Hegelian Dialectic and Darwinism

[Imaginosis]

According to Karl Marx, Charles Darwin posited the Hegelian Dialectic in his book The Origin of Species. In natural selection, Marx saw the Hegelian Dialectic manifested in the following manner:

Species (Thesis) interacting with their environment (Antithesis) create new species (Synthesis).

To show his appreciation to Darwin for positing Hegels Dialectic, Marx dedicated his book Das Kapital to Darwin. Darwin, who never intended to posit Hegels Dialectic, wasn't enthused with the compliment and distanced himself from Marx.

 

[random_guy]

I'm sorry, what does this have to do with Creation/Evolution or the validity of evolution/Creationism?

 

[DailyBlessings]

Interesting comment on Marx's part. I can see why Darwin would have been dismayed- his conception of evolution did not involve a synthesis of any sort, more like a stimulus/response. Hegel and Fichte, I'm sure, would be no more impressed by the accusation.

 

[Imaginosis]

...what does this have to do with Creation/Evolution or the validity of evolution/Creationism?

It demonstrates how the evolutionary theory is linked to Marxism. Remember, ulterior motives are at work.

 

[Mallon]

I HOPE that was sarcasm.

 

[LightHorseman]

It demonstrates how the evolutionary theory is linked to Marxism. Remember, ulterior motives are at work.

No, it relates how MARXISM is linked to EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.

Two different things, and the continued attempt to discredit evolution by linking it to all manner of distasteful or outdated theories, methods, conventions and beliefs, even though they have NOTHING to do with an understanding of what evolutionists have to say, is extremly intellectually dishonest.

If you want to prove evolution wrong, do what I do, just provide evolutionists with unimpeachable examples of theistic intervention in controlled biological experiments. Easy, and no lying required.

 

[Mallon]

If you want to prove evolution wrong, do what I do, just provide evolutionists with unimpeachable examples of theistic intervention in controlled biological experiments. Easy, and no lying required.

Now I'm even more confused. I thought you were a TE, LightHorseman.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Now I'm even more confused. I thought you were a TE, LightHorseman.

I suspect that was more sarcasm- God hasn't intervened in any controlled biological experiments of late, that I've heard of.

 

[Imaginosis]

I HOPE that was sarcasm.

Why? I'm stating a truth.

 

[LightHorseman]

I suspect that was more sarcasm- God hasn't intervened in any controlled biological experiments of late, that I've heard of.

*ROTFLMAO* Come on, you arent seriously suggesting that everyone who supports Creation Science is doing so without clear, repeatable experimental evidence are you? Thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard! How can you call something Creation Science if it doesnt involve experimentation?

 

[LightHorseman]

Now I'm even more confused. I thought you were a TE, LightHorseman.

*tsk tsk* see what denominationalism does to people? always so quick to asign individuals to an easily tickable box for ease of understanding.

 

[Mallon]

*tsk tsk* see what denominationalism does to people? always so quick to asign individuals to an easily tickable box for ease of understanding.

Just going by what YOUR public profile says.

 

[LightHorseman]

Just going by what YOUR public profile says.

TE is the closest to what I believe. However I find such rigid strictures... limiting, and less than helpful.

 

[shernren]

*ROTFLMAO* Come on, you arent seriously suggesting that everyone who supports Creation Science is doing so without clear, repeatable experimental evidence are you? Thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard! How can you call something Creation Science if it doesnt involve experimentation?

I'm confused. Is this a Poe's?

 

[LightHorseman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightHorseman
*ROTFLMAO* Come on, you arent seriously suggesting that everyone who supports Creation Science is doing so without clear, repeatable experimental evidence are you? Thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard! How can you call something Creation Science if it doesnt involve experimentation?


I'm confused. Is this a Poe's?

*re reads* take it how you like. Looks like a fair question to me. How CAN you call something Creation SCIENCE if it doesnt involve experimentation?

 

[Mallon]

Why? I'm stating a truth.

Oh. Do you similarly feel that because Hitler felt he was doing the work of the Lord, this somehow devalues Christianity? Or what about the Crusades?

The misapplication of the biological theory of evolution to social darwinism is similarly a logical fallacy.

 

[DailyBlessings]

TE is the closest to what I believe. However I find such rigid strictures... limiting, and less than helpful.

Yeh, that's why I stopped using the label. Confuses folks.

 

[LightHorseman]

The misapplication of the biological theory of evolution to social darwinism is similarly a logical fallacy.

Dude, thats what I said!

 

[Mallon]

Dude, thats what I said!

Yeah, and then you said a bunch of other semi-sarcastic stuff that just confused me (and shernren). Forgive us if we were thrown for a loop.

 

[LightHorseman]

Well, I whole heartedly agree that saying Evolution is poor theory because of any relation to Marx can only be said by someone with zero grasp of causality.

I seriously had someone try to tell me that Darwinian theory is wrong because it promotes inappropriate behavior with animals the other day. I asked him about pre Darwinian inappropriate behavior with animals as mentioned in the Bible, but he declined to reply