Quote:
Originally posted by dick:
<strong>
dk: It is ludicrous to equate science with doctrine. We should be able to agree on this point.</strong>
|
Sure, why not. What I don't agree with is that this "doctrine" that you refer to exists anywhere except your in imagination, and in that of other paranoid, delusional creationists. Things like cultural relativism, which you constantly refer to, have and continue to be popular among social scientists. Whether or not it deserves to be called a doctrine I'm not so sure, but either way it's entirely irrelevant to evolutionary biology. These points of view were neither derived from nor influenced by evolutoinary biology, and they would still exist even if evolution were disproven tomorrow. Your attempt to link evolution to some grand conspiracy to control the genesis of disparate social thought is, to put it mildly, absurd.
Quote:
dk: Sure, I benefit from science and doctrine.
|
Well, that's half right.
Quote:
I have no way of knowing to any degree of certainty how widely sociobiology was rejected amongst sociologists and anthropologists. To my knowledge nobody has ever polled them about the possibility, plausibility, impossibility or implausibility.
|
You could try, like, you know, looking in a text book? Text books always represent the prevailing point of view, and you can get an idea about what social scientists think by reading a good introductory text, or for that matter just reading a text on evolutionary psychology. If you're ignorant about a subject, you really shouldn't spout off about it. Here is an except from Eshlemam et al.,
Sociology 4th ed. The copyright date is 1993, not '89 or '90 like I originally thought:
Quote:
Most sociologists criticize the sociobiological viewpoint on the grounds that behavior varies greatly form culture to culture. Sexual behavior, for example, whether with the same sex or the opposite sex, varies enormously. Altruistic behavior also varies widely and is entirely lakcing in humans and monkeys who have been raised in isolation. As for warlike behavior, it is completely absent in many societies. According to Hoffman (1985), a specialist in the study of socialization, geneticists do not pay enough attention to environmental and socialization factors in their studies. Thus, when they draw conclusions from their studies, they do not know what effects the environment or socialization might have had.
In addition to the doubts of sociologists, many physiologists believe that there is no genetic basis for human behavior. Biological drives, or instincts, which are patterns of reflexes that occur in animals, are very powerful. Insects and birds perform many complex behaviors even when they have been reared in isolation. Honeybees perform complicated dances to show other bees where food is located, and birds build intricate nests in the same manner as others of their species, each without having had any environmental opportunities for learning. So far, no powerful, fixed, drives or instincts have been discovered in human beings. Humans who have been raised in isolation do almost nothing, as the Spitz study indicates.
|
Insofar as the above is a critique of old-school sociobiology, it may be spot on, but it really misses the mark when applied to current evolutionary psychological thought. But that's not the issue. The issue is that social scientists have given sociobiology short shrift, and it cannot be legitimately said to have a significant impact on the social sciences, culture, or policy. Also note that the entire section on sociobiology took up less than one page out of a 642 page book. Apparently someone forgot to tell these authors about their own god-head.
Quote:
|
Then, as now, the subject was controversial. Judging from the prominence of Laissez faire economics, separate but equal (de jure segregation) social policy, and the use of biometrics to organize the US War effort I’d have to say from 1890 to 1930 cultural determinism was blessed by the god-head.
|
Here again we have completely irrelevant ramble, and the attempt to link all sorts of unrealted subjects under one "god-head" that has inexplicably shifted from "evolutionism" to "cultural relativism". A few points:
<ol type="1">[*] Laissez-fair capitalism has nothing to do with cultural relativism. It does happen to be totally contrary to programs like those of the Great Society, so you simply contradict yourself when you blame both on the same thing.[*] Cultural relativism has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.[*] The "separate but equal" ruling also has nothing to do with culutral relativism -- it was left-over from the racist sentiments that go back to the earliest roots of the slave trade.[*]Biometrics, at least of the early 20th century variety, is the complete
opposite of cutural determiism. It was based on genetic determinism.[*] Cutural relativism was not popular in the 1930s and before -- it didn't become popular until much later during the 60's.[/list=a]
In other words, pretty much everything you said is wrong.
Quote:
That began to change because of the Great Depression. If FDR was an ideologue his ideology was pragmatism, and he apprenticed under the progressive machine politics of Tammany Hall (Al Smith). After WW II the god-head blessed cultural relativism giving birth to the Great Society under the tutelage of the Supreme Court.
|
More rambling, more irrelevancy. The Great Society was not based on cultural relativism, nor was anything that FDR did, nor does cultural relativism have anything to do with evolutionary biology.
