Misuse of evolution

You are pontificating on an issue that you haven't much investigated. In any case I am satisfied you will never acknowledge a scientific theory to influence your personal moral "theory" or recognize that in any other person, even if it is something you might consider a very good influence, like the doctrine of natural rights. So I guess I would have to respect your honesty, where you might have been tempted to argue as some people do, that science only or mainly has good influence on people's ideas about what's wrong and what's right.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Syamsu writes:

---

I have considered that possibility but they, including you, NEVER demonstrate that evidence.

---

Much evidence has been presented in discussions with you, you simply draw different conclusions than everyone else.As has been pointed out, racism and whatever other base emotions you'd care to lay at evolution's door existed long before the theory of evolution was formulated. And the social consequences of a scientific theory are not a factor in its validity.--Percy

Whatever, saying the theory doesn't apply and then saying you have provided evidence what the theory leads you to think is ridiculous.The historian Fischer, who wrote a standard work on Nazism *The twelve year reich" wrote that the rise of pseudobiological racism was inconceivable without the intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of Darwinism.You won't find these words in his book. This was what he wrote to a Darwinist I was discussing this same issue with on talk.origins. When he first produced that email from the author he said to agree with his words. But some months later when I copied and pasted the exact same words of the author and expressed it as my own opinion he said it was "nonsense". Just to illustrate that there really is no open discussion possible on this subject, in the confrontational setting of evolution vs creation.The ideal of neutrality, or being free of valuejudgements is a standard by which theories are judged. Darwin's meanderings about higher / lower, superior / inferior races, imperceptibly entertwined with moral reasoning about what is the highest state of morality, why we should not commit genocide, why inferior should not marry superior etc should be rejected by any person respecting the ideal of neutrality in science. As before the modern phrasing of differential reproductive success is much better in this regard. And a general theory of reproduction would be even better still, and enhance the scientific meaning also.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Syamsu writes:

---

Whatever, saying the theory doesn't apply and then saying you have provided evidence what the theory leads you to think is ridiculous.

---

You've lost me here. I don't recall saying anything about evolutionary theory not applying to something. Perhaps if you expressed this another way.

---

Darwin's meanderings about higher / lower, superior / inferior races, imperceptibly entertwined with moral reasoning about what is the highest state of morality, why we should not commit genocide, why inferior should not marry superior etc should be rejected by any person respecting the ideal of neutrality in science.

---

That's what Darwin wrote over a hundred years ago, and there's no way to change it. What's done is done.More importantly, that's not what is taught about evolution today, so why bother with what Darwin wrote? It's probably very rare for any of Darwin's books to be on required reading lists for college courses on biology or evolution.

---

As before the modern phrasing of differential reproductive success is much better in this regard. And a general theory of reproduction would be even better still, and enhance the scientific meaning also.

---

Unless you have something new to add on this topic it seems pointless to keep reintroducing it.--Percy

I was referring to what "evidence" Peter provided a few posts previous, not you. Racial encroachment does not apply to Peter, and this is supposed to be his evidence what he thinks of on account of racial encroachment. You yourself have only posted that people view the evidence differently, you have not provided any evidence or observation of your thoughts on account of races of man encroaching on one another until some finally become extinct.Absolutely Darwinists don't write the same way as Darwin did, other people have seen the need to change the terminology since then. But you have legitimized what Darwin wrote, and implicitly denied the value of these changes, by saying the evidence leads you to conclude differently then me. I reference Darwin since the problem is very clear with Darwin, and Darwin's writing is still much referenced among Darwinists when it comes to fundamental issues of theory. I also seen the book "Descent of Man" referenced on some Nazi website a few years back. (edited to add: I wonder if these nazi's who use Darwin for support, know to describe organisms in terms of the event of their reproduction)So if you would recognize the change from "racial encroachment until extinction" to "differential reproductive success of variants" as valuable, for the reasons of the last providing more neutrality and more accuracy, then recognizing that, I think maybe you will reconsider the value of my changes into a general theory of reproduction, which are for the same reasons of neutrality and accuracy.I will not agree that you view the evidence differently when you don't demonstrate your thoughts, when you don't provide evidence, when you don't apply the theory of racial encroachment to your own situation. The discussion goes around in circles because of lack of data, (no application of the theory of racial encroachment to your own situation), and I guess people keep responding because they can't take it I don't accept their standards of evidence by which they come to a different conclusion then me.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

