Darwinists Running Scared

[phildwyer]

The real problem is that by seeking to repress their critics by censorship and intimidation (instances of which we see frequently on these boards) the Darwinists will leave the field free for religious creationists. Why are they scared of an open debate?

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200508160826.asp

 

[In Bloom]

Because its a distraction from the marketting committe for the design of the Mark of the Beast. Duh

 

[phildwyer]

Because its a distraction from the marketting committe for the design of the Mark of the Beast. Duh

I'm serious, Bloom! Anyone can see that orthodox Darwinism is full of holes, that's been clear for 20 years now. If professional scientists aren't willing to entertain criticisms of their faith, and to debate serious opponents, then fundamentalist nutters will rush in to fill the void. Indeed this is already happening. I'm sure you are as dismayed by this as I am.

 

[In Bloom]

I'm serious, Bloom! Anyone can see that orthodox Darwinism is full of holes, that's been clear for 20 years now. If professional scientists aren't willing to entertain criticisms of their faith, and to debate serious opponents, then fundamentalist nutters will rush in to fill the void. Indeed this is already happening. I'm sure you are as dismayed by this as I am.

Define "orthodox Darwinism", if you would be so kind. And what "holes" are these?

 

[phildwyer]

Define "orthodox Darwinism", if you would be so kind. And what "holes" are these?

Well, we've been through this many times before, but alright: Darwin thought evolution was gradual, monocausal and unidirectional. And we now know that its none of these things.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Why, that evolutionary theory is intrinsically a cover for anti-working-class dehumanising capitalist theory, of course. And also <insert meaningless self-justifying semantic waffle>.

I'm paraphrasing here.

Really, phil, dig Darwin up and fuck him, it will save us all a lot of time.

 

[In Bloom]

Well, we've been through this many times before, but alright: Darwin thought evolution was gradual, monocausal and unidirectional. And we now know that its none of these things.

While Darwin obviously thought that evolution was essentially gradual, I've never seen anything that suggested he thought it was "monocausal and unidirectional". Even so, Darwin is not the be all and end all of modern evolutionary theory. That it is called neo-Darwinian evolution is (as I understand it) down to the fact that differential reproductive success represented a watershed in the way we understand the evolution of life on Earth.

 

[phildwyer]

Why, that evolutionary theory is intrinsically a cover for anti-working-class dehumanising capitalist theory, of course. And also <insert meaningless self-justifying semantic waffle>.

I'm paraphrasing here.

You are, but its not me you're paraphrasing: "Darwin insisted upon a virtually exceptionless, single-level theory, with organisms acting as the locus of selection, and all "higher" order emerging, by the analogue of Adam Smith's invisible hand, from the (unconscious) "struggles" of organisms for their own personal advantages as expressed in differential reporductive success." (Gould, 2002, 5).

Do you want a serious debate or are you just going to hurl insults?

 

[TeeJay]

Well, we've been through this many times before, but alright: Darwin thought evolution was gradual, monocausal and unidirectional. And we now know that its none of these things.

Who gives a fuck about a scientific theory from x hundred years ago?

What counts is what scientists think now and not teaching a load of shite in schools (ie pretending that "intelligent design" is an equivalent and equally valid scientific theory).

Furthermore, what the hell are you talking about: "censorship and intimidation ... instances of which we see frequently on these boards"

Care to cite some examples of anti-Darwinists (or whomever you are talking about) being "censored" or "intimidated"?

 

[phildwyer]

Why, that evolutionary theory is intrinsically a cover for anti-working-class dehumanising capitalist theory, of course. And also <insert meaningless self-justifying semantic waffle>.

I'm paraphrasing here.

Really, phil, dig Darwin up and fuck him, it will save us all a lot of time.

Fridge, you can do better than this. Only a bigoted thug (naming no names) or an innocent naif (ditto) would dispute the complicity of Darwin and capitalism. Gould again: "the theory of natural selection is, in essence, Adam Smith's economics transferred to nature." (2002, 122) Is this "self-justifying semantic waffle," Fridge?

 

[phildwyer]

Who gives a fuck about a scientific theory from x hundred years ago?

What counts is what scientists think now and not teaching a load of shite in schools (ie pretending that "intelligent design" is an equivalent and equally valid scientific theory).

