Liberals and Evolution

Shrinkwrapped   has a long discussion of the differences between conservatives and liberals and their stances on evolution. 

It is a misnomer to say Liberals/leftists believe in evolution AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY SCIENCE RIGHT NOW, which includes enormous swathes of wholly unacceptable scientific evidence, like IQ differences among the races and gender differences. They do not. Remember, they are political animals at heart, not philosophers or scientists, they are not required by their own belief system to be consistent or to follow any viewpoint to its nth degree. They believe in the very old rudimentary Darwinism of the late 19th-early 20th century ONLY in so far as they can use it as an argument to counter assertions that the diversity of life could only have been brought in to being by the existence of God. They have no real other interest in “science.” Its also important to note that after Hitler, the “Progressive” left had to “purge” itself of anything that smacked of their earlier love affair with “eugenics.” Erasing eugenics from their program left a gaping hole in their belief system that THEY incongruently began to fill with a radical egalitarianism they had heretofore eschewed.

I have yet to meet a liberal/leftist who has any notion of current evolutionary science. They always bring up old heads like Stephen J. Gould, who was a Marxist (so is Jared Diamond BTW) and only a paleontologist, yet as a popularizer of science wrote books way outside his field of expertise that released very damaging concepts into the intellectual air, like his silly assertions in “The Mismeasure of Man” on IQ and the wholly ludicrous “punctuated equilibrium.” Marxists are not “liberals” and Jared Diamond will twist himself into giant Lysenkovean knots to avoid the aspects of evolutionary psychology that go against the fundamental grain of his creed.

Almost all of the other advocates of evolution as it stands (particularly evolutionary psychology) today are of the Right in some manner, though usually more along the libertarian lines. Evolutionary psychology, for the non-leftist, stands as a bulwark against the forces who say the human conventions, traditions and taboos are arbitrary and can’t be tossed out at whim with no consequences for the human condition. It gives a solid grounding in nature for upholding the traditional sexual mores, behavioral norms, marriage structures etc. that conservatives hold so dear. Don’t let the liberals fool you, they don’t believe in evolution, they just hate GOD.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Liberals and Evolution

  1. Doug1 says:

    Excellent insights Dana. Spot on.

    (I’m likely to be a shiite commenter for you because I generally agree with you.)

  2. Doug1 says:

    One quibble.

    I think Gould’s idea of punctuated equilibrium, or that evolution occurred much faster in certain geological eras than others, is quite widely accepted now, and viewed as a real contribution.

    However you’re absolutely right about his Marxist distortion and essentially lies in Mismeasure of Man, and for the literary left generally with his articles in the NY Review of Books and then the NY Times Magazine etc. about such things as The Bell Curve and so on.

  3. Brit says:

    Good stuff!

  4. Gorbachev says:

    Jared Diamond wasn’t a marxist; he simple ignored racialist theories in his work. There are *actual* marxist scholars out there – who need to be strung up – but you trivilize this problem by throwing Jared Diamond into this.

    There are cultural/environmental/likely biological explanations for everything he writes about. He brilliantly expounds on the cultural/environmental aspects of these.

    On the other hand, he’s not an HBDer. He can’t be faulted for that.

    But the guy isn’t Herbert Marcuse (a marxist).

  5. dana says:

    gorb

    thanks for stopping by

    query:

    if he’s not a marxist…or WASNT at some point, why has he been being ‘excommunicated” from marxism all over the interweb since the publication of Collapse? they hate ayn rand, but they never excommunicated her–they just excoriate her

  6. Gorbachev says:

    @ Doug1
    One quibble.

    I think Gould’s idea of punctuated equilibrium, or that evolution occurred much faster in certain geological eras than others, is quite widely accepted now, and viewed as a real contribution.

    Gould and Eldredge deserve serious kudos for that. All things said, when it came to snails and brilliant witty commentary, the liberal Gould did have major talents.

    He had a thing about race, and his commentary was intelligent; but that’s no guard against just being wrong. You can’t blame the guy for that. He tried and failed to defend his hypotheses, but this doesn’t mean he was a failure in any respect. This happens to lots of scientists. And he was entertaining, and an excellent evolutionary biologist. We all have our blinders. White Nationalists, for example, and racists have severe blinders, too; finding people with a good sense of biological insight and the ability to think in a clearly rational biological context is immensely difficult. No matter where they fall on a political spectrum.

