Posted on 04/10/2005 3:53:04 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
A pro-evolution group has organized what appears to be a successful boycott of Kansas hearings on intelligent design.
Alexa Posny, a deputy commissioner with the state department of education, told the Kansas City Star that only one person has agreed to testify on the pro-evolution side for the hearings scheduled for May.
"We have contacted scientists from all over the world," Posny said. "There isn't anywhere else we can go."
Harry McDonald, head of Kansas Citizens for Science, charged that the hearings, called by a conservative majority on the state board of education, have a pre-ordained outcome.He said that testifying would only make intelligent design appear legitimate.
"Intelligent design is not going to get its forum, at least not one in which they can say that scientists participated," he said.
Backers of intelligent design, the claim that a supreme being guided evolution, say it is a theory with scientific backing. Opponents believe it is an attempt to smuggle religion into public education.
Synthesis, antithesis, clash, new synthesis. Species, random mutation, "battle for the survival of the fittest," new species. This way of thinking was characteristic of the age.
It is this determinist aspect of Darwin's theory that troubles many, including me. I think the evidence to date pretty conclusively shows random mutation is not the change agent at work here.
And I had promised myself never to post on evo-crevo threads again. Sheesh.
There really isn't much in common between dialectial materialism and Darwinism. Darwinism is, in its model of causation, much closer to capitalism.
You are correct in a superficial sense in that dialectical materialism is a theory of history while natural selection is a theory of biology. But the point, of course, is that both are adaptations of the dialectic to their fields.
To me, capitalism is nothing more than economic freedom, the most efficient way to allocate goods and resources. In this sense it is a morally superior system because it allows people to own and use the fruits of their own labor, which by nature and nature's God is their property by right, without confiscation by governments or others.
But many look on capitalism from a perspective of Spencer's social Darwinism. In this sense, capitalism produces winners and losers, with the winners, the richest, by definition being morally superior to the losers, they are more highly "evolved." Since you view "Darwinism" as close to "capitalism" you seem to be taking the social Darwinist position. By doing so you define "Darwinism" and capitalism as materialist philosophies, which does place them in the same camp as Marxism.
This is the part I disagree with. Evolution is not comparable to the dialectic.
This makes no sense. The quality of capital of capitalism that makes it more efficient than socialism is that it is unplanned and undesigned. Lots of people create goods and services, and the markets selects the winners.
Economies that attempt to plan goods and services stagnate and fail.
There is more than one way to analyze a complex system. Grouping things as materialist or non-materialist may seem logical, but it isn't useful here.
I didn't say that.
Whatever God you claim exists, why should your "God" be considered within science to the exclusion of all others?
Well, what other god can take on this menacing form:
"He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"
Moreover, why did you wrongly imply that all who accept evolution as valid science lack belief in this "God"? Did you choose your wording poorly, are you really that ignorant or are you just dishonest?
I blame it all on Gozer.
Darwin did not acknowledge Hegel to the best of my recollection. Of course, Hegel was the giant in philosophy in the early 19th Century and was well known by educated people.
More reseach needs to be done here. I agree that Darwin most likely knew of Hegel and his philosophy, perhaps he even corresponded or met with Hegel...but I don't know of any evidence for this.
Synthesis, antithesis, clash, new synthesis. Species, random mutation, "battle for the survival of the fittest," new species. This way of thinking was characteristic of the age.
True. Conflict and struggle were quickly becoming glorified. Natural selection fit right in with that sort of thing.
However, it seems as if a more interesting motive for Darwin's thinking were the problems of theodicy that were quite controversial during those times. Many Christian theologians believed that God had absolutely nothing to do with anything that even had appearances of being evil, so they quickly sided with philosphies and beliefs that were mechanistic in character. God wound up the universe like a clock, then let it go with little or no intervention. Darwin's theory only helped to keep God out of the "evil" of the natural world, since He didn't technially create it, the natural world just sort-of developed on it's own given a few parameters. (Yes, the Victorians actually thought like this...) Evolution makes for a very interesting solution for the problem of theodicy.
It is this determinist aspect of Darwin's theory that troubles many, including me. I think the evidence to date pretty conclusively shows random mutation is not the change agent at work here.
I would agree that if there's any truth to evolution at all, there is something other than merely random mutations at work.
If you have the time, explain further why the "determinist aspect of Darwin's theory" troubles you.
And I had promised myself never to post on evo-crevo threads again. Sheesh.
Well, the crevo threads are alot more interesting than most televsions shows I've ever seen, with the exception of SpongeBob, of course. And it beats playing StarCraft for the 9,123 time...
Oops...you used the "c" word...
Anyway...yes governments that try to centrally plan their economies fail, but not because central planning is a bad thing, but due to a lack of control of all the inputs involved; this requires a god-like level of detail and control we humans are simply not capable of. There are simply too many variables introduced by human nature, as well as nature itself; not to mention the unpredictability and uncontrollable nature of the world outside your borders.
The problem with attempting to correlate Darwinian causation with capitalism is that the agents involved with capitalism are rational, intelligent beings who do intentionally plan and create, but on a small scale. The interactions of these rational agents are unplanned and undesigned by a third party (like government), but they are certainly planned and designed by the participants themselves.
However, the agents involved with Darwinian causation are totally non-rational who do nothing through intention. Every mechanism involved in evolution is an accident. Big difference.
NOTE: accident, in the context I'm using it here, should be understood as a lack of intention.
They fail because central planning is a bad thing. Think about it. If planning is impossible because it would require God-like powers, then it is impossible, period. If it is impossible and it is attempted, it will lead towards totalitarianism.
Darwinian evolution actually says nothing about the cause or reason for variation. Darwin allowed for planned or intelligent variation. At the time, this was called Lamarkianism, and it is not incompatible with Darwinian evolution.
What Darwin said was that "natural selection" describes what survives and what doesn't, regardless of the source of variation. This is also the way capitalism works. People plan like crazy, but no one can really predict the marketplace. Viewed on a large scale, the inputs to an economy are random. Natural selection shapes goods and services regardless of the plans and intentions of entrepreneurs.
The reason biological evolution is believed to be random is not because randomness is required for Darwinian evolution, but because randomness is what we observe. Biologists have searched for 150 years for any evidence that variation follows Lamarkian rules or that variation anticipates need, but no such pattern has been found. If it is found tomorrow it will not alter the fact that natural selection shapes overall change, just as it determines what goods and services survive in the marketplace.
Well, I mean a number of things. From a scientific perspective natural selection teaches that evolutionary change is purely a matter of random chance that neither we nor God have any control over.
Now, I have no opinion whether biological or metaphysical processes cause evolutionary, genetic changes. I am open to either explanation and don't think there's enough evidence to conclude either way. I do think the evidence is clear that natural selection, as proposed by Darwin, that is random genetic mutation over time producing competing organisms, is wrong, the fossil record just doesn't support it. But whatever science eventually comes up with means change does not occur as a matter of random chance.
The most pernicious problems have been created by the application of the determinism of natural selection to the social sphere. In the 19th Century militant atheist academics began using the theory to claim science disproves the existence of God. Nietzsche announced God is dead. Humans are not a little below the angels, but are nothing more than the most evolved of the animals. Free will is an illusion. We can't help the way we are, we cannot change. In fact, attempts to exercise free will and independence are dangerous because of our nature. Nietzsche believed we should be governed by the ubermensch. Modern liberals believe we should be governed by an uber world government.
There are other consequences. Marx adopted the dialectic and believed history evolves, ultimately producing an end to history and a perfect man. When the perfect man did not evolve, the Marxists tried to forcibly perfect mankind, which resulted in 80-100 million dead.
Marxism stands in poor credit after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but its cousin, social Darwinism, is very much alive and well. People now widely believe that society evolves and that modern society is far more advanced than earlier generations. Thus, modern liberals feel entitled to re-engineer society, redefining marriage and family, embracing a sexual revolution, justifying abortion, the list is long. Because we are more highly evolved than those ignorant people of 200 years ago, we feel we should interpret the Constitution as we choose, as a "living" document. Social Darwinists in my church believe we moderns should in effect rewrite the Bible to delete the parts we don't like, because we have "more light" to shed on human affairs than the benighted people of 2000 years ago and earlier.
Well, I don't mean to ramble. This deterministic way of thinking about society and interpreting scientific evidence has profoundly colored modern society and attitudes. It has contributed to what the new Pope calls the "tyranny of relativism." I think we must return to a belief system that celebrates the special nature of human life, that rejects the view that our nature is determined and cannot be changed, and reaffirms our free will, that we have been given the gift to follow God's will or not, to fashion our own lives and natures. I think that if scientists were liberated from the need to defend that view that evolution is random chance that cannot be influenced either by biological processes within organisms or by processes outside organisms they will begin looking at the scientific evidence far more creatively and make some really interesting discoveries.
Darwinian evolution actually says nothing about the cause or reason for variation. Darwin allowed for planned or intelligent variation. At the time, this was called Lamarkianism, and it is not incompatible with Darwinian evolution.
Of course they did not know about DNA and microbiology back then, so variation was not something they could speak about authoritatively. But things have changed since Darwin's time.
If I understand correctly, variation is believed to be caused by "mutations." As a matter of fact, I don't think there is even any alternative mechanism. If it's not mutation, then it's nothing.
It seems the main issue concerns how powerful a force mutation is, and if it is capable of creating more complex creatures over time.
They [communist economies] fail because central planning is a bad thing. Think about it. If planning is impossible because it would require God-like powers, then it is impossible, period. If it is impossible and it is attempted, it will lead towards totalitarianism.
No, it's not impossible period.
What's interesting is that there are many, many instances where central planning has no ill effects at all, and is even beneficial; but it depends upon the scale of the planning. All corporations have some sort of central planning, and they are all, certainly, totalitarian in nature! This goes for universities, government agencies, and even small businesses. We could even take this down to the family level. I would go so far to say that those who fail to plan, plan to fail.
That's why I don't agree that central planning is the culprit. The real problem is the scalability of central planning.
