From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: an exercise in brain-dead logic
Date: 27 Sep 92 18:33:50 GMT
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <LEET.92Sep18080414@dove.ims.com>, leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
>Looks like I've touched a raw nerve with my Darwin/Marx question:

Yes, you have.

>>>>>> On 16 Sep 92 23:03:20 GMT, colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) said:
>
>Chris> In article <LEET.92Sep15162148@dove.ims.com> leet@ims.com (Lee Thomas) writes:
>
>>1) Can some skeptic in the U.K. confirm or deny, by visit in person, that:
>>   a) Charles Darwin's home is now a museum; and
>>   b) there is a letter from Karl Marx to Darwin, framed, in a
>>       prominent place in the museum?  (Content of the letter would be
>>       nice, too ...)
>
>>2) Can any skeptic anywhere confirm or deny that Karl Marx wanted to
>>    dedicate one or more editions of _Das Kapital_ to Darwin?
>
>I was asking this to establish whether or not the creationist version
>of this story is the truth.

Presumably this implies that there's some reason why whether or not it's the
truth is important.  That's the nerve you touched.

>The implication is that Darwinism unwittingly supported Marxism.

Yup.  That's the nerve.  Just how would Darwinism have "supported" Marxism.
If I were to murder someone and then claim that I did it because I thought you
wanted me to, does that mean that you unwittingly supported murder?

>It would lend credence to the assertion by certain Russian creationists
>that they reject evolution because of its association with Communism.

I.e., it would lend credence to the fact that people who obviously know nothing
of science (as evidenced by their creationism) know nothing of science (as
evidenced by the fact that they've decided that what's true in the universe
depends on politics).

>A Ph.D. in philosophy is not required to see the fallacy in:
>
>        Darwinism helped Marxism.
>        Marxism was implemented once or twice as Communism.
>        Communism resulted in atrocities.
>    Therefore, Darwinism is evil.

True, one would expect the fallacy to obvious.  But we've seen creationists
try to use this argument time and again in this group.  Doesn't it seem
reasonable for us to react with some hostility when yet another Bible-thumper
dredges up the matter.  And please, once again, tell us just how it is that
Darwinism is supposed to have helped Marxism.

>Chris> Hey Lee, evolution is a scientific theory. If you are going to attack
>Chris> it why don't you grow some balls and muster a scientific argument
>Chris> against it or develop a theory of creationism and show how it better
>Chris> explains the distribution of biological traits in current (and past
>Chris> as inferred from the fossil record) populations. If creationism is
>Chris> so hot, why don't all you spineless weasels meet evolutionists head
>Chris> on?
>
>Mostly because every creationist who has done so has generated enough
>flames to incinerate Brazil, and has then been blamed for it.

Come on, turkey.  How about bringing in some evidence?  Some VALID evidence
rather than the distortions put out by the various creationist rags?  Oh, you
don't really have any evidence.  Too bad.  Nice attempt to weasel out of the
question though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.