Why Only Creationism So Politicized?

Syamsu, But a book reference hasn't supported your contention that an is has become an ought, & all you have potentially done is show that a political scientist is capable of the same fallacy.Since I was good enough to tackle your rebuttals, please would you be good enough to answer these question?What logic compels politicians to consistently force natural mechanisms & theory into policy?

​

What reasoning compels scientists to exhort politicians to turn a scientific "is" into policy?

​

What repercussions on the correctness of the theory are there?

​

Do you think eugenics would be a good policy to introduce based upon the ToE, & why/why not? But it's not evolutionary biology doing the politicising, therefore it is blameless in this regard, which has been my point all along. No, we don't. We know you assert it, but that's about it. No, it's just a history. It juxtaposes the ideas & personalites from the earliest notions of evolution to the modern day (well, last year). It is not an advocational work. If you want to read Gould advocating punctuated equilibrium then read Gould & Eldredge 1972. Actually, I don't. I throw it out because it is inconsistent & therefore illogical to make an ought from an is in one instance, & not do it in another. I made this clear in a previous post, the point of which you ignored.Politics should be informed by science, not led by it. Morals & ethics are outside the domain of science & there is no reason why one natural fact should be transposed onto policy & not another. I have no problem with science serving those morals & ethics, but whether they are right is not a scientific one.Or do you think it is correct to wage war because ants do?Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-05-2003]

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

Syamsu, Tough, I've read it, you haven't, you aren't entitled to hold an opinion on it. No, I haven't.I have clearly & unequivocally told you the evidence I will accept. You need to produce recent evolutionary biologists politicising on the strength of their field of expertise. Given the sheer size & scope of evolutionary theory & its related disciplines I would actually expect some of these scientists to overstep the mark. Yet the fact remains that you haven't produced a single example of evolutionary theory, that is embodied by the scientists that work within it doing just that, politicising. I'm not interested in everyone else trying to draw conclusions from evolution, it's a comment on them, not evolution.May I remind you once again that I have stated the evidence I will accept, & I did so when we started debating this subject. Not only that, but I had to keep repeating it for poor old Syamsu who can't take a point on board & hold it for longer than ten minutes. It seems you still can't.I have stated what I will accept for you to support your contention that evolution is becoming more politicised no less than FOUR times previous to this post.http://EvC Forum: Why Only Creationism So Politicized? -->EvC Forum: Why Only Creationism So Politicized?
http://EvC Forum: Why Only Creationism So Politicized? -->EvC Forum: Why Only Creationism So Politicized?
http://EvC Forum: Why Only Creationism So Politicized? -->EvC Forum: Why Only Creationism So Politicized?
http://EvC Forum: Why Only Creationism So Politicized? -->EvC Forum: Why Only Creationism So Politicized?Aren't you embarrassed? Liar? As Rrhain would say, *blink*.I think the descriptor "liar" could be better attached to you, who has repeatedly failed to provide the necessary support to his argument. How can I possibly be lying when I say evolution isn't becoming more politicised, when you haven't provided a shred of anything relevant?Now, forget the naturalistic fallacy, I'll grant you that it doesn't exist for the purposes of this discussion. Your only hiding behind it anyway, to stop from actually addressing the issue that you have no evidence of recent evolutionary theory being politicised.Let's have all those cites from all those professional evo's, then. They must be legion! But forgive me if I don't hold my breath whilst I wait.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, 12-05-2003]

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

Syamsu, You'll have to do more than point the finger, you'll have to show actual evolutionary scientists politicising. But you haven't read them in order to know, have you? All you have done so far is cite a few books that you think contains them politicising. I need you to show lots of them. I have already asked you to cite an example of evolutionary psychologists actually proposing a political outcome of their study. Strangely, but not surprisingly I was met with an eery silence on the issue. Just like the rest of the questions I asked. Might I suggest you read their bibliographies? I think you will find the vast majority of citations are papers, not books.Mark

Demonstrably false. There's a huge bulk of professional literature on the subject of evolution, and Syamsu, if you don't want to study it, you have nobody to blame but yourself.Here's a good starter link: University of California Museum of Paleontology
It's not quite the professional literature, but you'll learn a lot of background from it. Just follow this link and you'll find it: http://www.pubmed.org
It won't bite, and it won't eat up a lot of your time.

quote:

---

I don't believe you have an overview of the sciencepapers either, to the point at issue.

---

How would you know? You have not read ANY science papers so you have no idea or what are you basing your assertions on?

quote:

---

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.

---

First you have admitted that you have not read ANY of the scientific literature...and then you admitted you have not read the popular science books of Gould. From your displayed ignorance throughout these debates, it is extremely unlikely that you have read Darwin, Dawkins, Fischer, or Lorenz either.You have no right to make any claims as to how evolutionary biology is communicated among scientists because you are a willfully ignorant lazy self important bozo and have been patently wrong in every debate you have stumbled through.

quote:

---

Even Darwin's "Descent of Man" is still said to be current because of renewed interest in sexual selection.

