Media Mum about Deranged Darwinist Gunman

_{Salvador Cordova

September 2, 2010

Culture, Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

John West of the Discovery Institute Reports:

But when a gunman inspired by Darwinism takes hostages at the offices of the Discovery Channel, reporters seem curiously uninterested in fully disclosing the criminal’s own self-described motivations. Most of yesterday’s media reports about hostage-taker James Lee dutifully reported Lee’s eco-extremism and his pathological hatred for humanity. But they also suppressed any mention of Lee’s explicit appeals to Darwin and Malthus as the intellectual foundations for his views. At least, I could find no references to Lee’s Darwinian motivations in the accounts I read by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC.

Major Media Spike Discovery

Comments

tgpeeler,
BA @ 4 “The fact is that there is not one single instance of the purely material processes creating any functional information whatsoever!!!” This is true and I’ll take a second to tell Mathgrrl why it will always be true.
Thanks for replying. Before going further, though, in my experience it is essential to understand exactly what we mean by our terms when discussing information theory. Could you please provide a mathematical definition of "functional information" so that any interested observer can objectively measure it? With a definition in hand, we can look at your claim in detail.MathGrrl_{September 4, 2010
September
09
Sep
4
04
2010
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped, Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see how you quotations in 26 make your original statement:
What reasearch over the past century and a half indicates that inanimate matter can establish symbols systems so evolution (in whatever and any form you wish to believe in it) can even occur in the first place?
any more clear. Could you please explain what "symbol system" you mean in more detail? Thanks.MathGrrl_{September 4, 2010
September
09
Sep
4
04
2010
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT}

JB: Right as rain. The Other Uses section in that Wiki article linked by MG begins . . . .
The term "Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an "ism") of philosophical naturalism, or atheism"
. . . and goes downhill from there. It is a slanderous, truth-evasive hit piece -- the very Creationists themselves mark a significant difference with design thought [cf the Weak Argument Correctives MG] -- not a serious objective discussion; as was noted in 24. On why "darwinism" or "the neo-darwinian/modern synthesis" are legitimate and apt terms, cf. 24:
The Neo-Darwinian synthesis, often shortened to “Darwinism,” as of last count, was still the predominant school in evolutionary biology, and as a core level paradigm it embeds a great many worldview level elements. . . .
For those who do not realise the predominant worldviews context and ideological agenda for Darwinian evolutionism and broader origins science schools of thought (what Wiki was trying desperately to obscure), it is worth excerpting Lewontin's 1997 NYRB article yet again: _____________________ >> . . . to put a correct view of the universe into people's heads we must first get an incorrect view out . . . the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world, the demons that exist only in their imaginations, and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth . . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. [From: “Billions and Billions of Demons,” NYRB, January 9, 1997. Bold emphasis added. (NB: The key part of this quote comes after some fairly unfortunate remarks where Mr Lewontin gives the "typical" example -- yes, we can spot a subtext -- of an ill-informed woman who dismissed the Moon landings on the grounds that she could not pick up Dallas on her TV, much less the Moon. This is little more than a subtle appeal to the ill-tempered sneer at those who dissent from the evolutionary materialist "consensus," that they are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Sadly, discreet forbearance on such is no longer an option: it has to be mentioned, as some seem to believe that such a disreputable "context" justifies the assertions and attitudes above!)] >> ______________________ Unfortunately, there is abundant evidence that this summary is precisely correct; it is not just an idiosyncrasy. That is why Johnson -- a design thinker as opposed to a creationist -- was quite correct to rebut thusly:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [Emphasis added.] [The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
GEM of TKI PS: More details here.kairosfocus_{September 4, 2010
September
09
Sep
4
04
2010
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

MathGrrl - Would you feel better about things if we used the term "the modern synthesis" instead of Darwinism? They mean the exact same thing. The difference is that people know what you are talking about if you say "Darwinism" and they don't know what you're talking about if you say "modern synthesis". So it is pretty obvious which term is preferable in public conversation. The only people who object are those trying to obscure the debate. We are being quite precise when we say that our objection is with Darwinism, as many in the ID movement are neo-Lamarckians. The only thing contained in that wikipedia article was innuendo - there is no difference in meaning for the term as used by IDers or creationists.johnnyb_{September 4, 2010
September
09
Sep
4
04
2010
04:59 AM
4
04
59
AM
PDT}

