Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Only Creationism So Politicized?
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 89 of 155 (71150)
12-05-2003 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by mark24
12-05-2003 5:25 AM


The point in referencing that book was to argue that the naturalistic fallacy is meaningless, which point you ignored. You're right that this particular book was not written by a biologist, but it still means that evolutionary biology becomes politicized, whether you like it or not. And of course while this book was not written by an influential Darwinists scientist, we all know that influential Darwinist scientists also mix up a lot of politics and religion in their main works.
Gould's final book, which I haven't read, is not just a history, it talks about trends or something as what should be the focus of present and future of evolutionary biological research.
Don't you have some self-awareness when you throw out all the evidence of evolutionary biology being politicized, throw it out due to the naturalistic fallacy? What is the point of people like you talking about the importance of evidence all the time, when apparently emphasizing the importance of it doesn't make you think twice to just throw out all evidence.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by mark24, posted 12-05-2003 5:25 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Mammuthus, posted 12-05-2003 7:37 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 91 by mark24, posted 12-05-2003 9:44 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 92 of 155 (71183)
12-05-2003 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by mark24
12-05-2003 9:44 AM


I don't trust your explanation of Gould's work, I take the word of others who have read it.
Obviously arguing with you about politicalization of evolutionary biology is meaningless since you have defined this to be an impossiblity. Your lies that there is not much politics / religion in the most influential Darwinist / evolutionist works, should be read in the context that you don't actually accept any evidence whatsoever to the point at issue.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by mark24, posted 12-05-2003 9:44 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by mark24, posted 12-05-2003 6:07 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 94 of 155 (71314)
12-05-2003 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by mark24
12-05-2003 6:07 PM


Ok if you drop the naturalistic fallacy, then I'm satisfied to have proven evolutionary biology is becoming more politicized by pointing a finger at evolutionary psychology and it's related self-help books, and ethical theory books, etc.
I don't believe you have an overview of the sciencepapers either, to the point at issue. But you don't need to have an overview of it, because, again, the mainstay of evolutionary biology is prosaic books ,not sciencepapers, like the books of Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, Fischer, Lorenz... and others. Even Darwin's "Descent of Man" is still said to be current because of renewed interest in sexual selection. I took the time to reread some reviews of Gould's final book, and no your description is not consistent with those reviews, and I believe them rather then I believe you. Where is your self-awareness again saying that I'm not entitled to an opinion on it?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by mark24, posted 12-05-2003 6:07 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by mark24, posted 12-06-2003 4:24 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 97 by Mammuthus, posted 12-08-2003 3:29 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 99 of 155 (72226)
12-11-2003 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by mark24
12-06-2003 4:24 AM


I've read parts of those books I'm referring to and yes there is politicizing in them. Science papers aren't easily accesible to me, pubmed only gives abstracts as far as I can tell. Anyway you said yourself that it's possible scientists crossed the line even in the papers. Since they cross the line in the books all the time, I kind of expect them to have done so in the papers as well. Anyway it's hardly the point, evolutionary psychology (not molecular evolution) and the prosaic books are the main areas where the politics is expressed.
To Mammuthus: What about the Vichy regime? I'm pretty sure you don't apply this standard to yourself, as you do to me. In any case my knowledge on the subject of politicization of evolutionary biology seems to be much wider then any of you.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by mark24, posted 12-06-2003 4:24 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Mammuthus, posted 12-11-2003 3:08 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 101 by mark24, posted 12-11-2003 4:59 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 144 by lpetrich, posted 01-03-2004 11:08 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 104 of 155 (72500)
12-12-2003 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by zephyr
12-12-2003 8:43 AM


