” Dr. Soyfer, a former Soviet scientist who had met Lysenko, documents the destruction of science and scientists “
Spirited: Of course they did. But just as Richard Dawkins, Lewontin, and all such fools who pretend to discover something about mankind by studying slimemold colonies seek not truth and reality but rather personal power through propagation of “second realities” so was this the case with scientific Marxist socialists.
There are some scientists who do not confuse their field of endeavor with philosophy and religion but many more who do. Of this last group are all metaphysicians (i.e. Dawkins) who falsely claim that evolutionism is a fact.
At bottom, the real purpose behind naturalism is keeping God the Father out while the real purpose behind evolutionism is the reconciliation of opposites. Death (matter) with life. Slimemold with consciousness. Man with God.
This is the very particular science of magic.
I do not know that Dawkins is a slimemold researcher. People who research slimemolds (fascinating organisms, btw) are not doing so because they're trying to discern any metaphysical components of what it means to be human, but because knowing the biology of simpler organisms informs us about the biology of more complex organisms.
Anyway, Dawkins and other atheists make a big mistake when they try to use science as evidentiary proof of atheism. Scientists can no more prove than disprove the existence of God.
There are some scientists who do not confuse their field of endeavor with philosophy and religion but many more who do. Of this last group are all metaphysicians (i.e. Dawkins) who falsely claim that evolutionism is a fact.
For the nteenth time, "evolutionism" is not a religion. No matter how many times you or any literal creationist try to make it one, it is not. Shall I once again link to the explanations of what a theory is, and what it does? Evolution, as a theory, works very well, as can be seen by the remarkable advances in the biological and medical sciences which wouldn't have been possible without that theoretical framework.
Unless you have arbitrarily decided that God cannot possibly exist if the book of Genesis is not a literal account, there is nothing intrinsic to the theory of evolution that excludes the existence of God. Nothing!
At bottom, the real purpose behind naturalism is keeping God the Father out while the real purpose behind evolutionism is the reconciliation of opposites. Death (matter) with life. Slimemold with consciousness. Man with God.
This is the very particular science of magic.
At bottom, the real purpose behind creationism is to convince people that science is just another religion, so as to discredit it as being an inferior religion. But science is only a method of describing the physical universe, which simply cannot be used to examine non-physical topics.
Put it this way:
Richard Dawkins says that the fact that the process of evolution occurs by well-defined chemical and physical mechanisms is proof positive that there is no God.
I say that the fact that the physical and chemical processes driving evolution resulted in sapient and sentient species despite the logic that would seem to indicate that awareness is not a property of physical matter is proof positive that God exists.
Which of us is correct? Who has the evidence on their side? Honestly, I would say neither.
Interestingly, Marx loathed philosophy and insisted his theories were science, not philosophy:
“We recognize only one single science, the science of history. You can view it from two sides, and divide it into the history of nature and the history of people... . In direct opposition to German philosophy which came down from heaven to earth, we here intend to rise from earth to heaven — that is we will not start from what people say, imagine, represent to themselves, nor from thought-of, represented or imagined people, in order to arrive afterward at bodily people; we will start from really acting people, and try to deduce from their actual life-process the development of these ideological images and reflections of that life-process. For these misty formations in the brains of people are necessary sublimations of their material, empirically ascertained life-process, which is bound up with material conditions. In this way morals, religion, metaphysics, and other forms of ideology, lose their apparent independence. They have no history, they have no development; only people, developing their material production and their material relations, change also in the course of this activity their thinking and the products of their thinking... .
“Thus where speculation stops, that is, at the threshold of real life, a real positive science begins, a representation of the activity, the practical process of the development of people. Phrases about consciousness disappear, their place to be occupied by real knowledge. When you begin to describe reality, then an independent philosophy loses its reason for being. In its place may be found, at the most, a summary of the general results abstracted from an investigation of the historical development of man... .