…and this is a 
The old fossil is Pat Buchanan, who has published a freakishly antiquated diatribe against Darwin. It's extremely old school — he uses arguments straight out of 1960s era "scientific creationism", trying to tar Darwin with guilt by association with Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler. He is apparently inspired by a "splendid little book," The End of Darwinism: And How a Flawed and Disastrous Theory Was Stolen and Sold, by a creationist crank named Eugene G. Windchy. You can get an idea of Windchy's level of scholarship by this quote:
That Darwinism has proven "disastrous theory" is indisputable.
"Karl Marx loved Darwinism," writes Windchy. "To him, survival of the fittest as the source of progress justified violence in bringing about social and political change, in other words, the revolution."
"Darwin suits my purpose," Marx wrote.
John Lynch has rebutted this claim; I rather doubt that Marx could love someone as bourgeois as Darwin, a prosperous landowner and investor, a fellow who thought his greatest success in life was his talent as a businessman, and I can be fairly confident that any affection would not have been returned. And please, don't even mention the false claim that Marx wanted to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin.
It's not enough to link Darwin to Marx; Windchy also has to turn Hitler into a committed Darwinist. You'd think he'd stop to marvel at the idea that Darwin could have inspired two such antagonistic philosophies, but Windchy and Buchanan aren't quite that thoughtful.
Darwin suited Adolf Hitler's purposes, too.
"Although born to a Catholic family Hitler become a hard-eyed Darwinist who saw life as a constant struggle between the strong and the weak. His Darwinism was so extreme that he thought it would have been better for the world if the Muslims had won the eighth century battle of Tours, which stopped the Arabs' advance into France. Had the Christians lost, (Hitler) reasoned, Germanic people would have acquired a more warlike creed and, because of their natural superiority, would have become the leaders of an Islamic empire."
Charles Darwin also suited the purpose of the eugenicists and Herbert Spencer, who preached a survival-of-the-fittest social Darwinism to robber baron industrialists exploiting 19th-century immigrants.
For being a "hard-eyed Darwinist", Hitler certainly seems to have failed to make much use of the theory. Read Mein Kampf and you will find nothing about Darwin or evolution, but you will find much about God. And don't his strange notions about an Aryan Islamic empire simply mark Hitler as a crazy crackpot, and say nothing at all about Darwin?
They do make some outrageous accusations against Darwin: he was a thief and a liar who stole his whole theory from Wallace.
Darwin, he demonstrates, stole his theory from Alfred Wallace, who had sent him a "completed formal paper on evolution by natural selection."
"All my originality ... will be smashed," wailed Darwin when he got Wallace's manuscript.
Unfortunately for their thesis, Darwin's writings are preserved to an amazing degree — the history of his idea can be traced almost to the day. We know that he was putting together an outline of his theory within a few years of returning from the voyage of the Beagle; we have an early draft of his thesis written in 1842, well before the contact with Wallace; we have his correspondence where he bounced these ideas off his colleagues. He didn't steal his theory at all, but had it well formulated before Wallace wrote his fateful letter, triggering him to finally publish.
You only have to read Wallace's own gracious account of his interactions with Darwin to see how false Windchy's claims are.
In conclusion I would Only wish to add, that my connection with Darwin and his great work has helped to secure for my own writings on the same questions a full recognition by the press and the public; while my share in the origination and establishment of the theory of Natural Selection has usually been exaggerated. The one great result which I claim for my paper of 1858 is that it compelled Darwin to write and publish his Origin of Species without further delay. The reception of that work, and its effect upon the whole scientific world, prove that it appeared at the right moment; and it is probable that its influence would have been less widespread had it been delayed several years, and had then appeared, as he intended, in several bulky volumes embodying the whole mass of facts he had collected in its support. Such a work would have appealed to the initiated few only, whereas the smaller volume actually written was read and understood by the educated classes throughout the civilised world.
There's another case where Windchy/Buchanan accuse Darwin of lying.
Darwin also lied in "The Origin of Species" about believing in a Creator. By 1859, he was a confirmed agnostic and so admitted in his posthumous autobiography, which was censored by his family.
He doesn't claim to believe in a Creator in the Origin. There is a brief mention of the possibility of a Creator initiating the universe in later editions of the book, but it's more compatible with a deistic view than anything. He was an unbeliever in any specific religious doctrine, but that does not make him at all hypocritical to have considered the possibility of a creator beginning the whole process.
How much more can Buchanan get wrong? How about everything.
Darwin's examples of natural selection -- such as the giraffe acquiring its long neck to reach ever higher into the trees for the leaves upon which it fed to survive -- have been debunked. Giraffes eat grass and bushes. And if, as Darwin claimed, inches meant life or death, how did female giraffes, two or three feet shorter, survive?
Like most animals, they'll eat whatever is physiologically advantageous…but they prefer the leaves and shoots of acacia trees, where a long neck to reach the branches is advantageous. If you actually read the Origin, Darwin proposes several advantages of the long neck: for feeding, but also for observing predators, for combat, and as part of the defensive strategy of growing to large body size, and he uses the giraffe as an example of a general principle: "The preservation of each species can rarely be determined by any one advantage, but by the union of all, great and small."
None of this has been debunked.
All Buchanan can do is a standard Gish Gallop, next bringing up canards like Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, and a typically distorted version of punctuated equilibrium. It's quite a performance, and it really takes a lot of work to distill stupid down to something quite as concentrated as what Buchanan presents.
This man actually ran for president? There are times I have to stand appalled at the lack of discrimination in our political process.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Kel | July 1, 2009 5:28 AM
*sigh* more liars for Jesus.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 1, 2009 5:38 AM
How could all those old Floridians vote for this man?
/sarcasm
Posted by: John M | July 1, 2009 5:40 AM
Kooks will be kooks, no matter what we say or do. Just concentrate on the education of future generations, and this kind of lunacy will be marginalised.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 1, 2009 5:44 AM
I think that many of us outside the US presumed that a religious logic-ectomy, followed by outlandishly-oversized bullshit implants was prerequisite for those running for office. (The mental equivalent of having ribs removed in order to suck your own cock.) It was only your latest choice of President that convinced me otherwise.
There is a rather beautiful contrast between the humble lack of self-interest on the part of Wallace as he gives a simple and honest assessment of events, and the self-serving lies of the creationists.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | July 1, 2009 5:51 AM
Posted by: XD | July 1, 2009 6:06 AM
Yes, but he did sign that statement only after being water-boarded by Dawin.;-)
I'm reminded of a film I saw a few years ago. It was called "The Fall", and was a truly wonderful fantasy. One of the characters was Charles Darwin, which was nice to see, but the writer repeated the canard that Darwin stole his Theory from Wallace (also portrayed in the film, as a monkey). Understandably, it left a bad taste in my mouth.
Posted by: Funnyguts | July 1, 2009 6:08 AM
"This man actually ran for president? There are times I have to stand appalled at the lack of discrimination in our political process."
Running third party helps to subvert the process.
Posted by: Wayne Robinson | July 1, 2009 6:15 AM
Buchanan must be right. I have just returned from the Galapagos Islands (gloat, gloat), where I bought a t-shirt with the slogan Evolution-Revolution, and a picture of the mature Charles Darwin in the guise of "Che (Guerva) Darwin". Incidentally, if PZ complained about the travel time to Lindau (I haven't checked), the travel time to the Galapagos Islands from Australia is horrendous (36 hours, and somehow I gained a day there somewhere). Australia to Lindau would have been almost survivable in comparison.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 1, 2009 6:19 AM
Never heard about the battle of Tours. The actual (and rather well known) battle took place in Poitiers, more than 100 km away, in 732.
Posted by: ElitistB
|
July 1, 2009 6:22 AM
You find it difficult to believe that this man ran for president? After Baby Bush, I can't say that I would be surprised if a marmoset ran and won on a fruit for everyone platform.
Posted by: Lf | July 1, 2009 6:23 AM
Wait... Darwin is a "confirmed agnostic" now? Have they given up on the "Darwin was a closet christian and recanted on his deathbed" story?
Posted by: cfrost | July 1, 2009 6:24 AM
Well, we should give Pat his due. He has, after all, worked very hard through the course of his long life to be not just garden variety stupid, but to be a truly Olympic class cretin.
Posted by: Bater | July 1, 2009 6:24 AM
How are any of these claims even relevant to the validity of evolution? The question of whether Hitler liked or disliked the theory of evolution is completely beside the point, it neither supports nor contradict the theory.
Should we use the same yardstick when evaluating the validity of other theories? I'm only mentioning this because I'm fairly certain Hitler was also fond of the theory of gravity, so perhaps we should dispense with that as well.
Posted by: John Morales | July 1, 2009 6:27 AM
Dunno that much about US politics so I had to look him up.
Gotta say, this Pat dude sounds like a version of Pharyngula's Piltdown Man. I am appalled.
--
PS Wayne @8, my heart bleeds for you having to endure such exhausting travelling... 36 hours, no less! ;)
(Really, I do envy you; you are entitled to gloat.)
Posted by: Jr | July 1, 2009 6:35 AM
I remember reading an article with a quote by Marx in a Communist paper where Marx brags that he is the Darwin of social science. (In effect.)
I am pretty sure that Marx appreciated Darwin and his work more than you are implying. That Darwin was a businessman would not in any way excluded that.
I am no fan of Marx but he clearly understood that even capitalists could come to interesting insights. Even in economics he clearly thought Ricardo, Smith (you know the one with the invisible hand) and other classical economists had interesting things to say. I do not think he would have rejected a biological theory just because its inventor happened to be a capitalist.
Posted by: Felix | July 1, 2009 6:44 AM
On John Lynch's blog, R.G. Price provides the quote (in the comments):
Price's page is here.
Posted by: Mystical Maths | July 1, 2009 6:48 AM
I also hear that both Marx AND Hitler were avid believers in Breathable Air, Gravity and Food. Maybe these are evil and should be debunked as well?
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 1, 2009 7:10 AM
I love the quote mining. Gould complains about people saying we should keep our heads down and Buchanan says that is what Gould wants. A complete reversal of meaning...now that's a quote mine.
Posted by: africangenesis | July 1, 2009 7:17 AM
PZ,
I can't quite tell whether the 2nd and 3rd quotes are Buchanan or Windchy, can you clarify? -- thanx
Posted by: KZT | July 1, 2009 7:19 AM
According to Revelation 21:8:
"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
These 'tards make it too easy.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 1, 2009 7:27 AM
Felix@16,
The quote from Marx is interesting evidence that he didn't understand Darwin at all. There is certainly no good analogy between natural selection and class conflict. Possibly Marx would claim that the materialism of Darwin's theory supported his own; but in fact Darwin is (in his scientific writings) far more consistently materialist than Marx, who never got past the idealist Hegelian idea of inevitable, "dialectical" progress. (An idealist theory, when "stood on its head", remains idealist.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 1, 2009 7:31 AM
I don't know why but this is something I didn't expect from Buchanan. I don't think there is one political position I can think of that I agree with Pat but I can't remember hearing him getting all creationist or for that matter really religious before. Sure he brings it up as any good republican does but I usually see him staying focused on politics, economics and foreign policy. While he's a raging asshole he is a well informed and seemingly well read raging asshole and this is the work of someone who has been duped by others. Something I don't get from Buchanan most of the time. Forming his opinion based on what is most isolationist, might makes right and ultra conservative? Yes. Bumbling uninformed idiocy not usually.
This may sound strange, but for lack of a better word I expect better from Pat.
Now I of course could be missing on some glaring examples of him acting just as much a crazy fundamentalist creationist as other evolution deniers.
In that case, ignore my whole comment (which many will anyway).
Posted by: John Morales | July 1, 2009 7:33 AM
AG @19, you do not need to ask PZ. There is a standard technique where you search for a block of text using phrase search in Google or other engines. Doing so you will find the source easily enough; I did.
Posted by: Samia Hurst | July 1, 2009 7:34 AM
To second Bernard Bumner (#4), I agree that "many of us outside the US presumed that a religious logic-ectomy, followed by outlandishly-oversized bullshit implants was prerequisite" to run for president in your country.
True, we were very happy indeed to be convinced otherwise by your latest choice.
But you should also be aware that this means we now have higher expectations...
Posted by: Pete UK | July 1, 2009 7:34 AM
Bater (13)
You stole the words out of my mouth!
Ye Gods! Not only does it matter not one jot whether Hitler based his perverted thinking on some interpretation of the Theory of Evolution, it doesn't actually matter what Darwin or Wallace thought either. It ISN'T their theory. It's moved on. It is supported by a huge weight of evidence, of which Darwin and Wallace accumulated a tiny part.
And as for "disastrous theory": the apparent consequences of a theory snd whether or not it is actually a good explanation of reality are two different matters. If Hitler had managed to find something in the Theory to support his odious actions, it wouldn't make one iota of difference to its veracity.
You know that I know you know all this (etc.), and of course the likes of Buchanan will fluff up straw men to suit their needs, but let's not make it any easier for them that it need be.
So why not honour Darwin (as it's the anniversary of the publication of....), and then ..... move on. With the greatest of respect, inter this brilliant, dead English Victorian gentleman who may or may not have been the first to spot what was going on, and use the full weight of the evidence accumulated over 150 years and the awesome explanatory power as our "brand values".
Maybe - and this is a slightly sensitive area - we need to market this understanding better. No-one ever persuaded anyone else to buy a washing powder by walking them through the mechanism by which it actually cleans things. It's the result (mainly white vests and sheets), the cost and the feelgood factor that counts.
Of course, if you decide to "market" Evolution then you have to be choosy about how you do it, because you can't afford to be duplicitous when the product is our best shot at the truth of reality!
Posted by: Pflume Krankwort | July 1, 2009 7:35 AM
Buchanan is now mostly known as one of those
'talking head' TV political pundits of the right,
but he belongs far out on the fringe, based on
his writings. The last book of his I read was
all about how WE need to make lots more
catholic & protestant babies to counter the threat
of a high Muslim birthrate.
Posted by: MPG | July 1, 2009 7:36 AM
That last quote(mine) from Gould was a new one on me, so I did a little digging to find where it was from. It's an article in the May '81 issue of Discover Magazine. The quote in context (emphasis mine):
Exactly. Nothing to do with the current state of evolutionary biology, just a lament about how uncertainty and debate about some aspects of the theory gives creationists ammo they might not otherwise have if evolution was presented as complete, solid and unquestionable. What a fracking surprise that they did exactly what Gould said they would, with his own words.
The article in full if anyone's interested.
Posted by: John Morales | July 1, 2009 7:39 AM
Rev BDC @23, see my #14. I had no particular expectations, but that Wikipedia entry is informative. I'm pretty sure that it's factual enough, given Pat's influence.
Posted by: wheatdogg
|
July 1, 2009 7:42 AM
Is it my imagination, or are the wingnuts all attacking evolution at the same time? Did they get a secret message from Wingnut Central?
They all say the same things, repeat the same lies, distort the same facts. I guess they figure if they say their tripe enough times, it will somehow become true.
