Darwin Comes to Africa: Social Darwinism and British Imperialism in Northern Nigeria eBook : Oluniyi, Olufemi, West, John 

Excellent and somewhat unnerving account of Darwinism and Social Darwinism, perhaps one of the best books written on the subject. None of the false narratives blaming it all on Herbert Spencer here. The issues barely hinted at, if at all, by mainstream evolutionists are here made devastatingly concrete in the depiction of racism, imperialism and nineteenth century colonialism and the scramble for Africa, specifically Nigeria.  Natural selection, social competition, racial extermination, imperialistic propaganda and the whole litany of the dark side of Darwin and Darwinian are told directly without any more nonsense about Darwinism as science implying the need to hedge the ‘theory’ for public consumption. When we consider that alternatives to Darwinism were clearly in the air before the time of Darwin the contraction of ‘theory’ around natural selection and the failure to see the flaws in  the school boy error of the statistics of a natural selection is a devastating indictment of science coopted by ideology. Never again can anyone trust science in the same way that has dominated heretofore. This is bad pseudo-science armed and dangerous and a free gift to the political psychopaths coming to the fore in modern politics.

Are Darwinian biologists hopeless idiots, social Darwinist crooks, capitalist propagandists, or…???


The question of evolution is on the one hand empirically robust, but fails as a theory based on natural selection or random evolution. How science got hijacked by this confusion has been studied many times, but the reality fails to sink in, although that has finally started to change, viz. the work of academics such as Fodor and Nagel. Long ago Robert Wesson exposed the issue in his Beyond Natural Selection, but it sank like stone, although Wesson seems to have survived ostracism. The issue is starkly simple and can be used by amateurs and outsiders against the attempted paradigm control of the ‘pros’ who are rigidly controlled by academic cancel culture, and/or fired on the spot for dissent. Continue reading “Are Darwinian biologists hopeless idiots, social Darwinist crooks, capitalist propagandists, or…???”

Darwin and the Mathematicians: David Berlinski

We had a post on an attempt to clear von Neumann for the Paradigm with a denial he was a critic of Darwin. This short interview of Berlinski should the matter straight. Since these things tend to disappear, I quoted the article in full.

Darwin and the Mathematicians

David Berlinski

November 7, 2009, 7:00 AM

ENV: In the past, you’ve remarked about mathematicians and their opinions of Darwin’s theory of evolution. They were skeptical, you said; very skeptical. John Von Neumann was an example. How do you know that about him and about other mathematicians?
DB: How do I know? Here’s how:
I have been close to a number of mathematicians, and friends with others: Daniel Gallin (who died before he could begin his career), M.P. Schutzenberger (my great friend), René Thom (a friend as well), Gian-Carlo Rota (another friend), Lipman Bers (who taught me complex analysis and with whom I briefly shared a hospital room, he leaving as I was coming), Paul Halmos (a colleagues in California), and Irving Segal (a friend by correspondence, embattled and distraught). Some of these men I admired very much, and all of them I liked.
I had many other friends in the international mathematical community. We exchanged views; I got around.
Among the mathematicians that I knew from very roughly 1970 to 1995, the general attitude toward Darwin’s theory was one of skepticism. These days, I do not get around all that much, and whatever the mathematician’s pulse, I do not have my finger on it. But the reactions of which I speak were hardly surprising. Until recently, mathematicians have been skeptical of any discipline beyond mathematics, and I say until recently because attitudes as well as times have changed.
In talking of the mathematician’s skepticism, I mentioned Von Neumann because his name was widely known. I might have mentioned Gian-Carlo Rota. He despised the enveloping air of worship associated with Darwin; he thought biology primitive and dishonest.
Continue reading “Darwin and the Mathematicians: David Berlinski”

Darwinian delusions/Darwin and the Loss of the Enlightenment | Evolution News

The wrong-headed near idiocy of the ID group behind their often cogent critiques of Darwinian full idiocy betrays here the usual misfire against the Enlightenment. It is the core moment of emerging secular thought and that is detested, wrongly, by many religionists. The larger picture is something far far more complex in a portrait of the Enlightenment in its many facets far beyond the one-liners of these crypto-creationists. The Enlightenment contained the seeds of the religion of future, as far as that goes and is not some simplistic atheism but a liberation from the ‘pop theism’ and ‘god gibberish’ inflicted on the ocident in parallel to the far superior (atheistic) Buddhism. Not only is the Enlightenment far more complex than the reduced portrait given it is also an aspect of the ‘modern transition’ which is a vast tide of social innovations, starting we might note with the Protestant Reformation which spawns the very religion in question here.
The modern transition naturally moves beyond itself as physics rapidly moves beyond simple Newtonism but this a unity of subjects finally and is not some kind of displacement of the Enlightenment.
One should note that isolating the Enlightenment out of context forever misses the point. Consider the larger picture where the Enlightenement is counterpoinnt to itself in the dialectic of the Romantic movement and/or the figure of Kant who challenges metaphysics, both religious and secular. Secular humanism has its own limits but it has little claim on the Enlightenment as it, taking Marx as an example among many, as it makes a fundamentalism scientism of its own, far reduced from the richness of the Enlightenment and the modern transition (cf. WHEE). The discoveries of modern physics are the grandchildren of Newtonian physics and the Enlgitenment.
We should note that the history of Darwinism and atheism is itself another complexity ill served by the fundamentalism of the ‘new atheists’ and figures such as Richar Dawkins. Let us note that before Darwin we see the Enlightenment gestate a first real theory of evolution in the Kantian school of teleomechanists! The real theory of evolution is the first born of that period where Darwinism is a sort of dead fish of English capitalism and its rapid creation of a false thought monopoly.
The world of Protestantism would do well to extend their Reformation into a new future. There is absolutely no reason why modern Christianity has to preserve its mummified god-concept and it can as well create a liberating ‘semi’-‘atheism’ (in quotation marks) based on the ‘unspoken IHVH’ given as direct pointing.

In two articles so far (here and here), I have been exploring how justified the new atheists’ appropriation of Darwinian ideas is. This is the third and final post. As we’ve seen, Erasmus Darwin was a quintessential legatee of Enlightenment prepossessions. As its somewhat virtue-signaling name implies, the thinkers of the Enlightenment wished to distance themselves from anything that smacked of religious “superstition.” This led to the determination to declare a unilateral declaration of independence from the metaphysical sphere in favor of purely “scientific” modes of explanation. Yet in the face of the last century of scientific discoveries we have come to realize that hubristic expectations stemming from the Enlightenment dream of encompassing the whole of reality in some grand material theory of everything have been forced into a reluctant retreat.1

Source: Darwin and the Loss of the Enlightenment | Evolution News

better late than never…//Do we need a new theory of evolution?  

Better late than never: can science restore its reputation after such a long confusion exposed long ago?

The long read: A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul. Their opponents have dismissed them as misguided careerists – and the conflict may determine the future of biology

Source: Do we need a new theory of evolution? | Evolution | The Guardian