Politics of evolution

[D H]

Communism is tied in the atheism which is tied in with evolution, etc. Marx also personally admired Darwin. That's where people get connections between evolution and Communism.

 

Are we really that stupid? Oh never mind, this very thread answers my question.

 

BTW, communism (Russia and China) rejected evolution. It did not fit with the communist manifesto or with Lysenko.

[Haezed]

Evolution supporters brought us eugenics.

 

Ummm... no.

 

It also brought us Nazism with at the master race and all its purifying humanity crap.

 

No.

 

Then there is Communism where the masses are more important than the individual.

 

This is a non sequitur.

 

You often here people talk about the human casualties brought about by religious belief. All the human suffering brought about by all the worlds religions throughout the ages don’t hold a candle to the bright inferno of politics motivated by evolution that came about in the 20th century.

 

Actually, I haven't seen much talk on this board about religion.

 

If I was forced to list the top 1,000 factors contributing to the outbreak of WWII, evolution would not make the list. Googling the issue, I see that some creationists make much of the use of the word in Mein Kampf, but the word "evolution" was not used in the context of Darwin's theory. Darwin is not mentioned but the book does have references to God and Jesus.

 

Fundamentally, evolution tells us that we all come from a common lineage. When the white slave owner of an earlier era might african american slaves to monkeys, science teaches us today that we are all descendents of apes and other less intelligent life forms.

 

Evolution is marvelous science, but it has so far brought us mostly horror is politics.

 

If you agree it is marvelous science, the world will just have to grow up and get used to evolution.

[waitforufo]

I'm going to leave you to work out why for yourself, but there is absolutely no way that communism was based on evolution.

 

Perhaps articles like this one <http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/marxism-darwinism.htm> make me think there is a link between communism and evolution. These Marxists seem to think there is a link.

 

I am not trying to divert this discussion to that of religion, nor am I trying to suggest that evolution caused world war two. I was trying to suggest that people don't get science and as a result good science can cause bad things to happen in politics.

[CDarwin]

BTW, communism (Russia and China) rejected evolution. It did not fit with the communist manifesto or with Lysenko.

 

A. You might want to tell that to the Chinese Academy of the Sciences... they're doing work great work on primate evolution and paleontology.

 

B. The Communist Manifesto has nothing to do with evolution and little more to do with Soviet or Chinese Communism. According to the Manifesto, the revolution shouldn't have even happened in either country.

 

C. Lysenko didn't have a problem with organisms changing over time or anything like that. He mistrusted theoretical genetics. Lysenkoism's real appeal to both Stalin and Mao was that it was compatible with collective farming, and that's how Lysenko billed himself, an agronomist. Any effects on Soviet evolutionary science were unfortunate but not really by design.

[Haezed]

Perhaps articles like this one <http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/marxism-darwinism.htm> make me think there is a link between communism and evolution. These Marxists seem to think there is a link.

 

This article seems to be an attempt by a Marxist to suggest that that Marxism has the same solid scientific basis as Darwinism. Since Darwin was correct, it is hardly surprising that many intellectual arguments referenced his theory.

 

In fact, it's hard to develop any comprehensive theory about the human condition without in some way referencing Darwin's explanation as to why humans evolved. Darwin's theory of evolution is "linked" to practically everything since it explains how we came to exist.

 

I am not trying to divert this discussion to that of religion, nor am I trying to suggest that evolution caused world war two. I was trying to suggest that people don't get science and as a result good science can cause bad things to happen in politics.

 

Here again you are suggesting that evolution was the cause of some "bad things to happen in politics."

[CDarwin]

In fact, it's hard to develop any comprehensive theory about the human condition without in some way referencing Darwin's explanation as to why humans evolved. Darwin's theory of evolution is "linked" to practically everything since it explains how we came to exist.

 

Friedrich Engels in particular was very interested in seeing class relationships from an evolutionary perspective, and the science he used was really quite cutting edge for the time. He even accurately predicted that bipedalism and tool use probably predated expanded brain size in hominid evolution.

