An Abundance of Material
Don’t miss the Workshop on Scientific Imperialism in Helsinki next April where attendees will consider whether “conventions and procedures of one discipline or field are imposed on other fields, or more weakly when a scientific discipline seeks to explain phenomena that are traditionally considered proper of another discipline’s domain.” Keynote Speaker Stephen Downes will ask “Is the Appeal to Evolution in Explanations of Human Behavior a Case of Scientific Imperialism?”The answer is “yes,” but human behavior is only the beginning of a long list. Evolution is by far the most influential theory in the history of science and its influence spreads not only to other areas of science, but well outside of science as well.
One of evolution’s early moves outside of science was in historiography where Darwin’s friend and champion Thomas Huxley began the construction of the history of thought from an evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary theory was motivated and mandated by religious premises, but Huxley reversed the roles and cast evolution as objective, truth-seeking science and the opposition as misguided religious believers. Thus, in this Warfare Thesis, science was opposed by religion, rather than informed and constrained by religion.
An important tool that was instrumental in spreading the Warfare Thesis far beyond evolutionary studies and into the broader culture was the play and movie Inherit the Wind. The Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee script was all that Huxley could have dreamt of, casting the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial as a conflict between the rational evolutionists and the irrational faithful.
Inherit the Wind is fictional propaganda that evolutionists continue to use to this day and remains widely influential. As Judge John Jones astonishingly explained, he wanted to see Inherit the Wind a second time in preparation for the 2005 Dover case, over which he presided, because the film puts the origins debate into its proper “historical context.” Jones later reminisced about the trial, explaining that “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind.” The federal judge’s over-the-top naiveté was a manifestation of evolution’s anti-intellectualism.
Another important early evolutionary spinoff was eugenics “science” and abortion. Nietzsche proclaimed that it was the sick, the oppressed, the broken and the weak, rather than evil men, who were the greatest threat to humanity. And Margaret Sanger promoted her racism and sexual immorality in what would become the abortion movement. The American eugenics movement and both World War I and later the horrors of the German Nazis were all influenced by evolution’s pseudo science.
More recently the abortion movement has grown and eugenics continues to be advocated. Lawlessness and immorality escalated with the legalization of abortion in the Roe v. Wade decision and its inherent racism. As Roe v. Wade lawyer Ron Weddington explained to the newly elected President Bill Clinton, “You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy, and poor segment of our country,” with inexpensive abortifacients. Weddington explained that he was not advocating mass extinction of these unfortunate people because “Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can’t afford to have babies. There, I’ve said it. It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged differently as discriminatory, mean-spirited and … well … so Republican.”
Likewise Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg described Roe v. Wade as intended to control population growth, “particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” And you know what that means. And restrictions on abortion simply exacerbate the problem because “the impact of all these restrictions is on poor women,” and “It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.”
It is little wonder that University of Texas evolutionist Eric Pianka receives standing ovations and awards for his advocacy of the elimination of 90% of the human population.
Eugenics, abortion and population control are, unfortunately, by no means the end of evolution’s deconstructionism. Evolution does away with law, common sense and morality. Scientific laws, as evolutionists explain, are not appropriate when explaining the creation of the world. For despite appearances and the hard scientific evidence, the world must have arisen spontaneously. It is a narrative of sheer absurdity. But we control it, and one consequence is moral relativism. Morality is seen as the result of evolutionary history. Right and wrong are determined by the haphazard configurations of molecules in our head.
Yes, there is plenty of material for Workshop on Scientific Imperialism in Helsinki next April.
Unfortunately, It's not "Scientific Imperialism".
ReplyDeleteIt's imperialism all right. But, If it were scientific, it would be accessible to evidence and reason.
But it is not scientific at all...
It is "Religious Imperialism" because as you have shown here for years, Dr. Hunter, evolution is a "faith based" religion, based on the self-serving belief that "God wouldn't have done it that way..."
This Religious Imperialism shows its ugly head in all the ways you document. Death and destruction follow its religious doctrine like a foam wake follows a ship at sea.
If Downes and his colleagues really are pushing that line then you're in for a real orgy of evidence-free just-so stories at that conference.
ReplyDeleteAnd there's just the slight problem that imperialism genocide, immorality, corruption, slavery and all the other self-inflicted wounds of humanity pre-date the theory of evolution by millenia.. Mankind has had no need of the scribblings of a 19th century English gentleman scientist to encourage it to commit such misdeeds. Religion more than sufficed. Try Martin Luther on the Jews for a start.
Spedding,
ReplyDelete"And there's just the slight problem that imperialism genocide, immorality, corruption, slavery and all the other self-inflicted wounds of humanity pre-date the theory of evolution by millenia.. Mankind has had no need of the scribblings of a 19th century English gentleman scientist to encourage it to commit such misdeeds. Religion more than sufficed."
From the Wayback Machine - "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
Yes, there are countless things which existed before the Theory of Evolution was invented. It's just that the theory of evolution scientifically legitimized them providing the raw motivation for future atrocities which really wouldn't be atrocities under the guidance of science. For example, we now have been informed that Rape is an evolutionary adaptation strategy used by socially inferior men to spread their DNA and nothing more. It will become entertaining to see the first Rapist and his lawyer using the scientific literature on this in a "My Selfish Genes Made me do it" Defense.
Spedding,
ReplyDelete"And there's just the slight problem that imperialism genocide, immorality, corruption, slavery and all the other self-inflicted wounds of humanity pre-date the theory of evolution by millenia.."
This is a dangerous rationalization evolutionists consistently use. This seems to always be the response to the unequivocal facts of the destruction that evolution led to. It's OK because people have always been killing and maiming each other.
DrHunter,
DeleteThis is a dangerous rationalization evolutionists consistently use. This seems to always be the response to the unequivocal facts of the destruction that evolution led to. It's OK because people have always been killing and maiming each other.
Perhaps the cause of the present day mayhem is the same as the pre evolution mayhem, evolution is just a convenient rationalization or scapegoat.
It's good to see you back again after such a long drought. Truth tellers are so very rare. Even rarer are truth tellers that illuminate so much.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind note Peter.
DeleteOuch. I don't like the comment that evolution is the most important Science theory. I understand the points but evolution had no effect on actual accomplishment in human dealings with anything.
ReplyDeleteI don't see it had a effect on North America in its morals or politics.
I don't think much overseas either.
In fact evolution ideas has always moved in the small circles in the upper class including the academic upper class.
I don't think the eventual demise of this evo bio ideas will make a better world. Problems are bigger then evo.
Robert:
ReplyDeleteOuch. I don't like the comment that evolution is the most important Science theory.
Which comment is that?
I don't see it had a effect on North America in its morals or politics.
Abortion?
I don't think much overseas either.
WWI? The 3rd Reich?
Thanks for the reply.
DeleteI am pro-life but I see it as not a moral issue but a intellectual issue.
Both sides are equally moral on human rights to life YET the pro choice side insists the fetus is not a human being most or all of its life in the mother.
Pro-lifers say it is a child from conception , or some a little later, and therefore act accordingly in on insisting on an end to abortion.
its entirely about the humanity , or not, of the 'fetus".
I don't see evolution concepts affecting these conclusions.
Easily pro-choice people come from classes that have no ideas about evolution.
As to Nazi Germany I say it was very little about race ideas. Hitler was clear his genocide was revenge. not about race as such.
Anyways many creationist thinkers do say evolution is the most or one of the most important science ideas.
I see it as not effective on human history or true science history.
Its an obscure subject that produces lots of smoke but no heat.
I see where your coming from but I do want to see old chuck Darwin relegated to a minor place.
Robert Byers: Both sides are equally moral on human rights to life YET the pro choice side insists the fetus is not a human being most or all of its life in the mother.
DeleteSome people might make that argument, but the general argument is whether the fetus has civil rights as a citizen.
it isn't in the peoples minds.
Deleteits a intellectual contention plain and simple and moral for both.
pro-choicers do not think the fetus is a kid and act morally consistent from this stance.
Pro lifers do and act accordingly.
The civil rights is irrelevant.
If its a kid it has the RIGHTS to life and can't be murdered.
Pro choice, sincerely, and must entirely make its case on the fetus not being a kid.
If man does not have the right to life, ala Locke, then all is lost that was gained on mankinds essential moral rights due to his dignity.
Citizenship is irrelevant.
fetus/kids should not have citizenship until born.
Robert Byers: pro-choicers do not think the fetus is a kid
DeleteKid usually refers to a specific stage of development.
Most people don't look on a fertilized egg as more than a possibility. Several fertilized eggs are often used in fertility treatments to create each baby.
Fair enough. At some point a child person has arrived in the world.
DeletePro-lifers say at conception , the soul put in, and pro choicers say some other time.
Late in the pregnancy or at birth and so see abortion as morally fine.
Its a intellectual contention and not a moral one for 99%.
Robert Byers: Pro-lifers say at conception , the soul put in, and pro choicers say some other time.
DeleteWhile a strict moment of ensoulment is a common belief, many people see development as a continuum.
Robert Byers: Its a intellectual contention and not a moral one for 99%.
It's certainly a moral question for many people. While some don't recognize any rights for even a late-term fetus, most do. That's why abortion policy often depends on the stage of development, with the government having increasing interest at later stages. It's a balance between the moral values of female independence, limitation of government, and the increasingly recognized rights of the fetus.
The common law tradition was prohibition of abortion after quickening.
Do not agree.
DeleteAbortion is only a intellectual contention for 99%
Not a moral one.
Each side saying the other is morally wrong are just wrong.
Both act consistently from thier presumption as to whether the fetus is a kid or not.
If pro choicers believed a fetus was a kid they would convert to pro life.
If I didn't believe the fetus was a kid I would convert to pro choice.
in fact your point about late term is case in point.
simply most pro choicers think in late term the jid has arrived. fetus no more.
So they agree with human tights for the kid or something.
All agree all people have a right to life but when is the fetus a human is the only difference of opinion.
Robert Byers: Abortion is only a intellectual contention for 99% Not a moral one.
DeleteMost people support restrictions late in pregnancy, meaning they distinguish morally between a fertilized egg and a fetus in late development.
Robert Byers: simply most pro choicers think in late term the jid has arrived. fetus no more.
You seem to be playing with words. Kid usually refers to a specific stage of development after birth. A late-term pregnancy is still about a fetus. Most people who are pro-choice don't define a strict dividing line. They point to female autonomy from government intrusion, especially in the first trimester, but generally grant more concerns with the fetus later in pregnancy.
Here are some pro-choice arguments.
Delete"Personhood begins after a fetus becomes "viable" (able to survive outside the womb) or after birth, not at conception."
http://abortion.procon.org/
Zachriel
DeleteDon't worry about person-hood. When does human life start, Zachriel?
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Eugen: Don't worry about person-hood.
DeletePerson-hood is the question at issue. Fertilized eggs are alive, but then again, so are sperm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
Zachriel
DeleteSo science doesn't matter now? Stick to biology you and your atheist friends worship and read on when does human life start.
let me Google that for you
From the page:
"The zygote, the first cell of a new organism with an individual genome (2n4C) is created by the alignment of the maternal chromosomes together with the paternal ones on a common spindle apparatus."
You keep slipping into Mumbo-jumbo--bureaucratic-politically-correct-let's-pick-when-can-we-kill-human universe. Stay with us.
Eugen (quoting): "The zygote, the first cell of a new organism with an individual genome "
DeleteSure, we agree with that. Anything else?
On this issue, that's about it, Zachriel.
DeleteLet's disregard the bureaucratic and politically correct trash language of whining activists who worry more about frogs than humans.
ReplyDeleteScience tells us that human life begins when the long process of fertilization is complete and the first cell has all the information to build a human being.
Eugen: Science tells us that human life begins when the long process of fertilization is complete and the first cell has all the information to build a human being.
DeleteThe legal question is when the being has civil rights, and when the state has the authority to exert control over the woman.
When someone dies, the government generally has an inquiry. Should the government require a woman to submit her menses for examination to determine whether she expelled a fertilized egg?
Delete