Darwin's Apparatchiks

[Hollie]

Not only has it been demonstrated that Marxism relies on Darwin's precis....but it has also been clearly shown that the major proponents of Darwinism rely on Marxism for their belief in evolution.

"....Stephen Jay Gould, admits to his marxism, and lauds the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs."

So...if Gould says such....to deny it would simply be a flight into stupidity.
Oh...right...you are stupid.
Deny away.



The only thing that has been debunked is a view that you can add two and two.


Next time you go to a mind reader try and remember that you are entitled to a substantial discount.

It has not been demonstrated that evolution relies on Marxism. That is a ridiculous premise. Scientific fact is apolitical.

I used to subscribe to Natural History Magazine when Gould wrote monthly columns. He never once espoused any kind of political philosophy in any of his monthly science columns.

Here's what Gould said about his political philosophy (from a wikipedia entry)

Though he "had been brought up by a Marxist father", he stated that his father's politics were "very different" from his own.[8]

Even if Gould was a Marxist, there are thousands of evolutionary biologists who are not Marxist, thus completely invalidating your absurd point.

One does not need to read much of Gould to see the Marxian influences in his point of view. That did not stop him from being an esteemed colleague of the peers nor one of America's favorite and most quoted scientists. Marxism is far more than a mere political philosophy but is rather intended as a way of life--a state of being of society as a whole.

Originally published in the National Review:

Raised by his father as a Marxist, (Stephen Jay) Gould hated the possibility that evolution had shaped human nature beyond the powers of social engineers to alter. He especially loathed the concept that humans varied genetically. Yet, he was never able to construct a theory of his own that made more accurate predictions about contemporary humanity.
Stephen Jay Gould, R.I.P. by Steve Sailer for National Review; obituary, Marxist, IQ, punctuated equilibria, Simpsons, Ken Burns, cancer, sociobiology, Edward. O. Wilson, evolutionary psychology,

Why not identify for us the alleged Marxist "point of view" that has any bearing on his works in evolutionary biology.

You may wish to peruse the entirety of the following link, first.

Evolution and Metaphysics

[Note in passing, that Gould is not a Marxist, although there are a number of prominent evolutionary biologists who make no secret of being so. Also note that there are many liberal and conservative evolutionary biologists. Political affiliation does not specify what sorts of theoretical views one must have. Darwin was a Whig (middle-class liberal) while Huxley and Wallace were radicals. Spencer and Haeckel could only be called conservatives, and a number of Haeckel's views were influential in the rise of fascism. Yet these political views did not determine agreement on matters of theoretical biology. See below, "Evolution outside biology".]

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is the difference between a Christian operackik and a Darwinist? Facts.

ap·pa·rat·chik
ˌäpəˈräCHik/Submit

1.
an official in a large organization, typically a political one.


The important difference is that, unlike atheist scientists, the other side doesn't attack an alternative view.


1. In 2007, physicists Steven Weinberg addressed the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” He was warmly applauded.

2. Why did Christopher Hitchens write…” God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything!” Well, then how do with reconcile science with abortion, fetal stem-cell research, euthanasia, infanticide, cloning, animal-human hybrids, among the other ‘gifts’ of science, an ideology bereft of any sense of responsibility to human nature.

3. Princeton philosopher Richard Rorty noted the change in authorship of morality: “The West has cobbled together, in the course of the last two hundred years, a specifically secularist moral tradition — one that regards the free consensus of the citizens of a democratic society, rather then the Divine Will, as the source of moral imperatives.” Last Words from Richard Rorty | The Progressive
While Rorty considered this a great advance, consider how this fits the actions of Nazi Germany, in tune with its free consensus.

4. Despite the immense ideological power that the American scientific establishment wields, it still resents the stature of organized religion. On crucial matters of faith and morals, which loom so large in the lives of most individuals, they take a back seat. Members of the National Academy of Sciences are by a large majority persuaded that there is no God; men and women by the millions that there is.
From "The Devil's Delusion," Berlinski

 

[Hollie]

The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to his Church’s public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. Gary North


I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be. Jerry Falwell


There will never be world peace until Gods house and Gods people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world. Pat Robertson

 

[Foxfyre]

It has not been demonstrated that evolution relies on Marxism. That is a ridiculous premise. Scientific fact is apolitical.

