ps418

Evolutionism=theory changes to fit the evidence? Well yes, theories in science are continually revised in the face of new evidence. This is one of the aspects of evolution theory that makes it scientific, rather than, say, ID, which is consistent with any evidence.

tgamble

And the problem with this is what exactly? Theories change to fit the evidence.

Creationism of course doesn't change. It just ignores, distorts or lies about the evidence.

Bubba

The very fact that science adapts to new evidence is a strength, not a weakness.

Bubba

theyeti

No, it wasn't off-topic. This claim of your is what you're using to support the notion that there is this widespread "doctrine of evolutionism" that has apparently infected our culture. This is what all of your silly claims have eminated from, and it's ludicrous.

BTW, there is no reason to define sociology or sociobiology, or to cut-and-paste some oversimplified bio about Comte or Mead. I am quite familiar with these people and concepts. You on the other hand could benefit from some actual learning about these things that goes beyond the superficial, since you seem to know nothing about them other than you're own backwards intuitions.

The fact remains thus: Sociobiology was widely rejected by social scientists of all types, especially sociologists and anthropologists. If you find a mention of it in any social science text book prior to the 90s, it will be negative and dismissive. In fact, it got such a bad reaction that it has since been renamed in different forms, like evolutionary psychology, whose methodology has been much more careful, and has thus gained some acceptance. But it's still very controversial. This doesn't bode well for your claim that "evolutionism" stands as a "god head" over the social sciences. And why you think that merely defining the terms will somehow make your case for you is beyond me.

Okay, so now the "docrine of evolutionism" didn't exist before the 1990s? I guess that means that it couldn't have had anything to do with the Great Society programs back in the 60's, as stupid as that claim is anyway.

BTW, you should really back up your claims with relevant information rather than mere assertion. That the social sciences try to find some grounding in physical reality has nothing to do with evolution, and sounds non-controversial anyway.

Hint to jackass: Ehrich's Population Bomb and the work of Mead have nothing, whatsoever to do with evolutionary biology. Nor do they have anything to do with the mere concept of evolution, except possibly Ehrlich. But this was really just ecology, from which we knew before Darwin that populations increase exponentially until they start to run out or resources. And why you would call it "ruinous" is beyond me. The most ruinous thing that came out of it was focusing people's attention to population issues, which is a good thing, because world population is still growing exponentially, just like it was back in 1968 when Ehrlich wrote his book.

And what does this have to do with Margaret Mead? Again, nothing whatsoever. Cultural relativism is not germane to the science of evolutionary biology, nor can I even think, by any stretch of the imagination, why evolutionary biology would lead one to that conclusion. Mead, like her contemporaries, did not think evolution relevant to the study of human social behavior. In fact, present day evolutionary psychologists reject Mead's findings (as you noted before, in seeming approving of Mead) because they start with the premise that natural selection causes human beings to have innate behavioral tendancies.

The supposed connection between Mead and Ehrlich is even more baffling.

This is irrelevant because you have been talking about 20th century and present day social scientists, who worked in an age where evolution was well accepted. What Comte thought or didn't think about evolution is as irrelevant as what Darwin thought. Things have moved on.

Also irrelevant. I was making the point that social scientists readily accept the prevailing theories of the natural sciences. What they haven't accepted is that evolutionary theory is relevant to the study of human behavior and society. You haven't really disputed that, you've just danced around it.

Quote:

and 3) FDR didn’t author the Great Society programs of the 1960s.

Whoops, I was thinking of the New Deal. It makes no difference -- you're agument fails either way. Johnson was no more influenced by "evolutionist doctrine" than FDR was. There is no such thing as "evolutionist doctrine". Not then and not now. The closest thing was the social darwinists of the early 20th century -- but they championed conservative causes, and would have been staunchly against both the New Deal and the Great Society. In fact, social darwinist type arguments have been common among conservatives for a long time, though now they typically use the Bible to justify their greed, since it can be used to justify anything. To claim that "evolutionist doctrine" was responsible for the Great Society programs is laughably ignorant. If anything, it was the other way around.

Let's try to keep your story straight. 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. And I don't mean just that they accepted evolution -- most educated people did back then, as they do now. It's pretty irrelevant anyway, because positivism is no longer the dominant theme in philosophy. Starting in the 1960s (remember, the Great Society?) it was post-modernism. Philosophers may radically alter their way of looking at the world, but science hasn't changed its methodologies very much, and pointing to what this or that philosopher did hardly establishes your claims that this "evolutionist doctrine" is pervading our society. You are in the unique position of arguing that it has done so because of logical positivism and apparently has done so despite the fact that positivism went out of favor after the 50s. In fact, social scientists over the last 40 years have been far more influenced by post-modernist philosophy than they have by evolutionary science. I'm afraid you don't have much of a consistent case here.

