theyeti

He's also ignored the point that I made much earlier that evolutionary theory has had virtually no impact on the social sciences until very recently. This pretty much negates his whole argument. The social sciences have always accepted evolutionary theory along with atomic theory and gravitational theory, but they have long held that it's irrelevant to human behavior and society. I suppose part of it is the backlash against the social darwinists of the early 20th century, but mostly it's their tendancy to empahsize environment over biology. I think they took it too far, and for a long time have ignored a potentially fruitful avenue of research. My sociology text from 1989 (or 1990) specifically disavowed that human beings have any inborn tendancies at all. And yet, dk assures us that evolution is the "god head" that stands over the social sciences. And we have the equally ludicrous statement that "evolutionism" was somehow responsible for the Great Society programs of the FDR administration (correction: the failed Great Society programs, since we all know that these programs have been abandoned and are no longer politically popular!). Someone's been reading too much creationist propaganda.

Where is this "evolutionist" doctrine that we keep hearing about? I have a degree in biology and have been in grad school for a few years. I've looked for the commisars but haven't found any. I have yet to hear any of my professors tell me what I should think politically or try to persuade me one way or the other on any matters of religous doctrine. On the other hand, in the writings of absolutely every so-called creation scientist, you will see cover to cover polemics. Hypocrisy was not just an ancient Greek doctor, you know.

theyeti

Xixax

You didn't point out -anything- of the sort. You made the silly assertion that because bats and birds have wings that we would assign them as transitional to each other. That is -not- how it would work! There are so many other differences ( bones hollow/not hollow, etc. etc. etc. etc. ) that they would never have that happen. Also, they are both contemporary to each other.

Regardless, it's obvious you're understanding of evolution is heavily biased and clouded with some other idealogical belief system.

Table manners are not dependent on gravity. Unless you think the minute an astronaut starts a meal he just makes a complete mess of himself. You're stretching here, and it doesn't help.

The point was that evolution is a part of science based on evidence just as gravity is. There is -no- cultural link that is not forced on it by others. Teaching evolution sticks to the fact of descent with modification. If you think otherwise, I'd like to see the course.

That assessment required no phsycic powers, only reading your posts.

I'm sorry, did you have a point relating to evolution in there some where?

Or here?

Margaret Mead != Evolution. College biology classes do not use her works as text books. You're consistently confusing works relating to cultural issues with biology.

At this point you're starting to leave the focus of this forum. It was moved here because you seemed to want to discuss evolution, and now you want to shift back to cultural issues. Please, make a real point.

Educational crisis is due to lazy children, bred by lazy parents. The percentage of birth to unmarried mothers is now on the decline. Prison populations are getting larger, but so are the number of laws that place them there. Perhaps if we would stop focusing on just the punishment phase of crime and work on prevention we wouldn't have those issues.

Again though, I can't see a single thing that points to evolution. "Yo man, lets go hit that liquor store since today I learned we have a common ancestor with apes."

*shrug*

I think you're referring to my words "results in speciation". I was referring to your response to Darwin's finches as proof of "micro-evolution", even though there are different species. The same with drosophilia I would assume. Becuase you consider them the same kind of creature, the speciation doesn't count.

No it doesn't! You can't be this dense. Evolution has NO OPINION on any of those issues. None. It is a biological science concerned with natural processes.

..... Ok, I'm going to clarify something I believe may have been clear to most.

Hamster: Stupid mammal that frantically runs in a million directions with no real objective.

You = person who frantically posts long winded, multi-faceted essays with no real point or evidence.

So, even though you use certain words in an attempt to sound intelligent, the substance of your posts is still nonsense. You are a hamster with a dictionary and thesaurus.

*sigh*

Doubting Didymus

This is the only thing you wrote that was any kind of answer to my questions, so I will focus briefly on this.

In order for this to be true, it is up to creationists to prove that creationism is, in fact, a source of good theory (read: supported by actual evidence). It is also their responsibility to show that evolution is dogmatic in any way. This would also require appeals to real evidence, since there is nothing dogmatic in clinging to a given idea, when the evidence suggests that that idea is true.

I suggest that creationism is not any better supported by evidence than leprechauns are, so referring to creationism in science schools would simply mean saying: "creationism is a source of theory and hypothesis, but they are either unscientific or they are falsified by evidence, so it's really not science at all. Now on to rat dissections."