I used to subscribe to Natural History Magazine when Gould wrote monthly columns. He never once espoused any kind of political philosophy in any of his monthly science columns.

Here's what Gould said about his political philosophy (from a wikipedia entry)

Though he "had been brought up by a Marxist father", he stated that his father's politics were "very different" from his own.[8]

Even if Gould was a Marxist, there are thousands of evolutionary biologists who are not Marxist, thus completely invalidating your absurd point.

One does not need to read much of Gould to see the Marxian influences in his point of view. That did not stop him from being an esteemed colleague of the peers nor one of America's favorite and most quoted scientists. Marxism is far more than a mere political philosophy but is rather intended as a way of life--a state of being of society as a whole.

Originally published in the National Review:

Raised by his father as a Marxist, (Stephen Jay) Gould hated the possibility that evolution had shaped human nature beyond the powers of social engineers to alter. He especially loathed the concept that humans varied genetically. Yet, he was never able to construct a theory of his own that made more accurate predictions about contemporary humanity.
Stephen Jay Gould, R.I.P. by Steve Sailer for National Review; obituary, Marxist, IQ, punctuated equilibria, Simpsons, Ken Burns, cancer, sociobiology, Edward. O. Wilson, evolutionary psychology,

Why not identify for us the alleged Marxist "point of view" that has any bearing on his works in evolutionary biology.

You may wish to peruse the entirety of the following link, first.

Evolution and Metaphysics

[Note in passing, that Gould is not a Marxist, although there are a number of prominent evolutionary biologists who make no secret of being so. Also note that there are many liberal and conservative evolutionary biologists. Political affiliation does not specify what sorts of theoretical views one must have. Darwin was a Whig (middle-class liberal) while Huxley and Wallace were radicals. Spencer and Haeckel could only be called conservatives, and a number of Haeckel's views were influential in the rise of fascism. Yet these political views did not determine agreement on matters of theoretical biology. See below, "Evolution outside biology".]

You didn't even read the quoted paragraph, did you. It is pretty discouraging to try to have a discussion with somebody who demands evidence of the other, but is incapable of seeing that the evidence has already been provided even when they quote it in their response. Sigh.

 

[Sunshine]

The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to his Church’s public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. Gary North


I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be. Jerry Falwell


There will never be world peace until Gods house and Gods people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world. Pat Robertson

Ain't that the truth?!

 

[Hollie]

One does not need to read much of Gould to see the Marxian influences in his point of view. That did not stop him from being an esteemed colleague of the peers nor one of America's favorite and most quoted scientists. Marxism is far more than a mere political philosophy but is rather intended as a way of life--a state of being of society as a whole.

Originally published in the National Review:

Why not identify for us the alleged Marxist "point of view" that has any bearing on his works in evolutionary biology.

You may wish to peruse the entirety of the following link, first.

Evolution and Metaphysics

[Note in passing, that Gould is not a Marxist, although there are a number of prominent evolutionary biologists who make no secret of being so. Also note that there are many liberal and conservative evolutionary biologists. Political affiliation does not specify what sorts of theoretical views one must have. Darwin was a Whig (middle-class liberal) while Huxley and Wallace were radicals. Spencer and Haeckel could only be called conservatives, and a number of Haeckel's views were influential in the rise of fascism. Yet these political views did not determine agreement on matters of theoretical biology. See below, "Evolution outside biology".]

You didn't even read the quoted paragraph, did you. It is pretty discouraging to try to have a discussion with somebody who demands evidence of the other, but is incapable of seeing that the evidence has already been provided even when they quote it in their response. Sigh.

Actually, I did read it - the entire article, in context.. I also note that you're unable to offer a coherent comment on the subject.

It seems you don't do real well with context.

Sigh.

Late edit, Foxfyre. Here, let me lend an assist. From the article I linked, the more excitable of the creationist crowd rattle on about attacking science as a means and methods to deflect criticism of the dead end which is Christian creationism.



The Context

"When we discuss creation/evolution, we are talking about beliefs: i.e. religion. The controversy is not religion versus science, it is religion versus religion, and the science of one religion versus the science of another." (Ham 1983, cited in Selkirk and Burrows 1987:3)


"It is crucial for creationists that they convince their audience that evolution is not scientific, because both sides agree that creationism is not." (Miller 1982: 4, also cited in Selkirk and Burrows 1987: 103)

 

[Hollie]

The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to his Church’s public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. Gary North


I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be. Jerry Falwell


There will never be world peace until Gods house and Gods people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world. Pat Robertson

Ain't that the truth?!

Oh yeah. The Christian Taliban would be a real hoot.


"The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country."

-Jerry Falwell



"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's charioteers ... AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."
-Jerry Falwell




"Lord, give us righteous judges who will not try to legislate and dominate this society. Take control, Lord! We ask for additional vacancies on the court."
–Pat Robertson



"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."
–Pat Robertson

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Not only has it been demonstrated that Marxism relies on Darwin's precis....but it has also been clearly shown that the major proponents of Darwinism rely on Marxism for their belief in evolution.

"....Stephen Jay Gould, admits to his marxism, and lauds the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs."

So...if Gould says such....to deny it would simply be a flight into stupidity.
Oh...right...you are stupid.
Deny away.



The only thing that has been debunked is a view that you can add two and two.


Next time you go to a mind reader try and remember that you are entitled to a substantial discount.

How does Gould admit to his Marxism by lauding the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs?

Gould was not a Marxist.

Try again.

BTW, calling me stupid, an idiot, a moron, a bird brain, and a low life has not advanced your point.

"BTW, calling me stupid, an idiot, a moron, a bird brain, and a low life has not advanced your point."

I appreciate your honesty in not denying any of the above appellations.


Now...merely to drive home a point which has been duly proven....

" The photographs that adorn a man’s office speak volumes about him. In the office of the late Stephen J. Gould, former professor of paleontology at Harvard University, peering down upon that prolific desk, is the photograph of Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924), the revolutionary who founded the Communist dictatorship in Russia — a materialistic, godless system."

According to a recent article by Lowell Ponte, a former roving editor for Reader’s Digest, “the theory of evolution became [Gould’s] substitute for religion.” Robert Wright, in his book, The Moral Animal, describes this as the sort of “faith” that “no longer entertains the possibility of encountering some fact that would call the whole theory into question.” That is a strange philosophy for one who called himself a “scientist” — a term which presupposes someone in a quest for knowledge, whatever its source.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/525-stephen-j-gould-1941-2002



Please deny the fact once again so that I can once again pin the tail on you, you donkey.

A creationist's slanderous obituary is not a fact.

You fail to understand the difference between someone's opinion and a fact, perhaps explaining your own ignorance.

I seriously doubt Gould had a photo of Lenin in his office.

Lowell Ponte's opinion is also not a fact.

 

[Peterf]

It seems that I have been eminently successful.....

The OP was aimed at establishing the importance of Darwin's theory, not to science, but to Marxism....

...and showing the ties of 'evolutionary biologists' to Marxism and atheism.




The dissociation that is shown by folks like you, who cannot dispute the ties I've documented, yet claim not be be able to connect the dots with the attempts to advance the theory, is truly astounding.


I believe it is referred to as 'vincible ignorance.'

Is this another of your wild suppositions? That all Swedes are Marxists?

Of course there is common ground between atheism and evolutionary biology. Both are rational and scoff at creationist religious claptrap.

Now....I was trying to be kind.....but you've forced me to provide the real connection between atheism and those who don't subscribe to "religious claptrap:"



1."For starters, unlike the godless state to which American leftists aspire, Lutheranism is the state-supported religion of Sweden. (Despite this fact, less than 10 per cent of Swedes regularly attend church).

2. According to a Swiss federal government statistical comparison of Switzerland and Sweden, the percentage of Swedish unmarried pregnancies in 1996 was 54% percent — roughly equal to the black community in the United States.




3. Worst of all, the Swedes have not always acted benevolently, as reported on page A1 of the August 29, 1997,Washington Post,

From 1934 to 1974, 62,000 Swedes were sterilized as part of a national program grounded in the science of racial biology and carried out by officials who believed they were helping to build a progressive, enlightened welfare state...In some cases, couples judged to be inferior parents were sterilized, as were their children when they became teenagers.


One woman, aged 72 at the time of the Post article, was sterilized "because she couldn't read a blackboard because she did not have eyeglasses and was deemed to be retarded."

