Jump to content

Intelligent Design


Guest Kearny Christian

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest
Right, but obviously the point is that saying that diabolical leader X was Lamarckian therefore not Darwinian is a non sequitur.

I think you'd find that knowledge of Darwin's beliefs varies widely among evolutionary scientists. Some probably have an excellent grasp of the history of the theory (including Darrwin's beliefs). A few probably have appallingly poor knowledge. Most fall somewhere in the middle, and many probably do not know that Darwin held onto some Lamarkian tendencies.

You're equivocating, though I have no doubt that you did so accidentally. Marxism is not particularly akin to shared property utopianism. The key to Marxism was its dialectic approach to history, consisting of a deterministic expectation that society would develop ("evolve," if you like) in a particular deterministic manner. And that's not even counting its antipathy toward religion.

Marxism was very much a product of its time, which sought to understand society in terms of evolutionary changes.

Marx believed that society constantly changes as a result of class conflicts within the society. He viewed this development as a result of exploitation, inequality of wealth and power, and class struggle. The central idea in Marx’s evolutionary theory is materialism. He believed that the system of producing material goods determines other aspects of society, such as social custom, political system, spirituality, and ideology. In other words, Marx gave priority to material conditions over human thinking regarding the evolution of society.

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/anthropology/Marx.html

Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, defined communism. In the Communist Manifesto, which they wrote and published themselves in London in 1848, Marx and Engels portrayed the natural evolution of a communist utopia from capitalism. This revolutionary theory added fuel to the social struggles that characterized Europe during the latter half of the 19th century.

http://virtualschool.edu/mon/Economics/Marx.html

Marx adopted Hegel’s notions of evolution through history, and the idea of the dialectic. Marx saw himself as furthering these notions, by separating them from Hegel’s idealism. In an effort to be more empirically based, Marx replaced Absolute spirit with human material desire, and reinterpreted Hegel’s dialectic. "The way things are" became a given thesis, "the conflict," became it’s antithesis, and "resolution," became a synthesis of both. The epochs which Hegel supposed to be stages of consciousness in Absolute mind become for Marx economically based stages of evolution in human society.

http://filer.case.edu/ngb2/Pages/Impor_Phil_Notes.html

Marx argued for evolution.

Yeah, and Hitler used the toilet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Marx argued for evolution.

Yeah, and Hitler used the toilet.

Thus do cowardly anonymous guests such as yourself attempt to dodge and downplay the fact that Charles Darwin maintained important aspects of Lamarkianism, the type of evolution that Stalin and some other despots used to justify various horrendous acts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
Thus do cowardly anonymous guests such as yourself attempt to dodge and downplay the fact that Charles Darwin maintained important aspects of Lamarkianism, the type of evolution that Stalin and some other despots used to justify various horrendous acts.

Can you explain the difference between Darwinian and Lamarkianism? That would answer pretty much everything your last two posts said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Can you explain the difference between Darwinian and Lamarkianism? That would answer pretty much everything your last two posts said.

Why bother? Bryan is making a stupid argument about how a tyrant misapplied a scientific theory to his own ends. He's trying to suggest some conclusions about how that undermines the science, apparently. The Lamarkian twist doesn't add anything or change anything. It's still a stupid argument either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you explain the difference between Darwinian and Lamarkianism?

Are you hoping that I would do so such that no overlap would occur? I just explained to you that there is an overlap.

That would answer pretty much everything your last two posts said.

Right, because we'd be papering over Darwin's actual beliefs and writings in favor of the latter-day interpretation and bringing the conversation back to square one.

You're performing the message board equivalent of plugging your ears and chanting "Na na na na I'm-not-listening."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Thus do cowardly anonymous guests such as yourself attempt to dodge and downplay the fact that Charles Darwin maintained important aspects of Lamarkianism, the type of evolution that Stalin and some other despots used to justify various horrendous acts.

What does that have to do with 150 years of scientific advances that have occurred since Darwin first published on the subject of evolution? Nothing.

What Darwin thought no longer matters. Who Darwin was no longer matters. Once an idea becomes public, its progress and its applications are no longer under the control of its discoverer. In 1859, Charles Darwin made a contribution to science by publishing his Origin of Species. Scientists took his ideas and ran with them, so to speak, and today we have a body of evolutionary theory that confirms Darwin's essential conclusions but is not bound by them in any way.

