Evolution And Liberalism

[Springer 5]

I see evolution primarily as an ideology. It has become clear to me on this forum that those who embrace evolution tend to be liberal thinkers. Is it not true that a belief in evolution goes hand in hand with liberal thinking in general? The next question is: Does a preconceived belief in liberalism lead to evolutionary thinking, or does evolutionism lead to liberalism?

[Nominal 0]

Depends on what you mean by “liberalismâ€ÂÂ’.

 

The popular media-biased term seems to be one of an upscale guy with a detachable pony-tail extension who enjoys pot-smoking, is politically active, inspired by Barbra Steisand, Al Franken et al uses hemp products…thinks Rosie O’Donnell is intelligent & hot..

 

Liberalism- or Republican Liberalism is regarded as a major guiding principle of modern democracy.& the founding of the U.S. Constitutional government.

 

That said – it’s concerned more with socioeconomic & commercial issues rather than biological studies, or theoretical sciences (if you want to view evolutionary biology in this light)….so the connection's a bit tenuous.

 

But if you want to draw an analogy – a common liberal stance is of the U.S. Constitution as a living document – adapting and “evolving†thru time & circumstance, rather than locked in a mysterious, fixated, absolute original intent.

 

I suppose that’s “evolutionary thinking†...

[Springer 5]

Depends on what you mean by “liberalismâ€ÂÂ’.

 

The popular media-biased term seems to be one of an upscale guy with a detachable pony-tail extension who enjoys pot-smoking, is politically active, inspired by Barbra Steisand, Al Franken et al  uses hemp products…thinks Rosie O’Donnell is intelligent & hot..

 

Liberalism- or  Republican Liberalism is regarded as a major guiding principle of modern democracy.& the founding of the U.S. Constitutional government.

 

That said – it’s concerned more with socioeconomic & commercial issues rather than biological studies, or theoretical sciences (if you want to view evolutionary biology in this light)….so the connection's  a bit tenuous.

 

But if you want to draw an analogy – a common liberal stance is of the U.S. Constitution as a living document – adapting and “evolving†thru time & circumstance, rather than locked in a mysterious, fixated, absolute original intent.

 

I suppose that’s “evolutionary thinking†...

11112[/snapback]

You've touched on a lot of points.... I was primarily thinking of political liberalism. The people who believe in evolution also tend to support G*y marriage, abortion, socialized medicine... they think p*rn*gr*phy is a first amendment right... they think the war in Iraq is unjustified... they hate Pres. Bush. They support higher taxes for the wealthy, hate big business.... I'm bringing this up to point out that evolutionary thinking is a mindset... why do the same people who have warped politcial views also tend to be the ones who think evolutuion is a fact of nature?

[Fred Williams 0]

I see evolution primarily as an ideology.    It has  become clear to me on this forum that those who embrace evolution tend to be liberal thinkers.  Is it not true that a belief in evolution goes hand in hand with liberal thinking in general? 

11097[/snapback]

I agree, it’s something I’ve been asking evolutionists for years. After 10 years debating origins, while I do know some liberals who reject evolution, I still have not found a single exception to this ubiquitous connection: activist evolutionists are always socially liberal. With such a connection, it’s hard for the evolutionist to make a convincing case that evolution is based on evidence and not one’s worldview.

 

The next question is: Does a preconceived belief in liberalism lead to evolutionary thinking, or does evolutionism lead to liberalism?

I personally believe it’s both. If you start out believing evolution, then a culture of “death” becomes your worldview, so things like euthanasia, stem cells, abortion, H*m*s*xuality all become impersonal, and one develops an indifference or even support toward them. If you start out a liberal, by nature you reject the “law” in the Bible, and therefore will tend toward a worldview that is contrary to the Bible. Evolution and millions of years is a direct assault on the foundation of the Bible in Genesis. Some prominent atheists admit this, and unfortunately understand the issue better than most Christians:

 

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!”

G. Richard Bozarth, American Atheist, Feb 1978

 

Psalms 11:3 - If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?

 

Fred

[Springer 5]

I agree, it’s something I’ve been asking evolutionists for years. After 10 years debating origins, while I do know some liberals who reject evolution, I still have not found a single exception to this ubiquitous connection: activist evolutionists are always socially liberal. With such a connection, it’s hard for the evolutionist to make a convincing case that evolution is based on evidence and not one’s worldview.

Exactly... the fact that you can predict who will believe evolution based on one's political mindset demonstrates that it's not based on objective observation.

 

 

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary.  Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god.  Take away the meaning of his death.  If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!â€ÂÂ

G. Richard Bozarth,  American Atheist, Feb 1978

Because of this, I believe evolution needs to be exposed for what it is. It deserves no respect as a science... because it is not. It is nothing more than an extension of secular humanism/liberalism.

[Fred Williams 0]

Because of this, I believe evolution needs to be exposed for what it is. 

11120[/snapback]

And hence one of the reasons I created the EFT website. "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them." Eph 5:11-12

 

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. 2 Cor 10:4-5

 

Fred

[ikester7579 19]

Rosie's hot? Where can I puke?

 

I wonder if that hemp has blurred his vision.

[chance 1]

Perhaps it’s a phenomena isolated to the USA? In Australia the concept of YEC is virtually non existent by comparison, as is a political left or right. There might also be some aspect of accepting the whole ‘political platform’ to ensure a political victory (so as not to appear divided).

 

IMO, the political divisions have changed somewhat, the left was primarily seen as the working mans party, it ended 'work house' era (effectively the political arm of trade unionism). The right was primarily supporting ‘free enterprise’ which is all well and good if you have money and power, not so good if you were a wage earner.

 

As a comparison the list Springer posted

The people who believe in evolution also tend to support G*y marriage, abortion, socialized medicine... they think p*rn*gr*phy is a first amendment right... they think the war in Iraq is unjustified... they hate Pres. Bush. They support higher taxes for the wealthy, hate big business....

you could not throw a blanket over it like USA politics and call these ‘leanings to the left of politicsâ€ÂÂ, in Australia many of the items on the list are supported by the political right! (and some not supported by the left.)

[Nominal 0]

Certainly.

 

Ideas of a fixed "right" & "left" are only relative to one's geo-political location, and type of government.

 

...which leads to my main point that the whole argument is moot, as far as discussions of a strictly biological or scientific nature are concerned.

[Springer 5]

Certainly.

 

Ideas of  a fixed "right" & "left" are only relative to one's geo-political location, and type of government.

 

...which leads to my main point that the whole argument  is  moot, as far as discussions of  a strictly biological or scientific nature are concerned. 

11135[/snapback]

 

The fact that proponents of evolution are overwhelmingly liberal in their political views is, you believe, purely coincidental?

[Nominal 0]

The fact that proponents of evolution are overwhelmingly liberal in their political views is, you believe, purely coincidental?

 

You might need some statistical/poll data to support that. I think it's altogether likely there are just as many good decent political "conservatives" working in scientific (medical/biological/academic) fields, that function with evolutionary models as the given, as there are political "liberals".

 

If you ask me, the element that transcends all of that stuff is the available funding for whatever work or projects are taking place. Personal political leanings ultimately take a back seat. Who disburses the MONEY to drive our research work - studies - what have you???

 

Maybe a more pointed question would be: do "liberal" political bodies take a more advancement-friendly attitude toward the sciences than "conservative" ones??

...and I'm taking the view that evolutionary models are pretty much the default settings for these funded activities.

 

Thot for the day: "Money does'nt talk - it swears" -Bob Dylan

[Springer 5]

You might need some statistical/poll data to support that. I think it's altogether likely there are just as many  good decent political "conservatives" working in scientific (medical/biological/academic) fields, that function with evolutionary models as the given, as there are political "liberals".

It is a fact that most college professors (I'm thinking ~80%) are liberals. I'm not certain why that is, but it is evident that liberal thinkers are attracted to academics. It is innaccurate to lump all scientific fields into one. Physicians are scientists and not overwhelmingly evolutionists. I don't know any that are atheists.

 

 

Maybe a more pointed question would be: do "liberal" political bodies take a more advancement-friendly attitude toward the sciences than "conservative" ones??

Again, "science" is not synonymous with "evolution". I am a professional scientist and I regard evolution as highly implausible. In my work as a pathologist, I adhere to the scientific method far more rigidly than a paleontologist. The diffence is that I have accountability. If my decisions don't stand up to scrutiny or if the natural course of disease doesn't bare out the truthfulness of what I say, I'm out of a job. This is in stark contrast to an evolutionary biologist who can conjecture whatever he wants and bears essentially no accountability for erroneous conclusions.

 

If is a common misconception perpetrated by evolutionists that the vast majority of scientists accept Darwinism. This notion is patently false.

[Nominal 0]

It is a fact that most college professors (I'm thinking ~80%) are liberals.  I'm not certain why that is, but it is evident that liberal thinkers are attracted to academics.

That appears to be your own guesstimate...ok, well..I'm wondering...is that a bad thing, or..a problem that needs to be corrected??

Because, it makes me wonder - there are no doubt some who are such "liberal thinkers" they just might end up coming all the way back around & proposing staunchly right-wing militantly "conservative" views or solutions!

I'm one who tends to think the line between the two areas is a blurry one.

It is innaccurate to lump all scientific fields into one.  Physicians are scientists and not overwhelmingly evolutionists.  I don't know any that are atheists.

I'll mostly agree with you on that one, but I'm willing to suggest the fact that <you> personally have'nt bumped into any atheist doctors might be a result of their "public relations" training to avoid alienating mainstream patient clientele! - I mean, who wants to be intimately treated by a (perceived) unsentimental boor who snarls, "there is no God!"- accurate or not- that might be the perception! It's just bad PR.

Again, "science" is not synonymous with "evolution".  I am a professional scientist and I regard evolution as highly implausible.  In my work as a pathologist, I adhere to the scientific method far more rigidly than a paleontologist.

Whoa...In your line of work, you are committed to vital personal health issues, and even life-and-death matters of actual human lives - your patients (clientele).

I'm even seeing an apples vs oranges mis-comparison there, between two markedly different fields!

The diffence is that I have accountability.  If my decisions don't stand up to scrutiny or if the natural course of disease doesn't bare out the truthfulness of what I say, I'm out of a job.  This is in stark contrast to an evolutionary biologist who can conjecture whatever he wants and bears essentially no accountability for erroneous conclusions.

Once again, yes - you've just made an apples-to-oranges comparison, really. Certainly! Personal and legal accountability in the medical profession is probably the HIGHEST level of just about any profession! Look at the mega-billion dollar insurance industry (malpractice/malfeasance etc etc...) surrounding this.

 

Paleontology does not deal with patient health issues, clinical treatment, or even living specimens in most cases. As for "accountability" , the sweeping generalization seems a bit inaccurate. What type of accountability????

 

If paleontology work is being conducted with grant monies, university funds, public or private funds, then YES, there's a chain of accountability in place, somewhere.

If is a common misconception perpetrated by evolutionists that the vast majority of scientists accept Darwinism.  This notion is patently false.

 

Agreed! "Darwinism" is largely a relic of 19th & early 20th centuries. An awful LOT has happened since then. The book has been revised and re-written many times over by the scientific process itself. Maybe it's that evolutionary thinking thing again. I doubt if there are ANY individuals working in this or related fields that will claim themselves to be "strict Darwinists".

 

An analogy that comes to mind might be of asking a modern era corporate ("Darwinist"?) lawyer for his opinion on current trends in copyright laws and internet file sharing....he then proceeds to read and recite passages from the Federalist Papers!

[Springer 5]

Once again, yes - you've just made an apples-to-oranges comparison, really. Certainly! Personal and legal accountability in the medical profession is probably the HIGHEST level of just about any profession! Look at the mega-billion dollar insurance industry (malpractice/malfeasance etc etc...) surrounding this.

 

Paleontology does not deal with patient health issues, clinical treatment, or even living specimens in most cases. As for "accountability" , the  sweeping generalization seems a bit inaccurate. What type of accountability????

I'm not just tallking about legal accountability. I'm affirming that real science has accountability in the sense that theories must be subjected to and be able to withstand hard scrutiny by skeptics. Evolutionary biologists have none of this. If a mathematician or physicist repeately makes false statements, he will loose all credibility in his field. This is in stark contrast to evolutionary biology. Thus, what you have is an entire field of "science" that is a complete sham.

 

If paleontology work is being conducted with grant monies, university funds, public or private funds,  then YES, there's a chain of accountability in place, somewhere.

No, because there is the preconceived assumption that evolution is a fact. The question is not "Did man evolve from apes?".... the question is "How did man evolve from apes?" Furthermore, outrageous claims cannot be disproven. The theory of evolution is non-falsifiable. Every single obstacle encountered, regardless of how insurmountable, is swept under the rug with the excuse that "someday further research will explain these minor details." Evolution has proclaimed itself to be a fact because it has discarded the only competing theory... intelligent design.

 

Agreed! "Darwinism" is largely a relic of 19th &  early 20th centuries. An awful LOT has happened since then.  The book has been revised and re-written many times over by the scientific process itself. Maybe it's that evolutionary thinking thing again.  I doubt if there are ANY individuals working  in this or related fields that will claim themselves to be "strict Darwinists".

The general theory of evolution is the same now as it was in 1859. The only reason differences exist is because of its numerous failed predictions, forcing its proponents to make up new laws of nature to account for the inexplicable problems it faces.

[Nominal 0]

I'm not just tallking about legal accountability.  I'm affirming that real science has accountability in the sense that theories must be subjected to and be able to withstand hard scrutiny by skeptics.  Evolutionary biologists have none of this.  If a mathematician or physicist repeately makes false statements, he will loose all credibility in his field.  This is in stark contrast to evolutionary biology.  Thus, what you have is an entire field of "science" that is a complete sham.

I think you're overlooking the differences between applied and theoretical sciences with this.

No, because there is the preconceived assumption that evolution is a fact.

Ok then - I'd like to ask if you could explain to me:

** HOW(?) exactly can this mere "preconceived assumption" ever be solidified into a "factual" state, if, at all possible? Can it be done??

 

**What IS "evolution" then, if the preconceived assumption is incorrect (if that's what you''re implying). I'll assume you're answer will be that it is a theory, or a theoretical scenario, which is no problem since that's the situation, as far as I'm aware, as well.

 

**If evolution is not the fact we're hoping for - what "fact" replaces it? Assuming one is even needed(?).

The question is not "Did man evolve from apes?".... the question is "How did man evolve from apes?"

From what I've seen I'd have to insist that BOTH questions have been addressed throughout the years, by evolutionary sources. I'd even go so far as to say you can't have one without the other.

Furthermore, outrageous claims cannot be disproven.  The theory of evolution is non-falsifiable.  Every single obstacle encountered, regardless of how insurmountable, is swept under the rug with the excuse that "someday further research will explain these minor details."  Evolution has proclaimed itself to be a fact because it has discarded the only competing theory... intelligent design.

I dont' see the connection in the last claim, sorry - Evolution has proclaimed itself to be a fact because it has discarded the only competing theory... intelligent design." ID also suffers the same problem with non-falsifiability.

Certainly! - when "obstacles are encountered" - more research/work needs to be done I have no problem with that...and there's also the possibility that original assumptions will be disproven and possibly modified into oblivion. So....

The general theory of evolution is the same now as it was in 1859.  The only reason differences exist is because of its numerous failed predictions, forcing its proponents to make up new laws of nature to account for the inexplicable problems it faces.

 

Sure, the bare-bones basic ideas, in fact think if you wanted to - you could pre-date that to even before 1859.

...but I'd really like you to cite some of these supposedly "made-up new laws of nature" as that's a bit of a new one to me.

 

I would think this would have to be something testable & demonstrateable in real-time & not just "made up" as you claim....unless time itself is an element, and these "new laws" take place over long expanses of time, and well, to me...that's where the theoretical sciences part comes in.

[Springer 5]

I think you're overlooking the differences between applied and theoretical sciences with this.

Whatever labels you prefer is fine... "science" that has no accountability is not science.

 

Ok then - I'd like to ask if you could explain to me:

** HOW(?) exactly can this mere "preconceived assumption" ever be solidified into a "factual" state, if, at all possible?  Can it be done??

Evolution cannot be "solidified into a factual state" because it is not true.

 

**What IS "evolution" then, if the preconceived assumption is  incorrect (if that's what you''re implying).  I'll assume you're answer will be that it is a theory, or a theoretical scenario, which is no problem since that's the situation, as far as I'm aware, as well. 

 

**If evolution is not the fact we're hoping for  - what "fact" replaces it? Assuming one is even needed(?).

Would you try to clarify your position... I'm not understanding what you're saying.

 

 

I dont' see the connection in the last claim, sorry - Evolution has proclaimed itself to be a fact because it has discarded the only competing theory... intelligent design."  ID also suffers the same problem with non-falsifiability.

I'm not disputing the fact that God is non-falsifiable. I'm stating that evolution is also non-falsifiable because, by excluding God, it is the only possibility left.

 

Certainly! - when "obstacles are encountered" - more research/work needs to be done I have no problem with that...and there's also the possibility that original assumptions will be disproven and possibly modified into oblivion. So....

The problem is, the "obstacles" are not deficiencies in knowlege... they are fatal flaws the the theory... they are impossibilities. I give as one example the formation of DNA by random events

 

...but I'd really like you to cite some of these supposedly "made-up new laws of nature" as that's a bit of a new one to me. 

As an example... DNA formed spontaneously by some sort of non-random chemical bonding. One must suppose the existence of some unknown laws of chemistry to imagine such a thing.

 

I would think this would have to be something testable & demonstrateable in real-time & not just "made up" as you claim....unless time itself is an element, and these "new laws" take place over long expanses of time, and well, to me...that's where the theoretical sciences part comes in. 

 

Evolutionists are free to set up an experiment and see if DNA can spontaneously form.... so far there is absolutely no evidence that it's possible.