| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
21 Jul 2004 03:19:45 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Gould and Racism |
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in message news:<cdje6b$aa1$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the "heroes" of
"evolutionism", Stephen Jay Gould, write a book entitled _The Mismeasure
of Man_, where he pointed out how science of all types had been abused
in the past in order to justify various racist doctrines? And didn't he
remain a staunch "evolutionist" even after that?
I recall that it was an outstanding book, and really quite enlightening.
I haven't lost my faith in science upon reading that book, but it
really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own doctrines
and agendas to science; it also helped me understand why science itself
is such a good thing, since it has the capacity to self-correct, even
after such abuses.
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist G.G. Simpson
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.
I could point to the number of books demonstrating how various loons,
kooks, evildoers, and so on have used religion to justify their own
prejudices, hatreds, wrongs, and pernicious deeds. But I won't.
Now waiting for the Creationists to start their flaming, which will be
cheerfully ignored unless they have something substantial and
interesting to say (not holding my breath on that one).
.
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
21 Jul 2004 09:40:17 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0407211226.2988d48b@posting.google.com:
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>
wrote in message news:<cdje6b$aa1$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the "heroes" of
"evolutionism", Stephen Jay Gould, write a book entitled _The
Mismeasure of Man_, where he pointed out how science of all types had
been abused in the past in order to justify various racist doctrines?
And didn't he remain a staunch "evolutionist" even after that?
I recall that it was an outstanding book, and really quite
enlightening.
I haven't lost my faith in science upon reading that book, but it
really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own doctrines
and agendas to science; it also helped me understand why science
itself is such a good thing, since it has the capacity to
self-correct, even after such abuses.
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist G.G. Simpson
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.
I have no problem with those statements, I believe he is correct so
whether it is an agenda or not is irrelevant.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Pubba, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation Gary Bohn
Conservatism is not about tradition and morality, hasn't been for many
decades...It is about the putative biological and spiritual superiority
of the wealthy. Greg Bear
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
22 Jul 2004 11:15:53 AM |
|
|
Gary Bohn wrote:
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0407211226.2988d48b@posting.google.com:
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>
wrote in message news:<cdje6b$aa1$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the "heroes" of
"evolutionism", Stephen Jay Gould, write a book entitled _The
Mismeasure of Man_, where he pointed out how science of all types had
been abused in the past in order to justify various racist doctrines?
And didn't he remain a staunch "evolutionist" even after that?
I recall that it was an outstanding book, and really quite
enlightening.
I haven't lost my faith in science upon reading that book, but it
really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own doctrines
and agendas to science; it also helped me understand why science
itself is such a good thing, since it has the capacity to
self-correct, even after such abuses.
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist G.G. Simpson
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.
I have no problem with those statements, I believe he is correct so
whether it is an agenda or not is irrelevant.
Right you are, Gary. And, of course, finding "purpose" is *not* what
science is supposed to be doing anyway. Finding "purpose" is religion's
job. The two don't have any place in messing with each other's turf. ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
23 Jul 2004 03:31:50 PM |
|
|
Richard Crawford <rscrawCOWford@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote in
news:cdopki$74f$5@woodrow.ucdavis.edu:
Gary Bohn wrote:
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0407211226.2988d48b@posting.google.com:
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>
wrote in message news:<cdje6b$aa1$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the "heroes" of
"evolutionism", Stephen Jay Gould, write a book entitled _The
Mismeasure of Man_, where he pointed out how science of all types
had been abused in the past in order to justify various racist
doctrines?
And didn't he remain a staunch "evolutionist" even after that?
I recall that it was an outstanding book, and really quite
enlightening.
I haven't lost my faith in science upon reading that book, but it
really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science; it also helped me understand why
science itself is such a good thing, since it has the capacity to
self-correct, even after such abuses.
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist G.G. Simpson
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.
I have no problem with those statements, I believe he is correct so
whether it is an agenda or not is irrelevant.
Right you are, Gary. And, of course, finding "purpose" is *not* what
science is supposed to be doing anyway. Finding "purpose" is
religion's job. The two don't have any place in messing with each
other's turf. ;)
Now if we can get religion to stay away from science and education
things would work out.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Pubba, EAC Department of Oxygen
Deprivation
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is not about tradition and morality, hasn't been for many
decades...It is about the putative biological and spiritual superiority
of the wealthy.
Greg Bear
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
24 Jul 2004 10:24:36 AM |
|
|
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message news:<Xns952F950B79744GaryBohn@130.133.1.4>...
Richard Crawford <rscrawCOWford@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote in news:cdopki$74f$5@woodrow.ucdavis.edu:
Gary Bohn wrote:
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in news:b1c67abe.0407211226.2988d48b@posting.google.com:
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in message news:<cdje6b$aa1$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the "heroes" of
"evolutionism", Stephen Jay Gould, write a book entitled _The
Mismeasure of Man_, where he pointed out how science of all types
had been abused in the past in order to justify various racist
doctrines?
And didn't he remain a staunch "evolutionist" even after that?
I recall that it was an outstanding book, and really quite
enlightening.
I haven't lost my faith in science upon reading that book, but it
really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science; it also helped me understand why
science itself is such a good thing, since it has the capacity to
self-correct, even after such abuses.
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist G.G. Simpson
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.
I have no problem with those statements, I believe he is correct so
whether it is an agenda or not is irrelevant.
Right you are, Gary. And, of course, finding "purpose" is *not* what
science is supposed to be doing anyway. Finding "purpose" is
religion's job. The two don't have any place in messing with each
other's turf. ;)
Now if we can get religion to stay away from science and education
things would work out.
[GB]"Now if we can get religion to stay away from science" Dawkins
doesn't help matters when he states in his _A Devil's Chaplain_
(2003), 263pp., on 97:
Why the Creator should have played fast and loose
with the genome sizes of newts in such a capricious
way is a problem that creationists might like to
ponder.
Then there's 1967 Dobzhansky on the problem of evil:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401260957.1a5b69fc%40posting.google.com
Perhaps theology really is the queen of the sciences.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
23 Jul 2004 08:40:52 PM |
|
|
Richard Crawford <rscrawCOWford@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote in message news:<cdopki$74f$5@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Gary Bohn wrote:
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in news:b1c67abe.0407211226.2988d48b@posting.google.com:
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in message news:<cdje6b$aa1$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the "heroes" of
"evolutionism", Stephen Jay Gould, write a book entitled _The
Mismeasure of Man_, where he pointed out how science of all types had
been abused in the past in order to justify various racist doctrines?
And didn't he remain a staunch "evolutionist" even after that?
I recall that it was an outstanding book, and really quite
enlightening.
I haven't lost my faith in science upon reading that book, but it
really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own doctrines
and agendas to science; it also helped me understand why science
itself is such a good thing, since it has the capacity to
self-correct, even after such abuses.
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist G.G. Simpson
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.
I have no problem with those statements, I believe he is correct so
whether it is an agenda or not is irrelevant.
Right you are, Gary. And, of course, finding "purpose" is *not* what
science is supposed to be doing anyway. Finding "purpose" is religion's
job. The two don't have any place in messing with each other's turf. ;)
[RC]"finding 'purpose' is *not* what science is supposed to be doing"
Is [RC]"science" supposed to find the absence of "purpose"?
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist Futuyma
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
Futuyma, Douglas J. 1979. _Evolutionary Biology_ (MA: Sinauer
Associates, Inc.), 565pp. On 9-10, the first paragraph of the
section "The Impact of Darwinism":
The Darwinian view that evolution not only had occurred,
but was caused by the impersonal process of natural
selection met strong opposition in both scientific and
nonscientific circles, because of its perceived threat to
theological doctrine and to the unique position in nature
that humans would like to arrogate to themselves. The
view offered by Darwin-- of a purposeless universe in
which life changes, to no ultimate purpose, by the survival
of the fittest of random variations; a material world from
which we have arisen and with which we are one; a
universe that does not care about us and is not going to
save us from our follies-- such a vision is far less
reassuring and less flattering to the ego than the notion of a
world created to serve us, the apples of God's eye. It is a
view distasteful not only to the theologically inclined, but
to the literary tradition that opposes materialism with more
transcendent values (see, e.g., Barzun 1958). Seldom are
the positive implications of Darwinism acknowledged: that
it forces us to view ourselves not as prisoners of a static
world order, but as the masters of our fate; that our
salvation lies not in Providence, but in ourselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
23 Jul 2004 09:02:25 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407231747.5c38b6ef@posting.google.com...
Richard Crawford <rscrawCOWford@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote in
message news:<cdopki$74f$5@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Gary Bohn wrote:
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in
news:b1c67abe.0407211226.2988d48b@posting.google.com:
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>
wrote in message news:<cdje6b$aa1$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the "heroes" of
"evolutionism", Stephen Jay Gould, write a book entitled _The
Mismeasure of Man_, where he pointed out how science of all types
had
been abused in the past in order to justify various racist
doctrines?
And didn't he remain a staunch "evolutionist" even after that?
I recall that it was an outstanding book, and really quite
enlightening.
I haven't lost my faith in science upon reading that book, but
it
really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines
and agendas to science; it also helped me understand why science
itself is such a good thing, since it has the capacity to
self-correct, even after such abuses.
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their
own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist G.G. Simpson
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.
I have no problem with those statements, I believe he is correct
so
whether it is an agenda or not is irrelevant.
Right you are, Gary. And, of course, finding "purpose" is *not*
what
science is supposed to be doing anyway. Finding "purpose" is
religion's
job. The two don't have any place in messing with each other's
turf. ;)
[RC]"finding 'purpose' is *not* what science is supposed to be doing"
Is [RC]"science" supposed to find the absence of "purpose"?
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist Futuyma
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
They are very aware of this, David. Most think they can wiggle out of
it, while pointing fingers and sneering at creationists who honestly and
openly make their religious beliefs known. But Futuyma is not the only
evolutionist to be honest about it. The words "forces us" and "masters
of our fate" seem rather scary, and familiar, though.
Futuyma, Douglas J. 1979. _Evolutionary Biology_ (MA: Sinauer
Associates, Inc.), 565pp. On 9-10, the first paragraph of the
section "The Impact of Darwinism":
The Darwinian view that evolution not only had occurred,
but was caused by the impersonal process of natural
selection met strong opposition in both scientific and
nonscientific circles, because of its perceived threat to
theological doctrine and to the unique position in nature
that humans would like to arrogate to themselves. The
view offered by Darwin-- of a purposeless universe in
which life changes, to no ultimate purpose, by the survival
of the fittest of random variations; a material world from
which we have arisen and with which we are one; a
universe that does not care about us and is not going to
save us from our follies-- such a vision is far less
reassuring and less flattering to the ego than the notion of a
world created to serve us, the apples of God's eye. It is a
view distasteful not only to the theologically inclined, but
to the literary tradition that opposes materialism with more
transcendent values (see, e.g., Barzun 1958). Seldom are
the positive implications of Darwinism acknowledged: that
it forces us to view ourselves not as prisoners of a static
world order, but as the masters of our fate; that our
salvation lies not in Providence, but in ourselves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
24 Jul 2004 09:19:38 AM |
|
|
"Glenn" <glennsheldon@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-qxjMc.1284$Eu.106555@news.uswest.net>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:b1c67abe.0407231747.5c38b6ef@posting.google.com...
Richard Crawford <rscrawCOWford@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote in message news:<cdopki$74f$5@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Gary Bohn wrote:
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in news:b1c67abe.0407211226.2988d48b@posting.google.com:
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in message news:<cdje6b$aa1$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the "heroes" of
"evolutionism", Stephen Jay Gould, write a book entitled _The
Mismeasure of Man_, where he pointed out how science of all types had
been abused in the past in order to justify various racist doctrines?
And didn't he remain a staunch "evolutionist" even after that?
I recall that it was an outstanding book, and really quite
enlightening.
I haven't lost my faith in science upon reading that book, but it
really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own doctrines
and agendas to science; it also helped me understand why science
itself is such a good thing, since it has the capacity to
self-correct, even after such abuses.
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist G.G. Simpson
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.
I have no problem with those statements, I believe he is correct so
whether it is an agenda or not is irrelevant.
Right you are, Gary. And, of course, finding "purpose" is *not* what
science is supposed to be doing anyway. Finding "purpose" is religion's
job. The two don't have any place in messing with each other's turf. ;)
[RC]"finding 'purpose' is *not* what science is supposed to be doing"
Is [RC]"science" supposed to find the absence of "purpose"?
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist Futuyma
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
They are very aware of this, David. Most think they can wiggle out of
it, while pointing fingers and sneering at creationists who honestly and
openly make their religious beliefs known. But Futuyma is not the only
evolutionist to be honest about it. The words "forces us" and "masters
of our fate" seem rather scary, and familiar, though.
[Futuyma]"Darwinism... forces us to view ourselves not as prisoners of
a static world order, but as the masters of our fate" About
[Futuyma]"a static world order," prior to the discovery in 1915-1930
that the universe is expanding, _materialists_ adhered to the position
that the universe/world _is_ static, with star system staying
motionless, with no beginning to the universe's existence, and with no
prospect of an end to the universe.
Haeckel: "the law of the persistence of matter and force; that law
knows nothing of a beginning" in
Dobzhansky, Haeckel, and Dawkins reject the position that intelligent
design is responsible for common descent
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311740.48df353%40posting.google.com
The Discovery That the Universe Is Expanding: Developments in
Theoretical and Observational Cosmology, 1915-1930
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308140928380.13996-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Futuyma, Douglas J. 1979. _Evolutionary Biology_ (MA: Sinauer
Associates, Inc.), 565pp. On 9-10, the first paragraph of the
section "The Impact of Darwinism":
The Darwinian view that evolution not only had occurred,
but was caused by the impersonal process of natural
selection met strong opposition in both scientific and
nonscientific circles, because of its perceived threat to
theological doctrine and to the unique position in nature
that humans would like to arrogate to themselves. The
view offered by Darwin-- of a purposeless universe in
which life changes, to no ultimate purpose, by the survival
of the fittest of random variations; a material world from
which we have arisen and with which we are one; a
universe that does not care about us and is not going to
save us from our follies-- such a vision is far less
reassuring and less flattering to the ego than the notion of a
world created to serve us, the apples of God's eye. It is a
view distasteful not only to the theologically inclined, but
to the literary tradition that opposes materialism with more
transcendent values (see, e.g., Barzun 1958). Seldom are
the positive implications of Darwinism acknowledged: that
it forces us to view ourselves not as prisoners of a static
world order, but as the masters of our fate; that our
salvation lies not in Providence, but in ourselves.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
24 Jul 2004 09:03:35 AM |
|
|
Richard Crawford <rscrawCOWford@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote in message news:<cdopki$74f$5@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Gary Bohn wrote:
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in news:b1c67abe.0407211226.2988d48b@posting.google.com:
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in message news:<cdje6b$aa1$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the "heroes" of
"evolutionism", Stephen Jay Gould, write a book entitled _The
Mismeasure of Man_, where he pointed out how science of all types had
been abused in the past in order to justify various racist doctrines?
And didn't he remain a staunch "evolutionist" even after that?
I recall that it was an outstanding book, and really quite
enlightening.
I haven't lost my faith in science upon reading that book, but it
really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own doctrines
and agendas to science; it also helped me understand why science
itself is such a good thing, since it has the capacity to
self-correct, even after such abuses.
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist G.G. Simpson
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.
I have no problem with those statements, I believe he is correct so
whether it is an agenda or not is irrelevant.
Right you are, Gary. And, of course, finding "purpose" is *not* what
science is supposed to be doing anyway. Finding "purpose" is religion's
job. The two don't have any place in messing with each other's turf. ;)
[Oparin]"the 'purposiveness' which we notice in all living things"
[RC]"finding 'purpose' is *not* what science is supposed to be doing"
Is [RC]"science" supposed to find the absence of "purpose"?
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist Oparin
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
Oparin, A. I. 1962. _Life: Its Nature, Origin and
Development_ (New York: Academic Press Inc., Publishers),
translated from the Russian by Ann Synge, 207pp. From the
section "The Conflict Between Idealism and Materialism as to
the Essential Nature of Life," the opening paragraph and a
sentence on 4:
From the earliest times, even until the present day, this
problem of the essential nature of life has always been a
battle-field in the embittered war which has been waged
between the two irreconcilable philosophic camps of
idealism and materialism.
The representatives of the idealist camp see, as the essence
of life, some sort of eternal supramaterial origin which is
inaccessible to experiment.
