(Updated) Denyse O’Leary and the bottom of the barrel

| 355 Comments

Update at the bottom

In the context of some flailing against theistic evolution, Denyse O’Leary has finally scraped the bottom of the barrel. On Uncommon Descent she writes

I just got done reading a book published in Turkey called Evolution Deceit, which helps me understand why Turkey alarms many materialists - but more on that later.

“Evolution Deceit” is by Adnan Oktar, who publishes under the name Harun Yahya and is a Turkish creationist. It’s a standard issue creationist diatribe; nothing new to see there. That O’Leary cites it as a reason to be alarmed about Turkey is entirely appropriate, but not for the reason O’Leary wants us to believe. In fact it’s an indication that the creationist pathology infests more countries than just the U.S.

Recall that Harun Yahya is also the purported author of The Atlas of Creation that was mailed to thousands of scientists a while back. It’s also the book in which a fly fishing lure was presented as a photograph of an insect along with other obvious mistakes. I knew the ID creationists were getting desperate for allies, but this is a new low. Soon I expect to see Denyse wearing a burqa.

Update: Larry Arnhart at Darwinian Conservative notes that Denyse has now interviewed Oktar. See Arnhart’s post linked above for commentary on the interview, particularly Oktar’s claim that intelligent design is the product of a Masonic conspiracy to promote atheism and Deism. This just gets weirder and weirder.

355 Comments

“I knew the ID creationists were getting desperate for allies, but this is a new low.”

You don’t give them enough credit. Every time they “reach a new low,” they find some way to go even lower. They’re remarkably talented like that.

An awful lot of “more on that later” in that UD post (which I’m tempted to read as “moron that later”). Sort of sums up the entire ID project, doesn’t it?

“Denyse O’Leary and is the bottom of the barrel.”

There, fixed it for you. She’s the absolute dregs of journalism and rational thought.

What is interesting is that it seems that Turkey is one of the few countries where the acceptance of the theory of evolution is less accepted that America. Also, Harun Yahya’s hostility to the the evolution would make any creationist proud.

On _Atlas of Creation_: You have already mentioned the fishing lures (not just insects, by the way – a number of arachnids also appear in fishing lure form).

But my personal favorite is the crinoids. The book has many, many pictures of fossil crinoids, along with pictures of living crinoids, and the usual statement of “See? They’re exactly the same. There is no evolution.” What’s particularly amusing about this is that in every single case, the photo of a living crinoid isn’t a crinoid at all, but an annelid featherduster worm. At least the fishing lures were copies of the right organism, but the crinoids aren’t even the right phylum. You could hardly be more wrong, confusing a deuterostome with a protostome. OK, he could have shown an angiosperm. But still.

That Denyse O’Leary takes Yahya seriously just shows how silly she is.

What’s also interesting is that there is no young earth tradition in Islam; Oktar and his cronies are all OECs. While the DI may look for a big tent, good luck getting hardcore American YECs to embrace the views of Muslim creationists.

I have heard allegations that some American supporters of YECs, OECs, and, in particular, the DI have been funding Harun Yahya, and this, especially in light of his magnum opus that he sent to quite a few here in the USA:

James F said:

What’s also interesting is that there is no young earth tradition in Islam; Oktar and his cronies are all OECs. While the DI may look for a big tent, good luck getting hardcore American YECs to embrace the views of Muslim creationists.

John Kwok said:

I have heard allegations that some American supporters of YECs, OECs, and, in particular, the DI have been funding Harun Yahya, and this, especially in light of his magnum opus that he sent to quite a few here in the USA:

James F said:

What’s also interesting is that there is no young earth tradition in Islam; Oktar and his cronies are all OECs. While the DI may look for a big tent, good luck getting hardcore American YECs to embrace the views of Muslim creationists.

I have heard the same thing, Muslim Creationists and Christian Creationists working together against what they call the social evils of the World…meaning, mostly Evolution and our “fallen” sexual mores. Actually, I’d like to see both groups swear off sex all together. Should solve a lot of problems, and raise the overall IQ level at *least* a few points.

I doubt the DI have paid one penny towards Harun Yahya. The money he needed for his “atlas of creation” and it’s distribution is likely to be sourced to Saudi Arabia.

Well, when you reside at the bottom of the barrel, all you can scrape will have to be within reach.

Sorry to break the bad news. The bottom of the barrel is probably infinitely far away.

O’Leary clearly has come close to setting a new record for barrel diving though.

It is going to be close with JD Kennedy’s From Darwin to Hitler and the remake, Expelled, starring Ben Stein.