[waitforufo]

Haezed,

It appears to me that you are making my point. Perhaps if I stated my point in this way:

 

Group X is trying to promote a political agenda. To get traction they need a political base. So they go shopping for popular beliefs or ideas that align, or more important, that they can make appear to align with their agenda. The more such alignments they make, the larger their potential political base. In politics, appearances can be more important. If the political agenda appears to be aligned with something that is true or good, it gives the appearance that the agenda is true or good. So once the alignments are made, just add the gullible or ignorant. Now you have the start of a political movement with leverage. So for example:

 

“Well all smart people support the science of evolution. Evolution describes how species are improved in nature by eliminating the weak….” You can see where this is going.

 

Another example:

 

“All good people believe in God. The Bible is and inspired book of God. The Bible describes the lineage of Jesus from Adam and Eve. The earth therefore must have been created ….” Same thing, different game.

 

The above becomes even worse when people start promoting science or religion because they like the associated politics. Racists promote evolution because they like the idea of eliminating or subjugating those they believe to be inferior. Bigots promote their religion because they like steeling the property of their neighbors who worship a different god.

 

The average person never gives one thought to how things work. Most are simply looking for affirmation of their pre conceived notions.

 

It is far better if science, economics, and religion stand on their own. Each should pick at the other, and in this process perhaps religion will fade away. This was Darwin’s belief. All three can inform politics on how best to govern but watch out if any one of them becomes government.

[CDarwin]

It is far better if science, economics, and religion stand on their own. Each should pick at the other, and in this process perhaps religion will fade away. This was Darwin’s belief. All three can inform politics on how best to govern but watch out if any one of them becomes government.

 

There are a lot more things out there than those, four... Ethics, metaphysics, logic, philology et cetera.

[waitforufo]

There are a lot more things out there than those, four... Ethics, metaphysics, logic, philology et cetera.

 

agreed.

[Haezed]

The above becomes even worse when people start promoting science or religion because they like the associated politics. Racists promote evolution because they like the idea of eliminating or subjugating those they believe to be inferior. Bigots promote their religion because they like steeling the property of their neighbors who worship a different god.

 

The average person never gives one thought to how things work. Most are simply looking for affirmation of their pre conceived notions.

 

It is far better if science, economics, and religion stand on their own. Each should pick at the other, and in this process perhaps religion will fade away. This was Darwin’s belief. All three can inform politics on how best to govern but watch out if any one of them becomes government.

 

I'm not sure if I've proved your point or we just agreed all along. I didn't understand your point and certainly agree with these last paragraphs.

 

When you talked about the damage that was produced by "politics motivated by evolution," I admit this threw me for a loop. It seemed that you were blaming science for the political result which would be like blaming the discovery that friction can cause fire for the burning of London in 1666. Thank you for clarifying your point.

 

My only quibble would be that, personally, I can't let my religion "stand alone" against science. I have to mesh the two as best I can. I find it remarkable that creationists have to hide the God ball in the phrase "Intelligent Design." When you think about it, they've conceded a termendous amount of ground to science in a short period of time.

 

I also find it remarkable that so many non-believers have a visceral reaction to the possibility of pure ID, i.e. design at the outset with no subsequent intervention in operation of the design. It's a theory like any other and who knows what the next 200 years will prove or disprove.

[ParanoiA]

Again it depends what is meant by "guided", but most of the time it refers to a direct intervention. They think that, without God, evolution is impossible.

 

Anyone who believes in god would believe this. It would be silly for someone to believe in god, and NOT believe he has a hand in evolution. Most people believe in god. So what's the problem?

 

I totally disagree that science says evolution is unguided due to lack of evidence, au contraire, just look at molecular genetics, not only can we see the ravage of random evolution, but many predictive models are explicitly based on this fact. Does it mean God has nothing to do with evolution? Of course not, god could've created the universe to make such process possible.

 

This statement contradicts the next sentence...

 

But many Americans believe evolution is incomplete without a divine spark, that's not the case.

 

But you just said, it could be the case. How can you say "god could've created the universe to make such process possible" and still take issue with a divine spark? What do you think that is? God creating the universe to make such processes IS a divine spark.

 

---------------------

 

The creationists movement is about an entire field of study that challenges and changes proven scientific theory, thus debunking evolution - it's pseudoscience.