Cabal: Sorry, but in light of what I can see in the Lee manifesto [cf. 18 supra] vs what I am hearing from your remarks (and those of others of like ilk), I am led to infer that you are indulging the rhetoric of distancing of the inconvenient. First of all, kindly observe the actual key protest in the original post:
when a gunman inspired by Darwinism takes hostages at the offices of the Discovery Channel, reporters seem curiously uninterested in fully disclosing the criminal’s own self-described motivations. Most of yesterday’s media reports about hostage-taker James Lee dutifully reported Lee’s eco-extremism and his pathological hatred for humanity. But they also suppressed any mention of Lee’s explicit appeals to Darwin and Malthus as the intellectual foundations for his views . . .
That is, the objection is that there is a sacred cow, where darwinist and associated ideas are effectively immunised from critical examination when it comes to adverse societal implications and consequences. By contrast, had the crazed gunman been associated with the Christian faith or other ideas that are similarly out of favour with the media elites, that context would indubitably have been trumpeted. (Indeed, the recent cabbie stabbing incident in NY shows how such will be suggested, even where the evidence points in other directions.) In short, fundamentally, this is a protest about media [and power elite] bias and agendas. Now, Mr Lee's context was plainly shaped by a neo-Malthusian apocalypticism that is a commonplace of environmental radicalism, which it so happens is also rooted in the pool of ideas that shaped the darwinian frame of thought, right from the outset. In the introduction to Origin [1872 Edn], we may simply and directly read:
. . . In the next chapter the Struggle for Existence amongst all organic beings throughout the world, which inevitably follows from the high geometrical ratio of their increase, will be considered. This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms. As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive; and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form. This fundamental subject of Natural Selection will be treated at some length in the fourth chapter; and we shall then see how Natural Selection almost inevitably causes much Extinction of the less improved forms of life, and leads to what I have called Divergence of Character . . .
Now, today, we will see Natural selection typically defined thusly:
Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution. The natural genetic variation within a population of organisms may cause some individuals to survive and reproduce more successfully than others in their current environment. Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution. The natural genetic variation within a population of organisms may cause some individuals to survive and reproduce more successfully than others in their current environment . . . [Wiki]
In short, while duly noting the more developed ideas on engines of variation that Darwin did not know about, we can plainly see the continuity in the ideas. The intellectual stronghold of Darwinism is therefore a key underpinning to the plausibility of today's neo-Malthusianism. So, it is utterly unsurprising to see Mr Lee demanding . . .
“forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science> and the problem of human overpopulation . . . ”
. . . in his opening, theme-setting remarks, as I pointed out in 18 above. In short, Lee did accurately transmit the ideas he was taught and became obsessed over, but failed to govern himself morally in his means of advocacy, resorting to violence. His derangement then led him to imagine that his favourite TV channel could -- by promoting the views he espoused -- transform the course of policy and behaviour of the public. His final act of derangement was in how he acted out: grab hostages and try to get things his way at gunpoint. In turn, this brings to the surface something that is a key point of contrast between the Judaeo-Christian, theistic worldview and the radically secularist evolutionary materialism that would replace it: core ethical principles. Moshe and Jesus jointly teach us that we should govern ourselves by neighbour love rooted in the fact that we are equally created in God's image and have a dignity such that to abuse a fellow human being is to offend the One who made us all. The often "misunderestimated" Paul therefore summarised the ethical import of this view thusly, in Rom 13:8b - 10:
Rom 13::8 . . . he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet,"[a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b] 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
So, while indeed the deranged and the just plain ordinary fallible, fallen, and ill-willed do defy such principles, the principles are there as major resources that are often underscored and serve as key societal restraints. Consequently, they have played a pivotal role in the history of the rise of liberty, as say the US Declaration of Independence shows in its crucial 2nd paragraph, that begins with the affirmation of Creation-rooted equality as the ground for unalienable rights to be secured by just government. At worldview level, since the Judaeo-Christian tradition is rooted in the inherently good Creator-God, it has a foundational is that grounds ought. It also calls on us to turn to the transforming power of that Transcendent, to find the way towards walking in the light, not living in the dark. We have significant freedom, meaning and hope, anchored in him who rose from Death, with 500 witnesses. By contrast, when we consult Cornell professor William Provine in his well-known 1998 Darwin Day address at U of Tennessee (a highly significant venue, given what happened in that state in the 1920's), we hear:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them . . . . How can we have meaning in life? When we die we are really dead; nothing of us survives. Natural selection is a process leading every species almost certainly to extinction . . . [Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life, Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration Keynote Address, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, February 12, 1998 (abstract).]
In short, Provine here brings out the inherent amorality, determinism and despair of evolutionary materialism with great force. He tries to put a brave face on it, arguing that even though we have no meaning, we can in effect invent a meaning for ourselves. Thus, he inadvertently reveals that he cannot live with meaninglessness and malthusian doom [to be culminated in the immolation of the solar system as our sun ages]; a hint that we are more, much more than he can admit on his worldview. Is it any wonder that such hopeless despair and doom can lead an unbalanced person to foolishly desperate action? And, it is therefore no wonder that the wedge of critical analysis and truth would be driven in between the tentacles of such despair and our civilisation, in a rescue attempt. For: 1 --> The underlying Malthusian vision ignores the power of the creative intelligence to transform the resource base of our world. 2 --> So instead of the inevitably doomed contention between geometrically increasing populations and arithmetically increasing productivity with static technology, since the 1800's we have dramatically increased life expectancy and standards of living while the population has soared [in large part due to improved public health so that children survive to reach reproductive age]. 3 --> Today, the ordinary person in many countries lives at a level undreamed of by kings and the richest merchants of but a few centuries past. 4 --> This, because of the power of scientifically based technological development. 5 --> We should celebrate that, instead of so over-emphasising the challenge posed by problems, to create a crisis mentality; the precise desperation-driven mindset that led Mr Lee to snap. 6 --> Yes, there are stresses on resources, and there are serious questions on environmental degradation, pollution etc [exaggerations and over-reading of dubious computer models and timeline massaging by questionable statistical processing notwithstanding], but we have long known where solutions will come from: progress in understanding of our world and progress in applying that understanding to create new opportunities. 7 --> So, we should cultivate a mindset of hope, mutual respect and restraint, dedication to sustainable progress, and mutual support, not a crisis mentality that only serves to empower those with agendas that they want to "mainstream," too often without any truly balanced assessment. 8 --> And, we should be sufficiently mature that we can fairly and squarely address the issues of evolutionary materialism for society, without needing to suppress the ways in which malthusian-Darwinian thought has been used to push agendas that have turned out to be ill-informed or abusive or both. ___________________ I trust the suggestions in 27 above will help us move in that direction. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 4, 2010
September
09
Sep
4
04
2010
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden:
The media … don’t report that it was a Darwinist that did so and so motivated by his/her belief. Nothing intellectually dishonest here.
Really? IMHO it is even worse than that: Not just the usual media slanted reporting but from the Parnassos of Intelligent Design itself. Maybe not intellectual dishonesty, just the common denigration of anything that may reflect unfavourably on evolution: From scordovas OP:
John West of the Discovery Institute Reports: But when a gunman inspired by Darwinism takes hostages at the offices of the Discovery Channel...
scordova continues further down in the thread with:
Evolutionary theory is not objective and verifiable. It is speculative and frequently refuted and without scientific merit.
By replacing “Evolutionary theory” with “Intelligent Design”, his statement becomes more relevant with respect to reality. In my opinion, as far as the level of discourse in this thread goes; if that is the best ID proponents have to offer, I don’t see any future for ID. I don’t even see any value of ID in the present either. Except of course for its designed purpose of being a wedge.Cabal_{September 4, 2010
September
09
Sep
4
04
2010
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT}

MathGirl: You're new. Just a few things. First, from your screen name, and your reference to physics, I suspect that your field is in astrophysics, or something similar. This is pertinent since even biologists presume that Darwinism is firmly grounded, and, if your area is outside of biology, you might be even more sure that a solid evidentiary foundation exists. The fact is, this foundation does not exist. That is the basis of the ID challenge. Second, over the years here at ID, Darwinists have objected to our use of terms as innoccous as the Modern Synthesis, neo-Darwinism, and Darwinism. So, it really doesn't matter what term we use, they'll object---and fail to provide a term that can be used. Using Darwinism is a useful shorthand for this blog. Generally it refers to the historical line connecting Darwin's speculations, neo-Darwinian adaptation of Mendelian genetics, and lastly, the Modern Synthesis. That is generally what it refers to here. Third, Darwinism does contain within itself the seeds of social applications. It has, at times, spilled over into mainstream culture with identifiable by-products; namely, eugenics, German/Hitlerian Anti-Semitism, and, of course, brands of atheism/materialism whose leading icon is Richard Dawkins. This particular thread deals with this latter understanding. So you, and all of us, have to distinguish which meaning we're referring to when we use the term Darwinism. (Generally the context makes clear the particular use we're applying) If you want to provide us with the abundance of evidence that supports Darwin's musings, then please feel free to do so; and, likewise, I'll feel free to respond.PaV_{September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

SC: Good to see you bring our attention back to the Klinghoffer article. Any takers? Gkairosfocus_{September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

Breaking News: David Klinghoffer adds more at EvolutionNews. See: More on the Darwin (and Obama) Angles in the Discovery Channel Hostage Episodescordova_{September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people's brains until they get it!! Darwinist Gunman Lee
That could be the slogan for PandasThumb, the NCSE, Nick Matzke, TalkOrigin.org, and Wes Elsberry's ATBC!scordova_{September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

Thanks tgpeeler that was directly to the point,, I think Perry Marshall is also fairly to the point about the 'monstrous ravine' that runs between material processes and functional information: The DNA Code - Solid Scientific Proof Of Intelligent Design - Perry Marshall - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060532 further notes: "A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor). It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. ,,,there is no known law of nature and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. Werner Gitt 1997 In The Beginning Was Information pp. 64-67, 79, 107." (The retired Dr Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology.) “Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible” Donald E. Johnson – Bioinformatics: The Information in Life Biophysicist Hubert Yockey determined that natural selection would have to explore 1.40 x 10^70 different genetic codes to discover the optimal universal genetic code that is found in nature. The maximum amount of time available for it to originate is 6.3 x 10^15 seconds. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that is optimal. Put simply, natural selection lacks the time necessary to find the optimal universal genetic code we find in nature. (Fazale Rana, -The Cell's Design - 2008 - page 177) Ode to the Code - Brian Hayes The few variant codes known in protozoa and organelles are thought to be offshoots of the standard code, but there is no evidence that the changes to the codon table offer any adaptive advantage. In fact, Freeland, Knight, Landweber and Hurst found that the variants are inferior or at best equal to the standard code. It seems hard to account for these facts without retreating at least part of the way back to the frozen-accident theory, conceding that the code was subject to change only in a former age of miracles, which we'll never see again in the modern world. https://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/ode-to-the-code/4 Deciphering Design in the Genetic Code Excerpt: When researchers calculated the error-minimization capacity of one million randomly generated genetic codes, they discovered that the error-minimization values formed a distribution where the naturally occurring genetic code's capacity occurred outside the distribution. Researchers estimate the existence of 10 possible genetic codes possessing the same type and degree of redundancy as the universal genetic code. All of these codes fall within the error-minimization distribution. This finding means that of the 10 possible genetic codes, few, if any, have an error-minimization capacity that approaches the code found universally in nature. http://www.reasons.org/biology/biochemical-design/fyi-id-dna-deciphering-design-genetic-code DNA - The Genetic Code - Optimal Error Minimization & Parallel Codes - Dr. Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491422 Nick Lane Takes on the Origin of Life and DNA - Jonathan McLatchie - July 2010 Excerpt: It appears then, that the genetic code has been put together in view of minimizing not just the occurence of amino acid substitution mutations, but also the detrimental effects that would result when amino acid substitution mutations do occur. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/nick_lane_and_the_ten_great_in036101.html etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77_{September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