If you feel that there is any evidence for creationism, you have come to the right place to let us all in on it.

dk

• Xixax: You didn't point out -anything- of the sort. You made the silly assertion that because bats and birds have wings that we would assign them as transitional to each other. That is -not- how it would work! There are so many other differences ( bones hollow/not hollow, etc. etc. etc. etc. ) that they would never have that happen. Also, they are both contemporary to each other.
  Regardless, it's obvious you're understanding of evolution is heavily biased and clouded with some other idealogical belief system.
  dk: Punctuated equilibrium, a widely accepted theory of evolution, explains the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. I don’t argue evidence. In science the subject contains the evidence, for example a gram of H20 contains 2 hydrogen atoms for every 1 oxygen atom; and the proportions are deducible from the atomic weights; ditto for geology, physics, math,,, etc... With doctrine the concepts, structures and forms are the evidence absent any information; hence irreducible. The evidence of a false Doctrine follows from the ruination of it’s subject. When the USSR fell, the doctrine of command style communism was blamed Russia’s ruin. Likewise, when Heaven’s Gate, Jonestown, and the Branch Davidians members committed mass suicide their ruination became evidence of a false doctrine. Scientism, idealism, rationalism, empiricism, racism, nationalism, capitalism, communism, and nihilism are all sources of doctrine, any word suffixed with “ism” means a source of doctrine. Evolutionism and Creationism are doctrines (not science). I assert that evolutionism ruins people by turning them into animals deprived of dignity, purpose, freedom, liberty and truth. That’s why so many people are hot about public schools promulgating evolutionism. Evolutionism has nothing to do with the science of evolution.
• Xixax:- - You continue to post relentlessly on the 'cultural benefits' of evolution. Perhaps you would like to explain to me what cultural benefits gravity has displayed? In what way has gravity shaped the morality of our youth?
  dk: - Gravity shapes everything from toilets to table manners, as anyone with a spotted shirt, blouse or trousers will confirm.
  Xixax: Table manners are not dependent on gravity. Unless you think the minute an astronaut starts a meal he just makes a complete mess of himself. You're stretching here, and it doesn't help.
  dk: Stretching, my response? The table and toilet mannerisms of astronauts would get someone kicked out of most earthbound restaurants. Alas the was a feeble attempt at humor. But in fact as an elementary force of nature gravity subsumes all human conduct.
• Xixax: The point was that evolution is a part of science based on evidence just as gravity is. There is -no- cultural link that is not forced on it by others. Teaching evolution sticks to the fact of descent with modification. If you think otherwise, I'd like to see the course.
  dk: The evidence of gravity follows from mass, whereas the evidence for evolutionism follows from concepts, structure and forms. Science produces certain facts about some event, while words suffixed wit ‘ism’ are a source of doctrine, and doctrine produces conviction by means of indoctrination.
• Xixax: In your case, you dislike evolution, not because the evidence is lacking, but because:
  dk: Your psychic abilities are impressive, how
  long did they take to evolve?
  Xixax: That assessment required no phsycic powers, only reading your posts.
  dk: I don’t dislike evolutionism, I dislike doctrine misrepresented as science.
• dk: Civil Rights Law is based on a version of Cultural Relativism gleamed from anthropology from the 1930-40s. Its like building a Boeing 767 with propellers, it just ain’t gunna fly.
  Xixax: I'm sorry, did you have a point relating to evolution in there some where?
  dk: I offer, “In either of its senses, culture may be thought of as a causal agent that affects the evolutionary process by uniquely human means. For it permits the self-conscious evaluation of human possibilities in the light of a system of values that reflect prevailing ideals about what human life ought to be. Culture is thus an indispensable device for increasing human control over the direction in which our species changes.” ----- <a href="http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=551731&secid=.-" target="_blank"> The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, © Oxford University Press 1995 </a> My entire theme has been that creationism is a escape goat for social engineering under the guise of evolutionary science. The public resistance to the science of evolution follows from social engineering justified under the guise of evolutionism by secular proponents. Creationism is not a threat to the science of evolution, it’s not even a science, but evolutionism poses a serious threat. The correct response to Creation Science is to call it a source of doctrine, and ditto for evolutionism. Schools are established to teach science. I have no problem with schools teaching doctrine, but I do have a problem with government schools teaching doctrine as science. The Founding Fathers didn’t establish a government of science, I believe they called it a political experiment based on the doctrine that assumed all men are created equal and endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights... Evolutionism is a source of doctrine that concieves of evolution as the Creator. But of course this has nothing to do with science.

Rimbok Stacker-Waddy

Ludwig Wittgenstein had a wonderful response to metaphysical bullshit as is exemplified by the outpourings from most Christian creationists: "That of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence."

Was he just trying to be an irritiating smart ass?

Probably, but the validity of his statement remains. Any theory, or proposition the opposite of which may be equally true or false lies outside of the realm of meaningful discourse and is therefore unanswerable. Creation therory can be neither proved nor disproved so it is pointless to discuss it.