On 5, the last two paragraphs of the section "The Conflict
Between Idealism and Materialism as to the Essential Nature
of Life":
Materialists approach the problem of the essence of life
from a diametrically opposite viewpoint. Basing their
arguments on the facts obtained by science they assert that
life, like all the rest of the world, is material and does not
require for its understanding the acceptance of a spiritual
origin which is not amenable to experimental study. On
the contrary, objective study of the world around us is, for
the materialist, not only a hopeful way of leading us to an
understanding of the very essence of life, but it also
enables us to alter living nature purposefully in a way
favourable to mankind.
Wide circles of biological scientists, either consciously or
intuitively, base their investigations on a materialistic
concept of living nature and, in following this line, they
are always enriching the science of life by their work and
bringing us closer to an understanding of the essence of life.
On 36-37, the last four paragraphs of the chapter:
It is now becoming more and more obvious that a
knowledge of the essential nature of life is only possible
through a knowledge of its origin. Now, too, this origin no
longer seems so puzzling as it did not long ago. We are
sketching out in more and more detail the actual ways in
which life arose on the Earth. It could only have happened
as an integral part of the general historic development of
our planet. The facts at our disposal indicate that the origin
of life was a gradual process in which organic substances
became more and more complicated and formed complete
systems which were in a state of continual interaction with
the medium surrounding them.
Following the path of the emergence of life in this way we
encounter neither the 'almighty hand of the Creator' nor
machines which made their appearance at a far later stage
in the development of matter. We do, however, discover in
this way how and why it is that the particular original
systems which existed were transformed, in the process of
evolution, into those which are characteristic of life instead
of into others and how, in that same process of the
establishment of life, there arose new biological laws
which had not existed before, and also how the
'purposiveness' which we notice in all living things came
into being.
In this way our knowledge gives us a real understanding of
the essential organisation of the most primitive forms of
life and, on that basis, we can easily follow the further
evolution of these forms by applying the precepts of
evolutionary theory. We can trace the formation of new
features characteristic of highly organised living beings,
including man, who is the culmination of the biological
stage of the development of matter.
Thus we arrive at the main idea underlying this book which
had already been formulated by Heraclitus of Ephesus and
was included in the works of Aristotle:-- "One can only
understand the essence of things when one knows their
origin and development."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
21 Jul 2004 03:23:45 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in message news:<cdje6b$aa1$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the "heroes" of
"evolutionism", Stephen Jay Gould, write a book entitled _The Mismeasure
of Man_, where he pointed out how science of all types had been abused
in the past in order to justify various racist doctrines? And didn't he
remain a staunch "evolutionist" even after that?
I recall that it was an outstanding book, and really quite enlightening.
I haven't lost my faith in science upon reading that book, but it
really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own doctrines
and agendas to science; it also helped me understand why science itself
is such a good thing, since it has the capacity to self-correct, even
after such abuses.
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist G.G. Simpson
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
What the hell, I'll bite.
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.
Yes. What difference do you think it could possibly make? Simpson made
a philosophical conclusion, which he thought was warranted.
Does this, in your little world with your perverted misinterpretation of
science and the scientific process, invalidate the whole of evolutionary
theory?
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
22 Jul 2004 07:41:22 AM |
|
|
Richard Crawford <rscrawCOWford@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote in message news:<cdmjp4$fv0$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
david ford wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in message news:<cdje6b$aa1$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the "heroes" of
"evolutionism", Stephen Jay Gould, write a book entitled _The Mismeasure
of Man_, where he pointed out how science of all types had been abused
in the past in order to justify various racist doctrines? And didn't he
remain a staunch "evolutionist" even after that?
I recall that it was an outstanding book, and really quite enlightening.
I haven't lost my faith in science upon reading that book, but it
really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own doctrines
and agendas to science; it also helped me understand why science itself
is such a good thing, since it has the capacity to self-correct, even
after such abuses.
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist G.G. Simpson
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
What the hell, I'll bite.
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.
Yes. What difference do you think it could possibly make?
If someone [RC]"bring[s]" his or her [RC]"own doctrines and agendas"
when stating something, that statement of theirs contains something
not derived from [RC]"science."
Simpson made
a philosophical conclusion, which he thought was warranted.
