You wrote:

Whether there is a tendency from simpler to more complex life-forms is a hotly debated question

The whole Darwinist deal is that simple life forms eventually become complex. If it were not so how could human beings have arisen from unicellular organisms? Dawkins and Gould can argue as much and as ridiculously as they like (or could, if they were both still alive) but it doesn’t alter the fact the whole point of Darwinism, a point that is understood by almost everyone in the entire world who has had at least a secondary education, is to explain how life developed into all its myriad, complex forms from something that was so simple that it was alive and that’s about all that can be said about it.

As for premise (3) not being part of Darwinism, it was, for Darwin, crucial. See Adrian Desmond and James Moore’s biography of the man (“Darwin”) where, on page 623, they quote him as writing that if the “plain language” of the New Testament were true then it would seem, “to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.”

Furthermore, regarding the naturalistic fallacy, I know that ordinarily one cannot say from what “is” what “ought to be” but this is not, nor has it ever been, about the bare facts of natural processes. This is nothing like arguing whether or not water ought to be wet or whether electric shocks ought to hurt. It has always been about the “progress” of living creatures, about moving forward and becoming more highly evolved, i.e., getting “better”. For most people, even post Hitler, it still is. There are still people who, like Teilhard de Chardin, are expecting us to eventually evolve into something less physical and more “spiritual”. So I have to ask the question my mother used to ask me when I was a rebellious teenaged girl, “Is the whole world wrong and you right?” In other words, just because there is such a thing as the naturalistic fallacy which says that “is” should not be conflated with “ought” what reasons do you have for thinking that it applies in this situation where, from the beginning, “ought” was a foundational consideration?

There comes a point when academic quibbling becomes less a search for clarity and more a source of confusion.

Assume Darwinism is categorically proven to be true (hard to do, you may think, but use your imagination) – should it be suppressed”

I think the fact that there are: suicidal people who are clearly not trying to cling to life, homosexuals who are clearly not intent on reproducing, Rich people who still number fewer than lower classes and organisms who help one another for a mutual good rather than going at one another’s throat is darwinism(at least from a philosophical perspective) refuted.

Another thing next time you’re in a super market or public place look at who it is who usually has the most children, is she the most beautiful looking mate or is she simply some cheap fluzie?
Trying to pay for juice and chips with her W.I.C. food stamps that reak from cheap beer and vomit from the night before?

Humanity contradicts Darwin and an ideology contradicted is an ideology dead.

The west has been living with a corpse for the past 80 years. Waiting for it to preach messages of progress and hope but all in all they have no more comfort after his death than they did before it.

They wish to link themselves to nature to find peace and a place in the world, to find purpose and meaning.
In reality the only thing we have in common with the other organisms of this earth is that our beauty and glory is fading.

There is nothing worth beholding, there is nothing worth saving,
There is no superiority,
there is though equality.
It exists in the cemetary.

We do a lot of goading here. What’s interesting is that those who believe neo Darwinism is valid science initially assume they are on the correct side of the science and those who support ID are not. I think it comes from their initial prejudice that ID is creationism and creationists are working with bogus science.

I do not think many of those who come to challenge ID leave here with that initial impression. A lot get angry, a lot just disappear but the interesting thing is that few stay and see/admit our point of view is worthy of consideration.

I understand you are a philosophy teacher and my aptitude for philosophy was not very high though I have come to love Plato even when he is wrong he was thinking clearly. Just in 400 BC he didn’t have all the knowledge we have today.

I also love history whether it be science, ideas or just events. I have been to Greece twice both times exploring what happend 2500 years ago. But I certainly could not debate anyone on epistemology. It was always an elusive subject.

Truth be told, I’m not really interested in debating whether or not “neo-Darwinism” is true. (Although I could be goaded into such a discussion, I guess.)

My training is in epistemology and history of ideas. I’m much more interested in discussing the implications of neo-Darwinism, and especially in distinguishing between valid inferences drawn from neo-Darwinism and invalid (but still psychologically powerful and persuasive!) associations.

But that’s just me and where I’m coming from.

I would love to discuss the validity of Darwin’s ideas as science and so would most of the contributers here. gpuccio just made the following comment on another thread a couple hours ago

“That’s the problem with darwinian “arguments”: you never get a true answer when you make specific objections, only retorical, vague or self-referential discussions, or just the conformistic referral to established authority.”

So there are always many issues floating around here and the one at the core is whether neo Darwinism in any of its variants represents good science. And as I said above, if it doesn’t then those who promulgate it are enablers to a lot of nasty things that have happened and may happen in the future.

We believe that neo Darwinism is invalid and those who defend it are “spinning” in some of the most egregious ways imaginable.

If you want to debate either,

1. that neo Darwinism is bogus science

2. those who defend it are doing nothing but spinning

proceed. It essentially is repeated here daily but there is always something to learn.

Assume Darwinism is categorically proven to be true (hard to do, you may think, but use your imagination) – should it be suppressed?

And what a pitiful ideology they follow instead.
Darwin’s belief in glorious creation is so repulsive it’s as though he believed there was beauty in a permanent sense.

In one breath he acknowledges the human eye is flawed and in the next he then uses that same organ to tell what is wonderous about the physical world.

I guess that could be said about all of science though.

“Oh these are facts beyond any range of doubt, never mind any data that is gathered is still subject to our completely flawed interpretation. Reality is my way and no one else’s!!!!!!!!!”

The scientific method will always be limited to the human mind assembling the evidence…

I wonder though, what evidence is there that existence operates in the consistant manner we think it does beyond our own conception of that existence?
What is the proof that reality is anything greater than the day dreams of some lazy being?

Of course there is no answer to that argument because I am already stating that the issue is beyond us but still… People take their truths to a level that is absurd.

If reality is so orderly and easily defined I guess paradoxes and contradictions are just a figment of my imagination.

And since Darwin relied on survival of the fit we should hand out kill off the mentally handicapped and put to death anyone who presents competition to us….

Yeah the world of diplomacy will do much better with that idiotic concept of self importance.
(Hey!, maybe that’s why my country does so poor on the political stage… they’re Darwinists!!)

“Submit to my will or die! muahahaha”

Darwin’s racist views are funny…
I’m the opposite of Darwin there is nothing beautiful to behold. None of us are special, all matter is made of the same basic components and therefor one human being is worth no more than another or than the dog crap I scraped off my shoe on the way in for that matter.

Everything you are and everything you will ever accomplish will one day be forgotten and you like the leaves on the trees outside will wither and rot…

If truth and reason don’t matter, then sure, it’s all about “spin” and public perception. In that case, then you’d be right — the mere fact of psychological association would be enough to convict “Darwinism.”

But if truth and reason do matter, then what is believed isn’t enough; we also want to know if people have good reasons for their beliefs.

I’m not saying that “Darwinism” doesn’t have implications for metaphysics, for ethics, and even for politics. But we had best be very careful in distinguishing between logical implications and socio-psychological (causally mediated) effects, to the degree that it is possible to make such a distinction.

Trying to sort out the logic. Supposed Darwinism is used to support a policy. It does not make any difference whether the theory is true or false, the fact that it used and believed is the only thing of relevance. If it was not believed generally, then it would tend to undermine the proscribed policies. So whether it is true or false maybe somewhat irrelevant in the short run when all that matters is perception.

So I have to disagree with you and say that there is a direct relationship between belief in Darwinism and such nilhistic philosophies as nazism and communism, both variants of socialism. If Darwinism was not believed, then it would have been harder to justify either of the two. You could also make an argument that the Nazis learned from the communists since the later had already implemented their system by the time the Nazis arrived on the scene. The Nazi oppressed people were the Jews and some other non-Aryans. The communist oppressed people were a more eclectic group but equally and brutally oppressed.

Yes, each had a host of other bogus underpinnings to their systems but that does not make Darwinism not relevant. One may be able to argue that the other underpinning might have fallen apart logically if Darwinism was not true. You seem to want to make the argument that Darwinism was of little consequence. Why try to wave away the obvious.

Now consider the case that Darwin is not true science and those who espouse it then become enablers to those like the Nazis and the communist.

Janice, you’re right to point out that a valid argument can have false premises (in which case one would say that the argument is valid but not sound).

Having said that, the only premise above which is uncontroversially part of “Darwinism” is premise (2). Whether there is a tendency from simpler to more complex life-forms is a hotly debated question (e.g. between Gould and Dawkins), and in any event, “Darwinism” as I understand it is simply silent about “the primitive” and “the cultured”.

Premise (3) may be a consequence of “Darwinism” but is certainly not a part of it, as the ongoing debates between theistic evolutionists and atheistic evolutionists attest — they are not disagreeing about the theory itself, but about whether the theory is compatible with certain metaphysical commitments.

In any event — and here’s the real heart of the matter! — the above argument commits what is called “the naturalistic fallacy”. This means that it derives some statement about how things ought to be (i.e. how the Germans ought to treat other peoples) from some statement about how things are (i.e. that all living things struggle for existence).

I myself am not too sure whether the naturalistic fallacy is genuinely fallacious. Sometimes I worry that it pushes the realms of fact and value too far apart. But I also think that something like the naturalistic fallacy has got to be right.