialists in Washington. The nobel prize winner Konrad Lorenz slanted his books towards nazi-ideology, having first published his papers in a Nazi journal. Darwin, sought for inferior not to marry superior, and wrote against labour unions because they would stifle competition between workers, on account of his Darwinism. The Hitler youth were taught Darwinism in Darwinist styled Hitler-schools, as part of their political indoctrination. etc.

Apart from that, the issue of creation has exceptional philosphical importance. For instance if we would deny creation by God, then we would also tend to deny creation by humans, and continue on to tend to deny choice by humans. If a person has a choice between being lazy, and doing his work, then those different choices have much significance in religion. But in evolutionary theory those choices simply equate to randomness. For an evolutionist there is absolutely nothing like effort involved in the creation of Nature. It is merely an effect of laws acting on matter with some randomness mixed in. Some Darwinists then compensate for this lack of magic in nature, by putting up humans as superspecial would be gods, who as the only known thing in the universe can rise above all these laws and randomness. But still the main philosophical thrust of evolutionism as it is now, is to deny any specialness anywhere.

So in short evolutionists tend to deny magic everywhere, which undermines the credibility of religion whole. In other sciences there seems to be a modicum of respect for the mysterious, a respect for when people need to make difficult choices in their lives. Choices which go to determine what will be, what is created.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lpetrich, posted 04-21-2003 12:39 PM lpetrich has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2003 11:55 AM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 51 by lpetrich, posted 12-01-2003 11:17 PM Syamsu has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4454 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 52 of 155 (70713)
12-03-2003 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by lpetrich
12-01-2003 11:17 PM


I posted the chapter from the schoolbook for the Hitleryouth in some other thread... which I can't find right now. Anyway I think you're just making an accusation on the technicality that I don't provide full references in my posts, rather then that you want to read the sources to develop your opinion on the subject.

I want to take this oppurtunity to complain about a new faq on partly the same subject on talk.origins. It has full references, as you might appreciate, and it also provides an excellent example that people who cheer for science, or are actually scientists themselves, are still able to produce a pack of selfserving lies.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Someone on the talk.origins forum wrote to historian Klaus Fisher who wrote back saying among other things that the "rise of pseudobiological racism is inconceivable without the intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the Darwinian revolution". That opinion of Fischer can't be found in the faq, or anything like it, eventhough at the time they all said to agree with it. The faq is obviously a politically contrived white-wash of Darwinism, and maybe some day they will go too far in their lying so that a history organization might rebuke them, but I don't believe they went as far as that yet.

The kind of denial of creation and choice I'm referring to are conceptions where the behaviour of people is predetermined. I know by personal experience on these forums that many evolutionists have a hard time contemplating a thing going one way or another. They tend to put up some material cause which neccesitates a particular outcome, and leave no room for things to go one way or another.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by lpetrich, posted 12-01-2003 11:17 PM lpetrich has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by mark24, posted 12-03-2003 6:55 AM Syamsu has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4454 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 54 of 155 (70732)
12-03-2003 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by mark24
12-03-2003 6:55 AM


Getting an ought from an is, is not a fallacy, or a crime. The system of natural rights is largely derived from the Newtonian (and arguably creationist) view of the universe. The people who conceived that were not thugs or irrational for getting an ought from an is.

I don't know pubmed. Recent is evopsych, same sort of thing as social darwinism. Some years ago farreatching eugenic laws have been adopted in China, and some other Asian countries obsessed with progress are much interested in adopting similar laws. In the West the "pollution" of the genepool is still a broad concern, seen as a race between medical technology and natural selection. Evopsych Kevin McDonald published some work on Judaism as a eugenic religion, concluding that Jews should be discriminated against in institutions where they are overrepresented. No I wouldn't say that evolutioniary science is getting depoliticized, I think it's getting more politicized.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by mark24, posted 12-03-2003 6:55 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Brad McFall, posted 12-03-2003 10:53 AM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 56 by mark24, posted 12-03-2003 11:09 AM Syamsu has responded
 Message 96 by lpetrich, posted 12-06-2003 8:22 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4454 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 57 of 155 (70758)
12-03-2003 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by mark24
12-03-2003 11:09 AM


Evopsych is a generally recognized science, and the science has nothing to do with Social Darwinism by their own words.....

