Replies

Lets see.. Marxism and Psuedo-Marxism can be taught in Americas schools by Marxists and Psuedo-Marxists proudly and boldly(Berkely/Harvard).. but Intelligent Design cannot.. and God forbid Creationism is taught..

If Marxism is not a religion then what is it?..
Intelligent Design must be WORSE than Marxism..

Anybody know of where, when, any proponent of Marxism had the slightest problem with "Evolution"?.. Marxism and Marxists are always EXTREMELY active in "adjusting" what is taught in schools.. never has any Marxist had a problem with Evolution..

Must be because Marxists are so science oriented, and want science to be pure..
Ya think?.. On the other hand the reverse could be true.

You throw around the term Marxism pretty freely, tarring everyone you can. Here are a few definitions from google to ponder:

Marxism is a term used to refer to a hugely diverse set of social, economic, historical, philosophical and cultural theories, only some of them derived from the thought of German philosopher Karl Marx. Broadly speaking, marxist theories focus upon the inequalities of wealth which the capitalist economic system brings, and point to the effects of this exploitative system upon people and cultures. ...
Believes that the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary in the period between ousting Capitalism and the final development of Communism.
A theory of of socialism which states that the oppression of the working class by the "nobility" will eventually lead to a revolt by the workers and the establishment of a classless society.
the philosophical and sociological approach of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and their followers. History is seen as basically a series of class struggles, with classes being defined in terms of their relation to the means of production. He viewed the struggle of workers as a continuation of historical forces that would one day lead to communism. This would occur in three stages. The first stage was capitalism, in which the proletariat (workers) are exploited by capitalists (business owners). ...
a form of socialism and mode of analysis derived from the teachings of Karl Marx (1818–83). Marxism regards capitalism as an inherently unjust system with the capitalists (those who own the means of production) exploiting the proletariat (those who must sell their labour in order to live). It aims to replace capitalism with a fairer system, socialism maturing into communism.

Funny, I don't see evolution mentioned anywhere. Maybe I should go back and find some more definitions. Or maybe you could point some out?

If Marxism is not a religion then what is it?..

A political philosophy.

Thank you for your post!

There are indeed Marxists in the academia and in power over what will be taught both in the U.S. and around the world, e.g. Lewontin. But I suspect the objective of the education gate keepers is not usually political per se but rather philosophical. IOW, in an effort to “purify” science from outside influences by methodological naturalism, they have perhaps inadvertently empowered the political movements as well.

Methodological naturalism is simply “the idea that the mode of inquiry typical of the physical sciences will provide theoretical understanding of world, to the extent that this sort of understanding can be achieved. “ Stoljar, Daniel, "Physicalism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosoph

If that were the end of, it would be quite innocent. But the metaphysical naturalists take methodological naturalism as proof of their “faith”:

In utilizing methodological naturalism, science and history do not assume a priori that, as a matter of fact, supernatural causes don't really exist. There is no conceptual conflict between practicing science or history and believing in the supernatural. However, as several of our authors argue below (e.g., Augustine, Forrest, and Oppy), methodological naturalism would not be as stunningly successful as it has in fact been if metaphysical naturalism were false. Thus the de facto success of methodological naturalism provides strong empirical evidence that metaphysical naturalism is probably true. - Keith Augustine, “Naturalism”

Many of us notice the circular reasoning of metaphysical naturalism which claims authenticity because of the success of science using methodological naturalism, i.e. “no wonder, nature is the only place science looks for answers!”

Alfred Whitehead coined the term “scientific materialism” in describing the phenomenon:

As Whitehead himself explains, his "philosophy of organism is the inversion of Kant's philosophy … For Kant, the world emerges from the subject; for the philosophy of organism, the subject emerges from the world."

Significantly, this view runs counter to more traditional views associated with material substance: "There persists," says Whitehead, "[a] fixed scientific cosmology which presupposes the ultimate fact of an irreducible brute matter, or material, spread through space in a flux of configurations. In itself such a material is senseless, valueless, purposeless. It just does what it does do, following a fixed routine imposed by external relations which do not spring from the nature of its being. It is this assumption that I call 'scientific materialism.' Also it is an assumption which I shall challenge as being entirely unsuited to the scientific situation at which we have now arrived."

The assumption of scientific materialism is effective in many contexts, says Whitehead, only because it directs our attention to a certain class of problems that lend themselves to analysis within this framework. However, scientific materialism is less successful when addressing issues of teleology and when trying to develop a comprehensive, integrated picture of the universe as a whole. According to Whitehead, recognition that the world is organic rather than materialistic is therefore essential, and this change in viewpoint can result as easily from attempts to understand modern physics as from attempts to understand human psychology and teleology. Says Whitehead, "Mathematical physics presumes in the first place an electromagnetic field of activity pervading space and time. The laws which condition this field are nothing else than the conditions observed by the general activity of the flux of the world, as it individualises itself in the events."

The end result is that Whitehead concludes that "nature is a structure of evolving processes. The reality is the process." - Irvine, A. D., "Alfred North Whitehead", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

So we find ourselves in a political quandary where those who would proliferate methodological naturalism reinforce those who would proliferate metaphysical naturalism who likewise reinforce those with a true political agenda. Lurkers who doubt this might wish to explore the infidels.org website and all its political activisms.

One of the most obvious political ramifications of metaphysical naturalism is equal rights for and as animals. This is the basis of Singer’s assertion that parents ought to be able to kill their offspring within a few months or a year after birth. Likewise is the political initiative which says that children should be able to “off” their parents when they become a cause of suffering to the children. Animals do this – culling the runts and the lame. Likewise it follows that, in the absence of an absolute moral code, anything goes – whether homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality and so on.

IMHO, the bright line political battleground centers on the litigation involving the separation of church and state. The First Amendment allows both for freedom of religion and that congress will not establish a state religion. At the moment, from the decision in the 7^th which was based on a litany of past USSC decisions, atheism is seen as a religion if it is promoted. The legal theory may turn on whether the state has established atheism as a religion in the education system.

Anyway, that’s my “two cents”…

Anybody know of where, when, any proponent of Marxism had the slightest problem with "Evolution"?..

Stalin.

His problem wasn't with evolution per se, just with Darwin's theory.

He sent Soviet biologists to the Gulag unless they subscribed to the Lysenko version of Lamarckism. AFAIK, Russian biology hasn't recovered yet.