nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Crispy said:
That'll be the *hand* of God presumably.
Social and Biological Darwinism One?
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
That'll be the *hand* of God presumably.
gorski
customised free radical
Against spiritually lazy approach...
Darwin's "theory" is a child of its time and space...
In correspondence between the co-conspirators, Wallace and Darwin, we can read
I doubt Marx knew about the correspondence but in his genius he immediately spots it and says
So a conundrum: a heavy duty conservative presumes the worst (exponential growth of population etc., food production can't follow...), posits a set of "ideas" (do not feed/help the poor, survival of the fittest etc. - eugenics), they influence Darwin and methodically speaking all this sets the field, as he is trying to "understand his own time and space".
In other words, from "humanities" (Malthus) to "sciences" (Darwin/Wallace) - even if "forgotten" - back to "humanities" to "ground" as "natural" all sorts of horror stories, as supposedly "natural"...
Ergo, as much as it was radical and "instrumental" in a showdown with religious, dogmatic claptrap, the methodical and other suppositions were and are questionable! Otherwise we have another dogma! It seems to me that there is way too much of this sort of utterly uncritical "thinking" in "evolutionary psychology" and what not...
The worst part of it all is that it is so "Selbstverständlich" in "everyday life". Have a look at "natural history" TV programmes where animal behaviour is all too frequently (almost always!) "explained" in moral terms, using "ethical categories". This is not by chance and it is worrying, to say the least!!
Darwin's "theory" is a child of its time and space...
In correspondence between the co-conspirators, Wallace and Darwin, we can read
That should be taken seriously! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthus
I doubt Marx knew about the correspondence but in his genius he immediately spots it and says
So a conundrum: a heavy duty conservative presumes the worst (exponential growth of population etc., food production can't follow...), posits a set of "ideas" (do not feed/help the poor, survival of the fittest etc. - eugenics), they influence Darwin and methodically speaking all this sets the field, as he is trying to "understand his own time and space".
In other words, from "humanities" (Malthus) to "sciences" (Darwin/Wallace) - even if "forgotten" - back to "humanities" to "ground" as "natural" all sorts of horror stories, as supposedly "natural"...
Ergo, as much as it was radical and "instrumental" in a showdown with religious, dogmatic claptrap, the methodical and other suppositions were and are questionable! Otherwise we have another dogma! It seems to me that there is way too much of this sort of utterly uncritical "thinking" in "evolutionary psychology" and what not...
The worst part of it all is that it is so "Selbstverständlich" in "everyday life". Have a look at "natural history" TV programmes where animal behaviour is all too frequently (almost always!) "explained" in moral terms, using "ethical categories". This is not by chance and it is worrying, to say the least!!
Shippou-Sensei
4:1:2.5
phildwyer said:
nande yanen?
i don't quite see where it has been disproved.... in fact i'm reading a book at the moment published this year which just happens to be about eveolution and the scetist writing it appear to think charly boy got it fairly on the money...
also just because some aspects of a thery are questioned doesn't mean dubious theryies which don't hold scentific water are any better ... did the failure of newtonia physics mean that people whent back to thinking of celestial spheres pushed by the angels?
gorski
customised free radical
Everything should be Q'ed. The very methodological ground of Charlie's little theory is highly questionable. We need not be dogmatic, whatever the "theory", as that is the biggest problem on its own...
However, that is NOT introducing uncritical thinking/dogma of any sort by default!
However, that is NOT introducing uncritical thinking/dogma of any sort by default!
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
I think one needs to bear in mind that dwyer's use of the word "Darwinism" is revealing; it betrays (to me at least) the real motive for beginning the thread in the first place: to advance the cause of ID beyond the shores of the USA. Indeed there are other examples on this forum alone which bear the hallmarks of his agenda.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
It's also his constant coupling of biological darwinism with the social and psychological ideas of Darwinism and his portrayl of both of them as reflections of capitalist ideology and thinking, which is an exceptionally narrow view, even of evolutionary psychology.
But then willful obscuritanism, as opposed to complex thinking and arguement, are hallmarks of the Dwyer argument (viz. 'Rational Proof...') and obviously, he basically wants to demonstrate how right the idea of ID is and how it's a credible theory of existance.
