Bourgeois Science-How about Darwinism?

nemonemini at nemonemini at
Sat Dec 1 11:32:37 MST 2001

>From John Landon, now at nemonemini at, due to html
problem at aol.

In a message dated 11/30/2001 10:52:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
g_schofield at writes:

If I remember rightly, Malthus "discovered" his theory when
contemplating the animal world and then applied it to human
populations to support his reactionary view of the world. Darwin
picked up on Malthus and applied it to the animal world - ironic how
things work out.

I have a short webpage on Malthus,
Malthus' ideas, whatever their importance in current demography, were
a dreadful political and 'scientific' mess, and the debate over them
went on for a whole generation, see the book "Happy Generations"
detailing the whole sequence, cited there. We hardly remember any of
that. Because Darwinism, among other things, displaced it. But the
resemblance of Darwinism and its debate, although far more
sophisticated, to that debate is striking. And noone is denying some
elements of science to Darwin research.
That leaves the bottom line question. Must we accept the theory as
science, or is the theory suspect? Is it or isn't it? It is suspect,
in my opionion, and therefore we are all caught with our pants down,
ideological sleight of hand on a stunning scale, truly stunning, a
civilization breaker at this point. The theory, as the Malthus
history should have warned us, is partly scientific, and yet rank
with ideological motives, but in a less outrageous way than the
Malthusian. Please note, I speak of the theory of natural selection,
not of the fact of evolution, which is beautiful, and well confirmed.
The point is also clarified in Soren Lovtrup's Darwinism, Refutation
of a Myth, where the Lamarckian and other origins of the theory are
more clearly outlined. It is futile, also, to claim that since
Lamarck's theory was also wrong we should forget him for Darwin.
Darwin's theory is also wrong.
It's worth reading the original reviews. Many attempted to point all
this out before the whole thing turned into a massive new social
belief system.

In other words, when Marx studied ideology, and said 'we've got a
problem here', he wasn't kidding!! Left or right, we've got a

Also James Moore, in his bio Darwin: Life of a Tormented
Evolutionist, goes into the history of the generation of Darwin's
youth when the radical evolutionists still held the flag in the
generation of Malthus, the Reform Bill, and the rest. Darwin's theory
is deeply conditioned by that cultural politics, and succeeded
because the Whigs of that period were conservative-progressive.
Lamarck, we have forgotten, was a bit radical, deserves the real
credit, and died blind and forgotten. Darwin, with a claim on the
idea of evolution that he didn't discover, gave the fact of evolution
a bogus theory, which made it take off (and also gave it a good
research basis, etc...). We simply don't get it. Darwin's theory is a
half-truth claiming to be the whole truth, that is convenient for a
capitalist society because it suggests that conflict, competition,
and dysethical behavior, economically and otherwise, is the SOLE
mechanism of real biological, hence cultural, evolution.  It is good
for a bad conscience, and that's the way the bigwigs think behind the
scenes, and why Bill Gates pays his dues, and finances Dawkins.
It is essential that this propaganda be seen at all times and at all
places as SCIENCE, and that values of all types be eliminated from
the theory. This requires showing that natural selection alone has
produced ethical behavior, that is, that selfishness is the sole
source of ethical behavior. How manage that piece de resistance?
Surely the public will wise up, no? They found a way, sociobiological
kin selection (and Darwin's group selection). A miracle. Altruism is
an illusion, and springs from natural selection, as selfishness.
Using mathematics, the theory of games, modelling, experts of all
kinds, this is now science. And the public simply limps along, yes,
yes.. All the nobel prize winners, not a peep. All the nasa folks,
not a peep.
So, is it Science or not? One thing is sure, if they change their
story now, they have a problem.

PS. since we are into bashing New Agers, I should note Madame
Blavatsky figured out Darwin in one week, and snorted, "Baboon".
Madame Blavatsky's Baboon. I am not one of her fans, that's for sure.
But someday history will record that she took one week, and all the
scientists, to this day, can't seem to get it.
So, again, is selectionism the sole mechanism of evolution?

This message was sent by Cosmiverse.
Get Your Free Email Account Today!
Join us Today as a Digital Passenger aboard
Cosmic Voyage 2000 ( )!

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list