Facts, Theories, Policies

In the comments section at Foseti’s, Handle (who should seriously consider starting his own blog) continues to discuss the relationship between evolutionary theory, Christians, seculars, and the Dark Enlightenment. He glosses four possible views of humanity:

You can make a little 4×4 matrix. Humans are:

AA: The product of Evolution and thus HBD.
AB: The product of Evolution and yet EQUAL.
BA: The product of God and thus HBD.
BB: The product of God and thus EQUAL.

Notice that only AB really requires a “yet” – the contradiction is inherent. God can do anything he wants. Following the logic and evidence of Biology would lead you to AA. But AB needs a whole lot of sophistry and social pressure.

I’m persuaded. My previous post attempted to make the same point: that someone like Derb (AA) and someone like Dalrock (BA) have arrived at the same conclusion via different routes; in terms of policy, however, the conclusion is really all that matters.

To what extent would your average biology graduate student or genetics professor accept that AB is, in fact, his own worldview? If he is intellectually honest, I imagine it might look like this:

AB2: The product of Evolution and thus HBD and yet EQUAL because . . .

We’re at the third level of knowledge after because, which means that no appeal to facts or theories (evolution, IQ gaps, whatever) will convince our hypothetical Leftist biologist not to pursue Equality at all costs. For him, the pursuit is its own good. It is a policy built on morals, divorced from lower-order facts and theories. So no “facts” will convince him to abandon the policy, even though Detroit might collapse around him while Silicone Valley thrives.

Advertisements

17 responses

  1. BB was the Victorian or American Populist position- see William Jennings Bryant- and AA the Progressive position. The first provides for a paternalist leadership, the second for a rather openly hostile elite. AA pissed off the masses, so the New Deal went back to BB officially and kept AA for insiders. The modern, small p progressive revolt against the New Deal didn’t like that so they came up with AB. AB doesn’t hold up to much examination, especially after decades of policy, so we get AB2 and soon AB3.

    April 29, 2013 at 3:51 am

    • Good analysis. Someone needs to write the definitive account of how/why the Left went from AA to AB post-1960s.

      Also, I much prefer BB to the sophistries of AB. Egalitarianism preached from a pulpit is not nearly as destructive or annoying; however, as Moldbug and others have proven ad nauseum, it’s nearly impossible to keep the benign egalitarianism of Bryant-style Christianity from drifting ever-Leftward at the margins, until you end up with the contemporary Episcopal Church.

      April 30, 2013 at 12:26 am

  2. Pingback: Is Christianity Inherently Left-Wing and Egalitarian? | Occam's Razor

  3. thordaddy

    It is erroneous to cling to a conception of “Evolution” that does not then contain “equal” outcome. At the most fundamental level, believers in “evolution” are saying “we” are all “equally” mechanistic in nature. And because the “inputs” are also strictly mechanistic then all final product is equally “mechanistic” in nature.

    It is “life’s” ultimately mechanistic nature that stands as the empirical assumption upon which “Evolution” stands. It is our “descent” from the origin of life that stands as the only “real” evidence for “Evolution.” Neither speciation (HBD) nor adaptation need be evidence for “Evolution” as there is nothing inherent to a “descent” that necessitates either one. In fact, both speciation and adaptation SEEM to falsify a mechanistic foundation of Life, i.e., Evolution.

    April 29, 2013 at 8:49 pm

    • Your first paragraph is indeed the kind of sophistry spun by Cathedral mouthpieces when they attempt to cling to scientific principles; however, that doesn’t mean it’s not a sophistry, and a sophistry that is easily provable as such.

      Even a layman’s understanding of evolution would lead any intellectually honest individual to admit that expecting “mechanistic” evolution to lead to Equality in all things across individuals and populations is a gigantic leap of unfalsifiable faith.

      Also, don’t you think that putting together Christianity and white supremacism leads to just as many problems as the ones you try to highlight about evolution? I can see now one can end up at HBD in general and still be a Christian; I still don’t see how white supremacy, follows, though.

      April 30, 2013 at 12:39 am

      • thordaddy

        Scharlach,

        Modern Evolutionary Theory asserts “descent with modification.”

        Clearly, “descent” is the ONLY necessary evidence for “Evolution” with “modification” standing in as a wholly unnecessary, but still plausible validation of “evolution.” Meaning, if there were no “modification” such that “descent” was all that had actually transpired, we would still have “Evolution” in the truest sense. But what does “descent” as evidence for “Evolution” actually mean? It means that there was a mechanistic origin totally enveloped by strictly mechanistic “inputs” producing a predictably mechanistic “output.” The tie that binds and serves as the evidence for “Evolution” is ALL OF Life’s fundamentally mechanistic nature that was there at the origin and remains intact up to this very moment. “Evolution” asserts a mechanistic nature that is “equal” in all living things.

