[Marxism-Thaxis] From Marxmail - Letter from Andrew Pollack on the Smithsonian's pandering to intelligent design theorists
Because of the way it panders to religious charlatans in efforts to appear neutral, your article today on how the Smithsonian has prostituted itself to the creationist Discovery Institute is almost as shameful as the Smithsonians act itself. (John Schwartz, Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution, May 28, 2005). (I have appended the full article for lists I am ccing on this.) Despite its own policy stating that "events of a religious or partisan political nature" are not permitted, the Museum took $16,000 for a blatantly pro-religious event. No-one informed of the facts in this controversy could reasonably claim intelligent [sic] design is anything other than a religious theory. Apparently your reporter did not bother to ask the Museum spokesperson why they were violating their own policy. But perhaps this is because of confusion on the reporters part, as he seems to have succumbed sufficiently to the claims of intelligent design to buy into some of their claims. For instance, he describes the Discovery Institute as a group in Seattle that supports an alternative theory, intelligent design... Intelligent design is not an alternative theory to evolution. The former is a religion-inspired attempt to deny the fact of the latter. Evolution is a fact, the only scientifically-proven means for explaining the change over time, and the diversity in form and function, of species. Intelligent design is not an alternative to it, but a religious mythology designed to undercut evolution and the scientific method underlying it. Worse yet, your reporter states: Although Charles Darwin's theory is widely viewed as having been proved by fossil records and modern biological phenomena, it is challenged by those who say that it is flawed and that alternatives need to be taught. Widely viewed by whom? By the entire credible scientific community and any well-informed citizen. Challenged by whom? Only by those so ignorant of the facts and/or willing to ignore those facts because of their religious mythology, that they are willing to discard a fact as proven as that the earth circles the sun. In his clause it is challenged by those who say that it is flawed and that alternatives need to be taught, your reporter again doesnt identify who those who say are, or what the alternatives needing to be taught are. This gem of journalistic objectivity and neutrality gives equal weight to antiscience religious charlatans and the entire scientific community. (For some useful quotes on evolution as fact, see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html, with quotes from Gould, Dobzhansky, Lewontin and others, or an article by Dawkins at http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/A rticles/alabama/1996-04-01alabama.shtml). Andrew Pollack Brooklyn, New York (full article at www.nytimes.com/2005/05/28/national/28smithsonian.html?) - -- NY Times May 28, 2005 Smithsonian to Screen a Movie That Makes a Case Against Evolution By JOHN SCHWARTZ Fossils at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History have been used to prove the theory of evolution. Next month the museum will play host to a film intended to undercut evolution. The Discovery Institute, a group in Seattle that supports an alternative theory, "intelligent design," is announcing on its Web site that it and the director of the museum "are happy to announce the national premiere and private evening reception" on June 23 for the movie, "The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe." The film is a documentary based on a 2004 book by Guillermo Gonzalez, an assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State University, and Jay W. Richards, a vice president of the Discovery Institute, that makes the case for the hand of a creator in the design of Earth and the universe. News of the Discovery Institute's announcement appeared on a blog maintained by Denyse O'Leary, a proponent of the intelligent design theory, who called it "a stunning development." But a museum spokesman, Randall Kremer, said the event should not be taken as support for the views expressed in the film. "It is incorrect for anyone to infer that we are somehow endorsing the video or the content of the video," he said. The museum, he said, offers its Baird Auditorium to many organizations and corporations in return for contributions - in the case of the Discovery Institute, $16,000. When the language of the Discovery Institute's Web site was read to him, with its suggestion of support, Mr. Kremer said, "We'll have to look into that." He added, "We're happy to receive this contribution from the Discovery Institute to further our scientific research." The president of the Discovery Institute, Bruce Chapman, said his organization approached the museum through its public relations company and the
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! > > but what about history of nature? I mean before there wasn't anything that > can be qualified as man's interaction withthe world. does in your view > dialectics start with the appearance of a species that does not simply adjust > itself to nature like other animals but starts changibng it more or less > conscioulsy by labour? > > NOTE, THAT THE ISSUE OF THE RELEVANCE OF LOGIC (DIALECTICS) TO HUMAN HISTORY > IS NOT A MATTER OF THE NATURE OF THE WORLD BUT OF MAN'S INTERACTION WITH THE > WORLD Whether or not nature has a history is a question for nature, of little relevance for the practical realization of human needs. Man, in order to better determine his needs and the means necessary to realize them investigates through reason and practice (experimentation and informed search) the development of the relevant (essential) incohoate features of the natural world, including those of his own activities. The result is the objective