Elitism and Nazism

You are confused. That Darwin chose to make his theory comparitive is not about style, it's about content.The blame for the venacular language which is conducive to judgementalism is spread throughout the Darwinist scientific community, for continuing the style of judgemental language that Darwin started.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It is just to show that Darwinism is a very peculiar discipline within science, employing different standards then for instance in physics.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The scientific content of Darwin's theory is descent with modification through natural selection. You have not to this point identified any flaws.--Percy

So Syamsu, you are now claiming that astrophysicists don't compare the brightness of stars? Perhaps stars show no variation either.Tell us, how much has been learned about Stellar evolution (which I hope we all realise is a distinct concept from that of biological evolution) simply by counting the number of stars rather than by, say, comparing spectral lines and luminosity.

The flaw is that Natural Selection is comparitive in stead of individual. Why must I say things to you 4 times? (or more?)regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Of course they do compare brightness of stars, they just don't do it in the way Darwinists do it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Suppose they suggested that one star was brighter than another? Would this not be 'venacular[sic] language which is conducive to judgementalism', and if not why not?

There are a few possibilities:

1. Your explanations are clear but I'm not capable of understanding them.
   ​
2. Your explanations are clear but I'm refusing to understand them.
   ​
3. Your explanations are not clear and so require more elaboration.
   ​
4. You're wrong.

From where I sit, your explanations are not clear or are wrong or, as in this case, provide no support for your argument, eg: This is an old point you've made before (and that no one has ever accepted), but it has nothing to do with eugenics, social Darwinism or the Nazis, and so you still haven't supported your original point that the fact that these things have drawn upon evolution somehow affects the validity of the theory itself.--Percy

They don't use the word goodness interchangeably with the property to emit light, as Darwinists use goodness interchangeabley with rate of reproduction (or something).regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You said I had not identified a flaw, but I had identified the flaw numerous times already. You should have said you don't agree that it is a flaw.You have made it clear to me previously that you believe in the oppositional mode of debate, where each side only makes arguments that supports their side, in stead of looking at both sides. I think that is why your understanding of any criticism of Darwinism is shallow. Thankfully the subject is only Creation vs Evolution, I hate to think what bigotry and ignorance this kind of oppositional debatingstyle would generate when the subject would be something like Chrisianity vs Judaism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think you're forgetting your original point. You said that because eugenics, social Darwinism and Nazi ideology draw upon the theory of evolution that it somehow affects the theory's validity. While you've indicated a flaw, comparative versus individual theory, not only does no one agree with this, or even understand what you're getting at, but you haven't even tied it to eugenics, social Darwinism and Nazi ideology, which was the original point you were trying to make.--Percy

Actually Percy it's only you who has said that, repeatedly, I never said that, show me where otherwise.I have tied the judgemental language to the comparison. In comparing Darwinists note the one as better then the other. Look Percy, disregarding my argument, now you have no knowledge whatsoever why Darwinists use the words good, superior, better, best etc. You have created your own ingorance about Darwinism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You have yet to show any prevalence of the use of the word goodness in the evolutionary literature. Fitness, yes certainly,has widespread usage but clearly isn't 'judgemental' enough for you. Goodness I have only seen in one paper so far, possibly one you yourself referenced although it might have been me, outside of the context of goodness of fit.

First of all this thread is focused on pre holocaust Darwinism, which was more liberal in it's choice of words.For the present the most prevalent definition of Natural Selection is differential reproductive success of variants. As good and bad are naturally joined to the word sucess (and failure) we should assume that the word good is still commonly used by Darwinists. From memory I've seen such usage in the talk.origins faq where it says something like: species don't behave for the good of the species, but for their own good. Then there is also Dawkins conceptions of gene-selfishness which is very influential. Clearly the judgemental words that Darwinists employ can't be regarded as a thing of the past.So far I consider it proven that:- the judgemental language that Darwinists employ is related to their usage of comparison, to compare reproductive success of variants, saying one is better then the other.- that influential Darwinist scientists have blurred the distintion between Darwinism and Social Darwinism in their prosaic works- That Natural Selection was one of the central rationalisations of the world in Nazi ideology.Of course what's not proven is that the comparison is faulty. Some years ago I saw Gould on TV commenting on how strange it was to have a theory based around comparison, referring to evolution by Natural Selection. Gould still accepts Natural Selection, but he does acknowledge the peculiarity of the theory vs other science-disciplines in relying on comparison this way. He also critized Dawkins for extrapolating too much from Natural Selection, because according to him the fundaments of the theory are not strong enough for that. Gould also criticized adaptionist explanations of Darwinists, in relation to the usage of the term Natural Selection at the Wannsee conference, where top-nazi's worked out the practicalites of the order from Hitler to kill the Jews.So as before, similar arguments as I make have been made by mainstream evolutionists. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an essay that said the same thing as I do about selection having to be defined on an individual basis in stead of a comparitive basis, since several evolutionists on this forum have said to me that fundamentally selection should in fact be understood on an individual basis.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

If I haven't been successful in reconstructing what you're trying to say then all I can say in my defense is that no one else has been able to make sense of it, either.Perhaps the crux boils down to two parts

1. You believe the theory of evolution is flawed in that it is conducive to judgmentalism and thereby aids such causes as eugenics, social Darwinism and Nazi ideology. I don't think anyone disagrees that these causes have drawn support from the theory of evolution, but you've convinced no one that the specific language used to explain a theory represents a flaw in the theory itself.
   ​
2. You believe the flaw in the theory of evolution is that it is comparative and not individual. You've convinced no one of this, either

In order to successfully carry the day in this discussion you have to do both of the following:

• Convince people of both points 1 and 2.
  ​
• Draw a convincing connection or relationship between points 1 and 2.

So far, you haven't done either.--Percy