 

People who believe in god and evolution aren't challenging proven scientific theory at all - nothing - it's just adding one more sentence: "God had a hand in it somehow". That's not even in the same ballpark with this IDist / creationist movement.

 

You're putting people who believe in god AND evolution into the IDist / creationist camp. That's illogical and disingenuous. If I believe in total unfettered capitalism but also believe that corporations should be regulated, does that make me communist?

[PhDP]

But you just said, it could be the case. How can you say "god could've created the universe to make such process possible" and still take issue with a divine spark? What do you think that is? God creating the universe to make such processes IS a divine spark.

 

By divine spark I meant "direct intervention", I think it was pretty clear I said "incomplete without a divine spark". For creationists/IDist, if it wasn't for God, evolution could not be possible, many theists don't hold such radical views.

 

You're putting people who believe in god AND evolution into the IDist / creationist camp. That's illogical and disingenuous.

 

I just said the exact opposite. K.R. Miller believes in god and he's not an IDist/creationist. Many theists believe god created the universe to set evolution in motion, but God is not directly interfering, he's just the inventor. I've no problem with that, as long as they don't claim evolution is impossible without the direct intervention of God in the process.

[ParanoiA]

By divine spark I meant "direct intervention", I think it was pretty clear I said "incomplete without a divine spark". For creationists/IDist, if it wasn't for God, evolution could not be possible, many theists don't hold such radical views.

 

How is that a radical view? It's older than science. How could anyone believe in god and yet think evolution could have been possible without him/her?

 

So, now we have people who believe in god, but he's not really necessary and has nothing to do with our existence??

 

I just said the exact opposite. K.R. Miller believes in god and he's not an IDist/creationist. Many theists believe god created the universe to set evolution in motion, but God is not directly interfering, he's just the inventor. I've no problem with that, as long as they don't claim evolution is impossible without the direct intervention of God in the process.

 

The inventor is still a requirement for the process, so it would be impossible without him. Direct intervention? One would likely never know. Can you explain quantum propabilities? I know you can predict measurements, but you still can't predict where one particular photon will appear at a precise moment in time. They make no sense. Who decides an essentially random behavior? Could that be god's intervention?

 

I'm not so sure you're any better than the creationists, because you demand to rule out god before science can prove otherwise. What kind of scientist demands the absence of a particular result without proving it? I'm sorry you don't believe in god, neither do I, but I can't trust someone who forces me in a box.

 

The point I'm making, not very well I might add, is that most these people you're counting in polls and other such nonsense are just people who believe in god AND evolution - not one without the other. I challenge that 55% for the same grounds as Pangloss, only I emphasize there is more inaccuracy due to people who believe in both god and evolution - which I also believe is the majority of the general public. I see no issue with the creationists any more than I see an issue with the spaghetti monster theists.

[waitforufo]

Most Christian faiths teach 1) that god made all that is; seen and unseen, and 2) that the bible is a divinely inspired work (scripture).

 

To understand god therefore, a Christian must attempt to understand his creation and his scripture.

 

Now some Christians teach a literalists interpretation of the bible. Most, and by most I mean the large denominations, teach a literal interpretation. What’s the difference? If you write someone a letter and begin with “Today it’s raining cats and dogs so instead of moping I’m writing to my good friends.” If your receiving friend is a literalist, they will think that where you live, cats and dogs were falling from the sky. If your friend takes a literal interpretation with an appreciation of your colloquial writing stile style, they understand that where you live it was raining vary hard.

 

Christian literalists have a hard time with evolution because the bible tells them that the universe was made in 7 days and that the earth is 5000 years old, give or take. (This, by the way, has been confirmed by the extra terrestrials observing the earth from its creation on the Simpson’s.)

 

Most other Christians, when they look at a fossil or the Grand Canyon appreciate that somehow their interpretation of the bible must be reconciled with this observation. If god created X, it trumps any interpretation of his inspired work (see 1 above).

 

So, there are plenty of Christians that agree with evolution science. Since evolution is part of his creation, to understand god they must understand evolution.

[Haezed]

It would be silly for someone to believe in god, and NOT believe he has a hand in evolution. Most people believe in god. So what's the problem?

 

If by having a "hand in evolution," you mean He created the the laws of the universe and kickstarted the process with a big bang, I'm with you. That theory is as good as any other at this point in our species' ... well, evolution.

 

It is certainly not silly to believe in the possibility of God in the former sense without accepting that he tinkers with the ongoing process he designed and initiated.

 

God creating the universe to make such processes IS a divine spark.

 

It may or may not be a divine spark. The universe could be a simulation in a computer lab somewhere and the Gods are the extradimensional equivalent of geeks on steroids.

 

That's not even in the same ballpark with this IDist / creationist movement.

 

As I've said numerous times before, with no response, I really regret how creationists misuse the phrase Intelligent Design. By itself, this phrase nicely encapsulates the possibility you are describing - a God or Gods (at least from our POV) designed and initiated the universe.

 

It's a theory, like any other.

[CDarwin]

Phil and Paranoia, I think you're both saying basically the same thing, you're just communicating imprecisely so you can't understand each other.

 

If you believe in God, as I do, and you believe in evolution, as I do, then you needn't believe that God held the collective hand of all life in the universe on its journey to modernity. There are various options to this belief: A. God set into motion a chain of cause and effect in the beginning of time that simply resulted in what we see now; B. God exists completely passively and has nothing to do with the universe; C. God doesn't have anything to do with the physical universe and is only involved with metaphysical creation; and onward, onward, et cetera, ad nauseum. I think you can both agree with that.

 

The point I'm making, not very well I might add, is that most these people you're counting in polls and other such nonsense are just people who believe in god AND evolution - not one without the other. I challenge that 55% for the same grounds as Pangloss, only I emphasize there is more inaccuracy due to people who believe in both god and evolution - which I also believe is the majority of the general public. I see no issue with the creationists any more than I see an issue with the spaghetti monster theists.

 

The problem is that so many people who believe in both God and evolution think that that's Intelligent Design, and vote accordingly.

 

Now some Christians teach a literalists interpretation of the bible. Most, and by most I mean the large denominations, teach a literal interpretation. What’s the difference? If you write someone a letter and begin with “Today it’s raining cats and dogs so instead of moping I’m writing to my good friends.” If your receiving friend is a literalist, they will think that where you live, cats and dogs were falling from the sky. If your friend takes a literal interpretation with an appreciation of your colloquial writing stile style, they understand that where you live it was raining vary hard.

 

I think you're confusing the terms 'literal' and 'literary.'

 

It's a theory, like any other.

 

Erm... in the philosophical sense perhaps. Not really in the scientific.

[ParanoiA]

The problem is that so many people who believe in both God and evolution think that that's Intelligent Design, and vote accordingly.

 

Exactly. And I may be wrong here, but I think one has to go out of their way to include them in the ID camp in order to make this an issue. The number of true ID'ers, in my opinion anyway, is a comfortable minority that is only as big as it is for politics' sake. They only look bigger because of the folks that don't understand the true POV of ID'ism.

[Wormwood]

Now some Christians teach a literalists interpretation of the bible. Most, and by most I mean the large denominations, teach a literal interpretation.

This is simply incorrect. MOST Christians are Catholics, and Catholics don't believe in a literal interpretation. Further, the "literal" interpretation you speak of is often based more on tradition than the actual text. A majority of people who believe in a 6 day creation, are dispensationalists; and dispensationalism is a tradition, not a formal doctrine.

[Wormwood]

Exactly. And I may be wrong here, but I think one has to go out of their way to include them in the ID camp in order to make this an issue. The number of true ID'ers, in my opinion anyway, is a comfortable minority that is only as big as it is for politics' sake. They only look bigger because of the folks that don't understand the true POV of ID'ism.

I can't tell if you are being ironic or not, so just to clarify for everyone involved:

 

Definitions of intelligent design on the Web:

 

The idea that an intelligent designer played a role in some aspect of the evolution of life on earth, usually the origin of life itself. Generally, a thinly disguised version of scientific creationism."

 

Intelligent Design (or ID) is a highly controversial claim holding that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent designer, rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature, without regard to who or what the designer might be.

[waitforufo]

CDarwin,

Of course I meant “literary” not literal. Thank you.

[Haezed]

They only look bigger because of the folks that don't understand the true POV of ID'ism.

 

Please explain to me to the true pOV of ID'ism. Is it monolithic?

[ParanoiA]

Please explain to me to the true pOV of ID'ism. Is it monolithic?

 

I don't know about monolithic, but it's beyond simply believing god and evolution, both. They actually want to pretend that the supernatural should be considered scientific theory. Here's some key snipets in the first paragraph of the Wiki search on Intelligent Design.

Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

 

It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer,[4][5] and said by its advocates to be a scientific theory

 

Intelligent design's advocates seek a fundamental redefinition of science, no longer limiting it to natural explanations for what is observed in the universe, but accepting supernatural explanations as well, and, on this basis, claim that intelligent design is a new scientific theory

 

This basically debunks a large chunk of evolution, in their view anyway. I don't understand evolution enough to really grasp how far reaching that is, to the study, but it's certainly an extreme step beyond simply believing god "Got the ball rolling" and evolution is the result, because natural selection is key, and in jeopardy by ID, but not the masses.

[Haezed]

I don't know about monolithic, but it's beyond simply believing god and evolution, both. They actually want to pretend that the supernatural should be considered scientific theory. Here's some key snipets in the first paragraph of the Wiki search on Intelligent Design.

 

I ask because I think there is a valid possibility, if not plausibility, that intelligence designed the universe and set it in motion. I see no evidence that that intelligence has intervened subsequently. It seems a valid, if presently untestable, hypothesis.

 

Anytime I hear someone labelled in such a group, "IDer", "card carrying ACLUer", etc, I start to want to defend the people thrown into the group indiscriminately. I suspect many of those who believe in intelligence in the design of the universe understand that there is a limit as to how far science can go to test the hypothesis.

 

This basically debunks a large chunk of evolution, in their view anyway. I don't understand evolution enough to really grasp how far reaching that is, to the study, but it's certainly an extreme step beyond simply believing god "Got the ball rolling" and evolution is the result, because natural selection is key, and in jeopardy by ID, but not the masses.

 

You seem to be saying that the way Intelligence Design is defined by this movement, it rejects evolution. I don't see why intelligent design as a concept does so.

 

I also don't think it's impossible that the hypothesis will forever be untestable. Look at how far the species has come in a nanosecond of time on the cosmic clock in understanding nature. Who is to say we won't find marks of intelligent design in the future?

 

In the meantime, I agree that teaching it as science today is nothing short of bogus. OTOH, I've never sat through what the advocates would consider to be a class on ID.

[ParanoiA]

I ask because I think there is a valid possibility, if not plausibility, that intelligence designed the universe and set it in motion. I see no evidence that that intelligence has intervened subsequently. It seems a valid, if presently untestable, hypothesis.

 

Anytime I hear someone labelled in such a group, "IDer", "card carrying ACLUer", etc, I start to want to defend the people thrown into the group indiscriminately. I suspect many of those who believe in intelligence in the design of the universe understand that there is a limit as to how far science can go to test the hypothesis.

 

Well keep in mind what got me to this post. The point I've been failing to make is that Intelligent Design is a theory that challenges established science, whereas people who simply believe in god AND evolution are not challenging science. The latter is not an issue, it's simply representative that many people in our country simply believe in god and so therefore it would naturally follow that they would believe god caused evolution.

 

The way Phil was interpreting that poll of 55% believing in ID or creationism, was assuming that 55% understands the difference between accepting that god may be responsible for the invention of evolution and its systems versus a total rehab of scientific theory and evidence for supernatural beliefs.

 

To me, you have to fudge the numbers in order to show a majority of the country is made up of ID'ers...because it's not.

 

And I share your distaste for labeling individuals, but not for ideologies. ID is not an individual. That's why I take issue with that 55%, because it's throwing people into a group disingenuously.

 

You seem to be saying that the way Intelligence Design is defined by this movement, it rejects evolution. I don't see why intelligent design as a concept does so.

 

No, just a large chunk of it because it rejects the notion of natural selection. Natural selection is not reasonable to ID. Maybe this whole debate should be reworded to make this more clear - that we are really debating about natural selection more than evolution.