The title of this makes as much sense to me as “Horses and the Class of Commonly-Ridden Equines That Start With an ‘H’”

This is not a new development. I remember a few years ago there was a DI speaker (don’t recall his name) at a creationist seminar put on by the city government of Istanbul. Creationism is so popular in Turkey that science teachers are afraid to teach evolution because there has been harassment and even violent assults on those who do. Mr. Oktar has been charged with organizing some of this violence, as well as criminal organization, blackmail, cocaine distribution and rape of a minor. These charges haven’t stuck, though, because of a loophole in Turkey’s legal code that doesn’t allow convicting the mentally ill (Mr. Oktar is a clinically diagnosed schizophrenic). His followers explain this away as a conspiracy by the Freemasons against him (seriously…the Freemasons). Unfortunately, his popularity isn’t just with village yokels. If you meet a Turkish post-grad student in the U.S. or Europe chances are good that they think he’s the most brilliant man alive. Everything his institute puts out is so inane it makes me want to vomit blood. It’s mostly just re-hashes of the sort of stupid “no beneficial mutations” nonsense that only the most simple-minded Western creationists still cling to. I read something he wrote about the “myth of stone age man”. He proposed that humans never had stone age technology, and further that the stone age period is an evolutionist myth. The centerpiece of this work was the idea that randomly smashing pieces of flint togeather won’t make useful tools, therefore earlier civilizations must have had METAL TOOLS with which they made their STONE TOOLS (seriously, this is too bizzare for me to have made up myself). For a whole week, whenever I would recall this theory I would smack myself in the head and wonder out loud, “If you already had the metal tools, what in the hell would you want with the stone ones?!?”

The only interesting thing about creationists is their boundless capacity for giving “stupid” more and more extreme meanings.

On the same line of non-thinking, Dembski finds a real moron (judging by his words, at least), Thomas Vaughan, who praises him while discussing his persecution while composing a play regarding the poor beleaguered IDiots:

This stands as a stark contrast to some of those that I communicated with in the same capacity who hold the more mainstream view of evolution. They were openly hostile to not just the play but the very notion that these minority views should be given a voice at all. The interviews with the notable scientists these ideas are based on were attacked without being read. One individual even suggested that the interviews were probably just made up and not worth reading in the first place.

While this hostility came from only a few, and only from the academics, it was enough to assure me that the basic thrust of the play was essentially correct. It is worth noting that many more people have helped tirelessly with this production who still disagree with the arguments presented by Henry Darden. I thank each and every one of them.

www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-third-side-by-thomas-vaughan-may-14-30-in-houston/

Can you imagine how appalled he’d be if scientists had no evidence for their claims, ignored or misrepresented virtually all of the many considered replies from their critics, tried to change the meaning of science to include completely bogus pseudosciences, and, instead of doing anything constructive, merely called their opponents “materialists” who are too biased to consider anything else, despite the fact that Paley was well-considered and rejected for good reason (his successors, meanwhile, only move away from meaningful and testable claims)?

I think he’d be well within his rights to call scientists bigots in such a case. Trouble is, it’s Vaughan’s side which resorted to name-calling the moment their claims were shown to be rubbish in any scientific sense, and who also compared good scientists to Nazis in a recent film.

I guess his eyes are so covered in IDiot filth that he sees only that when he looks at scientists. Or in Jesus’ terms, perhaps he could see splinters in the eyes of others, were the beams in their eyes not blocking their sight.

Glen Davidson

http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Interesting coincidence. I’ve just heard of a book, “How to Win a Cosmic War” (http://rezaaslan.com/cosmicwar.html), that’s mostly about Muslim jihadists, but makes the point that US religious extremists share the same uncompromising need to fight what they determine to be evil. The way to win? Don’t fight the cosmic war. Don’t march out to meet them on a battlefield that they’ve defined, which is what extreme atheists seem determined to do in the evolution/creationism conflict. There’s a conceptual parallel between what Bush once called a crusade against terrorism in the middle east and how some are conducting opposition to the anti-evolution campaign. As the “war on terror” feeds into the jihadists reason for being, so the the linking of biology education to an anti-religion campaign feeds the attack on science education.

Science in most of the Moslem world is “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” There is no law against doing it, but it isn’t particularly respected. Creationism is prevalent and not just in Turkey. In some countries it can be as high as 85% of the population.

They pay a high price for this. Our civilization is a high tech one, built on science.

1. They will always be a step or two behind the west. We do the science, we do the development, they import the knowledge and/or the products.

2. It can be expensive as well. The oil Arabs are estimated to have spent 1/2 trillion dollars importing western R&D in the last few decades. Supposedly they are going to spend some money building up their own academic infrastructure. We shall see.

The difference between Xian fundie fanatics and Islamic fundie fanatics is nothing. Fanatics are all the same. We just don’t let ours run around loose with armies and bombs anymore. I wouldn’t expect too much of the marriage of convenience of fundies of the two religions. At the end of the day, there is only one god and it is either Yahweh or Allah. They will always hate each other.

While this hostility came from only a few, and only from the academics, it was enough to assure me that the basic thrust of the play was essentially correct.

Perceived hostile reaction to lies and deceit = correctness of lies and deceit.

such is the level of denial these people operate under.

I’m more and more convinced there is some underlying psycho-pathology to this kind of thinking.

If DO’L is scraping the bottom of the barrel, it can only be from the other side of same.

raven said:

The difference between Xian fundie fanatics and Islamic fundie fanatics is nothing. Fanatics are all the same. We just don’t let ours run around loose with armies and bombs anymore.

Emphasis mine.

Would that it were true. http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/[…]lism-miltary

Just when you think Panda’s Bum can’t get any more hysterical, it does.

Btw, the Koran contains a lot of references to Adam & Eve. The only thing not copied from Genesis seems to be the spare rib. (There used to be a feminist mag called Spare Rib in Limeyland, but it closed long ago. Survival of the fittest, I s’pose.)

James F Wrote:

What’s also interesting is that there is no young earth tradition in Islam; Oktar and his cronies are all OECs. While the DI may look for a big tent, good luck getting hardcore American YECs to embrace the views of Muslim creationists.

John Kwok Wrote:

I have heard allegations that some American supporters of YECs, OECs, and, in particular, the DI have been funding Harun Yahya, and this, especially in light of his magnum opus that he sent to quite a few here in the USA:

Thanks James and John! Usually it’s me who has to remind everyone of the irreconcilable differences in the big tent, and how we inadvertently help the DI cover them up with the “us vs. the creationists” oversimplification. On the one hand I enjoy having something to add to the “debate,” but I like it even better when someone beats me to it.

Thanks to Richard too for showing how low the DI will go. As if their “Darwinism”-leads-to-Nazism wasn’t bad enough. I guess we could counter with “creationism leads to 9/11,” but we won’t, because we have to answer to a higher authority, be it God or just common decency.

I’ve recently been attending a series of talks by John West of the Deception Institute presented, of course, at a church. He’s very slick, very polished, martyr driven, and of course he’s preaching to the choir. All throughout his talk he’s effectively demonized Darwin and every scientist who supports evolution. Did you know Darwin was responsible for abortion, infanticide, and eugenics? Did you know that theistic evolution is unacceptable (insufficient fundamentalist grounded purity of thought)? Quote mining is at its best with John. We know ID proponents appeal to the ignorant, it reinforces their world view, they don’t have to think, they readily accept the drivel they are spoon fed, and they don’t question. Truly the bell curve for them is skewed to the low end. But that’s the strength of the ID movement, strength in numbers, not brains. It’s no different with Oktar, O’Leary, et al; they know how to preach to the choir and find a receptive audience. They know how to scapegoat Darwin and blame evolution for all the ills of the world and that the world was an idyllic place before Darwin came forth.

cryingoflot49 said:

If DO’L is scraping the bottom of the barrel, it can only be from the other side of same.

I suspect that Denyse found a new barrel when she scraped through the bottom, and another new barrel at the bottom of that one, and so one.

It’s Barrels all the way down!

Dave

There was a second example of a fishing fly used as an example of an insect. I have both examples illustrated in a post to Stones and Bones

Later today I’ll check to see if the second example was also deleted from the electronic verision of “The Atlas.”

What wankers.

Did you know Darwin was responsible for abortion, infanticide, and eugenics?

You left out Nazism and Communism as well as the Democrats and Obama.

wikipedia:

Manifesto of the Communist Party (German: Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei), often referred to as The Communist Manifesto, was first published on February 21, 1848, and is one of the world’s most influential political manuscripts. Commissioned by the Communist League and written by communist theorists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels,///

The movie Expelled was big on conflating evolution with the disreputable political ideologies. One problem though. The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 while Darwin’s book was published in 1859. All the Dishonesty Institute has is lies and that means they have nothing real.

I don’t have to point out that science has given us a 21st century different from the 11th century and is the basis of US preeminence (such as it is these days) in the world. West is simply attacking the basis of modern civilization and preaching to a bunch of yahoos.

Gary Hurd said:

There was a second example of a fishing fly used as an example of an insect. I have both examples illustrated in a post to Stones and Bones

There’s not just “a second example”. There are dozens of examples, and in fact that fly-tying web page appears to have been the book’s main source for photos of insects and arachnids. Try looking closely at every such photo. See how many you can rack up. (I don’t know what’s in the web edition; I’m talking about the print edition here.)

Well, the second example, the Mayfly pg 282, has not been changed in the electronic version as of a few minutes ago.

John, really dozens? Wow.

But my personal favorite is the crinoids. The book has many, many pictures of fossil crinoids, along with pictures of living crinoids, and the usual statement of “See? They’re exactly the same. There is no evolution.” What’s particularly amusing about this is that in every single case, the photo of a living crinoid isn’t a crinoid at all, but an annelid featherduster worm.

I find it fascinating how whenever anti-evolution activists compare 2 similar looking (to non-biologists at least) species separated by millions of years they claim “no evolution,” yet when they compare 2 similar looking contemporary species with available DNA/protein they claim that the DNA/protein changes from a common ancestor are beyond the limits of evolution.

Actually Oktar doesnt like ID too much. In the SPIEGEL he said last year:

I find the concept of intelligent design rather dishonest. One should openly stand up for the existence of Allah, should sincerely stand up for religion, for Islam. Or, if one is a Christian, one should honestly stand up for Christianity. This is a theory which claims that things have somehow been created, but it is unknown who created them. I find this rather dishonest, actually. The followers of intelligent design should openly and clearly declare the existence of Allah as the Creator.

link: http://www.spiegel.de/international[…]0031,00.html

I don’t stay up on the dealings of the ID people, but it would surprise me to discover they are all chummy with Harun Yahya given that he claims intelligent design is a tool of Satan.

On the other hand I can see his influence in Turkey did apparently, at very least, alarm both Darwkins and Myers – both of whom got around to digging into at least one of his books and both of whom are featured on his wikipedia page.

If I was a Darwinist (which I am not) I would be alarmed at the work of Harun Yahya for very pointed reasons when it comes to the USA. First I would pull out my sociology books and study the current thinking on the nature of religions and get a grasp as to how that applies to the USA. On doing so I would of course expose myself to the works of Rodney Stark, above all his two set work “one true god” and “for the glory of god – how monotheism led to reformations, science, witch-hunts, and the end of slavery”.

Armed with that I would realize that we really have not much worry that anyone like Yahya would take over here. Over all, Christianity generally demands scientific purification at the expense of theories which are impregnated with philosophical overtones. Christianity has also played a role in freedom of religion, which itself works against philosophies dressed up as though they are good science. Such things have certainly played a role in efforts to keep science somewhat purified in this nation. It is for these reasons (and others like them) that the fundamentalist literal translation of the Bible will not be decorating classroom biology text books any time soon, other than, at best, in short lived isolated spurts.

On the other hand, precisely because the USA has such a colour, as we distance ourselves further and further from the scientific materialism of the late 1800’s, and the philosophical impregnation of Darwin’s work comes into sharper view, his work becomes increasingly subject to being treated negatively. This is not good news for those who want to place all of biology under the guiding thumb of natural selection and random mutation, for they increasingly will be held up to the same pressures that the literal translation fundamentalist are held to when it comes to wording public text books, especially as the public becomes increasingly aware of just how impregnated Darwin’s work is with philosophical overtones.

With those considerations I would be far more worried about the spread of knowledge with respect to Darwin’s work being married to philosophical overtones, and the sociological connection between those overtones and how they where put to use to justify actions against human rights as though it was scientifically founded, than I would be with respect to little matters like photographs of fishing lures, which will influence almost no one in this nation.

When I take a look at the web sites of Harun Yahya the first thing that stands out, to me, is the number of them that point directly to the philosophical impregnation of Darwin’s work and the sociological use of it, not photos of fishing lures. Take a look, for example, at this one: http://us2.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/[…]_MATERIALISM

Given the sociological colour of the USA, that would worry me far more than anything else that Harun Yahya is doing. In fact I would probably act as to say one need not bother visiting his stuff and instead make some comments about fishing lures and then hope no one picks up on his finger pointing to Darwinism when it comes, not to biology, but to sociology.

You’ve been pwned by a few of us here at PT. Time to go back to your Romulan scout ship, Troy.

FL said:

Stanton, why not simply say “Okay, I was mistaken on that one point, the DI did actually spend a little money on research after all”, and THEN move on from there?

FL :)

I’m not going to rescind my statement about the Discovery Institute having never spent any money on any research because no one at the Discovery Institute ever does any research there, to begin with, and your posting of Bill Dembski and crew’s lies from evolutionnews will not change this fact.

In fact, out of all the years you’ve infested Panda’s Thumb, FL, you’ve never even bothered to explain how Intelligent Design is supposed to be a scientific explanation, despite our constant requests and demands that you do so.

Once again, Troy yammers.…

Darwin’s theory, as he gave it, requires very long slow process’s of gradual modification that then account for the formation of species. Clearly Stasis supports no such idea.

Darwin’s theory, “as he gave it”, is 160 years out of date.

Arguing that evolution is wrong because Chuckie D oversimplified his first guess is like arguing that flight is impossible because James Watt didn’t foresee the thermodynamics of jet engines.

But again, Troy, let’s simply assume that you are right and Darwin and the legions of scientists that came after him are wrong.

So what’s your explanation for all the physical evidence? Actually, I’ll make it easier and we’ll pick one tiny piece for you to start with; If we’re not evolved from ancient apes, what’s your explanation for all the ancient protohuman fossils that keep turning up in Africa?

jfx said:

Get on with it, fellas! The other Phases are waiting!

Well, there goes THAT mouthful of soda…

That’s odd. Not once have I read any comment from FL explaining how and why ID cretinism is a better, more “scientific”, alternative than contemporary evolutionary theory in explaining the origins, history and current complexity of our planet’s biodiversity:

Stanton said:

FL said:

Stanton, why not simply say “Okay, I was mistaken on that one point, the DI did actually spend a little money on research after all”, and THEN move on from there?

