Darwin's Apparatchiks

[MaryL]

Worst premise for a thread I have read so far. Charles Darwin was a Christian man and he was seeking truth not adhering to mindless dogma. I don't find anything wrong with THAT.

 

[freedombecki]

Worst premise for a thread I have read so far. Charles Darwin was a Christian man and he was seeking truth not adhering to mindless dogma. I don't find anything wrong with THAT.

That's likely why this thread is not about Darwin, it's about what a small sector of his apparatchiks turned it into on their way to support their little outhouse of atheism. Do you see the difference?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Worst premise for a thread I have read so far. Charles Darwin was a Christian man and he was seeking truth not adhering to mindless dogma. I don't find anything wrong with THAT.

The problem is not with the premise, which is absolutely true.


Perhaps you should work harder at understanding the premise of the OP....it is well documented.


Love that avi.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now settled science is "communism".

You folks are hilarious.

The only thing that is settled is your inability to comprehend.

If it was raining soup you'd be standing outside with a fork.

Ah so it rains soup now?

Which Christian Scientist told ya that?

Here's a hint.

(It doesn't)

Now, I realize that books, to you, are like a cross to a vampire.....

....but allow me to recommend a couple by Charles Fort....


"The Complete Books of Charles Fort: The Book of the Damned / Lo! / Wild Talents / New Lands" by Charles Fort


Fort would list all sorts of phenomenon, world wide, that were unexplainable by science, i.e., 'damned.'


Fish falling from the sky, different colors of rain,...

From an amazon review:
"Fort's point: What doesn't fit in is damned. What other strange phenomena have been excluded from respectable consideration? Fort tells of fish and stones falling from the clouds, strange craft cruising the skies in the 1890's, lights moving beneath the surface of the sea, vitrified (melted) stone forts in Scotland, disappearing stars, red rain, unknown planets crossing the sun, and sea serpents."


You might find soup falling from the sky in Fort's work.....



Kind of prepared me for dealing with folks like you.......

 

[MaryL]

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

 

[Hollie]

Worst premise for a thread I have read so far. Charles Darwin was a Christian man and he was seeking truth not adhering to mindless dogma. I don't find anything wrong with THAT.

This is only the worst so far.

This is just the latest thread that PC has dumped into the forum to express her revulsion for science, (especially evolution), and knowledge in general.

She is probably the most prolific cut and paster, scouring the bowels of Harun Yahya and the polluted backwater of Christian fundamentalist websites for “quote-mines” she can drench the thread with.

The falsifications of the science positions posted by PC is another of the devices used by creationists to create the illusion that creationism is a viable mechanism to explain the diversity of life on the planet. Christian creationism is simply the misrepresentation of authoritative scientific research; The lack of actual research undertaken by the christian creationist ministries and the refusal to submit research and results for peer review. The occasional bit of jingoistic flatulence allows creationist hacks to appear authoritative to people with a prior commitment to religious dogma. However, since there is nothing in the literature of the Christian creationist ministries to support their arguments, their charade of authority can be maintained only by pressing a distorted caricature of how the Scientific Method is actually maintained.

What is truly laughable in the allegations of the typical ID’iot argument from incredulity (and an especially poor one given the substantial lack of rhetorical skill of fundie hacks is demonstrated by the fact that the creation ministries can offer no mechanism or theory as to what alternative mechanism (other than the implied “gawds did it”) could better explain the “convergence” of evolution. This is especially laughable because the Disco’Tutes own Michael Behe proposed a laughably creationist inspired “theory” about decade ago. The first cell 3.5 - 4 billion years ago might have had all of the required genetic material for reproduction in place but was simply “turned off” until needed. It’s a laughable joke but that is what defines the Christian creationist agenda.

Just think, for all these decades, the Christian creationist ministries could have been testing the data and publishing peer reviewed papers proving their Christian gawds. Instead, they’ve been recycling the same tired nonsense that has been shown over and over again to do nothing but a misrepresentation of evolution.

 

[Peterf]

From the article:



You can't be serious.

None of those instances resulted in a new species.

Try reading it again. The new species were incapable of mating with the parent species, resulting in speciation.

Biologists have a hard time defining what actually constitutes a species, the same way geologists haven't every been able to define a continent and astronomers can't agree on what defines a planet. All that uncertainty does is allow the God Squad types to constantly move the goalposts. Even if one is able to demonstrate evolutionary change resulting in a new species, the ambiguity allows the argument to be shifted so that the demonstration is doesn't apply.

There is a simple definition of a species: animals are of the same species if they are able to produce breeding offspring. And if not, not. Example: Horses and donkeys can produce offspring, mules. But mules cannot breed, therefore horses and donkeys are different species.