Quote:
|
The Great Society failed to win the war on poverty, illiteracy, drugs or racism, so the god-head under Ronald Reagan began a trend towards cultural ecology. Lost in a historical synopsis of evolutionary doctrine is the affect of Christian doctrine upon the middle class working families.
|
More rambling, more egregious errors. Your bullshit about the Great Society is debunked <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9910.califano.html" target="_blank">here</a> if you're interested. A few other points:
<ol type="1">[*]The war on drugs was started by Nixon -- it had nothing to do with the Great Society.[*]Regan was a creationist and strongly allied with conservative Christians -- it strains all credibility to imagine that he was pushing "evolutionary doctrine", whatever that might be.[*] None of this, and I mean
none of it has anything whatsoever to do with evolutoinary theory.[/list=a]
Quote:
The middle class family was virtually decimated by social engineering enacted under the Great Society. You’re so wrapped up in evolutionism you can’t see past the god-head.
|
Or it could have been Reagan's economic policies. I'm not intereseted in your uninformed political ramblings, but it's obvious that your only soruce of information is creationist propaganda. Even if you weren't wrong, it would still be irrelevant. There is no such thing as a "god-head" of evolutionism. Johnson inacted the Great Society programs because he thought it was the right thing to do, even if it wasn't. He may have been influenced by liberal political thought, but he wasn't influenced by evolutionary theory any more than he was influenced by quantum mechanics. Why am I wasting my time with you?
Quote:
|
No, the doctrine of evolutionism exists in a body of concepts, structures and forms absent information. The doctrine of evolutionism imbues culture as the source of relativism, ecology and determinism, then shifts accordingly. No problem.
|
I'm going to say this again and I'm going to keep saying it: The doctrine of evolutionism is a figment of your imagination. It doesn't exist. Your attempts to show that it exists have up to this point been totally pathetic. All you've done is ramble on about this and that political movement, without providing the slightest hint of evidence that they were in any way linked to evolutionary thought. And if that's not bad enough, you try to link together completely opposite modes of thought, like lassiez-fair capitialism and the Great Society, which could not have possibly come from the same source.
Quote:
dk: I hate to disagree, but
[E.O Wilson quote deleted]
|
So you give a quote from E.O Wilson to demonstrate that Paul Ehrlich and Margaret Mead were driven by evolutionry theory?! Sometimes it helps to give a quote
from the people you're talking about! E.O. Wilson is an evolutionary biologist and the one who coined the term "sociobiology". Obviously,
he was influenced by evolutionary theory, but what does this have to do with Mead or Erhlich? BTW, Wilson has been much maligned by social scientists, which makes his position as "god-head" pretty unlikely.
Quote:
I’m not sure why you believe overpopulation has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. Margaret Mead said,...
|
The Mead quote fails to make your case in any sense whatsoever. She did not make even so much as a mention of evolutionary biology in that quote. Ditto with the Wyman quote. You are truly a waste of time.
Quote:
dk: - You have no point, my point all along has been that evolutionism is doctrine, irrelevant to science. You keep trying to justify evolutionary doctrine as essential to science, and you are failing miserably.
|
One small problem: evolutionism-as-a-doctrine does not exist. And if it did exist, it has had no impact on American politics or culture, except possibly the social darwinists and eugenecists of the early 20th century. I don't think that evolutoinary doctrine is essential to anything because I don't think it exists, and your attempts to convince me have been utterly pathetic. Evolutionary
biology, on the other hand, is essential to our understanding of the living world, whether you like it or not. Oddly enough, you make a distinction between so-called evolutionary doctrine and evolutionary science, but then you go right back and mix the two when convienient.
Quote:
|
dk: - I’m not making an arguments for or against Social Darwinism, Cultural Relativism, Cultural Determinism, biometrics, eugenics or the Great Society. I’m simply saying that evolutionism is a doctrine, not a science, and should be taught as a doctrine.
|
Whatever you might be describing, and I have no idea what it is (probably because it doesn't exist), it is not taught in schools. Instead, evolutionary biology is taught in schools. Happy?