 

Either that, or I don't fully appreciate the magnitude of ID. I'm open for education here.

 

I also don't think it's impossible that the hypothesis will forever be untestable. Look at how far the species has come in a nanosecond of time on the cosmic clock in understanding nature. Who is to say we won't find marks of intelligent design in the future?

 

Hey, I'm with you here. We may find out the hand of god actually interferes continuously. We may find that natural selection is completely guided by god and made to look as if it's not. We may even find out the spaghetti monster is actually the devil and he and god are at a tug of war that takes place in the process of evolution. I highly doubt it and have basically risked my infinite soul that god doesn't exist, but I can't prove it so...

 

In the meantime, I agree that teaching it as science today is nothing short of bogus. OTOH, I've never sat through what the advocates would consider to be a class on ID.

 

Same here. Until it's proven, it's just another religious story, belief, whatever. We don't teach supernatural beliefs, we teach proven theories.

[Haezed]

Well keep in mind what got me to this post. The point I've been failing to make is that Intelligent Design is a theory that challenges established science, whereas people who simply believe in god AND evolution are not challenging science.

 

My head is spinning in with this thread which won't seem to keep still. At least let me know this: If I believe nothing more than that intelligence designed the universe, am I an IDer?

 

Personally, I see ID as a hypothesis which can't be tested, not a theory.

 

The latter is not an issue, it's simply representative that many people in our country simply believe in god and so therefore it would naturally follow that they would believe god caused evolution.

 

Which, to me, sounds like an intelligent design of the universe by God. See for example this book by Reese.

 

The way Phil was interpreting that poll of 55% believing in ID or creationism, was assuming that 55% understands the difference between accepting that god may be responsible for the invention of evolution and its systems versus a total rehab of scientific theory and evidence for supernatural beliefs.

 

Again, I don't see why the concept, if not the practice, of a belief in intelligent design necessitates a total rehab of scientific theory and evidence.

 

To me, you have to fudge the numbers in order to show a majority of the country is made up of ID'ers...because it's not.

 

I bet the majority of the country believe intelligence designed the universe. Half of the battle is how things are labelled in politics. IDers, as you call them, probably have people like me who don't know what they are really saying in detail but who dont' preclude the possibility of intelligent design.

 

And I share your distaste for labeling individuals, but not for ideologies. ID is not an individual. That's why I take issue with that 55%, because it's throwing people into a group disingenuously.

 

Agreed, and I think it is about packaging. The ID movement chose a good label with which most people agree.

 

 

No, just a large chunk of it because it rejects the notion of natural selection. Natural selection is not reasonable to ID.

 

Why?

 

Either that, or I don't fully appreciate the magnitude of ID. I'm open for education here.

 

I'm not an expert either. I thought ID folks just believed that there is likely intelligence that designed the universe. They point to various physical laws which if slightly tweaked would have precluded any possibility life at all as evidence.

 

I gave the quote of J. Levin of MIT earlier who said it is hard to resist the temptation that the entire cosmic cycle is some kind of factory intended to produce organic life. Would this view be ID? I honestly don't know except that it seems to fit the phrase "intelligent design."

 

 

Hey, I'm with you here. We may find out the hand of god actually interferes continuously. We may find that natural selection is completely guided by god and made to look as if it's not. We may even find out the spaghetti monster is actually the devil and he and god are at a tug of war that takes place in the process of evolution. I highly doubt it and have basically risked my infinite soul that god doesn't exist, but I can't prove it so...

 

Did you ever read Sagan's book, Contact which had a different ending than the movie? It gives one possible way in which God might encode a message.

 

Same here. Until it's proven, it's just another religious story, belief, whatever. We don't teach supernatural beliefs, we teach proven theories.

 

I think they believe the scientific evidence of intelligence in the design is that the physical laws slightly tweaked would have made life of any kind impossible. See, for example, this book. Rees believes that there are six numbers slightly tweaked woudld have precluded the formation of life and matter but he also believes this did not happen as a result of intelligence.

 

I'm not certain what I believe about these kinds of debates but I certainly do not dismiss them as insubstantial.