Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Huck Turner) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose searle) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 
> > In the end it just goes to show that Darwinists aren't objective,
> > scientific, academics, but rather ideologues with a religious zeal for
> > their faith in evolution.
> > 
> > Searle
> 
> I encourage you to pursue the points that I've made and highlight
> where you think I have misrepresented Darwin's views.
> 
> 

Searle's argument is nothing but an elaborate straw man. One can
subscribe to Darwin's views of natural selection without zealous
adherence to everything he ever wrote or said. Darwinism is not a
religion; scientists do not believe blindly in the man. The acceptance
of some part of a scientist's or thinker's theories or philosophy
while rejecting other parts is quite common. After all, we regularly
trust in Newtonian physics for all sorts of practical applications
from building bridges to sending rockets to the Moon, but no one today
accepts Newton's Metaphysics as anything but confused, obscure and
ridiculous. William Bradford Shockley made an immense mark on the
world with the invention of the transistor, then, in late middle age
fouled his name by preaching the inferiority of blacks based on
"scientific" evidence. Everyone relies on transistors; no one accepts
the other garbage.

The fact that Newton committed himself to inane metaphysical
speculation, or that Shockley was a racist does nothing to discredit
their other accomplishments.  Even if Darwin was a Social Darwinist
(which I doubt), that fact in itself does not discredit his other,
profoundly marvelous work.

The allegation that biologists who believe in evolution through
natural selection are somehow ideologues because Darwin may or may not
have been a racist or at least may (or may not) have reflected some
racist tendencies in a paragraph or two of writings among a thousand
of pages of text is utterly laughable.

For argument's sake, let's say we accept the allegation that Darwin
believed in Social Darwinism, however you define it. So what? That
fact does absolutely nothing to damage the theory of natural selection
and the evolution of life. Disprove that, find consistent evidence
that some process other than natural selection and evolution can
account for the fossil record and the diversity of life on this planet
and then you'll have something. Until you do, you're just a child
stomping your foot and calling names. You have the closed mind, the
stunted awareness, the lack of understanding, not the biologists who
rely on the evidence for the theory of natural selection, who find
Darwin's work to be of unimpeachable honesty and unrivaled brilliance.


Will