Bourgeois Science-How about Darwinism?

ermadog at ermadog at
Sat Dec 1 13:36:06 MST 2001

On Sat, 1 Dec 2001 nemonemini at wrote:

> 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
> from the theory.

Thank you! Now I know what this Dawkins guy is up to! I am only generally
aware of this debate, but here are my impressions.

Dawkins falls into the fuzzy area of "sort-of-good science". As I
understand it, he is not actually a working scientist - he hasn't
published in scientific journals in years. So he is absenting himself
from the self-corecting mechanism of peer review. For instance, from what
little I have seen, I know that his anthropological data is out of date.
Cooments I've seen from evolutionary scientists suggest that evolutionary
psychology is just sociobiology(eugenics) updated.

I don't get into the finer points of the evolution controversy. The fact
of evolution is, as you say, easily establishable. This takes the wind out
of the sails of the Creationists. The results of the human genome project
and the latest mitochondrial DNA discoveries ought to take the wind out of
the sails of the more sophisticated racists who like Dawkins. This
particular debate won't be definitively over until after the revolution
when it is possible to put our ideas of equality into practice. But by the
time our point is proven, the racist theories will be nothing but
mumbo-jumbo, because there will be no one around who remembers the reality
behind the jargon.

To respond briefly to your question in another post: Yes, all of these
ancient traditions have many usefull things to say in the area of
psychology - but psychology is hardly a science. Marxists recognize that
religion is the sigh of the oppressed; but that not every sigh has
revolutionary implications. We distinguish between right wing populism and
left wing populism.

It is simply not possible to keep up with all the science required to
refute all the bs - the bs becomes more sophisticated as the data becomes
more complex. It is crucial to have an understanding of what science is
and is not, and to use this tool as an adjunct to your common sense. And I
will repeat again that science is the only tool we have for determining
what is true.

Joan Cameron

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list