        April 30, 2013 at 1:22 am

      • thordaddy

        Scharlach,

        I didn’t say “Evolution” led to “equality” in all living things. Rather, “Evolution” starts with “equality” in all living things and even with “modification” this fundamental mechanistic “equality” does not alter.

        April 30, 2013 at 1:25 am

      • thordaddy

        Scharlach,

        White Supremacy is simply white men striving towards Supremacy. A true evolutionist, unfortunately, cannot begin to conceptionally model this phenomenon as he is confined to strictly mechanistic explanations for the “doings” of all living things.

        Christianity is a Supremacist doctrine as it makes claim to both Absolute Truth and the fact of a God and a Man who could “do no wrong,” This is the true essence of Christian “universalism.” Of course, a God and Man who could “do no wrong” are, by definition, perfect. And perfection is the truest evidence for omnipotence.

        The genuine white Supremacist is the traditionally religious ethno-nationalist of the West. He is, if there is even a chance of, the only one that can “save” the white West. Neither the “white” liberal nor the colored Christian can, will or should “save” the West.

        April 30, 2013 at 3:23 am

  4. Desi Pride

    I have to ask, how the heck does Razib Khan qualify as an “ethno-nationalist” as listed here?

    April 30, 2013 at 1:51 am

    • He’s not. He’s attached only to the HBD node. Colors and lines count for more than proximity. Proximity only matters within clusters.

      April 30, 2013 at 2:05 am

  5. thordaddy

    When HBDers assert a natural inequality as evidenced by human biodiversity, they are not asserting a fundamental inequality between humans beings. They are really only asserting an unequal “output” and not an unequa input, origin or nature. And even when asserting unequal outcomes, the “unequalness” does not actually come about through human agency, but is also merely an effect of an “equal” mechanistic input, origin and/or nature.

    April 30, 2013 at 3:05 am

  6. Desi Pride

    Uniqueness, not unequalness.

    The Desis over at Sepia Mutiny are rolling over in their virtual graves upon reading that their brown-Bangledeshi-ex-Muslim-turned-atheist-married-2-white-Amreekan-woman brethren King Khan is an “ethno-nationalist”.

    For which ethnicity and which nation?

    Tumi pogol acche?

    April 30, 2013 at 3:39 am

    • thordaddy

      Desi Pride,

      The real debate is amongst Evolutionists. One set believes in evolution producing inequality and the other set believes in evolution producing equal outcomes.

      Of course, the white Supremacist is here to simply point out a few things.

      First, the evolutionary paradigm is continuously subordinated to man’s God-ordained free will. Secondly, the evolutionary paradigm doesn’t really exist and that is why it can be consciously usurped. Third, the debate amongst evolutionists is a debate amongst two sects of liberal that share a false foundational belief with the more leftist sect embracing an additional false belief in order to prove his superior leftism.

      April 30, 2013 at 8:43 am

    • Desi, please let the folks over at Sepia Mutiny know that they mis-read the network map. Khan is attached ONLY to the HBD node. Thinking about him as an ethno-nationalist is making me lol.

      April 30, 2013 at 3:48 pm

  7. thordaddy

    Scharlach,

    In regards to “Evolution,” the strength of the empirical evidence goes something like this:

    1. Descent. Wholly necessary and primary.

    2. Speciation. Wholly unnecessary, but a plausible effect of “descent.”

    3. Adaptation (HBD). Wholly unnecessary, but in conformity with speciation and thus plausible evidence for “descent.”

    If “life” had simply survived, replicated to above replacement level and then died over and over from the start until this very moment without undergoing speciation or adaption, there would still be “evolution.”

    HBD is the weakest evidence for “Evolution.”

    Human biodiversity is the strongest evidence for Creator God.

    April 30, 2013 at 8:53 pm

  8. thordaddy

    Sharlach,

    What is another glaring weakness of the HBD movement?

    It has nothing to say concerning the homosexual “nature” and what happens to a society that embraces and exalts it with “equal” status.

    Of course, a “population” that embraces and then exalts self-annihilation seems to indicate its utter contempt for the “evolutionary” mandates of survival and reproduction.

    April 30, 2013 at 9:18 pm

    • survivingbabel

      Less than 5% of the population is homosexual. I would venture a guess that there are more heterosexuals in the “child-free” movement than there are homosexuals in America today. It’s time to focus on the real problems, not the sideshows.

      May 3, 2013 at 6:35 pm

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