Re: You Can Lead a Corpse to Water
Whatever... you people are just too smart for your own good. I mean you can make a good defense of the history of Darwinism and politics, attack every point, raise the standards of evidence higher and higher, you can make a complete whitewash of Darwinism in relation to politics and get away with it in public debate.
Some time later if you have some crisis in your life, you might go to a psychologist. At this point of weakness who of you will be able to resist rationializing your own personality in terms of selfish genes.... I come from the savanah..., that is who I am... that's what I am optimized for... I am born selfish, I must overcome my innate selfishness... Who of you rationalises their personality that way already? To become like that is the fate of the people who support the liarous talk.origins faq on the relationship of Darwinism to politics I referenced previously.
Again, the evidence I have provided earlier should be satisfactory. You are basically still just trying to catch me on a technical point of not providing full references, without showing any sign of actually weighing the arguments or evidence.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by zephyr, posted 12-12-2003 8:43 AM zephyr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by zephyr, posted 12-12-2003 10:39 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 106 by mark24, posted 12-12-2003 11:00 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 110 of 155 (72599)
12-12-2003 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by mark24
12-12-2003 11:00 AM


Re: You Can Lead a Corpse to Water
"We are born selfish" (Richard Dawkins, preface The Selfish Gene)
Of course those that make the ridiculous statement that I have not provided a single piece of evidence, are believers in the naturalistic fallacy, which makes any evidence to the point at issue an impossibility.
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)
There was considerable cross-fertilization of racial ideas between very respected academics on the one hand, and racial popularizers on the other. (Klaus Fischer: Nazi Germany, A new history)
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by mark24, posted 12-12-2003 11:00 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by PE's been savaged, posted 12-12-2003 8:16 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 112 by PE's been savaged, posted 12-12-2003 8:34 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 113 by mark24, posted 12-13-2003 7:58 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 114 of 155 (72809)
12-14-2003 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by PE's been savaged
12-12-2003 8:34 PM


Re: and another thing
But, I'm not lying at all, Dawkins did say that "we are born selfish" AS SOME KIND OF SCIENCE FINDING. The context of referring to altruism makes it worse of course, because you might have argued that Dawkins uses the word selfish technically, distinct from the colloquial usage of selfishness. However by referring to altruism as a moral imperative in the context, Dawkins conflates the technical usage of selfishness with the colloquial usage.
I think in physics they use the word charm to denote the state of a quark. However this usage of charm is clearly distinct from the colloquial usage of charm. You don't see physicists relating the technical usage of charm, to the colloquial usage of charm, like Dawkins relates "selfishness" to selfishness.
There is a long and continuous history of evpolutionism being linked to politics, and ALL historians I've read so far, recognize this link. Which means that I believe none of you have ever read any history about the subject....
IMO this link is the reason that creationism is also much political. Creationism, in it's modern popularity like with the ICR, is a reaction against the deceitful politics associated to evolutionism, or to Natural Selection specifically. For this reason, in the creation vs evolution controversy, evolutionists are generally evil, and creationists are generally good.
Now why don't you go critize the talk.origins faq I referred to earlier, which is the real piece of lies, not my postings.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by PE's been savaged, posted 12-12-2003 8:34 PM PE's been savaged has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by mark24, posted 12-14-2003 6:41 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 127 by Dr Jack, posted 12-15-2003 7:19 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 116 of 155 (72819)
12-14-2003 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by mark24
12-14-2003 6:41 AM


Re: and another thing
Once again, your reading of "The Selfish Gene" is simply false. Selfish genes normally give rise to selfish behaviour on the individual level, and BY EXCEPTION do they give rise to altruistic behaviour on the individual level. Since it is just an exception, this allows Dawkins to say that "we are born selfish" as generally true.
The point is inconsequential anyway, because it doesn't matter if Dawkins finds we are altruist, or that we are selfish, or that Aryans are altruist, and Jews are selfish, it's all the same fault of conflation.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by mark24, posted 12-14-2003 6:41 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Syamsu, posted 12-14-2003 11:54 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 119 by mark24, posted 12-14-2003 1:26 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 117 of 155 (72840)
12-14-2003 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Syamsu
12-14-2003 8:13 AM