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist G. Ledyard
Stebbins [RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science"
when stating the following?:
Stebbins, G. Ledyard. 1982. _Darwin to DNA, Molecules to
Humanity_ (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company),
491pp., 4:
The evolutionist's [i.e. blindwatchmakingist's] answer is
that all these millions of different kinds of organisms
evolved [i.e. blindwatchmaked] from common ancestors
during the thousands of millions of years since the first
appearance of life. Their evolution [i.e.
blindwatchmaking] was opportunistic and devoid of
purpose.
Does this, in your little world with your perverted misinterpretation of
science and the scientific process, invalidate the whole of evolutionary
theory?
[RC]"your little world with your perverted misinterpretation of
science and the scientific process" I disagree with this
characterization.
[RC]"Does this... invalidate the whole of evolutionary theory?" I
never said it did. Nor do I now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
22 Jul 2004 10:03:41 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407220448.59612c65@posting.google.com...
Richard Crawford <rscrawCOWford@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote in
message news:<cdmjp4$fv0$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
david ford wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>
wrote in message news:<cdje6b$aa1$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the "heroes" of
"evolutionism", Stephen Jay Gould, write a book entitled _The
Mismeasure
of Man_, where he pointed out how science of all types had been abused
in the past in order to justify various racist doctrines? And didn't
he
remain a staunch "evolutionist" even after that?
I recall that it was an outstanding book, and really quite
enlightening.
I haven't lost my faith in science upon reading that book, but it
really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own doctrines
and agendas to science; it also helped me understand why science
itself
is such a good thing, since it has the capacity to self-correct, even
after such abuses.
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist G.G. Simpson
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
What the hell, I'll bite.
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.
Yes. What difference do you think it could possibly make?
If someone [RC]"bring[s]" his or her [RC]"own doctrines and agendas"
when stating something, that statement of theirs contains something
not derived from [RC]"science."
That is right. Simpson and the fellow you quote later [snipped] bring a
preconception that evolving different species over millions of years
only to have 99% go extinct shows no sign of purpose, based on the fact
that if they were purposely making chimps (for example), they would not
have done so with a process that would not lead to a *particular* result
a priori. Perhaps you could be the person to show some
*possible* purpose that they should have considered.
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
24 Jul 2004 10:08:25 AM |
|
|
"Tracy Hamilton" <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message news:<cdolcv$6ts$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:b1c67abe.0407220448.59612c65@posting.google.com...
Richard Crawford <rscrawCOWford@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote in message news:<cdmjp4$fv0$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
david ford wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in message news:<cdje6b$aa1$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the "heroes" of
"evolutionism", Stephen Jay Gould, write a book entitled _The Mismeasure
of Man_, where he pointed out how science of all types had been abused
in the past in order to justify various racist doctrines? And didn't he
remain a staunch "evolutionist" even after that?
I recall that it was an outstanding book, and really quite enlightening.
I haven't lost my faith in science upon reading that book, but it
really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own doctrines
and agendas to science; it also helped me understand why science itself
is such a good thing, since it has the capacity to self-correct, even
after such abuses.
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist G.G. Simpson
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
What the hell, I'll bite.
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.
Yes. What difference do you think it could possibly make?
If someone [RC]"bring[s]" his or her [RC]"own doctrines and agendas"
when stating something, that statement of theirs contains something
not derived from [RC]"science."
That is right. Simpson and the fellow you quote later [snipped] bring a
preconception that evolving different species over millions of years
only to have 99% go extinct shows no sign of purpose, based on the fact
that if they were purposely making chimps (for example), they would not
have done so with a process that would not lead to a *particular* result
a priori.
How do you know this about Simpson and Stebbins-- references?
Perhaps you could be the person to show some
*possible* purpose that they should have considered.
[snip]
Oparin, A. I. 1962. _Life: Its Nature, Origin and
Development_ (New York: Academic Press Inc., Publishers),
translated from the Russian by Ann Synge, 207pp. Three
paragraphs on 12-13:
Thus the universal 'purposiveness' of the organisation of
living beings is an objective and self-evident fact which
cannot be ignored by any thoughtful student of nature. The
rightness or wrongness of the definition of life advanced by
us, and also of many others, depends on what interpretation
one gives to the word 'purposiveness' and what one
believes to be its essential nature and origin.
The idealists see this 'purposiveness' as the fulfilment of
some predetermined plan of a deity or 'universal intellect'.