Retract what? The facts? The schoolbook for the hitleryouth? The eugeniclegislation in progress obsessed china? The schoolbook of teacher Scopes of the monkey trial? There is a long and continuous history of Darwinism being linked to politics, and no that is not just evil politics picking on innocent science, but also Darwinism influencing the intellectual climate of opinion, individually and societally.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by mark24, posted 12-03-2003 11:09 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by mark24, posted 12-03-2003 12:33 PM Syamsu has responded
 Message 59 by NosyNed, posted 12-03-2003 1:14 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4454 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 60 of 155 (70891)
12-03-2003 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by mark24
12-03-2003 12:33 PM


Sorry, I have no overview of science journals. Besides much of evolutionary science happens outside the journals, in books like Dawkins "The selfish gene", which also has a chapter on familyplanning and things like that.

You are yourself highly politicized of course, ignoring, or being hyperskeptical of facts that don't suit your agenda. Some posts before *YOU RULED OUT ALL EVIDENCE* of a link between evolution and pollitics as irrellevant, because of the naturalistic fallacy. Why do you want me to go look for politicized evolutionary science papers, when you say that those papers are irrellevant? Before I would go look for them (in theory) we should first settle the argument about the naturalistic fallacy, otherwise there seems to be no point in me looking for irrellevant things.

So why don't you respond to my criticism of the naturalistic fallacy? Tell me how you view the system of natural rights? Is that a naturalistic fallacy, or some kind of crime because it was largely derived from a Newtonian view of things?

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by mark24, posted 12-03-2003 12:33 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by mark24, posted 12-03-2003 10:19 PM Syamsu has responded
 Message 62 by NosyNed, posted 12-03-2003 10:21 PM Syamsu has responded
 Message 67 by Mammuthus, posted 12-04-2003 5:43 AM Syamsu has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4454 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 63 of 155 (70927)
12-04-2003 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by mark24
12-03-2003 10:19 PM


It is my opinion that evopsych is the same sort of thing as Social Darwinism, and this opinion is not shared by evopsychs. I admit this may have been unclear to people who don't know about evolutionary psychology.

Again, you said, as far as I can tell, that the naturalistic fallacy made all links of Darwinism to politics irrellevant.

The system of natural rights as it is in the American constitution / declaration of independence, the constitution of France etc. Which is derived from Newtonian view of things, derived by people such a John Locke and Thomas Payne I think.... On equal terms your attack on social Darwinism is an attack on the system of natural rights, as a naturalistic fallacy.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by mark24, posted 12-03-2003 10:19 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by mark24, posted 12-04-2003 4:53 AM Syamsu has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4454 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 64 of 155 (70928)
12-04-2003 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by NosyNed
12-03-2003 10:21 PM


I don't see any need to add to what's been said. In stead of materialism, you could have energism, or informationism, or even anti-materialism, or nihilism. I think I raised enought doubts about the initiative to inflate the importance of doing something that has been standard human behaviour throughout time.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by NosyNed, posted 12-03-2003 10:21 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4454 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 66 of 155 (70933)
12-04-2003 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by mark24
12-04-2003 4:53 AM


Well I'm surprised that you would just trivialize the US and France constitution as a naturalistic fallacy. That position is just too far out for me to care to think about.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mark24, posted 12-04-2003 4:53 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by mark24, posted 12-04-2003 6:44 AM Syamsu has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4454 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 69 of 155 (70940)
12-04-2003 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Mammuthus
12-04-2003 5:43 AM


Can anyone point me to an evolutionist or preferrably a darwinist paper that is considered to be influential within evolutionist/darwinist science community? No?

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Mammuthus, posted 12-04-2003 5:43 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by mark24, posted 12-04-2003 6:51 AM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Mammuthus, posted 12-04-2003 7:32 AM Syamsu has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4454 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 72 of 155 (70947)
12-04-2003 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Mammuthus
12-04-2003 7:32 AM


Has any other evolutionist/darwinist ever heared of these supposedly infuential papers Mammuthus referenced? No? Would anyone offer the same papers as influential as Mammuthus did? No?

A paper dealing with a single species, human beings, would not likely be regarded as influential IMO, unless it dealt with the one species as an example of how all or many species evolve. For instance one might regard the paper on white/black moths as influential, but then I don't think that paper (or was it published as a novella?) is regarded that way much anymore.

I think this would be different when I asked the same sort of questions on a chemics or physics forum.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Mammuthus, posted 12-04-2003 7:32 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Mammuthus, posted 12-04-2003 8:37 AM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 74 by Quetzal, posted 12-04-2003 9:12 AM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 75 by mark24, posted 12-04-2003 9:18 AM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 76 by NosyNed, posted 12-04-2003 10:17 AM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 77 by sfs, posted 12-04-2003 11:56 AM Syamsu has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4454 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 78 of 155 (71052)
12-04-2003 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by sfs
12-04-2003 11:56 AM


Re: Engineering special: take whatever it has at that point.
I meant that unlike in other sciences such as physics or chemistry, evolutionism / darwinism is mainly advanced in prosaic books, which books tend to have much political or religious meandering in them.

Such a paper you refer to might loosely be regarded as influential, but it's not like you're going to put them in a college learning course about the most important works in evolutionism / darwinism. Such a course would only consist of books, would contain no paper at all I guess.

So to answer the question of this thread why only creationism is so politicized, it is mostly in response to evolutionism / darwinism being very politicized. This can be easily seen provided you don't rule out all evidence of evolution/darwinism being politicized as irrellevant due to the naturalistic fallacy.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by sfs, posted 12-04-2003 11:56 AM sfs has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by NosyNed, posted 12-04-2003 7:19 PM Syamsu has not yet responded
 Message 82 by sfs, posted 12-04-2003 10:37 PM Syamsu has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4454 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 80 of 155 (71062)
12-04-2003 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by mark24
12-04-2003 6:44 AM


Actually it does sound a bit scientific to me, and that all men are created equal is of course not patently false, the differences are essentially illusionary. This can be evidenced by if you don't treat people as equal, then your are continuously put on a wrong footing, making wrong assumptions about people, and if you treat them as equal then you get much more insight about people. I guess it's not a scientific hypothesis, but it's clear it should be believed with the same measure of certitude that a scientific certainty is believed, like that the planets go around the sun.

Recently an evolutionist did the same sort of thing, derived a plethora of more then a dozen natural rights from evolution / darwinism, among them a natural right to education and things like that. If it is a naturalistic fallacy, then naturalistic fallacies seem to be irrellevant.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by mark24, posted 12-04-2003 6:44 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by mark24, posted 12-04-2003 8:42 PM Syamsu has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4454 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 83 of 155 (71093)
12-04-2003 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by mark24
12-04-2003 8:42 PM


Again the rest of your writings is just too far out for me to consider.

---
Darwinian Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature, Larry Arnhart

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0791436942/103-3115099-3470228?v=glance

Incidentally, the second reviewer on that page, Matt Nuenke, is a nazi anti-semite I've seen posting on talk.origins.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by mark24, posted 12-04-2003 8:42 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by mark24, posted 12-05-2003 5:25 AM Syamsu has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4454 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 84 of 155 (71096)
12-04-2003 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by sfs
12-04-2003 10:37 PM


I beg to differ, Gould's final book for instance is much influential, so is Fischer's, and Dawkins, and Darwin. Those are the books that would be in a course about the most important works in evolutionary biology. Darwin's science paper on Natural selection, is of subordinate / insignificant importance compared to his books. I think the same thing goes for Gould. I think he published a paper on punctuated equilibrium, which might be regardes as influential, but I guess evolutionists mostly refer to his books, rather then to his papers. I have never seen anyone reference a paper of Dawkins, yet he is still commonly regarded as an influential evolutionist.

Some physicists also wrote some prosaic books, but those books aren't regarded as important works.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by sfs, posted 12-04-2003 10:37 PM sfs has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Mammuthus, posted 12-05-2003 3:07 AM Syamsu has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4454 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 86 of 155 (71139)
12-05-2003 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Mammuthus
12-05-2003 3:07 AM


So you yourself read Futuyama's Evolutionary biology. Books like that do not exist in physics, or chemistry AFAIK, they have nondescript textbooks.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Mammuthus, posted 12-05-2003 3:07 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Mammuthus, posted 12-05-2003 7:05 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021