 

[Peterf]

Communism.

Marxism.

Darwin.



That's the subject for today.


Hopefully there is medication for your A.D.D.

Come to Sweden PC. People will flock to listen to you. You see no one here has ever met anyone who actually denies evolution. You would win first prize in the freak show.

The only thing that worries me is that your visit would comfort the America Haters, who, I'm sorry to say, would jump up and down with glee.

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Come to Sweden PC. People will flock to listen to you. You see no one here has ever met anyone who actually denies evolution. You would win first prize in the freak show.

The only thing that worries me is that your visit would comfort the America Haters, who, I'm sorry to say, would jump up and down with glee.

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.’

 

[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.

I've posted a dozen OP's explaining that evolution is neither proven, nor scientific.
You will have no trouble finding same....and, based on the elisions in your education, you shouldn't waste any time in getting to them.

Today's OP is about the connection of the 'theory' to Marxism, as demonstrated by Darwin's acolytes.



So....clean off your specs, borrow a dictionary....and sit down and try to understand the OP.

I fully understand the difficulties that will present for a person of your limitations....but it will be worth it.

Oh and I should believe you--an anonymous shmuck posting nonsense on the internet--but not the 99.999% of scientists who actually study biology for a living.

I already debunked your claim that Marxism is somehow connected to Evolution.

Evolution is scientific fact. Scientific fact is apolitical. 2 + 2 = 4. That is not communism. The earth revolves around the sun. That is not communism. Life evolved via change over time in the genetic characteristics of a population. This is not communism. It is scientific fact whether you accept this fact or not.

 

[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:

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

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.[/quote]

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!

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

I've posted a dozen OP's explaining that evolution is neither proven, nor scientific.
You will have no trouble finding same....and, based on the elisions in your education, you shouldn't waste any time in getting to them.

Today's OP is about the connection of the 'theory' to Marxism, as demonstrated by Darwin's acolytes.



So....clean off your specs, borrow a dictionary....and sit down and try to understand the OP.

I fully understand the difficulties that will present for a person of your limitations....but it will be worth it.

Oh and I should believe you--an anonymous shmuck posting nonsense on the internet--but not the 99.999% of scientists who actually study biology for a living.

I already debunked your claim that Marxism is somehow connected to Evolution.

Evolution is scientific fact. Scientific fact is apolitical. 2 + 2 = 4. That is not communism. The earth revolves around the sun. That is not communism. Life evolved via change over time in the genetic characteristics of a population. This is not communism. It is scientific fact whether you accept this fact or not.

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.

 

[Hollie]

I've posted a dozen OP's explaining that evolution is neither proven, nor scientific.
You will have no trouble finding same....and, based on the elisions in your education, you shouldn't waste any time in getting to them.

Today's OP is about the connection of the 'theory' to Marxism, as demonstrated by Darwin's acolytes.



So....clean off your specs, borrow a dictionary....and sit down and try to understand the OP.

I fully understand the difficulties that will present for a person of your limitations....but it will be worth it.

Oh and I should believe you--an anonymous shmuck posting nonsense on the internet--but not the 99.999% of scientists who actually study biology for a living.

I already debunked your claim that Marxism is somehow connected to Evolution.

Evolution is scientific fact. Scientific fact is apolitical. 2 + 2 = 4. That is not communism. The earth revolves around the sun. That is not communism. Life evolved via change over time in the genetic characteristics of a population. This is not communism. It is scientific fact whether you accept this fact or not.

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.

In no stretch of a religious fundamentalist imagination have you made any case for Marxism relying on Darwin's theory of evolution.

Back to Harun Yahya for you.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

I've posted a dozen OP's explaining that evolution is neither proven, nor scientific.
You will have no trouble finding same....and, based on the elisions in your education, you shouldn't waste any time in getting to them.

Today's OP is about the connection of the 'theory' to Marxism, as demonstrated by Darwin's acolytes.



So....clean off your specs, borrow a dictionary....and sit down and try to understand the OP.

I fully understand the difficulties that will present for a person of your limitations....but it will be worth it.

Oh and I should believe you--an anonymous shmuck posting nonsense on the internet--but not the 99.999% of scientists who actually study biology for a living.

I already debunked your claim that Marxism is somehow connected to Evolution.

Evolution is scientific fact. Scientific fact is apolitical. 2 + 2 = 4. That is not communism. The earth revolves around the sun. That is not communism. Life evolved via change over time in the genetic characteristics of a population. This is not communism. It is scientific fact whether you accept this fact or not.

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.

 

[Sallow]

Now....don't tell me you've caught the 'Hollie disease'....stupidity?

Where is your attempt to speak to the OP?

Any errors in it?

Would you admit that you were unaware of the links of the proponents to communism, Marxism?

And....admit that these details reinforce my contentions?



Well?

The whole OP is one big error.

There's nothing to discuss.

It is so utterly disappointing to find this low caliber of opposition.

All you've done is verify the OP.

Based on how vapid your post is.....why'd you even bother.
It's not as though this post made you seem any smarter than had you not posted.


If there is an idea in your head, it's in solitary confinement.

Oh really.

There really isn't anything to discuss.

Your OP is moronic.

It tosses away centuries of science and replaces it with centuries of mumbo jumbo.

Darwinism is bad because it's atheist and therefore must be communism..right?

That's an insane premise.

Seriously and ridiculously so.

You should feel embarrassed about it.

I'll leave you with this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0]Billy Madison - Ultimate Insult (Academic Decathlon)[Forum Weapon][How To Troll][Ignorance Is Bliss] - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

I've posted a dozen OP's explaining that evolution is neither proven, nor scientific.
You will have no trouble finding same....and, based on the elisions in your education, you shouldn't waste any time in getting to them.

Today's OP is about the connection of the 'theory' to Marxism, as demonstrated by Darwin's acolytes.



So....clean off your specs, borrow a dictionary....and sit down and try to understand the OP.

I fully understand the difficulties that will present for a person of your limitations....but it will be worth it.

Oh and I should believe you--an anonymous shmuck posting nonsense on the internet--but not the 99.999% of scientists who actually study biology for a living.

I already debunked your claim that Marxism is somehow connected to Evolution.

Evolution is scientific fact. Scientific fact is apolitical. 2 + 2 = 4. That is not communism. The earth revolves around the sun. That is not communism. Life evolved via change over time in the genetic characteristics of a population. This is not communism. It is scientific fact whether you accept this fact or not.

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh and I should believe you--an anonymous shmuck posting nonsense on the internet--but not the 99.999% of scientists who actually study biology for a living.

I already debunked your claim that Marxism is somehow connected to Evolution.

Evolution is scientific fact. Scientific fact is apolitical. 2 + 2 = 4. That is not communism. The earth revolves around the sun. That is not communism. Life evolved via change over time in the genetic characteristics of a population. This is not communism. It is scientific fact whether you accept this fact or not.

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.

 

[Hollie]

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.

I've posted a dozen OP's explaining that evolution is neither proven, nor scientific.
You will have no trouble finding same....and, based on the elisions in your education, you shouldn't waste any time in getting to them.

Today's OP is about the connection of the 'theory' to Marxism, as demonstrated by Darwin's acolytes.



So....clean off your specs, borrow a dictionary....and sit down and try to understand the OP.

I fully understand the difficulties that will present for a person of your limitations....but it will be worth it.

Oh and I should believe you--an anonymous shmuck posting nonsense on the internet--but not the 99.999% of scientists who actually study biology for a living.

I already debunked your claim that Marxism is somehow connected to Evolution.

Evolution is scientific fact. Scientific fact is apolitical. 2 + 2 = 4. That is not communism. The earth revolves around the sun. That is not communism. Life evolved via change over time in the genetic characteristics of a population. This is not communism. It is scientific fact whether you accept this fact or not.

Yep.

Reasoned arguments come from those who spend their time studying the issues. Among the many false claims made by ID'iot creationists, there is a standard debunked creationist claim that Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism: CA111: Scientists reject evolution?

Of the 480,000 scientists in the earth and life sciences, only 700 consider "creation-science" a valid theory.

Yup, that means 99.85 percent of researchers in biology and the life sciences support the theory of evolution. That's just in the US. In the rest of the developed world, it's more than 99.9 percent.

For most people who have studied the life sciences, the attitudes and ignorance expressed by people such as PC are chilling. Their animosity to open investigation is palpable. Science has had the affect of pruning back the overreaching of religion into science. That's been a positive development for humanity.

for PC's benefit: The earth isn't flat. Species evolved. These are not spiritual facts, they're material. And when crackpots scour websites such as Harun Yahya for their science and religion, it tends toward the debilitating disease of PC Syndrome.

 

[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.

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.

Umm. Sorry. I've tried to find a source other than your silly "christiancourier" website to verify this claim.

Sorry, it's just as phony as so much of your cut and paste nonsense.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh and I should believe you--an anonymous shmuck posting nonsense on the internet--but not the 99.999% of scientists who actually study biology for a living.

I already debunked your claim that Marxism is somehow connected to Evolution.

Evolution is scientific fact. Scientific fact is apolitical. 2 + 2 = 4. That is not communism. The earth revolves around the sun. That is not communism. Life evolved via change over time in the genetic characteristics of a population. This is not communism. It is scientific fact whether you accept this fact or not.

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,