Darwinism as a Product of Naitonalism and Capitalism

The title says it all. I'm not saying that Darwinism isn't a workable scientific thoery. But the fact of the matter is that Darwinism was a product of the 19th century and that the social scientific disciplines effected by Darwinism still maintain some unscientific practices and assumptions that are based on bad 19th century philosophy and government intervention, which only causes trouble for science (and probably any other kind of academic discipline as well).

Darwinism and laissez-faire capitalism go hand in hand because they both have a "survival of the fittest" mentality. And of course capitalism would never have come about if it wasn't for the emergence of the nation-state. And with the rise of the nation-state came nationalism, racism, national socialism, Piltdown Man, Social Darwinism, renewed interest in the Occult, Egyptology, Imperialism, phrenology, Nietzsche; this was the environment Darwinism was born into. It was a product of the times and inheritted some of the biases, prejudices, and pseudo-science of its ancestors.

And what about alternative views of evolution? The anarchistic co-operation theory, or Bergson's creative evolution? If we lived in a different economic system would the "common-sense" view of evolution be different?

I'm not saying that Darwin wasn't on the right track, but if the purpose of science is to discover objective truth, then shouldn't all relativism and pseuo-science be purged from science? Shouldn't Darwinism be re-examined with a critical, fine-toothed comb?

 

Like all science, the study of biological evolution is a dynamic process.
It IS on going, and constantly re-examined.

Your statement, however, applies nicely to creationism.

Why don't you creationist realize that your arguments do more to discredit your silly "theory" than harm science?

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50789

 

It does apply to creationism but I'm not a creationist. Darwinism is the dominant theory of evolution today so it's the best target for criticism. Most people realise that creationism is unscientific but fewer people are willing to admit the unscientific qualities of Darwinism.

 

Hammer,

That would be-

because it's quite scientific!
----------
No one claims that Evolution Theory, in all it's details, has been completly worked out. But enough evidence exist to accept it is the best and most complete desciption availble at this time.

This thing about nit-picking a single detail THAT IS STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION isn't going to cut it.

All in all, I think I've demonstrated a knowledge of science that far,far surpasses any (to not use the dirty "C" word) anti-evolutionist on these boards, including you.
And not only in the workings of biological evolution, but on many other subjects of science as well.

So you say, "evolution is not scientific", where as I say, "indeed it is".
No one is going to accept your declaration over my assurance. None but those blinded by unreasoned faith.

Better yet, I challenge all to learn for themselves, whereas you offer only negativity.
People cannot reject knowledge they do not posses, unless they fear to learn in the first place.

Perhaps you creationist(or whatever your calling yourself now) would get more respect if you described YOUR "theory" of the existence and diversity of life on earth.
After all, you pretend to be an expert on what is not scientific, yet you display no understanding of science for examination. Why should anyone credit you?

So what's the story? What's your alternative?

 

And that's fine. But it's not fine to just leave it at that. If Darwinism isn't critiqued, then it's flaws can never be exposed, so no slightly altered, better theory of evolution can ever be developed.

It's just a hypothesis. I'm trying to get on investigating it, but it's a big project.

I'm not an "anti-evolutionist" either. I haven't denied that evolution happens.

Because... why? I mean, shouldn't the person with the most proof win? And so far we've both been very lacking in that department.

I haven't brought religion into this and I don't intend to ever do so.

That's still better than offering a positive theory that's wrong.

I don't have one. I don't need to posit a theory to replace the one I'm criticizing. I couldn't possibly make up a new one. I just think that we should get rid of the unscientific assumptions underlying a supposedly scientific theory. To do so would mean largely stripping down many scientific disciplines and starting from scratch. But hey, that's what Descartes, Bacon, and Newton were doing, right? So what I'm saying is that building a modified theory of evolution is a project that is just beyond the abilities of any one man. But that the first thing to do is critique.

I guess the same reason people give you credit. For all I know you could be a 12-year-old retard with spell check or a Professor at Oxford, that's what the internet's about - anonyminity. So, all you can really do is judge everyone on equal footing, giving them an equal chance to express their views, and then go from there on judging who is more credible. Come on Gecko, plenty of your ideas could never, ever be proven using the scientific method.

 

Double post- how'd that happen?

 

"Because... why? I mean, shouldn't the person with the most proof win? And so far we've both been very lacking in that department."

And thus it is. The side with the most evidence HAS won. Only your side lacks substance.

Ample evidence has been presented that biological Evolution is not only a viable theory, but that the General Evolution of the Universe itself points toward the spontaneous formation of life.

EVOLUTION- it's everywhere you wanna be, babby. We live in an Evolving Universe.
----------
I've earned my credability. I've lectured on many subjects beyond your ability to describe. I've demonstrated here, and in the Science and technology forum, that I posses extensive knowledge (for a layman) in many scietific fields.
I don't employ links to other web sites, nor to I copy other peoples postings from Propaganistic web sites.

You on the other hand, have demonstrated no knowledge of science. You merely object to the work of others. You have no alternative to offer.

