A Fight To The Death!

[Old Rocks]

But Darwin's explanation of natural selection is alive and well, and a major pillar of modern evolutionary theory. We have learned much since Darwin, but like Newton, he was a tremendously brilliant pioneer in the field of evolutionary biology. For those interested in that subject, Ernst Myer's last book, written when he was 98, is a very good introduction to that modern thought on this subject.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Genetic engineering has taught us that cells have an as of yet identified mechanism for correcting mutations. iPSC labs have discovered that genetically altered cells have a tendency to revert to their original formation. There is no explanation for how or why it happens all they know is that there is some built in fail safe that corrects mutations

 

[Old Rocks]

and

 

[PoliticalChic]

The battle? Stephen J. Gould's neo-Darwinism's attack on religion.




Communism has an abiding antipathy for religion. One would be hard pressed to find an argument with that premise.
To put it another way, atheism is a tenet of Marxism.




Living in a free society, would it not be accurate to believe, as Thomas Jefferson did, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Yet, for the atheist, especially the science-devotee who is an atheist, attacks on religious folks, or on religion, becomes an avocation.




When I established that Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx fell in love with Darwin's theory at first sight, because is served as a hammer to beat down the idea that there was a purpose in nature, a design, one poster became incensed!
Rabid, even.
And, when I showed that prominent evolutionary biologists were atheistic Marxists....well...one would have thought that I insulted her parenthood!


" There are no connections whatsoever between a scientific fact and communism."
" You have failed to prove that there has been a single evolutionary biologist who was a marxist."
" The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science."

And when it was revealed that Stephen J. Gould was both brought up by Marxists, and based his support of evolutionary theory on Marx....

" 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.
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."



Well...you be the judge:


1. " The Socialist Worker Online mentions that Gould was on the advisory boards of the journalRethinking Marxism and the Brecht Forum, sponsor of the New York Marxist School.
... Gould was on the advisory boards of the journal Rethinking Marxism and the Brecht Forum, sponsor of the New York Marxist School, which was dedicated to using "Marx's uniquely valuable contributions…to study conditions today and possibilities for transcending capitalism and building an emancipatory society."
Gasper, Phil, ‘A scientist of the people’, Socialist Worker Online, 7 June 2002, p8




2. A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture he learned his Marxism ‘at his daddy's knee’. He has said that his politics were very different from his father’s, but never explained exactly how. Some have speculated that this referred to a rejection of Stalinism.

Whatever the meaning, it is clear from Gould’s work that he was strongly influenced by Marxist beliefs. In his book The Culture of Critique, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that Gould has ‘acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change’
MacDonald, Kevin, ‘The Culture of Critique’




3. Many agree that Gould allowed his Marxist philosophy to influence his science. He has even been labelled, by other evolutionists, ‘muddle-headed, hypocritical, blinded by Marxism, and rhetorically dishonest’
Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist? by David Noebel, Summit Ministries, 23 March 2007 (includes reply to Gould’s widow).




4. " The figure he most closely resembled in these respects was the British biologist of the 1930’s, J. B. S. Haldane, a founder of the modern genetical theory of evolution, a wonderful essayist on science for the general public, and an idiosyncratic Marxist and columnist for the Daily Worker who finally split with the Communist Party over its demand that scientific claims follow Party doctrine. What characterizes Steve Gould’s work is its consistent radicalism.

..... The temptation to see some simple connection between Steve’s theory of episodic evolution and his adherence to Marx’s theory of historical stages should be resisted. The connection is much deeper. It lies in his radicalism.

He was active in the anti-Vietnam War movement, in the work of Science for the People, and of the New York Marxist School. He identified himself as a Marxist but, like Darwinism, it is never quite certain what that identification implies. Despite our close comradeship in many things over many years, we never had a discussion of Marx’s theory of history or of political economy. More to the point, however, by insisting on his adherence to a Marxist viewpoint, he took the opportunity offered to him by his immense fame and legitimacy as a public intellectual to make a broad public think again about the validity of a Marxist analysis.
Stephen Jay Gould? What Does it Mean to Be a Radical? :: Monthly Review






And, let's remember, Stephen Gould became famous in his attempt to prop up Darwin's theory by altering it as follows: evolution was not gradual...but new species popped up via 'punctuated equalibrium,'.....an idea he got from his Marxism.