The materialists, on the other hand, use the expression (for
lack of a better one) as the shortest way of characterising
the direction of the organisation of the whole living system
towards its self-preservation and self-reproduction under
given environmental conditions, as well as to describe the
suitability of the structure of the separate parts of the living
system to the most efficient and harmonious performance
of those vitally necessary functions which the particular
part subserves.
The extremely highly developed adaptation of the structure
of the individual organs to the performance of their
functions and the general 'purposiveness' of the whole
organisation of life is seen to be extremely precise even on
a very superficial acquaintance with higher living things.
As we have already pointed out, it was noticed a long time
ago and found expression in the Aristotelian 'entelechy'. It
had been considered to be essentially mystical and
supernatural until Darwin gave a rational, materialistic
explanation of the way in which this 'purposiveness' arose
in higher organisms by means of natural selection.
If you like, I will present some similar statements from
_Nature's Purposes: Analyses of Function and Design in
Biology_, edited by Colin Allen, Marc Bekoff, and George
Lauder (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1998), 597pp.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tracy Hamilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
26 Jul 2004 03:56:49 PM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407240715.2b0e119a@posting.google.com...
"Tracy Hamilton" <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message
news:<cdolcv$6ts$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0407220448.59612c65@posting.google.com...
Richard Crawford <rscrawCOWford@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote in
message news:<cdmjp4$fv0$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
david ford wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>
wrote in message news:<cdje6b$aa1$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the "heroes" of
"evolutionism", Stephen Jay Gould, write a book entitled _The
Mismeasure
of Man_, where he pointed out how science of all types had been
abused
in the past in order to justify various racist doctrines? And
didn't he
remain a staunch "evolutionist" even after that?
I recall that it was an outstanding book, and really quite
enlightening.
I haven't lost my faith in science upon reading that book, but
it
really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines
and agendas to science; it also helped me understand why science
itself
is such a good thing, since it has the capacity to self-correct,
even
after such abuses.
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their
own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist G.G. Simpson
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
What the hell, I'll bite.
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.
Yes. What difference do you think it could possibly make?
If someone [RC]"bring[s]" his or her [RC]"own doctrines and agendas"
when stating something, that statement of theirs contains something
not derived from [RC]"science."
That is right. Simpson and the fellow you quote later [snipped] bring a
preconception that evolving different species over millions of years
only to have 99% go extinct shows no sign of purpose, based on the fact
that if they were purposely making chimps (for example), they would not
have done so with a process that would not lead to a *particular* result
a priori.
How do you know this about Simpson and Stebbins-- references?
What they wrote - right above.
Perhaps you could be the person to show some
*possible* purpose that they should have considered.
The quote below is quite insufficient to answer the
question because the meaning of purpose can vary. One has to
read the context in the passages above and understand the
theory of evolution to determine what the meaning of "purpose" above
(and hence its lack) is. Are you admitting defeat?
[snip]
Tracy P. Hamilton
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
13 Aug 2004 07:45:49 AM |
|
|
"Tracy Hamilton" <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message news:<ce3rki$5h7$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:b1c67abe.0407240715.2b0e119a@posting.google.com...
"Tracy Hamilton" <DontSpamhamilton@uab.edu> wrote in message news:<cdolcv$6ts$1@SonOfMaze.dpo.uab.edu>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:b1c67abe.0407220448.59612c65@posting.google.com...
Richard Crawford <rscrawCOWford@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote in message news:<cdmjp4$fv0$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
david ford wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in message news:<cdje6b$aa1$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the "heroes" of
"evolutionism", Stephen Jay Gould, write a book entitled _The
Mismeasure of Man_, where he pointed out how science of all
types had been abused
in the past in order to justify various racist doctrines? And
didn't he remain a staunch "evolutionist" even after that?
I recall that it was an outstanding book, and really quite enlightening.
I haven't lost my faith in science upon reading that book, but it
really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own doctrines
and agendas to science; it also helped me understand why science itself
is such a good thing, since it has the capacity to self-correct, even
after such abuses.
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist G.G. Simpson
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
What the hell, I'll bite.
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.
Yes. What difference do you think it could possibly make?
If someone [RC]"bring[s]" his or her [RC]"own doctrines and agendas"
when stating something, that statement of theirs contains something
not derived from [RC]"science."
That is right. Simpson and the fellow you quote later [snipped] bring a
preconception that evolving different species over millions of years
only to have 99% go extinct shows no sign of purpose, based on the fact
that if they were purposely making chimps (for example), they would not
have done so with a process that would not lead to a *particular* result
a priori.
How do you know this about Simpson and Stebbins-- references?
What they wrote - right above.
Please identify those words by Simpson and Stebbins presented in this
thread that mention or allude to extinction. I don't see it.
Perhaps you could be the person to show some
*possible* purpose that they should have considered.
The quote below is quite insufficient to answer the
question because the meaning of purpose can vary.
I didn't see any quote below. Are you referring to the 1962 Oparin
quotation you snipped?
One has to
read the context in the passages above and understand the
theory of evolution to determine what the meaning of "purpose" above
(and hence its lack) is.
I don't know what is referred to by [TH]"the context in the passages
above." Are you referring to the material in the original work that
surrounded the portion I quoted? Are you referring to how the
Stebbins and Simpson passages I presented fit into other work by
Stebbins and by Simpson?
[TH]"One has to.... to determine what the meaning of 'purpose' above
(and hence its lack) is."
If you would and if you can, please rephrase this Simpson without
making any use of the word "purpose" or its derivatives:
[Simpson]"Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned."
If you would and if you can, please rephrase this Stebbins without
making any use of the word "purpose" or its derivatives:
[Stebbins]"these millions of different kinds of organisms evolved....
Their evolution was opportunistic and devoid of purpose."
(For additional material, see
1982 Stebbins: "evolution [i.e. blindwatchmaking] was opportunistic
and devoid of purpose"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407220448.59612c65%40posting.google.com
If you would and if you can, please rephrase this Oparin without
making any use of the word "purpose" or its derivatives: "....Darwin
gave a rational, materialistic explanation of the way in which this
'purposiveness' arose in higher organisms by means of natural
selection."
(For additional material, see
1962 Oparin: "the universal 'purposiveness' of the organisation of
living beings is an objective and self-evident fact"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407240715.2b0e119a%40posting.google.com
Are you admitting defeat?
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Gould and Racism |
25 Jul 2004 09:39:17 PM |
|
|
Richard Crawford <rscrawCOWford@mossREMOVEHERBIVOREroot.com> wrote in message news:<cdmjp4$fv0$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
david ford wrote:
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote in message news:<cdje6b$aa1$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't one of the "heroes" of
"evolutionism", Stephen Jay Gould, write a book entitled _The Mismeasure
of Man_, where he pointed out how science of all types had been abused
in the past in order to justify various racist doctrines? And didn't he
remain a staunch "evolutionist" even after that?
I recall that it was an outstanding book, and really quite enlightening.
I haven't lost my faith in science upon reading that book, but it
really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own doctrines
and agendas to science; it also helped me understand why science itself
is such a good thing, since it has the capacity to self-correct, even
after such abuses.
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist G.G. Simpson
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating the following?:
What the hell, I'll bite.
Marvelous.
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.
Yes.
[RC]"it really opened my eyes to how scientists can bring their own
doctrines and agendas to science" Did the scientist Francis Crick
[RC]"bring" his [RC]"own doctrines and agendas to science" when
stating, [Crick]"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what
they see was not designed, but rather evolved."?
Crick, Francis. 1988. _What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of
Scientific Discovery_ (New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
Publishers), 182pp. Two paragraphs on 138-9:
What is found in biology is _mechanisms_, mechanisms
built with chemical components and that are often modified
by other, later, mechanisms added to the earlier ones.
While Occam's razor is a useful tool in the physical
sciences, it can be a very dangerous implement in biology.
It is thus very rash to use simplicity and elegance as a
guide in biological research. While DNA could be claimed
to be both simple and elegant, it must be remembered that
DNA almost certainly originated fairly close to the origin
of life when things were necessarily simple or they could
not have got going.
Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see
was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought,
therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large
part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the
case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now.
To try to figure out exactly what happened in evolution is
even more difficult. Thus evolutionary arguments can
usefully be used as _hints_ to suggest possible lines of
research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much.
It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the
process involved is already very well understood.
What difference do you think it could possibly make? Simpson made
a philosophical conclusion, which he thought was warranted.
Does this, in your little world with your perverted misinterpretation of
science and the scientific process, invalidate the whole of evolutionary
theory?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