However, the social phenomenon of Creation Theory can most certainly be discussed and even the most superficial investigation will reveal ties between it and the forces of statutory Evil that depend upon the propagation of irrelevance to maintain ideological control over the Artisans of Materialism whose support is itself a pre-requisite for their continued hegemony.

Perhaps a way in to the minds of the imbeciles that "believe" in creationism is to begin a discussion on the alternative theories.

According to Norse mythology: "Burning ice, biting flame; that is how live began. Ymir was a frost giant; evil from the first. While he slept, he began to sweat. A man and a woman grew out of ooze under his left armpit, and one of his legs fathered a son on the other leg. As more of the ice in Ginnungagap melted, the fluid took the form of a cow, She was called Audumla. Ymir fed off the for rivers of milk that coursed from her teats, and Audumla fed off the ice itself. She licked the salty blocks and by evening of the first day a mans hair had come out of the ice. Audumala licked more and by the evening of the second day a man's head had come. Audumla licked again and by the evening of of the third day a whole man had come. His name was Buri." (source: The Norse Myths by Kevin Crossley Holland.)

I find this version of creation theory infinitely more thought provoking and interesting as a topic for discussion than the pathetic Christian attempt.

I would suggest challenging them with this version and taking it from there. .......

ps418

According to Steve Gould, one of the two paleontologists who first proposed PE:

Which is your excuse for misreperesenting punctuated equilibrium: deception, or just stupidity?

Yes, we can see that.

[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

dk

dk: - I ignored the statement because it was off topic.
The current doctrine of evolutionism, scientific history, human development, sociology and culture since 1990 attempt to ground the social sciences in the physical world precisely because the earlier version under the tutelage (1940-70s) of the Population Bomb (Paul Ehrlich), and the cultural relativism of Margaret Mead had proven hopelessly unreliable, unsustainable and ruinous. Evolutionism however then, as now, provides the connective tissue to link many sciences into one whole.
dk: - That’s hard to swallow since 1) Comte (father of the social sciences) died about the same time Darwin published his theory and 2) there is no single theory of gravity but several competing theories and 3) FDR didn’t author the Great Society programs of the 1960s. Technically the modern social sciences were founded by Auguste Comte on a system of philosophy called positivism. Comte argued that human knowledge progressed in three stages to a mature science, 1) theology, 2) metaphysical and 3) positive. Evolutionism was later adapted (1920s Vienna Circle) as the basis upon which to unite all the sciences upon a positive hegemony. In the mid 20 Century the Supreme Court interpreted the US Constitution as secular document (McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)) to erect an impenetrable wall between Church and State literally giving evolutionists a monopoly over public education. As you noted theyeti, even since 1989 the social sciences have undergone a reformation, from1950-80 cultural relativism dominated, since the end of the Cold War cultural ecology has become the dominant theme. Evolutionism however remains the connective tissue.
cultural ecology: This term, coined by J. Stewart (1955), describes the study of the relationship between nature and culture in human societies. One extreme view, that of environmental determinism, sees nature as the major control; the other extreme postulates the dominance of culture over nature, and there are many intermediate views. Cultural ecology is thus the study of the interactions of societies with one another and with the natural environment, and as such is a branch of cultural anthropology. More recent perspectives have stressed that societies are composed of individual persons acting within given structures, such as societal constraints. <a href="http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=608861&secid=.-" target="_blank"> Oxford University Press, © </a>
dk: Biology is a science, and I have stated again and again creationism is a doctrine, but because I also call evolutionism (which has nothing to do with evolutionary science or biology) a doctrine I’ve been called everything a hamster, racist, religious fanatic, and a fascist. Unfortunately because evolutionism is taught as a science I’ve committed a sin against science.

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

dk

I didn't misquote Gould, nor have I argued creationism should be taught as a science. I have argued it is wrong to teach creationism or evolutionism as a science.

ps418

No, you didn't misquote him. You just misrepresented his theory by saying that it explains the absence of transitional fossils, when in fact both proponents of the theory have pointed to many examples of such.

Evolution-ism? I dont know what you mean by that. But evolution defined as the theory that life on earth has changed over time, and that many extant species share common ancestors, is indeed based on science, and should be taught as such.

dk

In science the subject contains the evidence.
In doctrine the concepts, structure and forms are the evidence.

A couple of months ago I watched a show on human evolution. The show started out with a graphic that put 6 miles of hominides in a line, 1 mile representing a million years. Then they started to present the evidence. from about 4 million years ago. As the tension built suddenly they dug up a new hominide 6 million years old that, if confirmed, completely redrew the the tree of human evolution. Clearly human evolution follows from the doctrine, and the doctrine changes to fit the evidence. That's what I call evolutionism.