Posted by: goddogit
|
July 1, 2009 7:43 AM
P.B. was always a bad person: dishonest, unfathomably and unjustifiably proud (of his privilege), a willing liar for whatever Master's Voice was willing to use his poisonous droolings.
Yeah, he was always a bad human being - a failed Nameless Asshole, however apparently well-known.
Now he's an old, crazy one.
"He's bad, but he'll die." That's enough for me, even if it lacks the feel of poetic justice.
Posted by: MPG | July 1, 2009 7:46 AM
Whoops, forgot to close my bold tag there. But you get the idea.
Posted by: 386sx | July 1, 2009 7:49 AM
Marx likes apples.
Pat Buchanan likes apples.
Pat Buchanan = Hitler.
Posted by: Naomi Mc | July 1, 2009 7:52 AM
All Pat Buchanan can do is try to 'debunk' Darwin through ad hominem attacks. Hitler wasn't born until after Darwin's death and given Darwin's anti-slavery credentials, I don't think he would have been a fan.
It's the intellectual equivalent of "Darwin smells and eats his bogies. Ergo, evolution is wrong".
Posted by: Bater | July 1, 2009 8:01 AM
How are any of these claims even relevant to the validity of evolution? The question of whether Hitler liked or disliked the theory of evolution is completely beside the point, it neither supports nor contradict the theory.
Should we use the same yardstick when evaluating the validity of other theories? I'm only mentioning this because I'm fairly certain Hitler was also fond of the theory of gravity, so perhaps we should dispense with that as well.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 1, 2009 8:02 AM
Yeah I knew he was pretty hardcore catholic but somehow (I guess luckily) I missed most of his screeds that would be in line with this.
It's also strange that he seems to be going against the Church's stance on evolution in that they defer to scientists for the explanations of the biodiversity on earth. Well their more recent stance at least.
Posted by: MPG | July 1, 2009 8:03 AM
Wait, I get it - Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore bacon is divine.
Posted by: Bater | July 1, 2009 8:04 AM
How are any of these claims even relevant to the validity of evolution? The question of whether Hitler liked or disliked the theory of evolution is completely beside the point, it neither supports nor contradict the theory.
Should we use the same yardstick when evaluating the validity of other theories? I'm only mentioning this because I'm fairly certain Hitler was also fond of the theory of gravity, so perhaps we should dispense with that as well.
Posted by: TomS | July 1, 2009 8:08 AM
The creationists often insist upon telling us that they accept "micro"evolution - evolution within a "kind". All of those evil consequences, supposedly consequences of evolution, are only, at most, consequences of evolution within "mankind". If there are evil consequences of evolution, then those who accept "micro"evolution are just as tainted with those consequences.
There is nothing remotely conceivable which would tie Marx or Hitler with "macro"evolution.
Posted by: africangenesis | July 1, 2009 8:08 AM
John Morales#23,
I probably could work to find out what PZ already knows. But, PZ might also want to know that it is not clear whom he is quoting and remedy that a bit. I don't know whether this blog software allows posters to edit their posts, but some blog software has that functionality.
Posted by: Jack
|
July 1, 2009 8:10 AM
I really do not understand why these imbeciles imagine that the hoary old HitlerStalinPolPot attack in any way attacks either evolution or atheism in terms of whether or not they are true.
I've simply stopped getting into the red herring of arguing about whether atheism or Darwin in any way inspired genocide. It's nothing more than a shameless diversionary tactic and we should stop falling for it. When any of the cretins attempt this line with me I just say something like, "That's a common view which is both false and wholly irrelevant to what is and is not an accurate picture of reality. So tell me: instead of red herrings like that, do you have any arguments that indicate evolution/atheism is false?"
Posted by: Bater | July 1, 2009 8:13 AM
How are any of these claims even relevant to the validity of evolution? The question of whether Hitler liked or disliked the theory of evolution is completely beside the point, it neither supports nor contradict the theory.
Should we use the same yardstick when evaluating the validity of other theories? I'm only mentioning this because I'm fairly certain Hitler was also fond of the theory of gravity, so perhaps we should dispense with that as well.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 1, 2009 8:17 AM
Dear Africangenesis:
Please go bugger yourself.
Sincerely,
PZ Myers
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 1, 2009 8:17 AM
bater, please read the Submission Error message
Posted by: Ronald Kephart | July 1, 2009 8:22 AM
I wonder if PB is aware of the influence on Hitler of our own President Teddy Roosevelt, who wrote, among other things:
"The most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages, though it is apt to be also the most terrible and inhuman. The rude, fierce settler who drives the savage from the land lays all civilized mankind under a debt to him. American and Indian, Boer and Zulu, Cossack and Tartar, New Zealander and Maori- in each case the victor, horrible though many of his deeds are, has laid deep the foundations for the future greatness of a mighty people."
The "mighty people" he refers to are the "Germanic" people, as he referred to them.
From Theodore Roosevelt: An American Mind, A Selection from his Writings, edited by Mario R. DiNunzio (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994, pp 62-3).
Posted by: John Atkeson | July 1, 2009 8:26 AM
Let's remind people that Stalin opposed Darwin's evolution because it emphasized inheritance.
Stalin used pseudoscientist Lysenko, and Lamarkism, to suppress the theory of natural selection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 1, 2009 8:27 AM
PZ, don't tell him to do things like that please.
He is stupid enough to actually try it, and could end up suing you for the cost of physiotherapy to get his spine back into the right shape.
Posted by: greg | July 1, 2009 8:29 AM
Considering Pat Buchanan blamed WW2 and the Holocaust on Poland because they wouldn't accede to Hitler's "requests" for the return of Gdansk, I'm surprised that he would speak so negatively of Hitler.
Posted by: JoeyJoJoJr | July 1, 2009 8:33 AM
Slightly OT, but has anyone else seen the Creation "Museum" ad running on the Faux News Channel? It's an animation of silhouetted dinos and people together with the tagline at the end "Creation Museum - Prepare to Believe". Ugh! What a way to start the morning.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 1, 2009 8:34 AM
And I suppose Pat wants to use Darwin to flush away centuries of Christian (Catholic & Protestant)-sanctioned virulent antisemitism. How many Jews got roasted to death or hounded out of Europe during the Inquisitions?
Martin Luther, a rather popular 16th century Germanic theologian (German reformation) and inspiration to the Lutheran Church (since apologized for the bad parts of his world view...I think), after tacking up his famous theses, wrote such tidbits as Von den Jüden und iren Lügen containing gems such as "base, whoring people [Jews], that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth" and "[Jews are] full of the devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine" and [the synagogue] is an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut."
And then there’s Luther’s classic, Der gantze Jüdisch Glaub [“There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses — namely, that God has struck [the Jews] with 'madness and blindness and confusion of mind.' So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely…”] and his eight point plan to solve the Jewish problem:
• "First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. ..."
• "Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. ..."
• "Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. ..."
• "Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. ..."
• "Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. ..."
• "Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. ... Such money should now be used in ... the following [way]... Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [a certain amount]..."
• "Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow... For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants."
• "If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews' blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country" and "we must drive them out like mad dogs."
Oy. Now there's a plan Hitler could have loved. If only he had had access to...oh wait a minute.....
Just sayin’, the hate was boiling before Darwin was a twinkle in his dad's eye.
Posted by: africangenesis | July 1, 2009 8:37 AM
PZ,
"Please go bugger yourself."
That might be easier in a finite universe with wraparound boundary conditions.
Apologies for making certain assumptions about your character.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 1, 2009 8:40 AM
And yet you'd think that the Hitler "connection" would
favorably incline Volksgenosse Buchanan toward evolution. After all, he thinks we should have been fighting on Hitler's side against Stalin, not to mention that he gives speeches on immigration that sound as though they've been translated from 1930s German.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 1, 2009 8:52 AM
The book fails at basic fact checking. Not worth our time. I can only assume the author wants some darwinist teeth gnashing to help promotion.
Posted by: Y. Esme | July 1, 2009 8:56 AM
Slightly off topic, but why does everyone hate Marx? I feel that a lot of people equating Marx with evil are the same people who have never even bothered to read a lot of Marx's original works. That is particularly clear given what Windchy said about Marx. Perhaps he should start the early manuscripts. Das Kapital is really just a long winded explanation of the ideas he presents in the early manuscripts, and German Ideology. Maybe it's because I'm not an American and haven't been told to hate anything related to Marx, socialism, or communism practically at birth.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 1, 2009 9:01 AM
Goodbye, African Genesis. You have finally worn out your welcome.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 1, 2009 9:01 AM
"Everyone" is actually just wingnuts, plus Brad DeLong.
(The only Marx most Americans have actually even heard of is Groucho. And even he was too long ago to be remembered much nowadays.)
Posted by: John Morales | July 1, 2009 9:05 AM
[meta]
AG @50, if you assumed PZ was a sap, you were dead wrong.
Basically, you were too easily confused, and too lazy to look something up for yourself, and too demanding for no good reason, and too obtuse to get my gentle (and helpful) hint @23, and too patronising @39. Now you're a tad too cocky.
That sort of behaviour, I have found, tends to irk PZ and make him cranky.
I think you like posting here, and the cut and thrust of good argumentation; your ego and insensitivity may well lose you that privilege. I also think that, should that occur, you're smart enough to know where the blame lay.
(Sorry to the rest of yas. I shan't continue on this theme on this thread).
Posted by: John Morales | July 1, 2009 9:07 AM
Um. I shoulda waited before posting...
Posted by: GDad
|
July 1, 2009 9:08 AM
Well, by similar Buchanan-esque (Buchananish? Buchananine? Stupid?) "logic"...
1. You can use hammers to kill people.
2. Carpenters use hammers.
3. Jesus was a carpenter.
4. Therefore...
Q.E.D.
Posted by: Kel | July 1, 2009 9:09 AM
"Pompous Libertarian fuckwit whose tedious drone finally compelled me to rid my blog of the nuisance."
lol
Posted by: Cappy | July 1, 2009 9:13 AM
"How much more can Buchanan get wrong?"
Oh, don't even get him started!
Posted by: raven | July 1, 2009 9:19 AM
The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848.
Darwin's book was published in 1859.
It isn't even physically possible for Darwin's TOE to have had much influence on Marx.
Creationists are evil and lie constantly. Trying to shoehorn a 13.7 billion light year universe into 2 pages of bronze age mythology must seriously warp people's values and ability to tell right from wrong.
Posted by: protocol | July 1, 2009 9:21 AM
Y esme (#53), and labonne:
totally agree. I bet most people bloviating (or pretending to) in the interwebs about Marx have at the most read the "manifesto." They have no idea of his arguments. To the reading list for beginners, I would add Tucker's (ed) "Marx Engels Reader" (contains excerpts from Grundrisse, German ideology, "18th Brumaire", "class struggles in france." Actually the idiots who extol Adam Smith do not realize how much Marx and Smith had in common, especially when it came to their respective views on political-economy (far more than what Milton Friedman and Adam Smith have in common by the way).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 1, 2009 9:22 AM
Ah, now I can turn off killfile. *wiggles fingers bye*
Posted by: bmeissner | July 1, 2009 9:25 AM
@53 Why does everyone hate Marx? Because they engage in magical thinking. They have been taught that communism is bad and since some of the philosophical underpinnings of communism came from Marx then Marx must be bad.
Marx was wrong about a great deal, but his notion (stripped of a LOT of verbiage) that economics lies at the base of all cultures, influencing everything from social order to religious belief, is perfectly valid. Personally, though, I prefer Sam Clemens version : "Tell me where a man gets his corn pone and I'll tell you what his opinions are."
Posted by: Tim H | July 1, 2009 9:30 AM
It does seem to conflict with his rabid catholicism, but I saw a fragment of McGlaughlin Group one day where Buchanan was asked flat out, "Do you believe in evolution?" Buchanan replied, "I believe I was created by almighty god." He didn't mention any form of theistic evolution, so I put him down as a creotard.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 1, 2009 9:32 AM
@64 Upton Sinclair's version is good too: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 1, 2009 9:33 AM
Why do I hate Karl Marx. Well, when I was in college, it was during the Nam war, and many colleges, like one I attended, were "radicalized". I heard enough Marx from the then radicals (most now republicans) to choke a horse, and found it unpalatable. Just like I find the libertarian politics unpalatable.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 1, 2009 9:33 AM
To be fair, it happens everywhere that certifiable madmen run for president and/or certifiably mad parties run for parliament. They just don't get elected; and indeed, almost nobody deliberately voted for Buchanan.
The big surprise lies elsewhere: in one of them, Fearless Flightsuit, getting so close to getting elected.
There were two battles, one in Tours, and then another in Poitiers, where Charles Martell hammered the Saracens as his name says.
Rāmen.
Posted by: raven | July 1, 2009 9:34 AM
Cue the "Hitler wasn't a True Xian" kooks in 10 9 8 7 .........
Cue the "Hitler really didn't believe all he said about god and jesus" kooks in 10 9 8 7...
Cue the documents forged after the war, (Parts of Table Talk) to indicate that Hitler was atheistic" kooks in 10 9 8 7 ....
Creationists are so predictable. They aren't very smart , honest, or creative so they will just repeat a lie for centuries, long after it has worn out.
HItler was a xian. He was also a creationist. God and Jesus are mentioned 32 times in Mein Kampf, Darwin is mentioned a whole zero times. There are pages and pages of god babble from him, not surprising since his followers who did all the work and killing were all...Catholics and Lutherans.
No one can read the mind of someone dead for 64 years. We can't even read the mind of someone a foot away. It is routine for creationists to claim to channel Hitler and discover he really was a secret atheist and evolutionary biologist.
After the war, documents were forged by xians to try and make Hitler look a little less like, well xians. It was routine damage control. Someone always pulls out the ultimate argument, "We have forged documents that prove Hitler wasn't much of a xian." These clowns are so used to lying that they think that lies are truth and the two are interchangeable. Xian morality is a myth.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 1, 2009 9:41 AM
Ha! Nobody has read the Manifesto! It drones on and on for tens of pages about… the duties of the arts… and… ZZZZZZZZZZ
Posted by: waldteufel | July 1, 2009 9:43 AM
Raven (#61) -- Excellent!
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
July 1, 2009 10:06 AM
Buchanan's version of Catholicism is strictly pre-Vatican II. He is a huge supporter of the death penalty, for example, in spite of current Vatican opposition to it.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 1, 2009 10:08 AM
And calls for frightful socialistic measures like:
A progressive income tax!
A national bank!
Free public education!
Oooh, scaaaarrry stuff.
Posted by: Faithful Reader | July 1, 2009 10:20 AM
I think it was when Pat Robertson made a feeble run at the presidency that the great Mark Russell called him "the dark horse of the apocalypse," but the appellation suits Buchanan too.
Posted by: protocol | July 1, 2009 10:22 AM
Why do I hate Karl Marx. Well, when I was in college, it was during the Nam war, and many colleges, like one I attended, were "radicalized". I heard enough Marx from the then radicals (most now republicans) to choke a horse, and found it unpalatable. Just like I find the libertarian politics unpalatable.
Well, if only you had actually read the guy instead of trusting the half-baked analyses of young "radicals"..... you know, done the more rational thing?
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | July 1, 2009 10:27 AM
The difference between the Communist Manifesto and is, "Origin" was written to be understood.
Posted by: protocol | July 1, 2009 10:31 AM
btw, i don't mean to imply that Marx was "right" about every thing (eg. his--actually his use of ricardo's-- labor theory of value, not enough emphasis on the state, somewhat faulty conception of collective action, his reliance--like many classical economists-- on a defective view of competition), but you have to actually read him first rather than relying on third-hand info or hearsay. Also many criticisms of marx's work (from Veblen, e.g.) could be equally applied to classical, and neo-classical economics.
anyways did not mean to go on a tangent
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 1, 2009 10:31 AM
Well, this just proves that the eeevil Darwin had a time machine...
Anyway, in the spirit of this bravura performance from Buchanan, I'd like to point out that Buchananism has also proved a disastrous theory. It inspired Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, the Black Death, the massacre of the Cathars, and a lot of really bad suits...
Also, he killed Kenny. (Shakes fist in general direction of Virginia)... You bastard!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 1, 2009 10:43 AM
Why would I be interested in reading Marx? I'm not interested in political theory. And I heard enough to turn me off to his writings. I have better things to do with my time.Posted by: protocol | July 1, 2009 10:45 AM
so its better to hate and condemn someone (who you have never read) based entirely on hearsay....ok
Posted by: Mu | July 1, 2009 10:49 AM
Marx's love for Darwin would have died a rapid death once he realized that natural selection is neutral as to who wins the Klassenkampf, and Darwin would have been just fine with the upper class winning the class struggle (probably both from a personal and a scientific point of view).
Posted by: Stanton
|
July 1, 2009 10:49 AM
No, protocol, Nerd has read the Wikipedia article of the Communist Manifesto before being put off of it.
Seriously, why pester him to read it when he doesn't want to read it, period?
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 1, 2009 10:51 AM
-so its better to hate and condemn someone (who you have never read) based entirely on hearsay....ok-
Oh my God Redhead, you're turning creationist!1!!
Posted by: JiminKy | July 1, 2009 10:52 AM
I don't think we could've really expected anything new from Buchanan. After all, he's not writing for us; he's pandering to The Base. He knows very well, from his own continued success, that fundie-nut creationists have never actually read Darwin, or Marx, or a decent bio of Hitler, or much of anything – not even the Bible, save for selected homo-denouncing and slavery-justifying verses. All he has to do is reaffirm their prejudices, and he'll sell lots of books and be hailed anew as a fearless cham-peen of righteousness.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 1, 2009 10:53 AM
@protocol: I got the impression Nerd is more turned off by rabid fans of extremist economic theories in general than anything specifically about Marx. I can understand that; if the people I hung around with were always talking about things that bored me, I'd probably generalize my distaste as well.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 1, 2009 10:57 AM
Protocol, I have better things to do than to read ancient political theory. Like wash my hair (I'm bald).
Posted by: Stanton
|
July 1, 2009 11:00 AM
Why not style a comb-over?Posted by: Epikt
|
July 1, 2009 11:00 AM
Mystical Maths:
Food is a liberal myth, invented to justify the big-government food stamp program.
Posted by: Daniel Mann | July 1, 2009 11:03 AM
P.Z.
The connection between Darwin and Hitler (and racism) is a hard one to deny. If our “humanity” represents an evolutionary continuum, as opposed to one fixed category in which we all find our common identity, then it begs speculation regarding which race is most advanced or evolved.
Although you might be correct that Hitler never explicitly mentions Darwin in his Mein Kampf, he nevertheless wrote,
“If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.”
Interestingly, it seems to parallel what Darwin himself had written:
“The weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this has been highly injurious to the race of man…Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” ("The Descent of Man")
Our theories carry moral implications. Let’s not dogmatically blind ourselves to them.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 1, 2009 11:03 AM
So thats why AfricanGenesis got banned so quickly.
He's an ignorant twat.
I did wonder.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 1, 2009 11:07 AM
Quickly? AG has been working toward a ban for months now.
Posted by: protocol | July 1, 2009 11:09 AM
Marx is typically counted among "modern" political and economic theorists (plato, aristotle--who marx borrowed from--yes ancient). anyways what you want to read is obviously up to you...as is what you want to dislike (whether you have actually read the subject of your dislike or not; kinda reminds me of your hair).
Posted by: Stanton
|
July 1, 2009 11:09 AM
Daniel Mann, you're a bullshitting liar for Jesus who quotemines.
Theories do not carry moral implications, or, do you think we should stop teaching physics and chemistry, too, because because of the moral implications of blunt force trauma and poisoning?
Posted by: Ricahrd Eis | July 1, 2009 11:10 AM
-then it begs speculation regarding which race is most advanced or evolved.-
Until you learn more about evolution and environment.
Actually the breeding of animals to a point of perfection (in our eyes) has been highly injurous to the animals.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 1, 2009 11:12 AM
This Darwin=Hitler argument is presented here and elsewhere on a regular basis.
It would really be good if as many people as possible knew how to dispute it,practice people, have the facts ready to hit the fundies over the head with them.
Everyone used to those arguments should become like Neo at the end of the first Matrix movie, where he doesnt even have to pay attention anymore to fight Smith.
For any educated person on the globe this thing that especially the Americans love doing, whereby they use names of people like Darwin, Marx etc like red flags for "anti-american commie homo socialist democrat atheist traitor", is truly cute.
Posted by: Stanton
|
July 1, 2009 11:15 AM
The same occurs with plants, too. Take, for instance, the English Tea Rose, and how most of its stamens have been converted into petals, or how domestic corn is highly susceptible to inbreeding, or the Cavendish Banana, and how it is a triploid mutant wholly unable to survive without constant human care and intervention.
Posted by: John Frum | July 1, 2009 11:15 AM
"This man actually ran for president? There are times I have to stand appalled at the lack of discrimination in our political process."
To be fair, anyone can run for president. He didn't get elected so the political process worked out.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 1, 2009 11:15 AM
Only if you ignore history by quote-mining both (notably, by truncating one and using the most parallel English translation from German of the other).
How does a theory essentially positing the interconnectedness of all life, which superceded the predominant dogma that humans were created as rulers without equal, have (negative) moral consequences?
The only moral consequences are those that proceed from overturning the ancient (wrong) consensus; the scientific theory of evolution is itself morally neutral.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 1, 2009 11:16 AM
-Quickly? AG has been working toward a ban for months now.-
Yes it was implied (because i forgot to type that bit) that he had been a twat before. But it's the first time i'd noticed his commenting so it looked like PZ was being a bit pro-active at first.
Posted by: Falyne, FCD | July 1, 2009 11:18 AM
@86, G.W.I.A.S.
That comment was so very mature, enlightened, and productive. I bow to your obvious brilliance. Please, continue to lecture us all in proper behavior.
.....twit.
@90
Hitler also BURNED Darwin's books. He didn't exactly like thinking of races being related. He wasn't talking about the modern definition of evolution, he was talking about selective breeding, a concept which dates back to the very beginning of animal husbandry.
Evolution also begs nothing. "Most advanced or evolved" isn't a very meaningful concept, especially not within the same species. And, no, theories don't carry moral implications. They describe the natural world. That is, they are descriptive, not prescriptive.
(newbie post count: 1/3)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 1, 2009 11:20 AM
I just took a look at Daniel Mann's blog.
He is no more honest there than he was here. There is a remote possibility he is playing somekind of creationist bingo as he mentions C.S Lewis a bit, and pretends there is scientific doubt over the fact evolution happens.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 1, 2009 11:21 AM
Daniel Mann not knowing what he's talking about @ 90,
natural =|= artificial selection
Only for dishonest liars for jesus,apparently.
The connection between Hitler and the catholic church however is a hard one to deny,while we're at it.
http://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
Posted by: raven | July 1, 2009 11:22 AM
Yeah it is. It is just a xian fundie lie. It is well known that Hitler was a xian and a creationist. So are you and a liar of course like all of them.
Posted by: TomS | July 1, 2009 11:23 AM
@Daniel Mann #90
All that you say applies only to evolution within "mankind", that is, what the creationists call "micro"evolution - if it is relevant at all.
There is nothing at all about "macro"evolution - the natural origins of the bacterial flagellum, the vertebrate eye, the bombardier beetle.
If acceptance of "micro"evolution bears any responsibility, how does creationism distance itself?
Posted by: protocol | July 1, 2009 11:24 AM
theories may or may not have moral implications (may not, if you believe that "is" statements are independent of "ought" statements) , but theories are not dictated by their perceived moral implications (a pretty stupid logical error on Daniel Mann's part).
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 1, 2009 11:25 AM
The fact that people try to justify their biases by using (or misusing) scientific theories doesn't mean the theories have inherent moral implications.
PZ even mentioned this in his post, how Windchy and Buchanan didn't even seem to notice that two opposing viewpoints supposedly based their validity on the same theory.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 1, 2009 11:26 AM
At least he was quite handily discriminated out of the process in the primaries. He was the Reform candidate in, oh, I believe it was 2000, but no one cared.
He wasn't writing anything quite this stupid then, at least not about creationism/evolution. He seems even more of a crank, now that he knows that his political aspirations will never go anywhere.
Damn, he's an idiot.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Bryn | July 1, 2009 11:29 AM
OT -- Oh, yes. We elect more than our fair share of whackdoodles. For every Bush, Reagan and whatnot, though, I can see you a Kennedy, a couple of Roosevelts, a Jefferson and so on. Before casting bricks, let's see...Canada's Stephen Harper? Britain's Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher? France's Francois Mitterrand? I think we can safely say that all countries have their moments of the ridiculous when it comes to elections, just as all have their brief, shining moments of sanity. Here's to more sanity, for *all* of us, in future.
Back on tangent: Pat Buchanan has always been a loon. Here's a fine, unmined quote of his:
""The War Between the States was about independence, about self-determination, about the right of a people to break free of a government to which they could no longer give allegiance," Buchanan asserted. "How long is this endless groveling before every cry of 'racism' going to continue before the whole country collectively throws up?" (syndicated column, 7/28/93)" And one more:
""There were no politics to polarize us then (ed. comment - he's discussing race relations in the 40s and early 50s), to magnify every slight. The 'negroes' of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours." (Right from the Beginning, Buchanan's 1988 autobiography, p. 131)" Ah, yes. A great believer in "separate, but equal" is ol' Pat. Gag.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 1, 2009 11:29 AM
Well, that's understandable. AG tends to be tedious and forgettable. (Like I should talk!)
Posted by: Rorschach | July 1, 2009 11:30 AM
Could anyone please just ignore gwias,PZ will clean the puke from the floor when he gets around to it Im sure.
Posted by: raven | July 1, 2009 11:33 AM
Well, it didn't take long before the Death Cult kooks showed up.
Scientific theories have no moral implications whatsoever. They are just descriptions of the real world, that objective reality you may have heard about. To reject reality because you don't like it for some reason is sick and stupid, magical thinking.
Lying a lot like Daniel Mann and the creos do, does have moral implications. Fundie Death Cult xianity is intellectually and morally bankrupt. It is also destroying the religion in the USA as people decide that believing crude and primitive lies isn't a real great basis for anything.
Between 1 and 2 million people leave xianity every year in the US.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 1, 2009 11:34 AM
If our “humanity” represents an evolutionary continuum, as opposed to one fixed category in which we all find our common identity, then it begs speculation regarding which race is most advanced or evolved. Daniel Mann
If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile. - Hitler
That's funny, Daniel, you and Hitler have exactly the same misunderstanding about evolution: "most advanced or evolved" (you) and "evolutionary higher stage of being" (Hitler) are both unscientific rubbish. Evolution by natural selection is not a process of "advance": it is adaptation to local conditions". Asking "which race is most advanced or evolved" is therefore a question that reveals without a shadow of doubt that the questioner does not understand evolutionary theory. Darwin also said 'Never say "higher" or "lower"'. Unfortunately he did not always take his own advice; he was influenced by the ideas of inevitable progress in his cultural milieu, when he did not consciously remind himself to avoid them; much of his greatness lies in the fact that in his scientific work, he generally did so. He was also, by modern standards, racist; by those of his own time, however, an advanced humanitarian and liberal, who abhorred slavery and explicitly rejected the idea that we should refrain from protecting the weak. Here is the quote you so dishonesty curtailed in context, from pages 168-9 of the first (1871) edition:
"Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the
noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."
Gives quite a different impression, doesn't it? Darwin, unlike you, was not stupid enough to think he could derive moral precepts from his science. Funny, Daniel, I thought your religion had something to say about "bearing false witness". Quotes wrenched from their context to give a false impression would surely fall under that heading.
Finally, suppose Darwin had held the views you dishonesty impute to him. Modern evolutionary theory emphatically does not, and is far more consistent in applying "never say higher or lower". You see, he is not regarded by evolutionary biologists as a demigod or prophet, but as a great predecessor who nonetheless got many things wrong. Science, unlike your crude superstition, is self-correcting.
Posted by: LanceR, JSG
|
July 1, 2009 11:41 AM
Some people never learn, never change, never grow up. Where's PZ keep the mop?
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 1, 2009 11:42 AM
The fact that, on his blog, Daniel Mann trots out Morality: One of God's Footprints (a rehashing of the same tedious, mangled logic which showed up on the "Proof That God Exists?), would seem to mark him out as someone who struggles to objectively consider evidence and construct logically coherent arguments.
There is so much smug, superior nonsense on his blog, and yet he decides to adopt a concilatory tone when delivering his oh-so sincere warning here. And he has the gall to accuse atheists of hypocrisy on his blog.
I think he's very nearly used all three of his strikes just for rank dishonesty. I wait to be proved wrong.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 1, 2009 11:46 AM
@113: Looks like the mop has been applied. Thank you, Mister PZ Clean!
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 1, 2009 11:49 AM
ok, so I only skimmed through the comments and so might have missed it, but I can't believe no one noticed this awesomeness:
Book-writing Zombie Darwin FTW
Posted by: raven | July 1, 2009 11:50 AM
Well, so much for that argument. Xian morality is a myth. The Death Cult fundie xian versions are less moral than normal people, something statistics show over and over.
Daniel Mann is a prime example. A stupid, lying troll.
"When xian becomes synonymous with Liar, Moron, Hater, and sometimes Killer who would want to be one." Fewer and fewer people, according to the polls.
Posted by: Josh
|
July 1, 2009 11:51 AM
You weren't precise in communicating if you're talking about scientific theories or not, but I'll presume that you are.
Given that, please list one moral implication for each of the following scientific theories:
1. Cell Theory
2. Atomic Theory
3. The Theory of Plate Tectonics
4. The Theory of Gravity
Posted by: LanceR, JSG
|
July 1, 2009 11:51 AM
Oops! Missed a spot! Where's my towel...
Anyone got the TrollOut(tm) spray?
Posted by: Falyne, FCD | July 1, 2009 11:54 AM
*sets shields to 'ignore'*
Mann, if you want to try and argue in good faith, folks here will be more than willing to clear up misconceptions you seem to have about evolution. Can't say we'll be gentle, though.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 1, 2009 12:03 PM
Bater #13 wrote:
Daniel Mann #89 wrote:
I'm constantly surprised at how the religious (and spiritual) seem to conflate whether or not something is true, with whether or not something is beneficial. Objective truths are sublimated by higher, subjective 'truths' in some bizarre kind of cosmic moral hierarchy.
Even in scientific matters, the language is social language. Instead of coming to a conclusion, you're supposed to make a choice. But choosing one's views "by faith" looks like nothing so much as a self-centered habit of playing dress up, and putting on those beliefs which enhance the way you see yourself.
If evolution sounds to you like bullying, then you don't want to believe it. Energy healing is about caring for other people. You may want to believe in that, then. God too. You want to be that kind of person, and make a choice for God. And then, whether you believe in hell or not comes down to the kind of person you want to see yourself as. The group you want to belong to. Your choice.
Evolution has no 'moral implications' unless you start out assuming that everything has moral implications, because it's all about you. The entire cosmos is set up as a story, and you're the main character. So you dress the part, and play. Figure out how to behave by acting as if nature is a teacher giving orders, and you're standing outside of nature, learning your lines. If you have chosen to believe in evolution, then you have to follow the script the theory has written out for you.
Given that approach, we'd all end up throwing people out windows because "that's what gravity wants," and we have an obligatory role now in carrying out its moral implications.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | July 1, 2009 12:07 PM
Amusing to see that they don't see the flaw in their argument: If Darwin suits your purpose, you already have the purpose. Darwin wasn't the problem. The purpose was.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
July 1, 2009 12:11 PM
"The connection between Darwin and Hitler (and racism) is a hard one to deny..."
Yes, how dare Darwin suffer to claim himself as part of the same human race that spawned Hitler. There is no connection you easily-mislead idiot. You speak as if the two were contemporaries, and the creationist "litmus test" for whether Darwin inspired history's worst is so easy to produce a false positive on you might as well claim that anyone that ever uttered a thought that happened to align be vaguely along the lines of something Hitler said is a Nazi, regardless of whether they are dead or alive. In that sense any auto manufacturing processes that borrow from Hitler make those that use them Nazi by proxy, as well as any VW drivers. "Oh heavens! Hitler mentioned Darwin a couple times in his life! Burn all science books!" By such a metric, religion, god, and Jesus are all Hitlerian as well since Hitler had entanglings with the Vatican and connected religion with his efforts, his country, and his military. So why don't you creationists take that and stuff it in your pipe? I don't see you rushing to drop your religion because of that. Turnabout is fair play and Hitler said far more about religion than he did about anything remotely related to Darwin. By your own standards Christianity is more tarnished by Hitler than simple biology.
"...Interestingly, it seems to parallel what Darwin himself had written:..."
Nice quote mine. Now post the paragraphs prior to and after your Darwin selection so the proper context is provided. Oh you don't want to do that? Oh, well then you're not an honest debater on the merits of Darwin's theories then, are you? You just committed a serious error in your thinking, and one that would get any research paper you submitted in an undergraduate class thrown out no less. You can't find and post a paragraph of Darwin to fit your preconceived notions without providing context, and expect to be taken seriously in school or in life. I also note that in your post you are indirectly accepting the racist's premise that some races are "better" than others to make your point that Darwin must be saying the same. As the saying goes, it takes one to know one. Good job on revealing your lack of intelligence. Darwin is not saying what others (such as yourself) claim he is saying, and the use of 20th century framing, historicity, and labels in order to recast material that was written in the 19th century (with its own framing, labels, and historicity) is intellectually absurd in the extreme.
"...Our theories carry moral implications. Let’s not dogmatically blind ourselves to them."
So says the armchair intellectual who can't even argue his case appropriately or with any shred of intellectual honesty. You are simply a follower of dogma that is demagogue others whilst attempting to place itself upon a pedestal away from criticism. Darwin's theories have moral implications, but they're not the ones you think they are. Your haughty claims that Darwin likely created a monster like Hitler is oddly enough dependent upon how well Hitler actually understood Darwin. Through historical analysis and study we know that Hitler didn't understand Darwin at all, and we know Hitler was far more interested in confirming his previously held notions rather than in devising some new science-based scheme to bring a fascist utopia to Earth. Hitler's ideas were nothing new, and they had been tried in societies and movements that predated Darwin by hundreds, even thousands of years. All Hitler did was to find a strikingly effective way, using modern technology, to enact his evil systematically. By contrast, Darwin observing finches and other flora and fauna, and documenting his findings tirelessly, has exactly zero to do with human racism and those that seek to perpetuate it. You might as well claim Hitler's parents were to blame for all the people he killed, since they had sex and bore him. Eggs and sperm have more to do with Naziism than Darwin ever did.
With regard to communism, what I don't understand about the conservobot anaphylactic reaction to even the word communism is the protestations to violence as a means of political change. Hello! McFly! Violence as a means of political change has been the story of quite a few notable movements throughout history. Why is Marx's call for the same substantively worse than the calls and actions of others who seek to enact any sort of political change through such means? I fail to see the relevance here. There are plenty of right-wing instances of violence as the tool to enact change. Ironically enough, Nazi Germany is one of those cases, as are the myriad Central and South American military coups that seem to happen on a yearly basis. But I do so richly enjoy the irony of a conservative who protests violent revolution in favor of the implied alternative, peaceful revolution, when it is the conservative elements of society that advocate gun ownership, capital punishment, and who can regularly be seen and heard in the media making violent threats about overthrowing elected government officials because of "anger" of policy. Yes, reveal to me the myriad ways in which you are peaceful...
Posted by: Tom | July 1, 2009 12:13 PM
OK, so what Buchanan is saying is that we should stop accepting evolution, not because it is wrong, but because nasty people like it. So Stalin believed in a strong military therefore anyone who believes in a strong military is wrong. Hitler believed that dogs make nice pets so therefore anyone who keeps a dog as a pet is a Nazi. This could be fun!
Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut OM
|
July 1, 2009 12:21 PM
Get stuffed Scam.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 1, 2009 12:26 PM
Rev. BDC @ #22
oh, he's full of idiocy. In his last book he claimed, for example, that it would have been better if Hitler won WW2, because then Stalin would have lost; oh, and WW2 was the Poles fault because Danzig was a German city and Hitler had every right to demand it back from the Poles (the Polish citizenry of Danzig/Gdańsk begs to differ).
And now I notice greg @ #47 and Steve LaBonne @ #51 already mentioned this, too.
PZ @ #54
w00t!
Posted by: Christian | July 1, 2009 12:28 PM
If the theory of evolution lead to all kind of evil, does that make it less true?
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 1, 2009 12:30 PM
I once met a New Ager who told me she didn't believe in atomic theory, because she was against the use of nuclear weapons. I had to ask her to clarify, and it turned out that yes, that's what she meant. There were no atoms or molecules. Those were just social constructs created by people trying to control nature -- and ruin it. She was having none of it.
Considering the popularity of creationism -- which seems to be using the same kind of reasoning on how we ought to come by our facts -- I'm rather surprised there isn't a regular neopagan atom-denial group. They're anti-establishment and anti-science enough to do it. They're also just as silly and self-absorbed as creationists. Perhaps they think it would make them look too much like Christian creationists, and Christians were rude to indigenous people.
Posted by: JJR | July 1, 2009 12:30 PM
@ Nerd of Redhead, re:
"...I'm not interested in political theory...I have better things to do with my time."
then at least read this:
“The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men”
- Plato
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 1, 2009 12:33 PM
of course not; however, that creobots think that way reveals a lot about their own tenuous connection with reality. they don't care what's real and true, they only care about what's "righteous" (for any number of arbitrary definitions of "righteous"). It's all a bit Orwellian, in the "we make our own reality" sense.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 1, 2009 12:36 PM
and speaking of people with a tenuous grasp on reality: hi there GWIAS. are you planning on filling AG's role of obnoxious denialist troll?
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 1, 2009 12:43 PM
GWIAS is already in the Dungeon; those fart-noises you hear coming from the internet are just the transient result of gas escaping from some rancid old opinions...
Posted by: Patricia, Ignorant Slut OM
|
July 1, 2009 12:43 PM
Jadehawk - Scam has already been banned. AG probably bored him out of his cell.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 1, 2009 12:47 PM
oh, that's right. I keep forgetting which denialist trolls are banned and which aren't. they're rather interchangeable. :-p
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
July 1, 2009 12:48 PM
""...And I'll bet Mommy and Daddy helped you too!..."
Wow that thing you do with peoples' names is a cool trick. Who taught you that? I'll bet it took a while to think of. So high-minded and clever...
Posted by: jimmiraybob | July 1, 2009 12:50 PM
122- I'm constantly surprised at how the religious (and spiritual) seem to conflate whether or not something is true, with whether or not something is beneficial.
I can be very dense when I set my mind to it, so it took me a while to figure out that there is an objective truth based on empirical results (my bias) and there is the Christian Truth (see also the Greater Truth, see also the Truth that Transcends your lying senses/mind) based on what serves, or is beneficial to, their myth/world view, and that Truth trumps truth. This was tricky for a while and led to a fair amount of bewilderment and frustration since I wasn't raised to make such distinctions.
That seems to be the lens with which they evaluate truth and they appear to assume that everyone sees it the same way - It seems that they see science as just another form of apologetics where the invisible world and grand cosmic speculation is the superior position. (When backed into a corner with "facts" I've actually had people come right out and use this popsition to "win" the discussion. I'm sure I'm not in the least lonely in this.) Of course this is just a theory* and we all know what that means.
The important thing is that their tribe beats all the other tribes bearing down on them and that they win the world.
*wild ass guess version or hypothetical theory
Posted by: noodles | July 1, 2009 12:56 PM
I once met a university professor who previously lived in the old Soviet Union; he told goofy anecdotes how research papers had to be properly titled and with a proper introductory paragraph to get past the censors. For example, "A Marxist Interpretation of Intracellular Protein Degradation and its Control." Kinda like the "Mohammad BPUH, etc." introductory paragraph seen in some Middle Eastern correspondence.
Posted by: noodles | July 1, 2009 1:07 PM
Just to be clear, Hitler was not a vegetarian (nor was he gay as some Christian authors allege). Hitler was raised Catholic and never renounced Catholicism.
Posted by: raven | July 1, 2009 1:15 PM
That is so warm and fuzzy. So when she clapped real hard and didn't believe in atoms, did nuclear weapons go away? Did nuclear reactors stop functioning? Did glow in the dark clock faces stop glowing? How about the sun, did it go out?
I hope one of these crackpots doesn't wish the sun off. Not interested in stumbling around in the dark, freezing and hungry.
Psychologists have a term for this kind of non-rationality. They call it "magical thinking". Xians just call it "faith".
Posted by: gaypaganunitarianagnostic | July 1, 2009 1:26 PM
As soon as I saw Pat B's blathering on Darwin, I knew what would be coming in Pharyngula. I think that the motivation of this is a general attack on science re the climate change issue. You don't like what science, says, you put down all scientists
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
July 1, 2009 1:35 PM
I have always been rather offended that Buchanan was on TV at all. (Can't keep him off the Internet, I suppose.) Here's my open letter to MSNBC:
http://tinyurl.com/mchsla
Posted by: tomh | July 1, 2009 1:36 PM
Stanton @ #96 wrote: The same occurs with plants, too. Take, for instance, the English Tea Rose, and how most of its stamens have been converted into petals, or how domestic corn is highly susceptible to inbreeding, or the Cavendish Banana, and how it is a triploid mutant wholly unable to survive without constant human care and intervention.
So what? Modern hybrid crops are bred with the specific purpose of feeding people. Sweet corn, for example, now has hybrid 'supersweet' varieties that must be grown in isolation from other corns and can't possibly grow without human intervention and care, but again, so what? The traits selected for are those that are valued by humans, sweetness, holding quality, production, and so forth. I don't understand the argument that this is a bad thing because they can't survive on their own. They never would have appeared on their own in the first place.
Posted by: Qwerty | July 1, 2009 1:39 PM
Rev. BDC - Here's a link to a lot of Buchanan crap.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2553
He calls Darwinism a religion at the end of the piece which seems to be a part of the right-wing's attempt to get evolution out of the schools. It's sour grapes; if God can't be there, then Darwin shouldn't be there either.
Very mindless thinking.
Also, the guilt by association thing is getting kind of tired. They tried this right up to the election with Obama and it didn't work.
Posted by: dave souza
|
July 1, 2009 1:39 PM
While Darwin didn't exactly claim to believe in a Creator in the ''Origin'', even in the first edition he made some references:
"the ages which have elapsed since the first creature, the progenitor of innumerable extinct and living descendants, was created."
"Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual."
He later recalled that his belief in God at that time was as strong as a bishop, and he deserved to be called a theist. Later he had recurring doubts becoming increasingly agnostic. However, his views came and went. From some of his last letters he liked the feeling that the complexity of the universe showed there was a creator, but could not trust that this was not just an evolved instinct inherited from a monkey brain. See the letter to Graham that Plantinga misleadingly quote mines.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 1, 2009 1:48 PM
Yeah my quote didn't quite convey the meaning I meant.
Actually thinking back over what I wrote, I guess this doesn't surprise me much on how twisted his interpretations of history and policy tend to be. Why would he be any different with this?
Posted by: Daniel Mann | July 1, 2009 1:49 PM
The way we think determines who we are and the things we say. The volume and depth of the personal denunciations that I’ve endured by virtue of my comment(#89)served to make this truth quite vivid.
It’s incontestable that our theories also carry moral implications and strongly influence our attitudes and words. For a ludicrous example, if I think that all of the respondents to PZ’s blog are extra-terrestrials seeking to destroy the human race, this will probably affect my conduct. At least, it might merit a call to the police. Likewise, your personal attributions of “idiot” and “stupid” to me might suggest something about your own underlying morality and belief system. It also might bring home the fact that our theories do indeed have moral implications.
Just try an experiment. Post an objectionable comment on a pro-life blog and see if you are denigrated as an “idiot.” If you are, it might suggest that they are threatened by your challenge, but I don’t think that they will be.
Posted by: Daniel Mann | July 1, 2009 1:52 PM
The way we think determines who we are and the things we say. The volume and depth of the personal denunciations that I’ve endured by virtue of my comment(#89)served to make this truth quite vivid.
It’s incontestable that our theories also carry moral implications and strongly influence our attitudes and words. For a ludicrous example, if I think that all of the respondents to PZ’s blog are extra-terrestrials seeking to destroy the human race, this will probably affect my conduct. At least, it might merit a call to the police. Likewise, your personal attributions of “idiot” and “stupid” to me might suggest something about your own underlying morality and belief system. It also might bring home the fact that our theories do indeed have moral implications.
Just try an experiment. Post an objectionable comment on a pro-life blog and see if you are denigrated as an “idiot.” If you are, it might suggest that they are threatened by your challenge, but I don’t think that they will be.
Posted by: Daniel Mann | July 1, 2009 1:56 PM
The way we think determines who we are and the things we say. The volume and depth of the personal denunciations that I’ve endured by virtue of my comment(#89)served to make this truth quite vivid.
