A stupid theory is one thing; a stupid theory which gets 100 million people killed is something else. Chuck's theory, aside from being idiotic in and of itself, was the most major philosophical foundation of naziism and communism. Moreover, the prime motivation for the general acceptance of Chuck's theory appears to have had to do with the drug-dealing proclivities of the British empire in the 1800's.
In forming a judgement of evolutionism, you must at some point consider the circumstances under which it arose and the most probable set of reasons for its rise to dominance.
You've heard of the Medelin Cartel, El Pino, Pablo Escobar, the Pagans, and all of the other drug dealers of our times. The truth is, all together they probably don't add up to a hill of beans compared to the operations of the British empire in the 19'th century. At least one major eastern city was set up for no other reason than to serve as a conduit for Indian opium into China and an entire war was fought to protect the opium trade.
Now, you don't need to be Albert Einstein to comprehend that for a supposedly Christian nation to be engaging in this sort of business must have created at least two problems on an organizational level. One was the question of motivating men to fight and die for such causes: "For God, Bonnie Queen Vickie, and the Opium Trade, CHARGE!!!!!!" probably wouldn't get it...
The other problem which springs to mind immediately would be that which the CEO or chairman of the board of the East India Company must have faced in conducting board meatings. Picture it:
"Gentlemen, I have some good news, and I have some bad news. The good news is that profits are up 73.2% on a volume of trade which has increased 27% over the same three-month period last year, and that all of our operations appear to be running smoothly. Indigenous peoples of India, Burma, China, and several other areas with a propensity to cause problems are now happily stoned out of their minds on our products, and are causing no further trouble.""The bad news is that we're all probably going to spend the next 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years roasting on a barbecue pit for this shit..."
Now picture Chuck Darwin walking into this scene and telling all of these people that they're sitting around worrying over nothing, and that the only moral law in nature is "The Survival of the Fittest". Can you not see all of those peoples' eyes lighting up, their hair standing straight up, and somebody screaming "By Jove, I think he's got it?"
I mean, it doesn't even matter what led Darwin to devise the theory of evolution. In any normal time or set of circumstances, he'd have either been laughed to scorn, hanged, or burned. He succeeded precisely because he solved several major problems for the Godfathers of 100 years ago. In other words, there's more than a little truth to my claim that someone has to be stoned to buy off on this BS.
891 posted on 7/11/02 12:23 AM Eastern by gore3000
To: VadeRetro
Stop the endless blather, stop talking about the guys[sic] intentions, the guys[sic] beliefs, the guys[sic] agenda.
I'd say it's obvious, happens in every system you can observe that I'm aware of, and has been proven by experiment and real-world experience, as I've noted.
You, I think it's proven, have other reasons for attacking Darwin. Reasons that have nothing to do with his theory. You agree with the specifics of the theory, but insult the man and anyone who admits to believing in the theory.
It appears you do this because you're actually advancing another agenda. You believe you have evidence that Man did not 'evolve'. So you attempt to discredit the entire theory of evolution, even tho you believe it's specifics.
This leads you to outright manufacture evidence, like with that pic of the big rock. Or in this case, misrepresenting the results of the fruit fly experiment.
Now I'm a big science fiction fan, so I read your posts enthusiastically. I love a good, unusual theory. But your definition of 'evidence' and mine are so different that there's no chance we could ever have a meaningful discussion about your other theories.
The only meaningful exchange we can have is me pointing out that you *do* believe in the specifics of evolution.
Then cognitive dissonance will set in.
Consciously, you can easily ignore me. But you brain is aware of the dichotomy. You will have to resolve the problem. You will think about it subconsciously. You're a human, you can't help it.
It's that point -- a bunch of small changes always equals a big change. Can't ignore it, even if you blindly deny it. The 'micro' v. 'macro' difference is only a matter of timespan.
That's interesting, to me. When faced with believing two ideas that contradict each other, some people freak out. Some people change their minds. Some people become morbidly depressed.
I'm curious how the various individuals will deal with this dichotomy.
Longing for the good ol' days when you could just kill someone who holds a different view, huh? I've kind of always suspected you had a little Torquemada in you.