Why Only Creationism So Politicized?

I'm not a practising scientiest and I've heard of them! From all sorts of sources including newspapers.Since you clearly don't read, you opinion on what is influential and not isn't all that interesting.

quote:

---

Has any other evolutionist/darwinist ever heared of these supposedly infuential papers Mammuthus referenced? No? Would anyone offer the same papers as influential as Mammuthus did? No?

---

Of course I've heard of them -- anyone who does any work on recent human evolution knows about them. I just cited one of them in a review paper, in fact. And yes, I'd include both of them in a list of influential papers about human evolution, at least.

quote:

---

A paper dealing with a single species, human beings, would not likely be regarded as influential IMO, unless it dealt with the one species as an example of how all or many species evolve. For instance one might regard the paper on white/black moths as influential, but then I don't think that paper (or was it published as a novella?) is regarded that way much anymore.

---

A paper on a single species has the potential to be considered influential if it is one of the handful of species whose evolution has been studied intensively, or if it is about a species we happen to be particularly interested in. Papers about humans qualify on both counts.

quote:

---

I think this would be different when I asked the same sort of questions on a chemics or physics forum.

---

I can't think of any physics papers in the last 50 years that would be on every physicist's list of influential papers -- what's important varies too much by discipline. Physics is more specialized than biology, by a fair bit. But I'm not sure what you meant by that remark -- what did you mean, anyway?

I meant that unlike in other sciences such as physics or chemistry, evolutionism / darwinism is mainly advanced in prosaic books, which books tend to have much political or religious meandering in them.Such a paper you refer to might loosely be regarded as influential, but it's not like you're going to put them in a college learning course about the most important works in evolutionism / darwinism. Such a course would only consist of books, would contain no paper at all I guess.So to answer the question of this thread why only creationism is so politicized, it is mostly in response to evolutionism / darwinism being very politicized. This can be easily seen provided you don't rule out all evidence of evolution/darwinism being politicized as irrellevant due to the naturalistic fallacy.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

"I guess"You guess do you? And what are the chances of your guess being right?

Actually it does sound a bit scientific to me, and that all men are created equal is of course not patently false, the differences are essentially illusionary. This can be evidenced by if you don't treat people as equal, then your are continuously put on a wrong footing, making wrong assumptions about people, and if you treat them as equal then you get much more insight about people. I guess it's not a scientific hypothesis, but it's clear it should be believed with the same measure of certitude that a scientific certainty is believed, like that the planets go around the sun.Recently an evolutionist did the same sort of thing, derived a plethora of more then a dozen natural rights from evolution / darwinism, among them a natural right to education and things like that. If it is a naturalistic fallacy, then naturalistic fallacies seem to be irrellevant.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Syamsu, Really?Please educate me as to how that all men are created equal when it is directly falsified by some men being stronger, more intelligent, having genetic or congenital illnesses etc? In fact the only men "created" equal are identical twins, a tiny minority in the population at large.Please tell me how these men who are created "equal", *snicker*, have unalienable rights bestowed upon them by their creator is in some way a testable, falsifiable hypothesis based upon evidence?Please tell me how life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness is in any way more scientific than, shag the women, rape the men, & rob them blind? Damn right! So why did you say it was? And that admission makes your entire claim irrelevant. You are now saying what we always knew. That politics isn't science, it should be informed by it, but not led by it. I'm going to out on a limb & say this is utter bullshit that you haven't a shred of support for. Based on the rest of this thread, I'm on very, very solid ground.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-04-2003]

quote:

---

I meant that unlike in other sciences such as physics or chemistry, evolutionism / darwinism is mainly advanced in prosaic books, which books tend to have much political or religious meandering in them.

---

The only problem with your statement is that it's utterly wrong. I see no difference between physics and evolutionary biology in their use of papers. Neither uses books for actual scientific work to any significant extent.

quote:

---

Such a paper you refer to might loosely be regarded as influential, but it's not like you're going to put them in a college learning course about the most important works in evolutionism / darwinism. Such a course would only consist of books, would contain no paper at all I guess.

---

Since you evidently know nothing at all about the subject, why on earth are you offering a guess here? It's in fact much easier to put together a college course on evolution that's based primarily on papers than it is to put together a similar course on just about any field in physics; research papers in evolution can be understood with much less background than physics papers. I wouldn't hesitate to put both of the papers in question into a college course; they would be entirely appropriate in a course on human evolution. In practice most college courses in either subject use textbooks as their main source, at least for lower-level classes, but upper-level college and graduate courses in evolutionary biology should be using research papers as part of their material -- there's no other way of keeping up to date. Physics courses, on the other hand, use primarily textbooks even at the graduate level. And neither physics nor biology uses the kind of popular book you're talking about, at least not for anything besides general interest courses for non-science majors.

Again the rest of your writings is just too far out for me to consider.---
Darwinian Natural Right: The Biological Ethics of Human Nature, Larry Arnharthttp://www.amazon.com/...il/-/0791436942/103-3115099-3470228Incidentally, the second reviewer on that page, Matt Nuenke, is a nazi anti-semite I've seen posting on talk.origins.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I beg to differ, Gould's final book for instance is much influential, so is Fischer's, and Dawkins, and Darwin. Those are the books that would be in a course about the most important works in evolutionary biology. Darwin's science paper on Natural selection, is of subordinate / insignificant importance compared to his books. I think the same thing goes for Gould. I think he published a paper on punctuated equilibrium, which might be regardes as influential, but I guess evolutionists mostly refer to his books, rather then to his papers. I have never seen anyone reference a paper of Dawkins, yet he is still commonly regarded as an influential evolutionist.Some physicists also wrote some prosaic books, but those books aren't regarded as important works.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Sy, you have to admit you are talking out of your ass. From your posts it is clear you have not made it past kindergarten much less have an overview of what the course materials are in college courses. When I studied evolution we used Douglas Futuyma's book Evolutionary Biology and it was supplemented heavily with primary literature which you yourself admit you have never ever read (probably because you would not understand any of the papers past the first word in the title). Since population genetics and evolutionary biology are completely intertwined, our textbook (in pop gen. and evolution) was Daniel Hartl and Andrew Clark's Principles of Population Genetics. The course was again heavily supplemented with primary articles from Nature, Science, Genetics, etc.....no Gould, no Dawkins, though we went through the Fischer-Wright formulas we did not read his books...we never even had to read Darwin...I read the Origin of Species later on my own for fun.
Ditto in other college courses. Exactly the same here in Germany where evolution is taught almost exclusively via primary literature articles....so your half assed opinions about what books are studied in evolution courses and are influential in evolution are as based in fact as every other unsubstantiated line of crap you have posted on this website since you got here....stop your washing machine and go get an education.

So you yourself read Futuyama's Evolutionary biology. Books like that do not exist in physics, or chemistry AFAIK, they have nondescript textbooks.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Syamsu, And is the author an evolutionary biologist? A biologist even? An evolutionary scientist of any stripe? No? In that case it's not evolution politicising itself, is it? It's politics getting a hold of science again, not the other way around.Even by your own metric this is crap. How many university evolutionary biology reading lists is this on? None? How influential is it in evolutionary circles? Not at all. Rubbish, Goulds final book is a history of evolutionary theory, nothing more. Unlike you, I've read it. Again, RUBBISH. You claimed Jeffersons quote was scientific, then said it wasn't ?! Is this one of your I agree that comparitive method is valid. but actually it isn't, hypocricies again? Your last but one post made no point whatsoever. What is so hard to understand about a contradiction being meaningless?Mark

quote:

---

So you yourself read Futuyama's Evolutionary biology

---

No, my chia pet read it out loud to me while I showered. Of course I read it...is there some point to the question?

quote:

---

Books like that do not exist in physics, or chemistry AFAIK, they have nondescript textbooks.

---

Oh you mean books like Stryer's Biochemistry? No they don't exist...they are just non-descript.Really Syamsu, you need to get informed....desperately.

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

quote:

---

Gould's final book, WHICH I HAVEN'T READ, is not just a history, it talks about trends or something ...

---

....

quote:

---

Don't you have some self-awareness when you throw out all the evidence of evolutionary biology being politicized

---

This is just to rich...to paraphrase Sy...I am to lazy to actually read and therefore don't know what the evidence for anything I am talking about is...but I so love to pontificate that I am just going to accuse you of throwing out evidence..even though I can't be sure since I don't know what the evidence is since I don't read....wash rinse repeat...just like laundry