Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8984 total)
41 online now:
nwr (1 member, 40 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Diomedes
Post Volume: Total: 877,570 Year: 9,318/23,288 Month: 333/1,544 Week: 47/561 Day: 0/47 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Only Creationism So Politicized?
MrHambre
Member
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 136 of 155 (73337)
12-16-2003 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by mark24
12-16-2003 11:22 AM


Futility Personified
Mark24,

Syamsu writes:

Of course your total denial of the history of violent racism linked to the works of the most influential evolutionary biologists such as Lorenz, Haeckel and Darwin comes in handy now, to deny that there is any problem at all. And why stop denying there, why not deny the holocaust as well? That's the sort of people you side with, by denying any meaningful link between Darwinism and Social Darwinism, even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


This paragraph is all you need to write this fool off as a waste of time. Let's not feed this troll any more. We have to realize that there will never be any progression to this debate. He has nothing constructive to add to any discussion of science, philosophy, or politics.

I don't know what offends me more, his comparing us to Holocaust deniers or his assertion that he has presented us with overwhelming evidence of anything except his own ignorance and intractability.

------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by mark24, posted 12-16-2003 11:22 AM mark24 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Loudmouth, posted 12-16-2003 1:50 PM MrHambre has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 155 (73370)
12-16-2003 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by MrHambre
12-16-2003 11:42 AM


Re: Futility Personified
I agree MrHambre. He doesn't seem to get the idea that misusing a theory does not refute the theory. Dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima did not refute Atomic Theory. I am guessing that our troll might disagree with that statement. He might claim that atomic theory is politicized now that it is used for bombs and nuclear reactors are faught over in congress.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by MrHambre, posted 12-16-2003 11:42 AM MrHambre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by mark24, posted 12-16-2003 8:05 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3743 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 138 of 155 (73535)
12-16-2003 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Loudmouth
12-16-2003 1:50 PM


Re: Futility Personified
Loudmouth,

He doesn't seem to get the idea that misusing a theory does not refute the theory.

Actually he does.

The politicizing doesn't effect the scientific validity, but Natural Selection is not scientifically valid in the first place, and the flaw in it, the reliance on comparison, is sustained politically.

Which has to leave you wondering what his point is? Lot's of people misuse science, but it leaves the theories intact & inviolate, so there! Um, so what are us defenders of science supposed to worry about?

But NS isn't scientifically valid? Earth to Syamsu, earth to Syamsu....

Even the most hardened creationists accept the scientific validity of NS.

What I love about Syamsu is his ability to argue something absolute, then in the process of argument, end up arguing the opposite.

Consider his Dawkins "we are born selfish" quote he disagrees with. He then in a later post insists on limiting the efficacy of altruistic behaviour to a mere "exception". The corollary of which is that we are born selfish! Will the real Syamsu please stand up!

Or the absolute classic where he again denies the efficacy of the "comparative method", yet agrees really....

Statement 1/ The changes in ratios of alleles due to natural selection within a breeding population as a whole, cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others.

Statement 2/ The changes in ratios of homologous alleles/genes due to natural selection within a population as a whole, cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others.

Syamsu: Yes sure I agree.

Then in a later post the "comparative method" is "rubbish, "false", & "stupid". Hey you agreed to it, Syamsu, keep reeling off the expletives, dude!

Syamsu is a living embodiment of the adage, "a little knowledge is dangerous". Consider all his Dawkins misrepresentations. Dawkins is a genetic determinist, yet spends an entire chapter of the Extended Phenotype rebutting such notions. Dawkins sees altruistic behaviour as an exception, but spends a half of the Selfish Gene talking about it. I'm sure you have your favourites, too.

You have to see Syamsu as entertainment, nothing else. Like I say, you couldn't make it up.

Mark

------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Loudmouth, posted 12-16-2003 1:50 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Mammuthus, posted 12-17-2003 7:10 AM mark24 has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 139 of 155 (73684)
12-17-2003 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by mark24
12-16-2003 8:05 PM


Re: Futility Personified
quote:
You have to see Syamsu as entertainment, nothing else. Like I say, you couldn't make it up.


...yup..good ole Sy...the EvC Forum version of the Jerry Springer Show.

I particularly find it amusing at this juncture that he continues to make absolute statements about who is important in evolutionary biology while only referencing popular writers like Dawkins as opposed to say practicing biologists like say Charlesworth, Nei, etc...that he continues despite the fact that he has not read even what the popular book writers have written and that he claims his posts are his "evidence" also demonstrating that in addition to not knowing anything about evolution...he has no idea what evidence is either....(But I guess ten-sai will come and tell us any second now).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by mark24, posted 12-16-2003 8:05 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 140 of 155 (73748)
12-17-2003 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by mark24
12-16-2003 11:22 AM


No you can't say with the same justification that selfishness is the exception because on the individual level selfishness is 99 percent, and altruism 1 percent.

(R. Dawkins, The Selfish Gene)
"This gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness in individual behavior. However, as we shall see, there are special circumstances in which a gene can achieve its own selfish goals best by fostering a limited form of altruism at the level of individual animals. 'Special' and 'limited' are important words in the last sentence. Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense.

You are WRONG about Dawkins, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. All the while telling me I don't understand, making snide comments to undercut my authority, while you are yourself completely WRONG. Now let's see if this standard you and others have works both ways. If now you have to pack up, shut up because you don't know what you're talking about etc. etc.

Jews not eating pork, and memes, are obviously not covered by Dawkins theory of selfish genes. Again, the altruism that Dawkins refers to in his theory is genetically determined, and so is the selfishness. This does not preclude other factors from operating, but those fall outside his theory obviously.

IMO to note that an animal eating their food is noted as selfish according to Dawkins selfish gene theory, just shows how ridiculous a theory it is. This is one of the reasosn why he doesn't cover individual selfishness much, why he concentrates on the 1 percent of altruistic cases in many chapters, eventhough altruism is a very small part of cases where his theory applies.

I am merely using Dawkins theory to demonstrate it's absurdity, of course I don't myself view organisms as selfish or altruistic the way Dawkins does.

As you can read in Rushton's text the anti-racists emphasize similarities, while racists emphasize differences. Darwinists have to emphasize the differences, it's the only way their theory works. You could say this leads to a non-political racialist rather then a racist position when applied to human beings, but then Rushton, in reading a little further, is a racist.

Besides you have already proven for me that the comparing is what leads to racism, by simply denying human equality because of it. I do not mean to say that you're a racist, but of course anyone that denies human equality can more easily become one.

It may have been too heavy-handed to refer to holocaust deniers, but you previously omitted the holocaust by making a cut of for evidence of politicized evolutionary biology at 20 years ago.

I'm not really sure if your support for things like "all men are created equal" has substance. Some time ago Dawkins talked about the ethics of having clones, saying in a debate on it that it is just the same as twins. He was then rebuffed by some religious people, which made him post a furious article in the paper. Later, when someone made him calm down apparently, he wrote a nuanced article about the subject talking about all the many ethical issues involved that he failed to notice before, not at all in his own writing style. A twin is not so much like a clone, because a man who has a clone, is much like a father and a brother to the clone, or in other words he's basicly a m*th*rf*ck*r... So you see it can be very misleading to view solely in terms of physical properties, it is much wrong.

I said myself that NS is not about replacement, read again. It's not about replacement, therefore there is no point to the comparing in NS. Darwin's theory of NS as expressed in "Descent of Man" was about replacement, but this theory is also wrong, because replacement is just one of several possible relationships between organisms. It is not right to limit the theory to replacement, when there could also be symbiosis between them.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by mark24, posted 12-16-2003 11:22 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by mark24, posted 12-18-2003 10:50 AM Syamsu has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3743 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 141 of 155 (74085)
12-18-2003 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Syamsu
12-17-2003 11:33 AM


Syamsu,

Jews not eating pork, and memes, are obviously not covered by Dawkins theory of selfish genes. Again, the altruism that Dawkins refers to in his theory is genetically determined, and so is the selfishness. This does not preclude other factors from operating, but those fall outside his theory obviously.

I quite agree, but that was always my point. Dawkins doesn't ignore such factors, he accepts that behaviour isn't entirely genetically deterministic. That was the point, remember, you telling me Dawkins was a genetic determinists when he clearly isn't?

IMO to note that an animal eating their food is noted as selfish according to Dawkins selfish gene theory, just shows how ridiculous a theory it is. This is one of the reasosn why he doesn't cover individual selfishness much, why he concentrates on the 1 percent of altruistic cases in many chapters, eventhough altruism is a very small part of cases where his theory applies.

Altruism is so extensively covered because it is a phenotype that at first glance contradicts the idea of genes acting selfishly. Selfish behaviour requires very little explanation.

I am merely using Dawkins theory to demonstrate it's absurdity, of course I don't myself view organisms as selfish or altruistic the way Dawkins does.

So a mother isn't being altruistic by nursing her child?

I said myself that NS is not about replacement, read again.

I did, & you said NS is about replacement, & it's not the first time, either. Can't you remember your own position?

Syamsu writes:

Once again, it only means something when there is a point to the differential success, the point being the one replacing the other, and this point is lost in Natural Selection theory.

It's not about replacement, therefore there is no point to the comparing in NS.

Then please explain your favourite example of an ESS without comparing.

Make your mind up, Syamsu, is it about replacement or not?

For the third time of asking.

"The question is, is there anything that logically compels us to superimpose observations in nature onto our own morality?

Answer: of course there isn't. Do you agree? If the answer is no, then any attempt to support this kind of morals & ethics with science is a comment on the person & not the science."

Mark

------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Syamsu, posted 12-17-2003 11:33 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Syamsu, posted 12-19-2003 9:10 AM mark24 has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 142 of 155 (74231)
12-19-2003 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by mark24
12-18-2003 10:50 AM


By saying the point (of replacement) is lost in natural selection theory, I meant that in natural selection theory the comparing is not about replacement, just like you say.

I guess with ESS you mean evolutionary stable strategy? I don't know what you mean, but the point of individual selection without comparing is just to see how it reproduces or not, as the case may be. All of these mutations happen, and then each of them get selected, they either reproduce or they don't. Which is ever so slightly different then saying; we have all this variation and this one reproduces more then the other one, which is comparitive selection. Much as you wish otherwise you don't know for sure which of these descriptions is better science.

I think your question about superimposing is wrong. Does Darwinism strongly tend to influence intellectual climate of opinion personally and societally, including religious and political opinion? The answer is yes.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by mark24, posted 12-18-2003 10:50 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by mark24, posted 12-19-2003 2:04 PM Syamsu has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3743 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 143 of 155 (74289)
12-19-2003 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Syamsu
12-19-2003 9:10 AM


Syamsu,

I think your question about superimposing is wrong. Does Darwinism strongly tend to influence intellectual climate of opinion personally and societally, including religious and political opinion?

That's not what I asked.

"The question is, is there anything that logically compels us to superimpose observations in nature onto our own morality?"

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Syamsu, posted 12-19-2003 9:10 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Syamsu, posted 01-16-2004 9:35 PM mark24 has responded

  
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 155 (76441)
01-03-2004 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Syamsu
12-11-2003 12:03 AM


Syamsu:
Science papers aren't easily accesible to me, pubmed only gives abstracts as far as I can tell.

Syamsu, you can purchase papers online in many cases -- you pay by credit card or whatever, and then download a file. And failing that, the abstracts will give good summaries of the papers' contents. If those papers are as blatantly political as you say, then it should show up in their abstracts.

The rise of pseudobiological racism is inconceivable without the intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the Darwinian revolution. (Klaus Fischer, talk.origins)

However, there was plenty of non-biological racism, and even some pseudo-biological racism, before Darwin published his magnum opus. A favorite one was how black people bear Noah's curse of Ham for having been a Peeping Tom -- or worse.

A pre-Darwinian controversy in anthropology was whether humanity had one set of original ancestors ("mongeny") or several ("polygeny") -- whether there was only 1 Adam-Eve pair or several Adam-Eve pairs. Thus, white people would be descended from one Adam-Eve pair, black people from another, Oriental people from another, etc. Monogenists, by comparison, often considered Adam and Eve to be white people and black people to be degenerate white people.

But as evolution became more commonly accepted, these conceptions were grafted onto evolutionary biology, where versions of the debate have continued to the present day. "Out of Africa" is an updated version of monogeny -- a single ancestral human population gives rise to all existing ones. "Multiregional" is an updated version of polygeny -- several populations evolve in approximate sync by exchanging genes..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Syamsu, posted 12-11-2003 12:03 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 145 of 155 (78962)
01-16-2004 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by mark24
12-19-2003 2:04 PM


Your question is obviously lawyering, not a question aimed at getting more insight into the issue, but a question aimed at establishing the innocence of evolutionary biology, and therefore wrong.

I don't believe that any kind of position that mainly treats evolutionary biology as a victim of racist ideologists, in stead of treating it as a motor of racist ideology has any credibility with intellectuals.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by mark24, posted 12-19-2003 2:04 PM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by mark24, posted 01-17-2004 4:57 AM Syamsu has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3743 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 146 of 155 (79009)
01-17-2004 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Syamsu
01-16-2004 9:35 PM


Syamsu,

Your question is obviously lawyering, not a question aimed at getting more insight into the issue, but a question aimed at establishing the innocence of evolutionary biology, and therefore wrong.

How can a question be wrong because the conclusion is wrong? You are assuming the conclusion in your premise,; circular argument. Not to mention assuming that a question = a statement & can actually be wrong in the same way. Questions can be poorly formulated, not conclusionally wrong, by definition. Your question is of the form, "does God exist? Since the answer is no, the question is wrong". There has to be a name for this kind of fallacy. It could be called a Syamsu, perhaps?