    But a marxist, … no. Gould was many things, but marxist, not. It’s like saying an HBDer is a Nazi.

    Gould was just wrong.

  7. Gorbachev says:

    @Dana,
    query:
    if he’s not a marxist…or WASNT at some point, why has he been being ‘excommunicated” from marxism all over the interweb since the publication of Collapse? they hate ayn rand, but they never excommunicated her–they just excoriate her

    He had opinions (and tried to defend them… unsuccessfully) that were friendly to some positions that marxists held. But these were just accidental overlaps. The guy was an evolutionary biologist, after all; ultimately, they would have had to disown him.

    When it came to the Blank Slate hypothesis, he’d have been against them. It would have been hopeless for them, as it is now, and they would have had to disown him.

    He never welcomed their embrace. He was a comfy armchair liberal, an intellectual liberal of no great loyalty and well-meaning.

  8. dana says:

    If im wrong im glad to be corrected–but the marxism wasn’t as much the point as the lysenkoist project of trying to ignore a whole field of human inquiry (race) when discussing the different developmental paths of differents peoples

    perhaps it merely smacks of marxist projects

  9. Gorbachev says:

    @dana
    If im wrong im glad to be corrected–but the marxism wasn’t as much the point as the lysenkoist project of trying to ignore a whole field of human inquiry (race) when discussing the different developmental paths of differents peoples

    perhaps it merely smacks of marxist projects

    It just smacks of marxist projects.

    If you would oppose the marxists, you must refrain from blanket labels. Knowing your enemy makes some sense.

    These people (like Gould) dislike racial prejudice. Therefore they fight genetics as a racial feature for things like intelligence, etc.

    But what they really don’t like isn’t HBD. It’s prejudice. There’s a false connection here.

    You can acknowledge racial differences and then not be prejudiced against individuals or even groups; black people make perfectly good American citizens, by and large. That they make fewer nuclear physicists and engineers is interesting, but it’s nice to have basketball players and champion golfers, too.

    The mistake is not that you have to fight HBD to combat racism. That was Gould’s mistake. He didn’t believe in the “blank slate” and Marxist Human Improvement goals. He was a biologist, an evolutionary biologist, who made a mistake, but an understandable one.

    It’s a subtle but crucial difference. It’s like two circles: For good motives, nice progressive ones that involved fighting pointless prejudice, he targeted the wrong foe (genetics and IQ and race, etc.). He should have just targeted prejudice.

    Individual rights can fight this quite nicely. Just because someone’s a female doesn’t mean she can’t be a mathematician; an individual female may be a great mathematician. We should be judged as individuals.

    That was his mistake. He used a shotgun when he just needed to use a revolver.

    I prefer the sniper rifle, myself. Only take out the target you need to.

    So he was well-intentioned, and intellectually honest. His argument was just wrong. Lots of smart people make the same mistake.

    This is why Marxists detest him now: he never was one, and they feel betrayed. And as true believers, they feel – if you deviate from Orthodoxy by 1%, you’re still a heretic, so they called him out.

    Of course, much of what he wrote helped a small portion of their causes. They can just as easily cherry-pick from anyone else.

  10. Doug1 says:

    Gorbachev–

    You’re smart and articulate and all, and I kinda like you, but you’re an endless white washer of leftists.

    Perhaps that comes inherently, even for one who’s swallowed the blue pill, if he lives in the Peoples Republic of Cambridge Massachusetts, or thereabouts.

  11. Dream Puppy says:

    Gould is a joke. Even other anthros think so. In the first half of last century Franz Boas hijacked American anthropology and led it down the wrong path. He was the asshole that fueled the nature/nurture debate and decided (with no evidence) that it was all nurture, all the time.

    “This school of anthropology places culture as the fundamental key to understanding race and ethnicity. Prior to Boas, understanding evolutionary development of races was of intrinsic importance in anthropology.”

    He’s also the dick that propagated the “noble savage” myth. Margaret Mead was one of his proteges. The Boasian school was ideological and not data-based. They set back anthropology for decades and heavily influenced our culture for the worst.

    “Boasianism also places societies of non-European derivation as essentially peaceful. When these non-European societies engage in conflict it is because of their exposure to European civilizations. ”

    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Boasian_Anthropology

    F this guy.

  12. Dream Puppy says:

    Oh yeah, he was also a Marxist.

  13. Gorbachev says:

    @Doug1

    Gorbachev–
    You’re smart and articulate and all, and I kinda like you, but you’re an endless white washer of leftists.

    I just seek balance, Doug1 my friend. Too much biology is used for nefarious purposes- both racialist and non, left and right.

    I think arguments against social controls like affirmative action needn’t be based on science at all, though they can be reinforced by this. There are perfectly good arguments for conservative or, let’s call them rationalist, positions, without invoking misapplied snippets of knowledge.

    White Nationalists make these mistakes all the time.
    The difference is that on the left, they pick what science they like, discredit or bury what they don’t like, and their arguments on their own have no merit. Which is why the rapid retreat into denial, obfuscation and censorship.

    These are the best ways to call them out. Even internally, most leftist arguments make little sense.

    I dislike the traps the rationalists make for themselves when dealing with these people.

    Perhaps that comes inherently, even for one who’s swallowed the blue pill, if he lives in the Peoples Republic of Cambridge Massachusetts, or thereabouts.

    Yes, it’s pretty fucking bad out here.

    You should see *my* workplace. You think you’ve got it bad wherever you are.

  14. Dream Puppy says:

    “White Nationalists make these mistakes all the time”

    Really? You’re referencing Da Nazis? Really?

    :::lights self on fire:::::

  15. Gorbachev says:

    @Dream Puppy
    Gould is a joke. Even other anthros think so.

    Gould was a snail biologist and a pretty darned good evolutionary biologist. But when it came to race, he had blinders. They were ideological, but he was no marxist. He was a marxist the way GW was a Nazi.
    The marxists exiled him from their intellectual canon for a reason.

    Gould was just wrong, and too verbal about it when he shouldn’t have been so sure.

    In the first half of last century Franz Boas hijacked American anthropology and led it down the wrong path. He was the asshole that fueled the nature/nurture debate and decided (with no evidence) that it was all nurture, all the time.

    This is true, but Gould wasn’t – by any stretch – an anthropologist. Might say something about what he wrote on the subject.

    “This school of anthropology places culture as the fundamental key to understanding race and ethnicity. Prior to Boas, understanding evolutionary development of races was of intrinsic importance in anthropology.”

    The truth is that both exclusive positions are wrong. For example, I maintain that there’s a profoundly dysfunctional aspect to black American culture that exacerbates any other tendencies. For example, there are black ex-slave societies that do far better – many of the Caribbean islands, for example – and then there are those that just suck (Haiti, America).

    And we can’t honestly discuss just how truly wretched and poisonous modern black American culture is – and how it’s monolithically homogeneous and oppressive to its own people. How the hell is a discussion of race useful, when the culture is obviously awful?

    It wasn’t always so. But day by day, it gets worse. You can hear the sound of the cultural toilet bowl suck-suck-sucking the life from black Americans. That black Americans can’t face the dismal music is the saddest thing.

    On the other hand, there’s probably also a racial factor. But if all else was equal, I suspect the racial factor could be compensated for. The culture can’t.

    Like all things, it’s a dynamic. One feeds off the other.

    Poor white people, the proles we love to talk about, have similar problems (though not the same). Their culture, here in America, also sucks ass. The permanent underclass in the UK also has its problems, and deciding between the two is a tough call.

    So – absolutes don’t make useful discussion points, and they rarely clarify anything.

    He’s also the dick that propagated the “noble savage” myth. Margaret Mead was one of his proteges. The Boasian school was ideological and not data-based. They set back anthropology for decades and heavily influenced our culture for the worst.

    Rousseau started it all. Boas just propagated it. Take it right back. It was the whole reaction against the Enlightenment values that founded the West, right back to the beginning of the Enlightenment. It’s always been there – we just call it different names.

    “Boasianism also places societies of non-European derivation as essentially peaceful. When these non-European societies engage in conflict it is because of their exposure to European civilizations. ”

    Very Rousseau; he would have approved entirely. So would Kant.

    http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Boasian_Anthropology
    F this guy.

    Gould should have stuck to writing about evolutionary biology and stayed out of this debate. He just embarrassed himself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s