Darwinisme as religieuse filosofie

Kobus de Klerk 2012-04-03

Shares0Facebook0 Tweet0 Pin0 Print0 Email0 LinkedIn0

In ’n blog skrywe evoluionis Michael Ruse die volgende, so onlangs as Desember 2003:

“Today, likewise, we see that evolutionism has its priests and devotees. Entomologist and sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University tells us that the "evolutionary epic is mythology," depending on laws that are "believed but can never be definitively proved," taking us "backward through time to the beginning of the universe." Wilson knows that any good religion must have its moral dimension, and so he urges us to promote biodiversity, to amend our original sin of despoiling the earth. There is an apocalyptic ring to Wilson's writings, and in true dispensationalist style, he warns that there is but a short time before all collapses into an ecological Armageddon. Repent! The time is near!”

“I am saying that when I hear people with spiritual views accused by scientists of "cowardly flabbiness of the intellect," [hy verwys na Dawkins se geliefkoosde skellery] I suspect that there is more at stake than factual disagreement. In that context, when evangelicals complain that it is unfair if a secular religion (evolution) is allowed into classrooms but competing theological views are not, I start to feel sympathy. Not for creationism, which is pernicious nonsense, but for stacking the deck against religious thought, by allowing dogma in science but not in theology. If creationism has no place in the classroom, then neither does a secular religion based on evolution. We who care passionately about science should know when to keep the science and religion separate and remember always when it is appropriate to teach the one and not the other.”

Waarom sê Wilson (nóg ’n darwinistiese evolusionis waarvan sommige van die skille van sy oë afgeval het), na wie Ruse verwys, wat hy sê?

Kyk na die kwessie van die ontstaan van lewe – die darwinis maak daaroor onhoudbare aannames en hipotese wat nóóit bewys kán word nie. Pure religieuse filosofie. Maar dié religieuse filosofie is die fondasie waarop hy voorgaan om dié religie uit te bou, met ánder ewe onbewysbare aannames en hipotese.

Kyk na die hoekstene van neo-darwinisme, die kwessie van natuurlike seleksie. Gelowige bioloë het al vóór Darwin dié proposisie gemaak dat seleksie vir soorte werk om aanpassing teweeg te bring binne die soort verband en dat dit gewoonlik met verlies van genetiese data gepaard gaan, nie toename, soos evolusioniste beweer, nie.

Professor Keith Bennett (Queen’s University, Belfast) skrywe in ’n artikel “The Chaos Theory of Evolution”, in New Scientist in Oktober 2010 in ’n kommentaar op ’n boek van welbekende evolusionis dr. John Endler se boek Natural Selection in the Wild en merk op dat dit aandui dat Endler talle beweerde gevalle van natuurlike seleksie krities ondersoek het, maar nie enige “hard evidence” van die evolusionistiese tipe seleksie daar kom vind, nie. – Op p. 241 en 246 van sy boek, skryf Endler “Natural selection only affects changes in the frequency of the variants once they appear; it cannot directly address the reasons for the existence of the variants … Thus natural selection may affect the patterns of the origins of combinations of traits, even though it will not explain the mechanisms of their origins.”

Evolusioniste se darwinistiese tipe seleksie is dus óók op onbewysbare aannames staangemaak.

Daar is ook die kwessie van nóg ’n hoeksteen van evolusie, naamlik die ontstaan van die DNS, wat dié hipotese van hulle, in duie laat stort.

Leslie E. Orgel, skryf in ’n artikel "The Origin of Life on Earth", in die Scientific American, dat dit hoogs onwaarskynlik is dat struktureel uiters komplekse proteïene en nukleïensure sommer beide spontaan (lukraak, soos die darwinistiese evolusioniste dit wil) kan voortspruit op dieselfde plek op dieselfde tyd én dat dit ook onmoontlik is om vir een om te ontstaan sónder die ander en dat dit slegs afgelei kan word dat lewe nié by wyse van chemiese prosesse kon ontstaan nie.

John Horgan, bevestig in ’n artikel "In the Beginning", ook in Scientific American, dat DNS nie kan funksioneer sonder die katalisator proteïene en ensieme nie en kan dus ook nie nog ander DNS vorm, daarsonder, nie. Kortom, proteïene kannie sónder DNS vorm nie en DNS kan ook nie sonder die proteïene vorm, nie. Douglas Hofstadter het ook in die boek An Eternal Golden Braid, gefilosofeer met die aanmerking dat hulle wonder hoe die hele genetiese kode tesame met al die verplasings- en oorsettings meganismes, met RNS en ribosome kompleet, kon ontstaan en maak dan die aanmerking dat hulle maar moet volstaan om die proses met ontsag en verwondering te beskou, want ’n antwoord bied die evolusionisme eenvoudig nié.

Hiermee tuimel evo devo ook ineen.

Só is die ander hoeksteen, genetika, óók op onbewysbare hipotetiese aannames van ’n ontstaan daarvan weens lukrake, toevallige prosesse, staangemaak.
Maak wat hulle wíl – by die kwessie dat darwinisme in énige gewaad neerkom op religieuse filosofie, gaan hulle gewoon nié verbykom nie. Wetenskap is dit nie, was nog nooit. Darwinisme is dood. Sy kadawer moet begrawe word.

Groete,
Kobus de Klerk

Shares0Facebook0 Tweet0 Pin0 Print0 Email0 LinkedIn0

Kommentaar

Kleinkoos

2012-04-03 at 15:06

Kobussie

Kom ons kyk na wat jy skryf:

Kobussie: "Kyk na die hoekstene van neo-darwinisme, die kwessie van natuurlike seleksie. Gelowige bioloë het al vóór Darwin dié proposisie gemaak dat seleksie vir soorte werk om aanpassing teweeg te bring binne die soort verband en dat dit gewoonlik met verlies van genetiese data gepaard gaan, nie toename, soos evolusioniste beweer, nie.

Professor Keith Bennett (Queen’s University, Belfast) skrywe in ’n artikel..."

Hoekom vertel jy onwaarhede deur voor te gee dat Professor Bennett 'n Bioloog is? Kan jy nooit die waarheid vertel nie?

Dis nie deur design nie.

Kleinkoos

Kobus de Klerk

2012-04-03 at 17:05

Is Bennett 'n gelowige? Jy kan wragtig nie verstaan wat mens skrywe nie.

Vir jou stomme inligting - Bennett skrywe oor Endler en wat Endler sou gesê het.