I am trying to ascertain whether or not we are logically compelled to draw moral conclusions from obsrvation, what's lawyering about that? What is not valid about that?

Clearly your objection is that the obvious answer is "no", & this completely screws your argument that evolutionary theory in & of itself is political. So please have the intellectual honesty & answer the question.

Is there anything that logically compels us to superimpose observations in nature onto our own morality?

Your illogical evasion is noted.

I don't believe that any kind of position that mainly treats evolutionary biology as a victim of racist ideologists, in stead of treating it as a motor of racist ideology has any credibility with intellectuals.

And I am trying to ascertain whether your "belief" is rational. Please answer the question, above. Yes or no.

Mark


"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-17-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Syamsu, posted 01-16-2004 9:35 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Syamsu, posted 01-17-2004 9:16 AM mark24 has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 147 of 155 (79019)
01-17-2004 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by mark24
01-17-2004 4:57 AM


Well I could say the answer is yes, we are logically compelled to draw moral conclusions from observation by the logic of our psychology, and being compelled emotionally to know right from wrong. But the question is wrong.

If the answer is no, then the question is meaningless, since it still allows for evolutionary biology to heavily influence personal and societal opinion, to the extent we have seen in the past, both surreptiously through the subjective language that is employed in the discipline and the emotive subjects it covers, and selfconsciously by preaching of believers in evolutionist ethics.

But again it's simply lawyering, when the issue comes up next in some other thread you will say to a poster that we aren't logically compelled to draw moral conclusions from observation, in stead of saying people do and have drawn moral conclusions from evolutionary biology to a large extent, including a large percentage of the most influential evolutionary biologist scientists themselves. You will then not be telling the whole truth, but simply playing a game with the truth to shield evolutionary biology from criticism, lawyering.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by mark24, posted 01-17-2004 4:57 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by mark24, posted 01-17-2004 10:30 AM Syamsu has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3743 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 148 of 155 (79027)
01-17-2004 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Syamsu
01-17-2004 9:16 AM


Well I could say the answer is yes, we are logically compelled to draw moral conclusions from observation by the logic of our psychology, and being compelled emotionally to know right from wrong. But the question is wrong.

Like what? Or is this simply saying we have morality therefore it should influence our morality?

You are wriggling, let me restate the question to eliminate your wriggle room.

What is it about evolutionary theory that logically compels us to superimpose it onto our morality, & by dint of that into our politics?

If the answer is no, then the question is meaningless, since it still allows for evolutionary biology to heavily influence personal and societal opinion

Ah, but were these logically compelled to have their moral & societal opinions altered by evolution? If not, then it's not evolution that is at fault, is it?

Mark


"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Syamsu, posted 01-17-2004 9:16 AM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Syamsu, posted 01-17-2004 11:05 PM mark24 has responded

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4138 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 149 of 155 (79171)
01-17-2004 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by mark24
01-17-2004 10:30 AM


Again, it is a fault of evolutionary biology, by the subjective language employed, the structural fault of comparison which is sustained politically, and the straightforward politics and religion in the main works of evolutionary biology.

Some time ago there was a poster here who commented that she was influenced by selfish gene theory much, and then in the end she blamed herself for being so stupid to be influenced by it very much. But at Amazon book reviews you can read this time and again that people are influenced by it very much in the way to have a much lower appreciation of nature generally, and people in particular, and regret this influence. Are all these people stupid, or somehow too emotional?

IMO that's ridiculous, the intentionally hateful book of Dawkins towards religion, the use of subjective language like selfish, the glorification of evolutionary biology and Darwinism particularly, the shoddy and faulty science, neccessarily lead to large amount of influence on religious and political opinion. It is possible to accept it as a straightforward scientific proposition, and that you don't let it influence your political and religious opinion much, but you would have to do a lot of work not to let it influence you much that way, to keep it separate from your judgement about the worth of things.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by mark24, posted 01-17-2004 10:30 AM mark24 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by mark24, posted 01-18-2004 10:21 AM Syamsu has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3743 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 150 of 155 (79210)
01-18-2004 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Syamsu
01-17-2004 11:05 PM


Syamsu,

Please just answer the question, what is it about evolutionary theory that logically compels us to superimpose it onto our morality, & by dint of that into our politics?

This is a perfectly valid question. You may not like the corollary of the answer, but that's the point. If there is nothing that logically compels us to extract morality from evolution (or any other theory), then everyone that did must be wrong to have claimed such reasoning. Meaning evolution is squeaky clean, & it's the people you mention who are at fault.

Mark

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-18-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Syamsu, posted 01-17-2004 11:05 PM Syamsu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Syamsu, posted 01-19-2004 3:01 AM mark24 has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020