Of course I will provide more indicia...but the questions that pop up are
why proponents of a flawed theory....Darwin's....take criticism so very personally....and why another's religion need be attacked.

They have the need and desire to hide the connections between Darwin's thesis and communism, atheism, nihilism.....
Why?

And why so bitter?




Shakespeare said it best:
" "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."



Think I should wait for an apology?

You win. Steven Jay Gould is already dead.

and?

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

The battle? Stephen J. Gould's neo-Darwinism's attack on religion.




Communism has an abiding antipathy for religion. One would be hard pressed to find an argument with that premise.
To put it another way, atheism is a tenet of Marxism.




Living in a free society, would it not be accurate to believe, as Thomas Jefferson did, "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Yet, for the atheist, especially the science-devotee who is an atheist, attacks on religious folks, or on religion, becomes an avocation.




When I established that Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx fell in love with Darwin's theory at first sight, because is served as a hammer to beat down the idea that there was a purpose in nature, a design, one poster became incensed!
Rabid, even.
And, when I showed that prominent evolutionary biologists were atheistic Marxists....well...one would have thought that I insulted her parenthood!


" There are no connections whatsoever between a scientific fact and communism."
" You have failed to prove that there has been a single evolutionary biologist who was a marxist."
" The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science."

And when it was revealed that Stephen J. Gould was both brought up by Marxists, and based his support of evolutionary theory on Marx....

" 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.
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."



Well...you be the judge:


1. " The Socialist Worker Online mentions that Gould was on the advisory boards of the journalRethinking Marxism and the Brecht Forum, sponsor of the New York Marxist School.
... Gould was on the advisory boards of the journal Rethinking Marxism and the Brecht Forum, sponsor of the New York Marxist School, which was dedicated to using "Marx's uniquely valuable contributions…to study conditions today and possibilities for transcending capitalism and building an emancipatory society."
Gasper, Phil, ‘A scientist of the people’, Socialist Worker Online, 7 June 2002, p8




2. A famous quote made by Gould is that within his Jewish-Marxist family subculture he learned his Marxism ‘at his daddy's knee’. He has said that his politics were very different from his father’s, but never explained exactly how. Some have speculated that this referred to a rejection of Stalinism.

Whatever the meaning, it is clear from Gould’s work that he was strongly influenced by Marxist beliefs. In his book The Culture of Critique, evolutionist author Kevin MacDonald writes that Gould has ‘acknowledged that his theory of evolution as punctuated equilibria was attractive to him as a Marxist because it posited periodic revolutionary upheavals in evolution rather than conservative, gradualist change’
MacDonald, Kevin, ‘The Culture of Critique’




3. Many agree that Gould allowed his Marxist philosophy to influence his science. He has even been labelled, by other evolutionists, ‘muddle-headed, hypocritical, blinded by Marxism, and rhetorically dishonest’
Stephen Jay Gould: Marxist and Atheist? by David Noebel, Summit Ministries, 23 March 2007 (includes reply to Gould’s widow).




4. " The figure he most closely resembled in these respects was the British biologist of the 1930’s, J. B. S. Haldane, a founder of the modern genetical theory of evolution, a wonderful essayist on science for the general public, and an idiosyncratic Marxist and columnist for the Daily Worker who finally split with the Communist Party over its demand that scientific claims follow Party doctrine. What characterizes Steve Gould’s work is its consistent radicalism.

..... The temptation to see some simple connection between Steve’s theory of episodic evolution and his adherence to Marx’s theory of historical stages should be resisted. The connection is much deeper. It lies in his radicalism.

He was active in the anti-Vietnam War movement, in the work of Science for the People, and of the New York Marxist School. He identified himself as a Marxist but, like Darwinism, it is never quite certain what that identification implies. Despite our close comradeship in many things over many years, we never had a discussion of Marx’s theory of history or of political economy. More to the point, however, by insisting on his adherence to a Marxist viewpoint, he took the opportunity offered to him by his immense fame and legitimacy as a public intellectual to make a broad public think again about the validity of a Marxist analysis.
Stephen Jay Gould? What Does it Mean to Be a Radical? :: Monthly Review






And, let's remember, Stephen Gould became famous in his attempt to prop up Darwin's theory by altering it as follows: evolution was not gradual...but new species popped up via 'punctuated equalibrium,'.....an idea he got from his Marxism.

Of course I will provide more indicia...but the questions that pop up are
why proponents of a flawed theory....Darwin's....take criticism so very personally....and why another's religion need be attacked.

They have the need and desire to hide the connections between Darwin's thesis and communism, atheism, nihilism.....
Why?

And why so bitter?




Shakespeare said it best:
" "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."



Think I should wait for an apology?

Being on the advisory board of a political journal doesn't mean Gould was a Marxist. He could have simply been a science consultant.

You've shown no evidence that Gould was a Marxist. All you've shown is that some evangelical sources and other 3rd parties accuse him of being a Marxist.

Gould specifically said he was not a Marxist. He admitted to being liberal.

In any case Gould's political beliefs have nothing to do with science or scientific fact.

You have completely failed to explain on any of your threads how the Evolutionary model of punctuated equilibrium is Marxist. How is rapid evolutionary change Marxist? I suppose some of the invertebrate organisms during the Cambrian explosion were communists and they killed the Capitalist jelly fish.

You are a joke.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

What happened to the 'mystery poster,' the Gould supporter who claimed..

" There are no connections whatsoever between a scientific fact and communism."

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

" The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science."

" 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."

"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."






This thread was obviously dispositive....
...and so the source of the quotes above thought it was more noble to simply amble into the oblivion she so richly deserved, than to admit how wrong she was.


Here's why it is important to understand the communist philosophy of so many Darwin supporters: there is no hard evidence for Darwin's theory....and without it, Marx and Engel's view of history, and the attack on capitalism, and on the political philosophy of America's Founders falls flat.






One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.

Nothing you wrote even addresses my points that you quoted.

It is uninteresting to debate you because you don't actually engage in debate. You simply regurgitate illogical claims. All you are doing is repeating guilt by association reasoning that is probably even unfounded.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Here's an analogy that kills your logic.

Karl Marx was a Georgia Bulldog fan.

Therefore the Georgia Bulldogs are communist.

Case closed!

 

[PoliticalChic]

What happened to the 'mystery poster,' the Gould supporter who claimed..

" There are no connections whatsoever between a scientific fact and communism."

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

" The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science."

" 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."

"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."






This thread was obviously dispositive....
...and so the source of the quotes above thought it was more noble to simply amble into the oblivion she so richly deserved, than to admit how wrong she was.


Here's why it is important to understand the communist philosophy of so many Darwin supporters: there is no hard evidence for Darwin's theory....and without it, Marx and Engel's view of history, and the attack on capitalism, and on the political philosophy of America's Founders falls flat.






One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.

Nothing you wrote even addresses my points that you quoted.

you don't actually engage in debate. You simply regurgitate illogical claims. All you are doing is repeating guilt by association reasoning that is probably even unfounded.

"Nothing you wrote even addresses my points that you quoted."

Yeah, it does.


I love when you losers post 'is not, is not....."





"It is uninteresting to debate you because...."


I was gonna say because I beat your brains out....

But that would suppose you have same.



I can provide more.....just let me know if you require another spanking.

 

[Hollie]

What happened to the 'mystery poster,' the Gould supporter who claimed..

" There are no connections whatsoever between a scientific fact and communism."

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

" The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science."

" 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."

"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."






This thread was obviously dispositive....
...and so the source of the quotes above thought it was more noble to simply amble into the oblivion she so richly deserved, than to admit how wrong she was.


Here's why it is important to understand the communist philosophy of so many Darwin supporters: there is no hard evidence for Darwin's theory....and without it, Marx and Engel's view of history, and the attack on capitalism, and on the political philosophy of America's Founders falls flat.






One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.

Nothing you wrote even addresses my points that you quoted.

you don't actually engage in debate. You simply regurgitate illogical claims. All you are doing is repeating guilt by association reasoning that is probably even unfounded.

"Nothing you wrote even addresses my points that you quoted."

Yeah, it does.


I love when you losers post 'is not, is not....."





"It is uninteresting to debate you because...."


I was gonna say because I beat your brains out....

But that would suppose you have same.



I can provide more.....just let me know if you require another spanking.

Endless cutting and pasting of fraudulent "quotes" only serves to confirm that you're a fraud.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But Darwin's explanation of natural selection is alive and well, and a major pillar of modern evolutionary theory. We have learned much since Darwin, but like Newton, he was a tremendously brilliant pioneer in the field of evolutionary biology. For those interested in that subject, Ernst Myer's last book, written when he was 98, is a very good introduction to that modern thought on this subject.

The problem for you is that natural selection doesn't lead to a new species.


Unless, of course, you're ready to throw Darwin under the bus....




“That natural selection can produce changes within a type is disputed by no one, not even the staunchest creationist. But that it can transform one species into another — that, in fact, has never been observed.”
― Robert J. Sawyer, "Calculating God"



“Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change [which] led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.”
― Lynn Margulis

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now that it has been established that the author of these statements is......uninformed.....and thoroughly steeped in the religion of Darwinism.....


" There are no connections whatsoever between a scientific fact and communism."
" You have failed to prove that there has been a single evolutionary biologist who was a marxist."
" The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science."

And when it was revealed that Stephen J. Gould was both brought up by Marxists, and based his support of evolutionary theory on Marx....

" 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.
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."


...and proven to be wrong.....



....only half the battle 'to the death' has been won.




What remains is to understand why it is so vitally essential for Darwin's devotees to remain wed to this flawed theory, and why it is necessary for them to attack religion.




The more astute folks will see that it is communism that they are supporting, and Darwin, as Marx and Engels reported, is the hatchet Leftism uses to assault teleology, belief in a purpose for life.





In his great Harvard commencement address, Aleksander Solzhenitsyn denounced the silence and inertia of Western collusion with Communism, the moral poverty of materialism, the spiritual wasteland of freedom without purpose.
(http://distributistreview.com/mag/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Solzhenitsyn-Harvard-Address.pdf)


One need be astute and educated to see the divide, and to understand same....but that's what this thread is really about.

 

[Hollie]

But Darwin's explanation of natural selection is alive and well, and a major pillar of modern evolutionary theory. We have learned much since Darwin, but like Newton, he was a tremendously brilliant pioneer in the field of evolutionary biology. For those interested in that subject, Ernst Myer's last book, written when he was 98, is a very good introduction to that modern thought on this subject.

The problem for you is that natural selection doesn't lead to a new species.


Unless, of course, you're ready to throw Darwin under the bus....




“That natural selection can produce changes within a type is disputed by no one, not even the staunchest creationist. But that it can transform one species into another — that, in fact, has never been observed.”
― Robert J. Sawyer, "Calculating God"



“Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change [which] led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.”
― Lynn Margulis

Cut and paste "quotes" from Robert Sawyer? Did you know Sawyer is a science fiction writer?

Good gawd, what a horses ass you are.

 

[Hollie]

Now that it has been established that the author of these statements is......uninformed.....and thoroughly steeped in the religion of Darwinism.....


" There are no connections whatsoever between a scientific fact and communism."
" You have failed to prove that there has been a single evolutionary biologist who was a marxist."
" The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science."

And when it was revealed that Stephen J. Gould was both brought up by Marxists, and based his support of evolutionary theory on Marx....

" 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.
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."


...and proven to be wrong.....



....only half the battle 'to the death' has been won.




What remains is to understand why it is so vitally essential for Darwin's devotees to remain wed to this flawed theory, and why it is necessary for them to attack religion.




The more astute folks will see that it is communism that they are supporting, and Darwin, as Marx and Engels reported, is the hatchet Leftism uses to assault teleology, belief in a purpose for life.





In his great Harvard commencement address, Aleksander Solzhenitsyn denounced the silence and inertia of Western collusion with Communism, the moral poverty of materialism, the spiritual wasteland of freedom without purpose.
(http://distributistreview.com/mag/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Solzhenitsyn-Harvard-Address.pdf)


One need be astute and educated to see the divide, and to understand same....but that's what this thread is really about.

Like every other science hating / knowledge loathing thread you litter this forum with, this thread is just another repository for your "quote-mine" lies and fundamentalist agenda.

 

[PoliticalChic]

But Darwin's explanation of natural selection is alive and well, and a major pillar of modern evolutionary theory. We have learned much since Darwin, but like Newton, he was a tremendously brilliant pioneer in the field of evolutionary biology. For those interested in that subject, Ernst Myer's last book, written when he was 98, is a very good introduction to that modern thought on this subject.

The problem for you is that natural selection doesn't lead to a new species.


Unless, of course, you're ready to throw Darwin under the bus....




“That natural selection can produce changes within a type is disputed by no one, not even the staunchest creationist. But that it can transform one species into another — that, in fact, has never been observed.”
― Robert J. Sawyer, "Calculating God"



“Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change [which] led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.”
― Lynn Margulis

Cut and paste "quotes" from Robert Sawyer? Did you know Sawyer is a science fiction writer?

Good gawd, what a horses ass you are.

So.....truth depends on who it is that states it?


Interesting view of reality.


Did you attend government schools?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now that it has been established that the author of these statements is......uninformed.....and thoroughly steeped in the religion of Darwinism.....


" There are no connections whatsoever between a scientific fact and communism."
" You have failed to prove that there has been a single evolutionary biologist who was a marxist."
" The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science."

And when it was revealed that Stephen J. Gould was both brought up by Marxists, and based his support of evolutionary theory on Marx....

" 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.
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."


...and proven to be wrong.....



....only half the battle 'to the death' has been won.




What remains is to understand why it is so vitally essential for Darwin's devotees to remain wed to this flawed theory, and why it is necessary for them to attack religion.




The more astute folks will see that it is communism that they are supporting, and Darwin, as Marx and Engels reported, is the hatchet Leftism uses to assault teleology, belief in a purpose for life.





In his great Harvard commencement address, Aleksander Solzhenitsyn denounced the silence and inertia of Western collusion with Communism, the moral poverty of materialism, the spiritual wasteland of freedom without purpose.
(http://distributistreview.com/mag/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Solzhenitsyn-Harvard-Address.pdf)


One need be astute and educated to see the divide, and to understand same....but that's what this thread is really about.

Like every other science hating / knowledge loathing thread you litter this forum with, this thread is just another repository for your "quote-mine" lies and fundamentalist agenda.

And that is the reason you have been unable to refute it?


You shouldn't let hate blind you so.

 

[Hollie]

Now that it has been established that the author of these statements is......uninformed.....and thoroughly steeped in the religion of Darwinism.....


" There are no connections whatsoever between a scientific fact and communism."
" You have failed to prove that there has been a single evolutionary biologist who was a marxist."
" The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science."

And when it was revealed that Stephen J. Gould was both brought up by Marxists, and based his support of evolutionary theory on Marx....

" 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.
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."


...and proven to be wrong.....



....only half the battle 'to the death' has been won.




What remains is to understand why it is so vitally essential for Darwin's devotees to remain wed to this flawed theory, and why it is necessary for them to attack religion.




The more astute folks will see that it is communism that they are supporting, and Darwin, as Marx and Engels reported, is the hatchet Leftism uses to assault teleology, belief in a purpose for life.





In his great Harvard commencement address, Aleksander Solzhenitsyn denounced the silence and inertia of Western collusion with Communism, the moral poverty of materialism, the spiritual wasteland of freedom without purpose.
(http://distributistreview.com/mag/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Solzhenitsyn-Harvard-Address.pdf)


One need be astute and educated to see the divide, and to understand same....but that's what this thread is really about.

Like every other science hating / knowledge loathing thread you litter this forum with, this thread is just another repository for your "quote-mine" lies and fundamentalist agenda.

And that is the reason you have been unable to refute it?


You shouldn't let hate blind you so.

Refute what?


You cut and paste "quotes" from a science fiction writer in a twisted and futile attempt to vilify evolutionary biology.


You're just an embarrassment to thinking humans.

 

[Hollie]

The problem for you is that natural selection doesn't lead to a new species.


Unless, of course, you're ready to throw Darwin under the bus....




“That natural selection can produce changes within a type is disputed by no one, not even the staunchest creationist. But that it can transform one species into another — that, in fact, has never been observed.”
― Robert J. Sawyer, "Calculating God"



“Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change [which] led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.”
― Lynn Margulis

Cut and paste "quotes" from Robert Sawyer? Did you know Sawyer is a science fiction writer?

Good gawd, what a horses ass you are.

So.....truth depends on who it is that states it?


Interesting view of reality.


Did you attend government schools?

It's bad enough that you steal ruthlessly from Harun Yahya to press your fundamentalist agenda. But when you "quote-mine" science fiction writers on matters of biology and evolution, it appears that you are desperate and stupid.

 

[Synthaholic]

The whole thread is very clear and very specific: it is proof that the most famous of Darwin's modern supporters, Stephen J. Gould, is an inveterate, congenital Marxist.

I could point to proof that the most famous of Ayn Rand's/Libertarianism's modern supporters have promoted unchecked racism for years.

What's your point?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The whole thread is very clear and very specific: it is proof that the most famous of Darwin's modern supporters, Stephen J. Gould, is an inveterate, congenital Marxist.

I could point to proof that the most famous of Ayn Rand's/Libertarianism's modern supporters have promoted unchecked racism for years.

What's your point?

Answered earlier, in post #31...

...but don't bother to look: it is meant for more astute individuals.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

What happened to the 'mystery poster,' the Gould supporter who claimed..

" There are no connections whatsoever between a scientific fact and communism."

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

" The Theory of Evolution is the fundamental basis of all biological science."

" 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."

"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."






This thread was obviously dispositive....
...and so the source of the quotes above thought it was more noble to simply amble into the oblivion she so richly deserved, than to admit how wrong she was.


Here's why it is important to understand the communist philosophy of so many Darwin supporters: there is no hard evidence for Darwin's theory....and without it, Marx and Engel's view of history, and the attack on capitalism, and on the political philosophy of America's Founders falls flat.






One of the first readers of 'On the Origin of Species' was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. He wrote to Karl Marx: "Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect."
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, "Marx-Engels Collected Works" , vol. 40, p. 441.

Nothing you wrote even addresses my points that you quoted.

you don't actually engage in debate. You simply regurgitate illogical claims. All you are doing is repeating guilt by association reasoning that is probably even unfounded.

"Nothing you wrote even addresses my points that you quoted."

Yeah, it does.


I love when you losers post 'is not, is not....."





"It is uninteresting to debate you because...."


I was gonna say because I beat your brains out....

But that would suppose you have same.



I can provide more.....just let me know if you require another spanking.

I'm going to make one more honest attempt to get through to you and maybe the lightbulb will go off in your brain. I will again use a simple analogy that even you should be able to understand.

According to your logic, Karl Marx likes bread and butter, therefore bread and butter is Marxist.

So I when I ask you to explain why Karl Marx liking bread and butter makes bread and butter Marxist, you completely fail to explain.

Instead you call me a befuddled stupid bird brain because I don't agree with your absurd assertions.

Do you get it? Just stating your assertion without explanation will never convince anyone. You need to support your dubious connections with some kind of explanation.