It’s incontestable that our theories also carry moral implications and strongly influence our attitudes and words. For a ludicrous example, if I theorize--rightly or wrongly-- that all of the respondents to PZ’s blog are extra-terrestrials seeking to destroy the human race, this will probably affect my conduct. At least, it might merit a call to the police. Likewise, your personal attributions of “idiot” and “stupid” to me might suggest something about your own underlying morality and belief system. It also might bring home the fact that our theories do indeed have moral implications.
Just try an experiment. Post an objectionable comment on a pro-life blog and see if you are denigrated as an “idiot.” If you are, it might suggest that they are threatened by your challenge, but I don’t think that they will be.
Posted by: raven | July 1, 2009 1:57 PM
OK. So you lie. You are stupid, You are crazy. It all sums up as you are evil, doesn't it?
Nothing new about that and we see it every day. Boring. So what do you do for fun when you aren't lying and being dumb? Support xian domestic terrorists, try to destroy the USA, and what else?
Posted by: LanceR, JSG
|
July 1, 2009 1:58 PM
See, that's what is known as a "bald assertion". You are making an unsupported statement. Obviously, by the number of people who did contest that statement, it is *not* "incontestable".
Come here and say stupid things, you'll get called stupid. It's the nature of the beast. Cry me a river, build a bridge, get over it.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 1, 2009 2:01 PM
The volume and depth of the personal denunciations that I’ve endured by virtue of my comment(#89)served to make this truth quite vivid. - Daniel Mann
Tell stupid lies as you did, and you'll likely get called a stupid liar. That's life, Danny baby.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 1, 2009 2:03 PM
you missed the point entirely. the point was, from an evolutionary perspective, that those species will go extinct the moment people stop taking care of them. i.e. from an evolutionary POW, they're not very well adapted; thus, artificial selection often does things that are exactly the opposite of natural selection, and therefore those two aren't the same, and one can't be used as arguments when discussing the other.
though, I'd personally argue that for some species, this has actually made them a VERY well adapted plant, for their current environment, they're VERY well adapted, seeing as they've spread globally; a form of super-specialist species, as it were.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 1, 2009 2:04 PM
It's incontestable that people that make such assertions don't know what a scientific theory means.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 1, 2009 2:05 PM
paragraph editing fail. let's try that last paragraph again.
though, I'd personally argue that for some species, this has actually made them a VERY well adapted to their current environment, seeing as they've spread globally, and as long as there ARE humans, they're a ridiculously popular and surviving species; a form of super-specialist species, as it were.
Posted by: protocol | July 1, 2009 2:08 PM
Daniel Mann,
Do not get distracted by the insults. You will notice that amidst all the insults, your arguments have already been answered several times over by several commentators. This makes me think that you are being willfully obtuse, and hence richly deserving of those insults.
Here, let me summarize for your benefit, by repeating myself:
theories may or may not have moral implications (may not, if you believe that "is" statements are independent of "ought" statements) , but theories are not dictated by their perceived moral implications.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 1, 2009 2:08 PM
raven #139 wrote:
I didn't ask, but I strongly suspect that she would have endorsed a form of the 100 Monkey Myth: that if enough people just stopped believing in atoms, then atom bombs would no longer work. One person can't clap hard enough. You need to reach a critical clapping mass. As you say, it's magical thinking -- probably a peculiar form which comes out of the idea that we are all manifestations of the same Consciousness/Spirit/God, and that physical, material reality is its (and our) creation.
I've noticed that these New Age types will confuse this radical version of idealism with the much more reasonable view that, if enough people (and the right kind of people) are against nuclear weapons, then they will no longer be used. They jump from one to the other, as if both beliefs are just different versions of the same thing. Apparently, being fuzzy is being warm and fuzzy.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 1, 2009 2:11 PM
no, our worldview carries implications and influences our attitudes and words. Scientific Theories are descriptions of reality as is, not as it ought to be. You're committing a form of reverse is-ought fallacy, and demonstrate magical thinking and a very tenuous grasp on reality.
Posted by: Anri | July 1, 2009 2:13 PM
Daniel Mann sez:
"The way we think determines who we are and the things we say. The volume and depth of the personal denunciations that I’ve endured by virtue of my comment(#89)served to make this truth quite vivid."
So, if I promise to be polite, will you assume I'm smart? And if I'm more polite than you, will you assume I'm smarter than you? If not, please do not assume the opposite.
"It’s incontestable that our theories also carry moral implications and strongly influence our attitudes and words. For a ludicrous example, if I theorize--rightly or wrongly-- that all of the respondents to PZ’s blog are extra-terrestrials seeking to destroy the human race, this will probably affect my conduct. At least, it might merit a call to the police. Likewise, your personal attributions of “idiot” and “stupid” to me might suggest something about your own underlying morality and belief system. It also might bring home the fact that our theories do indeed have moral implications."
Very well. Please list the moral implications of the ToE. Please show your work. Thank you.
Also, please note what the moral systems of those calling you 'stupid' or an 'idiot' are. Again, please show your work.
"Just try an experiment. Post an objectionable comment on a pro-life blog and see if you are denigrated as an “idiot.” If you are, it might suggest that they are threatened by your challenge, but I don’t think that they will be."
From my limited experience in this, you will typically be labeled a 'murderer' or a 'baby killer' rather than an 'idiot'.
But go ahead, give this a try, and we'll keep up with your progress.
Thanks in advance!
Posted by: protocol | July 1, 2009 2:19 PM
Jadehwk (#147) generally agree with you, but not everyone believes that is-ought is a "fallacy." Hume did but see Hilary Putnam on the untenability of the normative/positive dichotomy.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 1, 2009 2:24 PM
well, I think it's wrong to assume that if something IS a certain way, it therefore always OUGHT to be that way, regardless of whether this may be true for certain arguments. You have to support your argument with more than "but that's the way it is" to prove that this is also how it ought to be.
On the other hand, it's clearly and undeniably wrong to assume that because something OUGHT to be a certain way, it actually IS that way. I don't think any sane person would dispute that a reverse is-ought argument (would that be an "ought-is fallacy"?) is thoroughly fallacious.
Posted by: protocol | July 1, 2009 2:28 PM
yeah, I had no quarrel with the second part. The reverse is just wildly illogical: as I (and many, many others) have said above,theories are not dictated by their perceived moral implications.
Posted by: Bobber
|
July 1, 2009 2:30 PM
Daniel Mann, at #146:
Your martyr complex is noted.
I used to moderate an abortion debate board and commented on quite a few others. I was called every name in the book. I usually didn't reciprocate, but I really didn't care either way; you don't walk into an open forum without expecting to take a few hits, some of them very personal indeed. If you can't carry the armor, don't enter the tournament.
Posted by: tyaddow | July 1, 2009 2:38 PM
Protocol @ 155 (to Daniel Mann):
Yes and yes. Troll, meet Stomp.
u can has mor troll stomp:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2009/06/cincinnati_part_one.php
Posted by: Qwerty | July 1, 2009 2:40 PM
MPG @ # 27 - Nice job researching the quote.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 1, 2009 2:41 PM
Daniel Mann #148 wrote:
The scientific theory of evolution, however, being descriptive of a nature without moral hierarchies, therefore did not include moral hierarchies. In other words, it didn't make any pronouncements on which species are "higher" or "better" than other species. The moral implications which concern you don't come out of the scientific approach: they come out of approaching science as if it were religion. Religion deals with a reality which is structured socially and morally, with everything measured on a scale of good and bad, better and worse, master and servant, higher and lower.
No, harsh criticism doesn't come from a belief in evolution (if that's what you're implying.) If anything, it reflects the honest nature behind the pursuit of science. The model is one of debate. Who you are, what you care about, and what your attitude is doesn't matter as much as the arguments you can marshal in your support. It comes down to facts, not personalities.
As I've already noted, religious people often think that things are more likely to be true if they're pleasing in a significant way. They also seem to think that "nice" people are more likely to be correct than people who are not "nice." Perhaps that comes from the common belief that you can tell which church is the right church by looking to see how virtuous its adherents are. Doctrine is apparently secondary, and will look much more reasonable if the people with the dogma are helpful and friendly.
If the Methodists are nice, become a Methodist. If the Catholics seem friendlier, then join the Church. Check out the Buddhists. They're polite. If they're more polite than the Christians, then Buddhism is probably true, and you should reject Jesus Christ as your savior, and convert to the Truer religion.
By playing the "look how mean you are" card, you're leaving the ground of debate over objective truth, and entering the forum of personal, subjective, useful truth. It doesn't give you any points from us, and it probably isn't where you want to be either.
Posted by: blf | July 1, 2009 2:42 PM
Daniel Mann said repeatedly:
Assuming “theory” is used in the scientific sense, as in ToE or Theory of Gravity, that statement itself is highly contestable. To take an obvious counterexample, there are no moral implications to gravity. Some uses of gravity have a moral element (e.g., defenestration), but not any scientific theory of gravity.
Whether or not to defenestrate people is a moral decision, but that holds true regardless of what is and isn't known about gravity. People have been defenestrated for thousands of years, well before there was any sort of a theory or gravity at all, other than “things fall down”.
Your example/analogy of believing everyone on Pee Zed's blog is an alien is not a scientific theory; it lacks both evidence and no tests (experiments) to determine its truth or falsity were proposed. It's a hypothesis, and (unlike cretinism) one that is testable, and easily falsified: All you have to do is find one commenter who is not an alien, and the hypothesis that all commenter are aliens is then wrong. (The converse, there is at least one commenter who is an alien, is much harder to falsify.)
Posted by: Numad | July 1, 2009 2:49 PM
So what exactly is the point of trying to discredit Darwin by associating him with Hitler, Marx, Wells' Martians and such... if you're just going to attribute any originality in his work to Wallace?!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 1, 2009 2:54 PM
Daniel Mann,
Of course you won't be; the comment won't be allowed to get through.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 1, 2009 2:57 PM
oh Feynmaniac, don't you know that calling someone an idiot is a far worse act of censorship and persecution than selective moderating of comments?
Posted by: Josh
|
July 1, 2009 2:59 PM
Then why don't you respond to my comment #118? I wasn't impolite to you, nor did I call you names. I made what I thought was a very reasonable challenge given your previous assertion (and it's certainly relevant). Given the opinion that you hold, you should have a ready response.
Here, I'll even recopy it so that you don't have to scroll up:
Please list one moral implication for each of the following scientific theories:
1. Cell Theory
2. Atomic Theory
3. The Theory of Plate Tectonics
4. The Theory of Gravity
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 1, 2009 3:08 PM
YAY!!!! Actually I think he wore out his welcome months ago. One has to wonder if he was a bad public relations campaign against the idea humans originated from Africa. a_ray_in_dilbert_space received many Molly votes for attempting to educate him and thereby keeping him limited to one thread.
While we may not hear from him anymore he can still do damage. He mentioned home schooling his children and that he didn't start teaching his daughter to read until she was 11.
Posted by: J. D. Mack | July 1, 2009 3:09 PM
Part of me keeps hoping for better from Pat Buchanan. In his favor, he was friends with Hunter S. Thompson (wrap your heads around *that* one) and he wrote a book (Where The Right Went Wrong) that was critical of George W. Bush's foreign policy and the war in Iraq at a time when such criticism was considered unpatriotic by many.
Oh well.
J. D.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 1, 2009 3:15 PM
He didn't get elected, but George W. did.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 1, 2009 3:16 PM
8-[ ]
*picks chin of floor*
that's near criminal.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 1, 2009 3:16 PM
-I don't understand the argument that this is a bad thing because they can't survive on their own. They never would have appeared on their own in the first place-
I think it's bad because you are warping nature with a lot of greed but not much forethought (personal opinion).
If Daniel doesn't think pro-lifers will get reeaal nasty with you then he is naive in the extreme...
and Daniel, is there ANYTHING on your blog that doesn't end up circling around being saved by Jesus?
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | July 1, 2009 3:31 PM
Daniel the troll said:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, take note of the fact that Mr. Troll claimed that our theories carry moral implications, then gave an example which did nothing to support his claim. This is a classic red herring: Claim one thing, demonstrate another, do some hand-waving to confuse the two.
Also take note that he is asserting that insulting someone is a reflection of the insulter's morality. Despite what he may wish to believe, opinions on the status a person's intelligence are amoral, not moral or immoral.
Daniel, I sentence you to two weeks sitting in the corner, facing the wall.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | July 1, 2009 3:33 PM
Richard: How is taking advantage of a natural process "warping nature"?
Posted by: Mike F. | July 1, 2009 3:58 PM
A foolish article, unworthy of Buchanan. It was previously my belief - from watching his articulate arguments on HARDBALL - that he's not really the provincial dinosaur he's often made out to be. But I have to admit, this column of his is truly - almost proudly - ignorant...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 1, 2009 3:59 PM
JJR, there is a difference between being uninterested in political theories like Marxism or libertarianism, and being unaware of politics and political activities. I have voted in every election since I turned 21 (voting age at that time). I am not doctrinaire in my voting.
Posted by: J. D. Mack | July 1, 2009 3:59 PM
Part of me keeps hoping for better from Pat Buchanan. In his favor, he was friends with Hunter S. Thompson (wrap your heads around *that* one) and he wrote a book (Where The Right Went Wrong) that was critical of George W. Bush's foreign policy and the war in Iraq at a time when such criticism was considered unpatriotic by many.
Oh well.
J. D.
Posted by: MosesZD
|
July 1, 2009 4:20 PM
Danny-the-Liar:
Not really. Of course I have schizophrenic clients who think all kinds of interesting things about themselves, all of which is not true. Some of them even think God tells them all kinds of stuff.So I can see the falsity of your claim quite easily. Thankfully modern psychiatry and pharmacology keeps them in reign. What's your excuse?
It's because you are a boring LIAR. Holy crap, we've all seen that lie. For some of us, hundreds and hundreds (if not thousands) of times.You're not original or competent. Yet you come in here as arrogant as a pig in a pea patch.
One, I think you don't understand what "incontestable" actually means. Two, I'm pretty sure that you have no clue what a scientific theory is... Boring, ill-reasoned and stupid. First, because you have no concept of what a theory actually is... And, second, our comments are straight to your arrogant-ignorance and willful lying.Seriously, you came in all "holier-than-thou" then lied and lied and lied and made bald-faced assertions that'd flunk you out of Freshman Logic. Of course, we're going to call you stupid, etc. -- you demonstrate the attributes: pseudo-logic fail while being an out-right liar.
Of course that would happen, I've seen it. But, besides you, who do you think cares about another of your holier-than-thou lies? Not us. We've seen wind-up fools like you, some of us for decades.You're just another generic fool with a holier-than-thou attitude and delusions of competency.
Posted by: tomh | July 1, 2009 4:31 PM
Jadehawk @ #152 wrote: you missed the point entirely.
