Singer's A Darwinian Left

nemonemini at cosmiverse.com nemonemini at cosmiverse.com
Sun Dec 9 20:58:40 MST 2001


This is a reasonable stance, actually, taking the fact of evolution,
and distancing oneself toward the theoretical aspects. You can expend
a great deal of wasted energy trying to get straight what to take as
science here. What will you study? Unless you are a speedreader and
have time to study a century of critics, you will get Darwinized from
the literature. And it is getting harder in the age of the Genome.
Always perk up at the discussions of natural selection, and you will
notice the publishing strategies, sometimes taking the form of Darwin
plugs re selectionism in the early text, then slightly ambiguous
challenges later on. Be hep to the tactics.

 Note how those who study it the most tend quite obviously to be the
most assertively Darwinian, and either right--or perfectly confused.
That is study requires assent, unless you can juggle a lot of
complexity. There is no clear alternate to what's presented, nor any
easy way to balance what you read with the actual research
literature, which is often now something different. Cf. The Century
of the Gene, by E. Keller, for example.

 A good example is the 'peppered moth', supposed to show the great
proof of Darwin's theory (they changed color due to smog). Even
getting this one straight is hard, such is the repetition of
incorrect statements. This peppered moth syndrome pervades the
literature, and I can state from hard experience the sheer distrust
in everything I read, and not even as a viewpoint, but as a half-
conscious realization I will be getting another bum steer.

Do eyes evolve in small incremental stages via natural selection? Do
they? Is there any way to find out?
A century of Darwinists said so, and a century of critics scoffed.
Now go read the last chapter of the recetn Schwarz' Sudden Origins.
(That's a bus ticket, price of the book,etc...basic information toil
and scarcity) Then convince the world of what you have read if it
changes your mind.
The point is that complex information in a metaphysical debate is so
savaged, alongside the inherent difficulty of correcting
disinformation, that the Darwin situation is simply a complete mess.
Anyway, to study the subject requires doubt, but not too much doubt,
reading the classic critiques, and using them to shoehorn into the
standard literature without being bamboozled. The stages become
arcane. Population genetics. Great science. Tons of math. Tricky
stuff. But can you independently derive the reasoning? Without math
training, that's hard. And yet it proves very little about the rigor
of Darwinism or its completeness as a theory. It is not reliable as
in physics, although it works well in the limited cases where it is
used. But the subject is used as a surface mesmerizer for something
that is not there in reality, a theory of evoluton, more than a
theory of microevolution. So while I couldn't endorse your lack of
desire to study more, I sympathize with you, and, all in all, in can
help to stand back and reflect, as much as to absorb educational
boilerplate.

The whole question is very simple. Noone properly verified how
evolution actually happened. Therefore less domatism would be
helpful, and if anyone has suggestions for the most obvious
counterobjection to Darwin's theory, that is, close-range data, his
objections should be welcomed, not condemned.To condemn so instantly
is proof of an ideology in action. Observe Darwinists, they are
shrill and, like puritans, indigant, and they are never curious,
never doubtful, which they should be if they understood their
position.

It is worth reading Denton's Evolution A Theory in Crisis. This was
written in 1985. It contains a severe objection to Dawkins' earlier
book. This book is now declared out of date, but despite a few
problemsm his objections stand, in general. A year later Dawkins came
out with another bestseller, totally unrepentant, as if Denton never
existed. This Dawkins has had twenty five years of this, without
check. He is clever at making doubters feel stupid. In fact, these
Dawinists are themselves stupid. This Creationist, P. Johnson, in
Darwin on Trial, caught them by surprise. Enough's enough he said, as
a lawyer who knew there was a problem here, by simple inspection of
the demeanor of the arguments. This work should have been done by
secular thought, the left, instead we have Singer trying to announce
sociobiologization of the left. I like Singer, but this is idiocy.

I don't reject all of Dawkins, nor all of Singer. Being a Darwin
critic is a treacherous matter. I zigzag dialectically. But it is
clear from a close study of the literature, including the critics,
that there is a severe credibility gap.

It is very hard to challenge Darwinists. I am lucky, with my 'eonic
analysis', I can see exactly where the theory is goint wrong, viz. as
to a macro factor of some kind, whatever that is.
Anyway, be wary of what you read here. As Johnson demonstrated, you
can walk in and say phooey, and be right.


>
>
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 nemonemini at cosmiverse.com wrote:
> >
> > To: evolutionary-psychology at yahoogroups.com

> >
> > The Yale Review if Books
> > Volume 4 No. 2
> >
> > Can Darwin Replace Marx?
>
> Hi John:
>
> One can't read everything. I'm not planning to read this unless I
see a
> reason to invest my time in it. All I need to understand for the
purpose
> of combatting Creationism is how to establish the fact of
evolution, a
> point on which you and I both
agree.

------------------------------------
This message was sent by Cosmiverse.
http://www.cosmiverse.com
Get Your Free Email Account Today!
Join us Today as a Digital Passenger aboard
Cosmic Voyage 2000 ( http://www.cosmicvoyage2000.com )!



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list