Those Defensive Darwinists

The Seattle Times ^ | 11/21/05 | Jonathon Witt

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" I don't you can deny we all get hunches or flash of idea etc. some of it is helpful to lead us in the right direction and some can really mess you up.

When these things happen we will run it through our common sence, but sometimes we are prompted to seek beyond our reasoning...

This is a vital ingredience in all mankinds life!

Some of us become aware of that celestial realm and don't dismissed it like many Evols choose to do, which is to ignore that still small voice!

Their are angels/ghost among us taking place all the times some are friendly, some not too kind and even some are evil you can say these forces don't exist that is alright they will still do their thing!"

Thanks for, um, clearing that up. :)

[AndrewC]

Why do you accuse me of such a heresy and blasphemy?

Do you understand the English language? I accused you of no such thing. You however stoop to name-calling.

[Coyoteman]

Our evo-war canids are a mangy and decrepit bunch.

Except Coyoteman, of course.

[You left this out of your post.]

[Right Wing Professor]

[You left this out of your post.]

Uh, yeah, sure.

(I actually had you figured for half-hominid, half canid, anyway.)

[Coyoteman]

Now those kittens are CUTE! You will have lots of ZOT material in a while.

[starbase]

[So is the 'no-angels' concept of physics un-useful?]

Professor,
If we could go back in time to when you were very young, and I showed you this post and said in the future you were to write this, would you have believed me? :-)

[starbase]

[That's nice, but Marx' ideas were formulated before Darwin published.

1848 Communist Manifesto

1859 Origin of Species]

Old Karl was still scribbling away as late as 1870 when he wrote the second volume of Capital. He kept writing and working (bless his little heart) until his death on 14th March 1883. The Communist Manifesto was not his only influential work. He had plenty of time to incorporate Darwin's ideas, and I read he offered to dedicate Capital Vol. I to Darwin, who declined not wanting to offend his religious relatives.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"and I read he offered to dedicate Capital Vol. I to Darwin, who declined not wanting to offend his religious relatives."
You read wrong:

http://www.gruts.com/darwin/articles/2000/marx/index.htm

[PatrickHenry]

We discussed this in a thread a few days ago. Two points:

Marx's last work, Das Kapital, is the only thing he wrote and published after the world learned of Darwin and evolution. But Das Kapital doesn't mention either Darwin or evolution. No hint of any Darwinian influence.

Second, the tale about the offer of dedication has recently been revealed to be false. Someone will be along soon to post a link to that information.

[PatrickHenry]

See post 608. Have fun.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

That's 2 today. Next thing you know I'll be posting on all the major primes. :)

(of course, it probably just says I need to get a life lol)

[RunningWolf]

Like I said I read it just fine. As far as I am concerned there was/is no legitimate point you made so I did not even respond to it.

Your rhetorical logic (of better/worse greater/less based on google hits) is very poor. Why should I even dignify that with a response? I reject your inferences that is why.

I could go and make all sorts of logical connections based on your /google-hit/ logic, and I doubt you would like any of them.

In fact I just came back with hits of 65,900,000, 133,000 and 25,700, and no you wont like them. They are not goofy like your horse poop searches.

Wolf

[starbase]

["and I read he offered to dedicate Capital Vol. I to Darwin, who declined not wanting to offend his religious relatives."

You read wrong: ]

I read correctly, though the information may have been wrong.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I read correctly, though the information may have been wrong."

Fair enough.

[starbase]

["and I read he offered to dedicate Capital Vol. I to Darwin, who declined not wanting to offend his religious relatives."
You read wrong:

http://www.gruts.com/darwin/articles/2000/marx/index.htm]

I checked out the link. I'm not real comfortable with a template-built website named "www.gruts.com" as an authoritative source of information, it also has no outside links to the sources in its explanations, only one link the the Origin of Species.

It does have all the names and dates of the sources, though. I don't have time to hunt them down now, the site appears on the up and up, so I'll accept the explanation, but I have it on my to do list to verify all the source info.

[PatrickHenry]

I have it on my to do list to verify all the source info.

Try this link on the Darwin-Marx question, if you haven't seen it yet.

[AndrewC]

Interesting the twists of the internet.

This

Try this link on the Darwin-Marx question, if you haven't seen it yet.

leads to this

Further Reading:

Colp, Ralph Jr. 1982. The myth of the Darwin-Marx letter. History of Political Economy 14(4): 461-482.

Dawkins, Richard. 2000. There's more to books than titles. http://archive.workersliberty.org/wlmags/wl61/dawkins.htm

Which leads to this

by way of

I won't go on and on. If any readers were persuaded by Clive Bradley's ill-informed attack on The Selfish Gene, may I invite them to do what he apparently did not: struggle manfully past the title and actually read the book.

---

Back to the contents page for this issue of Workers' Liberty

Back to the Workers' Liberty magazine index

[ Home | Publications | Links ]

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

What part of realizing that a man is far more complex than a Rolex don't you understand. Evolution violates fundamental laws of nature. Devolving is the fundamental law of nature not the reverse.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both so much for your kind words and encouragements!

The objective of the article and my posts on this thread was to counsel that certain tactics are like a dagger with more poison in the handle than the point. Those who use such weapons work against themselves and will diminish. Conversely, the side which follows the Christian "rules of engagement" will surely increase:

But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And [that] they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. - 2 Timothy 2:23-26

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Evolution violates fundamental laws of nature."

That's hysterical!

"Devolving is the fundamental law of nature not the reverse."

If you are talking about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, you are in WAY over your head.