FL :)

I’m not going to rescind my statement about the Discovery Institute having never spent any money on any research because no one at the Discovery Institute ever does any research there, to begin with, and your posting of Bill Dembski and crew’s lies from evolutionnews will not change this fact.

In fact, out of all the years you’ve infested Panda’s Thumb, FL, you’ve never even bothered to explain how Intelligent Design is supposed to be a scientific explanation, despite our constant requests and demands that you do so.

Oh, let me guess. He’ll probably say that Lucifer decided to deceive us all:

stevaroni said:

Once again, Troy yammers.…

Darwin’s theory, as he gave it, requires very long slow process’s of gradual modification that then account for the formation of species. Clearly Stasis supports no such idea.

Darwin’s theory, “as he gave it”, is 160 years out of date.

Arguing that evolution is wrong because Chuckie D oversimplified his first guess is like arguing that flight is impossible because James Watt didn’t foresee the thermodynamics of jet engines.

But again, Troy, let’s simply assume that you are right and Darwin and the legions of scientists that came after him are wrong.

So what’s your explanation for all the physical evidence? Actually, I’ll make it easier and we’ll pick one tiny piece for you to start with; If we’re not evolved from ancient apes, what’s your explanation for all the ancient protohuman fossils that keep turning up in Africa?

Her essay was a harsh hatchet job on militant atheism, so of course she didn’t refer to this:

Did Allen mention anger at the fact that religious/magical thinking was not only irrational, but has often led to behaviors that were dishonest, maladaptive, countrproductive, destructive, murderous, and downright evil?

But , in conclusion, she did anticipate your observation:

Also, if Allen really understood what she was talking about, she’d know that plenty of theists are just as angry about the same things as the atheists are, and for pretty much the same reasons. You don’t have to be an atheist (militant or not) to understand that lying for Jesus is still lying, and still wrong.

By noting this as her concluding paragraph:

“What atheists don’t seem to realize is that even for believers, faith is never easy in this world of injustice, pain and delusion. Even for believers, God exists just beyond the scrim of the senses. So, atheists, how about losing the tired sarcasm and boring self-pity and engaging believers seriously?”

And once again, Troy falls back on the “you’re all persecuting me” card when everything he says is conclusively proven wrong…

To be fair, on this web site anything I say is dismissed as completely worthless – the standard claim being that I have never read anything, suffer from all sorts of mental illness, am a creationist, and advocate of ID, push for Jesus…

Yes, little man, we say all that because that’s what the evidence leads us to believe; and you have offered no other countervailing evidence to disprove any of it.

And as long as you’re trying to show how brilliant Harun Yahya is, why don’t you tell us how you feel about his followers’ tactics of threatening physical violence against professors who try to teach evolution in Turkey? If Yahya/Oktar is a real scientist with real insights, why does he need a goon squad?

Your support of this pretentious gangster proves how morally retarded you really are.

I pointed to the fact that Harun Yahya was elevating the property of Stasis in his book. Objections where raised that I went to far when claiming that Statsis is contradictory to Darwin’s theory. When one actually reads Darwin, the record is against it, however, there are updates to his theory so shall put the matter it this way:

Time constraints seriously elevate reason to reject random mutation as the leading causal factor in generating a fossil record having the properties we find in that record. In turn this raises very serious question as to if Darwin’s theory in its modern form is a viable explanation for the nature of the fossil record.

Regardless of how it is put, one aspect worthy of note - the tension rest upon the question of Darwin’s theory is of worth.

In addition the matter of the problems with the term “evolution” was touched upon. One person pointed to the idea that everyone on this web site share exactly the same meaning of that term (regardless of the fact that even as militant of a place as talkorigin is, they still point to just how problematic the term is within the scientific community). My feeling is that there is not much contention with the term being problematic nor is there any contention (that I noticed) to Harun using the term as it equates to Darwin’s theory.

With that said we move on to another aspect of Harun Yahya’s, namely the relation of Darwin’s theory to very negative social aspects of people claiming scientific justification for intolerance via Darwin’s work.

The obvious way to start looking into this aspect is by looking into social Darwinsm. To get something of a feel for it, as it is presented to society at least in some limited way, is to open up Google, type in “Social Darwinism”, hit return, and view the contents of the first ten results – which is exactly what is done here (later will we look at the matter with in light of some things Max Weber pointed out, but first things first). In doing so I get the following ten web pages (May 18th, 2009):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml Social Darwinism - MSN Encarta

http://books.google.com/books?id=A3[…]amp;resnum=4

http://www.allaboutscience.org/what[…]nism-faq.htm http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/[…]-darwin.html http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/f[…]/SocDarw.htm http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/d[…]f/index.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evo[…]/social.html http://www.victorianweb.org/philoso[…]/socdar.html

One of these sources is a link to a book and a couple of others to specialty issues of narrow construct. Of those remaining some special features do present themselves. Many indicate that social Darwinism is natural selection applied to human society and just as many indicate the connection of this habit to Herbert Spencer. When it comes to Darwin’s theory there is less agreement, some having his theory connected to social Darwinism, some indicating only a lose connection, and some indicating that really there is no such connection at all, or else a very small connection. With respect to Darwin the person one site has a lose connection to him and others claim there is no connection at all. Two sites go so far as to claim Darwin never used the term “survival of the fittest” and none give reference to his use of the term.

