Screwtape's "Age of Darwinian Scientism"

The Daley Times-Post ^ | Jan. 27, 2006 | Linda Kimball

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" I've already pointed out a connection which Marx himself pointed out."

And I have asked for specifics as to where communist ideology has taken natural selection and descent with modification as parts of their ideology. And you still have not explained how Darwin influenced Marx in 1848 with a book that appeared in 1859.

[Ichneumon]

"Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is a book which contains the basis of natural history for our views." Marx here actually calls evolution the basis of his views which devloped of course into communism.

That would be a neat trick, since Marx wrote and published "The Communist Manifeso" a few years *before* Darwin had ever published anything on evolution. So did Marx have a time machine, or are all of you "evolution inspired communism" folks just grossly ignorant and straining for cheap excuses to attack a field of science you happen not to like?

[MineralMan]

I hate to mention this, Lindykim, but the link for this does not go to the newspaper, but to a user page on some internet host.

I'm just wondering why. Was this article in a newspaper? If so, why did you not link to the newspaper?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Because she wrote it and tried to pretend it came from a newspaper. This is a vanity/blog.

[bvw]

The time sequences the publishing of the ideations. The ideas themselves? They sure look that they arose contemporaneously in the same idea-pool of Europoean intellectual culture of the era. Afterall, it was a stress-ful era, we'd expect new species of ideations out of it, would we not?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Horse manure. There is no connection between Marx and Darwin, and you are now evading that fact by speaking of ideas *being in the air*. What rubbish.

[Siena Dreaming]

And you still have not explained how Darwin influenced Marx in 1848 with a book that appeared in 1859.

Granted, I understand the timeline. If true, it seems that Marx could not have read Origen of Species before writing his book.

However, it does not seem possible that there is NO connection between evolution and marxism as Marx himself says in the quote that evolutionary ideas are the basis of natural history for his views.

[Ichneumon]

Point the first. It's obvious, that if there were radical steps of development within a species or into a new sepcies, say reptile egg to hatchling bird, turtle egg to chicken, that those would come about during the process of forimg the zygote. Yet we don't have any chickens or repitles in observed natural history that break out of an egg into novel species-hood, tmk. And that includes observed periods and populations in extreme stress. Does that raise any alarm-bells to you?

Yes indeed, it raises alarm bells over the shoddy state of science education which produced someone so grossly uninformed as yourself, able to make such bizarrely cartoonish misrepresentations of biology as the kind you just made, so grossly misinformed that most gradeschool children would know better.

Even Darwin himself explained the fallacy of this in his 1859 book -- it never ceases to amaze me when creationists are over 130+ years behind on their education.

[bvw]

Not in the "air", CG, in the genes. In the idea-pool genes.

[orionblamblam]

> it does not seem possible that there is NO connection between evolution and marxism as Marx himself says in the quote that evolutionary ideas are the basis of natural history for his views.

Here's a thought: maybe Marx was *lying*?

[MineralMan]

"Because she wrote it and tried to pretend it came from a newspaper. This is a vanity/blog."

That's what I figured. On checking the place she cited, but didn't link to isn't even a newspaper. It's a blog by some guy named Daley.

This is darned annoying. I've clicked Report Abuse and explained the problem. I'm sure the mods will be right along to move this somewhere out of the News topics.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Granted, I understand the timeline. If true, it seems that Marx could not have read Origen of Species before writing his book."

*If* true? lol BTW, it's the Origin, not Origen. :)

"However, it does not seem possible that there is NO connection between evolution and marxism as Marx himself says in the quote that evolutionary ideas are the basis of natural history for his views."

He's attaching his ideas to a popular scientific theory of the day to give his more prestige. You have not shown HOW he would have adapted natural selection and descent with modification into his ideology. It takes more than just saying it to make it so.

It should also be realized that at this time, Marx was a second tier socialist at best; he didn't become a household name until the 20th century. Darwin was a conventional free market, antislavery whig of the time.

[bvw]

Well, I'm not speaking to Darwin, so much as I am to a recent publication that spoke of built-up micro-mutations that only show themself in a population during times of stress when suddenly -- punctuated equilibrium-wise, mege-step-wise -- a new species pops out of the egg.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

I knew what you meant. It's still horse manure. :)

[Rocky]

Excellent piece. I admire your courage. There are few people who are more abusive than the pro-evolution crowd, so you have to have a thick skin to write something like that. Michael Moore is a pauper compared with that bunch. But I think you are exactly right about the effects of Darwinism, and its true source. No philosophy or religion has ever done as much damage to man's psyche, or his respect for his fellow man, as Darwinism has.

[Lindykim]

Making an issue out of the link evidences your desperation.

Here's the link (which you could've found very easily----if you had really wanted to).
http://www.times-post.com/

[bvw]

You deny that ideas evolve?

[PatrickHenry]

Marx here actually calls evolution the basis of his views which devloped of course into communism.

Look, Marx was a communist, and an author of communist trash (the Manifesto, etc.) before Darwin disclosed his theory of evolution to the world.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Making an issue out of the link evidences your desperation."

You screwed up, not us. And this is YOUR writing; it should not be in news.

And it's junk. :)

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Asking a question for which you already have the answer is itself the definition of coy.

No, avoiding expressing your opinion in response to a question is considered being coy.

I believe all life on earth evolves from a lower form to a higher one.

How about you?