Posted on 06/10/2009 8:33:46 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
As a first point of logical non-sequitor, the generative work for communism is the Communist Manifesto, by Freidrich Engles and Karl Marx. It was published in February of 1848. Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859. For the home schooled reader, Darwin came 11 years LATER than Communism.
Do the Cretin Science types want to credit Darwin with time travel so that his work might have influenced the founding fathers of Communism? That is one plausible deduction from this outlandish Cretin Science claim. The other is to credit Marx and Engles with being psychic.
The second point illustrating the absolute absurdity of this new piece of Cretin Science illogic is history. Outside a narrow audience of intellectuals and biologists, Darwin's Theory had its greatest initial public influence in its MISapplication in the “Social Sciences” as “Social Darwinism.” Dating to the mid 1870’s or so and during the peak of “Robber Baron Capitalism”, Social Darwinists justified the accumulation of capitalistic wealth and power in the hands of a few and the particular wealth of a few nations as “survival of the fittest.”
If you think Darwinian thought spurred “Godless Communism”, you might look at its misapplication in Andrew Carnegie's book The Gospel of Wealth (published in 1889). Carnegie, buying Spencer's Social Darwinist view that the fittest are those that accumulate great wealth, of course thus defining himself as about the most fit man in America, then reconciles that with a Christian vision by pointing out the special obligation of unusually fit people to share their wealth with others. As at least some know, Carnegie put his money where his mouth was. Since the Carnegie Foundation is still in the business of giving today, a more correct view of Darwin might be that he is the origin of the modern Christian flavor of capitalism derivative of Adam Smith as elaborated upon by the likes of Herbert Spencer and as manifest in the good works of an Andrew Carnegie. Now as to any influence upon the Soviet expression of Communism, I would point out that that is still roughly 40 years in the future.
And, I would also point out that the non-godless among the left usually claim Christ as the first Communist. They have been doing so for a long time.
But the biggest absurdity is this business is the inclusion of Stalin in the list. Stalin was a ruthless architect of state power, not an “ism.” Anyone that thinks otherwise knows little of both Communism and history. But more importantly, from the 1930’s Lysenko was Stalin's “official” biologist/cum evolutionist and Lysenko had his own bizarre and distinctly non-Darwinian theory of evolution. The theory is actually quite involved but is probably best known for advocating “inheritance of acquired characteristics.” Lysenko's view of evolution, given power by proxy from Stalin, kept Soviet advances in biology 40 years behind the west (much as Cretin Science retards its followers). And the domain of Darwin's Theory is biology, not political system, governmental structure or pop social science.
Were Communists aware of Darwin's Theory and did the more intelligent and educated among them think it a superior scientific theory to Lysenko's absurdities? The answer is yes. They were aware of and influenced by Newton's Theory of gravity too. Some forty plus years after Spencer did some of them misapply Darwin's Theory to communism in the same way that the Social Darwinists did to capitalism? Probably. Certainly I have seen no shortage of godless politicians quote from the Bible as well.
The important point is that Darwin's Theory also has nothing to say about religion except to those that are made insecure by its existence as a challenge to their narrow view of the Bible and how it should be interpreted. If you are in this category, perhaps your time would he better spent in examining why your faith is so weak.
As to the pseudo science that constitutes Cretin Science, I say once again this stuff is an embarrassment to your intellect, knowledge, and integrity.
Born in 1818, Marx was baptized a Lutheran in 1824, attended a Lutheran elementary school, received praise for his ‘earnest’ essays on moral and religious topics, and was judged by his teachers ‘moderately proficient’ in theology (his first written work was on the ‘love of Christ’)8-10 until he encountered Darwin’s writings and ideas at the University of Berlin. Marx wrote tirelessly until he died, producing hundreds of books, monographs and articles. Sir Isaiah Berlin even claimed that no thinker ‘in the nineteenth century has had so direct, deliberate and powerful an influence upon mankind as did Karl Marx’.11 Marx saw the living world in terms of a Darwinian ‘survival-of-the-fittest’ struggle, involving the triumph of the strong and the subjugation of the weak.12 Darwin taught that the ‘survival of the fittest’ existed among all forms of life. From this idea Marx believed that the major ‘struggle for existence’ among humans occurred primarily between the social classes. Barzun13 concluded that Marx believed his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin’s, and that,
‘like Darwin, Marx thought he had discovered the law of development. He saw history in stages, as the Darwinists saw geological strata and successive forms of life. … both Marx and Darwin made struggle the means of development. Again, the measure of value in Darwin is survival with reproduction—an absolute fact occurring in time and which wholly disregards the moral or esthetic quality of the product. In Marx the measure of value is expended labor—an absolute fact occurring in time, which also disregards the utility of the product. Both Darwin and Marx [also] tended to hedge and modify their mechanical absolution in the face of objections.’14
Marx owed a major debt to Darwin for his central ideas. In Marx’s words: ‘Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural selection for the class struggle in history. … not only is it [Darwin’s book] a death blow … to “Teleology” in the natural sciences but their rational meaning is empirically explained’.15 Marx first read Darwin’s Origin of Species only a year after its publication, and was so enthusiastic that he reread it two years later.16 He attended a series of lectures by Thomas Huxley on Darwin’s ideas, and spoke of ‘nothing else for months but Darwin and the enormous significance of his scientific discoveries’.17 According to a close associate, Marx was also
‘ … one of the first to grasp the significance of Darwin’s research. Even before 1859, the year of the publication of The Origin of the Species [sic]—and, by a remarkable coincidence, of Marx’s Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy—Marx realized Darwin’s epoch-making importance. For Darwin … was preparing a revolution similar to the one which Marx himself was working for … . Marx kept up with every new appearance and noted every step forward, especially in the fields of natural sciences … .’18
Berlin states that after he became a communist, Marx detested passionately any ‘belief in supernatural causes’.19 Stein noted that ‘Marx himself viewed Darwin’s work as confirmation by the natural sciences of his own views … ’.20 Hyman included Darwin and Marx among the four men he considered responsible for many of the most significant events of the 20th century.21 According to Heyer, Marx was ‘infatuated’ with Darwin, and Darwin’s ideas clearly had a major influence not only on him and Engels, but also on both Lenin and Stalin. Furthermore, these men’s writings frequently discussed Darwin’s ideas.22 Marx and Engels ‘enthusiastically embraced’ Darwinism, kept up with Darwin’s writings, and often corresponded with each other (and others) about their reactions to Darwin’s conclusions.23,24 The communists recognized the importance of Darwin to their movement and therefore vigorously defended him:
‘The socialist movement recognized Darwinism as an important element in its general world outlook right from the start. When Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, Karl Marx wrote a letter to Frederick Engels in which he said, “ … this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view”. … And of all those eminent researchers of the nineteenth century who have left us such a rich heritage of knowledge, we are especially grateful to Charles Darwin for opening our way to an evolutionary, dialectical understanding of nature.’25
Prominent communist Friedrich Lessner concluded that Das Kapital and Darwin’s Origin of Species were the ‘two greatest scientific creations of the century’.26 The importance of Darwinism in the estimated 140 million deaths caused by communism was partly because:
‘Clearly, for Marx man has no “nature”. … For man is his own maker and will consciously become his own maker in complete freedom from morality or from the laws of nature and of nature’s God. … Here we see why Marxism justifies the ruthless sacrifice of men living today, men who, at this stage of history, are only partly human.’27
Halstead adds that the theoretical foundation of communism
‘ … is dialectical materialism which was expounded with great clarity by Frederick Engels in Anti-Dührüng and The Dialectics of Nature. He recognized the great value of the contributions made by geology in establishing that there was constant movement and change in nature and the significance of Darwin’s demonstration that this applied also to the organic world. … The crux of the entire theoretical framework, however, is in the nature of qualitative changes. This is also spelt out by Engels in The Dialectics of Nature, “a development in which the qualitative changes occur not gradually but rapidly and abruptly, taking the form of a leap from one state to another”. … Here then is the recipe for revolution.’28
Conner adds that communism teaches that by ‘defending Darwinism, working people strengthen their defenses against the attacks of … reactionary outfits, and prepare the way for the transformation of the social order’, i.e. a communist revolution.29
wow!
See my last reply
OK, let's start with the most basic question. What is evolution?
The term evolution means change in the gene pool of a population over time. I and countless others have done experiments where we have witnessed such change in response to change in environmental conditions. It is pretty standard fare for biology students.
I assume you have never done such experiments, so let me ask you this: Have you ever had a drug-resistant infection? Do you get a new flu shot every year? These phenomena also support the notion that organisms evolve in response to their environments. The changes that make bacteria resistant to drugs that were formerly effective against them are accomplished via changes in the DNA.
The number of papers relevant to your question has probably has reached the hundreds of thousands by now. These rely not on "logical fallacy" but scientific evidence developed consistent with the scientific method.
I hope this is helpful ... am sorry that I just dont have time to write a lot more.
Lies wrapped in ignorance.
Which doesn't bother the spammer one iota.
Sorry, GGG, but once again you are reading something into the quote that is not there.
It is a prediction of a future outcome. It does not say that this would be a good thing (or a bad thing). Darwin does not say that he wants this to happen, only that he predicts it will happen.
As for the language, it was not politically incorrect in his day to refer to "savage races." It was common parlance.
Painting Darwin as a racist is preposterous. He was an ardent abolitionist, way ahead of his time on racial issues.
One thing both the Capitalists and the Communists agreed upon at that time was that Darwin's theory was philosophically antithetical to Communism.
You are contradicting your own article:
Marx was baptized a Lutheran in 1824, attended a Lutheran elementary school, received praise for his ‘earnest’ essays on moral and religious topics, and was judged by his teachers ‘moderately proficient’ in theology (his first written work was on the ‘love of Christ’)8-10 until he encountered Darwin’s writings and ideas...
Do you have any documented proof that during his Lutheran education and upbringing, he studied the obscure Greek philosophers like Anaximander or Empedocles or the Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi or any other of the very obscure philosophers who pondered this idea? Did he attend the Linnean Society of London as a youth, one of the only modern groups studying the possibility of some sort of evolution at the time?
It seems you are so obsessed with demonizing this a-moral and a-political issue, that you are now just willing to make stuff up.
Yes, he might start fantasizing about seeing biologists “frog marched” off to prison again.
OK, then you have committed the fallacy of equivocation for believing that 'changes in the gene pool over time' equates to 'evolution'.
"I and countless others have done experiments where we have witnessed such change in response to change in environmental conditions. It is pretty standard fare for biology students."
We could call this one the fallacy of begging the question for believing that what is observed is the result of 'evolution'.
"I assume you have never done such experiments, so let me ask you this: Have you ever had a drug-resistant infection? Do you get a new flu shot every year? These phenomena also support the notion that organisms evolve in response to their environments. The changes that make bacteria resistant to drugs that were formerly effective against them are accomplished via changes in the DNA."
Here, the fallacy of affirming the consequent is noted for believing that what is observed uniquely supports evolution' because it was a 'prediction' of 'evolution'.
"The number of papers relevant to your question has probably has reached the hundreds of thousands by now. These rely not on "logical fallacy" but scientific evidence developed consistent with the scientific method."
Well, the papers documenting the effects observed might have been based on the scientific method, but if the conclusions were 'evolution' then they are firmly based in logical fallacy as noted above.
"I hope this is helpful ... am sorry that I just dont have time to write a lot more."
I hope this is helpful. ... am prepared to point out as many fallacies as you have time to post.
.....At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world......
You destroyed your own argument
He stated the obvious having observed the cruelties and annihilation carried out in the name of the church
“Marx wrote tirelessly until he died, producing hundreds of books, monographs and articles.”
—How many sentences, total, did Marx write which involved Darwin? Three? That’s all I can currently find... in two separate statements, both in private letters (of which there are many hundreds, consisting of thousands of pages). Was there anything public?
Some “seizing”.
==Lies wrapped in ignorance.
I can’t think of a better way to describe Temple of Darwin religion. Thanks for for sharing your insight, JimT!!!
That is the DEFINITION of evolution that one learns in Biology 101. It's no fallacy.
“Darwin, whom I am just now reading, is splendid.”—Engles
“This is the book (Origins) which contains the basis in natural history for our view.”—Marx
“Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.”—Marx
Marx sent a personally inscribed copy of Das Kapital (calling himself a “sincere admirer”) to Darwin.
“Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history”—Engles
“He (Darwin) dealt the metaphysical conception of nature the heaviest blow by his proof that the organic world of today — plants, animals, and consequently man too — is the product of a process of evolution going on through millions of years.”—Engles
“Marx admired Darwin’s book not for economic reasons but for the more fundamental one that Darwin’s universe was purely materialistic, and the explication of it no longer involved any reference to unobservable, nonmaterial causes outside or ‘beyond’ it. In that important respect, Darwin and Marx were truly comrades.”—Tom Bethel (senior editor, American Spectator).
Actually, I bolstered my argument by demonstrating that Darwood was a Evo-racist.
Except that Marx was more profoundly influenced by Hegel, and to a lesser extent, Owen and Fourier.
When Darwin’s origins came along, it fit relatively well with Marx’s historical dialectic.
There were some Soviet historians who claimed that Darwin was influenced by Marx’s work. This would have made a more plausible article for CMI.
But still no relationship to evolutionary biology, since it predates both Marx and Darwin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.