Re: and another thing
Here's some historians work touching on the politization of evolutionary biology conveniently available online.
THE SCIENTIFIC ORIGINS OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Gasman.htm
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Syamsu, posted 12-14-2003 8:13 AM Syamsu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 12:19 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 120 of 155 (72890)
12-14-2003 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by NosyNed
12-14-2003 12:19 PM


Re: Racism and Darwin
-deleted doubleposting-
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 12-14-2003]
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 12-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 12:19 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 121 of 155 (72891)
12-14-2003 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by NosyNed
12-14-2003 12:19 PM


Re: Racism and Darwin
It's not really a question of in this case Haeckel's work being misused, since Haeckel's work was already quite politicized.
I think you saying "so what" means that you don't care that the main works in evolutionary biology are heavily politicized, you apparently only care for whether or not evolution is scientifically valid or not. You should not care care so much whether or not evolutionary biology is scientifically valid, it's an issue of subordinate importance to the politics. Besides I also make the special claim that the theory of natural selection is the same case as Haeckel's biogenetic law. They are flawed and their flaws are conducive to politicization, and actually the flaw in natural selection is maintained for this purpose, to make a convenient cross-over to religion/politics. You wrongly assume that Haeckel's biogenetic law / Darwin's theory of natural selection are free from politics, that they are neutral science. An investigation into natural selection shows it to be fundamentally very shaky scientifically. In reading reviews of Gould's last book, it kind of shocked me again to see how shaky it is in the fundaments. It seems to be a very difficult to keep a theory neutral when it is based around difference in forms / structure where one is noted as more succesful then another.
It's bizarre that you implicitly equate evolutionary biology to religion, by asking if there is a religion that hasn't been used to defend racism, in stead of asking if there is a science that hasn't been used to defend racism.
to Mark: I don't accept that something over 20 years old can't be brought in as evidence of evolutionary biology being politicized now. That is a completely ridiculous standard of evidence that noone who has even the slightest amount of honest intellectual curiosity about the subject would ever propose. What happened in december of 1983 that the politicization of evolutionary biology became fundamentally different? I also don't accept that I can only refer to scientists for evidence, and not to lay people who use evolutionary biology. As before if lay people politicize evolutionary biology then evolutionary biology is still becoming politicized, whether you like it or not. It just so happens that the most influential scientists in the discipline are "guilty" of politicizing much in their work, but there still could be much politicization of evolutionary biology even if they didn't do that. If everyone hasn't noticed already, you are consistently trying to manipulate the standards of evidence to whitewash the relation of Darwinism to politics.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 12:19 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 10:41 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 123 of 155 (72906)
12-15-2003 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by NosyNed
12-14-2003 10:41 PM


Re: Racism and Darwin Misused
It's not my conjecture that evolutionary biology is becoming politicized. It has always been politicized, and with the event of evolutionary psychology / selfish genes it is becoming more politicized again, just like with the forerunner of evolutionary psychology, sociobiology.
I'm questioning whether or not the the biogenetic law / theory natural selection lives up to the ideal of neutrality in science. I mention the biogenetic law because there it is more clear that the science theory, although somewhat correct as a notion, was largely politically contrived, to the point of it's inventor forging evidence to support it. The case is not as clear with natural selection, but everyone should admit that the fundamentals of it are shaky and muddled, so that you can't justifiably say that they are not partially politically contrived, or flawed. You don't know for sure if a groupselectionist is a groupselectionist because of politics or because of evidence, if groupselectionism has any basis in reality or not.
I still don't accept that you use religion analogous to evolutionary biology. Science is supposed to be value-neutral, religion not neccessarily so. Your revised statement that all sciences are misused to defend racism, the ideology of racism, sounds ridiculous to me. Evolutionary biology stands out among the sciences of course in this regard, to the point where any other science being misused is not really worth mentioning much in comparison.
Besides Darwin, Lorenz and Haeckel (who'se scientific heritage you apparently think is dead), I gave the modern example of Dawkins. Futuyama also does his fair share of politicizing, even if he gives it an anti-racist bent. Can you name me one influential evolutionary biologist who doesn't much engage in politics in their work? I suspect you will simply mention Dawkins, and not consider his anti-religious philosphical meandering about the basic identity of people as politicizing, considering you allege that I haven't backed anything up.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by NosyNed, posted 12-14-2003 10:41 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2003 2:05 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 125 by mark24, posted 12-15-2003 4:09 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 126 of 155 (72923)
12-15-2003 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by NosyNed
12-15-2003 2:05 AM


