Weird secular humanist science ping.
Posted on 06/17/2005 12:27:21 PM PDT by Matchett-PI
> Marxism/Leninism depends on the theory of evolution.
So does modern biology. Down with science!
And it seems that Marxism has been selected against, and only remains as a parasite of Capitalism in specially selected preserves, where it can be protected against the law of "the survival of the fittest", namely Universities.
This is a contender for "dumbest thing I've ever seen posted on FR."
Weird secular humanist science ping.
Darwinism may have provided an affirmation of Marx and Engels, but Lysenko's theories gave the Communist Party an even better biological compliance: members of a species do not compete with each other. In time, Lysenko was revealed to be as false as dialectical materialism, though both bankrupt ideas still have adherents, both abroad and here in the U.S.A. (please see Democrat Underground).
Results 1 - 10 of about 118 for "Marxist Biologists".
(Putting the phrase in quotes to force a search for the specific phrase instead of finding both words somewhere on the same page.)
And while we're at it...
Results 1 - 10 of about 571 for creationist pedophile.
Results 1 - 10 of about 559 for evolutionist pedophile.
Results 1 - 10 of about 8,900 for creationist Marxist.
Results 1 - 10 of about 8,840 for evolutionist Marxist.
Results 1 - 10 of about 97,100 for Ronald Reagan Marxist.
Results 1 - 10 of about 344,000 for Marxist Republican.
Results 1 - 10 of about 167,000 for Marxist Democrat.
Results 1 - 10 of about 147 for Matchett Marxist.
Results 1 - 6 of about 30 for jennyp Marxist.
Tee hee hee...
That's not what evolution teaches at all.
The reason for the stupidity of the article was the laughably utter and complete lack of knowledge about evolution demonstrated by the author.
A scientific theory starts with an effort to explain observed phenomena. A rationalization starts with a need to make observed phenomena fit into your preconceived objective. Thus almost any true scientific theory will go through regular modifications, as new or previously unobserved phenomena come into play. The rationalized theory will instead go through ever more elaborate contrivances, to continue to pursue the same end.
Thus Marxism readopted the bogus Lamarckian theories of inheritance--the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics--to justify its tinkering with human society. Without such biological nonsense, you have a very hard time justifying social engineering, whether of the Communist, Nazi, or Social Democrat variety.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Of course the Institute for Creation Research blames Darwin for capitalism.
Now there's your ultimate anthropomorphism! The only being with any obligation whatsoever is one who has a choice in the "matter". This reminds me of several evolutionary "nature" shows I've seen on TV, in which the narrator proclaims: "At this point, 'nature decided' to add..." Think about it.
And then, there's: Konstantinov, in The Fundamentals of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy, echoes him: "Darwin’s theory of evolution is the third great scientific discovery that took place in the middle of the l9th century.
Do you suppose Konstantinov meant that the other two great scientific discoveries were marxism and Freudianism? I kinda think so, but I'm not certain of it.
But it does not follow that the state should replace God if God doesn't exist. Why should there be a notion that there has to be a God, or else a God-like placemarker if the real God doesn't exist?
The correct analogy is that the state evolves as a tool that societies use to better help them thrive. Just like DNA & its associated mutation-correction mechanisms evolved from earlier, more primitive replication technologies. Or how sexual reproduction evolved as a better-regulated form of horizontal gene transfer.
...If the State is the one which grants rights to us - the State can change them, deny them, or "create them" whenever it chooses.
I agree so far.
This is diametrically opposed to the ideas espoused by our founders - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal". In other words our rights as human beings and citizens exist with or without the State. It is not the Constitution which "creates" our rights - on the contrary, they are "endowed" to us by God.
The thing is, that passage is powerfully true, not because of the phrase "by the Creator" but by the word "endowed". We're endowed with individual rights because individual rights directly flow from our human nature as the rational animal: We require individual rights in order to thrive as human beings instead of merely surviving as slaves.
We can argue all we want over how we came to be humans, with our free will, instead of just another species of chimpanzee. But shouldn't the essential point of agreement be that our rights come from our status as human beings? It's like physicists arguing passionately over whether reality is made up of 4 or 11 dimensions, whether strings actually exist or not, etc. Yet they all agree that Quantum Mechanics correctly describes what's going on at the atomic level, and that Newtonian physics correctly describes what goes on inside vast swaths of the macro-atomic scale.
Marxism is first of all a moral-ethical system that fulminates against the "evils" of capitalism, greed, exploitation, etc. There is no justification in Darwinism for any moral-ethical system of any kind whatsoever. The Communists may consider Darwin a hero for his theory of a G-dless origin of reality, but exploitation, greed, war, etc., cannot be any more "wrong" in Darwin's worldview than a war between two anthills. The Communists have to go elsewhere to get these ethical beliefs (partly from the religious society they attack, partly from their own hang-ups, which they apparently have no problem with "imposing" on other people).
The second area in which Marxism and Darwinism clash is in the area of teleology. True Darwinist evolution is purposeless, unguided, and non-teleological. However, Marx's theory of societal evolution is every bit as teleological as it is "ethical." Marx and all his bastard offspring insist that this materialistic process is "inevitably" headed for an "omega point" of some kind, at which all further evolution, progress, development, and "flux" cease, leaving a purely static paradise. How in the sam hill do the Marxists get this from Darwin? I sure don't know. This bizarre utopian teleology owes more to conventional religious eschatology, Hegel, Teilhard de Chardin, and new age nonsense than it does to Darwin. But of course it is not only Communists but "scientific humanists" like John Dewey who subscribe to both leftist ethics and teleology, all the while invoking a scientific theory that can justify neither--and the same goes for "non-leftist" evolutionists like Richard Dawkins, whose belief in the ultimate meaninglessness of everything doesn't prevent him from working himself into apoplexy at the behavior of people eh doesn't like. (I similarly don't understand how the ACLU puts so much heart into defending Darwinism as if it was the total justification for egalitarianism and "social justice." Goodness knows if I ever became convinced in the non-existence of G-d, G-d forbid, I wouldn't spend my time crusading for "social justice!")
Where things get really fuzzy is the contemporary Left's selective (stress: selective) opposition to science as "European" and its support of pristine religious fundamentalism among "indigenous pipples" and the moslems. Of course for the most part the common enemy keeps the "gentlemen's agreement" between postmodern deconstructionists and hard scientific Darwinists in full force at all times, though there is some occasional sniping between the two groups. I'm waiting for Leftist reaction to islamic attacks on evolution, but the quasi-alliance is so strong that no conflict on that issue seems likely in the near future.
Thank you for the article any way. As you know, there are plenty of atheist evolutionists here on FR who, capitalistic and libertarian their economics, are just as nasty as their Leftist "co-religionists"--and with the identical same "absurd certitude," in the immortal words of Malcolm Muggeridge.
It's ridiculous comparing observational science with political philosophy in the first place.
blah, blah, blahOne ironic thing to point out here: Punctuated equilibrium only works because of the mainstream theory of speciation calls for a small breakaway population to get isolated, usually physically, from the big, fat, dumb & happy "parent" species. It's only within this small population that new mutations have a chance of taking hold, on a percentage basis, within the new population's genome. There's a whole field devoted to the mathematics of populations & evolution.Marxist dialectical materialism called for something more than just gradual progression. The dialectic needs a theory with clashes (thesis against anti-thesis) and leaps (synthesis). While the struggle for existence may answer to the clash of the dialectic, nothing in Darwin answered to the leap.
The recent theory of punctuated equilibrium, however, seems to satisfy the dialectical demand. Punctuated equilibrium posits a natural world that manifests species stability for great periods of time but occasionally ruptures or leaps from one species to another.
blah blah blah
So if you were a Marxist revolutionary who wanted to apply evolution to Marxism, you should conclude that you should mount your revolution in a small, isolated country, preferrably an island. Then, if your new society is so successful, it should be able to lead by example as other societies start to copy yours.
Ironically, America started off in much this fashion. The colonists were chafing under the King's corrupt rule, and when they decided to break away, they formed the new country along the principles of the Enlightenment. England itself, being a powerful & rich country, could never have embarked on such a radical experiment in self-governance. Only when America became successful & started to present a shining example of what a representative form of government, explicitly founded on the principle of individual freedom, could do for its people, were similar movements in other countries able to influence them.
If I'm not mistaken, the British Parliament finally asserted its dominance over the King in the middle of the 19th century. (FR historians may want to jump in here...)
Very good point! I was about to say as much, including that Marxism looks more like the pre-Darwiniwn "Scala Naturae" [sp?] than Darwinism. I'm also glad you mentioned Hegel. He was the modern father of all the 20th century's philosophies of historical inevitability based on collectivism: Marxism, fascism, & Naziism. Very unlike non-teleological theories of evolution.
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.