Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Loads of profs and docs dissent from Darwinian "consensus"

d.a.s.h said:
Gosh, look at all these Professors and other science bods who think evolution by natural and sexual selection isn't all it's cracked up to be:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Some impressive-looking names there as well from the very start, such as:

Philip Skell - Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University and Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Plus loads of doctors and dentists are thinking along the same lines:

http://www.pssiinternational.com/list.pdf

How could so many distinguished people possibly be wrong? They've got degrees and that.
Click to expand...

You mean a dentist is qualified to examine my eyes because after all, he has a university degree in one field of medicine?
If you don't mean to say that, why then do you think that what obvious non-specialists have to say about evolution could be more valid than what specialists in the field conclude(d) following their research(es). Because you think evolution is a soup everyone can eat as soon as they have an academic degree?

If this is - again- some US-Made Serious Online Document, just classify it under Ultimate Propaganda Attempt with Dubious Content and Goal.
That is the ultimate time-saver. Offered to you for free by undersigned.
:)

salaam.
 
gorski said:
Kyzer, "observable alterations" do not automatically tantamount to "evolution", FFS...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So what is evolution then G? If it's not observable alterations in behaviour or physiology in response to environmental and/or social/cultural pressures, then what is it?

As someone who is a philosopher, you live and breath evolution -the constant battle of ideas within the cultural environment, the development and change in those ideas...it's evolution, it's change bought about by new factors introduced and changing existing iconcepts. It's not deterministic, nor is it uni-directional - indeed, sometimes it may even go 'backwards', or re-examine older ideas within a new context, like a limb grownig longer again because it's once again in use.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
.....Last time I looked, at least the core of Margulis' endosymbiosis idea had *become* the orthodox view......
Click to expand...

Yes I think that's true. I think time and necessity has allowed her and Gould to be accepted in the mainstream. The thing is, Darwinian evolution made certain predictions. It shouldn't be a high crime to point out where things don't fit. This is when the authoritarian ownership-of-science gets used by the ruling Darwinists to shore up any potential damage in the big debate with creationists. I don't think it should be that way. What's happened is Darwinism has come to be "naturalism" itself.
 
kyser_soze said:
So what is evolution then G? If it's not observable alterations in behaviour or physiology in response to environmental and/or social/cultural pressures, then what is it?
Click to expand...

I'm developing the theory that "evolution" is in fact gorski incorporated.
This U75 poster who enlightens us with showers of wisdom has evolved at such a speed that we mere humans are left with no other option than to watch and keep silent. There is no other option.

salaam.
 
Ach, Kyzer, again - you keep doing it - an unmediated jump from the Animal Kingdom into Human Civilization and Culture and in the same breath/the same sentence... :(

Never mind...:hmm:
 
gorski said:
Ach, Kyzer, again - you keep doing it - an unmediated jump from the Animal Kingdom into Human Civilization and Culture and in the same breath/the same sentence...
Click to expand...

There is no jump needed to conclude that humans are animals. Just logical thinking and a superficial knowledge and insight in simple biology.
It takes somewhat more brain functioning to realize that non human animals don't share human (non)civilization and culture, and that such doesn't exclude them having their own.

salaam.
 
dilute micro said:
Yes I think that's true. I think time and necessity has allowed her and Gould to be accepted in the mainstream. The thing is, Darwinian evolution made certain predictions. It shouldn't be a high crime to point out where things don't fit. This is when the authoritarian ownership-of-science gets used by the ruling Darwinists to shore up any potential damage in the big debate with creationists. I don't think it should be that way. What's happened is Darwinism has come to be "naturalism" itself.
Click to expand...

Hmm, bit puzzled here. To me the science is defined by what's being published in the relevant journals. It almost sounds to me like like you're referencing something else though, some other categories of stuff when you say 'Darwinism' or 'Naturalism'. Maybe these categories overlap with the science somewhat, but they seem to be distinct in other ways. In any case I'm a bit confused about what they're meant to refer to.

Would 'Darwinism' include say Dawkins' popular works?

Assuming for the moment that I'm right and your categories of 'Darwinism' and 'Naturalism' are distinct from what's in evolutionary biology journals, how are they distinct from each other?
 
sleaterkinney said:
Why do you have to be so obtuse all the time?. Say what you mean. And answer this question:
Click to expand...

Fuck off and inform yourself before you attack!! Minimal decency!!! Protect others from yourself.

If you were to check what and just how much I wrote on the subject you might be a bit more polite and not as twatish as Alde and co.

Start with the thread mentioned re. Darwinism, development, psychology, social theory and so on...: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=208276&highlight=social+darwinism

See who expresses himself properly and carefully, fully and unambiguously...:cool:
 
Says the man who knows nothing else but "to win", whatever the weather...:rolleyes::p:D

Easy, Danny, easy now...:rolleyes:
 
Here, genius, knock yourself out [I dare you!:p]:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sp/ssintrod.htm

Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences Part III The Philosophy of Spirit (1817)
Preliminary Concepts

§ 299
Spirit has for us nature as its presupposition, of which it is truth. In this truth, its concept, nature has disappeared; spirit has therefore produced itself as idea, of which the concept is both the object and the subject. This identity is absolute negativity, because in nature the concept has its completely external objectivity. But it has suspended its articulation, and in this it has become identical with itself. It is this identity only insofar as it is a return from nature.




§ 300.
The essence of the spirit is therefore freedom, the identity of the absolute negativity of the concept with itself. It can distance itself from everything external and from its own externality as well as from its being, and thus bear infinite pain, the negation of its individual immediacy; in other words, it can be identical for itself in this negativity. This possibility is its self-contained being in itself its simple concept, or absolute generality itself.


§ 301
This generality is also, however, its determinate sphere of being. With a being of its own the general is self-particularising, yet remains self-identical. The nature of the spirit is therefore manifestation. The spirit is not determinate as a being in itself and against its externality, nor does it reveal something. Instead, its determinacy and content are this revelation itself. Its possibility is therefore an immediate, infinite and absolute reality.


§ 302
The revelation is the positing of its objectivity, which is in the abstract idea as the immediate transition or becoming of nature. But the revelation of the spirit, which is free, is the positing of nature as its world; a setting forth, which as reflection is at the same time the presupposition of the world as a nature existing independently. But the true revelation is revelation in the concept, the creation of the world as its being, a being in which the spirit has the positivity and truth of its freedom.
Click to expand...


Find this in the Animal Kingdom...:rolleyes::p
 
What, no more idiotically reductionist attempts to equate us with animals, simply 'coz we're both living beings...?!?:rolleyes::D Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwww, pooooooooor babieeeeesssss.....:rolleyes::p:D
 
Max doesn't know as much as I do...:rolleyes::p:D Nothing could be further from the truth, seriously speaking...:cool:

So, bullshit! Read this thread I mentioned and see how creepy many here are, especially when losing an argument... "Too many notes" [nicely dismissive, as neatly demonstrated in Amadeus] and all manner of ad hominem "arguments"... Really sad when not laughable...:(
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Hmm, bit puzzled here. To me the science is defined by what's being published in the relevant journals. It almost sounds to me like like you're referencing something else though, some other categories of stuff when you say 'Darwinism' or 'Naturalism'. Maybe these categories overlap with the science somewhat, but they seem to be distinct in other ways. In any case I'm a bit confused about what they're meant to refer to.

Would 'Darwinism' include say Dawkins' popular works?

Assuming for the moment that I'm right and your categories of 'Darwinism' and 'Naturalism' are distinct from what's in evolutionary biology journals, how are they distinct from each other?
Click to expand...

Naturalism and Darwinism are distinct, technically. Darwin's theory is really only a particular theory to explain things naturally. Certainly it's the best natural explanation. So Darwinism has come to mean the same thing as naturalism itself. Incidentally the same thing as happened inside Darwinism with natural selection. Darwin never had natural selection as the only means for change but it has somehow come to be thought of that way due to it being the best force for change.

What I'm on about science and ownership in my posts is the way things have come to be in the scientific community especially the naturalists side. The big metaphysical debate of naturalism vs creation is the foremost debate that is fought inside and outside of science. It governs everything. People succumb to wanting to win that fight against the other side. And so comes the struggle for both creationists and naturalists. This 2nd inner debate is for sound science.

This was Margulis' problem and others who've had the same situation. Peer review means nothing when the peers are priests in a church of Darwinism, as Margulis alluded to. The ruling class of Darwinists have on occasion let their zeal for fighting the big fight against creationists get in the way of good honest science.

I think it should be said that the word "peer" can be misleading. It suggests equality. The truth is there is a hierarchic order well established amongst the small number of scientists in the world who bother with the subject of origin science. A junior scientists doesn't stand much of a chance if they're seen as causing problems by asking intrusive questions.
 
@ 888, fM and the lot like them...

...and I refer the right honourable gentlemen to the post I made earlier, namely no. 2, 8, 13, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 38, 41-43, 49-52, 58-59, 62, 64, 66, 68, 71-2, 77, 79, 81-83, 85, 87, 90-1, 94, 100-1, 103, 105-6, Phil comes in at that point quite nicely to further question the uncritical, scientific "mind, i.e. "dogma" or received wisdom of it all and later the "idea" that Philosophy is "useless" and even a nuisance/hindrance, that Philosophical knowledge is even to the detriment for a scientific mind etc.... :D

Nothing to do with young Max whatsoever! For such "enthusiasm" I was sent some PMs and invited to other forums, with some expressed admiration for it, actually - which I appreciated, of course, as any sane person would!!! Thanx again for the invites and kind and warm words!:cool:

It continues, then, with my posts no. 112, 115, 118, from where on it deteriorates, as demostrated by me in the subsequent posts, thanx to the lies, laziness and trying to foist onto me shit I never said and so forth. Simply "coz it was too difficult":rolleyes: for the lazy, Philosophically uneductated bones to concentrate that much and to make the effort necessary, especially since they were shown their rather puny limits, when it comes to meta-theory of it all, or if you want the Philosophical side to it, from Methodology onwards....:hmm:

Sad, really. I mean really sad!!!

Especially since - for instance, those that had no clue about what I have written [merely not informed, not to mention anything more than that! - when shown clearly and unambiguously [see my post 128] that they have no idea what they are talking about, but would never acknowledge it [Crispy was a tad different, for the better! ;)] and continue their slimey, slippery ways, never taking onboard anything new and different from the shite they were exposed to etc. etc. So, really, after a while I did give up. I mean, what's the bleeding point?!?

Here, knock yerselves out, if you dare:http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=208276&highlight=social+darwinism&page=4
 
dilute micro said:
I think it should be said that the word "peer" can be misleading. It suggests equality. The truth is there is a hierarchic order well established amongst the small number of scientists in the world who bother with the subject of origin science. A junior scientists doesn't stand much of a chance if they're seen as causing problems by asking intrusive questions.
Click to expand...

This is a universal situation in Academia. Very feudal. Strictly hierarchical and no "outside agency" to adjudicate, so the Overlords are Gods on Earth. Frequently, all too frequently, defending their turf and position to the last breath, intransigent to the bone, they knock down the soon to become "orthodoxy" with everything they've got and so on... We all know that, indeed!

Btw, in that struggle Philosophers questioning such attitudes never were welcome... Many have written on the phenomenon, and not much has changed.

One of the understandable reasons/issues for it being that unlike the general public sphere, for which one doesn't need to qualify, the academic public sphere differs significantly, as one isn't let in easily but has to earn the right, has to be tested in many ways, demonstrate competency and on occasion the radical new ideas are sneered upon, as they - by definition - aim to reorder the hierarchical structures, take away the primacy in a filed etc. etc.

Scientists are Human, after all... But would like to pretend to be disinterested, neutral, non-corporeal, strictly objective and whatnot.

These are the issues of significance, especially since nowadays such issues mean funding or no funding etc. etc.

Mention this to a tobacco company sponsoring a chair in Ethics, no less, in the UK... Disastrous!!!!:oops::(:hmm:
 
gorski said:
Max doesn't know as much as I do...:rolleyes::p:D Nothing could be further from the truth, seriously speaking...:cool:

So, bullshit! Read this thread I mentioned and see how creepy many here are, especially when losing an argument... "Too many notes" [nicely dismissive, as neatly demonstrated in Amadeus] and all manner of ad hominem "arguments"... Really sad when not laughable...:(
Click to expand...

Which would all be well if you weren't so quick to resort to ad hominem argument yourself.

"Physician, heal thyself" springs to mind.
 
dilute micro said:
Naturalism and Darwinism are distinct, technically. Darwin's theory is really only a particular theory to explain things naturally. Certainly it's the best natural explanation. So Darwinism has come to mean the same thing as naturalism itself. Incidentally the same thing as happened inside Darwinism with natural selection. Darwin never had natural selection as the only means for change but it has somehow come to be thought of that way due to it being the best force for change.

What I'm on about science and ownership in my posts is the way things have come to be in the scientific community especially the naturalists side. The big metaphysical debate of naturalism vs creation is the foremost debate that is fought inside and outside of science. It governs everything. People succumb to wanting to win that fight against the other side. And so comes the struggle for both creationists and naturalists. This 2nd inner debate is for sound science.

This was Margulis' problem and others who've had the same situation. Peer review means nothing when the peers are priests in a church of Darwinism, as Margulis alluded to. The ruling class of Darwinists have on occasion let their zeal for fighting the big fight against creationists get in the way of good honest science.

I think it should be said that the word "peer" can be misleading. It suggests equality. The truth is there is a hierarchic order well established amongst the small number of scientists in the world who bother with the subject of origin science. A junior scientists doesn't stand much of a chance if they're seen as causing problems by asking intrusive questions.
Click to expand...

Well, it seems different to me. I don't think there is any debate within science about creationism. Certainly not in the evolutionary biology literature.

On the other hand after some very real initial difficulties due to its unorthodoxy, Margulis's stuff, which was real science got past peer review and subsequently, due to the evidence supporting it, became orthodoxy. So it doesn't seem to me like that stuff about a 'church of darwinists' rendering peer-review meaningless stands up to scrutiny. If Dembski and co were proposing testable scientific theories, I think they'd pass peer-review.

I can certainly see why creationists find peer-review annoying, but it doesn't seem to me to get in the way of good science. Quite the contrary, having actually read Dembski's stuff and come to my own conclusions.

I agree there is some debate outside of the scientific literature about creationism, but I'd see that as a separate thing. The creationism debate is typically a response, often by scientists, to the cultural engineering efforts of people like those behind the 'Wedge Strategy' document. It might I guess also be a less politically charged philosophical or theological topic. It's nothing to do with science per se though, as for example the debate about group selection might be, no matter how much the 'wedge' guys would like to create the appearance of a scientific debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Spymaster
First Space Launch From UK Soil Today
2 3 4 5
Replies
131
Views
4K
T & P
T & P
Sasaferrato
Time started from the Big Bang? Why
Replies
13
Views
469
Signal 11
Signal 11
H
Carbon-neutral fuel made from sunlight and air
Replies
1
Views
270
HAL9000
H
StoneRoad
URGENT [Another] petition to protect Bees from neonictiniods / pesticides
Replies
3
Views
252
bcuster
bcuster
fishfinger
Watch a 10-Year Time Lapse of Sun From NASA’s SDO
Replies
24
Views
709
ska invita
ska invita
Back
Top Bottom