....that "90 per cent of [those sterilizied] were women," and that "the practice, which predated and outlived Nazi Germany, started as an attempt to weed out perceived genetic weaknesses, mental or physical defectsand ended as a method of social control."





4. Unfortunately, sterilizations are just the tip of the iceberg. As the Irish Times and Agence-France Presse reported on April 7, 1998, a Swedish Television documentary reveals that Sweden lobotomized perhaps 4500 "undesirables," in some cases without the consent of their families....the benevolent socialist government of Sweden hoped to discover whether "lobotomies could cure alcoholics and criminals."
Sweden and the Myth of Benevolent Socialism alists.



Aren't you proud?

Or simply dumb as asphalt.




The same pattern and beliefs in Mao's China, Stalin's USSR, in Sweden, in Holland's rampant euthanasia...and in Obama's Death Panels....
...human beings are expendable.
The Left.....populated with psychopaths.

Over and over, history reveals the slaughter and oppression of regimes which mock "creationist religious claptrap."




Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’

1. You are misinformed. All connections between the state and the Lutheran church were severed many years ago. Happily the second part of your statement is correct. Superstition is almost defeated in Sweden and few attend churches. (The number attending mosques is growing but that is another story).

2. Correct. Fewer Swedes than ever, including member of my extended family, feel the next to get married. There are however some indications that this trend is about to reverse.

3. Enforced sterilisation was long since exposed in the Swedish media and has been agonised over as a national shame ever since.

I am proud to be Swedish - in a very modest sort of way. It is a second nationality which I actually chose to adopt.

And no, I am not dumb, being lucky enough to have an extremely high IQ.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Not only has it been demonstrated that Marxism relies on Darwin's precis....but it has also been clearly shown that the major proponents of Darwinism rely on Marxism for their belief in evolution.

"....Stephen Jay Gould, admits to his marxism, and lauds the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs."

So...if Gould says such....to deny it would simply be a flight into stupidity.
Oh...right...you are stupid.
Deny away.



The only thing that has been debunked is a view that you can add two and two.


Next time you go to a mind reader try and remember that you are entitled to a substantial discount.

It has not been demonstrated that evolution relies on Marxism. That is a ridiculous premise. Scientific fact is apolitical.

I used to subscribe to Natural History Magazine when Gould wrote monthly columns. He never once espoused any kind of political philosophy in any of his monthly science columns.

Here's what Gould said about his political philosophy (from a wikipedia entry)

Though he "had been brought up by a Marxist father", he stated that his father's politics were "very different" from his own.[8]

Even if Gould was a Marxist, there are thousands of evolutionary biologists who are not Marxist, thus completely invalidating your absurd point.

One does not need to read much of Gould to see the Marxian influences in his point of view. That did not stop him from being an esteemed colleague of the peers nor one of America's favorite and most quoted scientists. Marxism is far more than a mere political philosophy but is rather intended as a way of life--a state of being of society as a whole.

Originally published in the National Review:

Raised by his father as a Marxist, (Stephen Jay) Gould hated the possibility that evolution had shaped human nature beyond the powers of social engineers to alter. He especially loathed the concept that humans varied genetically. Yet, he was never able to construct a theory of his own that made more accurate predictions about contemporary humanity.
Stephen Jay Gould, R.I.P. by Steve Sailer for National Review; obituary, Marxist, IQ, punctuated equilibria, Simpsons, Ken Burns, cancer, sociobiology, Edward. O. Wilson, evolutionary psychology,

Gould said he didn't agree with his father's politics, as I quoted in one of my above posts.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

What is the difference between a Christian operackik and a Darwinist? Facts.

ap·pa·rat·chik
ˌäpəˈräCHik/Submit

1.
an official in a large organization, typically a political one.


The important difference is that, unlike atheist scientists, the other side doesn't attack an alternative view.


1. In 2007, physicists Steven Weinberg addressed the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” He was warmly applauded.

2. Why did Christopher Hitchens write…” God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything!” Well, then how do with reconcile science with abortion, fetal stem-cell research, euthanasia, infanticide, cloning, animal-human hybrids, among the other ‘gifts’ of science, an ideology bereft of any sense of responsibility to human nature.

