|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,471 Year: 3,728/9,624 Month: 599/974 Week: 212/276 Day: 52/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Misuse of evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
I am sure everybody knows this.
Evolution is hijacked by people with various interests to back their cause. This is why we are in this forum. Either to slam evolution or trying to hit back. Question is, can we do something to prevent misuse of evolution? Anti-evolution websites usually put the damage made by evolution hijackers first; I think that is what they are after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: No there's not ... in the same way that there is nothing wecan do to prevent the mis-use of religous belief systems. I'm not sure what these mis-uses are ... can you give me somelinks at all ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5612 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
"The Races of Man - At the present time there exists upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or Yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilised white inhabitants of Europe and America."
(Hunter, A Civic Biology, 1914, textbook of teacher Scopes, of Scopestrial fame) I know this is "just" a textbook, and rather old, but many influential Darwinian scientists supported it's teaching at the time of the trial, and the Scopes trial is still used today by many Darwinists to defend teaching of the theory of evolution. As far as I know it would be illegal to teach now, what was taught then in government schools in the United States. Besides that you can look at standard books on Nazism such as Fischer's 12 year reich, or Burleigh's "the racial state revisited". For criticism of more modern evolutionary theory on this point, or really just criticism of Darwinism and Darwinists actually, you can look to peadiatricians who criticize Dawkins assertion of being born selfish, and activist organizations, as well as Gould's and associates criticism of "ultra-Darwinists". But mainly you should just look at what you come up with yourself on account of thinking in terms of being born selfish, and that universal love doesn't exist, and that there is blind pitiless indifference at the bottom of nature, or that nature is red in tooth and claw, which are all presented as quasi-scientific findings by Dawkins. I think forcing Dawkins to submit his ideas in a formal way to a journal would prevent "misuse" of his ideas. I think for Christians to investigate their relations to Jews would prevent misuse of Christianity. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu [This message has been edited by Syamsu, 07-05-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
In Kenneth Miller's Finding Darwin's God, he has the chapter The Gods of Disbelief(pp. 165-191), in which he discusses some matters relevent to this topic.
I have scanned and OCR'ed the text of this chapter, but need to get back an re-read the material. I will try to extract some interesting excerpts, for posting. I feel, however, that posting it in its entirety would be a blatent and excessive copywrite violation. Anyhow, for those with access to the book, there are the pages. Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ I thought you were an OCRer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Do racial supremicist views stem from evolutionary theory ?
There were races that believed themselves superior longbefore evolutionary theory was founded, weren't there ? Isn't superiority amongst races of man traditionally foundedin religous views ? Evolution doesn't actually have a concept of higher forms oflife, only religions do. God created man as the pinnacle of creation in the bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5612 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I'm sure the basis for racism is all religious, but then Darwinism tends to be a substitute religion for many, or have significant religious influence. Like the founder of eugenics Galton explicitly called for a "eugenic religion" on account of Darwinism. And Konrad Lorenz insisted that he made students into Nazi's simply by teaching a course in evolution. And Haeckel argued that there was no separate moral dimension to reality (duality), but that all is one (monism), on account of Darwinism. And Darwin argued that inferior should not marry superior etc. etc. etc.
I just read an article which said that about half of the people at the Wannsee conference (where the order for the Holocaust was worked out) held a doctorate in anthropology. (edited to correct: they held a doctorate in law, not anthropology) It's really not reasonable to deny the link between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu [This message has been edited by Syamsu, 07-09-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I didn't say racism was founded in religion, but that the
view of one groups superiority over another was. They are not the same thing. From my brief researhes since you brought up social darwinism,it seems that Herbert Spencer was already forming ideas, when he came across Darwin's ideas of adaptation etc. He then shoe-horned these onto his ideas ... but mistakenly incorporated a concept of progress into evolution. A concept never intended as far as I can see. Still, in the context of the debate here i.e. creation Vs EvolutionI really don't see the relevence of social darwinism. Sure people use ideas for political ends ... that doesn't makethe theories wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5612 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
You are being very simplistic, trying to argue back the origin of Social Darwinism to one man, Herbert Spencer, who supposedly was the only person who "deviously" attached valueconcept to evolution, which were never intended. The original meaning of evolution with the old Greeks was progressive, so evolution was apparently at first intended to be noted as progressive complexity by Darwinists.
I get racist and genocidal thoughts all the time when I think about the past, present, and future of mankind in terms of "races of man encroaching on one another until some finally become extinct", as some kind of law of Nature (natural selection). There is no one person from which Social Darwinism stems, it is a general thing among Darwinists. A theory can also be wrong if the theory does not live up to ideals of neutrality in science. You can judge the selfish gene version of evolution theory wrong for instance, simply because it has the emotive word selfish in it. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[b]The original meaning of evolution with the old Greeks was progressive, so evolution was apparently at first intended to be noted as progressive complexity by Darwinists. [/QUOTE] [/b] Languages change.
quote: I don't.
quote: ... or among anti-Darwinists
[QUOTE][b]You can judge the selfish gene version of evolution theory wrong for instance, simply because it has the emotive word selfish in it. [B][/QUOTE] Logicians realize that human language is ripe with innuendo and so have constructed artificial languages with which to test arguments. Want I should post replies in some form of Boolean algebra? ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5612 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
If you don't come up with racist and genocidal ideas on account of that, then what do you come up with?
Please demonstrate your thoughts in thinking about the past, present and future of mankind in terms of races of man encroaching on one another, until some finally become extinct. Your denial is immoral. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: All I was pointing out was that social darwinism ADDED a progressconcept when it hijacked evolutionary ideas. The original meaning of 'nice' was 'accurate', but that doesn'tmean that's what it means now. quote: Instead of 'man' put 'cat' ... do you still get racist feelingsfrom the phrase ? Man is just an animal, we are not special in any sense innature. If some races encroach on others, and resources are limited, one or other race will become extinct, whether they are men or cats or mice. quote: You could, but that would be unscientific in itself. Check the contents of the theory, not the wording. Evolutionary thinking has not lead to racism. Racism has been about for millenia, and is observable as akind of xenophobia in almost all social animals. It is a survival instinct. Because we have intelligence, we know that those old instinctiveresponses are no longer valid, and we override them ... some of us anyway. Your objection to evolution appears to be that it promotes anevil way of thinking ... this is not so ... that way of thinking has been around for thousands of years ... it is simply human.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5612 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
If I view cats or mice, or any other creature in terms of races encroaching on one another until some finally become extinct, then my view of those creatures tends to become racist, in my experience, to any extent that it is possible. I would tend to use language such as inferior and superior etc. Even a grass lawn can be made to look horrific in the context of Darwinist theory, by my experience.
This is less so if I view creatures in terms of a general theory of reproduction, because the emphasis is shifted there from comparison of organisms (and competition) to looking at how organisms interact with the environment in reproducing. Notice that Darwinists generally view nature as cruel, where a superficial look on nature whole would find that for the most time it is sedate and peaceful, and for very little time is it apparently cruel. So since there is no observation that legitimizes the emphasis on cruelty, the emphasis on cruelty has to come from prejudices (or faults) inherent to Darwinism itself. But we weren't talking about cats, we were talking about people. Schrafinator, Quetzal, you, John etc. should simply demonstrate what you come up with on account of thinking about people in terms of races encroaching on one another until some finally become extinct. As with Quetzal, I consider your denial of a meaningful link of Darwinism to Social Darwinism basicly empty politics, when you do not consider evidence like that. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1501 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I don't view competition for resources, leading to potentialextinctions as racist at all. It's just nature. I don't view critters (including people) using concepts such assuperior and inferior. And I accept evolutionary theory.
quote: It's less horific because you are excluding the horrific bits,that's hardly good science. quote: I don't think 'cruel' is appropriate. A cat isn't 'cruel' whenit kills a mouse, it's just being a cat. Nature is not sedate and peaceful most of the time. Observe the behaviours of the occuptants of a particular eco-systemand that behaviour is filled with motion and killing and reproducing and a host of other things. To ignore any one when describing animals in general is neglecting the full picture. That's not what evolutionary theory is focussed on, it hasdefined a narrow sub-set of nature, and attempts to explain it. Like all scientific theories it is founded in a reductionist philosophy, but its clearly states that it is interested in one aspect of biological systems. quote: But from the viewpoint of ToE, cats and mice are no different,superior, inferior, or othwerwise from people. They are just animals who are trying their best to survive their environment. There is nothing inherent in ToE that leads to the evils thatyou claim it does. That's human nature I'm afraid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5612 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Again, your opinion is just empty politics, since you don't demonstrate what you come up with on account of "races of man encroaching on one another until some finally become extinct", and things like that.
A general theory of reproduction doesn't exclude the horrific bits the horrific bits are incorporated in how organisms reproduce. Again, it just shifts the focus from a pretty meaningless (and often valueladen) comparison, to a pretty meaningful interaction of organism with the environment in view of the event of their reproduction. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024