The Consitution has always been a secular document, and has always been recognized as such. Where in it are the words "God" or "Jesus"? And just what the fuck does this have to do with evolution?

The term "wall between Church and State" was coined by Thomas Jefferson. And evolution was not taught in public schools prior to the 1960s when the country woke up to the fact that it was falling behind the Soviets in scientific achievement. Teaching evolution was merely a part of a sweeping educational reform that sought to improve science education. And by "evolutionists" you would have to be referring to the whole of the scientific community, since by this time there were no serious scientific doubts about its validity. Thus the public schools began teaching proper science for the first time. That's when the "scientific creationism" movement began. The Supreme Court rulings that found that teaching Creationism is a violation of Chuch/State separation did not come about until the 80s. Evolutionary biology is taught in science classes because it is a widely accepted scietific theory -- creationism has been soundly rejected. Given that you make a distinction between evolutionary science and "evolutionism", whatever that is, this shouldn't bother you one bit.

I did not note that it had undergone a reformation, only that at such a late date the social sciences were still rejecting evolutionary interpretations of human nature, contrary to your ignornant assertion that it has stood as a "god head" over the social sciences since the 1960s (or the 1920s, or the 1850's -- who knows). Cultural relativism is still very popular among the social sciences. And cultural ecology, or the emphasis on cultural determinants of behavior, is very much contrary to approach taken by evolutionary psychologists, who seek to find commonalities in human social behavior that exist regardless of culture. You are just proving my point for me.

No, you're just ignorant and gullible. There is no such thing as a "doctrine of evolutionism". There is evolutionary biology, and that's it. I asked you for some evidence that there is this widespread ideology that has apparently infected the social sciences, politics, and you name it. You provided no evidence -- you just reasserted what in my eyes is an outrageously stupid claim. This whole "doctine of evolutionism" bullshit is a boogey-man invented by creationists who can't come to grips with the fact that they clearly lost the scientific argument -- decades ago. So they resort to lies, slander, and guilt-by-association tactics -- the most despicable kind of mud-slinging, and especially hypocritical coming from people who posture themselves as being morally superior. And now you come here and parrot them, you effectively call us all racists and blame us for everything wrong with society, and you wonder why you get a cold reception. Go troll somewhere else.

theyeti

dk

dk: If this quote is to be taken literally in the context presented, Wittgenstein obviously had a problem with free speech, how did he feel about the free press?
dk: - I understand science to explains things that exist. You seem to be under the impression science explains things that don’t exist. Creationism is a doctrine that says, “the universe did not exist, and then was created”. Evolutionism says the universe was created in a Big Gang. Perhaps you can explain it to me, but both doctrines appear to line up.
dk: - See there you again misrepresenting doctrine as science. Creationism is doctrine.
dk: - Very good, Norse mythology is also a source of doctrine. But his hardly serves as a creation story because it begins with ice, flame, a frost giant. As doctrine goes I could easily equate the Frost Giant to a Neanderthal Snow Yeti that migrated to Africa during an Ice Age, then adapted to warmer climates as the Ice Age retreated. It is very difficult to disprove doctrine, except as the ruin of people.
dk: I think its good to provoke thought, but wrong to misrepresent doctrine as science under the seal of government. Why? Because doctrine isn’t science. Clearly mythology like “isms”, epoch battles, epoch romances, epoch fiends and epoch friends are also a source of doctrine. Seems to me doctrine serves to provoke thought.

[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

dk

Think bubba,
Science finds the concepts, structures and forms in the subject being studied.

Doctrine finds the evidence in the concepts, structures and forms absent information.

The strenght of science follows from reliable results applied across a depermined spectrum.

The strength of doctrine follows from the development of human dignity and potential. In a sense doctrines aren't true or false, but a source of beauty and inspiration. Doctrines of evil ruin people, and doctrines of good inspire people.

galiel

dk, do you have an actual point?
If so, can you state it clearly in a short post?

dk

<ol type="1">[*]theyeti: No, it wasn't off-topic. This claim of your is what you're using to support the notion that there is this widespread "doctrine of evolutionism" that has apparently infected our culture. This is what all of your silly claims have eminated from, and it's ludicrous.
dk: It is ludicrous to equate science with doctrine. We should be able to agree on this point.[*]theyeti: BTW, there is no reason to define sociology or sociobiology, or to cut-and-paste some oversimplified bio about Comte or Mead. I am quite familiar with these people and concepts. You on the other hand could benefit from some actual learning about these things that goes beyond the superficial, since you seem to know nothing about them other than you're own backwards intuitions.
dk: Sure, I benefit from science and doctrine.[*]theyeti: The fact remains thus: Sociobiology was widely rejected by social scientists of all types, especially sociologists and anthropologists. If you find a mention of it in any social science text book prior to the 90s, it will be negative and dismissive. In fact, it got such a bad reaction that it has since been renamed in different forms, like evolutionary psychology, whose methodology has been much more careful, and has thus gained some acceptance. But it's still very controversial. This doesn't bode well for your claim that "evolutionism" stands as a "god head" over the social sciences. And why you think that merely defining the terms will somehow make your case for you is beyond me.[*]dk: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.[/list=a]
dk: 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.
dk: I hate to disagree, but
-----
“Thus biodiversity studies are both scientific in nature, a branch of pure evolutionary biology, and applied studies, a branch of biotechnology. Two events during the past quarter-century brought biodiversity to center stage and encouraged the deliberately hybrid form of its analysis. The first was the recognition that human activity threatens the extinction of not only a few “star”
species such as giant pandas and California condors, but also a large fraction of all the species of plants and animals on earth. “
---- Edward O. Wilson : Pellegrino University Research Professor and : Honorary Curator in Entomology at Harvard University
“Global Climate Change and Life on Earth focuses on the greenhouse effect and its relation to such crucial issues as deforestation, overpopulation and hunger, pollution, sea-level changes, and the loss of biodiversity. These environmental threats now facing us could have so much momentum that unless steps are taken now to reverse them, they may soon overwhelm our ability to respond.” -----from the back cover. Wyman, Richard L. (ed.). 1991. Global Climate Change and Life on Earth.
Chapman and Hall. New York, New York.
-----
I’m not sure why you believe overpopulation has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. Margaret Mead said, “I would indeed criticize many parts of the academic community today for failing to do research on critical problems, as well as for failing to alert the public to issues on which members of certain disciplines have special competence, such as the hazards of radiation; the dangers of air, water and land pollution; and the vital necessity of controlling urban growth and overpopulation. But I would also induct those members of the academic community who speak out without special competence or who substitute political passion or individual conscience for the competence they are believed to have.”
----- <a href="http://www.mit.edu/~saleem/ivory/ch10.htm" target="_blank"> Margaret Mead </a> : Anthropologist (1901 – 1978) : June, 1967. From Margaret Mead, Some Personal Views (Excerpts from writings: compiled by Saleem H. Ali)
dk: - Hey, I didn’t bring it up you said, “The social sciences have always accepted evolutionary theory along with atomic theory and gravitational theory”. Obviously the social sciences didn’t always accept evolutionary theory, because the social sciences existed before evolutionary theory was a science. Ditto for Atomic Theory that dates back to Daniel Bernoulli 1700-1782. You are making my case buddy. As a well educated young guy, you give an awful lot of credit to evolutionism it doesn’t merit.
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.
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. .
dk:. I’ve already provided a source, <a href="http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=387207&secid=.-" target="_blank"> Comte, Auguste </a> (1798 - 1857): French philosopher, one of the founders of sociology. In his historical study of the progress of the human mind, he discerned three phases: the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive. He argued that only the last phase survives in mature sciences. Comte's positivist philosophy attempted to define the laws of social evolution and to found a genuine social science that could be used for social reconstruction. Major works include his Cours de philosophie positive (1830-42) and Système de politique positive (1851-4). ---- The Oxford English Reference Dictionary, © Oxford University Press 1996
Post modernism began with the fall of the USSR around 1990. The Great Society of the 1960s was founded upon positive doctrines, but then so were communism, fascism, and the French Revolution.
To my knowledge logical positivism since the 1920s has been in favor, and since 1950 theology and metaphysics were bastardized as gibberish. When I say the US Constitutions was first interpreted as a purely secular document around 1950, that means interpreted an exclusive positive document. Evolutionism is a positive doctrine.
dk: Evolutionism provides a visceral link connecting the social sciences to hard sciences, where previously theology and metaphysics served. 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. 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. 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.
dk: 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. 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.
dk: A primary function of the social sciences has always been, and continues to be, to determine the source of specific social behaviors. The cultural determinists lean towards nature (biometrics) and the relativists lean towards nurture (environment). 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.

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. Do you want me to lie, do you actually believe lies can make people happy!!! I doubt it. 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. 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. Evolutionism claims to have saved Western Civilization from ruin by Christianity, and therefore erects an impenetrable wall around Christian Doctrine. 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. Agnostics, neo-pagans, monists and atheists that adapt a doctrine hostile to Christians are also hypocrites, but to a much lesser degree.

[ September 29, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

ps418

You creationists say the funniest things! Where do you get all of this insane, paranoid drivel anyway?

dk

1) The evidence for doctrine is contained in concepts, structures and forms absent information.
2) The evidence for science is contained in the subject matter.

Evolutionsim and Creationism are both doctrines, therefore should both be taugh as doctrines that require a person's acccent (conviction).

Science on the other hand knows only material facts that can be demonstrated impersonally, and irrefutably therefore should be taught as certain.