Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Libertarians Against Darwin


Robert J. RingerI was a big fan of Robert J. Ringer in the 1970s (author of the runaway bestseller WINNING THROUGH INTIMIDATION — which was not about learning to intimidate others but about preventing others from intimidating you — good information if you have to deal with Darwinists).

In the 1980s Ringer became a champion of libertarianism, which he has continued to the present, especially through his blog. In the last few years I’ve corresponded with him and learned that he too is a Darwin doubter. At his request, I wrote a short piece for his blog titled “Saving Our Freedoms from Darwin”:

[EXCERPT:] Paternalists have always been infatuated with Darwin. Yet, having embraced Darwinism as a tool for social control, they became loath to reexamine whether Darwinism is true at all. Unlike Lady Ashley, they hope and wish that Darwinism is true. But is it really? Hoping and wishing never make anything true. Truth is decided by evidence. Mounting evidence shows that the theory is false. (See my book Intelligent Design Uncensored.) And if it is demonstrably false, then let’s be done with using it to justify utopian political schemes whose sole aim is to enslave us for our benefit. Human freedom and responsibility are too precious to be ceded to Darwin.

SOURCE: http://blog.robertringer.com/2010/11/19/saving-our-freedoms-from-darwin

The problem is not a simple one. During communism Lysenko and his comrades modified darwinism ranting against genetics creating "Creative Darwinism". They believed that one species can be turn over to another species just by changing its environment. Oddly enough they hit on some interesting observations which were known by Russian breeders and cant be explained easy by neodarwinism. Professor Zdenek Flegr UNI Prague has written about them recently. I also wrote a blog entry about Marxism vs. Darwinism. Shortly speaking marxism believes in sudden changes not only in society, but also in nature. That's why marxism doesn't have any problems with saltationism (or as late Gould put it in neodarwinian Latin newspeak - punctuated equilibria). As Lenin said: "A dialectical idealist is closer to our teaching then a mechanistic materialist." Another interesting fact is than the work of Austrian antidarwinian entomologist and anti-selectionist Franz Heikertiger "Mimikry und seine Loesung" was published in East Germany 1954. VMartin
My problem with local libertarians is that many misunderstand the nature of business, sometimes to their own hurt. Businesses organize in order to make money. In a free society, they cater to a free populace. In an unfree society - I mean one that even permits businesses other than those owned by the government - they throw leftovers from the tables of the privileged at an unfree populace. Recently, an Internet host in my country dumped a colleague's blog for fear of repercussions from Islamic fascists. I felt prompted to explain: Our government has a strong recent history of dimwittedly facilitating Islamic fascists, using new laws against causing offense. But that hosting business exists to make money, not lose it, and SLAPP lawsuits would destroy it, even if the suits were without substance. The blogger relocated digitally in Denmark, a country which is making a specialty of saying no to mind-ers, whether Islamist, leftist, or whatever. And regarding those two just mentioned, it is surprising how often one finds them sharing a bed, so to speak ... If the government is free world, the smart money is in a free world. If government is fascist, the smart money is in fascism, left, right or religious. O'Leary

Leave a Reply