When corporations start getting into hot water, the first thing they do, as a rule, is sell off divisions that are not part of their "core" business; even if those divisions are profitable! Recently GM sold off it's Electro-Motive Division, which has been making diesel locomotivies profitably for over 60 years. But it's not part of GM's "core" business, so off it went, so now GM can sink that money into it's failed attempts at building autos that people actually want to buy. I think they would have done better to stay with the diesels, and sell of the automotive divisions. The only competition for railroad diesels is General Electric, while with cars it's the whole frickin' world.
But the point is that corporations really hate complexity when they are having a hard time. They can no long plan and cooridinate effectively. So it seems as if there might be a size of corporation that is "too big" to for men to handle.
Of course, this size issue is NOT stopping other companies from wanting to become the GM of the future.
While a country can plan "too much" and risk certain failure, I think it's also a real possibility for countries to plan too little, and risk failure from not properly understanding their own strengths and weaknesses.
There are many kinds of mutation. here's a start.
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/info=mutations_and_disorders/show/possible_mutations
Obviously planning is beneficial in general, but the problem with central planning (socialism) is that failure and layoffs are not politically expedient, so inefficient and obsolete work is preserved. In other words, natural selection doesn't happen.
For ethical and compassionate reasons, I believe in safety nets, but worthless jobs should not be preserved.
I say this as someone who was layed off due to 911 and who has been scraping along self employed for several years. What is the alternative -- run things like France and Germany?
I think that if scientists were liberated from the need to defend that view that evolution is random chance that cannot be influenced either by biological processes within organisms or by processes outside organisms they will begin looking at the scientific evidence far more creatively and make some really interesting discoveries.
Thanks so much for taking the time to state the nature of the problem.
What's ironic is that "randomness" and "chance" do not make for a deterministic, mechanistic outlook on life! Many of the radical metaphysical naturalists believe that we are part of just a powerful mechanistic process, where chance/randomness plays a very, very small role. And yet randomness and chance play a huge role in evolution!
Just as a machine like a computer or gasoline engine would not be very practical--or even useful--given a large does of randomness and chance, so too would a biological "machine" find these things to be death, not life; except within very narrow and restricted bounds.
Unfortunately, from a naturalistic perspective, randomness/chance is all there is at this time to explain the evolutionary process. I'm certain there are those who are looking much more closely at the problem, and have some different ideas, but they've been very quiet about their discoveries, if they've made any.
So the mystery of metaphyscial naturalism is this: if life as we know it were just a series of random/chance events that didn't have us in mind, then how is a deterministic worldview compatible with the known evidence? It just isn't logical.
For ethical and compassionate reasons, I believe in safety nets, but worthless jobs should not be preserved.
I think it was 30 or 40 years before the railroads were finally able to get rid of the role "fireman" from diesel locomotives...though diesels have no "fires" to tend. That is an example of a worthless job, protected by a very socialist organization: the railroad union. But firemen were a very necessary position back in the days of steam engines.
My own job went bye-bye when it was off-shored to India soon after 9-11. My job did not become obsolete, it became doable by the Indians for a lower rate of pay.
Many, many technical people; engineers, programmers, scientists, etc.; are unemployed or underemployed not because their jobs are obsolete, but because someone in Asia or India can do their jobs much cheaper, and with today's communication technology, work on computers in Chicago while sitting in Bangalore. So it's not that the buggy whip makers are out of work, it's just that other countries can make buggy whips for less....along with everything else.
I seriously don't know of any occupation that looks very promising for young people except something in health care or owning your own small business. Or, perhaps, working for the government. My mom certainly is doing well on her government retirement.
I say this as someone who was layed off due to 911 and who has been scraping along self employed for several years. What is the alternative -- run things like France and Germany?
Well, I was laid-off soon after 9-11 as well, and have been very "underemployed" ever since. It's nearly impossible to even get a salaried position anymore, though I had several from 1989 to 2001. Lots of hourly jobs available, but nothing you could support a family on, let alone yourself! They only people I see living well in my area are retirees and professionals.
While I would not like to have things run like Germany or France, I wouldn't mind them being run like Holland or Singapore. Well, there are certain aspects of both countries I don't like...but there are some that are quite enviable.
But of course we are not just a bunch of bacteria typing these posts, we are human beings, and the reason we have these complex, social groupings known as governements is so that we might benefit from their protection.
But if our government is going to allow other nations to raid us econonmially by using methods and work standards that are outlawed in our own land, then I would have to say something is very, very wrong with this picture.
I am not nor ever have been a protectionist, but we are not playing on a level playing field, economically speaking. Perhap it's time for a bit of protection.
You are confused, sir. Social Darwinism is capitalism without the welfare safety net.
Darwin modeled his idea of natural selection after the Scottish economist of his time. That would be Adam Smith and his followers.
You and I are in somewhat the same boat in this department, but I am a little surprised to hear conservatives promoting protectionism. I'm sure the railroaders who kept firemen on the payroll after diesels took over had lots of good reasons. My specific job has not been moved to India, but the fact that many programming and tech jobs have been, depresses the entire tech job market.
But in the long run, having a central authority set prices, by what ever means, for whatever justification, just delays the pain. The marketplace will find a way to get the lowest prices, just as most people will drift towards the store with the lowest prices.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.