​

[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 07-24-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Do you think that Ghengis Khan was motivated by Darwinism? He did an awful lot of encroaching. What about the Roman Empire? Or the Huns?

​

---

Don't hold your breath for a reply to this point, John.

I am actually reminded of a former (completely nuts) employer at this point in this thread.I was working for her as a horse farm manager, and I left after 6 months. I would have left sooner, but the winter weather was terrible and the farm was out in the sticks.Anyway, and I found out that she had previously had another manager there for two years. It wasn't until I was getting ready to leave that I struck up a conversation with a neighbor about how many people had worked there in the 6 years since the farm had been built.The neighbor told me that 25 people had worked for this woman, some of whom lasted for only a couple of hours. I learned that she wasn't anywhere near as crazy and extreme in her ridiculous expectations and controlling behavior as she used to be. (I couldn't fathom her any worse, but...)Even though she had had no fewer than [i/]twenty five[/i] employees in almost 3 1/2 years, it never occurred to her that it might be her behavior driving them all away. It never once entered her mind that she might be behaving unreasonably. She was completely in denial of the reasons for all of these people running away as fast as they could, some of them angrily, even though the evidence was staring her in the face and was obvious to everyone else. She thought that there was something wrong with each and every one of those 25 people.

Aha post number 666. A posting from the devil!(edited to add: This was post number 666 of Schrafinator, but she posted more posts since then so the number is now higher. her reply is depraved of course)regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

​

[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 07-25-2002]

I have replied to something similar Peter wrote.Ghengis Khan was genocidal bue he was not motivated by Darwinism, therefore Darwinism is not genocidal.Genghis Khan was genocidal but he was not motivated by Nazism, therefore Nazism is not genocidal.As shown, the logic is faulty.Mohammad Nor Sysmsu

I believe that scientific theories can be used to
influence people, but not that the existence of the
theory influences people.That's different.Pretty much anything that has a source of perceived authority
behind it can be used to manipulate the masses. Religous
doctrine is no exception to this. Wasn't christianity used as
a motivation to slaughter 'heretics' during the inquisition,
and Muslims during the crusades ?Some people will use a corrupted version of any knowledge if they
feel it will serve their ends. It's an unfortunate fact of
life that many people are not even remotely altruistic.

I get the distinction.Jack, who has no children, is an unsuccesfull member of an inferior race.This doesn't neccesarily contain a valuejudgement, it can be held to be a scientific observation in Darwinspeak. Yet it is IMO clearly irresponsible to talk like that about anybody, because it is indistinguishable from talk where you would be making valuejudgements.The word success is suggestive of desirability, and inferior and superior supports a judgemental use, rather then a neutral use.So I also make this distinction between use and influence of a theory, but when the language is not clearly distinct from emotive and moral language, then it's also a case of influence IMO. Mendellism was also used to support racism, but I consider that a different then with Darwinism, because the language in Mendellism is not much emotive or moral.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I get the distinction.

​

Jack, who has no children, is an unsuccesfull member of an inferior race.

​

This doesn't neccesarily contain a valuejudgement, it can be held to be a scientific observation in Darwinspeak.

---

No. The above has two value judgements. One that jack is
unsuccesful. Success can only be judged against some
soecietally derived norm.Inferior is automatically a value judgement, since it is a comparative. Inferior with respect to what (in this case
again the inferiority is socio-cultural judgement).Jack, who has no children, is an IC1 male with no employment,
fixed address, or other source of financial support.Is a value nuetral statement.The way you used it imposes emotion onto fact, and can thus
be considered manipulative not descriptive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Yet it is IMO clearly irresponsible to talk like that about anybody, because it is indistinguishable from talk where you would be making valuejudgements.

---

It is indistingishable becuase it DOES make value judgements.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

The word success is suggestive of desirability, and inferior and superior supports a judgemental use, rather then a neutral use.

---

And that's why the statement as you phrased it is not nuetral.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
/B]

---

The phrase we have been debating has no judgemental language within
it.Different races (or species or sub-species) encroach on one another
until one becomes extinct.Is a description of competition, and is value nuetral.

It just depends on how you define the words. Inferior and success have a different definition in Darwinism then in normal language. Superior meaning something like producing more offspring then the other, and success is used interchangeably in Darwinist discourse with rate. (differential reproductive success, differential rate of reproduction).regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
It just depends on how you define the words. Inferior and success have a different definition in Darwinism then in normal language. Superior meaning something like producing more offspring then the other, and success is used interchangeably in Darwinist discourse with rate. (differential reproductive success, differential rate of reproduction).

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

If you understand that if Darwinism uses the words in a non-value-laden way, why then do you blame Darwinism for others misuse and misunderstanding of the words?Several of us have told you that we do not have genocidal thoughts when we think about humans and Darwinian evolution. You do not accept this to be true, yet you just said that in Darwinism, words like "inferior" are properly understood to be value-neutral.You often engage in overly-emotional misuse of evolutionary terms, making the exact same mistakes as others who have misused the terms.If you think that Darwinism currently promotes racist and genocidal thinking, then you are misusing the theory just as people who are racist do.Since John, Peter, and I all have a good grasp of the correct use of these terms and the theory, we fully understand that it does not make value judgements, etc.Those, like you, who think it does, are misusing and/or misunderstanding the theory.

But Peter didn't immediately understand that being unsuccesfull and inferior can be understood as scientific terms even when I expressely said they could be understood as scientific terms, and influential Darwinian scientists like Haeckel, Lorenz, Galton, and Darwin didn't use it in a valuefree way, but in a confused way. Besides, where is your evidence. You said that races of man don't exist, that there is only one race. You are just using concepts developed by anti-racists, not Darwinism as expressed by Darwin, Haeckel or Lorenz. You have to demonstrate your thoughts on account of races of man encroaching until some finally become extinct, applied to your own situation, in stead of just saying you can easily do it in a valuefree way, but not actually demonstrating that use.Darwin used competitive survival / existence of races. Where races has a convoluted groupmeaning. The modern use is differential reproductive success of variants. Obviously where the value speech comes in, is with success and with comparison. But the requirement to compare for measuring makes no sense. It makes no sense to require a relative measurement to another variant, because you already have the real measurement of the number of offspring, or reproductive rate. It would only make sense to compare, if the two variants are encroaching on each other, which isn't neccessarily the case in all possible scenario's of 2 variants. So you could just have a general theory of reproduction as the fundamental theory, which described organisms/traits in view of the event of their reproduction in relation to their environment. The selection is then between reproducing and not reproducing. This theory would IMO work out as anti-racist, besides putting the focus on the more interesting data of how organisms reproduce, in stead of putting the focus on how much better the one reproduces then the other.The current theory, mainly the one conceived by Dawkins, is known to be promoting racism by anti-racists. Dawkins continuously has to write sidenotes that his theory is not supposed to be understood as promoting racism. But really his theory which he didn't present for peerreview, which he didn't present in a formulaic way but an emotive way, is convoluted from the start, neccessarily leading to confusion.I think maybe you wrote this last post to seem to be reasonable so you would not get kicked or someting for your hateful previous post. I think you should be compelled to answer each and every point I raised in this post to substantiate that your are being reasonable, in stead of rasing one point in opposition, and then writing something like that it's all ridiculous anyway. You haven't responded to the Genghis Khan post either, I think you will use that argument again and simply disregard my response to it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu