[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Why don't you tell me also ,while you are at it, how on earth can the mechanisms of the biological evolution be applied to the non-biological evolution ...absolutely ?

I'd be interested to know where you draw the line between biological and non biological. Culture and history and economics are the result of human interactions and behavior, and human beings are animals. Therefore, they are in that respect biological phenomena, however complex and unpredictable.

You did not respond to my question though , even though you were  trying to sort of reduce man to just biological processes :
It's much easier  to say that there is actually no line to draw between biological or non-biological processes , then to try actually to draw that  existing  line .
How , on earth, and once again , could those biological processes give rise to the human non-biological ones then ?
I do not agree with this exclusive biological approach of man via the natural selection ,simply because Darwin's theory of evolution via the natural selection is exclusively biological : why , on earth , is it extended to human non-biological processes which occur at different levels and with different set of rules = human biological evolution and the human non-biological evolution are 2 different things though .
It's pretty obvious that there is a line we can draw between biological and non-biological processes such as : culture, spirituality, ethics and morality , politics , economics ...

The human biological and human non-biological processes are 2 different categories of evolution which do therefore occur at different  levels and via different set of rules = we are not just biological processes = we are not just animals , to put it simply .

Non-human  living organisms do seem to have some forms of "culture" in the shape of some primitive "development of tools " , some sort of primitive "societies "  ,some sort of 'ethics " .....but they cannot be compared to the human ones, not even remotely close = we are unique in that and other sense thus , despite what  materialistic scientists mainly try to prove .

For some reason this topic made me think of a CBC radio segment about whether or not scientists should try to bring back extinct species like the wooly mammoth. Regardless of the answer to that question, it's really quite bizarre to contemplate in terms of evolution - one species going extinct and another species evolving with a big enough brain and the ability and motivation to extract its DNA and bring that species back into existence

.

When scientists will be able to do just that , if ever , then we will talk about that .

I do not think that extinct species can be brought back to life again , just via their DNA though : there is much more to them also than just DNA .

But then again, who knows , i might be wrong , i just think i am not .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Did you watch "High anxieties-the mathematics of chaos " from topdocumentaryfilms.com docu i provided you with in the other thread ?

Yup; I saw that one, and several others, a while ago (about 5 years ago). The books will give you more detail - I recommend 'Chaos' by James Gleick, 'Complexity' by M. Mitchell Waldrop, and 'The Jungles of Randomness' by Ivars Peterson for a rounded coverage of the field - although I hear Mandelbrot's 'Fractals and Chaos' is pretty good, and he is the original source...

Ok, i should learn about that as well .Thanks .I am not expert on that either .

I just think of randomness as something coming out of the blue, from "outside " of the existing variables  ...though= cannot therefore exist as such .

The very concept of the theory of chaos or butterfly effect exclude absolute determinism or absolute predictability in the universe,not to mention that they ,per definition, exclude any so-called theory of everything as well  : i thought the biological evolution and therefore applying the mechanisms of the biological evolution to the non-biological ones absolutely is total non-sense , the more when we acknowledge the fact that even biological evolution itself via the natural selection is unpredictable and non-deterministic,so .

Why don't you tell me also ,while you are at it, how on earth can the mechanisms of the biological evolution be applied to the non-biological evolution ...absolutely ?

The biological mechanisms of ENS can't be applied (not directly, anyhow), but the underlying principle - replication with variation followed by selection; rinse & repeat - can be seen in many areas where change over time is characteristic; e.g. manufacturing, music, philosophy, software, even science itself. Not sure what you meant by 'absolutely'.

BTW, quantum mechanics contradicts your assertion that, "There are no such things such as random , coincidence ...". Radioactive decay is the canonical example of randomness, and coincidence is just two independent events occurring at roughly the same time or place.

There are indeed some common underlying principles between biological and non-biological processes , but there is no reason to apply those biological mechanisms to the non-biological ones ...absolutely , once again .

I mean thus by absolutely : always and without any restriction= without pre-conditions  .

Therefore,it makes no sense whatsoever  thus  to apply those mechanisms of the biological evolution to the non-biological processes , just because they both  happen to share some common underlying principles : Get it ?

Biological and non-biological processes  of man at least are 2 different categories of processes , which do occur at different levels via different set of rules , even though they seem to share some common underlying processes ;

Otherwise , just tell me what "governs " or how is human thought , behavior , consciousness, feelings , emotions , ethics , politics , economics,art , literature , imagination , intuition ,history ,cultures, religions, thoughtstreams  ....are "governed " by the exact same mechanisms of the biological evolution via the natural selection ...as some lunatics such as Dawkins and co. seem to think it is the case,in the absolute above mentioned sense  .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Dear folks :

I was referring to just that mainstream materialistic biological genetic approach of human evolution via the natural selection that's been applied to the non-biological processes such as cultures, religions,societies,  ethics ,politics, economics ...by Dawkins and co ,which does make no sense to me .

That exclusive biological genetic approach of cultures, religions, societies, ethics , economics, politics ...is simply incorrect and appaling , if we take into consideration its historic antecedents in the form of Eugenics applied to races, social Darwinism ...

History repeats itself , in the hands of  Dawkins and co . in relation to that exclusive biological genetic evolutionary approach of religions, cultures, ethics ....

Dawkins and co. whose exclusive biological genetic so-called evolutionary approaches of cultures, religions, ethics , societies ....give rise to some social,cultural anthropological , economic political , ethical ... theories which remind me of those previous appaling and racist destructive Eugenics and social Darwinism , in different forms ...

Don't you see what i am talking about here  ?

Don't you see that the mainstream science represented by Dawkins and co. at least  in that regard can lead to similar outcomes in relation to religions, ethics, societies, cultures, politics, economics ....almost exactly in the same fashion those racist Eugenics and social darwinism in the past did in relation to human races, societies, cultures ...?

That's my core point mainly .

[dlorde]

I just think of randomness as something coming out of the blue, from "outside " of the existing variables  ...though= cannot therefore exist as such .

Randomness has a variety of definitions, none entirely satisfactory; in physics it generally means non-deterministic, and this is to do with lack of causal knowledge of the outcome of an event. In general, the outcome of a random event belongs to a known class of possible outcomes, but the specific element of the class of the outcome is not known for certain ahead of time.

The very concept of the theory of chaos or butterfly effect exclude absolute determinism or absolute predictability in the universe

Not so. As I said before, the essential and striking feature of chaos theory is that unpredictable chaos can emerge from deterministic processes, including mathematical functions, e.g. the Lorentz Attractor (you can't get much more deterministic than maths).

There are indeed some common underlying principles between biological and non-biological processes , but there is no reason to apply those biological mechanisms to the non-biological ones ...absolutely , once again .

Therefore,it makes no sense whatsoever  thus  to apply those mechanisms of the biological evolution to the non-biological processes , just because they both  happen to share some common underlying principles : Get it ?

.. just tell me what "governs " or how is human thought , behavior , consciousness, feelings , emotions , ethics , politics , economics,art , literature , imagination , intuition ,history ,cultures, religions, thoughtstreams  ....are "governed " by the exact same mechanisms of the biological evolution via the natural selection ...as some lunatics such as Dawkins and co. seem to think it is the case,in the absolute above mentioned sense  .

It seems to me that all they're saying is that repeated cycles of replication with variation and selection is a common and recognisable theme across a broad swathe of human activity.

Having said that, there are a number of speculative ideas of 'Social Darwinism', where some attempts have been made to directly apply evolutionary theories to sociology, or economics, or politics, etc., in terms of group competition, and so-on; but as I understand it, although the analogy can be drawn in some particular circumstances or instances, there's no persuasive evidence that it is a reliable description of the way these systems behave. If this is what you're referring to, then as far as I'm aware, the mainstream never took it seriously and has moved on - I believe these ideas are generally thought to be discredited.

[cheryl j]

You did not respond to my question though , even though you were  trying to sort of reduce man to just biological processes :
It's much easier  to say that there is actually no line to draw between biological or non-biological processes , then to try actually to draw that  existing  line .
How , on earth, and once again , could those biological processes give rise to the human non-biological ones then ?
I do not agree with this exclusive biological approach of man via the natural selection ,simply because Darwin's theory of evolution via the natural selection is exclusively biological : why , on earth , is it extended to human non-biological processes which occur at different levels and with different set of rules = human biological evolution and the human non-biological evolution are 2 different things though .
It's pretty obvious that there is a line we can draw between biological and non-biological processes such as : culture, spirituality, ethics and morality , politics , economics ...

Well, once again, human beings are animals. You cannot call our behavior -culture, economics, even spirituality or art - "non biological". It may be complex and unpredictable, and even awesome,  but is just as biological as the migration of birds or the mating habits of moose or the societies of ants or baboons. If human beings are "more than" biological, then I think the onus is on you to tell me what the "more than" is - what it consists of, where it comes from, and how it operates. When I say that, I am not trying to be a smart ass here, but there is no way to scientifically address your question unless you can explain or describe the "more than" biological aspect of human behavior.

[dlorde]

Dawkins and co. whose exclusive biological genetic so-called evolutionary approaches of cultures, religions, ethics , societies ....give rise to some social,cultural anthropological , economic political , ethical ... theories which remind me of those previous appaling and racist destructive Eugenics and social Darwinism , in different forms ...

Don't you see what i am talking about here  ?

Not really, no. It seems to me that you're confusing the concepts with their applications. Both concepts in this case are flawed - Social Darwinism doesn't seem to describe how social processes work, and eugenics has ethical and practical flaws (it's not inherently racist - that depends on how it is applied). I can see that it is possible to use Social Darwinism as part of an argument for eugenics, but it's also possible to use a knife to stab someone or religion as an argument for war - it's the misapplication of ideas or tools that is the danger.

As far as I can see, Dawkins & co are not advocating either Social Darwinism (except, perhaps, by analogy) or eugenics; see his response to the accusation here. How ideas are applied and abused is the issue - for example, both Islam and Christianity have some admirable underlying principles, but both have been used to justify atrocities.

Perhaps you'd like to make an argument to support or explain your assertions?

[alancalverd]

I deplore the term social Darwinism. It is insulting to a good scientist, misleading to the sort of people who discuss it, and an oxymoron cloaked in the fatuous babble of sociology.

Darwinism is an observation, not a policy.

If you want a name for a policy of eliminating nonconformity, call it Nazism, Catholicism, Islam, Maoism, Eugenics, whatever seems closest to the chosen objective and methods. Darwinian evolution has no objective, and the method is inherent in all living organisms. 

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I deplore the term social Darwinism. It is insulting to a good scientist, misleading to the sort of people who discuss it, and an oxymoron cloaked in the fatuous babble of sociology.

Darwinism is an observation, not a policy.

If you want a name for a policy of eliminating nonconformity, call it Nazism, Catholicism, Islam, Maoism, Eugenics, whatever seems closest to the chosen objective and methods. Darwinian evolution has no objective, and the method is inherent in all living organisms.

You cannot just deny the historic existence of social Darwinism though ,as a despicable historic misuse or misinterpretation of Darwin's theory of evolution ? Can you ?

Eugenics and social darwinism were in fact serious and real warnings enough from history to make any decent intelligent scientist think a million times before trying to apply biological mechanisms of evolution via the natural selection to the non-biological processes such as religions spirituality, cultures, ethics ,societies, politics, economics ....even though both the biological and the non-biological processes do have some common underlying principles they share with each other .

[alancalverd]

I cannot deny that most evil people claim that their actions are inevitable, predestined, commanded by a higher authority, or simply misunderstood.

I do deny that Darwin had a "theory of evolution". He simply reported the observation that things evolve, along with the tautological statement that winners do better than losers. We are now beginning to understand the mechanism of random mutations that allow evolution. This is precisely opposite to the absurd hypothesis of predestination that underlies the cynical rebranding of intentional mass murder as "social Darwinism".

There are no common features between evolution and repression or genocide. Only a moron or a politician could think otherwise.       

[cheryl j]

When I took philosophy many eons ago, the professor discussed several kinds of fallacies of logic, and one of them was called the "naturalistic fallacy" which is the assumption that just because something is natural, it is also good.

Even if one observes "survival of the fittest" operating in human societies, that does not morally justify not caring for the sick and elderly, it does not justify murdering or causing pain and suffering to those who are deemed less physically fit or less intelligent or less capable in some way. As Alancalverd pointed out, the difference between Darwinism and Social Darwinism is that Social Darwinism was a policy. It was a policy based on a naturalistic fallacy.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Dawkins and co. whose exclusive biological genetic so-called evolutionary approaches of cultures, religions, ethics , societies ....give rise to some social,cultural anthropological , economic political , ethical ... theories which remind me of those previous appaling and racist destructive Eugenics and social Darwinism , in different forms ...

Don't you see what i am talking about here  ?

Not really, no. It seems to me that you're confusing the concepts with their applications. Both concepts in this case are flawed - Social Darwinism doesn't seem to describe how social processes work, and eugenics has ethical and practical flaws (it's not inherently racist - that depends on how it is applied). I can see that it is possible to use Social Darwinism as part of an argument for eugenics, but it's also possible to use a knife to stab someone or religion as an argument for war - it's the misapplication of ideas or tools that is the danger.

As far as I can see, Dawkins & co are not advocating either Social Darwinism (except, perhaps, by analogy) or eugenics; see his response to the accusation here. How ideas are applied and abused is the issue - for example, both Islam and Christianity have some admirable underlying principles, but both have been used to justify atrocities.

Perhaps you'd like to make an argument to support or explain your assertions?

You do not seem to get my point :

I know that Eugenics, social darwinism in the past were just despicable misinterpretations of Darwin's theory of evolution .

What i meant was  just that i am afraid that approaching   cultures, societies, religions or spirituality , politics, ethics, economics, consciousness, feelings , emotions ..via that exclusive so-called evolutionary biological genetic perspective by Dawkins and co. mainly might result in similar outcomes, similar to those  of  Eugenics and social darwinism in the past .
Get that ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

When I took philosophy many eons ago, the professor discussed several kinds of fallacies of logic, and one of them was called the "naturalistic fallacy" which is the assumption that just because something is natural, it is also good.

Even if one observes "survival of the fittest" operating in human societies, that does not morally justify not caring for the sick and elderly, it does not justify murdering or causing pain and suffering to those who are deemed less physically fit or less intelligent or less capable in some way. As Alancalverd pointed out, the difference between Darwinism and Social Darwinism is that Social Darwinism was a policy. It was a policy based on a naturalistic fallacy.

I see Eugenics and social darwinism in the past as very dangerous misinterpretations of Darwin's theory of evolution though .
Dawkins and co.mainly can trigger similar outcomes ,similar to those of the previous Eugenics and social darwinism , simply because they have been approaching cultures, ethics, religions or spirituality , societies , consciousness ....exclusively via the so-called evolutionary  biological genetic approach

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I cannot deny that most evil people claim that their actions are inevitable, predestined, commanded by a higher authority, or simply misunderstood.

I do deny that Darwin had a "theory of evolution". He simply reported the observation that things evolve, along with the tautological statement that winners do better than losers. We are now beginning to understand the mechanism of random mutations that allow evolution. This is precisely opposite to the absurd hypothesis of predestination that underlies the cynical rebranding of intentional mass murder as "social Darwinism".

There are no common features between evolution and repression or genocide. Only a moron or a politician could think otherwise.     

We are not talking about that, that's not the subject  of this discussion at least  : you are missing the point :

I just said that the exclusive so-called evolutionary biological genetic approach of cultures, religions, or spirituality , societies ....by Dawkins and co, mainly , might result in similar outcomes , similar to those of Eugenics and social darwinism in the past .

Besides, biological and the non-biological evolutions are 2 different things ,which occur at different levels via different set of "rules " ,once again : so, that exclusive materialistic approach of life in general as just biological processes is not only very dangerous , but also incorrect : that materialistic approach has more to do with materialism as a world view than with science proper .

Comprende,amigo ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Quote :

"The theory of evolution ,however, has brought despair & anxiety , instead of hope & enthusiasm for life , to the modern world .

The reason is to be found in the unwarranted modern assumption that man's present structure , mental as well as physiological , is the last word in biological evolution , and that death , regarded as a biological event , has no constructive meaning .

The world of today needs a Rumi to create an attitude of hope , and to kindle the fire of enthusiasm for life .

His inimitable lines may be quoted here ;

First man appeared in the class of inorganic things,

Next , he passed therefrom into that of plants ,

For years , he lived as one of the plants ,

Remembering naught of his inorganic state so different

And when he passed from the vegetive to the animal state

he had no remembrance of his state as a plant

Except the inclination he felt to the world of plants

Especially at the time of spring & sweet flowers

Like the inclination of infants to towards their mothers

which know not the cause of their inclination to the breast.

Again the great creator ,as you know

Drew man man out of the animal into the human state

Thus man passed from one order of nature to another..."

........... End quote .


Source : The reconstruction of religious thought in islam by Muhammad Iqbal

[alancalverd]

For as long as you think that evolution has rules, you will fail to understand it.

The "assumption that man is the last word in evolution" comes from religion, not science. There is no material evidence to suggest it, only the vanity of fools and their demagogues. Other species have evolved since homo sapiens appeared, and we have no reason to believe that another species cannot evolve within our own genus.

[cheryl j]

I cannot deny that most evil people claim that their actions are inevitable, predestined, commanded by a higher authority, or simply misunderstood.

I do deny that Darwin had a "theory of evolution". He simply reported the observation that things evolve, along with the tautological statement that winners do better than losers. We are now beginning to understand the mechanism of random mutations that allow evolution. This is precisely opposite to the absurd hypothesis of predestination that underlies the cynical rebranding of intentional mass murder as "social Darwinism".

There are no common features between evolution and repression or genocide. Only a moron or a politician could think otherwise.     

We are not talking about that, that's not the subject  of this discussion at least  : you are missing the point :

I just said that the exclusive so-called evolutionary biological genetic approach of cultures, religions, or spirituality , societies ....by Dawkins and co, mainly , might result in similar outcomes , similar to those of Eugenics and social darwinism in the past .

Besides, biological and the non-biological evolutions are 2 different things ,which occur at different levels via different set of "rules " ,once again : so, that exclusive materialistic approach of life in general as just biological processes is not only very dangerous , but also incorrect : that materialistic approach has more to do with materialism as a world view than with science proper .

Comprende,amigo ?

I don't think he's missing the point at all, and I'm not sure how he could have stated his answer any more clearly or directly.

Blaming Darwinism for Eugenics is like blaming physics for nuclear weapons. This is essentially a medieval view,  the idea that knowledge is dangerous because of how it might be used or influence people. And morally, it shifts responsibility from the person to an inanimate object  - "if the knife hadn't been there, I wouldn't have stabbed him." Objects cannot act as moral agents.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

For as long as you think that evolution has rules, you will fail to understand it.

The "assumption that man is the last word in evolution" comes from religion, not science. There is no material evidence to suggest it, only the vanity of fools and their demagogues. Other species have evolved since homo sapiens appeared, and we have no reason to believe that another species cannot evolve within our own genus.

That's why i confined "rules " to that .

Second : the man wrote that in the 1930's-1935's , i guess : he was just the man of his age : eugenics and social darwinism in prior periods to his were even worse ...

Third > i just wanted to post those lines of Rumi about evolution ...that's all .

P.S.: It's mainly thanks to the evolutionary spirit of islam that early muslims did discover evolution, centuries before Darwin was even born , as they were able to "invent " science itself and practice it as well , thanks to that Qur'anic epistemology , science as a religious duty in islam, as a form of worship of God in islam at least ...see that other thread on the subject you happened to participate in , ironically enough , in order to try to cure yourself from those silly stereotypes of yours concerning religion , or concerning just islam in this case then .
Good luck undeed..

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I cannot deny that most evil people claim that their actions are inevitable, predestined, commanded by a higher authority, or simply misunderstood.

I do deny that Darwin had a "theory of evolution". He simply reported the observation that things evolve, along with the tautological statement that winners do better than losers. We are now beginning to understand the mechanism of random mutations that allow evolution. This is precisely opposite to the absurd hypothesis of predestination that underlies the cynical rebranding of intentional mass murder as "social Darwinism".

There are no common features between evolution and repression or genocide. Only a moron or a politician could think otherwise.     

We are not talking about that, that's not the subject  of this discussion at least  : you are missing the point :

I just said that the exclusive so-called evolutionary biological genetic approach of cultures, religions, or spirituality , societies ....by Dawkins and co, mainly , might result in similar outcomes , similar to those of Eugenics and social darwinism in the past .

Besides, biological and the non-biological evolutions are 2 different things ,which occur at different levels via different set of "rules " ,once again : so, that exclusive materialistic approach of life in general as just biological processes is not only very dangerous , but also incorrect : that materialistic approach has more to do with materialism as a world view than with science proper .

Comprende,amigo ?

I don't think he's missing the point at all, and I'm not sure how he could have stated his answer any more clearly or directly.

Blaming Darwinism for Eugenics is like blaming physics for nuclear weapons. This is essentially a medieval view,  the idea that knowledge is dangerous because of how it might be used or influence people. And morally, it shifts responsibility from the person to an inanimate object  - "if the knife hadn't been there, I wouldn't have stabbed him." Objects cannot act as moral agents.

[/quote]

Halloo : i was certainly not blaming darwinism for eugenics and social darwinism : where did you detetct that? , i wonder .
You are putting words in my mouth i can neither taste nor swallow , let alone that they would be mine .
I just said that the current misinterpretations of the biological evolution by Dawkins and co might result in similar outcomes to those of the other previous misnterpretations of evolutions by the "makers "  of eugenics and social darwinism : see the differense ? hope so indeed .

Besides, i used the word dangerous relating certainly not to knowledge , but only to those previous eugenics , social darwinism and to the current Dawkinian and co misinterpretations of evolution : get  my point ? I think you are intelligent enough to grasp just that , aren't you ?

[alancalverd]

It would be a brave man or a fool who asserts that Dawkins misinterprets evolution.

Assuming you are a brave man, perhaps you could enlighten us (and Prof Dawkins) as to the detail of his error?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

It would be a brave man or a fool who asserts that Dawkins misinterprets evolution.

Assuming you are a brave man, perhaps you could enlighten us (and Prof Dawkins) as to the detail of his error?

Dawkins is just a man of his time , and just a product of his materialism as a world view in science , and a product of his own culture , relatively speaking : he's not superman : only very very very few geniuses are able to rise above their own world views , above their social ,mental and cultural constructs indeed.
I am not talking about Dawkins' purely scientific work , i do appreciate and learn a lot from , i am maninly talking about his interpretations of that scientific work of his and of others , about the fact when he crosses the boundaries of science , and especially when he applies his so-called evolutionary biological genetic approach to religions spirituality, ethics , cultures , ....