In general the overall structure of these sites reflects this sort of thing: Social Darwinsm is linked to Herbert Spencer (and some others), Darwin’s theory is somewhat connected to it, but maybe not, and Darwin the person is not really connected to it.

Harun Yahya has two messages with respect to Darwin’s theory 1), the fossil record is against Darwin’s theory, and 2) Darwin’s theory is used to justify intolerance.

With respect to social Darwinism and the tendencies reflected in the Google search, Harun clearly links Herbert Spencer into the mix (Google “Harun Yahya Herbert Spencer” to see examples). Harun very strongly elevates Darwin’s theory as being directly related to social Darwinism. Harun also equates Darwin the man with being directly connected to social Darwinism, although he tends to play on that less often preferring it seems to stick with the theory, not the man. The question then comes up, is one correct in connecting social Darwinism to Darwin’s theory?

FL said:

Stanton, why not simply say “Okay, I was mistaken on that one point, the DI did actually spend a little money on research after all”, and THEN move on from there?

FL :)

Because, in the real world, when someone spends MILLIONS on research- we expect to see some results - what ‘experiments’ were run? what was being tested? what methods were used? what conclusions were drawn from the results?

and in the real world the answers to these questions are published where the scientific community/ public can see and scrutinize the research

since nothing has been published why should we believe that the money was spent on research?

also - I see that the wiki article you refernce includes money for “publishing” books!? how is “The Edge of Evolution” research?

No, Troy, the question that keeps coming up, again and again, is what the fuck is your point????

Social Darwinism doesn’t mean modern evolutionary theory is wrong, in the same way that Hiroshima doesn’t mean atomic theory is wrong.

Your ideas about “Darwinism” are outdated. The world has moved past you. You are irrelevant.

Once again we see evidence that the IQ scale has no lower bound.

With Troy, it gets well into the negative numbers.

0 = no knowledge and no ability to learn.

IQ less than 0 is the territory where everything in the brain is dead wrong, resulting in obsessive/compulsive drooling.

Time constraints seriously elevate reason to reject random mutation as the leading causal factor in generating a fossil record having the properties we find in that record. In turn this raises very serious question as to if Darwin’s theory in its modern form is a viable explanation for the nature of the fossil record.

random mutation is only one of several genetic processes that cause phenotypic changes in organisms…you apparently havent learned any new biology since the 1970s

The question then comes up, is one correct in connecting social Darwinism to Darwin’s theory?

NO …social-darwinism is a misunderstanding of how natural selection really works in populations

Troy said:

I see there is resistance to the claim that Stasis is against Darwin’s theory. Darwin’s theory, as he gave it, requires very long slow process’s of gradual modification that then account for the formation of species. Clearly Stasis supports no such idea. In Darwin’s day he understood that the fossil record did not support his theory. The tendency was to elevate the idea that the fossil record is imperfect and the demonstration of his theory was missing due to the imperfection. Furthermore, the lack of scientific demonstration was downplayed.

Today we do have the matter of punctuated equilibrium. Punctuated equilibrium states that we need to account for Stasis of the fossil record instead of tossing under the claim of “imperfection”. It claims that Darwin was incorrect in his ideas of how long it takes. The idea runs as follows: individual groups of species become isolated – when that happens Darwin’s theory acts on the groups and thereby gives rise to new species. This process happens so fast that in general we have no view of it in the fossil record because of the records “imperfection”.

Anyone who breeds animals and plants and knows the history of animal and plant breeding over the past few thousand years would recognize both the process of evolution and how the concepts of both statis and punctuated equilibrium do not contradict it, but affirm it. Darwin’s assumption that evolution always proceeds gradually should have been debunked even in his time.

So Darwin got something wrong. BIG DEAL! Unlike you and your blind assumption that the Bible is infallible, we never assumed Darwin was infallible.

brightmoon said: NO …social-darwinism is a misunderstanding of how natural selection really works in populations

“Social Darwinism” is also the hijacking of science for ideological purposes by humans with an ideological agenda. Much like “Intelligent Design”.

You know the interesting thing about Mr. Darwin is that he was an actual scientist, in that he roamed across the real world, gathering real data, also doing real experiments back home. He didn’t start out with an ideological premise, and then try to warp science into fitting his ideology.

He was disturbed enough by what he found, and the implications of it, to lock his writings up with a command to his wife that nothing would be published until after his death. If it weren’t for the equally disturbing letters he received from Mr. Alfred Russell Wallace, independently reporting some of the very same observations and ideas that would eventually come to form the backbone of evolutionary theory, Mr. Darwin simply would have sat on his disturbing revelations.

It took being roused out of his reluctant passivity by his best friends Mr. Hooker and Mr. Lyell to get Darwin off his ass, onto the record, and into history.

I say all this to remind “Troy” that warping good science, and the reputations of good scientists, by coupling and equating it with the ideological abuses of later generations is stupid, dishonest, and downright spineless. It’s assholes like you who make Baby Jesus cry. No, Jesus does not approve of your repugnant dishonesty. Get off your obfuscatory ass, get out and roam the world, do some real work, gather some real data, based on real things, write up your real findings, forge it further on the crucible of human criticism, and then let’s see if it stands up to 150 years of withering fire.

See, I always thought that the cause of all the ills in the world, to hear a Christian tell it, was because of original sin. Not “scientific materialism.” Not Darwin. Not evolution. Original sin. But that’s not ID’s founding premise. Can it really be that ID is not only scientifically impotent, but theologically cracked? Oh dear, yes. It is the attempted hijacking of science for an ideological agenda, thought up by a clever old coot of a lawyer with no science background but gobs of old rich evangelical money. And now it’s being stomped flat in the marketplace of free ideas. The real science has never been there. And the old rich evangelical money won’t always be there either.

Troy said:

With respect to social Darwinism and the tendencies reflected in the Google search, Harun clearly links Herbert Spencer into the mix (Google “Harun Yahya Herbert Spencer” to see examples). Harun very strongly elevates Darwin’s theory as being directly related to social Darwinism. Harun also equates Darwin the man with being directly connected to social Darwinism, although he tends to play on that less often preferring it seems to stick with the theory, not the man. The question then comes up, is one correct in connecting social Darwinism to Darwin’s theory?

No, this is not correct. The ideas misnamed “Social Darwinism” sprang from the mind of Herbert Spencer. Spencer in turn was relying on the biological precepts of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, and Darwin did more than anyone else to show that these precepts are incorrect. In fact, Spencer’s major work Progress: Its Law and Cause came out two years before Origin of Species. (See, for example, Peter J. Bowler, Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to Intelligent Design (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2007) pages 114-119.)

How is Social Darwinism connected to Darwin’s theory?

I here start by turning attention to Max Weber’s work “Economy and Society”. Because Weber had a very particular thing in mind with respect to what sociology is, I think it best to point to his abstract definition prior to getting into detail least not doing so gives rise to misunderstandings.

“Sociology .…. is a science concerning itself with the interpretive understanding of social action and thereby with a causal explanation of its course and consequences. We shall speak of “action” so far as the acting individual attaches subjective meaning to his behavior .….. Action is “social” insofar as its subjective meaning takes account of the behavior of others and is thereby oriented in its course.” (Economy and Society, vol. 1, chapter 1, sec 1)

With that said we turn to chapter V, “Ethnic groups” and quote the opening sentence:

“A much more problematic source of social action .….. is “race identity”: common inherited and inheritable traits that actually derive from common descent.”

Weber goes on to illustrate the problematic issues with respect to race identity (as applied to sociology). He points out that race identity can and does hinge upon cultural aspects every bit as much, if not more-so, than upon biological aspect. He goes on to say:

“The belief in group affinity, regardless of whether it has any objective foundation, can have important consequences especially for the formation of a political community . We shall call “ethnic groups” those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent .….. in our sense, ethnic membership does not constitute a group; it only facilitates group formation of any kind, particularly in the political sphere. On the other hand, it is primarily the political community .… that inspires the belief in common ethnicity. This belief tends to persist even after the disintegration of the political community .….… ” (emphasis my own).

Now let us turn our attention from Sociology to Psychology:

“In order to free the fiction of the sovereign State – in other words, the whims of the chieftains who manipulate it – from every wholesome restriction, all socio-political movements tending in this direction invariably try to cut the ground from under religion. For, in order to turn the individual into a function of the State, his dependence on anything else must be taken from him. Religion means depends on and submission to the irrational facts of experience. These do not refer directly to social and physical conditions; they concern far more the individual’s psychic attitude.” “But it is possible to have an attitude to external conditions of life only when there is a point of reference outside them. Religion gives, or claims to give, such a standpoint, thereby enabling the individual to exercise his judgment and his power of decision. It builds up a reserve, as it were, against the obvious and inevitable force of circumstances to which everyone is exposed who lives only in the outer world and has no other ground under his feet except pavement. If statistical reality is the only one, then that is sole authority. There is then only one condition, and since no contrary condition exist, judgment and decision are not only superfluous but impossible. Then the individual is bound to be a function of the State or whatever the abstract principle of order may be called.”

(Carl Jung, collected works, vol. 10, chapter IV, part 2, paragraph 505 & 506).

The above examples from the fields of sociology and psychology indicate political interest in elevating ethnic identity and in a diminishing of the worthiness of religion. If we are going to find how social Darwinsm is actually attached to Darwin’s theory, and why it elevates it, one would be well advised, I think, to look in that theory for “ethnic identity” and or “common descent” along with anything in the ballpark of undermining religion. In addition, following Jung’s lead, if religion is replaced by science and its statistical reality, we would have pretty much everything needed in the theory for the theory to be actively used by any political group. I think we can make a pretty damn strong case for at least that much!

No. You can’t. You are a pinhead and a wanker who knows fuck all about biology. Go away, already.

To summarize Troy’s book report above:

1) Troy is scared of the idea of a world without religion.

2) Troy feels threatened by science in general and “Darwinism” in particular.

3) Troy needs to quote-mine dead spiritualist philosophers in order to construct a false narrative that science unyoked from religion inevitably leads to moral and cultural oblivion.

Conclusion: Troy is in denial of reality, and frightfully averse to the overwhelming evidence that he, along with the rest of us, is a glorified ape who eats, sleeps, breathes, poops, and fucks.

Get over it, Troy. Science makes no pronouncements about the spiritual dimension. It simply tells you about the natural world, of which you are a living animal part, whether you like it or not. Whether you can handle it or not.

jfx said:

To summarize Troy’s book report above:

1) Troy is scared of the idea of a world without religion.

2) Troy feels threatened by science in general and “Darwinism” in particular.

3) Troy needs to quote-mine dead spiritualist philosophers in order to construct a false narrative that science unyoked from religion inevitably leads to moral and cultural oblivion.

Conclusion: Troy is in denial of reality, and frightfully averse to the overwhelming evidence that he, along with the rest of us, is a glorified ape who eats, sleeps, breathes, poops, and fucks.

Get over it, Troy. Science makes no pronouncements about the spiritual dimension. It simply tells you about the natural world, of which you are a living animal part, whether you like it or not. Whether you can handle it or not.

Troy is not the only one. What I don’t understand is why reality is so scary that people not only deny reality, but they invent all sorts of wild, speculative tales to tell themselves when the growing body of evidence starts to provide a natural explanation that casts the bible’s ability to do so into doubt.

I certainly hope Troy doesn’t indulge in the last item of your conclusion. We really don’t need any more of his “kind” polluting the world.

jfx said:

To summarize Troy’s book report above:

1) Troy is scared of the idea of a world without religion.

2) Troy feels threatened by science in general and “Darwinism” in particular.

3) Troy needs to quote-mine dead spiritualist philosophers in order to construct a false narrative that science unyoked from religion inevitably leads to moral and cultural oblivion.

Conclusion: Troy is in denial of reality, and frightfully averse to the overwhelming evidence that he, along with the rest of us, is a glorified ape who eats, sleeps, breathes, poops, and fucks.

Get over it, Troy. Science makes no pronouncements about the spiritual dimension. It simply tells you about the natural world, of which you are a living animal part, whether you like it or not. Whether you can handle it or not.

The creationist propagandist hiding behind the username Troy said: How is Social Darwinism connected to Darwin’s theory?

Troy, try and get it through your head that whether or not Social Darwinism is connected to “Darwin’s theory” has nothing to do with the fact of evolution, or the continually developing theories explaining the fact of evolution.

And have you read Dr. Padian’s material to which I recently referred you? Yes or no?

Well, Troy’s logic is once again unassailable.

Obviously “Social Darwinism” and “Darwinin Evolution” are the obviously same thing, after all, they use the same word.

Just like “Social Engineering” and, say, “electrical Engineering” are the same thing, because they have the same name, and use all the same concepts, like complicated equations involving magnetic fields, and subtle understandings of the energy states of electrons within silicon crystals.

Or “Aircraft in flight” and “Fugitive in flight” are the same thing because they both, um, get shot at during wartime. Yeah. That’s it.

Now I understand everything, Troy.

Troy, “Social Darwinism” is nothing more than a retelling of the so-called “Divine Right of Kings,” except that “Nature/Evolution,” instead of “Because God Said So,” is used as the catch-all excuse. “Social Darwinism” is simply an excuse made by the rich and powerful to worm their way out of parting with (some of) their money to help the poor, ill and disenfranchised. Of course, anyone dishonest enough to accuse Charles Darwin of founding and or inspiring Social Darwinism is stupid enough to neglect to know that Charles Darwin thoroughly repudiated and verbally eviscerated the arguments for “Social Darwinism” in On The Descent of Man, where he eloquently stated that using whatever excuse, God, Nature, Evolution, to counteract the human instinct of compassion would utterly destroy human civilization as we know it, if not our entire species.

Folks, this thread is up to over 350 comments. I’m going to close comments now before the software gets its knickers in a twist and refer you all to After the Bar Closes if you wish to continue.

Thanks for playing!

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on May 13, 2009 2:45 PM.

New evolution resource site online was the previous entry in this blog.

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter