Why Only Creationism So Politicized?

Syamsu, You have pointed to whole scientific disciplines, but not provided any evidence as to specifically how they are being political. You have cited books, but failed to show exactlywhere the scientists are politicising. In fact, you haven't provided a single specific instance of scientists politicising whilst doing science.Not one.I find that most unsatisfactory, don't you? Thus proving you haven't understood the view Dawkins was attempting to expound. In fact, I doubt you've actually even read the Selfish Gene all the way through.Does the word "altruism" mean anything to you? The explanation of that word was a large part of the point of the Selfish Gene.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, 12-12-2003]

If memory serves me correctly, Syamsu was talking about the sort of people who might confuse an is with an ought (he'll sometimes refer to these people as "psychologists" or "paediatricians"), and never really admitting he was one of those very people.I stopped debating him because it didn't look like he was reading my posts. I'm incredibly impressed with Mark and Mammuthus's persistence to be honest.PE (BS)------------------
This is Primordial Egg having to operate under a different name due to an unfortunate posting injury. This id will buthcered once I get my old one back

Myself, I'm not impressed. It is misplaced persistance. Syamsu is on my ignore list as he is a complete waste of time. He runs if you try to get a clear answer to a question (as has been noted by others). Why bother?

I'd love to know what was going on inside his head. Like most (note: not all) creationists, I think, he genuinely does think he's giving full and proper answers to questions, not being wilfully evasive.The fact that he doesn't ever provide a single piece of evidence to back up any of his claims is insightful though.(Guess this is OT though, don't want to derail the thread- I feel like a marked man after my resurrection).PE (BS)------------------
This is Primordial Egg having to operate under a different name due to an unfortunate posting injury. This id will butchered once I get my old one back

"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

Syamsu,

quote:

---

"We are born selfish" (Richard Dawkins, preface The Selfish Gene)

---

We discussed this at length already - you might remember (this post?)Remember, in that post, the entire preface of The Selfish Gene was linked to and in particular I higlighted: You've taken less than a sentence out of the preface to imply a moral imperative which was the exact opposite of what Dawkins was saying. And you knew this was the opposite of what Dawkins was saying because we'd discussed this to death. Why would you do this?It is a shame you bring this up again. Makes you look forgetful at best.PE (BS)------------------
This is Primordial Egg having to operate under a different name due to an unfortunate posting injury. This id will be butchered once I get my old one back.[This message has been edited by PE's been savaged, 12-12-2003]

I've just gone through the preface and found the ONLY use of the phrase "we are born selfish" in the preface. It occurs in this sentence: Now there are three things worthy of note here:1) if you had read the preface you have taken out a quote to deliberately distort what Dawkins was saying. This makes you a liar.2) If you hadn't read the preface, my guess is that you took this phrase from my quote to you as linked to in my last post. This means that you could still read the whole sentence and are therefore a liar.3) As far as I can tell, your only defence here is to say you didn't read the preface properly. But given that we discussed this at length previously, this too is near impossible to conceive. Which, I'm afraid, makes you a liar.I don't get it. Why would you be so blatant about it?PE (BS)------------------
This is Primordial Egg having to operate under a different name due to an unfortunate posting injury. This id will be butchered once I get my old one back.

Syamsu, I have the preface to hand for both editions & that quote is in neither, as far as I can see.It hardly matters, of course, since Dawkins went to great length to show how altruistic behaviour can arise from selfish genes in chapters 6,7,8,9,10,12, & 13 of the Selfish Gene. But you'd know that having familiarised yourself with his works. In fact, this shows categorically that the "We are born selfish" quote is out of context. What are you waffling about? So what? Once again it isn't biology promoting that racism. Failed again - Doh! Again, so what? What's wrong with trying to determine the scientific validity of race? Not political. Failed again - Doh! And Nazi Germany isn't recent, is it? How quickly you forget you are supposed to be furnishing us with RECENT examples of biologists promoting politics. So far not a single example.Not one.Mark

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

Syamsu, Once again, "It hardly matters, of course, since Dawkins went to great length to show how altruistic behaviour can arise from selfish genes in chapters 6,7,8,9,10,12, & 13 of the Selfish Gene. But you'd know that having familiarised yourself with his works. In fact, this shows categorically that the "We are born selfish" quote is out of context."Dawkins was not making an absolute statement at the exclusion of altruistic behaviours. What is clear from anyone who has read Dawkins is that he expounds the idea that it is genes that appear to act selfishly. The organisms that are the result of those genes may or may not act selfishly.We are born selfish, we are also born altruistic. Dawkins didn't say anything untrue at all, he just didn't make a statement exclusive of altruism. How is it possible for someone to have read the Selfish Gene not to understand that? You really do make a fool of yourself, Syamsu. Does the word "context" mean nothing to you? You are engaged in a classic creationist misrepresentation, see chapters 6,7,8,9,10,12, & 13 of the Selfish Gene for details of your gross error. This is NOT what is under discussion. You are claiming that evolutionary theory itself is political. I would agree that there are plenty of people who have attempted to support their ideas with evolution, it's not in contention, but this is a comment on them, not evolutionary theory.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-14-2003]

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

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.htmregards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

So what? Is there a religion that hasn't been used to defend racism. Is there anything that hasn't been misused in this way?

Syamsu, I hardly think familial altruism/kin selection is an exception, do you? It's pretty central to human behaviour patterns.The fact remains that you quoted Dawkins out of context.You said You then quoted Dawkins as if he was making an absolutist comment, "we are born selfish" which he patently is not. You then agree that altruistic behaviour exists?What or who are you arguing with? Right, so why make an inconsequential point in the first place? I could of told you your "point" in post 104 was pointless, what do you think I've been doing since? And what is being conflated?OK, time to come up with the goods, Syamsu, you are claiming that evolutionary theory is becoming politicised. Provide shall we say, a cool half a dozen examples of biologists politicising on the strength of evolutionary theory? That's not unreasonable given your claim, is it?Let me make clear what isn't acceptable, anything older than 20 years, it's supposedly b-e-c-o-m-i-n-g more political, & that means RECENT quotes, right? The other big no-no are non-biologists, or scientists not involved with evolutionary theory. They do NOT represent or embody the current theory. So we're NOT interested in what irrelevant scientists have to say about the ToE, OK?Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

-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]