Roger Penrose (among others) recognizes that evolution is a theory, and a very good one, indeed. He thinks it's a more solid theory than the big bang theory (go figure).
And yet it is chilling to me to think that "social scientists" take their cues from Darwinism. But they do. If social pathologies result -- as inevitably they seem to do -- then that should tell you something about the suitability of the neoDarwinist framework for informing social policy. Don't forget, both Marxism and fascism take their view of man from neoDarwinist principles.
Thanks for writing, RightWhale!
Yes, they do. It is the most basic kind of error, missing the category.
AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
Go thou and re-read your history. Marx's main works predated Darwin and Marx's most consistent practitioner had "Darwinists" dismissed from teaching and some executed. Fascism is a derivative, sort of Spaghetti Marxism.
Argument from adverse consequences? even neoPlatonists know better than that.
one point: were the synthetic theory of evolution to be faithfully developed into a sociopolitical philosophy, it would be antithetical to socialism.
socialism, in a nutshell, essentially has the artificially-determined welfare of the species determining the daily lives and fates of the individuals within its population. it also contains as a root tenet that all individuals are identical and interchangeable.
a philosophy extrapolated from evolution would have the daily lives and fates of the individuals naturally determine the status of the species they comprise. it would also have as a central tenet that all individuals are unique, that none are precisely interchangeable, that distribution of characteristics are NOT equally distributed.
this "evolution-based" philosophy strongly resembles the the ideal of individualistic elitist meritocracy towards which capitalistic free societies aspire.
on the other hand, there really is little difference between theocrats and leftists. both are raging statists - they just dress different, have different names for their oligarchic masters, and use slightly different scare tactics.
[hiatus mode]
Good heavens, not you too.
Good points as always. Thanks.
The most major statement of the problem is probably still Sir Arthur Keith's Evolution and Ethics.