LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  June 2005

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE June 2005

Subject:

Re: Secularists losing Darwin debate...

From:

Ivan Handler <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 20 Jun 2005 22:49:22 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (100 lines)

Mitchel,
I see that Landon is scoring another hit.  He is on my kill list because his only purpose on this list is to stir up endless debates whenever he is struck by yet another severe case of logorrhea.  While supeficially he appears rational, if you look a little more closely I think you will discover that he has nothing useful to say but enjoys/needs to stir up debates to the point where he is attacked.  That is why the more of us that pay attention to this nut, the more he wastes bandwidth. My suggestion  is to ignore the posts no matter (especially) if they appear to strike a nerve.  If we can keep this up he will find another list to bother.

-- Ivan

-----Original Message-----
From: Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Jun 20, 2005 1:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Secularists losing Darwin debate...

Too me, the attacks on Darwin's paradigm of Natural Selection is akin to
attacks on Marx's Labor Theory of Value. Both need modifying, amending,
updating. We need "deep Darwin" just as we need to deepen marxism. But to
term it "Darwin's FALLACY of Natural Selection," as done below is absurd,
and to portray the conflicts between theism and atheism as a "dialectic"
misuses that term as well. It is no dialectic, it is a debate -- whether
one finds it productive or not is another matter. Such twistories scuttle
real discussion.

Mitchel Cohen
Brooklyn Greens/Green Party of NY

At 12:34 AM 6/20/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>A New Approach to the Darwin
>Debate
>Did Darwinists blow it? Secularists losing Darwin
>debate                                   At a time when theories of
>evolution are under renewed controversy, discussion is hampered by the
>remoteness of the phenomenon of evolution, and the use of indirect
>inference to speculate about deep time. Adherents of Darwinism often
>defend dogmatic versions of the theory that have been questioned since the
>first reviewers of Origin of Species. Now Darwinism is under siege from
>the Intelligent Design movement, threatening the school system. This
>debate is deadlocked by the rigidity of both parties, evidence of fixed
>agendas, and metaphysical presumptions. This 'debate' is a propaganda war
>for social market share, notably short of intelligent discourse on both
>sides. The refusal by Darwinists to allow any criticism of an obviously
>flawed theory has backfired and given the Bible Belt a golden opportunity
>to make themselves seem the only alternative.
>
>  The central issue was always the status of Darwin's theory of natural
> selection, not the fact of evolution, or the issue of design. It is time
> to be finished with this tired issue and move on. But the attempt to
> hijack the debate by proponents of Intelligent Design tends to make
> Darwinists close ranks around their flawed science. By promoting such an
> unreasonably narrow theory of evolution, Darwinism has put its proponents
> in a no-win situation, and harmed the reputation of science. The public
> has been held hostage to this theism/atheism dialectic for too long.
> Darwinists have become a laughingstock, 'experts' blind to their own
> indoctrination, and unable to grasp what hit them. We need to rescue the
> idea of evolution from its friends and foes alike.
>
>In the age of Big Science the public is unable to challenge the claims of
>experts, but it is actually very easy to find the flaws in Darwin’s
>theory. Academic scholars and many scientists are too intimidated to speak
>out. Current theories of evolution suffer from inadequate scientific
>methodology and the difficulty of observing evolution. The fact/value
>distinction, questions of evolutionary progress, teleology, and of ethical
>freedom, and much else, are completely mishandled by current research
>assumptions.
>
>Our final recourse is the study of history itself. There we can find the
>evidence of non-random evolution, and can break the deadlock of the Darwin
>debate by demonstrating the fallacy of natural selection. It should be
>obvious from the study of history that Darwinism flunks a photo finish
>test, yet we apply Darwinian speculations about ancient epochs we cannot
>observe to the history we can observe, and which doesn't square with Darwin.
>
>Armed with the data of world history itself we can infer what the descent
>of man must have been like, at least enough to see the flaws in the
>speculative excesses of Darwinists. Behind its scientific facade Darwinism
>is frozen nineteenth century thinking, a positivistic fantasy unworthy of
>the great achievements of modern science. We need more sophisticated ideas
>to do a theory of naturalistic evolution, and to bypass the stubborn
>clumsiness and ideologically motivated theory-junk of the Darwinists. The
>world is entering the age of Postdarwinism, with or without the scientific
>community.
>
>The twentieth century has seen an archaeological revolution. We live in
>the first generations with enough data to be able to resolve this issue of
>history and evolution. The results don't square with Darwinian
>speculations and the crypto-metaphysics packaged with them. We need to
>rescue historical perceptions from the current fallacies now foisted on us
>by indoctrinated cadres, and create a firewall against Social Darwinism
>unconsciously applied to the study of human culture. We can resolve the
>long-debated issue of natural selection once and for all without becoming
>entangled in the issue of design.
>
>
>John Landon
>Information, and related materials online:
>http://eonix.8m.com
>Darwiniana: Evolution Blog
>http://eonix.8m.com/darwiniana.htm
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager