Bourgeois Science-How about Darwinism?

nemonemini at nemonemini at
Mon Dec 3 20:18:55 MST 2001

I have been in a lot of Darwin debates over the past several years,
and I know how they develop, and that they are generally futile. This
one, still incipient, might as well just terminate, if only because
it gets fatiguing to endlessly ask, where's the proof? This question
is a good way to simply stop, since the question is never answered,
as someone changes the subject. The discussion adjourns to the
unspoken, who cares? it is a media matter in any case, the paradigm
going to the side with the biggest budget.
I think however that this list, unlike most, shows more of an open
mind on the issue, and with a little work and reflection the point I
am making will sink in. As to establishment science, generally,
that's intimidating. But on evolution, amateurs have consistently
pointed to the flaws in the theory, ever since Butler. It is a
strange phenomenon, until you realize that all the experts in the
world provide no guarantee on evolution, for there is no science in
the true sense, and the foundations of theory are perhaps beyond us
at this point. So the cascade of Darwin dummies raised on
demonstrably mendacious textbooks goes on and on. Instead of fifty
more posts arguing natural selection, it is useful to tune out from
the bigshots, Dawkins to Gould, and read some of the critics.

"I've got your number", as they say. We know why Darwinists are
stuck, they have unresolved naturalist-reductionist metaphysical
hangups, and see god in anything but the most basic-stupid theory, a
la Darwin. So we see how they tick, and how they can't get unstuck.
It is not a question of material versus spiritual. Nor is it a
question of the argument by design, which Kant and Hume shafted
before Paley (and Kant was even a theist). So this 'division of the
spoils' is just that.
Again, I suggest a close look at my eonic data. It takes some work,
but you will find no axes to grind, and a clear demo of the probable
reality of directional macro factors, and more than probable as to
As to language, we don't know how that evolved, and to say it evolved
by natural selection is simply vulgar Darwinism at work.

In any case, I would love to debate the issue ad infinitum, but a
certain discipline is needed. Where is the proof, closely tracked, of
any major human trait, arising by natural selection? None is offered,
so end of discussion til provided, being served notice of provocative
abuse of science claims, bogus. So, where's the proof?
When this one crashes, it will be awful, and I fear the left will go
with it. Forget these leftist celebrities selling evolution. It is
confusing the issue.

I just came across, again, Robert Reid's Evolutionary Theory, The
Unfinished Synthesis, a hilarious history and critique. This, and
Soren Lovtrup's book, are worth honoring. They predicted what would
happen (as to epigenetics), and it is happening, and the Darwin
establishment is quickly repackaging the subject, in a new hybrid. I
refer to the developmental issues foreseen by Lovtrup and Reid,
indeed Gould got wise to that early on.  You can be sure they will be
forgotten and that Darwin will get the credit. Cf. The Shape of Life,
no kidding.
Nauseating hypocrisis.

 One serious oddity on the left (it
> showed up some months ago in really idiotic comments by some
posters on
> schizophrenia) is the presence of those individuals who are
> skeptical of "establishment" science and endlessly gullible of any
> half-wit science that belongs in the National Inquirer.

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