3. Princeton philosopher Richard Rorty noted the change in authorship of morality: “The West has cobbled together, in the course of the last two hundred years, a specifically secularist moral tradition — one that regards the free consensus of the citizens of a democratic society, rather then the Divine Will, as the source of moral imperatives.” Last Words from Richard Rorty | The Progressive
While Rorty considered this a great advance, consider how this fits the actions of Nazi Germany, in tune with its free consensus.

4. Despite the immense ideological power that the American scientific establishment wields, it still resents the stature of organized religion. On crucial matters of faith and morals, which loom so large in the lives of most individuals, they take a back seat. Members of the National Academy of Sciences are by a large majority persuaded that there is no God; men and women by the millions that there is.
From "The Devil's Delusion," Berlinski

Here's an analogy that should demonstrate how stupid the entire premise of your thread is.

A few white men lynched a black man.

Therefore, all white men are members of the KKK.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is this another of your wild suppositions? That all Swedes are Marxists?

Of course there is common ground between atheism and evolutionary biology. Both are rational and scoff at creationist religious claptrap.

Now....I was trying to be kind.....but you've forced me to provide the real connection between atheism and those who don't subscribe to "religious claptrap:"



1."For starters, unlike the godless state to which American leftists aspire, Lutheranism is the state-supported religion of Sweden. (Despite this fact, less than 10 per cent of Swedes regularly attend church).

2. According to a Swiss federal government statistical comparison of Switzerland and Sweden, the percentage of Swedish unmarried pregnancies in 1996 was 54% percent — roughly equal to the black community in the United States.




3. Worst of all, the Swedes have not always acted benevolently, as reported on page A1 of the August 29, 1997,Washington Post,

From 1934 to 1974, 62,000 Swedes were sterilized as part of a national program grounded in the science of racial biology and carried out by officials who believed they were helping to build a progressive, enlightened welfare state...In some cases, couples judged to be inferior parents were sterilized, as were their children when they became teenagers.


One woman, aged 72 at the time of the Post article, was sterilized "because she couldn't read a blackboard because she did not have eyeglasses and was deemed to be retarded."

....that "90 per cent of [those sterilizied] were women," and that "the practice, which predated and outlived Nazi Germany, started as an attempt to weed out perceived genetic weaknesses, mental or physical defectsand ended as a method of social control."





4. Unfortunately, sterilizations are just the tip of the iceberg. As the Irish Times and Agence-France Presse reported on April 7, 1998, a Swedish Television documentary reveals that Sweden lobotomized perhaps 4500 "undesirables," in some cases without the consent of their families....the benevolent socialist government of Sweden hoped to discover whether "lobotomies could cure alcoholics and criminals."
Sweden and the Myth of Benevolent Socialism alists.



Aren't you proud?

Or simply dumb as asphalt.




The same pattern and beliefs in Mao's China, Stalin's USSR, in Sweden, in Holland's rampant euthanasia...and in Obama's Death Panels....
...human beings are expendable.
The Left.....populated with psychopaths.

Over and over, history reveals the slaughter and oppression of regimes which mock "creationist religious claptrap."




Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’

1. You are misinformed. All connections between the state and the Lutheran church were severed many years ago. Happily the second part of your statement is correct. Superstition is almost defeated in Sweden and few attend churches. (The number attending mosques is growing but that is another story).

2. Correct. Fewer Swedes than ever, including member of my extended family, feel the next to get married. There are however some indications that this trend is about to reverse.

3. Enforced sterilisation was long since exposed in the Swedish media and has been agonised over as a national shame ever since.

I am proud to be Swedish - in a very modest sort of way. It is a second nationality which I actually chose to adopt.

And no, I am not dumb, being lucky enough to have an extremely high IQ.

So.....what are you saying? The lobotomy didn't take?


I note that that IQ prevented you from denying the connection between Leftism and sterilization, lobotomies, death panels, gulags, terror famines, oppression, genocide, eugenics, ....just some of the simpler methods of communism, socialism, progressivism, Liberalism.....every stripe of Leftism.


Good stuff, huh?


Heck.....sure would have been terrible if you folks and the others mentioned had stuck to that 'ol' time superstition'......and missed out on all of the above.



Moron.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is the difference between a Christian operackik and a Darwinist? Facts.

ap·pa·rat·chik
ˌäpəˈräCHik/Submit

1.
an official in a large organization, typically a political one.


The important difference is that, unlike atheist scientists, the other side doesn't attack an alternative view.


1. In 2007, physicists Steven Weinberg addressed the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” He was warmly applauded.

2. Why did Christopher Hitchens write…” God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything!” Well, then how do with reconcile science with abortion, fetal stem-cell research, euthanasia, infanticide, cloning, animal-human hybrids, among the other ‘gifts’ of science, an ideology bereft of any sense of responsibility to human nature.

3. Princeton philosopher Richard Rorty noted the change in authorship of morality: “The West has cobbled together, in the course of the last two hundred years, a specifically secularist moral tradition — one that regards the free consensus of the citizens of a democratic society, rather then the Divine Will, as the source of moral imperatives.” Last Words from Richard Rorty | The Progressive
While Rorty considered this a great advance, consider how this fits the actions of Nazi Germany, in tune with its free consensus.

4. Despite the immense ideological power that the American scientific establishment wields, it still resents the stature of organized religion. On crucial matters of faith and morals, which loom so large in the lives of most individuals, they take a back seat. Members of the National Academy of Sciences are by a large majority persuaded that there is no God; men and women by the millions that there is.
From "The Devil's Delusion," Berlinski

Here's an analogy that should demonstrate how stupid the entire premise of your thread is.

A few white men lynched a black man.

Therefore, all white men are members of the KKK.

So....you're no longer denying that many of the 'evolutionary biologists' were Marxists?

At least 'a few'?

See we're making progress!
And folks thought you were incapable of being taught!





Now....let me be nice.

Although I've admitted my manifest dislike for you, nevertheless, I'm going to ask an indulgence.
Your denial of Gould's Marxism suggests an OP that I would like to construct....and I'd like to quote you in same.
If you'd rather I not mention your name, please advise and I will honor your request.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Hey Sunshine,

Here's a study that validates Evolution.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/8/1574.full.pdf

That's just 1 of hundreds of thousands of scientific studies that validate evolution.

It was so easy to make you look foolish.

In the future I suggest you don't make such blanket statements that are so easily destroyed.

From the article:

Although such models of seminal protein evolution
are reasonable and appear to explain patterns of evolution
for at least one specific Acp locus (Wigby and Chapman
2005), our results suggest that observed patterns of divergence
and nonsynonymous substitutions in seminal proteins
in polyandrous species are not exclusively
a consequence of conflict. The comparison between Drosophila
Acps and Gryllus seminal proteins reveals that,
in spite of the contrasting characteristics of their mating systems,
the mean selection parameter x and the proportion of
loci assumed to be affected by positive selection are very
similar in these 2 polyandrous taxa. In field crickets, experimental
evidence suggest that seminal proteins have a positive
rather than a negative effect on female fitness. In fact,
during copulation, Gryllus males transfer seminal fluid
products to females that increase female life span and lifetime
fecundity (Wagner et al. 2001). So, postmating sexual
selection driven by sperm competition and/or by a process
of cryptic female choice analogous to conventional female
choice (Eberhard 1996) are likely candidates responsible
for the pattern of rapid evolution of seminal proteins in
these taxa. However, other deterministic evolutionary
forces such as natural selection cannot yet be ruled out. Further
comparisons including both monandrous and polyandrous
lineages would help to clarify the role of the different
types of selection in the evolution of seminal proteins, the
major component of seminal fluids.

You don't even know what this study is about. I suggest you get a degree and take research and statistics. This study does not explain speciation, and it doesn't even address natural selection.

This study is about protein synthesis of male ejaculates in two different insects. It in no way seeks to explain natural selection, nor does it even address natural selection.

The title of the study is (in my words) "The Molecular Evolution of Cricket Jizz."

Of course the study addresses natural selection as the authors actually use the words "natural selection" See the below quote that you quoted yourself, then ignored.

To understand the evolution of male ejaculates, it [/B]is essential
to know how natural and sexual selection determine
characteristics of these complex mixtures and of their individual
components.

They are studying evolution, therefore they are validating it. You claimed there were no valid studies supporting evolution. That was the point we were debating and you clearly lost this point.

You just can't admit that you were wrong.

Case closed![/QUOTE]

I can't resist rubbing it in.

Sunshine didn't respond to this one.

