2004-04-21 18:46:51 UTC
abbandonare l' insegnamento dell' evoluzione nelle scuole, e di come
si voglia attribuire la responsabilita' di questo a gruppi di bigotti
di destra, che intendono cosi' reintrodurre l' insegnamento del
creazionismo, come succede in certe scuole americane.
Si vanno cosi' creando, nella testa della gente le equazioni
Darwin (scienza) = sinistra
Religione (ignoranza)= destra
Tutto questo e' falso.
1 Darwin era razzista
2 il razzismo scientifico e l' eugenetica sono nati grazie a Darwin
3 tutti i razzisti scientifici si basano sull' evoluzionismo
4 il nazismo baso' la sua politica sociale sulla biologia darwinista
5 l' attacco al darwinismo e' partito da sinistra
Purtroppo anche l' abbandono dell'evoluzione nei programmi di
insegnamento scolastico fa parte di una lunga serie di diffusi e
deliranti modi di pensare antiscientifici, tutti riconducibili al
marxismo, alla religione cristiana o all' inconcludente e ridicola
cultura intellettuale "umanista":
Innanzitutto il diffuso sentimento antiscientifico, che accusa la
scienza e la tecnologia di ogni male possibile.
Il pensiero antioccidentale, che denigra in ogni modo la civilta'
occidentale capitalista, considerandola la fonte di ogni male, non
dissimilmente da quanto fa la malefica e distruttiva religione
islamica, da questi stessi elementi, coerentemente molto apprezzata.
La ribellione alla medicina occidentale, diffusa,naturalmente in
occidente, cioe' tra gli individui che maggiormente ne hanno
beneficiato , che afferma di rifiutare i farmaci, le "cose chimiche"
che la progredita medicina occidentale utilizza con grande successo
per la cura di ormai ogni malattia per ricorrere a farneticanti cure
"naturali" come omeopatia, urinoterapia, magnetoterapia, pranoterapia,
lo yoga, i fiori di Bach, i mandala, i pendolini, maghi e
La stessa ribellione alla razionalita' di chi crede all' astrologia,
agli ufo, ai fantasmi, ad atlantide, alle mitologiche civilta'
scomparse, agli angeli, ai tarocchi.
Tutto questo background culturale oscurantista ed antiscientifico e'
tipico negli ambienti di sinistra, con la massima diffusione tra gli
ambientalisti no-global, nei quali il rifiuto per la scienza e la
tecnologia e' sempre stato massimo: guerra dichiarata agli OGM, al
nucleare, all' industria chimica ed all' ingeneria genetica.
Naturalmente vengono contestate anche la cultura occidentale, il
consumismo, il capitalismo, e la si accusa di aver distrutto altre
civilta' meno avanzate.
A questo proposito poi, viene spesso ripetuto che la civilta'
occidentale non sia affatto superiore alle altre, nemmeno alle tribu'
primitive di negri !
Naturalmente affermazioni del genere sono ridicole: anche la civilta'
occidentale era nello stato in cui oggi sono le tribu' primitive di
selvaggi, ma lo era migliaia di anni fa, quindi e' chiaramente
superiore a chi, in tutto questo tempo non ha saputo scoprire nemmeno
la ruota o la scrittura.
Viene anche affermato che la civilta' tecnologica occidentale avrebbe
"fallito" , perche' oggi vi sono milioni di africani che muoiono di
fame, pretedendo, con questo che gli occidentali avessero il dovere di
sfamarle. Naturalmente questo viene affermato dagli stessi che
sostengono che le "culture" di negri ed indios siano uguali alle
nostre: non si capisce come si possa sostenere che due culture siano
uguali quando poi si sostiene che una debba mantenere a vita e sfamare
l' altra, evidemente meno capace.
Tutte queste affermazioni e credenze assurde e deliranti potrebbero
farci pensare che queste persone siano veramente dei pazzoidi, dei
mentecatti malati mentali e il comportamento di queste persone, con
tentativi di insurrezione armata, terrorismo, atti vandalici ed
appoggio a regimi tirannici non fa che confermare questa idea.
due documenti presi da questi link sulla campagna della BIOLOGIA
MARXISTA per demolire il darwinismo.
The Campaign to Undermine Darwinism
Beginning in the 1920s when the Franz Boas school of anthropology
succeeded in decoupling the biological from the social sciences,
Darwinism has been marginalized in the human sciences. Although early
in the century William McDougall had proposed an "instinct" theory of
personality, and G. Stanley Hall had advanced an evolutionary
perspective for developmental psychology, Darwinism was swept away in
the 1920s by various environmentalist doctrines. Freud's Oedipal
theories and Watson's behavioral molding of individuals were
compatible with Marx's assumptions of the malleability of entire
social groups through government intervention.
In the 1950s, hostility to the record of Nazi racial atrocities
tainted attempts to restore Darwinism to the social sciences. From
that time on, it became increasingly difficult to suggest that
individuals or groups might differ genetically in behavior without
being accused of Nazi sympathies.
Those who believed in the biological identity of all people, on
the other hand, remained free to write what they liked, without fear
of vilification. In the intervening decades, the idea of a genetically
based core of human nature on which individuals and groups might
differ was consistently derogated. This intellectual movement has been
politically fueled by successively coupling it to Third World
decolonization, the U.S. civil rights movement, the struggle against
apartheid in South Africa, and the renewed debates over immigration.