Re: Back Up
I realized 2 posts ago, that it was a tactical mistake to continue to provide argumentation and evidence to people who really stop to think after realising the naturalistic fallacy, but I decided that I should not play the incredibly stupid tactical games you people play to try to win a debate. Apparently the link to Gasman was of no value to you whatsoever. Why was that disqualified as evidence, was it posted at the wrong time of day? Should I have issued a proper searchwarrant with a judge first before going on google to search for Haeckel? You accept no evidence to the point at issue, any evidence provided is just met with a so-what on your part, and that's about the limit of your thoughts on the subject.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 12-15-2003 2:05 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by mark24, posted 12-15-2003 8:11 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 129 of 155 (72939)
12-15-2003 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by mark24
12-15-2003 8:11 AM


Re: Back Up
Oh yes my reference to Dawkins selfish gene was disqualified not because of the naturalistic fallacy, but because of what again, because I omitted the context that people are not actually born selfish according to your reading of Dawkins, eventhough Dawkins explicitly says they are born selfish, and he says that altruism has to be taught, which teaching is not advocating a morality according to Dawkins, eventhough he is advocating, and it is a morallity....
Of course you have the same endless discussions among Dawkins interpreters, as you have among Darwin-interpreters doing an exegesis on their prosaic texts.
I believe people are free to politicize / religionize a scientific theory, as also happens with quantum mechanics and buddhism. But that has to happen outside of science. As before the biogenetic law is a relatviely clear example of a science theory that is partly politically contrived. Natural selection, which the influential philosopher Karl Popper called a metaphysical research program, is also partly politically contrived IMO as explained endlessly before.
In conclusion who have I convinced that the politication of creationism is mainly a reaction against politicization of evolutionary biology / natural selection?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by mark24, posted 12-15-2003 8:11 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by JonF, posted 12-15-2003 12:35 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 131 by mark24, posted 12-15-2003 1:55 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5589 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 132 of 155 (73228)
12-16-2003 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by mark24
12-15-2003 1:55 PM


He says in the preface which someone else quoted before, that we have to TEACH altruism, because we are born selfish. It says it there quite clearly. I guess in the other parts Dawkins goes to demonstrate how selfishness on the gene-level can give rise to altruism on the individual level because:
- apparent altruism might commonly be raised as objections to his theory of selfish genes so he concentrates on refuting the objections
- his theory is basicly very boring, a leaf on a plant helps to reproduce offspring of that plant, and not some other plant (like we didn't know this already), and that's why he includes to explain altruism to make his theory look more interesting.
You are confused about genetic determinsm. The altruism Dawkins talks about in the other chapters is also genetic determinism, just like the selfishness is genetically determined.
As before politization (finally the correct spelling...) doesn't just happen outside of science, as you can read on the webpage of Gasman I reference.
Here's what seems to be professor P. Rushton's website:
http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/
Interestingly it is strongly implied on the webpage that the comparitive method is what links to racism, just like I have always said it does.
"Some of the politically inspired resistance to Darwinism in human affairs comes from evolutionary scientists themselves. By overemphasizing the search for universals, that is, pan-human traits (partly to show people's commonalities), many evolutionists abandon the very comparative method that created the Darwinian Revolution in the first place."
That's a problem, as a Darwinist you have to talk about one human being as "better" then another. I can imagine that sometimes students of Darwinism will deny equality of human beings, or hollow out it's meaning, solely because of viewing people from a Darwinist perspective. It tends to have that effect in my own use of Darwinism.
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.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by mark24, posted 12-15-2003 1:55 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by mark24, posted 12-16-2003 6:42 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024