---

Says who? Your fellow colleagues at the laundry service...yet another baseless Syamsu assertion.

quote:

---

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.

---

Lazy lazy lazy...isnt it supposed to be a sin among fundies to be so profoundly lazy? You have not read something you wish to hold such a strong opinion about? LOL

quote:

---

Where is your self-awareness again saying that I'm not entitled to an opinion on it?

---

Mark24 is completely correct that your opinion is worthless. You have made exceedingly nasty statements regarding evolutionary biologists throughout your posts yet you are WILLFULLY ignorant on the subject ...not even taking the time to read the popular books on the subject which are written to communicate science to the GENERAL PUBLIC and are not how evolutionary biologists communicate results and theory with one another as you falsely proclaim. Willfull ignorance is the cornerstone of idiocy...your ignorance is a fortress with laundry service.

quote:

---

Just follow this link and you'll find it: http://www.pubmed.org
It won't bite, and it won't eat up a lot of your time.

---

Unless he starts reading the papers -- a search on "molecular evolution" turns up 15,000 papers, for instance. There doesn't seem to be much risk of that happening, however.

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

quote:

---

Science papers aren't easily accesible to me, pubmed only gives abstracts as far as I can tell.

---

You are correct. Many journals require that you pay for the articles your are interested in. However, journals like Proceedings of the National Academy of Science and several others make articles freely available after a set amount of time...two weeks I believe for PNAS. If you get to the abstract page in Pubmed..look to see if there is an icon of the journal present. Click on it and if it is free access, you will be taken directly to the full article or given the option to download it as a .pdf file.

quote:

---

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.

---

Don't know what you are babbling about in the first two sentences..don't really care. However, your statement that you have not read the books you are criticizing and in addition, are now coming forward and admitting you have only just realized how Pubmed works suggests the breadth of your knowledge about any subject regarding evolutionary biology is extremely shallow. Does not mean you cannot expand it by actually reading the materials. It just means that claiming you have a wide knowledge about a field of which you have not made any effort to learn about is an unsupportable assertion.

Syamsu, And once again you fail to provide. Tough, given most professional writing on the subjects are in the papers you haven't read your opinion is as about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike. But you haven't shown where! You haven't provided a SINGLE legitimate example of that, either. But you haven't shown where!I've told you what you need to provide for you to support your claim, why are you still not doing it? Your say-so is not good enough.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Mammuthus,You and Mark have had your perspectives on this whole issue tainted by real exposure to the actual science involved. It's clear Syamsu wants to maintain the integrity of his opinions by avoiding contact with anything relevant to the subject.Let's not forget the merely passing familiarity he demonstrates with Richard Dawkins's Selfish Gene. Despite the fact he considers the work one of the cornerstones of technical biological literature and evolutionary theory, he's never read past the title. That's why he asserts that Dawkins (and therefore evolutionary theory in general) believes people are 'born selfish' since they have this 'selfishness gene.' Even if you tried to explain to him Dawkins's admittedly reductionist but useful metaphor of genes using organisms for their own propagation, you'd get nowhere. Just ask zephyr and Primordial Egg.So your lawyer trick of trying to get Sy to pollute his rational, objective criticism of evolutionary theory by actually educating himself in the subject is meaningless, as he has proved again and again in this thread and all the others. Your assertion that he has his head up his arse has been refuted. You should just go away.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 12-11-2003]

quote:

---

Despite the fact he considers the work one of the cornerstones of technical biological literature and evolutionary theory, he's never read past the title. That's why he asserts that Dawkins (and therefore evolutionary theory in general) believes people are 'born selfish' since they have this 'selfishness gene.' Even if you tried to explain to him Dawkins's admittedly reductionist but useful metaphor of genes using organisms for their own propagation, you'd get nowhere. Just ask zephyr and Primordial Egg.

---

Indeed... a few rounds in that arena reduced my reading of Syamsu's posts to an exercise in morbid curiosity. The brick marks on my forehead are almost gone, however... I think one more exfoliation might do the trick.

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

quote:

---

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.

---

Once again, though I find debating you completely frustrating in the long run, I have to point out that nobody here has done what you claim. Many of us have acknowledged over and over that Darwin's ideas have been misused by zealots and self-seeking powermongers (among others) pretty much since day one. We also condemn those actions strongly. NONE OF THIS stops us from using a valid scientific theory to explain the origins of life.

quote:

---

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.

---

The fact is that you have produced no rationale whatsoever for your erroneous conflation of the following:1) facts which are undeniably observed in nature, and theories that explain them best; and:
2) the choice of small minorities of people (generally not even scientists themselves) to hijack scientific learning in support of a pre-existing cause that is not motivated by said learning.You further compound our frustrations by utterly ignoring those who point out that many other ideas are abused in the same manner without a whisper of protest from you.

quote:

---

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.

---

You have a really whacked-out idea of evidence. I am a minimally educated layman and I could probably cite more real evidence off the top of my head than you have ever presented in this forum.