Let us be explicit about the problem faced by Darwinian psychology
-- political correctness. Its central thesis is the environmental
determinism of all important human traits. It stems from Marxism and a
belief that social and economic oppression are the cause of all
significant individual and group behavioral differences. The Marxist
hold on liberal political sentiment is so extensive many of us think
that way without realizing it. We censor ourselves lest we even dare
to think the forbidden thoughts.
In a 1975 paper invited by the British Association for the
Advancement of Science, Professor Hans Eysenck, himself a refugee from
Hitler's Germany but a strong advocate of Darwinian bio-social
psychology and the doyen of British psychology, wrote:
It used to be taken for granted that it was not only ethically right
for scientists to make public their discoveries; it was regarded as
their duty to do so. Secrecy, the withholding of information, and the
refusal to communicate knowledge were rightly regarded as cardinal
sins against the scientific ethos. This is true no more. In recent
years it has been argued, more and more vociferously, that scientists
should have regard for the social consequences of their discoveries,
and of their pronouncements; if these consequences are undesirable,
the research in the area involved should be terminated, and the
results already achieved should not be publicized. The area which has
seen most of this kind of argumentation is of course that concerned
with inheritance of intelligence, and with racial differences in
Richard Lynn, another British Darwinian psychologist, noted that
many politically left-of-center scientists are currently in the same
position as Christians were after the publication of The Origin of
Species. He called on liberals to do what honest, intelligent
Christians did then and what many still do today. Bite the bullet, and
jettison those aspects of their world view (like egalitarianism) that
are incompatible with the science of natural selection. Political
correctness must be discarded if evolutionary theory is to achieve its
full promise to become the unifying framework for the human sciences.
Franz Boas - Liberal Icon, Scientific Fraud
By Sam Francis
Two of the major superstitions of our time are the notion that man is
merely a blank slate whose behavior is merely the product of the
social environment and its sister, that race doesn't exist. Yet one by
one, the pseudo-scientific sources of these myths are being
discredited by serious scientists, and last week, one of the biggest
sources of all took a nose dive.
Franz Boas, often called the grandfather of modern anthropology and a
pioneer pusher of the idea that race is not a very meaningful concept,
merely a "social construct" not found in nature, probably ranks with
Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud as one of the most influential thinkers of
the modern age. As a Columbia professor from 1899 to 1942, he
virtually created modern anthropology, and the students he
trained-among them, Margaret Mead and some of the most famous names in
the field-dominated the discipline until only a few years ago.
One of Boas' favorite targets was so-called "scientific racism," and
much of his own writing was intended to combat what he saw-sometimes
rightly- as unscientific or simply false thinking about race.
But it now turns out that Boas himself was guilty of no small degree
of unscientific blunder-and maybe even fraud.
In 1912, Boas published what became a classic study that claimed to
show that the skull shapes ("cranial forms") of the descendants of
European immigrants to the United States altered from those of the
original immigrants. Boas offered no explanation for why the changes
took place, but if they were real, his finding pretty much wiped out
the idea that different racial and ethnic types differ in fixed
Boas's study, write Abram Kardiner and Edward Preble in their popular
history of anthropology, They Studied Man, [pay archive]
"did much to establish the notion in human genetics that what are
transmitted in the germ plasm are not fixed characters but
potentialities ... dependent upon the environment for the particular
form they will assume. The 'nature-nurture' controversy was largely
obviated by this alternative."
In political terms, if human beings have few or no "fixed characters"
and are shaped by the social environment, then what we know as modern
liberalism is in business. So is communism, which also assumes that
human beings can be transformed by manipulating the social
It's no accident that Boas was a lifelong sympathizer of Marxism.
Unfortunately, for the social and human engineers, the study has now
been shown to be invalid. Last week in the New York Times Science
section, science reporter Nicholas Wade reported on an article in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by anthropologists
Corey Sparks and Richard L. Jantz that took another look at Boas's
study and methods. The effects of the new environment on the skulls of
the immigrants' descendants, they found, are "insignificant," and the
difference between the European and American born children were
"negligible in comparison to the differentiation between ethnic
groups." ["A New Look at Old Data May Discredit a Theory on Race" By
Nicholas Wade, NYT.Oct 8, 2002]
Moreover, as Dr. Jantz told the Times, Boas
"was intent on showing that the scientific racism of the day had no
basis, but he did have to shade his data some to make it come out that
In other words, Boas decided what his conclusions would be before he
finished the research and then "shaded"-i.e., cheated on-the data to
make them support the conclusion he wanted.
This is not science; it's fraud -- and modern liberalism is founded on
It doesn't mean that the "scientific racism" Boas wanted to destroy is
valid, but then again, as Dr. Jantz, says, it also "doesn't mean
cranial morphology [the classification of skulls by race] is
Yet Boas was by far not the worst offender when it came to twisting
data to support politically desired conclusions. His student Margaret
Mead has been shown to have outright fabricated much of her data on
Samoan sex life in the 1920s, and the claims about the lack of genetic
influence on IQ of several other scientists trained or influenced by
Boas have also been challenged by later research.
Anthropologist David Thomas, curator of anthropology at the American
Museum of Natural History in New York, tells the Times
"once we anthropologists said race doesn't exist, we have ignored it
but now, the reappraisal of Boas' work
"really does have far-reaching ramifications."
You can say that again.
Not only has a giant of modern social science-and a pillar of modern
liberalism-tumbled from his pedestal, but the dogma that man is merely
a blank slate, on which state bureaucrats and social engineers may
scribble whatever ideologies they please, has toppled with him.
If that dogma really can be killed, then much of the tyranny and chaos
it has helped create will die with it.