If the opposite had occurred, that wouldn't matter either. Isaac Newton published his theory of gravity. We now know that he misunderstood it. Newton's inability to understand what no one would understand until Einstein discovered it, doesn't diminish the tremendous contribution his discovery made to science, or its role in the advancement of technology and science, not to mention the industrial revolution. Science is science. Its merits aren't dependent on who discovers it first.

Bryan accuses everyone else of the fallacy of ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument is one that attacks or disparages or criticizes the person making an argument or stating an idea, instead of addressing the argument or the idea on its merits. Darwin drew some of his ideas from Lamarck, and Stalin misused both their ideas to his own ends. So-the-freak what? In a way, I'm almost glad Bryan posts here, because he gives people a chance to see what the most ridiculous arguments look like on paper, and demolish them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Thus do cowardly anonymous guests such as yourself attempt to dodge and downplay the fact that Charles Darwin maintained important aspects of Lamarkianism, the type of evolution that Stalin and some other despots used to justify various horrendous acts.

Bryan sure loves guilt by association. Too bad he doesn't see what a ridiculous fallacy it is.

Also, there is no arguing that the principles of eugenics far, FAR predate even Darwin's life, much less any scientific work he did.

Also, Darwin's personal opinions have absolutely NO effect on how valid evolution as a scientific concept is. So even if Darwin and Hitler were the same person, it wouldn't make evolution any less true. That's just another layer of guilt by association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
Are you hoping that I would do so such that no overlap would occur? I just explained to you that there is an overlap.

Right, because we'd be papering over Darwin's actual beliefs and writings in favor of the latter-day interpretation and bringing the conversation back to square one.

You're performing the message board equivalent of plugging your ears and chanting "Na na na na I'm-not-listening."

They were talking about the same subject. Unless Lamarck was wrong about everything of course there's an overlap. However, the difference is in natural selection. The reason that Darwin is considered the father of evolutionary theory is that NS divorces evolution from 'progress'-there is no 'ought' in evolution, it is not working towards a purpose. Hitler's ideas are based on precisely the concept of there being more 'highly evolved creatures.' In other words-based on the idea that Lamarck and Darwin don't share.

Now I know you can find some people even today that use the term, but it is a misnomer. Feel free to quote-mine anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
Right, but obviously the point is that saying that diabolical leader X was Lamarckian therefore not Darwinian is a non sequitur.

I think you'd find that knowledge of Darwin's beliefs varies widely among evolutionary scientists. Some probably have an excellent grasp of the history of the theory (including Darrwin's beliefs). A few probably have appallingly poor knowledge. Most fall somewhere in the middle, and many probably do not know that Darwin held onto some Lamarkian tendencies.

Irrelevant.

You're equivocating, though I have no doubt that you did so accidentally. Marxism is not particularly akin to shared property utopianism. The key to Marxism was its dialectic approach to history, consisting of a deterministic expectation that society would develop ("evolve," if you like) in a particular deterministic manner. And that's not even counting its antipathy toward religion.

Even though Marx and Engels called shared property utopianism "utopian communism" in The Communist Manifesto? It is even described by them as a step towards their own communism. But no, clearly no connection there. :rolleyes:

Nice use of the word evolution there. Except Darwinian evolution doesn't move with a purpose. Again, that is the Humanist ideal of progress.

Marxism was very much a product of its time, which sought to understand society in terms of evolutionary changes.

Marx believed that society constantly changes as a result of class conflicts within the society. He viewed this development as a result of exploitation, inequality of wealth and power, and class struggle. The central idea in Marx’s evolutionary theory is materialism. He believed that the system of producing material goods determines other aspects of society, such as social custom, political system, spirituality, and ideology. In other words, Marx gave priority to material conditions over human thinking regarding the evolution of society.

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/anthropology/Marx.html

Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, defined communism. In the Communist Manifesto, which they wrote and published themselves in London in 1848, Marx and Engels portrayed the natural evolution of a communist utopia from capitalism. This revolutionary theory added fuel to the social struggles that characterized Europe during the latter half of the 19th century.

http://virtualschool.edu/mon/Economics/Marx.html

Marx adopted Hegel’s notions of evolution through history, and the idea of the dialectic. Marx saw himself as furthering these notions, by separating them from Hegel’s idealism. In an effort to be more empirically based, Marx replaced Absolute spirit with human material desire, and reinterpreted Hegel’s dialectic. "The way things are" became a given thesis, "the conflict," became it’s antithesis, and "resolution," became a synthesis of both. The epochs which Hegel supposed to be stages of consciousness in Absolute mind become for Marx economically based stages of evolution in human society.

http://filer.case.edu/ngb2/Pages/Impor_Phil_Notes.html

Social/societal evolution has nothing to do with biological evolution. It is simply a theory that natural selection applies on a wider scale than intended. It most likely does not, but I'm sure the belief helped salve the consciences of the imperialists.

It doesn't matter anyway. Even if Hitler's policies were based on Darinian evolution, that would say nothing about whether or not it is true. Hitler's terror weapons were based on basic physics, yet we made sure to snag as many of his scientists as we could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bryan sure loves guilt by association.

Too bad you have no example to back up your claim. Darwin is not responsible for the actions of the Nazis and I have never claimed otherwise.

So who is supposedly guilty by association according to me?

Too bad he doesn't see what a ridiculous fallacy it is.

It's no worse than the fallacy you're committing, nameless one.

Also, there is no arguing that the principles of eugenics far, FAR predate even Darwin's life, much less any scientific work he did.

Likewise the principles of evolution as found in the breeding of domestic animals. So what point are you trying to make?

Also, Darwin's personal opinions have absolutely NO effect on how valid evolution as a scientific concept is.

Thus correcting which statement of mine? Or are we simply witnessing the evolution of your red herrings?

So even if Darwin and Hitler were the same person, it wouldn't make evolution any less true. That's just another layer of guilt by association.

Meh. Yet another coward (or is the the same one?) who won't own up regarding Darwin's Lamarckian streak. The Nazis were using evolutionary principles as they understood them at the time, and their understanding of the principles differed very little from Darwin's even if Darwin himself would have been thoroughly appalled at their actions. One might consider the Crusades as a parallel ... and I'm sure that "Guest" is just as eager to exonerate Christianity from the more appalling actions of the Crusades as he is to exonerate Darwinism from its role in Nazi atrocities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why bother? Bryan is making a stupid argument about how a tyrant misapplied a scientific theory to his own ends.

Why was it a misapplication? Science offers no prescriptions, so any such judgment comes apart from science.

He's trying to suggest some conclusions about how that undermines the science, apparently.

I guess if you can't deal with the actual argument I'm making that straw man could come in handy.

The Lamar©kian twist doesn't add anything or change anything. It's still a stupid argument either way.

It undermines the argument of those who try to remove the influence of Darwinism from some of the most notable atrocities of the past 100 years by saying that Lamarckianism was actually responsible. And if Lamarckianism had been correct you'd still be saying that Stalin misapplied it (not because his science was wrong but based on the fact that non-prescriptive science did not tell Stalin how to act).

It's a pattern of evasion and obfuscation that your type has exhibited over and over again, LaGuest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

QUOTE (Guest @ Apr 18 2008, 08:33 AM)

Why bother? Bryan is making a stupid argument about how a tyrant misapplied a scientific theory to his own ends.

Why was it a misapplication? Science offers no prescriptions, so any such judgment comes apart from science.

Exactly, which is why your argument is so stupid. The quality of science isn’t diminished by the ways in which people --- what word would you like to use --- misuse it, misapply it, use it, apply it? Pick your word and have it your way. A tyrant used a scientific theory to achieve his diabolical political ends. You’re still making the same argument, and it’s still stupid.

QUOTE

The Lamarckian twist doesn't add anything or change anything. It's still a stupid argument either way.

It undermines the argument of those who try to remove the influence of Darwinism from some of the most notable atrocities of the past 100 years by saying that Lamarckianism was actually responsible.

They're engaging in the same stupid argument and making the same stupid assumption that science is somehow responsible for human political choices. So who cares, except I'm-never-wrong types like you who use any lame excuse to justify what you want to believe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

QUOTE (Guest @ Apr 18 2008, 08:33 AM)

Why bother? Bryan is making a stupid argument about how a tyrant misapplied a scientific theory to his own ends.

Why was it a misapplication? Science offers no prescriptions, so any such judgment comes apart from science.

It was a misapplication because Hitler, like the Social Darwinists, was drawing conclusions that the science does not support. There are two levels to the argument.

You address the point that judgments about science are independent of science. That is true, but it defeats your argument instead of supporting it. You can’t have it both ways, blaming the science (which is meaningless and therefore foolish), then pointing out that any blame is independent of the science.

The second level of the argument goes to whether the person applying or misapplying the science (choose any term you like) at least got the science right. Here, too, your argument is wrong because Hitler was not applying the science, but a distortion of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
New movie coming out next week. "Expelled", produced by Ben Stein, blows the lid off the Leftist atheistic fraud called "evolution". Stein presents compelling evidence for "Intelligent Design" and shows how little evidence there is for random evolution. This should be required viewing for all the loony atheists. (maybe some can be saved).

Here is a thoughtful and intelligent discussion of the subject from someone who actually understands and cares about science:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...0,1900872.story

“Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn 'Expelled' is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself.”

http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movie...e.html?ref=arts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
Too bad you have no example to back up your claim. Darwin is not responsible for the actions of the Nazis and I have never claimed otherwise.

So who is supposedly guilty by association according to me?

Who cares? This thread is about the movie Expelled, which does make that claim. Not everything is about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Here is a thoughtful and intelligent discussion of the subject from someone who actually understands and cares about science:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...0,1900872.story

“Mixing physical apples and metaphysical oranges at every turn 'Expelled' is an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike. In its fudging, eliding and refusal to define terms, the movie proves that the only expulsion here is of reason itself.”

http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movie...e.html?ref=arts

A coincidence you use quotes from two of the looniest left papers in the U.S. ??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares? This thread is about the movie Expelled, which does make that claim.

I look forward to the support of your claim.

Not everything is about you.

An accusation from "Guest" that I made that argument is about me. Or do you think otherwise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
I look forward to the support of your claim.

For crying out loud, the claim that evolution is the founding principle that leads to eugenics (despite eugenics being centuries older than even the hypothesis of natural selection) and in turn Nazism is the CENTRAL POINT of the movie, and that's not exactly a secret! It's mentioned in every single review of the movie--do you think they're all making it up or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
A coincidence you use quotes from two of the looniest left papers in the U.S. ??

Dawkins doesn't write for a newspaper. He's a scientist. Just because the LA Times publishes it doesn't mean the Times agrees with it. But in this case, they probably do. Anyone who understands these issues would agree with him.

Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they're to the left.

Even if they are to the left doesn't mean they're wrong.

Even if they were wrong, that doesn't make them loony.

Calling everything you don't agree with loony shows that you're loony.

And stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
An accusation from "Guest" that I made that argument is about me. Or do you think otherwise?

What "Guest" said was that you love guilt by association. Truth is, you love any stupid turn of phrase that allows you to convince yourself that you're right.

It's all about you, Bryan. We worship you. Or do you think otherwise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a review from a friendly to ID source:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/re...8/expelled.html

Pretty much every review says the same thing. Though most aren't so ID-friendly.

Pretty much every review says that the film implicitly claims that Darwinism leads to events such as the Holocaust?

How did we move so easily from Darwin to Darwinism? Your gift of equivocation, perhaps?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=85416

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
Pretty much every review says that the film implicitly claims that Darwinism leads to events such as the Holocaust?

How did we move so easily from Darwin to Darwinism? Your gift of equivocation, perhaps?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=85416

Gee, what a stretch to move from Darwin to Darwinism. :rolleyes: Btw-I've seen the film. Stein explicitly blames Darwin to the point of having a staredown with a statue of him. Still waiting for support of your claims, coward.

Meh. Yet another coward (or is the the same one?) who won't own up regarding Darwin's Lamarckian streak. The Nazis were using evolutionary principles as they understood them at the time, and their understanding of the principles differed very little from Darwin's even if Darwin himself would have been thoroughly appalled at their actions. One might consider the Crusades as a parallel ... and I'm sure that "Guest" is just as eager to exonerate Christianity from the more appalling actions of the Crusades as he is to exonerate Darwinism from its role in Nazi atrocities.

What are the differences between Lamarckism and Darwinism? Still waiting. As I said (and you ignored) the ideas of Lamarckian evolution that Hitler's policies

You're equivocating, though I have no doubt that you did so accidentally. Marxism is not particularly akin to shared property utopianism. The key to Marxism was its dialectic approach to history, consisting of a deterministic expectation that society would develop ("evolve," if you like) in a particular deterministic manner. And that's not even counting its antipathy toward religion.

Yeah, that was me equivocating even though utopian communism recieves its own chapter in The Communist Manifesto. Some gift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest

“It's hard to pinpoint the most insulting aspects of this obvious propaganda piece from Ben Stein . . .”

http://www.tvguide.com/movies/expelled-int...d/review/293361

“Rating: 1 star (poor)”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainmen...1,6127461.story

“By the time the camera zooms in on the word 'Creator' in the Declaration of Independence, the whole debate seems less urgent than getting out of the theater.”

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20192245,00.html

“The man made famous by Ferris Bueller, however, quickly wades into waters far too deep for him. He makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution . . . More dishonestly, Stein employs the common dodge of enumerating all the admittedly unanswered questions in evolutionary theory and using this to refute the whole idea.”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1729703,00.html

“It's nuttiness right from the opening moments of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Images of Nazi atrocities and the terrors of life behind the Berlin Wall are smugly deployed in an attempt to editorialize away basic scientific fact.”

http://www.csindy.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A24437

“John Lennon's song ‘Imagine’ is used to evoke a godless wasteland. Darwinism is equated with Nazism. Through it all, anxiety-inducing background music imposes a false sense of drama. These tactics are not only misleading, they're insulting and manipulative. Shove a camera in some scientists' faces or light them poorly and of course they'll appear shady. Try to bring a film crew to the Smithsonian and of course security will toss you out.”

http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2...ed_in_expelled/

“Unfortunately, Expelled is a movie not quite harmless enough to be ignored. Shrugging off most of the film's attacks—all recycled from previous pro-ID works—would be easy, but its heavy-handed linkage of modern biology to the Holocaust demands a response for the sake of simple human decency.”

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-st...iew-john-rennie

The film is garbage, just like the unscientific pap it promotes.

These aren’t liberal publications. What’s your excuse now?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_...ligence_Allowed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Kearny Christian
“It's hard to pinpoint the most insulting aspects of this obvious propaganda piece from Ben Stein . . .”

http://www.tvguide.com/movies/expelled-int...d/review/293361

“Rating: 1 star (poor)”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainmen...1,6127461.story

“By the time the camera zooms in on the word 'Creator' in the Declaration of Independence, the whole debate seems less urgent than getting out of the theater.”

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20192245,00.html

“The man made famous by Ferris Bueller, however, quickly wades into waters far too deep for him. He makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution . . . More dishonestly, Stein employs the common dodge of enumerating all the admittedly unanswered questions in evolutionary theory and using this to refute the whole idea.”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1729703,00.html

“It's nuttiness right from the opening moments of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Images of Nazi atrocities and the terrors of life behind the Berlin Wall are smugly deployed in an attempt to editorialize away basic scientific fact.”

http://www.csindy.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A24437

“John Lennon's song ‘Imagine’ is used to evoke a godless wasteland. Darwinism is equated with Nazism. Through it all, anxiety-inducing background music imposes a false sense of drama. These tactics are not only misleading, they're insulting and manipulative. Shove a camera in some scientists' faces or light them poorly and of course they'll appear shady. Try to bring a film crew to the Smithsonian and of course security will toss you out.”

http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2...ed_in_expelled/

“Unfortunately, Expelled is a movie not quite harmless enough to be ignored. Shrugging off most of the film's attacks—all recycled from previous pro-ID works—would be easy, but its heavy-handed linkage of modern biology to the Holocaust demands a response for the sake of simple human decency.”

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-st...iew-john-rennie

The film is garbage, just like the unscientific pap it promotes.

These aren’t liberal publications. What’s your excuse now?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_...ligence_Allowed

I can remember when Star Wars came out, the critics panned the movie all day. It was called

stupid and rediculous. It turned out to be the highest grossing film of all time.

I can understand your angst, you loony atheists are afraid of the truth. Remember: "The truth

shall set you free".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...