Furthermore, what the hell are you talking about: "censorship and intimidation ... instances of which we see frequently on these boards"

Care to cite some examples of anti-Darwinists (or whomever you are talking about) being "censored" or "intimidated"?

For examples, check out the link I posted, or even previous threads on this subject. I respect Intelligent Design as much as I respect Darwin--that is to say, not completely, but enough to grant it a hearing. I don't respect literalist Biblical creationism at all, but that's what we'll end up with if Darwinists don't start listening to the rational criticisms of their faith, which have now reached a critical mass that threatens to overturn the entire structure of their belief.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

You are, but its not me you're paraphrasing: "Darwin insisted upon a virtually exceptionless, single-level theory, with organisms acting as the locus of selection, and all "higher" order emerging, by the analogue of Adam Smith's invisible hand, from the (unconscious) "struggles" of organisms for their own personal advantages as expressed in differential reporductive success." (Gould, 2002, 5).

Do you want a serious debate or are you just going to hurl insults?

I'm just going to hurl insults, because I've done all this before. All you do is construct this straw man about evolution based on various quotes from Darwin that reflect nothing that any living person promotes. This whole thing about Darwinism being a product of arch capitalism, about which you have a bee in your bonnet the size of Nebraska, might have some point as a piece of historical analysis, but you repeatedly fail to show how it's at all relevant to the world we live in - I don't know, say, by demonstrating that a belief in evolution leads to a dismissal of the intrinsic value of human life - which is clearly called for as there seem to be so many counter-examples.

If you want a serious debate, put forward an actual argument, one that doesn't rely on quotes from somebody who's been dead for quite a few years now as an illustration of the position of people who've never claimed such a thing.

I wouldn't call that hurling, incidentally, that was just a gentle dig.

 

[phildwyer]

I'm just going to hurl insults, because I've done all this before. All you do is construct this straw man about evolution based on various quotes from Darwin that reflect nothing that any living person promotes. This whole thing about Darwinism being a product of arch capitalism, about which you have a bee in your bonnet the size of Nebraska, might have some point as a piece of historical analysis, but you repeatedly fail to show how it's at all relevant to the world we live in - I don't know, say, by demonstrating that a belief in evolution leads to a dismissal of the intrinsic value of human life - which is clearly called for as there seem to be so many counter-examples.

If you want a serious debate, put forward an actual argument, one that doesn't rely on quotes from somebody who's been dead for quite a few years now as an illustration of the position of people who've never claimed such a thing.

I wouldn't call that hurling, incidentally, that was just a gentle dig.

What, telling me to bugger a corpse is your idea of a "gentle dig," is it? But seriously, you're right that we've done this all before. As you know, its not the theory of evolution I dispute, but the claim that evolution can be explained by analogy to market capitalism, a la Darwin. And as you suggest, I find a parallel in the system of wage labor's translation of human activity into financial form. I seem to recall that a few months ago you even goaded me into proving the existence of the human soul--an argument to which you never replied, incidentally. But enough. My purpose in starting this thread was to draw attention to the way anti-Darwinists are systematically excluded from publically-funded institutions like the Smithsonian, and to point out the dangers of this, pre-eminent among which is allowing criticms of Darwin to fall into the hands of fundamentalists. Any thoughts you may have on this issue would be most welcome.

 

[laptop]

The theory of gravity is oppressive to the working classes. We need only look at Wells' definition of the classes: those who move objects at or near the surface of the earth, and those who supervise the above. What is is that keeps The Class stuck there, eh, eh?

Moreover the theory of gravity denies the essential telos that is revealed to me by my spiritual experience that you can't contest because it's a private quale, so nyer. The pre-Socratics had it right when they said that apples want to be closer to the Earth, just as Joe Hill had it right when he sang of Big Rock Candy Mountain - and, again I ask, what is it that's keeping The Class from soaring thereon?

Furthermore, the theory of gravity was foisted upon humanity by a mad alchemist, a probable Mason, and a paid-up member of the Ruling Class - Keeper of His Majesty's Mint, no less - and was inspired by the observations of a known Catholic who was ipso facto a believer in Papal infallibilty and therefore an intellectual authoritarian. I can argue until the cows come home about history and literary inspiration, so don't you come bullying me with your determinist empiricalist F = G * m1 * m2 / d^2 malarkey.