In esscence, you are an arm-chair quarterback. "I don't know what's right, but you are so wrong". It's pathetic, really.
-------------
Further, I NEVER present anything but verifiable science as science. I offer no ideas that "could never, ever be proven using the scientific method" under the guise of accepted theory.
When I disscuss theoretical physics, I make it clear that it is purely theoretical.
When I disscus an unsubstantiated hypothesis, I label it as such.
And Philosophy remains philosophy.

You are all about denial of knowledge; I'm all about proliferation.

For these reasons and more, you lack credibility, whereas I do not.

 

Still, we cannot always agree 100%, so...
I see no reason why some side must win and another lose? What is the need?
John 1:1 describes the big bang, and also echoes word for word a creation verse in the Vedas. So I see potential for common agreement.
Philosophy ideed remains philosophy, and is one of the areas I have lost interest in.
I am all for sharing ideas, proliferation of views, and non-denial of differing views.
Your views above are credible in my view, so along with your vote for yourself, that makes two of us that see your posts as credible.

 

"Still, we cannot always agree 100%, so...
I see no reason why some side must win and another lose? What is the need?
John 1:1 describes the big bang, and also echoes word for word a creation verse in the Vedas. So I see potential for common agreement."

Me, too. Philosophically, I've no problem with the book of allegory-er, I mean the bible.

When I first came here, I was attacked by the atheist front (unsucessfully, to be sure!), to the point wher I felt compelled to post the following:
-----------------------------
Oct 16, 2003.

Let me make this clear.

I DO NOT subscribe to Religion and I would rather CUT MY THROAT than turn some one away from Science.

I AM fairly well versed in various sciences.

I DO understand logical reasoning. With all due respect to everyone else, occam alone has thus far shown as deep an understanding of the use of logical thought.

My attempts to apply logical reasoning to the system we call existence and the observable effects therein that are NOT within the realm of physics have been assumed to be an attempt to push "god". They are NOT. I only "belive" in Reality.

What is "Reality"?
I work from a single theory:

Components of Existence influence one another in an observable manner.

The implications are logicaly obvious.

Refute this if you can.

I also await someone who can state why science and religion are an either/or proposition in a manner that cannot be logically refuted within the context of the observable universe.
---------------------

I don't sit Idly by while someone sprouts misinterpretations of info.

 

It's just a hypothesis, man. But think about it, is it really all that unlikely that Darwinism inheritted some bad science and philosophy from the 19th century?

I never said that wasn't the case. You look at things too black and white. You're either a Darwinian or a creationist in your book. Things aren't that simple.

What subjects did you lecture in and where?

That's such faulty reasoning. You don't have to posit a theory of your own after challenging another one. If you tell me that universe was created by your cat, I don't have to say who created the universe. I can just say "I don't know, but it wasn't your cat."

Oh no? What about, "Even under conditions where life cannot possibly exist, the tendency toward life will not be denied." You wrote that in the evolution of the universe thread. It seems to me to be purely speulative metaphysics, kind of like Schopenhauer's Will to Life.

Well how is that any different from what I did. I've posted twice now that this is just a hypothesis.

That one way to look at it. I'd say that I'm trying to further scientific understanding through discourse, whereas you want to shut down discourse, which, consequently, hinders science.

So you have credibility because you're relying on an appeal to authority. Probably worse still, it's an appeal to yourself as an authority. Kind of like a used car salesman saying, "You won't find a better price anywhere in the city, trust me."

 

"Oh no? What about, "Even under conditions where life cannot possibly exist, the tendency toward life will not be denied." You wrote that in the evolution of the universe thread. It seems to me to be purely speulative metaphysics, kind of like Schopenhauer's Will to Life"

Go reread the description.

Astrochemistry is NOT "metaphyics".

Once more you demonstrate a lack of understanding of what constitutes science. Nor is biological evolution a "hypothesis". It is a theory that seems to reflect reality.

I said:
"Ample evidence has been presented that biological Evolution is not only a viable theory, but that the General Evolution of the Universe itself points toward the spontaneous formation of life."

You response:
"I never said that wasn't the case. You look at things too black and white. You're either a Darwinian or a creationist in your book. Things aren't that simple."

You've agreed, conceeded, denied, reversed, and misinterpreted all in the same sentence.

The complexity of life is what has you so boogled, yet YOU tell ME that it's not that simple?

Give it up, dude.

 

Does anyone else have anything to say about this thread because I've stopped giving a fuck what an old, manipulative man has to say about anything.

To tell you the truth, I think gecko is a big fake. A high-school dropout who read Origin of Species and now thinks himself to be "lecturing" at the world's greatest universities. I can tell you this much, if I was a prof with tenure, I wouldn't be posting here. The fact of the matter is Gecko is a failure and is trying to make up for it here by bashing everyone who doesn't agree with him. Skip, you might as well ban me because I'm sick of this place.

 

A bit harsh, but fair .. sad to say he did go ott in crippling your thoughts.

though

Has been studied with the science (and philosophy) of the 20th/21st century and i have not read anything that is taking its place ? updating confiming but not replacing (i could be wrong though ?).

 

post some shit that won't piss you off ..it always works for me.

 

I accept your surrender, ungracious though it is.

 

Hammer

If you call gecko an old man...And what the fuck does an old man have to offer...

Then occam is an old man [and he is] ..
You say " i tell you the truth"
[the FIRST wisdom occam learnt, is to never believe those that say,,'this is truth']
What old men have to offer is advice, based in experience..
Those that say " i tell you the truth"

Are fools

You spout allot about uni tenure . this is irrelevent.
Uni graduates are 'slightly' more educated than the rest of us.
And usually. Educated beyond their intelligence.

Occam has known physicists that do NOT UNDERSTAND in any way..
Quantum theory.
And one that did not understand einsteinian relativity AT ALL.

Occam once spent 23 pages of arguement about absolute morals with a math prof at NYU [with a phd..]The guy folded in the end.
What does that say when occam freely says HE LEARNT ALL HE KNOWS
FROM HIS OWN EFFORTS. Self taught. [90%]

Thus he OUT-THOUGHT a PHD in math..
And he has no formal tertiary education.

'higher education' is a misnomer for ''more advanced limmited education'"
Description and qualification of understanding of reality based on human standards is on that.
It can only ever be a 'descrption'
If it accurate to reality...

Then it MAY be fact.

But no more than 'MAY' .This is the problem the math professor had...
He did not believe in "insufficient data"
He desired a thing to be..without rational support.

And called it fact. 6 years if education after the age of 18...And desire
for a thing to be truth . destroyed reason

Fool

Occam

 

An interesting question.

Did the 'survival of the fittest'- 'law of the jungle' ideals of Capitalism, Nationalism, and Imperialism influence and inspire Darwin's thinking about evolution?

If they didn't, they should have!

In these institutions can be seen the psycho-sexual dynamic of Natural Selection at work.

Our cultural evironment reflects, and is thus a useful clue, revealing the competitive sexual struggles of Natural Selection.

Far from being mislead by the institutions of his cultural environment, Darwin, if observant, could have seen Natural Selection at work in the modern world.

Personally, I don't think that Capitalism, Nationalism, or Imperialism gave birth to Natural Selection, but that Natural Selection, amongst neurotically death-obsessed Civilized Man, gave birth to them.

 

Well this is nothing more than a genetic fallacy. Pointing out where an idea originally came from has nothing to do with the truth-value of that belief at all. For example - assuming the existence of memes, I could just say that all religions stem from memes and therefore could be discounted. But this is fallacious: simply because a Christian might believe in his or her religion due to meme parasites does not mean that a God does not really exist, or that Christ did not truly rise from the grave, etc. Similarly, whatever influences might have shaped Darwin's theory does not in fact have any bearing on the actual truth-value of that theory at all.

Secondly, evolution is examined on a daily basis with a fine-toothed comb, because of the constant nagging of ID pseudo-scientists.

Furthermore, I'd say that while Darwin might have lived at a time where the environment was both nationalistic and supportive of laissez-faire economy, I don't think it had as much affect on his work as you'd like to put it here. Note that nationalism is observed to have appeared over a century before Darwin - e.g. the American and French Revolutions, and perhaps even prior. Creation and nationalism coincided just fine for all that time and the latter was nothing new - i.e. nothing we should expect Darwin was particularly concerned with or had in mind when presenting his theory.

Also, the real products of laissez-faire capitalism in America did not happen until after Darwin put forth his theory (as the real problems with industrialization and etc. occurred at the very end of the century, producing the union strikes). This is also why the Communist Manifesto does not even bother to mention America or Russia, as they were simply considered "sub-European" establishments all the way up until the later sixties.

So, in short, I think your argumentation is flawed on a number of levels. It produces a genetic fallacy, it does not consider the historical expanse of nationalism throughout time, nor the state of America's economy and general establishment before, during, and after Darwin posited his theory, and neither the fact that the theory of evolution is in fact considered, critiqued, and defended on a daily basis.

- Laz

 

Lazarus...

Right...capitalism NEEDED darwinian theory to exist
HAHA

Communism is DEAD.. not because it is not viable...
But because it is not viable in the current human situation...
[self accepted stupidity]
Communist theory gives more people More of what they need.
However..MORE/MOST does not cut it in an age of firepower.
The modern capitalist west..weilds more firepower than all of histories nations combined.
For the capitalist west is the garden of technology.
Of reason controlled by ego.

Of regiments of thermonuclear missles weilded by adolescent ignorance.
Of swaths of fission powerplants authorised by the ignorant.
Of societies of the ignorant.

Personal Material wealth.. The realm of the ignorant.

Occam

 

Sounds pretty bad for the future of our kind. I like churchills quote, though it is not about capitalism, I think it applies. "It is the worst form of government, until you look at all the others."
Free will is very dangerous, hence the many totalitarian leaders. They see the potential for disaster. The mob rules.........but what can you do?