Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and Darwin

[fromdownunder]

Hey! All treads are equal. Eh, some are more equal than others...

Very nice response. Thanks.

Norm

 

[Elduran]

John has failed to announce why Communism is evil. Or how evolution supports the ‘evil’ Communism rather than Capitalism.

That's because it would be inconvenient at this stage for him to admit that there are no links at all between his chosen subject matters.

 

[lemmings]

That's because it would be inconvenient at this stage for him to admit that there are no links at all between his chosen subject matters.

At this stage, I would just be happy if John would just tell me why Communism is evil.

 

[Mystman]

At this stage, I would just be happy if John would just tell me why Communism is evil.

He grew up in Cold War USA. He just knows that communism is evil.

Anyway, it isn't so much evil, just impossible (given human nature and all that), and depending the the type, also quite ineffecient.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

The state "science" under the soviet union was actually lamarckianism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckian#History

 

[JohnR7]

He grew up in Cold War USA. He just knows that communism is evil.

They told us that it was like a domino, if one falls down then they all fall down.

Actually one of the few things Clinton did when he was in office was to open up a diaologe with China to try and resolve some of the political issues.

I am not interested in a political discussion though. I am interested in a discussion on what they call social evolution or socialcultural evolution. For some reason evolutionists seem to want to avoid a discussion on that aspect or that part of the theory. Perhaps because people like Hitler and Marx start to become a part of the discussion when you start to investigate the theory on a social level.

But when it comes to a political discussion, I do not really know anything about it. I have never studied anything that has to do with political things. But if someone wants to have a discussion on evolution and political science I suppose we could give it a try.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

No, you don't want to get into a discussion of evil people who believe in evolution because then we get to bring up all of the evil people who were christian or creationists.
Hitler was a devout catholic.
Jim jones was a christian too.
What do you wanna bet the 9/11 terrorists didn't believe in evolution?
How many evolutionists bomb abortion clinics?

 

[WilliamduBois]

Dear John, you've been told countless times that social darwinism is not a part of the theory of evolution.

So I wonder, are you that forgetful, or are you being dishonest?

 

[Elduran]

I am not interested in a political discussion though. I am interested in a discussion on what they call social evolution or socialcultural evolution. For some reason evolutionists seem to want to avoid a discussion on that aspect or that part of the theory. Perhaps because people like Hitler and Marx start to become a part of the discussion when you start to investigate the theory on a social level.

NO, you are wrong again.

The reason scientists don't want to talk about social evolution in the context of the theory of evolution is because it isn't part of the theory of evolution. It's just not. No matter how much you want it to be so that you can discredit the scientific theory with the other thing that just happens to have the same name, it isn't.

This is like trying to disprove the mathematical method of proof by induction by talking about what happens when a wire is exposed to a moving magnetic field...

 

[FishFace]

For some reason evolutionists seem to want to avoid a discussion on that aspect or that part of the theory.

Perhaps because social evolution is not part of "the theory?"

Perhaps because people like Hitler and Marx start to become a part of the discussion when you start to investigate the theory on a social level.

So some baaad men used Darwin's theory in a way that isn't applicable, committing the is/ought fallacy while they were at it. That neither smears nor falsifies evolution!
That's a very important point to realise - not only does it not even make evolution a naughty theory, but even if it did, evolution would still be true.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

1. Both have BEARDS
2. Both are MEN
3. Both are from a long time ago
4. Communism is Evil
5. Evolution is Evil
6. ERGO: Communism is Evolution

Now for a few random bible quotes;

I've decided to try the path of least resistance for the remainder of February and into March for a while. So, this logic has me convinced that darwin is directly responsible for the Spanish Conquistador's slaughter of Native Americans.

dads logic and clear, concise debating still and internally coherent scientific theorising have already convinced me that the universe is only 6000 years old and Stonehenge was originally a garden gazebo built as a weekend DIY project.

So, in my new, enlightened state, I'm interested hear precisely what it is John has to say, how he sees a link between Darwinism and Marxism.

John, the floor's your's sweety, give it your best shot...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Perhaps because people like Hitler and Marx

what an odd pairing...

 

[NPH]

For some reason evolutionists seem to want to avoid a discussion on that aspect or that part of the theory. Perhaps because people like Hitler and Marx start to become a part of the discussion when you start to investigate the theory on a social level.

Since you have Godwin'd your own thread (well, others did also) I don't feel too bad about adding these nuggets for your consideration:

"In 1936 ... Hitler assured his lordship [Bishop Berning of Osnabruch] there was no fundamental difference between National Socialism and the Catholic Church. Had not the church, he argued, looked on Jews as parasites and shut them in ghettos? 'I am only doing,' he boasted, 'What the church has done for fifteen hundred years, only more effectively.'" - Peter de Rosa, former Jesuit priest and theologian

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator; by defending myself against the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord.... I would like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people" - Adolf Hitler (sidenote, exchange 'Jews' for 'Islamic terrorists' and the quote sounds eerily like the musings of a current world leader)

 

[EnemyPartyII]

For some reason evolutionists seem to want to avoid a discussion on that aspect or that part of the theory.

Can you please explain how it fits into the theory? I don't know.

 

[Split Rock]

Anyone open for a discussion on communism and darwinism?

Apparently not. Do you have a point to make?

It would appear that denial is more then just a river in egypt. That is fine if no one wants to have a open discussion about evolution. I am sort of tired of dealing with the subject anyways. We can just talk about creation science.

Fine. Let's start with a definition of the biblical "Kind."

We could talk about some of the things that Marx said about Darwinism.

Why? There were American Capitolists that also tried to use evolution to support their objectives. What is the point?

In China they do not seem to think that Marx is evil. His "lessons" are still taught in the schools there today. The question is are their evolutionary theorys that can be traced back to Marx, sense it seems clear that he was a evolutionist and he had quite a bit to say about evolution.

Define "evolutionist" in this context. Also, you provided little evidence that Marx had "quite a bit" to say about evolutionary theory. All you provided was a single incomplete and out of context quote.

I am not interested in a political discussion though. I am interested in a discussion on what they call social evolution or socialcultural evolution. For some reason evolutionists seem to want to avoid a discussion on that aspect or that part of the theory. Perhaps because people like Hitler and Marx start to become a part of the discussion when you start to investigate the theory on a social level.

The theory of biological evolution has nothing to do with Social Darwinism. It is not "part of the theory."

Can it really be true that you do not see that these kind of threads only serve to drive people who are undecided away from Creationism? In any case, keep up the good work!

 

[JohnR7]

Can you please explain how it fits into the theory? I don't know.

Social evolution fits the forum. They both have the word evolution in their title. So I think you are going to have a difficult case if you want to try to convince the mods that social evolution or even social darwinism is not a topic for discussion here on this forum. No matter how much people think it does not qualify as "real" evolution.

But, if you do not want to talk about it, that is fine, I got better things to do. Or perhaps you would like to have a stimulating converstion about Darwin's beard?

 

[JohnR7]

Do you have a point to make?

No I do not have a point. No one knows anything about neoevolution, so that is fine. We do not have to talk about it if you do not want to.

Fine. Let's start with a definition of the biblical "Kind."

What does that have to do with social darwinism?
A Bible "kind" is what science calls a species.
I would have no problem to replace the word "kind" in the Bible with the word "species".

drive people who are undecided away from Creationism?

What do you mean by creationism?
Some of the creationist theorys are so mixed up and confused that it would be good to drive people away from them.

 

[Sleeker]

Social evolution fits the forum. They both have the word evolution in their title.

Who's up for a talk on the evolution of dance? I have a great video for it right here.

Or how about a talk on Creation and Star Trek? Don't worry, I have the source of information.

So I think you are going to have a difficult case if you want to try to convince the mods that social evolution or even social darwinism is not a topic for discussion here on this forum.

I don't.

But, if you do not want to talk about it, that is fine, I got better things to do. Or perhaps you would like to have a stimulating converstion about Darwin's beard?

That would be preferable, yes.

No I do not have a point. No one knows anything about neoevolution, so that is fine. We do not have to talk about it if you do not want to.

What's neoevolution? More to the point, what's with all of these insane prefixes to evolution I've been seeing? What about Neo-Hovind-YEC-fascist-dictatorial-creationism?

What does that have to do with social darwinism?

As much as social Darwinism does to evolution.

A Bible "kind" is what science calls a species.
I would have no problem to replace the word "kind" in the Bible with the word "species".

So, was their hyper speciation, multiple arks, sanctuaries on land protected by the flood containing many more species, or is the Flood just wrong?

 

[FishFace]

Social evolution fits the forum. They both have the word evolution in their title.

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has Church in the title - WOOHOO!

So I think you are going to have a difficult case if you want to try to convince the mods that social evolution or even social darwinism is not a topic for discussion here on this forum. No matter how much people think it does not qualify as "real" evolution.

All is being said is that it's not part of the Theory of Evolution. It's a load of fallacious rubbish, partly inspired by the same Theory. That's completely different, and you should know it.

But, if you do not want to talk about it, that is fine, I got better things to do. Or perhaps you would like to have a stimulating converstion about Darwin's beard?

I'm sure it would be about as stimulating as any conversation about social darwinism.

 

[Split Rock]

No I do not have a point.

OK. At least you admit it.

What does that have to do with social darwinism?
A Bible "kind" is what science calls a species.
I would have no problem to replace the word "kind" in the Bible with the word "species".

You said you were willing to talk about Creation Science instead, so I asked a question about it.

So, speciation would disprove Creation Science? Then it has been disproved, since speciation has been observed in nature and the lab. I hope you don't need to see Lucaspa's list again..

What do you mean by creationism?
Some of the creationist theorys are so mixed up and confused that it would be good to drive people away from them.

I agree completely. But we were discussing Creation Science.

My point was that this type of Thread does more for our side in the debate than yours.