BA @ 4 "The fact is that there is not one single instance of the purely material processes creating any functional information whatsoever!!!" This is true and I'll take a second to tell Mathgrrl why it will always be true. Mathgrrl, to keep this really simple it goes like this. In order to create information, there are at least three necessary conditions that must exist. There must be 1) a symbol set (an alphabet, say), 2) a set of rules for arranging those symbols in certain ways so as to encode meaning (vocabulary and grammar), and 3) a means of freely manipulating those symbols according to the rules, to generate information (a mind). If you are a naturalist/materialist/physicalist then you realize that your explanations for everything start and end with the laws of physics. That's what naturalism means, after all. See the "causal closure of nature." But the laws of physics fail to account for all three of these necessary conditions. So the problem is simply beyond the explanatory powers of naturalism. Physics can never speak to the set of symbols. Why certain letters, pictograms, scents, chemicals, dots (braille), and so on mean what they do. Physics can never speak to the rules for the arrangement of those symbols. Why do the words "dog" and "Hund" refer to the same kind of mammal? Physics has nothing to say about this nor will it ever. Physics can also not explain the "free" will required to select the symbols and arrange them according to the rules. For if the symbols were selected on the basis of some law based algorithm then one would be presented with either a string of AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA (for example) or gibberish. So this is the problem in a nutshell. Naturalists, although they claim to stand on the intellectual high ground, actually reject reason, and for this reason alone can safely be ignored if the conversation is about anything that matters to human beings. It's quite funny in one way and very sad in another.tgpeeler_{September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

F/N: Instead of a sterile debate in a poisonous rhetorical atmosphere, let us instead discuss possibilities for a positive future that uses the human capacity to intelligently analyse the possibilities of the forces and materials of the world, to create opportunities for a future that gets us out of the neo-Malthusian trap. As sparkers for thought: 1 --> Energy is the key resource for everything else. So, long term, fusion, shorter term, I think new wave fission such as developments of pebble bed technology offer us a way forward. 2 --> Information technologies, though they are rooted in some of the dirtiest industries of all [look up what happens with Si chip fabrication . . . ] are a key intellectual power multiplier, so this technology should be given a priority, on both hard and soft sides. 3 --> The modularity principle would allow things to be localised, reducing the need for massive conurbations, that seem to have largely become ungovernable. Technologies should be as modular as possible, and as networkee as possible to take advantage of network economics. 4 --> Timber is the major construction resource, so we should look to sustainable timbers, especially the potential of processed bamboos based on species such as Guadua angustifolia [100', 5 - 7 y, higher growth density than pine forests]. Bamboo and the like also can make paper. 5 --> A lot of construction of relatively light structures can move to technologies such as bamboo bahareque, through a modern version of wattle-daub. 6 --> The automotive industry needs to go fuel cell long run, shorter run, I like things like algae oil [couple coal plants to feed bio oils grown by algae, cutting emissions 50%], and I think if we can do butanol in a fermenter cost effectively, we are looking at 1:1 for gasoline for Otto cycle engines. 7 --> That brings up biotech. We need a big thrust to get cells to manufacture as much of our chemistry as we can, industrial and pharmaceutical. Bugs will do it for us, on the cheap, once they are reprogrammed. (Remember, they are existing Von Neumann replicator technologies.) 8 --> Wind and solar will probably remain fringe but useful technologies. With one major exception, we need to look back to sailing schooners as small regional carriers in a post oil world. 9 --> Rail is the most inherently efficient bulk mover land transportation system, so we need to look to how that could be regenerated -- subsidies, overt and hidden, killed rail. 10 --> We need to look to aquaculture and high tech agriculture to feed ourselves. 11 --> We need to break out of Terra, using our moon as staging base -- 1/6 gravity makes everything so much easier to do, with Mars as the first main target. Beyond Mars, the Asteroid belt. 12 --> Transform these and we are looking at real estate to absorb a huge onward population. 13 --> As a long shot, high risk high payoff investment, physics needs to look at something that can get us an interstellar drive and transportation system. 14 --> So, investment in high energy accelerators and related physics and astronomy should be seen as a long term investment of high risk but potentially galaxy-scale [or bigger?] payoff. 15 --> Settling the Solar system takes the potential human population to the dozens of billions. 16 --> If we can break out and find terraformable star systems beyond, the sky is literally the limit, even if we are restricted to a habitable zone band in our galaxy. (For, we are dealing with potentially millions of star systems.) _____________________ Now, wouldn't it have made a big difference if we had been discussing these sorts of possibilities instead of the eco-collapse, climate collapse and over-population themes that serve little purpose but to drive people to desperation -- and into the arms of those who offer convenient "solutions"? GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

math, The entire body is made up of context-specific reactions and interplay between chemical constituents which have nothing whatsoever to do with each other outside of the context of the system they are coordinated within. cAMP has absolutely nothing to do with glucose. Cytosine-Thymine-Adenine is a chemical symbol mapped to Leucine based upon an arbitrary rule. " Two aspects of this particular genomic computation deserve special mention. The first aspect is that the computation involves many molecules and compartments of the cell, not just DNA and DNA binding proteins. For example, the membrane transport proteins LacY and IIAGlc are essential. The second noteworthy aspect is that the computation involves the use of chemical symbolism as information is transmitted. Thus, the presence of allolactose inducer represents the availability of lactose and the ability of the cell to synthesize functional LacY and LacZ. Similarly, the concentrations of IIAGlc-P and cAMP represent the availability of glucose to the cell. Both whole cell involvement and transient chemical symbols are typical of cellular computation and signal transduction in general. " - James Shapiro, University of Chicago Biology Dept - - - - - - "In its information processing, the cell makes use of transient information about ambient conditions and internal operations. This information is carried by environmental constituents and signals received from other cells and organisms. The cell’s receptors and signal transduction networks transform this transient information into various chemical forms (second messengers, modified proteins, lipids, polysaccharides and nucleic acids) that feed into the operation of cell proliferation, checkpoints, and cellular or multicellular developmental programs. These chemical forms act as symbols that allow the cell to form a virtual representation of its functional status and its surroundings. My argument here is that any successful 21st century description of biological functions will include control models that incorporate cellular decisions based on symbolic representations." - James Shapiro, University of Chicago Biology Dept - - - - - Off the the day...later allUpright BiPed_{September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

PS: I forgot: a return to a hunter-gatherer [and I assume subsistence farming] culture would probably collapse the global population to the order of 100's of mns. Consider the moral issues connected to that.kairosfocus_{September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

MG: Unfortunately, Wikipedia on topics like this is a particularly unreliable and one-sided source. As are too many others. The Neo-Darwinian synthesis, often shortened to "Darwinism," as of last count, was still the predominant school in evolutionary biology, and as a core level paradigm it embeds a great many worldview level elements. In particular, in the dominant forms, it is strongly associated with evolutionary materialism [a descriptive term of a worldview and associated knowledge claims dating back to beyond Plato, but given prominence again over the past 150 years, under a scientific rubric], and also with both metaphysically a priori materialism a la Lewontin et al, and the methodological "soft from" often used in debates when objections are made. It is that cluster of associations that makes the term controversial, but the term plainly has merit; it is not essentially corrupted into the sort of smear-by-label that terms like "fundamentalism" and "[Biblical] Creationist" have largely become. And this last, at the hands of secularists and their publicists. So, the term "Darwinist" is not inherently abusive. It so happens that evolutionary materialism -- the a priori that drives much current hydrogen to humans evolutionary thought, including much of the claimed account for body plan level biodiversity by and large on chance variation and natural selection that is the specific concern of NDT and its minor competitors -- is inherently amoral, having no bridge to cross the gap between is and ought. That makes it persistently controversial, and the ways in which it and its linear ancestors historically have come to serve as ideological rationales or roots for associated movements that have been harmful, raises serious questions that need to be faced, not ducked or dismissed. I suggest you look at the Weak Argument Correctives on this and related terms. Then, I suggest the thread may profit from your more specific examination of the thought of the more serious people Mr Lee was reading, like Daniel Quinn in My Ishmael. As a Kirkus review summarises:
Another irresistible rant from Quinn, a sequel to his Turner Tomorrow Fellowship winner, Ishmael (1992), concerning a great, telepathic ape who dispenses ecological wisdom about the possible doom of humankind. Once more, Quinn focuses on the Leavers and Takers, his terms for the two basic, warring kinds of human sensibility. The planet's original inhabitants, the Leavers, were nomadic people who did no harm to the earth. The Takers, who have generally overwhelmed them, began as aggressive farmers obsessed with growth, were the builders of cities and empires, and have now, in the late 20th century, largely run out of space to monopolize. Quinn's books have not featured many memorable characters, aside from Ishmael. This time out, though, he invents a lively figure, 12-year-old Julie Gerchak, who is tough and wise beyond her years, having had to deal with a self-destructive, alcoholic mother. Julie responds to Ishmael's ad seeking a pupil with an earnest desire to save the world (a conceit carried over from the earlier novel). Once again, the gentle ape shares his wisdom in a series of questions and answers that resemble, in method, a blend of the Socratic dialogues and programmed learning. Moving beyond his theories about Leavers and Takers, Ishmael presents a detailed critique of educational systems around the world, suggesting that their function is not to usefully educate but to regulate the flow of workers into a Taker society. This is all very well, but what does Ishmael/Quinn suggest be done to redeem the Takers, and to save the earth? Quinn seems to want to sketch out how change might come about, but it's never fully explored. Instead, the novel is increasingly taken up with the mysteries surrounding Ishmael's travels and fate. This is the weakest of Quinn's novels, but his ideas are as thought-provoking as ever, even so.
There is now a trend in which many major issues are being fought out at popular level through slanted movies, popular books/novels [Dan Brown . . . ], and "news," rhather than being seriously grappled with on the merits. Ideas have consequences, especially when they become the dominant forces of key institutions in a culture. So, we would be a lot more comfortable if there were more frequent signs in these pages of a serious grappling with moral-cultural issues connected to the presence of Darwinist thought in our civilisation over these past 150 years GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT}

johnnyb,
Darwinism is a well-established term in molecular biology, with a well-defined meaning. Why do you have trouble with the term?
Wikipedia summarizes the problems with the term here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism in the section "Other uses".MathGrrl_{September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Upright Biped,
What reasearch over the past century and a half indicates that inanimate matter can establish symbols systems so evolution (in whatever and any form you wish to believe in it) can even occur in the first place?
This sounds like you might have an interesting question, but I'm having difficulty understanding exactly what problem you are articulating. Could you expand upon it a bit, please?MathGrrl_{September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

Pardon, Klinghoffer.kairosfocus_{September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

PPS: Kinkghoffer has a more elaborate analysis that makes the same basic point [though I am not interested in the Obama connexion he also makes].kairosfocus_{September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

PS: The insane are often extremely logical. It is their premises and perceptions that cause them to lose contact with reality and to forfeit common-sense restraints.kairosfocus_{September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT}

F/N: The efforts at distancing, sadly, are more revealing than the actual case of a man so ideologised he lost moral balance. A glance at the manifesto shows: 1: eco-extremism "save the planet" 2: Point no 1, setting his theme, proclaims inter alia a call for "forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human overpopulation." 3: Thus, he correctly understands that Darwin's theory is rooted in a particular view of Malthus' views on population and resource crowding out; multiplied by survival of he fittest and unlimited variation leading to preservation of favoured races. (The connexions to eco-extremism from Darwinism are obvious in that light.) 4: The difference of Lee's eco extremism from say Galtonian eugenicism or Social Darwinism or aryan racial superiority nazism, is that in Mr Lee's view the whole human race is unfavoured and should be eliminated or at least drastically curtailed from being a pollutant/filth: "programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions . . . All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it" 5: His ire at civilisation -- and by fairly direct implication of "greed" as a code-word [yup,even fundy yahoos can read subtexts too] for Western, Capitalist socio-economic systems -- is particularly revealing, given the connexion between morality and worldview roots: "Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is. That, and all its disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed." 6: It turns out that his anchor baby objection is a spin on the population increase as pollutant/filth theme that drives so much of the rant: "Find solutions FOR these countries so they stop sending their breeding populations to the US and the world to seek jobs and therefore breed more unwanted pollution babies. FIND SOLUTIONS FOR THEM TO STOP THEIR HUMAN GROWTH AND THE EXPORTATION OF THAT DISGUSTING FILTH!" 7: He brings his eco-extremism to the focus, demanding -- he has absorbed the ""solutions" marketing buzz word: "solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don't build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet! " 8: He then returns to the Malthus-Darwin connexion: "Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people's brains until they get it!!" 9: He calls for the end of humanity: "Saving the Planet means saving what's left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!" 10: His misanthropy then culminates: "Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what's left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture . . . . Children represent FUTURE catastrophic pollution whereas their parents are current pollution. NO MORE BABIES!" ______________________ In short, it is pretty clear that the popularisation of evolutionary materialistic thought, in a context of radical environmentalism -- cf Pianka et al on this -- and amorality, have triggered this unstable man into an act of madness that cost him his life and could have cost much more. We need to think very soberly on the implications of commonly promoted origins science ideas for society. And, despite Mev6's attempts to deflect the focus, the issue of media bias on this case will not go away. Mr Lee was deranged, but -- as Keynes warned ever so long ago now -- the madman distilling fantasies out of the trends of the times [Hitler was another] is the canary in the mines, warning us of the poisonous currents in the air. Including those tracing to evolutionary materialism and its fellow traveller speculations. So, the sharp contrast between ever so sharply headlined right-wing fundy capitalistic crazies and silence on the motivations of malthusian darwinist eco-socialist global radicalist ones, is telling. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 3, 2010
September
09
Sep
3
03
2010
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

James Lee was a nut, so it's hard to decipher his thinking processes. However, looking at his manifesto, the only mentions of Darwin or evolution are:
...agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human overpopulation.
and
Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people's brains until they get it!!
It's hard to extrapolate from only two samples, but it would seem that Lee was mostly concerned with population pressures - he didn't mention darwin or evolution in any separate context apart from Malthus or 'overpopulation'. Certainly, population pressures have a part to play in evolution, but that's a longer term impact that doesn't seem to agree with the rest of his statements, which seem more related to what happens when a population grows beyond the available food supply. It doesn't appear that the bulk of what constitutes the ToE had much to do with his 'thinking', such as it was. He could have left out any mention of Darwin/evolution and it wouldn't have changed the overall statement of his views one bit. From what I've read in the media, they've tended to use words like "radical environmentalist", etc. That seems a little more accurate, but misses the mark too IMHO. About the only really accurate word is "deranged", period.mikev6_{September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT}

I was moved by this paragraph on the deranged Darwinist at Crevo: Malthusian Maniac Killed Before Killing Hostages Excerpt: One of Lee’s statements demanded saving the lions, tigers, giraffes, elephants, ants, beetles and other animals, but then he said, “The humans? The planet does not need humans.” This shows he was a nutcase, because he could not think logically about evolution. If humans arose by a Darwinian process, then they are just as much a part of nature as beetles, and whatever they do is just as amoral, meaningless and purposeless as any other part. If humans wipe out all other life, so what? Why would Lee care? His anguish is a desperate cry from his soul. Despite his love for Darwin, he could not extricate himself from the image of God imprinted in his being. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201009.htm#20100902abornagain77_{September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

AMEN. The media has a opinion and agenda on how the American people should think. Therefore they would not undercut evolutionism by disclosing this as a motive. Just as they would bang a drum if it had been a creationist with a creationist agenda behind the crimes. The establishment and so its media is a team player for the great ideas of modern America. The list is long on how and what they mislead and withhold from the people. It is a conspiracy of a elite establishment determined to impose its will and whim on American thought and life. Why else be in journalism?Robert Byers_{September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

NZer@13, Please explain how you know what mathgrrl's "world view" is, what the world view is, and why this world view would prevent her from making an assessment that someone is mentally ill?zeroseven_{September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

MathGrrl - Darwinism is a well-established term in molecular biology, with a well-defined meaning. Why do you have trouble with the term?johnnyb_{September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT}

Sounds like Mathgrrl has been well programmed by the establishment. She/he is just regurgitating the same old same old liberal spuke that we hear over and over again. Yawn... Mathgrrl wrote: "...are so eager to smear evolutionary biologists by association with the mentally ill individual who took the hostages..." Well, given your worldview Mathgrrl, how do you know that the individual in question was mentally ill? Perhaps it is you that suffers so, and the now deceased is (was) the one actually living consistently with the worldview he espoused.NZer_{September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

"It is simply not possible to make a statement like that without ignoring a truly phenomenal amount of scientific research over the past century and a half." Your statement carries a lot of punch. Surely it is loaded with the requisite back up to enforce its certainty, correct? What reasearch over the past century and a half indicates that inanimate matter can establish symbols systems so evolution (in whatever and any form you wish to believe in it) can even occur in the first place?Upright BiPed_{September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

Mathgrrl you state: 'If you reject science a priori because of your religious beliefs, you should at least be up front about it.' Glad you agree so wholeheartedly,, so will you now be up front about your religion? Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. - Michael Ruse - Darwinian Atheist and Eminent scientific philosopher William Provine Lays Out The True Implications Of Evolution - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109249 ---- But this is all beside the point Mathgrrl,,, I'm still waiting for you to point me to the proof of material processes generating functional information?!? Or are you holding out because you want the million dollar prize yourself??? The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/agbornagain77_{September 2, 2010
September
09
Sep
2
02
2010
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply