Darwinism's Dilemma (part I: Cave Man)

Darwinian Fairytales (Avebury Series in Philosophy, 1996) | 1996 | D. C. Stove

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

ping

[Sparta]

I'm undecided on Darwin's theory, so I'll be interested in the comments.

[elbucko]

Ridiculous !

[Aric2000]

Ping?

[Aric2000]

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous and reaching thesis against Darwin that I have ever seen.

It is called intelligence, maker of tools, killer of animals for their fur etc.

We were able, mostly, to get out of the evolutionary necessity of fighting for survival. The last millenium or so has sped this up as our medicine has gotten better, our technology has gotten better etc.

This does NOTHING to disprove Darwins Theory of Evolution, and whoever says it is, is a noncritical thinking fool.

[cinFLA]

I'm undecided on Darwin's theory, so I'll be interested in the comments.

The author should crawl back into his cave.

[Voice in your head]

I believe that the article is working off of an incorrect assumption:

"IF DARWIN'S THEORY of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners."

Does he mean organisms within a species or organisms of different species? Each organism is in a constant competition with its peers for fitness, not survival. The competition of fitness is not winner-take-all. The functional unit of evolution is the population, not the individual.

[Sparta]

The author of this piece is a rambling loon. I was interested in the comments, because I need someone to translate this babbeling. (This is worse than f.Christian's posts.)

[f.Christian]

Evolution is -- full on -- brainwashing (( redacting // deleting conservatism )) and . . .

indoctrinating // programming LIBERALISM // lies // bias all through America // society ! ! !

All unashamedly on the FR too ==== "fraud // curruption" ==== UNADULTERED tyranny (( incoherence // chatter // static ))!!

[AndrewC]

Thanks for the ping. In our time Richard Dawkins is fair image of Huxley as "shill/snake oil salesman".

[f.Christian]

"A cosmetic firm (( public schools // taxes )) --

will . . . create (( link )) - - - a cologne (( magic ointment )) --

called Affirmative Action (( govt science // evolution )) --

which makes ignorant people (( think // believe they )) smell educated (( tyrannical superiority complex )) ** ."

** . . . my additions !

[AndrewC]

"the reign of Elizabeth..., the stuggle for existence between man and man has been so largely restrained among the great mass of the population (except for one or two short intervals of civil war), that it can have little, or no selective operation."[4]

It seems as if some people here are denying that Huxley made the above statement. Otherwise, they are implying that Darwin's bulldog is wrong about Darwin's theory.

[Reeses]

We developed a thousand forms of attachment, loyalty, cooperation, and unforced subordination, every one of them quite incompatible with a constant and merciless competition to survive.

The evolutionary purpose for these traits is success at war. Darwin knew that humans were a special case, that the discovery of war is what caused humans to develop intelligence far in excess of what is needed to find food. If two tribes go to battle, usually the smarter tribe wins, and the genetically inferior tribe dies off. And it isn't just intelligence, but group loyalty, self-sacrifice, cooperation, morality, even lifespan, are all genetically honed for success at war. War is in effect very high speed evolution, and is the only reason humans have become the most genetically advanced animal to ever live.

Darwin wrote about all this. I don't know why this key discovery about who we are and where we come from is never taught.

[jlogajan]

Otherwise, they are implying that Darwin's bulldog is wrong about Darwin's theory.

Wow, in two posts you've made your central arguments ad hominem and ad verecundiam.

[Sparta]

Darwin was also a devout Christian, even after he wrote Orgin of Species but this is not often mentioned either.

Darwin has been used to push one political ideology or another.

[cookcounty]

"I'm undecided on Darwin's theory, so I'll be interested in the comments."

I'm generally skeptical of Darwin's ideas, but this article is deserving of the criticisms on this thread.

[jlogajan]

I'm undecided on Darwin's theory

You'll have to look at real evidence, such as the fossil record, DNA research, species data, etc. These "philosophy" pieces prove nothing except the ability of the writer to engage in circular logic.

[jejones]

OK: differential reproductive success for an individual isn't a necessary condition for a trait to persist; otherwise the sickle-cell anemia gene wouldn't still be around. (It provides enough of an advantage to heterozygotes to "compensate for" the early death of homozygous recessives.) Similarly, cooperation can be advantageous enough to groups or species as a whole to be selected. The author's notion that Darwinian evolution would mean that humans would be perpetually at war, unable to form even small cooperative groups, is just silly.

[Reeses]

My understanding is that Darwin's wife was a devout Christian, Darwin was not. His wife tried to convert him. She did not want to spend her eternal afterlife without him. He loved her greatly and he did not want to disappoint her. Still, as much as this bothered him he was unable to become a devout Christian.

This should have little bearing on the validity of his work though. He was a brilliant man, and also by definition a deadly warmaker. He was the genetic product of many thousands of years of brutal war, as are you and me.