I get that a lot. :)
I'm afraid that, as a farmer, my knee jerks when I see what looks like an argument that, for instance, nature good, man-made hybrids bad, whether it's gene splicing, or they can't survive on their own, or whatever. Thanks for the correction.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 1, 2009 4:36 PM
Yes, that's why he was booted.
moron.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 1, 2009 4:56 PM
Rev, you should know better than to feed the troll. Especially one as pathetic as this one.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 1, 2009 4:57 PM
GWIAS, you need help for repeatedly kicking in PZ's door. Such behavior is not done by a gentleman. Which is why you were booted in the first place. AG got canned for being an arrogant imbecile with delusions being superior to the rest of the blog, and not being able to shut up about it. He was terribly wrong, more ways than one.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 1, 2009 5:01 PM
Good point.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | July 1, 2009 5:08 PM
Stuie's definition of "troll":
Posted by: LanceR, JSG
|
July 1, 2009 5:18 PM
Childish, ignorant, incompetent... how do these people manage to feed themselves without poking themselves in the eye with the spoon?
Alleging, in the absence of knowledge about Stu's preference, homosexual activity as a bad thing? What is this, junior high?
Where *does* PZ keep the TrollKleen spray?
Posted by: Polyester Mather DD | July 1, 2009 5:19 PM
# 22
My fellow neanderthals are dismayed that a smart chimp like Pat should act like a Numb Chumpsky.
We even troubled to post a warning sign on his own turf:
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/climate_of_here
For as pious Hegelians, we realize that, despite their recent mass extinction in Russia, materialism is too important to be left to the Marxists,
Posted by: Richard Gayle | July 1, 2009 5:23 PM
Writings such this really make life tiresome. Because of material like this it is getting very difficult to be courteous and understanding when someone spews denialist talking points, whether they denying evolution, vaccines or climate change.
The same questions are answered. The same statements are debunked. The same lies are exposed. Yet, like zombie knowledge, they NEVER go away.
I just know a relative will call and ask me about this. 'Someone like Buchanan would not write this if it was false!'
It is really hard not to treat them all as idiots since the ones like Buchanan seem to vastly outnumber the genuine seekers of truth who are simply skeptical and can be reasoned with.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 1, 2009 5:23 PM
Alleging, in the absence of knowledge about Stu's preference, homosexual activity as a bad thing?
Myeah. Sadly, I have to get my protein elsewhere.
What is this, junior high?
Even every 12-year old I know would roll his/her eyes at this.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | July 1, 2009 5:25 PM
But of course, telling people to "go bugger themselves" is perfect gentlemanly behavior, especially if done by someone with an advanced degree.
There, fixed that for ya, Red. Don't mention it.
Fixed that too. Don't mention it.
Posted by: Qwerty | July 1, 2009 5:34 PM
Sastra @ 121 - "throwing out people because 'that's what gravity wants'."
You may have come up with a replacement for that old saying "throw the baby out with the bathwater." Your version would drop the "don't" as in "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."
Yes, I am sure Mister Mann thinks gravity has moral implications.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 1, 2009 5:34 PM
Don't worry GWIAS, *waves fingers bye-bye*, you will be deleted. I won't. That says something about my manners compared to yours. Which you show your lack of by posting your shit here. Nothing to do with toeing an agenda, simple manners. Of which you don't have any, nor did AG, who kept trying to tell PZ how to run his blog.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 1, 2009 5:40 PM
Dear GloWingIsaSc
I was quite shocked when you wrote that 'telling people to "go bugger themselves" is perfect gentlemanly behavior', but I asked Jesus about it and he said, "Yes, it is true, there's a fine gentlemanly tradition of self-buggery. Indeed, all those gentlemen whose CO2 emissions have buggered the planet have buggered themselves as well."
I was impressed. So I said, "What about out brave friend GloWingIsaSc, can he bugger himself when his well-wishers suggest it?"
"Not at present," replied Jesus. "But if he prays really hard, I might grant him the extra ten inches he'd need to have any sort of chance at such a feat of anatomical extension."
So there you go, GloWingIsaSc. Jesus is looking out for you, and he's happy to try and repair your problem.
Good Luck!
Smoggy
Posted by: Dale Husband | July 1, 2009 5:45 PM
Global Warming Is A Scam is a delusional twit.
And if I'm wrong, please explain what the "Warmista agenda" is? I hear a lot of accusations by extremist bloggers and cranks, but never any clear evidence. Assumptions and unfounded claims are not evidence for anything, of course.
Posted by: adobedragyn@yahoo.com | July 1, 2009 5:47 PM
Snerk. Seems that Danny boy's been watching too much Oprah, and bought into The Secret bullshit.
Oh, and use of "endure"--hyperbole, much?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 1, 2009 5:52 PM
GWIAS is the one here with the agenda. Anybody who doesn't kowtow to his ideas is a warmista. Such manners and polite thought. And he wonders why he was banned...
Posted by: Stu
|
July 1, 2009 5:58 PM
Oh Nerd, that's your "obtuse mouth" again.
Posted by: Qwerty | July 1, 2009 6:04 PM
jimmyraybob @ # 136 - Christians (especially evangelicals) often call this Biblical Truth(TM) and anything (like evolution) that doesn't fit within "The Word" is wrong while creationism which fits is okay even if after a physical examination, it appears to be wrong. That's why they have to go though hoops to discredit evolution because they feel evolution discredits "The Word" and God wrote "The Word."
Posted by: raven | July 1, 2009 6:05 PM
You managed to combine a huge number of lies and fallacies is a short post. Sign of someone who is both crazy, dumb, a liar, and a Death Cult Xian. Although the latter term is just a summation of the former three.
BTW, not that thinking is anything you have even heard of. But if personal denunciations show the truth of a statement, than evolution must the the truthiest of true theories. Evolution, evolutionary biologists, and science supporters have been mercilessly attacked by xian and moslem religious fanatics for 1 1/2 centuries. They have been threatened with death, fired, beaten up, and even murdered.
However, it doesn't. Evolution is true because it is the best, most tested theory of how life changes through time.
PS. Watch out for swine flu. You are about to be scared, sicked, and maybe killed a newly evolved and rapidly evolving new human pathogen. Funny how even if you don't accept evolution, it just happens anyway. Sort of like gravity, atomic theory, and the Germ Theory of Disease.
Posted by: Izgad | July 1, 2009 6:12 PM
On the dedication of Das Kapital issue here is a good article. (http://friendsofdarwin.com/articles/2000/marx/)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 1, 2009 6:26 PM
I've read it. I've also read all three volumes of Das Kapital. That's also a cure for insomnia.
Posted by: kermit | July 1, 2009 6:29 PM
ElitistB @ 10 "After Baby Bush, I can't say that I would be surprised if a marmoset ran and won on a fruit for everyone platform."
Don't be so simple-minded. The American public would never be tempted by a healthy diet.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 1, 2009 6:34 PM
The American public would never be tempted by a healthy diet.
Sure they would, as long as they can deep-fry it afterwards.
Okay, enough stereo-typing Merkins. There's really quite a few sane and smart ones, you know. Some are even skinny.
Posted by: Global Warming Is A Scam | July 1, 2009 6:46 PM
I can see that censorship of not-officially-approved ideas is alive and well here at Pharyngula. Some people are just too thin-skinned to have their dogma challenged. I guess that means I'll have to keep re-posting:
Wow. That's just so...mature, intelligent, tolerant, profound...I personally haven't heard anything this earth-shattering since the third grade...exactly what I would expect from a far-left religious fundamentalist Warmista who in middle age is still an Associate professor at a third-rate state college in the middle of Bumfuck, USA. Got any more pearls of wisdom to offer us, Dr. (Half)Wit?
Fixed that for ya. Don't mention it.
Fixed that too. Glad to be of service.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 1, 2009 6:56 PM
Wow Globby Warming
"I personally haven't heard anything this earth-shattering since the third grade"
I'm impressed! You made the third grade! That certainly sets you apart from every other global warming denier and godbot who posts here. You've certainly earned your ARMOUR OF GOD!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 1, 2009 6:57 PM
Funny how you don't mention AG essentially calling PZ out on his own blog. The crudeness of your behavior continues. A guest never calls out the host in his own house. You should be adult enough to know that. There is just no hope for you to see that it is your manners, not your ideas, that are despicable.Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 1, 2009 7:00 PM
Nerd, stop feeding the troll.
Posted by: Falyne, FCD | July 1, 2009 7:49 PM
*sets shields to 'ignore'*
*gives full power to shields*
She cannae take much more of this, Captain! There's a critical flux cascade in the Siwoti capacitor!
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | July 1, 2009 7:51 PM
While it is indeed true that Marx did not attempt to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin, he did send him a copy. It can be seen as part of his library at Downe House. The story goes that Darwin never read it- or if he started it he never got very far.
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | July 1, 2009 8:04 PM
Could it be any clearer that GWIAS=AG?
Posted by: Ray T. Perreault | July 1, 2009 8:09 PM
"I'm only mentioning this because I'm fairly certain Hitler was also fond of the theory of gravity, so perhaps we should dispense with that as well."
\Hitler was a vegetarian. Thank God I am carnivorous.
Ray
Posted by: JHJEFFERY | July 1, 2009 9:15 PM
If anyone is interested, I recently wrote a master's paper on Darwin's loss of religion. If interested, let me know at sam1027j@aol.com and I will send you a copy. It is enough to say that the scholars who have looked at this issue, especially the over-praised Ruse, have seen it with a jaundiced eye.
JHJ
Posted by: Singe | July 1, 2009 9:51 PM
Pat Buchanan recently held a neocon conference where discussion centered around how to get the republican party back on top.
Among various discussions was one relating to our need to pass legislation that declares English to be the official language of the USA and have its use mandatory in government.
The banner at the conference said "2009 National Conferenece".
*facepalm*
Posted by: infidel57 | July 1, 2009 10:41 PM
Pat Buchanan is living prove of the liberal agenda at MSNBC. They trot him out to make Republicans look stupid.
Posted by: j | July 2, 2009 3:22 AM
pz you missed my favorite pat quote--that a theory can be evil and right.
think about it. darwin, out of his monstrously big brain, created virtually all the evil things in the late 19th/most of the 20th century. one man!!!
if only stephen gould had had as much respect for the power of darwin as some of these creationists.
Posted by: j | July 2, 2009 4:11 AM
pz you missed my favorite pat quote--that a theory can be evil and right.
think about it. darwin, out of his monstrously big brain, created virtually all the evil things in the late 19th/most of the 20th century. one man!!!
if only stephen gould had had as much respect for the power of darwin as some of these creationists.
Posted by: j | July 2, 2009 4:13 AM
pz you missed my favorite pat quote--that a theory can be evil and right.
think about it. darwin, out of his monstrously big brain, created virtually all the evil things in the late 19th/most of the 20th century. one man!!!
if only stephen gould had had as much respect for the power of darwin as some of these creationists.
Posted by: johannes | July 2, 2009 6:28 AM
Marx held no personal grudge against bussinessmen, his closest co-worker, Engels, was one. Marx considered capitalism a necessary step toward socialism and communism, and he considered the problems and idiosyncrasies of capitalism to be the result of abstract and objective priciples, blaming individual bussinessmen would have made no sense for him.
> not surprising since his followers who did all the work and
> killing were all...Catholics and Lutherans.
Not entirely true. The former Prussian state church - the largest protestant denomination in Germany - had Calvinist or Zwinglian rather than Lutheran views on transsubstantion and other dogmatic matters. Himmler believed in all kind of new age woo, Codreanu was an Christian Orthodox fundamentalist (although an Orthodox fundie is something of an oxymoron), the grand mufti was a Muslim, Kaminski was Orthodox or an Atheist, and most members of the SS considered themselves "Gottgläubig" (god-believers, in other words non-denominational Christians). As for those eastern European auxiliaries who did the dirty jobs, Himmler initially preferred to recruit Greek Catholic Ukrainians, and Hitler considered Muslims to be the only trustworthy people in the Soviet Union, but in the end everybody who was willing to kill for a bottle of vodka and a license to rape and plunder was recruited, regardless of sect.
Posted by: Daniel Mann | July 2, 2009 10:07 AM
Name-calling has always been the lazy man’s substitute for solid reasoning. You have excelled in this, but you’ve failed to answer my challenge—that our theories have moral implications, especially Darwinism—as if denigrating the other person is the same as thoughtfully critiquing his hypothesis.
Several respondents stated that science is about what “is,” not about what “aught to be.” Although theoretically this seems to make sense, this is not the way our theories play out in the real world. If science tells us that jimson weed “is” poisonous, then we’ll try to avoid ingesting it! Simple! Similarly, if we lack the Biblical concept of created-in-the-image-of-God, and “science” tells us that certain races have received a higher intelligence capacity—look at James Watson’s recent declaration—it becomes harder to dismiss eugenics and perhaps even euthanasia, ala Margaret Sanger, Hitler, and his cadre of eugenically-minded psychiatrists. (And you, who quote Hitler to the effect that he was a “Christian,” fail to distinguish between Nazi propaganda and reality.) Besides, if philosophical materialism is the only thing you have in your lunch pail, then eugenics becomes more appetizing.
Furthermore, if we think that we came from apes, we lack any ontological reason to NOT act as apes and resort to insults instead of insights. However, if we understand we we’ve been created in the image of God, we also understand that there are higher standards to which we must adhere.
You gloat in calling me a “liar” regarding my use of a Darwin-quote. As several appropriately pointed out, I missed an important nuance in quoting that particular slice, for which I take responsibility. However, in labeling me a “liar,” you proved yourselves guilty of the same thing—misrepresenting another. How do you know that I didn’t do this innocently, merely quoting from a second party source, without having seen the context? By labeling me a “liar,” you make yourselves into hypocrites because you commit the same act of misrepresentation. In this, I must remind you of Jesus’ wise words: “You will be judged with the same standard of judgment that you use to judge others,” something your own conscience should be telling you.
So let’s set aside this one quotation, and look at the greater historical picture. In “From Darwin to Hitler,” Historian Richard Weikart sees it this way:
“Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism, especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world’s greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy.”
Posted by: LanceR, JSG
|
July 2, 2009 10:20 AM
And you, Dan, have completely ignored everyone who ripped your argument like a cheap prom dress, preferring instead to whine about "Oh, they're so *mean* to me!"
I think you're old enough to know... when somebody says something dishonest, the proper response is to call them a liar. The proper response to being called a liar is to check your sources, not whine about being called an accurate name.
You keep saying that "if we understand we we’ve been created in the image of God, we also understand that there are higher standards to which we must adhere.". *If* this is true, then why do so many of your fellow religionists completely fail this test? Religion in the real world appears to have absolutely no effect on morality. You have failed this test. Bearing false witness? Ring any bells? How about the one about "the least among you"? How you doing with that?
Seriously. Get over being called names, and face the counter arguments that abound. You have yet to answer a single one. Whining about "tone" and "insults" *always* means the person has no argument.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 2, 2009 10:25 AM
False, you have shown no physical evidence to support this allegation, therefore it is nothing but sophistry until that evidence is shown. The physical evidence must pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural, origin. Philosophy without evidence is sophistry. Your god either exists or doesn't. And he must exist for us to be made in his image and the physical evidence should be available.Posted by: Josh
|
July 2, 2009 10:32 AM
If you're going to refer to things explained by a specific scientific theory (especially within the context of making an argument), then you should really learn enough to understand what that theory actually states...
Posted by: Falyne, FCD | July 2, 2009 10:44 AM
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we have three posts. Gloves are off.
With regards to the Nazis, the only 'scientific underpinnings' necessary would be the concept of "culling the herd". The concept of artificial selection has been around for millennia.
The fact that you think you've proved science has moral implications by an example where scientific knowledge is used to make a completely morally neutral decision is... perplexing. Besides, science only tells you the plant is poison. The impulse not to eat comes entirely from your scientifically-irrelevant decision to continue living; if you wished to die, then you'd eat the damn plant.
Humans have every reason to be ethical, regardless of our status as apes. If you knew ANYthing about philosophy, you'd know this. Start with secular humanism. Frankly, the desire to be ethical for the sake of ethics is a much more mature position than ethics simply because Dad said so.
We've been calling you a liar and a troll because it was pretty damn clear from your first post that you came in here to argue in bad faith. You knew what you were doing, and you did it intentionally to get people pissed so you could play holier-than-thou and tsk-tsk at the meanie heathens. Even if it WERE uncalled for, an insult is hardly the same kind of "misrepresentation" as misquoting, so your sanctimony is just silly.
Posted by: TomS | July 2, 2009 10:46 AM
@Daniel Mann #221
Is the only reason for our behavior to be found in our ancestry? Does that mean if my great-grandfather was a horse thief, I ought to follow in his footsteps and be a horse thief too?
But more interesting to me is the parallel question for "Intelligent Design". If we were purposefully designed by God to be so very much like chimps and other apes, who would dare to rebel against the divine purposes?
Posted by: Josh
|
July 2, 2009 10:52 AM
In order to come to this "understanding," I think I first need to know which god we're dealing with. Since there are a good number of gods from which to choose, and since none of them are particularly good at providing falsifiable evidence for themselves, how am I supposed to discriminate among the choices? How do I know if I have got the one that is actually out there? How do I know if I'm wrong?
Posted by: Dania
|
July 2, 2009 11:07 AM
Common misunderstanding. We didn't come from apes, we are apes and we share a recent common ancestor with the other apes.
So, if you didn't believe in God you would have no reason to be moral or rational? Is that what you are trying to say?
Posted by: Josh
|
July 2, 2009 11:07 AM
This is a poor example to use in supporting your argument. That jimson weed is poisonous is an observation; it is not a theory. We don't need a scientific theory to explain why jimson weed is poisonous in order to avoid it. We can make that decision based on the observation alone. I don't see how your example in any way supports your thesis.
Word choice is important when discussing science. Observations and theories are not the same thing. Trying to argue that scientific observations have moral implications is a different topic than trying to argue that scientific theories have moral implications.
Posted by: Josh
|
July 2, 2009 11:17 AM
*reads comment #118 again*
Perhaps you should cast out first the beam out of thine own eye...
Posted by: TomS | July 2, 2009 11:28 AM
@Josh #229 -
Yes, as it is an observation that the human body is the body of an ape. It is a theory that that is due to common descent. Others prefer to say that that is because of common functions, common material, or anything but common descent. Or to avoid the topic altogether, rather as teenagers refuse to admit the possibility of being related to their parents, for the same reason: that it is so obvious.
Posted by: heliobates | July 2, 2009 11:45 AM
Wait, aren't you supposed to use the Naturalistic Fallacy against the secular worldview, not in support of your own?
The room is spinning.
Oh, and primates (what you mean by apes) demonstrate social cohesion, morality, cooperation and altruism. So because we're "made in the image of God" we shouldn't, right?
Posted by: Josh
|
July 2, 2009 11:55 AM
Tom, forgive me, but I can't tell exactly what it is that you're arguing in #231. Do you think that my dissecting of Daniel's plant example isn't going to be sufficiently clear to get him to understand that he needs to use examples of actual theories (and not observations) in order to try and support his argument that theories have moral implications?
You could well be right...
Posted by: Stanton
|
July 2, 2009 12:27 PM
We call you a liar because you purposely omitted crucial phrases out of Charles Darwin's original passage in order to paint him, and everyone who accepts his scientific contributions as being evil racists. Uncoincidentally, this was the same exact lie spoken by Ben Stein in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. And we say "purposely omitted" because Charles Darwin's works are freely available on the Internet, thus giving you no excuse.And your whole accusation that we're hypocrites for pointing out how you're Lying for Jesus even though Jesus hates it when people sin in His name and drive other people away from the Faith is nothing but pure bullshit.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 2, 2009 12:35 PM
What, by producing another single quote from a book funded by The Discovery Institute?
So-called Historian Richard Weikhart clearly isn't very good at his job if he is unable to think of any other way in which the Nazis could offer moral justification. For example, by exploiting 400 years of modern, systematic anti-Semitism; he has failed to notice the liberal use of the works of Martin Luther by Nazi propagandists. It rather suggests that his academic knowledge of Nazism falls somewhat short of sufficient.
You poor sourcing of references goes some way to explaining why you can make statements like the following without any trace of intentional irony:
However, if you took the time to do a little more research on the subject, then you might discover what people have already pointed out here; whilst Hitler makes liberal reference to his Christian identity, he makes no reference to Darwin whatsoever.
So, even if it is true that Hitler was lying about his own faith for the purposes of propaganda, it is also true that Hitler never, ever mentioned Darwin. (Actually, Weikhart acknowledges this, although he does attempt, as you did Daniel, to parallel Darwin's own words via selective translation of Hitler's from the German into English.)
Your arguments have been addressed, and found wanting, numerous times in the 150 posts since you first offered them.
You still haven't managed to present a single shred of evidence that "theories have moral implications". At best, although I don't accept it in the case you've given, you've made an argument that society and individuals are able to project their own morality onto the application of theories. This is trivial in some respects, and wrong in many others.
It clearly isn't true that the genocide of the Jews was predicated on evolutionary theory, since pogroms were as much a punctuation of european society as anti-Semitism was a continual part of it, since at least 400 years before the holocaust.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 2, 2009 1:04 PM
“science” tells us that certain races have received a higher intelligence capacity—look at James Watson’s recent declaration - Daniel Mann
Science does not show us this, Watson's bigoted idiocy notwithstanding. But suppose it did. This would not tell us what we ought to do about it. There are several possible responses. One is to say that the more intelligent have greater responsibility to work for the common good of all humanity - that would be my response, just as it is with regard to the individual differences in intelligence that undoubtedly exist.
You gloat in calling me a “liar” regarding my use of a Darwin-quote. As several appropriately pointed out, I missed an important nuance in quoting that particular slice, for which I take responsibility. However, in labeling me a “liar,” you proved yourselves guilty of the same thing—misrepresenting another. How do you know that I didn’t do this innocently, merely quoting from a second party source, without having seen the context?
Then you are an irresponsible idiot with no concern for the truth. Better?
Historian Richard Weikart
Weikart is a fellow of that congerie of professional liars, the "Discovery Institute". His bok Darwin to Hitler has been severely criticised by knowledgeable reviewers. For example, Ann Taylor Allen says (while praising some aspects of the work):
"Weikart places this story in the context of a grand historical narrative. Up until the late nineteenth century, he claims, European civilization was governed by what he calls the “Judeo‐Christian ethic” and its central principle, the “right to life.” This principle was “reflected in European legal codes which strictly forbade assisted suicide, infanticide, and abortion”. Weikart does not explain how other aspects of these codes, such as their requirement of the death penalty and their acceptance of domestic abuse, child labor, and other life‐threatening practices, affirmed the “sanctity of human life.” At any rate, Weikart attributes the decline of this Christian worldview to the British biologist Charles Darwin, whose theories were the basis for a trend that Weikart calls “Darwinism.” He accuses Darwin and his disciples not only of undermining Christianity but also of promoting a secular ethic in which the preservation of the individual life was no longer a moral absolute. Instead, it was subordinated to the welfare of the species as a whole—an ethic that provided the basis for National Socialist ideology...
Another evil that Weikart attributes to Darwinism is racism, which during this era fueled cruel and even genocidal policies in many parts of the world. But the major problem here, as he himself admits, is that the form of racism that was most important to Hitler—antisemitism—cannot be traced to Darwin or Darwinism. Weikart does not explain that the origins of this prejudice lie chiefly in a much older tradition of Christian anti‐Judaism, for which Darwinism provided only a new and prestigious rationale."
Allen may not know this, but if any ethical theory could be derived from Darwin's theories (in faxct, of course, none can), it would be one stressing the rights of the individual, since he regarded natural selection as operating at the individual level, not for "the good of the species", or of groups within species such as "races". He also rejected any idea that evolution by natural selection was progressive or ethical - as the quotation you so dishonestly or irresponsibly truncated shows. In fact, his ideas in these respects were quite out of tune with the times in the late 19th and early 20th century: quasi-scientific racism predated Darwin, and was particularly strong among creationists such as Louis Agassiz, who insisted that blacks and whites were separately created species. It is evident that Weikart does not, in fact, understand Darwin's ideas at all.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 2, 2009 1:18 PM
It clearly isn't true that the genocide of the Jews was predicated on evolutionary theory, since pogroms were as much a punctuation of european society as anti-Semitism was a continual part of it, since at least 400 years before the holocaust. Bernard Bumner
European anti-semitism goes back much further than that, in fact - to the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire. however, it greatly intensified around the 1100s. There is a fascinating book The Origins of a Persecuting Society: Europe in the Twelfth Century by Robert Moore (1987), which produces evidence that a new, literate, clerical elite whipped up hatred against various targets including Jews, "heretics", homosexuals and prostitutes, in order to establish their power. This fine Catholic tradition was not among those the Protestant reformers of the Reformation felt impelled to drop. See for example Luther's delightfully titled work On the Jews and their Lies, in which he advocates many of the measures Hitler actually took against the Jews in Germany (destruction of synagogues, confiscation of property, forced labour, systematic humiliation), prior to World War II.
Posted by: TomS | July 2, 2009 1:40 PM
@Josh #233 - Yes, I was just trying to draw upon your point.
Posted by: Josh
|
July 2, 2009 1:56 PM
That's what I was hoping. I thought it fingered in quite nicely with my comment, BTW. Thanks.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 2, 2009 7:00 PM
During the First Crusade (1096-1099), one group of crusaders killed over 1100 Jews in Mainz, Germany. Sorry, Daniel, but European anti-semitism long predated Darwin.
Besides, even if Hitler was an evolutionist, so what? The argumentum ad consequentiam (appeal to consequences) is a logical fallacy.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 3, 2009 5:58 AM
Of course, what you've suggested - what any rational, empathetic, and fair individual would now suggest - is exactly what Darwin himself espoused. (As can be seem in the full version of the quote, so misleadingly truncated by Daniel.) However, put into its correct historical context, it illustrates just how socially progressive Darwin was.
Of course, and despite whatever noises James Watson makes on the subject, we now know that there are no inherent differences in the intelligence of "races". Because we know and understand that the term itself is meaningless in a biological, evolutionary, and genetic context.
Daniel clearly believes that James Watson has a voice of authority on the matter, which would seem to suggest that he didn't actually observe the reaction (of scientists, atheists, and society as whole) to Watsons comments. Watson was roundly, and rightly, condemned as being unscientific and ignoring the evidence (as well as trying to use sciencne to justify bigotry). In the aftermath, Watson was suspended from, and then resigned his position at Cold Spring Harbor. I'd say that scientists and academics took a morally principled stance on the subject, but also that this had nothing to do with the moral implications of any theory.
Absolutely; Martin Luther didn't originate the ideas which he helped to popularise. However, his treatise seems to have provided the most substantial formal basis for the cultural prejudice exploited by Hitler.
Posted by: John Morales | July 3, 2009 6:33 AM
Cum nimis absurdum.
Posted by: John Morales | July 3, 2009 6:45 AM
[slightly OOT]
BTW, Himself, is it not the case that Jews were associated with usury following its prohibition by Christians, and that they were therefore 'tolerated' (yet hated) because they provided a very necessary service since this restriction did not apply to them?
(cf. The Merchant of Venice)
(cf. Islamic banking)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 3, 2009 4:33 PM
John,
For centuries in most of Europe Jews were prohibited from practicing most professions, owning land, or otherwise earning a living. Usury was allowed and, in the pre-banking days (see A History of Banking, particularly the sections on the Lombards and Fuggers), Jews were the primary bankers. That meant that some Jews were (a) rich and (b) people owed them money. The crusaders who killed the Jews in Mainz in 1096 were led by Graf (Count) Emico. Guess whose county was near Mainz and who happened have gone seriously into debt in order to go crusading. If your guess was Graf Emico, then you're right.
Posted by: John Morales | July 3, 2009 10:18 PM
Thanks, Himself.
Reading about the history of banking was interesting, but reading about the German Crusade and the Emicho incident is rather depressing. :(
PS So much history, just in Europe... and so much ignoring and perverting of it by those with an axe to grind, such as this "Historian Richard Weikart".
Why don't people just check such claims for themselves? (that's rhetorical, I know why)
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | July 3, 2009 10:48 PM
Just to be different...
A Moral Implication of Plate Tectonics.
As plates move around there will come times when one nation's territory will trespass on the territory of another nation. For example, the day will come a long time hence when Italy will impact on Greece, Albania, Montenegro, and Croatia. More immediately, the day is coming when the Mexican city of Tijuana, Baja California Norte will sit at the current latitude of the American city of San Diego, California. This is an impending violation of American territory that must be addressed.
Were it not for Plate Tectonics we wouldn't know these sorts of things were possible, so the theory must take the blame for making us aware of this. That is the moral implication.
Awaiting the reaction in 5, 4, 3...
Posted by: John Morales | July 3, 2009 10:55 PM
Um, Alan, I know you're being jocular and taking the piss, but...
Leaving aside the (slight) discrepancy of timescales upon which human societies and continental drift operate, that is a sociopolitical, not a moral implication.
</pedant>
Posted by: Jonathon | July 4, 2009 2:10 AM
A recent article in the International Socialist Review (May-June 2009) discusses Marx and Engles' relationship to Darwin and their reaction to his work.
Marx wrote in a letter to a colleague: "Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle… Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, "teleology" in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained."
See: www.isreview.org/issues/65/feat-MarxDarwin.shtml
Posted by: TomS | July 4, 2009 6:31 AM
Not being all that familiar with Marxism, I could use some clarification.
Isn't Marxism dependent upon teleology? The struggle of the proletariat?
Anyway, I realize that it is asking too much that Marx would have any understanding of natural science, but the first time that I think of an explanation for teleology in the natural sciences would involve the principle of least action in physics. (Such as, light takes the shortest path, so that it appears as if a light ray can anticipate where it will go.) Coincidentally, that is associated with Maupertuis in the 18th century, and Maupertuis is also sometimes credited with an early formulation of natural selection.