Quote:
theyeti: Did Comte die around the 1850's, or did he help formulate logical positivism in the 1920's along with the rest of the Vienna circle? Very strange how someone used a philosophy that had not yet been thought of. The idea that "evolutionism", whatever figment of your imagination it might be, was adapted as the basis of all science strikes me as pretty silly. Please show me a non-creationist source that identifies this.
dk: I’ve already provided a source, Comte, Auguste (1798 - 1857): French philosopher, one of the founders of sociology.
|
Do you not see anything wrong with the above picture? First you tell us that Comte died around the time that Darwin wrote the
Origin. So far so good. Then you tell us that he was influenced by logical positivism, which did not exist until more than 60 years after his death. Now you tell us that the source for pegging the Vienna circle as the birth of "evolutionism" is Comte, who again died 60 years earlier. What did he do, rise from the grave, transcribe the proceedings of the Vienna circle, and send them back in time? I know, we mustn't start with naturalistic assumptions, but really.
Quote:
Post modernism began with the fall of the USSR around 1990.
|
Fool! Try <a href="http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_philosophy" target="_blank">looking this stuff up</a>, don't just guess at it!
Quote:
|
The Great Society of the 1960s was founded upon positive doctrines, but then so were communism, fascism, and the French Revolution.
|
You are very confused. Logical positivism, which was forumuated during the 1920's, has <a href="http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/logpos.htm#Before%20the%20Logical%20Positivism" target="_blank">little to do</a> with Comte's positivism. Given that the Frech Revolution took place in the 1790's, it's hard to swallow that Comte had anything to do with that either. (The French revolution was inspired by the Elightenment, just as the American revolution was.) Marx had formulated his own sociological theory of change: conflict theory. And I have no idea where you get the facist connection from.
Quote:
Evolutionism is a positive doctrine.
|
Since you're the one who's making it up, I guess it can be any sort of doctrine you please. Whatever it is, it must be schitzophrenic.
Quote:
|
Evolutionism provides a visceral link connecting the social sciences to hard sciences, where previously theology and metaphysics served.
|
No.
Quote:
The Supreme Court (SC) first used the power of judicial review to interpret the Constitution broadly as a secular in 1948. Historically, the 10th Amendment reserves to the states all powers not reserved to the Fed. Gov., and since neither education nor God are mentioned in the Constitution public education fell to the state and local governments.
|
The Constitution has always been interpreted as a secular document. What, do you think it's a religious document? Last I checked state and local governments are still in charge of education. And this has nothing, whatsoever to do with evolutionary theory.
Quote:
By interpreting the Constitutions as a positive document the Supreme Court censored religious doctrine, religious language, theology and metaphysics from public school campuses to create a “Religious free zone” ruled by the social sciences under the protection of the Fed. Gov.. Later this was broadly interpreted to cover the entire public square.
|
Total falsehood. Do you really think that people can't exercise their religous freedoms at school or in the public square? What's true is that religious groups can't take govenment money and resources to win converts to their cults, but they can practice their own religion anywhere they want. Obviously, you have swallowed the religious right-wing lies hook, line, and sinker. And this has nothing, whatsoever to do with evolutionary theory.
Quote:
In McCullum the SC recognized the social sciences as a primary source of law, and later expanded the powers of the Federal Government under the Authority of the Social Sciences. One can argue the SC always had the power to interpret the Constitution as a secular document, but didn’t exercise the power. Nonetheless the SC first interpreted the Constitution as a secular document in the mid 20th Century.
|
Perhaps you can show me where in that decision the SC ruled that the social sciences, and not the legislature, Constitution, or the judiciary was the primary source of law? Forgive me for being skeptical. And the SC has always interpreted the Constitution as secular because that's the only way it
can be interpreted. It just doesn't talk about religion at all, except prohibitively. And this has nothing, whatsoever to do with evolutionary theory.
Quote:
|
Evolution was taught in many public schools prior to the 1960s, even prior to the 1930s. The Scopes Trial was conducted in a Tennessee court not a federal court.
|
Not really. The fundies had outlawed teaching evolution almost everywhere, including Tennessee, whose prohibition remained in place well after Scopes. It wasn't until the National Academy of Sciences was asked in the 1960's to revamp the science cirriculum that evolution began to be taught in most public schools.
Quote:
If you recall many of FDR’s programs were struck down by the SC under the 10th Amendment. FDR responded with legislation to stack the court, and failed. By the end of WW II FDR had outlived his opposition, leaving in place a SC hand picked by FDR. Post WW II SC then expanded the powers of the Federal Gov. by interpreting the Constitution as a purely secular document.
|
Now all of the sudden, for
no good reason at all, you segue into FDR. What the hell does this have to do with anything? You are just rambling.
Quote:
A primary function of the social sciences has always been, and continues to be, to determine the source of specific social behaviors.
|
The prevailing thought has been that the mind is a "blank slate" that environment and culture can write upon. This is contrary to an evolutionary interpretation, which requires at least some behavior to have a genetic basis, and it totally contradicts your case. Face it: you don't know what you're talking about.
Quote:
The cultural determinists lean towards nature (biometrics)
|
No, they lean towards
culture as a determinant. Cutural determinism is essentially the same thing as environmental determinism. When people talk of "nature" as a determinant, they mean genetics. This
could be an evolutionary point of view, but it's soundly rejected by most social scientists. You simply have no case.
Quote:
and the relativists lean towards nurture (environment).
|
You do not understand what relativism means. It is not the same thing as environmental determinism.
Quote:
Cultural relativism, ecology and determinism are all doctrines. Relativism and Determinism have ruined so many people, ecology has become prominent, and in most aspects ecology walks the middle isle between the blue bloods and the mob. Lost in the war of doctrines between egg heads and special interest groups has been the middle class working family.
|
More rambling. You don't even know what these terms mean, so how do you know they've caused so much damage? Oh, by the way: this has nothing to do with evolution. You're going to have to do something more than just pick out random philosophies that you don't like and then use that as proof that "evolutionism" is a doctrine. There is simply no connection between those things and evolutionary biology, and you havne't even attempted to show such a connection, except through circurlar arguments that merely assume what you need to prove.
Quote:
dk: You say atomic, gravitation, and social theory have always accepted evolution, and I respond with historical facts that prove mathematics, physics, genetics, chemistry, biology, sociology and astronomy all existed before Darwin published his theory.
|
I said nothing of the sort -- you obviously lack even the silghtest semblance of reading comprehension skills (-- that would explain a lot). I simply made the point that social scientists generally accept evolution, along with other prevailing theories in the natural sciences. This is true. But they don't accept that evolutionary theory is relevant to their disciplines, which totally destroys your arugment that they have been unduly influenced by some sort of "evolutionist doctrine", whatever it is. I'm quite certain that atomic theory, gravity, and astronomy existed before Darwin -- why you think I said otherwise is beyond me.
Quote:
Do you want me to lie, do you actually believe lies can make people happy!!! I doubt it.
|
Creationism does.
Quote:
|
I haven’t called anyone a parrot, mud-slinger, moral inferior, liar, ignorant, loser, hypocritical or racist. I have been slandered by all these accusations for giving a simple rendition of the facts.
|
You're so-called facts are bullshit. You are totally clueless. And yes, you have effectively slandered all of us when you indirectly blame us, by supposedly supporting this "doctrine of evolution" that none of us have ever heard of, for facism, communism, lassiez-fair capitalism, the lack of lassiez-fair capitalism, and everything else that's wrong with society. You've got way more balls than brains to think that you don't piss people off when you lay the blame for the world's problems at their feet. Not only is it gut-wrenchingly stupid to think that all social problems are caused by one single demon that has mysteriously infected everyone, it's downright insulting to put us on the receiving end of your paranoid blame. You haven't been called half the dirty names you deserve.
Quote:
My only point is that some doctrines ruin people, while other doctrines inspire people; and modern science as known to Western Civilization was inspired by Christian Doctrine.
|
[insert sounds of hillarious, wild laughter]
BTW, which Doctrines would that be? The Doctrine of the Ressurection? Or maybe Original Sin?
Quote:
Evolutionism claims to have saved Western Civilization from ruin by Christianity, and therefore erects an impenetrable wall around Christian Doctrine.
|
[insert more laughter, then insert a *sigh*]
Quote:
I actually think Christian’s that adapt a doctrine hostile to science are the greatest hypocrites on the planet, precisely because such a doctrine misinforms truth. In my view the pursuit of intellectual truth requires an openness to contemplate new ideas and traditions that clarify human value, potential, innovation and history.
|
Well, at least we agree on something. Now do yourself a favor: go look in the mirror.
theyeti
[ September 29, 2002: Message edited by: theyeti ]</p>
09-29-2002, 10:19 AM