But then willful obscuritanism, as opposed to complex thinking and arguement, are hallmarks of the Dwyer argument (viz. 'Rational Proof...') and obviously, he basically wants to demonstrate how right the idea of ID is and how it's a credible theory of existance.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
kyser_soze said:
Indeed. Provocation being the watchword.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
kyser_soze said:
Maybe Mr (or perhaps Professor) Dwyer has a vested interest?
That would begin to explain the one-sidedness of his "argument" and his intolerance of opposing views.
gorski said:
Precisely. I've been pointing out the obvious, well-known fact that Darwinism is capitalist ideology on these boards for months now, to be greeted with accusations that I am following some sort of "agenda." But the truth is that such accusers merely reveal their own ignorance. As Stephen Jay Gould put it: "Darwin's theory of natural selection is, in essence, Adam Smith's economics translated into biology." But the adherents of Darwinism treat their treasured dogma like a religious cult, and cannot accept any modifications to the theory, let alone any challenges to it.
kyser_soze said:
1. Would you deny that Darwin's theory of evolution was directly inspired by the economics of Malthus and Smith? If so, your argument is not with me but with Darwin himsef, who admitted these sources of inspirations in many places.
2. I'm not sure what you mean by "ID." The conclusion that the universe is intelligently designed was a *universal* human opinion before Darwin. Agreed? Darwin thought he had refuted this by demonstrating that the *only* cause of evolution is competitive adaptation among individuals. But no-one (or only a very few Darwinist dead-enders) now believes this. So it seems to me that the debate is once again very much open.
3. The truly interesting thing about this discussion is how many people who have never read Darwin, or any other theory of evolution, or indeed any theory about intelligent design, simply do not want this debate to take place. Darwinism provides a very comforting, all-explanatory view of the world, and many people will not easily tolerate having such a view challenged. I don't know if this applies to you, Kyser, but Nino Savatte has openly admitted to never having read Darwin, and yet he feels able to express strong opinions on his validity. For such people, Darwinism is a matter of faith, is it not?
4. I don't think Intelligent Design is science. I think its philosophy. But I think that science should *never* be taught in isolation from its philosophical implications.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
phildwyer said:
I don't find that hard to believe - Darwin's original theory was far simpler compared to modern evolutionary theory. Malthus's simple statement that population rises geometrically, while food production rises linearly no doubt had an influence on a mind that was looking for reasons why some lifeforms lived and some died.
However, I've never met one of these dogmatic Darwinists of which you speak - any serious evolutionary scientist will tell you just how much the science has moved (and is still moving) on. The reason challenges against the theory are so unsuccesful is that the theory is strong, with evidence and predictive power. Any credible challenge will have to come with its own evidence.
In the meantime, stupid people can get themselves confused about what evolutionary science really is; and go on to justify all sorts of stupid ideas with it. Culture influences science influences culture, but if the evidence is sound, the science is sound. No one has seen any credible evidence for an alternative theory, so evolution stands.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
phildwyer said:
so are you saying that the fossil record isn't incomplete?
ViolentPanda said:
Right Panda, you've been blathering on about this supposed "vested interest" of mine for months. Now its time for you to explain yourself. What kind of "vested interest" could I possibly have in pointing out the manifest, widely accepted, flaws in orthodox Darwinism?
Shippou-Sensei
4:1:2.5
phildwyer said:
wtf??? he studied fossils and geology extensivly and drew a scientific conclution that as far as i know nobody in their right mind would argue against. one has to be able to see the gaps in the evidece as well as gaps in a hypothisis
bluestreak said:
Of course its incomplete, in the sense that we don't have every single fossil ever made. But what the evidence of the fossil record clearly shows is that evolution proceeds in spurts--in other words, that environmental factors, *not* competitive adaptation as Darwin argued, are the main cause of evolution. I've explained many times before how this re-opens to door to intelligent design, a door that Darwin, for ideological reasons, wanted slammed permanently shut. That is why he disregarded the empirical evidence staring him in the face, in a notably unscientific fashion.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Has it ever actually occured to you that
a. It is recognised
b. the comparison is only valid so far as any individual relates biological evolution to social, economic and political.
Of course it could simply be that it is in fact the case that capitalism, with it's blind, unplanned and irrational nature, it's wastefulness, it's ultra-specialisation in specific environments which lead to social failure (e.g. the rustbelt industries in the US and the social fallout from having entire towns built around a single industry) is closer to natural evolution than planned rational behaviour - it's not like evolution is guided, nor is it efficient, requiring species to reproduce in the millions in order to survive, that it has had many blind alleys, and that it's immensely wasteful - 650 million years of evolving the dinosaurs and then BAM! they're all gone because they're unable to adjust to the post-ELE environment owing to the lack of an internal temperature gauge that mammals have to regulate their internal body temperature. Why did they not evolve this INCREDIBLY useful bit of biology en masse? Because the environment they existed in meant they didn't have to.
It's quite funny - humans are a product and function of evolutionary pressure - why, as Ive said on other threads, would the same patterns in evolution not be replicated in one way shape or form in our behaviours. Many patterns in biology can be demonstrated through the use of fractal mathematics and chaos.
So is it so hard to think that Capitalism - which is essentially the same social model humans have had on earth since mass civilisations started (small group holds power through control of resources and information) - does actually mirror the blind activity of evolution and that rationally created concepts such as Marxism - which realy on people actually having to THINK about their behaviour and learn a degree of self control - are in fact examples of 'human-human' thought and behaviours as opposed to 'human-animal' thinking which could be said to typify capitalism?
So I'd say this both modifys the theory (in a social context at least) - and sets down a challenge to you to expand your thinking into how human behaviours since the early post h-g civilisations (and lets face it, for all we know they could have been benevolent tyrannies where cooperation was enforced by both survival and fear of God/s?) have simply become more sophisticated and subtle in the way they oppress the vast majority of any population, and also the almost universal tendency of human societies to go trekking beyond their own borders and kill and subjugate others?
You don't want to challenge or modify the theory phil, you just want it gone so you and the rest of your deity-loving pals can come in and say 'Hey! Look at this wonderful ID concept!! Isn't it just great, and so easy too! None of that tedious mucking around with debate or science or research. We come up against a wall in knowledge and turn around and say 'That's unknowable because the ID guy made it so'.
People like you and your ID loving pals are the same as the Catholic Church in the middle ages when it 'allowed' some scietific investigation but only within the frame of it's own dogmas. Yes Dawkins is a dogmatist, and TBH while I respect his passion and his atheism, he's little better than a JW hammering on my door insisting that I believe in what they say because...
As an academic in the US I'm not surprised about your support for ID - it probably makes your life easier and gives you access to more funding grants and stops real religious headcases harassing you. Doesn't make for good debate tho.
a. It is recognised
b. the comparison is only valid so far as any individual relates biological evolution to social, economic and political.
Of course it could simply be that it is in fact the case that capitalism, with it's blind, unplanned and irrational nature, it's wastefulness, it's ultra-specialisation in specific environments which lead to social failure (e.g. the rustbelt industries in the US and the social fallout from having entire towns built around a single industry) is closer to natural evolution than planned rational behaviour - it's not like evolution is guided, nor is it efficient, requiring species to reproduce in the millions in order to survive, that it has had many blind alleys, and that it's immensely wasteful - 650 million years of evolving the dinosaurs and then BAM! they're all gone because they're unable to adjust to the post-ELE environment owing to the lack of an internal temperature gauge that mammals have to regulate their internal body temperature. Why did they not evolve this INCREDIBLY useful bit of biology en masse? Because the environment they existed in meant they didn't have to.
It's quite funny - humans are a product and function of evolutionary pressure - why, as Ive said on other threads, would the same patterns in evolution not be replicated in one way shape or form in our behaviours. Many patterns in biology can be demonstrated through the use of fractal mathematics and chaos.
So is it so hard to think that Capitalism - which is essentially the same social model humans have had on earth since mass civilisations started (small group holds power through control of resources and information) - does actually mirror the blind activity of evolution and that rationally created concepts such as Marxism - which realy on people actually having to THINK about their behaviour and learn a degree of self control - are in fact examples of 'human-human' thought and behaviours as opposed to 'human-animal' thinking which could be said to typify capitalism?
So I'd say this both modifys the theory (in a social context at least) - and sets down a challenge to you to expand your thinking into how human behaviours since the early post h-g civilisations (and lets face it, for all we know they could have been benevolent tyrannies where cooperation was enforced by both survival and fear of God/s?) have simply become more sophisticated and subtle in the way they oppress the vast majority of any population, and also the almost universal tendency of human societies to go trekking beyond their own borders and kill and subjugate others?
You don't want to challenge or modify the theory phil, you just want it gone so you and the rest of your deity-loving pals can come in and say 'Hey! Look at this wonderful ID concept!! Isn't it just great, and so easy too! None of that tedious mucking around with debate or science or research. We come up against a wall in knowledge and turn around and say 'That's unknowable because the ID guy made it so'.
People like you and your ID loving pals are the same as the Catholic Church in the middle ages when it 'allowed' some scietific investigation but only within the frame of it's own dogmas. Yes Dawkins is a dogmatist, and TBH while I respect his passion and his atheism, he's little better than a JW hammering on my door insisting that I believe in what they say because...
As an academic in the US I'm not surprised about your support for ID - it probably makes your life easier and gives you access to more funding grants and stops real religious headcases harassing you. Doesn't make for good debate tho.
Crispy said:
Once again, I'm not disputing evolution. Everyone from Empedocles on has agreed on the fact of evolution. I'm disputing *Darwin's* theory of evolution. And it is Darwin's theory that was alleged to have *disproved*--not cast doubt upon, but *disproved*--the idea that the universe is intelligently designed. Other forms of evolutionary theory are compatible with intelligent design, but Darwinism is not. If Darwinism falls, and I believe that is has, intellectually if not yet institutionally, then the debate about intelligent design must be re-opened.
Also the "stupid people" to whom you refer--I take it you mean evolutionary psychologists and sociobiologists--are not really stupid at all. They, or their masters, are well aware of the ideological purpose of their ideas, which is to naturalize market behavior.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
If that's what your argument is then it's strawmen all round - I've never believed that this is the case (altho I do find the existance of something as chronically inefficient as evolution as a method for species development does make me less likely to buy into ID, as does the concept that the ID guy would also be 'God').
I remember when I talked about memes and you constantly referred to 'market language' - it's simply because it's the easiest way to explain the way an idea can be released into the public domain and how it survives. That you conflate your ideological hatred of capitalism with a similar dislike of Darwinian evolution and it's proponents is another point - you aren't even trying to see it in an objective way!
Anyroad, apols if I've overstepped the mark in my rant above...
Shippou-Sensei
4:1:2.5
1. Would you deny that Darwin's theory of evolution was directly inspired by the economics of Malthus and Smith? If so, your argument is not with me but with Darwin himsef, who admitted these sources of inspirations in many places.
Malthus is but one of a reat number of influences that inspiered darwin. in this case he showed one way in which nature could effect the progress of a species.
2. I'm not sure what you mean by "ID." The conclusion that the universe is intelligently designed was a *universal* human opinion before Darwin. Agreed? Darwin thought he had refuted this by demonstrating that the *only* cause of evolution is competitive adaptation among individuals. But no-one (or only a very few Darwinist dead-enders) now believes this. So it seems to me that the debate is once again very much open.
no most certainly not agreed! it was by no means a universal human opinion. many fellow scientist were begging to belive the same thing they just never identified the process in which it happens also as i stated before just because one theory fails to provide a compleate answer does not mean that other theries gain weight
3. The truly interesting thing about this discussion is how many people who have never read Darwin, or any other theory of evolution, or indeed any theory about intelligent design, simply do not want this debate to take place. Darwinism provides a very comforting, all-explanatory view of the world, and many people will not easily tolerate having such a view challenged. I don't know if this applies to you, Kyser, but Nino Savatte has openly admitted to never having read Darwin, and yet he feels able to express strong opinions on his validity. For such people, Darwinism is a matter of faith, is it not?
i can't speack for others only myself and I can quite vocally point out that because it ISN'T based on faith it appeals to me it makes perfect loical sence and attemps to answer all the question with out drawing on some supernatural power
Malthus is but one of a reat number of influences that inspiered darwin. in this case he showed one way in which nature could effect the progress of a species.
2. I'm not sure what you mean by "ID." The conclusion that the universe is intelligently designed was a *universal* human opinion before Darwin. Agreed? Darwin thought he had refuted this by demonstrating that the *only* cause of evolution is competitive adaptation among individuals. But no-one (or only a very few Darwinist dead-enders) now believes this. So it seems to me that the debate is once again very much open.
no most certainly not agreed! it was by no means a universal human opinion. many fellow scientist were begging to belive the same thing they just never identified the process in which it happens also as i stated before just because one theory fails to provide a compleate answer does not mean that other theries gain weight
3. The truly interesting thing about this discussion is how many people who have never read Darwin, or any other theory of evolution, or indeed any theory about intelligent design, simply do not want this debate to take place. Darwinism provides a very comforting, all-explanatory view of the world, and many people will not easily tolerate having such a view challenged. I don't know if this applies to you, Kyser, but Nino Savatte has openly admitted to never having read Darwin, and yet he feels able to express strong opinions on his validity. For such people, Darwinism is a matter of faith, is it not?
i can't speack for others only myself and I can quite vocally point out that because it ISN'T based on faith it appeals to me it makes perfect loical sence and attemps to answer all the question with out drawing on some supernatural power
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
phildwyer said:
but spurts AND competition can work alongside each other perfectly well, just as environmental causes can be triggers for evolution or not. neither mean that the other is wrong, and even if environmental factors ARE the main cause, it seems completely preposterous to say that it leads to intelligent design being correct. evolutionary theory did not end with darwin, it has advanced and moved on. your beef with darwin is ancient history.
to the best of our knowledge as it stands right now, there is no ID. or if there is ID, then it's exactly the same as evolution - the creator, if there was one, programmed evolution to happen.
Shippou-Sensei
4:1:2.5
phildwyer said:
they do not deny the fosil record is incompleate (from what i know of their work) they mearly have alternative explanations to certian elements of the fossil record that come into confilcs with some of darwins conclutions
i never said darwins theroy is 100% perfect and unchanging i mearly pointed out that showing possible alternative theories do not open the door for all other theories to be accepted
kyser_soze said:
Oh no, not at all. I've always thought that the problem with this debate is that it is dominated by fundamentalists on *both* sides--that is, people who take their chosen dogma, whether Biblcal or Darwinist, on faith. You're not one of them. Nor am I. But anyway, you're quite wrong to call capitalism "essentially the same social model humans have had on earth since mass civilisations started." The reproduction of money as "interest," which is the definitive characteristic of capitalism, was regarded as a monstrous perversion and heinous sin by all previous civilizations. Capitalism is quite unique, and very recent.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
phildwyer said:
Nonsense, it is only the present form of capitalism that is recent. Prior to that we had other forms of capitalism: mercantile capitalism and the state capitalism of the Byzantine Empire to name but two forms.
Honestly, whatever next?
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
phildwyer said:
'Darwin's Theory' doesn't exist any more. Just like Newton's physics, it's been ammended or even overturned and replaced with a new theory that fits the available evidence. (Quite how a theory that explains the diversity and change of life can be said to disprove the 'creation' of the whole universe is beyond me)
So, fine - Ultra-Darwinism, the story of competitive individuals 'winning' some sort of battle for survival has fallen. In its place has risen modern evolutionary theory, which accounts for environmental effects, cooperative behaviour, sub- and super-genetic scale variations and all the rest. What, exactly is the evidence for ID? Inserting an idea into the holes in another idea, just because there are holes, is disingenuous. It's up there with the conspiracy theorist's methodology - "I suspect the accepted story to be false, therefore any competing idea must be true". Intelligent Design, if taken as a scientific theory, offers no falsifiable explanation for observable evidence.
Similar threads