So, I guess that Maupertuis is responsible for Marxism?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 4, 2009 6:51 AM
Classical Marxism says that history consists of a series of economic struggles. Various classes (aristocracy, bourgeois, workers, etc.) fight to gain supremacy. Feudal society (controlled by nobles) rested on the labor of peasant farmers. As peasants demanded more and more for themselves small shopkeepers and tradespeople began to appear. Trade guilds were established which employed workers to independently accumulate wealth. It was this historical progression that created Capitalism and supplanted Feudalism. In the same way, Marxism says that Capitalism will give way to Communism, as the struggle of the workers becomes more and more revolutionary.
If you're really interested, I can go into further detail. But I warn you, the subject becomes dry and technical quite quickly.
Posted by: Josh
|
July 4, 2009 6:58 AM
*reads #246 and then collapses in laughter while simultaneously trying to shake head and roll eyes*
Posted by: Eugene Windchy | July 5, 2009 4:21 PM
As the author of The End of Darwinism I wish to rebut just a couple of the many errors published here.
The giraffe is an easy one. I'm not only one to have criticized Darwin's giraffe fantasy. Stephen Gould in 1988 started a campaign to get this "weak and foolish speculation" out of the textbooks. He used the word "fatuous" too. The giraffe stil appears in a few textbooks.
The Darwin-Wallace relationship is discussed in detail in my book. Wallace, who was in the Malay Archipelago, sent a completed paper on evolution by natural selection to Darwin for forwarding. Darwin then looked into his old writings on the subject, picked out two that he thought advisable to publish (with editing), and finagled it so that his materials appeared ahead of Wallace's.
Only one review is known A geologist dismissed Darwin's work as nothing new. The same geologist criticized Wallace for claiming that evolution could proceed indefinitely from the original type. Darwin put that idea into The Origin of Species with no attribution.
As for why Wallace gave so much credit to Darwin, that is explained in detail my book. Walace was a young, poor and self-effacing person overly impressed by the older Darwin, who was rich and already a prominent scientist. This becomes very clear when one looks closely at the relationship and the nature of Wallace's personality. It was typical of Wallace that he tried to refuse membership in the Royal Society and would not go to Buckingham Palace to receive an award.
Posted by: Eugene Windchy | July 5, 2009 4:25 PM
As the author of The End of Darwinism I wish to rebut just a couple of the many errors published here.
The giraffe is an easy one. I'm not only one to have criticized Darwin's giraffe fantasy. Stephen Gould in 1988 started a campaign to get this "weak and foolish speculation" out of the textbooks. He used the word "fatuous" too. The giraffe stil appears in a few textbooks.
The Darwin-Wallace relationship is discussed in detail in my book. Wallace, who was in the Malay Archipelago, sent a completed paper on evolution by natural selection to Darwin for forwarding. Darwin then looked into his old writings on the subject, picked out two that he thought advisable to publish (with editing), and finagled it so that his materials appeared ahead of Wallace's.
Only one review is known A geologist dismissed Darwin's work as nothing new. The same geologist criticized Wallace for claiming that evolution could proceed indefinitely from the original type. Darwin put that idea into The Origin of Species with no attribution.
As for why Wallace gave so much credit to Darwin, that is explained in detail my book. Wallace was a young, poor and self-effacing person overly impressed by the older Darwin, who was rich and already a prominent scientist. This becomes very clear when one looks closely at the relationship and the nature of Wallace's personality. It was typical of Wallace that he tried to refuse membership in the Royal Society and would not go to Buckingham Palace to receive an award.
Posted by: Eugene Windchy | July 5, 2009 4:27 PM
As the author of The End of Darwinism I wish to rebut just a couple of the many errors published here.
The giraffe is an easy one. I'm not only one to have criticized Darwin's giraffe fantasy. Stephen Gould in 1988 started a campaign to get this "weak and foolish speculation" out of the textbooks. He used the word "fatuous" too. The giraffe stil appears in a few textbooks.
The Darwin-Wallace relationship is discussed in detail in my book. Wallace, who was in the Malay Archipelago, sent a completed paper on evolution by natural selection to Darwin for forwarding. Darwin then looked into his old writings on the subject, picked out two that he thought advisable to publish (with editing), and finagled it so that his materials appeared ahead of Wallace's.
Only one review is known A geologist dismissed Darwin's work as nothing new. The same geologist criticized Wallace for claiming that evolution could proceed indefinitely from the original type. Darwin put that idea into The Origin of Species with no attribution.
As for why Wallace gave so much credit to Darwin, that is explained in detail my book. Wallace was a young, poor and self-effacing person overly impressed by the older Darwin, who was rich and already a prominent scientist. This becomes very clear when one looks closely at the relationship and the nature of Wallace's personality. It was typical of Wallace that he tried to refuse membership in the Royal Society and would not go to Buckingham Palace to receive an award.
Posted by: Eugene Windchy | July 5, 2009 4:30 PM
As the author of The End of Darwinism I wish to rebut just a couple of the many errors published here.
The giraffe is an easy one. I'm not only one to have criticized Darwin's giraffe fantasy. Stephen Gould in 1988 started a campaign to get this "weak and foolish speculation" out of the textbooks. He used the word "fatuous" too. The giraffe still appears in a few textbooks.
The Darwin-Wallace relationship is discussed in detail in my book. Wallace, who was in the Malay Archipelago, sent a completed paper on evolution by natural selection to Darwin for forwarding. Darwin then looked into his old writings on the subject, picked out two that he thought advisable to publish (with editing), and finagled it so that his materials appeared ahead of Wallace's.
Only one review is known A geologist dismissed Darwin's work as nothing new. The same geologist criticized Wallace for claiming that evolution could proceed indefinitely from the original type. Darwin put that idea into The Origin of Species with no attribution.
As for why Wallace gave so much credit to Darwin, that is explained in detail my book. Wallace was a young, poor and self-effacing person overly impressed by the older Darwin, who was rich and already a prominent scientist. This becomes very clear when one looks closely at the relationship and the nature of Wallace's personality. It was typical of Wallace that he tried to refuse membership in the Royal Society and would not go to Buckingham Palace to receive an award.
Posted by: Eugene Windchy | July 5, 2009 4:33 PM
As the author of The End of Darwinism I wish to rebut just a couple of the many errors published here.
The giraffe is an easy one. I'm not only one to have criticized Darwin's giraffe fantasy. Stephen Gould in 1988 started a campaign to get this "weak and foolish speculation" out of the textbooks. He used the word "fatuous" too. The giraffe still appears in a few textbooks.
The Darwin-Wallace relationship is discussed in detail in my book. Wallace, who was in the Malay Archipelago, sent a completed paper on evolution by natural selection to Darwin for forwarding. Darwin then looked into his old writings on the subject, picked out two that he thought advisable to publish (with editing), and finagled it so that his materials appeared ahead of Wallace's.
Only one review is known A geologist dismissed Darwin's work as nothing new. The same geologist criticized Wallace for claiming that evolution could proceed indefinitely from the original type. Darwin put that idea into The Origin of Species with no attribution.
As for why Wallace gave so much credit to Darwin, that is explained in detail my book. Wallace was a young, poor and self-effacing person overly impressed by the older Darwin, who was rich and already a prominent scientist. This becomes very clear when one looks closely at the relationship and the nature of Wallace's personality. It was typical of Wallace that he tried to refuse membership in the Royal Society and would not go to Buckingham Palace to receive an award.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 5, 2009 4:35 PM
Eugene, your argument might have carried a modicum of weight if you hadn't just demonstrated a deficient literacy level by not doing as the error message told you.
Posted by: Eugene Windchy | July 5, 2009 4:39 PM
Jadehawk: So the site's error problem disqualifies my remarks? If that's not a cop-out, I don't know what is.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 5, 2009 4:43 PM
no, the fact that your remarks are bullshit disqualifies them. the fact that you can't read the error message means you make yourself look like an illiterate idiot, to boot.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 5, 2009 4:46 PM
oh, and lest you become more confused: I'm indeed not debating your points. your points have been taken apart, debunked and proven to be silly bullshit over and over again. Thus, rehashing them would be a waste of my time. I merely make fun of you. It amuses me.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 5, 2009 4:50 PM
Eugene is another liar for Jesus.
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 5, 2009 4:52 PM
You mean, you're going to demonstrate your inherent dishonesty for us. How nice.
Not to mention your inability to read the error message that shows up when posting.
Case in point: Lying by omission and insinuation.
Again, lying by omission and insinuation.
Compounded with the above, this is a lie by subtle distortion.
Your ever-so-careful twisting of the truth is more obviously deliberate lies than flat-out burbled nonsense.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 5, 2009 5:08 PM
Dear Eugene,
Thank you for your bravery in venturing into this den of atheist skepticism. God asked me to tell you that he is well-pleased with your efforts to debunk his debunker, and he asked me to pass on the following message--perhaps you'd like to put it on the cover of your next re-print?
"I, God, commend Eugene Windy for his debunking of Darwin. His consummate fact mining, ability to twist some evidence and ignore the rest, and brave stance against the preponderance of critical opinion has won him his ARMOUR OF GOD."
Your's in Christian Pride
Smoggy
PS When is the next book in your debunking series out? I am excited to read it. Will you apply your skills to debunking the Holocaust? There are whole trainloads of evidence to ignore there.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 5, 2009 7:11 PM
Eugene,
Why do you creationists spend so much time and effort spouting off non sequiturs, half-truths, and lies about Darwin and/or evolution? Why don't you try to find evidence for your creationism? Oh right, I forgot, there is no evidence for your creationism other than a 2,500 year old collection of myths.
Posted by: TomS | July 6, 2009 10:53 AM
@'Tis Himself #264:
There is nothing there for there to be "evidence for" it.
The Bible, whatever you may think of it, does not have a word to say about evolution, for or against it. The Bible does not espouse "fixity of species". The Bible does not deny "natural selection". The Bible does not offer any opinion about "common descent". Because anything about evolution would be an anachronism in the Bible. So let's not blame the Bible for creationism. For geocentrism, a good case can be made, but not for creationism.
The modern anti-evolutionary reaction, known as "creationism", has been distinguished for all of its life for not offering an alternative to evolution. There is no description of what is supposed to have happened: did a fully mature ecological system arise from nothing with all the appearance of having a history? There is no explanation for any of the variety of life, for example, no explanation for the observations that we have of the great similarity between the human body and those of chimps and other apes. Are we supposed to believe that God or the Intelligent Designer(s) had some common purpose in mind, or is it that they were somehow constrained by the laws of nature to make us the same way?
You won't get answers to any questions about the description of the creationist scenario. So, of course, there is no chance of there being any evidence for a non-existent scenario.
Posted by: mijnheer | July 6, 2009 4:21 PM
"Isn't Marxism dependent upon teleology?"
We have to distinguish between Marx and Marxism. Marx's own general theory of history is not teleological. Those who think it is typically confuse the general theory of history with Marx's model of capital. While rejecting Malthus's influence and potential "social Darwinist" abuses, Marx and Engels thought very highly of Darwin's theory of natural selection for two reasons: (1) by lending support to the idea of a self-generating, evolving nature, it undermined theological and other ideological justifications for the existing social order, and (2) it provided an explanatory mechanism for understanding historical change without recourse to teleology -- something they believed their own theory of history did too. If you're interested in the details, see:
Angus Taylor, "The Significance of Darwinian Theory for Marx and Engels", Philosophy of the Social Sciences, vol. 19 (1989), pp. 409-23.
Posted by: Drosera
|
July 6, 2009 5:20 PM
TomS @265,
Sorry to disagree, but we can most certainly blame the Bible for creationism. What else is creationism but the belief that the biblical God created all life forms?
We’ll overlook a silly mistake that God apparently made: the vegetation was created before the sun. As a result, all plants would immediately have frozen to death, if we are to believe the Bible.
Animals were created on the fifth day:
Later on God decides that it wasn’t so good after all, so he tells a certain Noah that he is going to destroy all people on earth by means of The FloodTM. He orders Noah to build an ark of cypress wood, 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. And God said:
The idea that all species were at a certain point in time, only a few thousand years ago, limited to a single pair is not at all consistent with the Theory of Evolution.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 7, 2009 12:15 AM
lol!!!! yeah, a book with pictures of fishing lures will prove darwin wrong. *snortle*
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 7, 2009 12:37 AM
Dear Fandy,
Dear Fandy,
Dear Fandy,
Thank you for your triple posted link.
Thank you for your triple posted link.
Thank you for your triple posted link.
I have read Harun Yahya three times now.
I have read Harun Yahya three times now.
I have read Harun Yahya three times now.
And you are right...my mind opened
...like the legs of a crack whore
...like a dying man's sphincter
...like a televangelist's cash register
...like an abstinence pledger's zipper
...like Michael Jackson's skull
And I knew at the end of all my reading that opening one's mind to Harun Yahya...
...is on a par with shitting one's brain away.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 7, 2009 12:42 AM
Where did Fandy's three posts go?
The Great God Myers must have smited him/her/it!
I hope my kind review of Harun Yahya will be allowed to remain.
Posted by: fandy | July 7, 2009 8:11 AM
Dear Smoggy Batzrubble,
Actual, three times posted because first twice times failed, so I try again and the last posted.
Why my post smited? as Darwinism smited the TRUTH, the lie even to them self.
http://www.harunyahya.com/
Posted by: haha | July 8, 2009 8:51 AM
"The old fossil is Pat Buchanan [...]"
I actually burst out laughing when I read this.
lulz
Posted by: Sorbus | July 24, 2009 4:52 PM
Comments are needed for the review of his book on the New American site: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/reviews/books/1463
The review is really cringe-worthy as you can guess.
Posted by: Charles Darwin | July 31, 2009 5:23 AM
If just one more ignorant twit misuses the term "survival of the fittest" like Pat Buchanan does, I warn everyone, I shall break out in the most awful rash.
By "fittest" I meant as a key fitting into a lock, you moron, not how "tough" an animal is. Often big and tough is, after all a distinct disadvantage in changing times. Read my books already. Sheesh, it's not like they cost anything, they are "online" for free! (whatever that means).
Now leave me alone and start thinking.
Posted by: charles | September 1, 2009 2:25 AM
Marx did like Darwin, and while he didn't want to dedicate Kapital to him...he did mail Darwin a copy of Kapital along with a letter saying that he admired Darwin's work. Darwin wrote back thanking him for the book, but there's no indication that he ever read it.
Engels writes (I think in the preface of Kapital, and definitely in other works as well) that Marx and Darwin made similar discoveries....they they both discovered the mechanism through which a complex process occurs. For Marx, it was the accumulation of surplus value through which capital reproduced and advanced itself. For Darwin, it was natural selection through which species developed.
They never "used" Darwin to "justify violent revolution"...they simply made an apt comparison between two very important ideas that have radically changed the way millions of people understand the world we live in.
To suppose that Marx wouldn't admire the works of bourgeois intellectuals is incredibly ignorant. He frequently wrote positive things about bourgeois scholars such as Smith, Ricardo, Hegel, Kant, Feuerbach and lots of other contemporaries.
In fact...Friedrich Engels, Marx's best friend and main collaborator was from the bourgoeisie. When Marx was impoverished and desperately needed money, Engels would send him stipends so Marx could live and write.
At least make some attempt at getting the facts straight.