I guess she realized she had a real "duh" moment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It has not been demonstrated that evolution relies on Marxism. That is a ridiculous premise. Scientific fact is apolitical.

I used to subscribe to Natural History Magazine when Gould wrote monthly columns. He never once espoused any kind of political philosophy in any of his monthly science columns.

Here's what Gould said about his political philosophy (from a wikipedia entry)

Though he "had been brought up by a Marxist father", he stated that his father's politics were "very different" from his own.[8]

Even if Gould was a Marxist, there are thousands of evolutionary biologists who are not Marxist, thus completely invalidating your absurd point.

One does not need to read much of Gould to see the Marxian influences in his point of view. That did not stop him from being an esteemed colleague of the peers nor one of America's favorite and most quoted scientists. Marxism is far more than a mere political philosophy but is rather intended as a way of life--a state of being of society as a whole.

Originally published in the National Review:

Raised by his father as a Marxist, (Stephen Jay) Gould hated the possibility that evolution had shaped human nature beyond the powers of social engineers to alter. He especially loathed the concept that humans varied genetically. Yet, he was never able to construct a theory of his own that made more accurate predictions about contemporary humanity.
Stephen Jay Gould, R.I.P. by Steve Sailer for National Review; obituary, Marxist, IQ, punctuated equilibria, Simpsons, Ken Burns, cancer, sociobiology, Edward. O. Wilson, evolutionary psychology,

Gould said he didn't agree with his father's politics, as I quoted in one of my above posts.

Actually....that's not exactly what he said.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How does Gould admit to his Marxism by lauding the way in which his science is informed by his beliefs?

Gould was not a Marxist.

Try again.

BTW, calling me stupid, an idiot, a moron, a bird brain, and a low life has not advanced your point.

"BTW, calling me stupid, an idiot, a moron, a bird brain, and a low life has not advanced your point."

I appreciate your honesty in not denying any of the above appellations.


Now...merely to drive home a point which has been duly proven....

" The photographs that adorn a man’s office speak volumes about him. In the office of the late Stephen J. Gould, former professor of paleontology at Harvard University, peering down upon that prolific desk, is the photograph of Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924), the revolutionary who founded the Communist dictatorship in Russia — a materialistic, godless system."

According to a recent article by Lowell Ponte, a former roving editor for Reader’s Digest, “the theory of evolution became [Gould’s] substitute for religion.” Robert Wright, in his book, The Moral Animal, describes this as the sort of “faith” that “no longer entertains the possibility of encountering some fact that would call the whole theory into question.” That is a strange philosophy for one who called himself a “scientist” — a term which presupposes someone in a quest for knowledge, whatever its source.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/525-stephen-j-gould-1941-2002



Please deny the fact once again so that I can once again pin the tail on you, you donkey.

A creationist's slanderous obituary is not a fact.

You fail to understand the difference between someone's opinion and a fact, perhaps explaining your own ignorance.

I seriously doubt Gould had a photo of Lenin in his office.

Lowell Ponte's opinion is also not a fact.

"You fail to understand the difference between someone's opinion and a fact,...."

OK!

You take first place in the category of 'Unintentional Humor"!!!


That statement of yours is exactly the point I've made about 'Darwinian evolution'!!!!

It's 'someone's opinion and not a fact,...'



Dunce.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

ap·pa·rat·chik
ˌäpəˈräCHik/Submit

1.
an official in a large organization, typically a political one.


The important difference is that, unlike atheist scientists, the other side doesn't attack an alternative view.


1. In 2007, physicists Steven Weinberg addressed the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” He was warmly applauded.

2. Why did Christopher Hitchens write…” God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything!” Well, then how do with reconcile science with abortion, fetal stem-cell research, euthanasia, infanticide, cloning, animal-human hybrids, among the other ‘gifts’ of science, an ideology bereft of any sense of responsibility to human nature.

3. Princeton philosopher Richard Rorty noted the change in authorship of morality: “The West has cobbled together, in the course of the last two hundred years, a specifically secularist moral tradition — one that regards the free consensus of the citizens of a democratic society, rather then the Divine Will, as the source of moral imperatives.” Last Words from Richard Rorty | The Progressive
While Rorty considered this a great advance, consider how this fits the actions of Nazi Germany, in tune with its free consensus.

4. Despite the immense ideological power that the American scientific establishment wields, it still resents the stature of organized religion. On crucial matters of faith and morals, which loom so large in the lives of most individuals, they take a back seat. Members of the National Academy of Sciences are by a large majority persuaded that there is no God; men and women by the millions that there is.
From "The Devil's Delusion," Berlinski

Here's an analogy that should demonstrate how stupid the entire premise of your thread is.

A few white men lynched a black man.

Therefore, all white men are members of the KKK.

So....you're no longer denying that many of the 'evolutionary biologists' were Marxists?

At least 'a few'?

See we're making progress!
And folks thought you were incapable of being taught!





Now....let me be nice.

Although I've admitted my manifest dislike for you, nevertheless, I'm going to ask an indulgence.
Your denial of Gould's Marxism suggests an OP that I would like to construct....and I'd like to quote you in same.
If you'd rather I not mention your name, please advise and I will honor your request.

Wrong. I AM denying "that many evolutionary biologists were marxists."

You have failed to prove that there has been a single evolutionary biologist who was a marxist.

I am simply showing how stupid the premise of your thread is. Even if there was 1 evolutionary biologist who was a Marxist, that doesn't mean the whole science is connected to a political theory.

 

[Old Rocks]

At the university I attend, there is this silly fellow with a red beard and big gut that about three times a week goes to the commons, blows this horn, and proceeds to lecture everybody on how the earth is 6000 years old, and the Bible has all the truth in it that one needs. One of the young students finally challenged him, stating "How can you come here, to an institution devoted to learning and knowledge, and willfully spew ignorance". I think that fellow must be closely related to PC.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Politicalchick,

For your mental health, I suggest stepping away from the computer for a while.

My analogy has destroyed the premise of your thread. There is no need for this thread to continue.

It's time for you to stop and think a minute, so you can realize this.

You expressed your dislike for me, yet we have never met. You simply dislike me because I won't go along with your stupid fantasy that somehow the Theory of Evolution is all a communist plot. That is not a reason to dislike someone. This is yet another reason for you to step away from the computer and get out in the real world to socialize with human beings. You will find that you disagree with a lot of people, but that is no reason to dislike them. I bet you wouldn't be likely to call any of them a "bird brain" to their face either.

I know you think you are more clever than me and are somehow scheming to start a new thread to redeem yourself.

I suggest you stop before you require medication because you will only reinforce the opinion of many of us that you are a foolish man with foolish ideas.

 

[Hollie]

"BTW, calling me stupid, an idiot, a moron, a bird brain, and a low life has not advanced your point."

I appreciate your honesty in not denying any of the above appellations.


Now...merely to drive home a point which has been duly proven....

" The photographs that adorn a man’s office speak volumes about him. In the office of the late Stephen J. Gould, former professor of paleontology at Harvard University, peering down upon that prolific desk, is the photograph of Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924), the revolutionary who founded the Communist dictatorship in Russia — a materialistic, godless system."

According to a recent article by Lowell Ponte, a former roving editor for Reader’s Digest, “the theory of evolution became [Gould’s] substitute for religion.” Robert Wright, in his book, The Moral Animal, describes this as the sort of “faith” that “no longer entertains the possibility of encountering some fact that would call the whole theory into question.” That is a strange philosophy for one who called himself a “scientist” — a term which presupposes someone in a quest for knowledge, whatever its source.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/525-stephen-j-gould-1941-2002



Please deny the fact once again so that I can once again pin the tail on you, you donkey.

A creationist's slanderous obituary is not a fact.

You fail to understand the difference between someone's opinion and a fact, perhaps explaining your own ignorance.

I seriously doubt Gould had a photo of Lenin in his office.

Lowell Ponte's opinion is also not a fact.

"You fail to understand the difference between someone's opinion and a fact,...."

OK!

You take first place in the category of 'Unintentional Humor"!!!


That statement of yours is exactly the point I've made about 'Darwinian evolution'!!!!

It's 'someone's opinion and not a fact,...'



Dunce.

Evolution is among the best demonstrated and most widely supported of all scientific theories.

You will be having difficulty understanding what "fact" and "theory" means in the realm of science so raise your hand and ask questions for help.

The fact of biological adaptation and fitness for survival are not mere opinions.

You really send too much time slack-jawed and dumb-founded staring at Harun Yahya's website.