Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and Darwin

Status
Not open for further replies.

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
So, speciation would disprove Creation Science?
For me Creation science is any science that verifys the Bible or creation to be true. We then question what is valid science and what is not valid science. Creation science is impirical evidence for the Bible.

My point was that this type of Thread does more for our side in the debate than yours.
So far there is not one person that even wants to talk about evolution on this thread. So does that help your "side" when you keep people in ignorance by refusing to talk about evolutionary theory? At least in regards to neoevolution, which is the topic of this thread.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Come on now - John does have a point here. He did make some good points in post #11. It might be worth discussing.

I think, John, that the best answer is, it doesn't matter what people think of evolution. If it could be proved that Hitler, for example, directly took his inspiration from Darwin's theory and nothing else, it would not prove that there is anything wrong with the theory of evolution. If it could be proved that Darwin himself came up with the theory with the direct intention of discrediting Christianity with it, this would have no impact on the modern theory of evolution. Scientists are not concerned with what the theory of evolution makes people think; they are concerned with whether or not it is actually true.

However, there doesn't seem to be any harm in asking the question of whether or not Marx was influenced by the theory of evolution. He may have been.
 
Upvote 0

CACTUSJACKmankin

Scientist
Jan 25, 2007
3,484
128
✟11,817.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
The purpose of this thread is to somehow equate evolution with communism, which doesn't work.
Evolution is a value-free scientific fact, just like cloning. It is only the application of those facts that can have moral implications.
Weak, diseased, and young animals are the most likely to get eaten because they are the easiest to kill. C'est La Vie, that is a fact of nature. Being a fact of nature it also has no value to be ascribed to it. Thus it has no moral implications for our society. It doesn't mean that it would be okay for our society to kill the weak, diseased, and young. The connection between evolution and social darwinism or any other socio-political ideology is unfounded for this same reason.
 
Upvote 0

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
At least in regards to neoevolution, which is the topic of this thread.
Will you give me a link where I can read about neoevolution? I've searched the net, found following site: http://www.neoevolution.net/, but have a feeling that you didn't have this in mind.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
For me Creation science is any science that verifys the Bible or creation to be true. We then question what is valid science and what is not valid science. Creation science is impirical evidence for the Bible.
You can make up your own vocabulary, John, but no one else will use it.


So far there is not one person that even wants to talk about evolution on this thread. So does that help your "side" when you keep people in ignorance by refusing to talk about evolutionary theory? At least in regards to neoevolution, which is the topic of this thread.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the purpose of this thread seems to be to blame Communism on the Theory of Evolution. That type of argument is what helps my side, because most people can see how poor an argument it is.

By the way, since when did the topic of this thread become "neoevolution?" What is "neoevolution," by the way?
 
Upvote 0

XTE

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2006
2,796
113
Houston, Tx
✟3,642.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
Honest question:

Why do you people waste your breath answering his questions?

He already knows he has the answers and knows that he is privy to more knowledge about everything than you are. I mean, he knows better than you do that Evolution and Social DARWINISM(and idea invented well after Darwin's day and not called Social Evolution) have everything to do with one another. It's striking! Let the guy think that on his own.

Imagine that you thought everything you thought was a God-send. Someone so impressed with themselvese that they no longer need to impress others. That's what you are talking to.

Leave him alone.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
However, there doesn't seem to be any harm in asking the question of whether or not Marx was influenced by the theory of evolution. He may have been.

Actually, I was looking at the issue in the other direction. That evolutionary theory has been influenced by Marx. Actually what Marx was concerned with was social evolution. Something Darwin did not seem to be as interested in.

We know that Marx was very excited about Darwin's book. So Marx sent Darwin a copy of his book and Darwin did not even open it. So we there is a good chance that he never read Marx's book. Although Marxists to this day still accept Darwin's theorys.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
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...
Oh, sorry about that. I guess I got confused because social evolutoin and the theory of evolution both use the same word: evolution. So does that mean that social evolution should be excluded as a topic on this forum, even though the word Evolution is used in it's description? Or that we should only talk about what Darwin said about evolution and we should not talk about what Marx said about evolution?

For those who like to draw comparison. Marx and Darwin may have both had beards. But there are people who would try to claim that they were both godless atheists. Although communism today claims that communism is or at least can be a spiritual experance.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Honest question:

Why do you people waste your breath answering his questions?
You have answers? For what?

It does not matter if you can answer questions or not. The question is what empirical evidence do you have to show that the Bible is not true? Because I have lots and lots and lots of empirical scientific evidence that shows the Bible to be true. Yet you do not seem to have one speck of empirical scientific evidence that shows the Bible is not true.

Even if you do not have any answers. Even if you do not have any evidence to support your claims. Then we can still see who can produce the best rhetoric.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Upisoft

CEO of a waterfal
Feb 11, 2006
4,885
131
Orbiting the Sun
✟20,777.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Oh, sorry about that. I guess I got confused because social evolutoin and the theory of evolution both use the same word: evolution. So does that mean that social evolution should be excluded as a topic on this forum, even though the word Evolution is used in it's description? Or that we should only talk about what Darwin said about evolution and we should not talk about what Marx said about evolution?
So they use the same word and you somehow concluded they're the same? If you haven't noticed, Marx's theories are philosophical.
 
Upvote 0

Sleeker

DON'T PANIC
Jun 21, 2006
1,490
49
34
Illinois
✟16,905.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

XTE

Well-Known Member
Jun 27, 2006
2,796
113
Houston, Tx
✟3,642.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
You have answers? For what?

It does not matter if you can answer questions or not. The question is what empirical evidence do you have to show that the Bible is not true? Because I have lots and lots and lots of empirical scientific evidence that shows the Bible to be true. Yet you do not seem to have one speck of empirical scientific evidence that shows the Bible is not true.

Even if you do not have any answers. Even if you do not have any evidence to support your claims. Then we can still see who can produce the best rhetoric.

Granted, he has a wit.

However, he still thinks you can prove a negative. How anyone can think this is even logical is beyond me, it is one of the leading factors in me claiming he is truly disingenuous. We've told him many, many, many times that you CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE and yet here he is again with his back against the wall and only one thing he thinks can get him out.

Secondly, he thinks "rhetoric" is potentially the same as evidence, or explainations? It's kind of vague, but it's funny that his rhetoric is always right and our rhetoric is wrong when put up against his.

Somehow, someone, told many times, still cannot help himself but to resort to asking someone else to prove a negative.
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
35
✟13,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Actually, I was looking at the issue in the other direction. That evolutionary theory has been influenced by Marx. Actually what Marx was concerned with was social evolution. Something Darwin did not seem to be as interested in.

Judging by your other posts, the problem is that you're conflating Evolution with what you cal "Social Evolution." I suppose Historical Materialism could be seen as social evolution, but it is not related, except extremely tenuously, to the Theory of Evolution. That's why people are less concerned with answering any questions, and more concerned with making off the wall quips.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
38
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
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?
Huh? I said I DO want to hear about it?! I'd like to have you explain how you see Social Darwinism and Evolution as Synonymous! Please, do go on!
 
Upvote 0

Sleeker

DON'T PANIC
Jun 21, 2006
1,490
49
34
Illinois
✟16,905.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
So Darwin had a influence on communism, but communism did not have a influence on Darwin?
Yes. You can say that. Jesus had an effect on Islam, but Islam did not have an effect on Jesus. Same sort of thing.

Edit: Also understand the difference between Darwin and the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution may have been created by Darwin, but anything that Darwin said or did doesn't necessarily have any scientific effect on the theory of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

DrkSdBls

Well-Known Member
Feb 19, 2006
1,721
56
42
✟2,298.00
Faith
Seeker
Yes. You can say that. Jesus had an effect on Islam, but Islam did not have an effect on Jesus. Same sort of thing.

Edit: Also understand the difference between Darwin and the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution may have been created by Darwin, but anything that Darwin said or did doesn't necessarily have any scientific effect on the theory of evolution.

Quite. Think of it this way. Darwin had a brainstorm one day and decided to write down his thoughts and observations during his Travels and then put them in a book to share with anyone else who was interested. Just something for the curious to think about.

Scienctists decided to pursue Darwin's ideas to either support them or refute them. Some they supported and some they refuted but either way, they still learned a lot about Nature and the world as a result of their findings.

So, even though Darwin's Ideas were generally Semi-Scientific Musings of a curious Biologist, they Did serve the purpose of getting people to think about the world in a new way and Sceince, as well as the world, has been thus enriched by (But not based on) Darwin's Work.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
So Darwin had a influence on communism, but communism did not have a influence on Darwin?
Bingo. Now, link Darwinism (i.e., the biological theory derived from Darwin's original musings) with Marxism and/or Communism (i.e., a social philosophy).
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.