determinations of past events in the natural world and of their relevance to the form and substance of our current needs and to the realization of these in practical activity. The laws and principles as well as the developmental schemas produced by our research into what is called Natural History are a product of and the means for realization of strictly human objectives. Is this a history of nature? Well, we are ourselves an integral part and force of the natural world and the massive array of objects we depend on for perpetuation of our life activity have their ultimate origin in nature, but that's a far cry from arguing that human beings and their essential equipage is identical with the totality of nature or that our activity in nature involves nature as a whole. Regards, Oudeyis > > > ___ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.0.0 - Release Date: 27/05/05 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 267.2.0 - Release Date: 27/05/05 ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
- Original Message - From: "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx andthe thinkers he inspired'" Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:04 PM Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! > > [Marxism-Thaxis] > > Oudeyis > > > -clip- > Describing > their accomplishment in a dialectical form, the materialism of Marx, Engels > and Lenin is not a statement about the world but about the unity of logical > and physical and sensual activity in human labour (practice). > NOTE, THAT THE ISSUE OF THE RELEVANCE OF LOGIC (DIALECTICS) TO HUMAN HISTORY > IS NOT A MATTER OF THE NATURE OF THE WORLD BUT OF MAN'S INTERACTION WITH THE > WORLD. > > ^ > > CB: For me, this is a good way to say it. I would just add that their > attitude was that the best way to conclude "what the nature of the world " > is is to see what "works" in the world in practice. This is very clever, > cunning, desirable to follow, as human's have no interest in "the nature of > the world" except in human interaction with the world. > > > > As regards the universality of the laws of dialectics: > The abstract laws of dialectics are universalities. We may like > McTaggart find them less than perfect, but whatever the modifications, > revisions and so on we may make on dialectics is a matter of dealing with > universals. That dialectic processes may produce divergent truths is a > different issue from the universality of the logical process itself. To > understand the emergence of divergent dialectically arrived at truths, we > must recognize the diversity of objects and subjects of dialectical > activities. Science, the development of practical knowledge, has as its > object the realization of men's needs in the transformation of the material > world, or, in other words the realization of the needs of men that are > ultimately the function of his being a part and force in nature through the > transformation of nature in conformance to the specifications implied by > those needs. All the components of this description; the object and subject > of the activity described, the means and ends of scientific activity, > involve states universal to men and to the subject of his activity, hence > divergence in science is always a temporary product of differentiated and > limited practical experience. For science truth, temporary as it may be, is > found in effective practice. > > ^^ > CB: This is fundamental for Marx, Engels , Lenin: Theses on Feurerbach, > Anti-Duhring, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. > > ^ > > The divergencies of the dialectics of ethics (ideality) on the other > hand are an inevitable and irresolvable consequence of all the > differentiating forces that emerge in human social life; the gender > distinctions, the division of labour, ethnic segregation, and so on. True, > the methods of Natural Science of History, Historical Materialism, can > provide scientific universals that enable the development of theory and > practice to produce, regulate and revise these distinctions, but these > universals, theories and practices should never be confused with the > arguments of the dialectics of ethics (the main object of Hegel and to a > considerable extent of Kant). In general, where we find irreconcilable (in > practice) dialectical arguments we have entered into a debate over ethics or > ethos rather than over a scientific issue. Dialectical arguments of this > sort are properly the realm of religion and traditional philosophy, classic > materialism being an example of the latter. > Regards, > Oudeyis > > ^^^ > > CB: What do you think of treating ethics as a category of practice , since > ethics deals with what people as does practice ? One of the most interesting and to me attractive aspects of Ilyenkov's (1977 The Concept of the Ideal, 1974 Dialectical Logic, and 1960 Dialectics of the Abstract and the Concrete) discussion on ideality is the view that Capital is basically a material (or natural scientific) analysis of the ethos and ethics of the capitalist mode of production. I. L. Rubin (1972 -originally 1928 Essays on Marx's Theory of Value) also presents capitalist practice as a working ethical system. Vygotsky (1978 -originally 1930 - Mind in Society) also has a good deal to say on the role of ethics as a means to social ends, particularly as regards the socialization of prospective members of society. Ethics and ethos are social practice. However, the object and means of social practice as ethics are considerably different from the practicalities of science and practical labour. These differences are not always easy to identify since the intellectual tools for theorizing about ethical social practice and about labour practice are virtually the same: e.g. speech forms, texts, graphic representations and of course dialectics. The difference is usually even harder to detect when the subject of theory is social practice. The ba
