Most 'Darwinists' today are similarly religious to creationists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-05-2013, 11:16 PM
RE: Most 'Darwinists' today are similarly religious to creationists.
(11-05-2013 10:29 PM)Spectral-Rothbardian Wrote:  
(11-05-2013 10:05 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Actually, the notion of social Darwinism is over 100 years old and is universally accepted by the educated to be an utter bastardisation of Darwin's theory. It was viewed even then as having no basis in fact. Thanks to genetics, that has been confirmed. The so-called racial traits are absolutely the result of selection and genetic drift and any geneticist or Darwinist worth a damn will confirm that. It's race itself that's been disproved. So race isn't bullshit because it makes people queasy, it's bullshit because it's bullshit. That's hard core slam dunk scientific fact.

You spew politically correct orthodoxy, which is understandable, but all too typical. However, do not fret, for I will not rid you of your opiate.



Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
11-05-2013, 11:23 PM
RE: Most 'Darwinists' today are similarly religious to creationists.
Why race realism fails.






Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2013, 11:23 PM
RE: Most 'Darwinists' today are similarly religious to creationists.
(11-05-2013 09:32 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  Putting aside the claims made-

People who call themselves "Darwinist" are most likely irrational.

*Scoff* Says you. I bet you're not a gravitationalist, either. Dodgy


Seriously though, the title of this thread makes me want to assassinate myself with a sharp implement to the throat. Drinking Beverage

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Misanthropik's post
11-05-2013, 11:26 PM
RE: Most 'Darwinists' today are similarly religious to creationists.
(11-05-2013 11:23 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  
(11-05-2013 09:32 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  Putting aside the claims made-

People who call themselves "Darwinist" are most likely irrational.

*Scoff* Says you. I bet you're not a gravitationalist, either. Dodgy


Seriously though, the title of this thread makes me want to assassinate myself with a sharp implement to the throat. Drinking Beverage

Come on Mis can't you appreciate the craftsmanship of this strawman he has brought before us. It is lovingly crafted and completely void of any relationship to reality. A very difficult job.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
11-05-2013, 11:29 PM
RE: Most 'Darwinists' today are similarly religious to creationists.
(11-05-2013 11:15 PM)Spectral-Rothbardian Wrote:  
(11-05-2013 11:11 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Well shit. Here we go with another blatant misunderstanding of not only science, but also anarcho-capitalism.

Murray Rothbard was an anarchist economist and a philosopher who pondered the affects of statism as opposed to voluntarism.

The OPs thesis, as well as Ghost's mined quote, are fundamentally flawed and purposefully interpreted to meet personal agendas.

And you thought that only Christians did that shit. Tongue

Rothbard was a race-realist, and anyone who praises him should be aware of that.

He may have been a full blown racist and he may have been a fan of auto erotic asphyxiation for all I know. And I don't care.

He discussed every conceivable human interaction with the state and how it affects us. The quote offered by Ghost relates to freedom of association, not racism or, as you call it, race realism.

It's also important to note that Rothbard lived during a time when we had a lot less understanding of what race actually is. Not to mention, a place where racism was the order of the day.

We don't call a 17th century doctor a quack because he didn't prescribe antibiotics and we shouldn't use Rothbard's understanding of race to promote racism or label him a racist.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bbeljefe's post
11-05-2013, 11:31 PM
RE: Most 'Darwinists' today are similarly religious to creationists.
Troll unsuccessful in the face of science.

[Image: bro_do_you_even_science179746.jpg]

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like fstratzero's post
11-05-2013, 11:33 PM (This post was last modified: 11-05-2013 11:42 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Most 'Darwinists' today are similarly religious to creationists.
(11-05-2013 08:57 PM)Spectral-Rothbardian Wrote:  Creationists find ascribing human origins to evolution from apes to be repugnant. The thought of it makes them queasy, they cannot stand that idea, so they reject it. Instead, they consider the idea that God created us all equally in his image.

The (egalitarian) Darwinists of today find ascribing racial differences to evolution to be repugnant. The thought of it makes them queasy, they cannot stand that idea, so they reject it. Instead, they consider the idea that evolution distributed traits equally.

Both religious dogmas. The latter perhaps even more dishonest.

Hmmmm. Where to begin? I know! I'll accuse of trolling... no, wait, others have done that already. Darn it! I thought that would be so original! Maybe I could reinforce the message in hopes that enough people saying it will actually have a positive effect? Maybe? Maybe? No? Dagnabbit. I know! A reasoned response is perfect for a driveby who won't be back to see it, much less actually take the time to read it, consider it, and modify views accordingly! [/sarcasm]

Okay. To start with, I do subscribe to an evolutionary view to explain the variety of species. I don't describe myself as a Darwinist because the Theory of Evolution has undergone significant change since Darwin's time, and Darwin's work, though pioneering when written, is simplistic and contains significant flaws vis a vis modern evolutionary understanding. In short, evolutionary theory is too big for the name of Darwin. But if you must use that label, then yeah, it probably fits on me.

Contrary to the OP, I have little objection to ascribing evolutionary origins to actual "racial" traits. For example, the correlation between darker skin, which is more resistant to UV but more prone to UV-deficiency, and a genotype's proximity to the equator, makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective. Similarly, sickle-shaped blood cells, which make a person more prone to anemia but give strong resistance to malaria, tend to hail from regions with lots of malaria. As this is the tropics, it is often paired with darker skin and can be considered a race-specific trait. As a painfully white individual myself, I am at higher risk for sunburn and skin cancer, which is just fine for someone whose ancestry is primarily from the low-UV areas of northern Eurasia, but which would be very ill-suited for anywhere south of, say, the 30th parallel.

This is a somewhat INEQUAL distribution of traits, and I doubt a single subscriber to the theory of evolution would describe all traits as being equally-distributed.

I'd also, as previous posters have done, reject the notion of race as anything beyond a widespread and potent social construct. Sure, you can categorize by skin color and skull shape and eye folds, but you can also categorize by earwax type, and I don't see anyone making a "race" out of that.

Also, there's a great deal of stereotyping bullshit that I don't ascribe to evolution. For example, saying that people of African ancestry are innately less intelligent, or Jews are all money-grubbing cheats. Maybe if any of that were true, an evolutionary explanation could be found.... except it's not true. It's bullshit. It's proven bullshit. It's scientifically nailed down, crucified, and hung up for three days to be ridiculed bullshit. I dunno why it ain't dead yet. Maybe people need to listen to science more. So when someone comes around and starts using bullshit evolutionary explanations (usually WITHOUT any scientific rigor) to explain bullshit differences, that does make me a bit queasy. If I were the sort to gamble, and moreover the sort to gamble on something of that nature, I'd give you 5 to 1 that some sort of oppression, persecution, and/or genocide were in the making. It's been used in that manner and to that end with horrific efficiency in the past. Again, to emphasize: THAT'S NOT SCIENCE.

Furthermore, evolution would strongly suggest a great deal in common between "races", if you must use that model, or between the various gross physical traits usually ascribed to races, because WE'RE THE SAME SPECIES. For crying out loud, it explains why humans, dolphins, and snakes all have tongues and eyes! Of COURSE evolutionarily-minded people would insist that advantageous traits not be "equally distributed" among humanity!

................... okay, I lied, I called [/sarcasm] WAY too early.

But I think the most contemptible thing in all of that was, not the race card being so casually played, but that it was used to cover up the cliched "evolution is religion" bullshit. Which I'm calling bullshit on. ... wait, I did that already, didn't I? Well, it's worth doing multiple times, so, BULLSHIT.

I would be particularly delighted if you would entertain me with your definition of the word "religious". Emphasis on ENTERTAIN. I'm sure it'd be a hoot.

Let's review some of the most common attributes of a religion: It's accepted on faith, it involves worship of a "higher" power (EDIT: And/or a supernatural view of the world), it's set up not to be questioned or critiqued. Evolutionary theory is like that, insofar as it's exactly the opposite. [/sarcasm] As mentioned, Darwin's original theory has undergone significant modifications, most notably in the vector for genetic information (DNA) and the model of punctuated equilibrium. This happened because scientists -- Darwinists as you like to say -- responded to the theory by trying to punch holes in it, and because once they found the holes they acknowledged the faults in their model, discarded that element of what they had previously believed true, and adopted a model that accounted for those newly-discovered facts. This is about as contrary to the model of a religion as I can imagine. (Well, okay, UUism and to a lesser extent some schools of Buddhism, but they're hardly typical.)

But hey, you know what? I can kinda get behind this idea of evolution as a religion. It's not like that'll stop it from being taught in the science classroom (Constitution Schmonstitution, am I right?). And in the meantime? SIGN US DARWINISTS UP FOR THE TAX BREAKS!

[/sarcasm]

EDIT: In light of posts made in the time it took me to type this, and with many a regret, I hereby withdraw the title of "driveby".

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
11-05-2013, 11:33 PM
RE: Most 'Darwinists' today are similarly religious to creationists.
(11-05-2013 11:23 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Why race realism fails.






Why Concordance fails.







Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2013, 11:42 PM
RE: Most 'Darwinists' today are similarly religious to creationists.
(11-05-2013 11:33 PM)Spectral-Rothbardian Wrote:  
(11-05-2013 11:23 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Why race realism fails.






Why Concordance fails.








Laughat

You think "white" is a race. How cute.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
11-05-2013, 11:47 PM
RE: Most 'Darwinists' today are similarly religious to creationists.
(11-05-2013 11:42 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(11-05-2013 11:33 PM)Spectral-Rothbardian Wrote:  Why Concordance fails.








Laughat

You think "white" is a race. How cute.

You think race is a "social construct". How cute.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: