|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Only Creationism So Politicized? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
AZ - If you are replying to a specific message, please use the small reply button at the bottom of that message. Then all will have a reference and link to who you are replying to.
No need to respond to this message, other than following the above suggestion. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBrian Inactive Member |
Hi Moose, I have a small problem withthe wording of one of AZ posts:
http://EvC Forum: What is an Xtian? -->EvC Forum: What is an Xtian? I don't think we need racist language like this at a public forum. AdminBrian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
AZ,
This may as well be addressed to you too. http://EvC Forum: Radiometric Dating For Sonic. -->EvC Forum: Radiometric Dating For Sonic.
There is no right answer to the age of the earth as it is a darwinian-inspired imposition with no scientific basis. You would appear to have a very unscientific view of what is and isn't scientific. Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
It is possible that it isn't intended to be racist. Instead it is to show how this individual feels about the term Xian. It is trying to say,perhaps, that all the terms, including xian, are, in some way, discriminatory.
However, I would suspend AZ just because s/he is obviously not going to do anything but assert her/his views with no attempt at debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4987 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
I know what you mean, I just felt that the language used is inflamatory and if AZ was interested in putting a point across it could have been supported better.
OTOH, we could be giving him/her too much credit. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lpetrich Inactive Member |
Syamsu writes:
Most evolutionary biology is researched in a very apolitical fashion. I suggest that you check PubMed some time and see how much politics is in it. In fact, I suspect that that claim is nothing but projection -- accusing others of doing what one does.
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.
Like who? Be specific. Name names.
The nobel prize winner Konrad Lorenz slanted his books towards nazi-ideology, having first published his papers in a Nazi journal.
Which one?
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.
Quote chapter and verse from his writings. If anything, he had stated the opposite, objecting to how his views were used to prove that might makes right, implying that Napoleon was right and that every cheating tradesman was right.
The Hitler youth were taught Darwinism in Darwinist styled Hitler-schools, as part of their political indoctrination. etc.
Quote chapter and verse from their curricula. Adolf Hitler himself had little interest in biological evolution; he would talked about how our distant fishlike ancestors had struggled to live on land and stuff like that.
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. (other mudslinging deleted...)
I've yet to see any convinced atheist claim that nobody ever creates anything. I certainly don't believe that. [This message has been edited by lpetrich, 12-01-2003] [This message has been edited by lpetrich, 12-01-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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. An Index to Creationist Claims 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Syamsu,
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. What the Nazis may or may not have done with evolution is irrelevant. Whatever they tried to do with evolution led to them committing the naturalistic fallacy; trying to make an ought from an is. That said, you have it completely back to front, it is politics trying to become evolutionised (& thus being logically unsound due to the committing of said fallacy), rather than evolution becoming politicised. As Ipetrich pointed out & I second, find a recent politically motivated evolutionary article or paper on Pubmed. I'm sure you can find plenty of political writings attempting to integrate evolution, but then that's neither logically sound, nor is it evolution being politicised, is it? Even if I grant you that certain biologists stepped outside their bounds & committed the naturalistic fallacy, I bet you can't find any that are recent. I therefore put it to you that evolution is becoming depoliticised rather than politicised, assuming you can't come up with any modern examples of scientists spouting eugenics & whatnot.
or are actually scientists themselves, are still able to produce a pack of selfserving lies. I dime to a dollar says you can't catch an recent evolutionary biologist(s) producing a pack of self serving lies. I expect you to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that they are lying. Syamsu's subjective say so isn't evidence, even if Syamsu thinks it is. Mark ------------------"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
And it seems to have gotton this way by post-Communist Marxist cheapening of ANY FORCE that may bound evey or an all binding of some "natural kind"(Kripke)a small diffusive affect nonetheless between and ecological something and a 'speciational' ding an sich.
My Grandfather HAD a "eugenic" document that was apparently being circulated to establish such an OFFICE FOR THE STATE OF NY and yet the reason I fathered to illegit children seems more a matter of me being the the eugencist my grandfather never was than the aplogist for salamanders I always wanted the the topography of Catargus counTy to be not a state of nation or country of the seperation of Church and State as is still the public preception AND RECEPTION of any every or all same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Syamsu,
Recent is evopsych, same sort of thing as social darwinism. Which isn't science, & is therefore not science becoming politicised. It's politics becoming evolutionised (or more accurately uses evolution to support views which have always existed, nor do I see any evidence of this becoming more prevalent in the last 100 years), which has no bearing on whether evolution is right or wrong. Do you think eugenics would be a good policy to introduce?
No I wouldn't say that evolutioniary science is getting depoliticized, I think it's getting more politicized. Of course you would, Syamsu, I just want you to show it. Produce a recent evolutionary scientific article/paper that proposes a political corollary, or retract. Mark ------------------"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Syamsu,
Last post you said;
Syamsu writes: Evopsych is a generally recognized science, and the science has nothing to do with Social Darwinism by their own words..... The one before that;
Syamsu writes: Recent is evopsych, same sort of thing as social darwinism. Which is it? You make it up as you go along, don't you? What political policies is Evopsych itself promoting? Not people who have got ahold of it & are trying to tie it into their own worldview, but Evopsych itself.
Retract what? The facts? The schoolbook for the hitleryouth? Not recent. And it's by politicians, not evolutionary biologists.
The eugeniclegislation in progress obsessed china? Not science.
The schoolbook of teacher Scopes of the monkey trial? Not sure of what you mean here. But it ain't recent. If it's not recent, then you can hardly support your contention that evolution is in the process of being politicised, can you? In fact, if you can't find anything recent, then the examples you cite are evidence of a more distantly political bent that has decreased over time, like I say, evidence of de-politicising evolution.
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. Yup, it's always been in the background, & its always been science used for political purposes, not science forcing itself on politics. So, I'll ask again, produce a recent evolutionary scientific article/paper that proposes a political corollary, or retract. It's you who maintain that evolution is being politicised, so we should see lots of recent political agendas by evolutionary scientists, shouldn't we? Or are you still failing to understand the difference between a scientist who forms hypotheses based on facts, showing what is, as opposed to a politician who grabs at a scientific theory in order to support his views on what should be? 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, 12-03-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
The eugeniclegislation in progress obsessed china? What is this and what does it have to do with the topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5618 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024