Darwiniana--Islamic Creationism attacks Darwinism and Terrorism
Nemonemini
Date: 10/8/2001 12:31:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Nemonemini
To: PHIL...@LISTSERV.TAMU.EDU
To: Critic...@mjmail.eeng.dcu.ie, Lastmanthere
To: edi...@nybooks.com, Kan...@topica.com
Below are two notes from the Dissent forum dealing with the issue of
'theoretical terrorism' and the Islamic Creationist article on 'Darwinism and
Materialism'. This article by the Turkish Creationist, and his website, make
every mistake Creationist critics make on evolution, but scored two bullseyes,
which is enough, perhaps: generation of social conflict in the misuse of
theory, and the question of 'soul' in man's evolution. Make every defense you
please of secular Darwinism, ridicule the primitive Creationist gestures of
Islamic anti-Darwinists, the whole nine yards, and they will still come out on
top on the issue of 'soul', in grand postmodern 'told you so', plus now WTC.
The rest of the planet does not plan to submit, Crews and NY books as backup or
not.
As to social conflict, the Kant-L archives once contained nine months worth of
debate on 'asocial sociability' and 'nature's secret plan', Kant's views on
history, Darwinism, and the 'eonic resolution' of asocial sociability. Since
the archives have been destroyed, back to square one. As things stand now, in
the view of Kant scholars, and Darwinists, apparently, the view of our Islamic
critic are confirmed, the best philosopher and the main evolutionist both
support social conflict as development. Three cheers for Robert Wright. He is
now a columnist at Belief.net.
Time to reprogram religion as evolutionary conflict.
Good show, smart set to lead us past the postmodern age if they can outdo
Islamic critics of Darwin. Bring on the rocket scientists, quick.
Links to site.
The Turkish creationist Harun Yahya (http://http://www.harunyahya.com/) and his
supporters are using the events of 11th September to advance the hypothesis
that Darwinism is the source of terrorism. A new website 'Islam Denounces
Terrorism' has been set up at
http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/
See 'The Real Ideological Root of Terrorism. Darwin and Materialism'
"This fanaticism has resulted in many of disasters. That is because together
with the spread of Darwinism and the materialist philosophy it supports, the
answer to the question 'What is a human being?' has changed. People who used to
answer: 'Human beings were created by God and have to live according to the
morality He teaches' have now begun to think that 'Man came into being by
chance, and is an animal who developed with the fight for survival.' There is a
heavy price to pay for this great deception. Violent ideologies such as racism,
fascism and communism, and many other cruel world views based on conflict have
all drawn strength from this deception.
This article will examine this disaster Darwinism has brought to the world and
reveal its connection with terrorism, one of the most important global problems
of our time."
Full text:
http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/darwinism_materialism.html
Dissent notes
____________
In light of a post on this forum on 'theoretical terrorism' it is interesting
to consider the issues here of perceptions of Darwinism by both secular,
religious, and Marxist thought. This essay on Darwinism and conflict by the
Islamic author might not seem to pass muster at first in the fancy footwork of
secular defenders of evolution, but in fact Darwinism is in deep trouble here,
and kneejerk reactions (pointing to clear flaws in the essay to be sure) might
consider better the dangers of Darwinism in this context. Along with, indeed,
the Second Internationale Marxism this commentator lumps together with
everything else as an object of denunciation. As to the issue of Darwinism,
however, taken alone, the plain fact of the matter is that the derivation of
'cultural selectionism' present even when denounced by defenders of Darwinism
is and remains an Achilles heel of the theory, and an ironic source of the
baffling strength of religious postmodernism. The confusion of 'law' as
entailment to future action and 'natural law' as hypothesis of science, so
denounced by Popper, is clearly present in Darwin's theory, with its failure to
specify theoretical domain time.
This can be the first of a series of posts on this.
I waa getting ready to announce online material dealing with issues of
evolution in light of the so-called 'eonic effect' in world history. This
material constitutes a comprehensive theoretical challenge to the
mis-application of Darwinism to history, and therefore to rote assumptions
about Darwinian views of the descent of man.
This material is from a book cited at that site, and, to preempt conflicts of
selling the book, most of the contents are now coming online, with text and
commentary using a new form of historical analysis and periodization to show a
very different perspective on history from what current sociobiological and
other perspectives now wish to claim
This material impinges directly on the issues with its starting point, namely,
the 'Oedipus Effect' of Karl Popper, dealing with the collision of theory
domain between past and future. see http://eonix.8m.com/intro_2.htm, "History
and Evolution"
The question of Darwinism and social conflict is red-hot. And the entire
secular community seem like lemmings here jumping to the defense of the
theoretical aspect of Darwinism. You will lose this argument here,
notwithstanding the fairly gross defects in the article cited at the Islamic
site.
The material on the eonic effect is useful for showing the relation of theory
to history. We are not outside of history doing theory but inside history where
the 'local future' of the theory is, along with that theory, an historical
object. And this confusion is what generates the endless confusions of Social
Darwinism.
The question of the left here also requires careful treatment in the Second
Internationale genuflection to Darwin, whose historical reality is different,
as in the confusion over the Darwin letters.
Material here is extensive at http://eonix.8m.com Most of the original text now
online.
More coming with commentary. This is not easy material, but the basics are
fairly straightforward
To be continued.
This material on the eonic effect is based on "Kant's Challenge",
http://eonix.8m.com/intro_8.htm
There was a collision of two books with opposite interpretations of Kant's
views on history revolving around 'asocial sociability', Non Zero and World
History and the Eonic Effect. Few were aware of the conflict here, in terms of
opposite interpretations.
It is significant that the question of conflict, Darwinism, should be tied
together with two opposite versions of Kant's 'Idea for a Universal History',
with its extensive mainline from Kant to Hegel and Marx, with the wild card of
Darwin thrown in to screw everything up with its basic built in theoretical
blunder.
This site on Islam and terrorism has errors no doubt, but Darwinism is in deep
trouble here.
To be continued.
After looking at the webpage on Darwinism and Materialism at the Creationist
Islamic site, see previous post, it is interesting to change gears fast and
read the second of the two articles 'Saving us from Darwin' at the New York
Review of Books.
The devil must chuckle here. Take out your buffalo nickel, and place it on the
table.
Who got it straight? Twentieth century hi tech science?
The problem can be seen in the article by Crews on the issue of historical
directionality. A dialectical position here is entirely one thing, while the
claim to science is another. Just at this point where an immense process of
denatured and one-dimensional secularism marshalls its immense social power to
sweep the field of all rivals, the 'athens and jerusalem' effect of antiquity
resurfaces at once. This has nothing to do with religion, in fact.
There is a deep dialectical challenge to the traditional teleologies of ancient
thought and religion, but there is no science to take their place in light of
Darwin. To think so is a curious blunder that modern Darwinism and its cultural
milieu can't seem to overcome, and the response is the endless reaction of the
various resurgent religious movements (among other reactions, including the
proto-typical Marxist reaction now seemingly defunct).
The resolution can be relatively simple, in terms of seeing what directionality
means in terms of history, evolution, and then ironically philosophy itself.
Then we can see that Darwinism is failing, not to challenge religion, which it
may do, but to keep up with the issues of philosophy itself, and crossing the
tripwire into metaphysics in disguise with its hard positions on issues that
are crypto-transcendental.
I was looking at Rosen's book on Hegel, not my cup of tea, exactly, but with
its interesting opening on the issue of the ancients and moderns. Without
agreeing with Hegel, it is significant how much of this he foresaw. The modern
world has forgotten all its achievements and,a la Critique of Political
Economy, found itself in a scientism that is corn pone and white sugar, and
determined to cram this down the throats of a whole planet, for profit.
So forget Islamic fundamentalism. What of our own lost modernism?
But better yet, consider the stance of Kant, with his double caution against
both rationalism and empiricism, and the endless debates of neo_kantians in his
wake.
One must ask if modern Darwin domination in the cultural sphere, violating
grossly every foundation of its own modern tradition, what to say of the
Islamic, is not embarked on a course of 'Platonic cave shutdown' syndrome. WTC
In any case, it is not an issue of some wildcard Islamic Creationism. The
home-grown version is quite adequate. But the attempt to reduce a whole course
of cultural thought to the Darwin paradigm must, willy nilly, lead to the
reactions of those whose backs are against the wall, culturally and otherwise.
In any case, the NY books article is a grossly inadequate treatment of the
issues, and an effort to lay down the law, culturally, in this counterattack
against religions whose purpose was to act as a failsafe, relative to
antiquity, with respect to 'historical direction'. It is ironic to watch this
mechanism discharge again.
In any case, as the idea of 'dialectic' might suggest, there is no safe
conclusion here, and the question then is the false implication of science when
there is a requirement of greater caution about the legislation of metaphysical
questions in reverse mode after inditing the great religions for these flaws.
Quite apart from anything else, Darwinian thinking is dangerous, and these
Moslems--what to say, little surprise they should protest. Behind the PR hype
these cultures are snobbishly marked down for 'modernization', and they know
it. Small wonder at the paranoia, and the bitterness at the 'cultural
selectionism' summoned into existence as a secret weapon of Darwinist
modernism, behind the massive denials.
We need a more sophisticated version of history than what Darwinism can
provide.
John Landon
http://eonix.8m.com
nemon...@aol.com
ReidRover
>Message-id: <20011011172141...@mb-fa.aol.com>
>
> Theoretical Terrorism...An Islamic view and some comments
<snip a bunch of idiotic ramblings and philosophical masturbation>
Do you or any other creationist know that extreme violence, in the name of
religion or any other human idea you can think of , has been going on since
history was first recorded?
Do you know Darwins theory is only 150 years old? You do know that people had
wars, terrorized each other, tortured each other to death, poisoned each other,
killed each other in many varied ways for mant varied ideas.?
Jesus, you bunch are morons truelly sad , sick ,, perverted idiots,,you and
Harun Yahya deserve each other.
For all your florid style and quoting of Kant...i think you must be blind and
deaf to history before 1856.
Do you live in some fantasy world were religious extremists of all variety are
disguising that they are actually Darwinist athiests?
Tell you what prove to me in this forum that political, religious and any
other acts of violence didnt exist before Darwin published! A few history books
by respected historians saying that the Earth was a peaceful paradise before
1856 would be suffiicient.
And ask your creationist Islamic buddies have they any proof that those that
flew the lanes into the WTC were not Muslim and instead were Darwinists? And
why if they were did Bin Laden praise them afterwards..i never heard him
mention Darwinist athiests?
But i dont expect an answer..well not a real one.because you dont have one
because even you know that violence preceded Darwinism as did superiority
complexs and racism.
Eric Gill
Nemonemini wrote:
<snip>
>
> Links to site.
> The Turkish creationist Harun Yahya (http://http://www.harunyahya.com/) and his
> supporters are using the events of 11th September to advance the hypothesis
> that Darwinism is the source of terrorism.
Ah- one set of religious extremists accuses another set of religious
extremists of not following their religion correctly and pulls a whopper
out of their collective asses in a feeble attempt at propoganda.
And 'Nemonemini,' slobberingly desperate to find someone- anyone- to
join him in his irrational crusade against science, jumps all over it.
Big suprises, those.
<snip>
Mitchell Coffey
Shoot, does he even know that "Harun Yahya" is wanted by the Turkish
police for supporting terrorism?
Mitchell Coffey
ReidRover
>From: MitC...@aol.com (Mitchell Coffey)
>Date: 10/12/01 9:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <a766a589.0110...@posting.google.com>
Ah so "Harun Yahya" has had his mind poisoned by the evil Darwinist terrorist
ideas.....who can save us now..only Nemo remains!
Dave
> [...] ...the answer to the question 'What is a human being?' has
> changed. People who used to answer: 'Human beings were created by
> God and have to live according to the morality He teaches' have
> now begun to think that 'Man came into being by chance, and is an
> animal who developed with the fight for survival. [...]
>
Every man comes into being by chance, and only a fool would believe
otherwise. Fighting for survival is only necessary if your survival is
threatened. What we see happening is the authority of various
religious liars is now being questioned, and in response the religious
authorities wish to 'turn back the clock' using any justification.
Morality is not the ancient list of religious edicts and taboos but
something for Man to figure out for himself.
TomS
<5591d176.01101...@posting.google.com>, gal...@hotmail.com
stated..."
The creationists rely upon semantic games like that. While it
may not be deliberate, but just a matter of confusing themselves.
"Man" or "man-kind" are abstractions. What is, in the real
world, are individual men and women.
Everybody knows plenty of reasons why s/he might not have come
into existence. Probably every family has stories about the chance
events that brought together some parents or grandparents. On a
scientific level, the chance involved in the mixing of the genes
from the parents, and the random mutations.
If you believe that you are a creature of God, and you base
your values on that, then how do you reconcile that with the idea
that your particular body comes about by processes which are
studied by developmental biology? That is *not* a rhetorical
question.
The rhetorical question is this: If you can reconcile the
"facts of life" with values, with truth, beauty, morality, love
(which I am sure that everybody can) ... how then, do you find
the scientific study of the origins of species any *more*
difficult to reconcile with values?
Tom S.
Nemonemini
Nemonemini
neo-romantic poet who wants to take back the Cern Lab. I might look the other
way.
Nemonemini
value. But that is not the point. We are in the midst of an immense misfire of
cultural selectionism, and the objections of a member of Islamic civilization
are relevant to the issues, whatever the nature of his views on Creationism.
Nemonemini
A theory which confuses domains, past, present, and future, in the unconscious
mimic of physical laws is a fallacy, and a dangerous one, no resolvable by tic
for tat. And Darwinism flunks here, badly.
Eric Gill
Nemonemini wrote:
>
> A whole day of slanders.
The first refuge of the net.kook: after getting hammered by
noncomplimentary messages that are, alas, merely descriptive, whine that
you are being slandered.
> I am not anti-science, although one of my friends is a
> neo-romantic poet who wants to take back the Cern Lab. I might look the other
> way.
That a good way to get him killed in a confrontation with the police.
You are as good a friend as a thinker, apparently.
Chris Krolczyk
> A whole day of slanders.
In order to commit *libel* (the word you're looking for, Nemo), you
have to possess a reputation someone can attack. You don't.
> I am not anti-science,
(snicker)
> although one of my friends is a
> neo-romantic poet who wants to take back the Cern Lab. I might look the other
> way.
Most pseudointellectuals would.
-Chris Krolczyk
Mitchell Coffey
Is this supposed to be directed at me? How am I supposed to know? Guess?
Mitchell Coffey
ReidRover
>Date: 10/15/01 2:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <c743abb.01101...@posting.google.com>>> A whole day of slander.
Which you started off..with the accusation that Darwinism was behind the WTC
atrocities not religious fanatacism..to back up this dreadful accusation you
offered no proof whatsoever that those that carried out and planned these
attacks were afflicted with this "Darwinism"..except some islamic creationist
nonsense.