Kobus de Klerk

Stephan Marcus

2012-04-03 at 21:04

Die paragraaf waaruit die aanhaling van Wilson kom lees: But make no mistake about the power of scientific materialism. It presents the human mind with an alternative mythology that until now has always, point for point in zones of conflict, defeated traditional religion. Its narrative form is the epic: the evolution of the universe for the big bang fifteen billion years ago through the origin of the elements and celestial bodies to the beginnings of life on earth. The evolutionary epic is mythology in the sense that the laws it adduces here and now are believed but can never be definitively proved to form a cause-and-effect continuum from physics to the social science, from this world to all other worlds in the visible universe, and backward through time to the beginning of the universe. (Hierdie is ’n aanhaling van Wilson in Ruse se Evolution Wars)

Ruse argumenteer dan, soos altyd, dat Wilson se radikale materialisme nie ’n noodwendige onderdeel of gevolg van evolusie is nie en dat niks wat Wilson sê of voor argumenteer die bestaan van God of godsdiens ongeldig maak nie. Hy sluit af met:

None of what I have just said is to stop someone making a religion of evolution if they so which.... (En dan besing hy Wilson as ’n baie nice ou)....But I do not see that his fellow evolutionists have to follow him into making a religion of our shared science. This has nothing to do with whether or not we want to opt for some other religion, Christianity for instance, or if we have no religion at all – if perhaps we find no ultimate meaning to life, other that that of everyday living and the joys and troubles with that. The point is that just as being an evolutionist neither compels nor denies Christian belief, so also being an evolutionist neither forces one into nor, for that matter, prevents one from being a member of the Church of Darwin.

Ruse glo nie tans en het nog nooit geargumenteer dat evolusie ’n godsdiens en slegs ’n godsdiens is soos wat in die brief hierbo voorgegee word nie. Hy argumenteer nou al jare dat sommige dit so aanbied veral as ’n alternatief vir tradisionele geloof, maar maak altyd die onderskeid tussen evolusie as wetenskap (wat hy as betroubaar aanvaar) en ideologie/godsdiens (wat hy verwerp). Let ook op dat Wilson nie sê dat evolusie net 'n godsdiens of mitologie is nie

So weereens Kobus wil jy nie maar nou vir prof Ruse met rus laat nie? Maak nie saak hoe hard jy probeer om woorde in sy mond te lê nie hy gaan nooit sê wat jy wil hoor nie.

Wouter

2012-04-04 at 09:36

Hello,

Na regte is die gesprek vir my afgehandel.

Hoe kan daar met 'n kreasionis argumenteer word, veral wanneer daar nie in goeie trou argumenteer word en wat alreeds uitgewys is as die metodiek wat hier deur De Klerk vergestalt word.

Die John Horgan is weer so 'n voorbeeld en skep die indruk van dit kan nie beter as dit vir die kreasioniste, en "intelligente ontwerpers".

Die opskrif van die artikel deur Horgan is ook amusant:

Pssst! Don’t tell the creationists, but scientists don’t have a clue how life began

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/02/28/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/ 

Daar is die frase inderdaad, soos aangehaal:

DNA can make neither proteins nor copies of itself without the help of catalytic proteins called enzymes.

Soos male sonder tal al gesien, sit die kreasionis terug met selfvoldaanheid, maar die artikel gaan aan:

This fact turned the origin of life into a classic chicken-or-egg puzzle: Which came first, proteins or DNA?

RNA, DNA’s helpmate, remains the most popular answer to this conundrum, just as it was when I wrote "In the Beginning…" Certain forms of RNA can act as their own enzymes, snipping themselves in two and splicing themselves back together again. If RNA could act as an enzyme, then it might be able to replicate itself without help from proteins. RNA could serve as gene and catalyst, egg and chicken.

Om te bevestig dat die hele prent gebied word en nie soos kreasions De Klerk doen nie, word die res van die artikel ook geplaas:

But the "RNA-world" hypothesis remains problematic. RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize under the best of circumstances, in a laboratory, let alone under plausible prebiotic conditions. Once RNA is synthesized, it can make new copies of itself only with a great deal of chemical coaxing from the scientist.

Overbye notes that "even if RNA did appear naturally, the odds that it would happen in the right sequence to drive Darwinian evolution seem small."

Dan word panspermia ook bespreek en die veronderstelling is die meeste lesers is bekend met die argumente daaroor.

Die Hofstadter kan nie bevestig word nie om te bepaal wat die volledige argument is wat Hofstadter wil formuleer nie, maar De Klerk se aanhaling verskyn hier: (Hierdie boek van Hofstadter het ek nie nou by my nie en sal die naweek probeer bevestig)

Die Hofstadter waardeer De Klerk geswoeg het kan hier gevind word:

http://www.creationofman.net/chapter4/chapter4_7.html 

DIt is duidelik dat De Klerk nie die boek onder hande gehad het nie.

En word al drie skrywers met wie De Klerk so geswoeg het opgesom in hierdie blokkie:

CONFESSIONS FROM EVOLUTIONISTS

Probabilistic calculations make it clear that complex molecules such as proteins and nucleic acids (RNA and DNA) could not ever have been formed by chance independently of each other. Yet evolutionists have to face the even greater problem that all these complex molecules have to coexist simultaneously in order for life to exist at all. Evolutionary theory is utterly confounded by this requirement. This is a point on which some leading evolutionists have been forced to confession. For instance, Stanley Miller's and Francis Crick's close associate from the University of San Diego California, reputable evolutionist Dr. Leslie Orgel says:It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.1The same fact is also admitted by other scientists:DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins.2 How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNAmolecules), originate? For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer.31

Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth", Scientific American, vol. 271, October 1994, p. 78 2

John Horgan, "In the Beginning", Scientific American, vol. 264, February 1991, p. 119 3

Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York, Vintage Books, 1980, p. 548

Tot en met die letter.

Drie maklike aanhalings en dit is nou kwansuis 'n bestek opname van die veld in al sy kompleksiteit.

Belaglik.

Comestor en De Klerk, meesters van die selektiewe aanhaling.

Henn in sy ergste graad.

Wouter

2012-04-04 at 10:10

Die EO Wilson aangehaal is soos volg:

“The evolutionary epic is mythology in the sense that the laws it adduces here and now are believed but can never be definitively proved to form a cause-and-effect continuum from physics to the social sciences, from this world to all other worlds in the visible universe, and backward through time to the beginning of the universe. Every part of existence is considered to be obedient to physical laws requiring no external control. The scientist’s devotion to parsimony in explanation excludes the divine spirit and other extraneous agents. Most importantly, we have come to the crucial stage in the history of biology when religion itself is subject to the explanations of the natural sciences...

Hierdie is die EO Wilson wat evolusie en die werking daarvan uiteengesit het en hier deur my geplaas is as kommentaar op 'n brief van Jan Rap.

Die waarskuwende frase sal sekerlik deur die lesers opgetel word:

"in the sense"

Wilson se argument wat weereens nie in totaliteit geplaas is nie brei soos volg uit:

“If this interpretation is correct, the final decisive edge enjoyed by scientific naturalism will come from its capacity to explain traditional religion, its chief competition, as a wholly material phenomenon. Theology is not likely to survive as an independent intellectual discipline. [Wilson 1978, 192]”

Hierdie is Wilson se argumente in 1978.

Michael Ruse dui nie die boek se titel aan en kan die konteks dus nie bevestig word nie.

'n Opsomming van Wilson se denke blyk onlangs gepubliseer te wees:

The Social Conquest of Earth Edward O. Wilson en is verstommend genoeg 2 April 2012 publiseer.

Die produk beskrywing is soos volg:

Where did we come from? What are we? Where are we going? In a generational work of clarity and passion, one of our greatest living scientists directly addresses these three fundamental questions of religion, philosophy, and science while “overturning the famous theory that evolution naturally encourages creatures to put family first” (Discover magazine). Refashioning the story of human evolution in a work that is certain to generate headlines, Wilson draws on his remarkable knowledge of biology and social behavior to show that group selection, not kin selection, is the primary driving force of human evolution. He proves that history makes no sense without prehistory, and prehistory makes no sense without biology. Demonstrating that the sources of morality, religion, and the creative arts are fundamentally biological in nature, Wilson presents us with the clearest explanation ever produced as to the origin of the human condition and why it resulted in our domination of the Earth’s biosphere.

Hierdie bied dus Wilson die geleentheid om direk sy argumente te stel en nie deur De Klerk deur Ruse nie.

Wat die waansin van "argumente" deur aanhalings nogmaals bevestig.

'n Akkurate en samevattende stelling van Wilson se denke word benodig en dit is nie gebied nie.

Leser gaan dus direk Wilson, die geleentheid is daar.

Wouter

2012-04-04 at 10:41

Soos al male sonder tal gesien het De Klerk nie deur enige van die boeke se bladsye wat so mildelik aangehaal word geswoeg nie.

Die Keith Bennet verwysing na John Endler kan hier gevind word:

http://creation.com/defining-terms 

Die blokkie mooi omkring vir De Klerk om die kruks te bevestig en net dit te plaas.

Kreasionis spirituele intelligensie hoef dus net te zoom op 'n enkele gedeelte van die teks.

Die volgende korreksie op Bennet se gorrel met De Klerk as "spirituele intelligensie medium" word deur Jerry Coyne van "Why Evolution is true" geplaas:

Bennett claims that there aren’t many good examples of natural selection in the wild (this is part of his idea that it’s not important).

He says this about John Endler’s book Natural Selection in the Wild:

“Later, John Endler, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Exeter, UK, scrutinised claimed examples of natural selection but found a surprising lack of hard evidence (chronicled in his 1986 book Natural Selection in the Wild).

”Well, that’s just hogwash.

I have Dr. Endler here and I’ll bring him out; he’ll tell you that you know nothing of his work.

Endler’s book was in fact a documentation of several hundreds observed examples of natural selection, and since then there have been many more.

Here’s the publisher’s precis:

“Professor Endler finds that there are a remarkable number of direct demonstrations of selection in a wide variety of animals and plants. The distribution of observed magnitudes of selection in natural populations is surprisingly broad, and it overlaps extensively the range of values found in artificial selection. He argues that the common assumption that selection is usually weak in natural populations is no longer tenable, but that natural selection is only one component of the process of evolution; natural selection can explain the change of frequencies of variants, but not their origins.”

Het enige van die persone wat aanhaal wat 'n ander aangehaal het die respek getoon om die skrywer se eie argumente te reflekteer.

Kleinkoos

2012-04-04 at 11:27

Kobussie

Jy het mense mislei deur hulle onder die indruk te probeer bring dat professor Keith Bennett 'n Bioloog is.

Hier is weer eens wat jy geskryf het:

Kobussie: " Kyk na die hoekstene van neo-darwinisme, die kwessie van natuurlike seleksie. Gelowige bioloë het al vóór Darwin dié proposisie gemaak dat seleksie vir soorte werk om aanpassing teweeg te bring binne die soort verband en dat dit gewoonlik met verlies van genetiese data gepaard gaan, nie toename, soos evolusioniste beweer, nie.

Professor Keith Bennett (Queen’s University, Belfast) skrywe in ’n artikel..."

Professor Keith Bennett is nie 'n Bioloog nie.

Jy het dus nie die waarheid gepraat nie.

Kleinkoos

2012-04-04 at 12:09

En ou Kobussie

Het jy nou al by 'n antwoord uitgekom oor die hoeveelheid "genetiese inligting" in hoenders en krokodille?

Dit moet mos baie maklike vragies wees vir jou:

1. Het 'n hoender of 'n krokodil die meeste "genetiese inligting"

2. Hoe jy jy die inligting gemeet om by jou antwoord uit te kom?

Die vorige keer het jy so 'n lang, niksseggende "antwoord" gegee, sonder om 'n antwoord te gee.

Ek herinner jou aan jou vorige "antwoord" . Ek plaas my kommentare by.

Kobussie: "Wat het die krokodil se hoeveelheid genetiese inligting nou te make met die hoender s'n?"

Wel, jy's die een wat die bewering gemaak het oor meer of minder "genetiese inligting. Jy beweer die een het "meer genetiese inligting" as die ander. Nou vra ek jou: watter een het die meeste genetiese inligting en hoekom?

Kobussie:" DNS van elke hoofsoort verskil uiteraard. Vir 'n krokodil om in 'n hoender te evolueer, sal daar bepaald 'n toename in genetiese inligting moet wees - maar dit gebeur nie."

So, jy beweer dat 'n hoender dus meer "genetiese inligting" as 'n krokodil het? Hoe meet jy die hoeveelheid "genetiese inligting" in 'n hoender? Hoe weet jy dis "meer"?

Kobussie:"Via LUKRAKE en TOEVALLIGE natuurlike seleksie en mutasie, word beweer, kom nuwe organismes tot stand en sodoende 'vermeerder' genetiese inligting omdat nie-lewende chemikalieë hulself kwansuis na bewering herorganiseer in lewende, repliserende organismes wat dan oor tyd verander in meer komplekse kreature - maar daar is geen bewys dat dit al ooit so gebeur het nie, wat nog te sê, met die ontstaan van alle nuwe spesies."

. Hoe weet jy daai "genetiese inligting" is meer of minder? Hoe weet jy 'n nuwe spesie het meer of minder "genetiese inligting" as die ou spesie? Hoe meet jy dit? Hoekom dink jy dat 'n hoender "meer kompleks" is as 'n krokodil?

Kobussie:"Indien jy die mees basiese van genetika kon verstaan sou jy nie sulke vrae vra nie."

Ek probeer juis uitvind hoekom dink jy dat 'n hoender se "genetiese inligting" meer is as die van 'n krokodil. Verduidelik baie mooi vir my hoe jy dit meet. As jy dit nie kan verduidelik, praat jou doodeenvoudig net nonsens.

Kobussie:"Die hoender is egter steeds hoender, nie krokodil nie, omdat die toevoeging van proteïene die skakel wat die been sou laat omvorm in 'n snawel, afgeskakel het, en nuwe molekules wat gevorm het, in 'n krokodil bekkie ontaard het - tipiese mutasie weens verlies van inligting. - 'n Gebreklike hoender."