I therefore wish the theory of gravity out of existence. Any suggestion that I should rather seek ways in which The Class may liberate itself in the presence of this malign force is defeatism of the worst stripe, and offends my religious beliefs - for I Am and my telos is to destroy all wrong thought. (But I'm not a Descartean idealist. Ooops.)

If you do not immediately grasp the validity of this argument it's because you're stupid. Read some Kant. No, read it all.

 

[TeeJay]

...but that's what we'll end up with if Darwinists don't start listening to the rational criticisms of their faith...

Not in the UK we won't.

I take it you are talking about the US and what is being taught in schools over there?

AFAIK American *universities* don't teach intelligent design on their science courses, and noone as yet has tried to force them to.

 

[ska invita]

The scientific concensus on evolution is far from set in stone, however the fundamentals of evolutionary theory are pretty much agreed on - are there holes left to fill? i say yes - the best scientists know all to well that our collective understanding on life on earth is getting better, but is still in its infancy: such is the nature of scientific discovery that there is always new ground to cover.

However, your posts Phil, suggest that Darwinists are running scared and avoiding debate... I think thats melodramatic. The smithsonian case, whatever the reality of it, comes within an atmosphere of rational people battling against religious extremists who are trying to rewrite kids text books with a dinosaur-filled Noah's Ark at the centre of animal history .

Whatever argumetns are going on now, the scientific community will continue to investigate and get closer to the truth of evolution as time goes by. I for one believe that Life and its evolution is far more fantastic than the picture painted by a straight reading of current scientific models (which are pretty fantastic in their own right, but only begin to touch on the wonders of the universe...man!)

 

[In Bloom]

The theory of gravity is oppressive to the working classes. We need only look at Wells' definition of the classes: those who move objects at or near the surface of the earth, and those who supervise the above. What is is that keeps The Class stuck there, eh, eh?

Moreover the theory of gravity denies the essential telos that is revealed to me by my spiritual experience that you can't contest because it's a private quale, so nyer. The pre-Socratics had it right when they said that apples want to be closer to the Earth, just as Joe Hill had it right when he sang of Big Rock Candy Mountain - and, again I ask, what is it that's keeping The Class from soaring thereon?

Furthermore, the theory of gravity was foisted upon humanity by a mad alchemist, a probable Mason, and a paid-up member of the Ruling Class - Keeper of His Majesty's Mint, no less - and was inspired by the observations of a known Catholic who was ipso facto a believer in Papal infallibilty and therefore an intellectual authoritarian. I can argue until the cows come home about history and literary inspiration, so don't you come bullying me with your determinist empiricalist F = G * m1 * m2 / d^2 malarkey.

I therefore wish the theory of gravity out of existence. Any suggestion that I should rather seek ways in which The Class may liberate itself in the presence of this malign force is defeatism of the worst stripe, and offends my religious beliefs - for I Am and my telos is to destroy all wrong thought. (But I'm not a Descartean idealist. Ooops.)

If you do not immediately grasp the validity of this argument it's because you're stupid. Read some Kant. No, read it all.

 

[phildwyer]

If you do not immediately grasp the validity of this argument it's because you're stupid. Read some Kant. No, read it all.

What's the matter, not enough stray apostrophes to suppress this evening?

 

[TeeJay]

...I respect Intelligent Design as much as I respect Darwin--that is to say, not completely, but enough to grant it a hearing...

"Intelligent design asks interesting questions about evolution, but since all its answers are usually “God”, scientists have rejected it. As the National Academy of Sciences has said, intelligent design “and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life” are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own. (Instead, intelligent designers poke holes in evolutionary theory.)

In addition, biologists point out that the intelligent designers' favourite examples of “irreducible complexity” often prove not to be. Some organisms, for example, use only six proteins to clot blood—irreducibility reduced. In other cases, single parts of a complex mechanism turn out to have useful functions of their own, meaning that the complex mechanism could have been produced by step-by-step evolution. When the Discovery Institute, a promoter of intelligent design, came up with a list of 370 people with science degrees who backed their ideas, the National Centre for Science Education responded with almost 600 scientists called Steve or Stephanie who rejected them.

But if intelligent design has few friends among scientists, it has won a significant following among the general public. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, evolution itself seems to stick in the craw of anyone with strong beliefs, not just those who are religious. Stalin's Soviet Union rejected evolution, for example, on the ground that only economic conditions could be said to determine human behaviour. The Nation of Islam, an American Muslim group, also rejects it."

Evolution and schools: Intelligent design rears its head - It's subtler than creationism, and may be coming soon to a classroom near you

 

[laptop]

What's the matter, not enough stray apostrophes to suppress this evening?

Pah. Feeble. I suppress stray apostrophes in my sleep.

I submit, Sir, that I have got you bang to rights.

Oh, and by the way, you are conveniently forgetting the Wedge Strategy, aren't you?

Further evidence that "Intelligent Design" is a bad-faith manœuvre by Young Earth Creationists will, I am reliably informed, be published in October. You really want not even to be giving the appearance of allying yourself with these people. This has been a final career warning.

 

[phildwyer]

I submit, Sir, that I have got you bang to rights.

Not bad, Laptop, not bad--for an *editor.*

 

[888]

You are, but its not me you're paraphrasing: "Darwin insisted upon a virtually exceptionless, single-level theory, with organisms acting as the locus of selection, and all "higher" order emerging, by the analogue of Adam Smith's invisible hand, from the (unconscious) "struggles" of organisms for their own personal advantages as expressed in differential reporductive success." (Gould, 2002, 5).

Do you want a serious debate or are you just going to hurl insults?

How many times do we have to say that it doesn't matter what Darwin thought? There are no orthodox Darwinists who stick to the pure Darwinian line, rejecting the heresies of 20th/21st century science! This isn't how science works.

 

[laptop]

Not bad, Laptop, not bad--for an *editor.*

Just one string to my bow...

What's your other one, again?

 

[phildwyer]

Just one string to my bow...

What's your other one, again?

Suffice it to say that exposing the fallacies of materialist empirical science is what I do for fun. Its significance to my career ranks slightly below my critique of Cardiff City F.C.'s midfield formation. You won't scare me with your threats to brand me as a Pat Robertsonian, you'd do better to accuse me of sympathy for Swansea...

 

[laptop]

Suffice it to say that exposing the fallacies of materialist empirical science is what I do for fun. Its significance to my career...

Oh come on.

I've practically written the blurb for your next book from your recent postings here.

But that'd be an editor thing so of no account

 

[phildwyer]

Oh come on.

I've practically written the blurb for your next book from your recent postings here.

I'll admit that you've clearly studied my thought with admirable dedication. But I can't help feeling that a discussion of the significance of the interregnum tithe dispute to the formal structure of Milton's blank verse would leave you a trifle out of your depth.

 

[phildwyer]

Not in the UK we won't.

I take it you are talking about the US and what is being taught in schools over there?

AFAIK American *universities* don't teach intelligent design on their science courses, and noone as yet has tried to force them to.

A fair point, TeeJay, I was indeed speaking from an American perspective. Actually, though, many American universities do now include advocates of intelligent design among their science faculties. Such scholars are continually infuriated both by the attempts of fundamentalists to hitch a ride on their bandwaggon, and by the insistence of orthodox Darwinists that they have formed some kind of dark alliance with said nutcases.

 

[laptop]

I can't help feeling that a discussion of the significance of the interregnum tithe dispute to the formal structure of Milton's blank verse would leave you a trifle out of your depth.

I can't help what you can't help.

The "tithe dispute" is a bit specific given the huge number of things going on at the time, isn't it? Salami publishing, oy.

Unless you've applied Zipf's Law and found Milton studiously avoiding all the structures that would fall out as 1:10 relations

 

[In Bloom]

I'll admit that you've clearly studied my thought with admirable dedication. But I can't help feeling that a discussion of the significance of the interregnum tithe dispute to the formal structure of Milton's blank verse would leave you a trifle out of your depth.

I've no idea what you just said, but I strongly suspect that it has nothing to do with anything.

 

[phildwyer]

I can't help what you can't help.

The "tithe dispute" is a bit specific given the huge number of things going on at the time, isn't it? Salami publishing, oy.

Unless you've applied Zipf's Law and found Milton studiously avoiding all the structures that would fall out as 1:10 relations

I think you'll find that the tithe dispute is fundamental to the issue of whether language is to be regarded as issuing from the free consciousness of an autonomous subject, or rather constrained by the reifying force of commodification. Perhaps it will suprise you to learn that the latter conclusion is associated by the radicals of the English Revolution with the Satanic mindset--a viewpoint which we would all do well to consider, especially those of us whose livelihood depends upon serving the demands of a doubtless fickle and dilatory paying readership.