Misuse of evolution

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
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.

---

No there's not ... in the same way that there is nothing we
can do to prevent the mis-use of religous belief systems.I'm not sure what these mis-uses are ... can you give me some
links at all ?

"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 Scopes
trial 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]

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

^ I thought you were an OCRer.

Do racial supremicist views stem from evolutionary theory ?There were races that believed themselves superior long
before evolutionary theory was founded, weren't there ?Isn't superiority amongst races of man traditionally founded
in religous views ?Evolution doesn't actually have a concept of higher forms of
life, only religions do. God created man as the pinnacle
of creation in the bible.

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]

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 Evolution
I really don't see the relevence of social darwinism.Sure people use ideas for political ends ... that doesn't make
the theories wrong.

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

[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 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).

---

I don't.

quote:

---

There is no one person from which Social Darwinism stems, it is a general thing among Darwinists.

---

... 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

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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.

---

All I was pointing out was that social darwinism ADDED a progress
concept when it hijacked evolutionary ideas.The original meaning of 'nice' was 'accurate', but that doesn't
mean that's what it means now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

Instead of 'man' put 'cat' ... do you still get racist feelings
from the phrase ?Man is just an animal, we are not special in any sense in
nature. 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:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

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 a
kind of xenophobia in almost all social animals. It is a survival
instinct.Because we have intelligence, we know that those old instinctive
responses are no longer valid, and we override them ... some
of us anyway.Your objection to evolution appears to be that it promotes an
evil way of thinking ... this is not so ... that way of thinking
has been around for thousands of years ... it is simply
human.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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.

---

I don't view competition for resources, leading to potential
extinctions as racist at all. It's just nature.I don't view critters (including people) using concepts such as
superior and inferior.And I accept evolutionary theory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

It's less horific because you are excluding the horrific bits,
that's hardly good science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

I don't think 'cruel' is appropriate. A cat isn't 'cruel' when
it 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-system
and 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 has
defined 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:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

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 that
you claim it does. That's human nature I'm afraid.

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