So, die "krokdilbekkie" het nou volgens jou minder "genetiese inligting". Kan jy vertel hoekom? Verduidelik nou baie mooi hoe jy "weet" dat 'n hoender meer "genetiese inligting" het as 'n krokodil en hoe jy dit meet.

Dit sal help as jy "genetiese inligting" kan kwantifiseer, voordat jy kan sê "meer of minder". Sonder presiese kwantifisering beteken "meer" of "minder" niks.

Kleinkoos

2012-04-04 at 12:44

Stefan en Wouter

Baie dankie vir die bydraes.

Dit kom seker daarvan as Kobussie deur al daai honderde duisende wetenskaplike artikels moet worstel om een of twee quotes te kry wat hy dink sy "design" gaan pas. Daar is al gewys dat daai "design" nie eintlik uit "design" uit kom nie. (Grappie, ek dink nie ou Kobussie het al ooit in sy lewe een wetenskaplike artikel gelees nie)!

In ieder geval, nog nooit van E.O. Wilson gehoor voor hierdie nie. Seker maar omdat ek ook nog nooit gehoor het van die meeste van die honderde duisende bioloë wat vandag navorsing doen nie. Ek meen, ek weet van hoogstens so 'n tien of twintig van hulle, aangesien Biologie nie my studieveld is nie. Hoeveel name van bioloë ken Kobussie? Die paar kreasioniste?

E.O Wilson is of was 'n deïs. Dis ook 'n heiden volgens Kobussie. Ek weet nie hoekom ou Kobussie hom so wil aanhaal nie.

Kobussie, hy's nie een van julle nie. Om voor te gee hy is, is ook oneerlik!

Kleinkoos

Wouter

2012-04-04 at 14:41

Baie dankie Kleinkoos.

EO Wilson is nogal 'n groot kanon en 'n kookwater denker en is 'n "Time Topic" in die argiewe van die New York Times.

Die slotsom waartoe ek gekom het in konteks van kreasionis- intelligente ontwerper- spitituele intelligensie medium-De Klerk is dat hy nog nie 'n enkele wetenskaplike artikel gelees het nie en ook so enige van die boeke wat so mildelik aangehaal word.

Dit bevestig dan, hoe is 'n gesprek met so 'n persoon hoegenaamd moontlik.

Aangesien De Klerk, Keith Bennett met soveel goedkeuring aanhaal, is die slotsom dat De Klerk dan Bennet se argumente aanvaar en dit aanbied as 'n antwoord wat De Klerk in akkoord mee is.

Aangesien De Klerk nie die artikel in die New Sceintist gelees het nie, word die skakel geplaas sodat De Klerk kan bevestig wat dit is waarmee hy in akkoord is.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827821.000-the-chaos-theory-of-evolution.html?full=true&print=true

Dalk sal dit van hulp vir De Klerk wees:

Bennett is aan die woord:

I suggest that the true source of macroevolutionary change lies in the non-linear, or chaotic, dynamics of the relationship between genotype and phenotype - the actual organism and all its traits. The relationship is non-linear because phenotype, or set of observable characteristics, is determined by a complex interplay between an organism's genes - tens of thousands of them, all influencing one another's behaviour - and its environment.

Not only is the relationship non-linear, it also changes all the time.

Mutations occur continually, without external influence, and can be passed on to the next generation.

A change of a single base of an organism's DNA might have no consequence, because that section of DNA still codes for the same amino acid.

Alternatively, it might cause a significant change in the offspring's physiology or morphology, or it might even be fatal.

In other words, a single small change can have far-reaching and unpredictable effects - the hallmark of a non-linear system.Iterating these unpredictable changes over hundreds or thousands of generations will inevitably lead to evolutionary changes in addition to any that come about by the preferential survival of certain phenotypes.

It follows that macroevolution may, over the longer-term, be driven largely by internally generated genetic change, not adaptation to a changing environment.The evolution of life has many characteristics that are typical of non-linear systems.

First, it is deterministic: changes in one part of the system, such as the mutation of a DNA base, directly cause other changes. However, the change is unpredictable. Just like the weather, changes are inexorable but can only be followed with the benefit of hindsight.

Second, behaviour of the system is sensitive to initial conditions. We see this in responses to glaciations in the Quaternary period. The exact circumstances of the beginning of each interglacial determine the development of the whole period, leading to unpredictable differences between interglacials (Quaternary Science Reviews, vol 14, p 967).

Third, the history of life is fractal. Take away the labelling from any portion of the tree of life and we cannot tell at which scale we are looking.

This self-similarity also indicates that evolutionary change is a process of continual splitting of the branches of the tree.

Fourth, we cannot rewind, as Stephen Jay Gould argued in Wonderful Life. Were we to turn the evolutionary clock back to any point in the past, and let it run again, the outcome would be different. As in weather systems, the initial conditions can never be specified to sufficient precision to prevent divergence of subsequent trajectories.

Life on Earth is always unique, changing, and unpredictable. Even if certain patterns can be dimly discerned, our ability to do so diminishes with time, exactly as for the weather. Consider any moment of the geological record of life on Earth: to what extent were the changes of the next 10 or 100 million years predictable at that time?

With the benefit of hindsight, we might be able to understand what happened, and construct a plausible narrative for those events, but we have no foresight.This view of life leads to certain consequences.

Macroevolution is not the simple accumulation of microevolutionary changes but has its own processes and patterns. There can be no "laws" of evolution.

We may be able to reconstruct the sequence of events leading to the evolution of any given species or group after the fact, but we will not be able to generalise from these to other sequences of events. From a practical point of view, this means we will be unable to predict how species will respond to projected climate changes over next century.

The question Lyell put to Darwin over 150 years ago is unanswerable because Lyell put it in terms of a particular group of organisms.

Not even Darwin would be able to explain why that specific group behaved as it did.In the last analysis, evolution can be likened to the description of human history as "just one damn thing after another", exactly as Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini have argued.We still have much to learn about how life evolved but we will not develop a full appreciation until we accept the complexity of the system.

Die vraag is dus, is dit wat De Klerk nou finaal as "korrek" aanvaar?

Dit is moeilik om te bepaal, aangesien, slegs "snippets" deur De Klerk aangebied word. Hierdie is die antwoord van Bennett teen evolusie, dit volg omrede De Klerk dit met goedkeuring geplaas het, hierdie die argument is wat deur De Klerk voorgestaan word.

Dit is onduidelik, want in een artikel bied evo-devo bevestiging vir kreasionisme, maar in hierdie brief val evo-devo weer plat.

Die warrelwind van aanhalings maak 'n standvastige argument onmoontlik soos duidelik gesien kan word in die rondval wat De Klerk hier demonstreer.

En wanneer bevestig De Klerk die hoender-kwessie?

"Why are we waiting?"

Wouter

2012-04-04 at 14:52

Hello,

De Klerk paradeer Ruse hier soos 'n talisman. Evolusie draai rondom wat Ruse daaroor skryf. Dit word met aandag gelees deur myself en dan ignoreer. Ruse is die redakteur van die beste een volume bestek opname oor evolusie en is al uitgewys deur my, net soos Ruse die redakteur van Philosophy after Darwin, gepubliseer, 2010/2011 en 'n opstel insluit wat Ruse se nuutste argumente bevestig.

Die beste waarmee De Klerk vorendag kom is artikels van 2000 ongeveer en hier en daar aanhalings opgetel van die kreasioniste webwerwe.

Dit sal dus goed wees as De Klerk vir eens en vir altyd 'n opsomming van Ruse se huidge denke kan bied sodat dit kan bevestig kan word met die huidige stand van sake.

Dit sou egter veronderstel dat De Klerk 'n boek of twee van Ruse moet lees en die sal nie gebeur nie.

Wouter

2012-04-04 at 21:01

Dankie Stephan.

Uiteindelik is die volle strekking van Ruse se argumente geplaas en behoort 'n ingeligte leser nou die verskil te sien.

Hierdie word bevestig in die inleiding geskryf deur Ruse as 'n redakteur van Evolution: The First Four Billion Years ook en word die misbruik van evolusie om sekere ideologiese doelwitte te verdedig aangespreek, maar Ruse in geen onduidelike terme bevestig die wetenskaplike aard van biologie en evolusie daarmee tesame.

Hierdie is nie eerder al geplaas deur my nie, aangesien daar die vals hoop was dat De Klerk wonder bo wonder 'n volledige opsomming van Ruse se argumente sou bied en dan sou ek dit aan toets wat ek in my versameling gelees het.

Kobus de Klerk

2012-04-04 at 21:32

Moedige pogings, maar niks wat julle plaas, verander die perspektief nie.

Feit is, hou op om verder te filosofeer oor wat die betekenis mag wees van wat die ouens sê, want dit is juis die filosofie wat van die darwinisme niks meer maak as 'n religieuse filosofie, nie. Kyk mooi, niks wat julle hierbo probeer 'verduidelik' verander aan daardie feit nie - trouens, dit plaas die aksent daarop.

Natuurlik vertel julle desperate gespartel hierbo, sy eie verhaal - een van desperasie van mense wat besef hulle aap-oupa is uit die mou, en wil probeer gate toestop vir 'n vale.

Help nie. Daar is n intelligente leserskorps, en hulle kan self sien wat gebeur.

Dit kom op die ou end daarop neer dat die gelowige leser ewe maklik die woord-kaf kan skei van die korrels wat daar is, wat die essensie weergee. Julle almal probeer weer die kaf terugsit, maar dit help nie. Kyk na Wouter se gespartel en ook Kleinkoos s'n. Dit is desperaat, maar dit beteken niks. Darwiniste wil darwiniste wees - maar hulle besef dat hulle niks meer as net 'n religieuse filosofie met 'n wetenskap kleed om, propageer nie, en hulle sê openlik so.

Wat wel gebeur, is dat dit lyk of julle outjies geskok is deur die werklikheid van wat julle jul eintlik mee besighou - julle is, meeste van almal, mislei. Nou skop julle teen die prikkels.

Terloops, Vir jou inligting, dom Kleinkoos, is Bennett 'n paleobioloog. Verbasend hoe jy en Wouter julself met die mees nuttelose argumente besighou. Wie gee om wat die ouens was? Die kwessie is, wat is hulle nou. Nou word hulle deur mense soos Ruse aangehaal om sy punt, dat darwinsme eintlik 'n religieuse filosofie is, gedemonstreer. En Ruse, was kwansuis eers 'n Christen (natuurlik bog, maar so sê hy) nes meeste van die ander. Vandag is hulle darwinste en hulle propageer hulle nuwe religie, soos Haldane dan ook sê.

Julle moet wakker skrik.

Kobus de Klerk

2012-04-05 at 10:18

Wouter, Hier is jou aanhaling “… He argues that the common assumption that selection is usually weak in natural populations is no longer tenable, but that natural selection is only one component of the process of evolution; natural selection can explain the change of frequencies of variants, but not their origins.”

Hier is my verwysing, waarop jy kommentaar probeer lewer “Thus natural selection may affect the patterns of the origins of combinations of traits, even though it will not explain the mechanisms of their origins”

Kan jy sien hoe desperaat jy strooi opgooi?

En ek verwys spesifiek na evolusionistiese tipe seleksie wat aanneem dat dit 'n toevallige lukrake proses, is, maar geen bewys daarvoor het, nie. Hulle sien die proses werk, maar kan nie sê hoe die proses werk, nie - by ontwerp. Hulle maak sommer onwetenskaplik (ter wille van die oorheersende religieuse vereiste) dat dit toevallig en lukraak is, juis om die Goddelike betrokkenheid te ontken. Ten spyte daarvan dat die een wetenskaplike na die ander klem lê op die onbewysbaarheid van die 'origins' van die beweerde proses, volhard die darwinis daarmee bloot omdat sy darwinistiese religie dit van hom vereis.

Wat Wilson aanbetref – het jy opgemerk dat Ruse in sy blog, self vir Wilson aangehaal het?

Kobus de Klerk

Wouter

2012-04-05 at 16:36

Altyd die ontwykings van De Klerk se kant af en dit na Stephan die konteks daar gestel het. Hierdie laaste De Klerk plasing vermy juis weereens die uitdaging aan hom gestel om die huidige stand van Ruse se argumente te bespreek en nie net die wat deur De Klerk hier en daar gevind word nie.

De Klerk is ook terug waar Jan Rap 'n ruk terug was met, "Hoe werk dit?".

Die feit dat natuurlike seleksie werk en die populasies so vorm gee is wat verwag kan word met die interaksie van gene, populasie en omgewing.

Hoe "werk" asemhaling?

Hoe "werk" swaartekrag?

Die lys kan gemaak word vir elke proses op die aarde....

Dit maak nie die deur oop vir 'n "ontwerper", wat beveel, "nou werk julle so...."

Ook is dit nog steeds onduidelik of De Klerk nou Bennett se weergawe aanvaar of kan daar nie besluit word weens die feit dat De Klerk slegs 'n paragraaf raakgeboor het met sy quote mining.

So gaan die klug van De Klerk sonder ophou voort.......

Wouter

2012-04-05 at 16:44

Natuurlike seleksie vir die wat werklik belangstel kan soos volg beskryf word:

Dit werk op eienskappe van die populasie wat kan verander. Die kleur van 'n veldmuis byvoorbeeld, grys, bruin ens. Indien die invloed van die omgewing die oorlewing van die gene wat die bruin laat oorleef aangesien dit die muis beskerm in die habitat, sal die muise met die bruin "gene" meer word in die populasie en so die aard van die populasie oor tyd verander.

Evolusie, en dan natuurlike seleksie daarin kan opgesom word:

Genetics plus time cause difference (Steve Jones).

Hierdie is 'n simplistiese weergawe van hoe dit "werk".

Wouter

2012-04-05 at 16:54

Waar het Ruse vir Bennett aangehaal?

De Klerk het Bennett aangehaal sonder om die volledige impak van Bennett se argumente te verstaan.

Net soos hierdie nog meer kripties is as gewoonlik uit de Klerk se hand:

"Wat Wilson aanbetref – het jy opgemerk dat Ruse in sy blog, self vir Wilson aangehaal het?"

Die klagte was dat Ruse na die boek, artikel, hoe ook al moet verwys om die ontwikkeling van Wilson se denke te volg.

Die nuutste werk nou publiseer deur Wilson is uitgelig en sal dus 'n finale opsomming van Wilson se denke bied.

Ook, en hierdie word met klokslag aangbied, Ruse se argument dat evolusie 'n religie en filosofie is, is verkeerd soos kan kom.

Ruse, net aangesien daar deur De Klerk op Ruse gehammer word beweer nie dat biologie, evolusie en Darwin se plek daarin as aard 'n religie en 'n filosofie is nie en is glad nie onduidelik om dit as 'n wetenskap te bevestig nie.

De Klerk sal dit egter nie weet, omrede De Klerk nog nooit 'n opstel in sy volledigheid van Ruse gelees het nie.

Stephan het bevestig dat Ruse verwys na die ideologiese misbruike van evolusie.

Dit is MYLE!! apart daarvan om aan te voer dat evolusie 'n religie en 'n filosofie is.

Die hardkoppige en moedswillige sal nooit die verskil sien nie.

Dit is net te gemaklik om te karring soos gedoen tot op datum.

Wouter

2012-04-07 at 17:44

Daar is nog 'n bekende naam wat oppop uit De Klerk se skrywes, Haldane.

Dalk sal De Klerk vir die lesers hier bevestig wie dit is en Haldane se stellings gemaak sodat dit geoordeel kan word.

Hierdie stinkbomme kan nie net deur De Klerk gegooi word nie sonder 'n beskrywing nie.

Wouter

2012-04-07 at 18:11

Die punte wat De Klerk wil wen is dus gebaseer op die volgende en is De Klerk dus nie werklik besorg oor die volledige argumente van Bennett, dit is net die Endler wat De Klerk hier vir sy oningeligte lesers kan bied en daarmee weer 'n paar punte wen:

Thus natural selection may affect the patterns of the origins of combinations of traits, even though it will not explain the mechanisms of their origins.....

Dit laat De Klerk dan toe om tot die volgende slotsom te kom:

Evolusioniste se darwinistiese tipe seleksie is dus óók op onbewysbare aannames staangemaak.

Aangesien De Klerk bogenoemde aanhaling gebruik het om te probeer "bewys" dat natuurlike seleksie nie bestaan nie is die volgende as korreksie daarop geplaas om die aanname wat De Klerk maak gebaseer op 'n vyfdehandse aanhaling te korrigeer:

Professor Endler finds that there are a remarkable number of direct demonstrations of selection in a wide variety of animals and plants. The distribution of observed magnitudes of selection in natural populations is surprisingly broad, and it overlaps extensively the range of values found in artificial selection.

Daar sal vir ewig gewag word om 'n verduideliking van De Klerk se kant af te kry waarin hy die betekenis hiervan verduidelik:

Thus natural selection may affect the patterns of the origins of combinations of traits, even though it will not explain the mechanisms of their origins....

Die betekenis is nie, dat natuurlike seleksie nie plaasvind nie.

Ook is daar nog geen oplossing oor die stelling gemaak deur De Klerk dat evo-devo kreasionisme ondersteun en nou weer platval.

Beteken dit, kreasionisme, "intelligente ontwerp" val ook nou plat.

Kan De Klerk aan sy lesers, Tant Alie ingesluit, verduidelik en dalk ook Uganda red van 'n inval?

Wouter

2012-04-09 at 09:55

Hello,

Die gebruik van biologie, evolusie, "Darwinisme" as ideologie is apart van evolusie as 'n wetenskap en dit is die verkil wat De Klerk nie wil verduidelik nie, aangesien die se argument juis daarop berus om hierdie verwarring te skep.

In die naweek-uitgawe van die Financial Times was daar hierdie nuusberig en is net toeganglik vir intekenare en word die hoogtepunte daarvan geplaas:

President Barack Obama attacked Mitt Romney for supporting what he called “social Darwinism” as he sought to mark a clear distinction between himself and his likely Republican challenger in a pugnacious speech on US fiscal policy.

Mr Obama said: “Disguised as a deficit-reduction plan, it’s really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It’s nothing but thinly veiled social Darwinism.”

He added: “In this country, broad-based prosperity has never trickled down from the success of a wealthy few. It has always come from a strong and growing middle class.”

Die konteks van hierdie "social darwinism" se historiese agtergrond word dan soos volg deur die Financial Times ontleed:

There are two problems with the president’s reasoning. The first is that practically everyone is now practising thinly veiled social Darwinism.

Ever since Edward O. Wilson published Sociobiology in the 1970s, the application of Darwinian insights to social questions has steadily increased.

That makes sense, so long as one believes humans are animals. Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and their legions of readers apparently do.

Darwinism is becoming almost a master key of the social sciences. Linguists, psychologists, economists and historians resort to it.

It would be surprising if the Darwinian vogue didn’t find its way into politics.

Today, Darwin is a reference point in the workaday, non-academic world, much as Freud used to be. Many insurance salesmen and industrial engineers in the 1950s could give you a reasonable account of what “castration anxiety” was.

Today’s dinner parties are similarly haunted by autodidacts who, having read one book by Jared Diamond, are keen to offer a cod-Darwinian explanation of why all the famous chefs are men, or why TV stars cheat on their wives.

But there is a second, larger problem with the president’s charge: in order to practise social Darwinism, one must believe in Darwinism in the first place. Republicans may be the only group in the western world that this enthusiasm for evolution has passed by.

Mr Obama used to recognise as much. In his 2009 inaugural address he promised to “restore science to its rightful place”. Two months later he laid out what he meant in an executive memorandum that he summarised as follows:

“Under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”

Obama was talking about Republican hostility to Darwinism.

In his mother’s native Kansas and other states, laws have encouraged the teaching of various kinds of creationism over the theory of evolution.

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum tried to amend the “No Child Left Behind” educational reform a decade ago to include incentives for teaching “competing scientific interpretations” of evolution.

During his own shortlived presidential campaign, the Texas governor Rick Perry, speaking to an unfortunate little New Hampshire boy whose mother kept hissing at him “Ask him why he doesn’t believe in science!”, described evolution as a “theory that’s out there”.

You can level a lot of charges at the Republican party. Darwinism is not one of them.

The origin of the president’s mistake is not far to seek. In 1944 the young historian Richard Hofstadter wrote a dazzling but somewhat misleading book called Social Darwinism in American Thought. This is the book that brought the term into common currency. Hofstadter aimed to show the effectiveness of New Deal progressivism as an antidote to capitalism. He also wanted to show the superiority of this new progressivism to the old, which, looking at the racial make-up of society as one possible avenue of “progress”, had drifted into eugenics.

But Hofstadter ran into problems. As Thomas C. Leonard of Princeton University wrote a few years ago in a fascinating essay, the overlap between the calculated rapacity of capitalists and the blind cruelty of natural selection was not great. Hofstadter found it hard to find representative villains.

“No more than a handful of American business leaders or intellectuals were ‘social Darwinists’,” Mr Leonard notes. The two apologists for competition on whom Hofstadter hangs his indictment – Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner – sometimes worked against his thesis.

Spencer was not a Darwinist at all, but a Lamarckian.

What Mr Obama really wants is to accuse the Republicans of the vice of laisser-faire, and to convey that there is something unusually rotten about the way they promote it.

Using the term “social Darwinists” to do so is intellectually embarrassing.

Hierdie aspekte word deur Ruse ook aangespreek in die inleiding en historiese oorsig van evolusie deur hom geskryf vir Evolution : The First Four Billion Years.

Wouter

2012-04-09 at 10:12

Hello,

Nog 'n artikel wat raakgelees is die naweek is 'n bepreking van The Social Conquest of Earth van Edward O. Wilson wat ek aangedui het is 2 April 2012 publiseer was.

Hierdie boek is nog nie deur my aangekoop nie maar sal sekerlik so doen en is beskikbaar as e-boek.

Die Wall Street Journal het hierdie bespreking daarvan publiseer hierdie naweek en bied in die bespreking 'n opsomming van Wilson se agtergrond en word nou geplaas om Wilson in konteks te plaas:

The field of biology is sprinkled with Mr. Wilson's landmark findings. His work in the late 1950s on chemical signaling systems, which analyzed the production and detection of pheromones, revealed the mechanisms of ants' social interactions.

His book "The Theory of Island Biogeography" (1967), co-written with Robert MacArthur, was an early and important use of his rigorous, quantitative approach.

First he studied the details of an island habitat.

Then he got together with a mathematician to build a predictive model about how species would fare in a limited space, duly accounting for dozens of variables, like birth rate and the island's distance from others.

The work revolutionized the field of ecology, pushing it away from taxonomy and toward empirical studies.

It wasn't until the early 1970s, however, that Mr. Wilson became a household name in and beyond the scientific community.

His blockbuster book, "Sociobiology: The New Synthesis" (1975), was the event that popularized the idea that social behavior derives from genes. Genes controlled eye color, after all. Why not social phenomena too?

Even though only one of the 27 chapters in "Sociobiology" was devoted to humans, Mr. Wilson was ruthlessly attacked by blank-slaters, social scientists, leftists and Marxists. So-called biological determinism was felt to be overreaching and taking the fun and challenge out of life.

The battle lines were drawn, the character assassinations commenced, civility was out the window. It was like a Republican primary debate.

Sociobiology triumphed, with a generation of pioneering evolutionary biologists, including William Hamilton, John Maynard Smith, George Williams, Robert Trivers and Richard Dawkins, all involved.

But as he recalls in "The Social Conquest of Earth," he was shocked, stunned, hurt by the initial reaction.

Though battered, he came away with a new dimension to his scientific approach: He learned that throwing bombs isn't all bad.

Now he obviously enjoys watching people squirm as they cling to their ideas while he offers alternatives.

Indeed, he has forthrightly announced that the function of his new book is to upset the current apple cart on the nature of the human condition.

He fully expects to be lambasted for his analysis.

During the controversy over sociobiology, Mr. Wilson was lumped together with advocates of individual selection, such as Hamilton and Mr. Trivers, and at the time he let it go.

In this book, his long simmering true view gets expressed, and he basically jettisons his erstwhile companions.

Mr. Wilson now seems cheerily free at last from his own earlier proposals.

Not only social insects but humans too—especially art, religion and other unique facets of the human condition—are better viewed, he argues, through the lens of group selection. Indeed, some feel that back in the 1970s he never really cottoned to the idea of individual selection and always embraced group selection.

In "Sociobiology," he wrote,

"Although the theory of group selection is still rudimentary, it has already provided insights into some of the least understood and most disturbing qualities of social behavior."

Jazz artists improvise.

Mr. Wilson does too as he goes through his argument in "The Social Conquest of Earth." I say "improvise" because he chooses not to give the reader the complete story, properly annotated with references that would capture the huge controversies that accompany almost all the facts he reviews.

He first hooks the reader by sketching the life of Paul Gauguin and his quest to answer the riddles of "Where do we come from?," "What are we?" and "Where are we going?" as embodied in his painting that bears these questions as its title.

The poignant introduction is followed by a quick tour of the history of biology and anthropology, from the story of early hominids right up to and including modern man.

While Mr. Wilson may have tired of all the rancor, it would have been intriguing to have his full account of how he arrived at his conclusions.

He now sees group selection as key to understanding the handful of eusocial species (those that divide different kinds of labor among different members of a group, such as queen bees and worker bees).

He believes that most eusocial life, which is primarily found in insects, can be explained without even resorting to kin selection as a facilitator.

This is due to the unusual organization of groupings such as ant nests and bee hives, in which one "queen" produces all the offspring.

Thus, Mr. Wilson argues, we should think of all the organisms in a hive or ant nest as a single "superorganism" rather than thousands of individuals. Other inhabitants of the nest are just "robotic extensions" of the queen's genome, with evolution of the species as a whole pitting one queen against another.

When it comes to the development of human eusociality, however, Mr. Wilson sees group-selection mechanisms as being mainly responsible.

He is buoyed in his current stance by two Harvard colleagues, Martin Nowak and Corina Tarnita. They built a model showing that it wasn't relatedness (kin) that carried the water for eusociality but mechanisms promoting what is called assortativity—heterogeneous interaction rates among individuals.

In short, the gene for high order sociality is not linked to kinship, but to social organization per se, which can be independent of kinship.Though this is a continuing debate, Mr. Wilson goes all in and casts his vote forcefully:

"Group selection shapes instincts that tend to make individuals altruistic toward one another (but not towards members of other groups). Individual selection is responsible for much of what we call sin, while group selection is responsible for the great part of virtue. Together they have created the conflict between the poorer and the better angels of our nature.

"Mr. Wilson doesn't mention 40 years of work by such giants as Robert Trivers who identified the concept of reciprocity rather than kin or group selection as the key ingredient in human sociality. Indeed, Mr. Trivers's ideas on reciprocity captured how cooperative behavior becomes selected for and launched a field of evolutionary thinkers such as Richard Dawkins and many more.

Many believe that it is the capacity for reciprocity that leads to moral emotions such as guilt, trust and gratitude as well as other wonders of the human condition.

Again, Mr. Wilson knows all of this.

He wrote about it with gusto in "Sociobiology.

"In the end, Mr. Wilson comes down on the side of what is called multi-level selection—the view that evolution involves a combination of gene selection, individual selection, kin selection and group selection.

Although he says his new theory opposes the idea of kin selection, in another sense he is simply maintaining that everybody is right.

Genes are being selected to benefit the individual and their kin.

Genes are also being selected that encourage the individual to participate in a group.

And sometimes the drives produced by the different sets of genes conflict—thus the "poorer and the better angels of our nature."

This takes Mr. Wilson back to answer the Gauguin trilogy of great questions—"Where from?," "What?" and "Where to?"—by saying we came out of biology, we are the greatest of all animals and because of our heightened social skills—our special human eusociality—we are being driven to greater cooperation and together will conquer the ills of the world.

Wouter

2012-04-09 at 15:27

Hello,

In die International Herald Tribune se Hoof Artikel Blad die volgende redaksionele kommentaar wat die idee van Social Darwinism aanspreek:

The Taint of ‘Social Darwinism’

By PHILIP KITCHER

Given the well-known Republican antipathy to evolution, President Obama’s recent description of the Republican budget as an example of “social Darwinism” may be a canny piece of political labeling.

In the interests of historical accuracy, however, it should be clearly recognized that “social Darwinism” has very little to do with the ideas developed by Charles Darwin in “On the Origin of Species.”

Social Darwinism emerged as a movement in the late 19th-century, and has had waves of popularity ever since, but its central ideas owe more to the thought of a luminary of that time, Herbert Spencer, whose writings are (to understate) no longer widely read.Spencer, who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest,” thought about natural selection on a grand scale.

Conceiving selection in pre-Darwinian terms — as a ruthless process, “red in tooth and claw” — he viewed human culture and human societies as progressing through fierce competition.

Provided that policymakers do not take foolish steps to protect the weak, those people and those human achievements that are fittest — most beautiful, noble, wise, creative, virtuous, and so forth — will succeed in a fierce competition, so that, over time, humanity and its accomplishments will continually improve.

Late 19th-century dynastic capitalists, especially the American “robber barons,” found this vision profoundly congenial.

Their contemporary successors like it for much the same reasons, just as some adolescents discover an inspiring reinforcement of their self-image in the writings of Ayn Rand .

Although social Darwinism has often been closely connected with ideas in eugenics (pampering the weak will lead to the “decline of the race”) and with theories of racial superiority (the economic and political dominance of people of North European extraction is a sign that some racial groups are intrinsically better than others), these are not central to the position.

The heart of social Darwinism is a pair of theses:

first, people have intrinsic abilities and talents (and, correspondingly, intrinsic weaknesses), which will be expressed in their actions and achievements, independently of the social, economic and cultural environments in which they develop;

second, intensifying competition enables the most talented to develop their potential to the full, and thereby to provide resources for a society that make life better for all.

The strenuous struggle social Darwinism envisages might select for something, but the most likely traits are a tendency to take whatever steps are necessary to achieve a foreseeable end, a sharp focus on narrowly individual goals and a corresponding disregard for others. We might reasonably expect that a world run on social Darwinist lines would generate a cadre of plutocrats, each resolutely concerned to establish a dynasty and to secure his favored branch of industry against future competition. In practical terms it would almost certainly yield a world in which the gap between rich and poor was even larger than it is now.

Rather than the beauty, wisdom, virtue and nobility Spencer envisioned arising from fierce competition, the likely products would be laws repealing inheritance taxes and deregulating profitable activities, and a vast population of people whose lives were even further diminished.Yet, even if stimulating competition would achieve greater economic productivity, and even if this would, by some miraculous mechanism, yield a more egalitarian distribution of economic resources (presumably through the provision of more remunerative jobs), these welcome material benefits are not all that is needed. To quote a much-cited book, we do not “live by bread alone.” If the vast majority of citizens (or, globally, of people) are to enjoy any opportunities to develop the talents they have, they need the social structures social Darwinism perceives as pampering and counter-productive. Human well-being is profoundly affected by public goods, a concept that is entirely antithetical to social Darwinism or to contemporary Republican ideology, with their mythical citizens who can fulfill their potential without rich systems of social support. It is a callous fiction to suppose that what is needed is less investment in education, health care, public transportation and affordable public housing.So long as social Darwinism is disentangled from the ancillary eugenic and racist ideas, so long as it is viewed in its core form of the two theses about the glories of competition, the label President Obama pinned on the Republican budget is completely deserved. Because the central ideas of social Darwinism are equally false and noxious, a commitment to truth in advertising should welcome the label. And all of us, including President Obama and the many people whose less spectacular successes have been enabled by social structures and public goods, should hope that the name leads Darwin-hating conservatives to worry about the Republican budget. Philip Kitcher is John Dewey Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University. He has written on topics in many fields of philosophy, including the history and philosophy of biology. Among his books are “Living with Darwin,” and, most recently, “The Ethical Project” and “Science in a Democratic Society.”

Hierdie siklus van artikels geplaas het soos die toeval dit het die afgelope paar dae verskyn en bied 'n goeie oorsig van die ideologiese misbruik wat moontlik is met evolusie en behoort finaal te bevestig dat evolusie, "Darwinism" nie 'n religieuse filosofie en nuanse verlang in definisies aangebied en dat De Klerk tot op datum nie daarin geslaag het nie.

Kobus de Klerk

2012-04-11 at 10:40

Wouter,

Die blote feit dat daar so wyd geskrywe word en polemiek gevoer word in die laaste tyd oor die religieuse aard van die darwinisme, wys jou dat dit werklikheid is - hoe jy ookal daarteen probeer skop.

Dus, weereens bied jou ellelange artikels puik ondersteuning vir my punt.

Darwinisme is religie gefopdos as wetenskap. Darwinisme misbruik wetenskap om sy anti-God punt te maak.

Dit is ook duidelik dat die dae van darwinisme as alleen aanspraakmaker op die podium van wetenskap, getel is. Daarom dat daar in darwinistiese geledere soveel uiteenlopende opinies daaroor is. Die werklike wetenskaplikes onder die geledere is bang dat darwinisme een van die dae uit die biologie klas verban sal word, na die klas van alternatiewe religieuse studies toe... waar dit natuurlik hoort. Dan is daar ook ander van hulle, wat soiets sal verwelkom, dink ek.

Feit is, hoe meer julle struwel, hoe meer gooi julle vet op die vuur wat darwinisme gaan verbrand. - en ons verwelkom dit ope arms, natuurlik.

Hou gerus so aan.

Kobus de Klerk

Litnet

Darwinisme as religieuse filosofie

Kommentaar

Reageer Cancel reply