Evolution Theory as a Powerful Weapon?

[Abu Zakir]

Charles Simonyi, head of Microsoft’s Intentional Programming team, gave Oxford University funds to establish a Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science with Richard Dawkins specifically in mind.

We might ask why would a powerful corporation like Microsoft pay a Atheistic Scientist like Richard Dawkins to promote his Science?

Evolutionary Theory claims that the talented animals naturally rise to dominate society and become its elite (Social Darwinism). Microsoft has become a dominant corporation therefore it deserves this position by nature. So Microsoft would promote the Scientists who say these things. Then of course we also have Bill Gates the very rich former owner of Microsoft who supposedly gives millions in charity and who promotes the feeding of the poor. I do not know the intentions of Bill Gates, but I suspect he is only promoting his company as most of these elites are followers of Thomas Malthus who said there are too many people in the world and we (the rich and powerful people) need to help reduce the human population, some of these people hate human beings and see them as nothing more than 'a virus'. Gates is probably not giving as much as it is claimed he gives, and the donations are never given free with no conditions tied.


Please note Corporations like Microsoft and Apple etc. did not rise to dominance through competition in a free market. They were mostly protected by their governments and they were given large sums of money by the US government (welfare to the rich). They were also given lucrative contracts by the American Military Industrial Complex, when the American government was involved in the Cold War and the War on Terror. So we see that War is a means of increasing the power of corporations.

[StopS]

Charles Simonyi, head of Microsoft’s Intentional Programming team, gave Oxford University funds to establish a Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science with Richard Dawkins specifically in mind.

We might ask why would a powerful corporation like Microsoft pay a Atheistic Scientist like Richard Dawkins to promote his Science?

Evolutionary Theory claims that the talented animals naturally rise to dominate society and become its elite (Social Darwinism). Microsoft has become a dominant corporation therefore it deserves this position by nature. So Microsoft would promote the Scientists who say these things. Then of course we also have Bill Gates the very rich former owner of Microsoft who supposedly gives millions in charity and who promotes the feeding of the poor. I do not know the intentions of Bill Gates, but I suspect he is only promoting his company as most of these elites are followers of Thomas Malthus who said there are too many people in the world and we (the rich and powerful people) need to help reduce the human population, some of these people hate human beings and see them as nothing more than 'a virus'. Gates is probably not giving as much as it is claimed he gives, and the donations are never given free with no conditions tied.


Please note Corporations like Microsoft and Apple etc. did not rise to dominance through competition in a free market. They were mostly protected by their governments and they were given large sums of money by the US government (welfare to the rich). They were also given lucrative contracts by the American Military Industrial Complex, when the American government was involved in the Cold War and the War on Terror. So we see that War is a means of increasing the power of corporations.

What is the purpose of an essay like this?

Charles Simonyi initiated more than one program, this being the Professorship of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. And?

Is there a difference between an "Atheistic Scientist" and a "Theistic Scientist"??? Why does Prof. Dawkins get to have "his Science"? Is the "Dawkins Science" different from other science or normal science?


What on Earth is "Evolutionary Theory"?

And "talented animals"? How can they "dominate society"? What exactly is "Social Darwinism"? What are "these things" scientists say? Why is it that Bill Gates "supposedly gives millions in charity" when it is a well known fact? The entire article smacks of false accusations, misrepresentation and confirmation bias.

"I do not know" "suspect" "probably" "mostly" are a showing a not too confident and knowledgeable approach to this topic without any serious research or reasoning. Throw in a couple of false accusations and blinkered views and you arrive at cheap propaganda.
Personally, I hate Apple and Microsoft for their monopolistic business tactics, but I stay honest when it comes to their representation.
So sorry: fail.

[Abu Zakir]

[QUOTE]

What is the purpose of an essay like this?

Charles Simonyi initiated more than one program, this being the Professorship of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. And?

Is there a difference between an "Atheistic Scientist" and a "Theistic Scientist"??? Why does Prof. Dawkins get to have "his Science"? Is the "Dawkins Science" different from other science or normal science?

Dawkins science is naturalistic giving the impression that cause and effect are self governing.

What on Earth is "Evolutionary Theory"?

And "talented animals"? How can they "dominate society"? What exactly is "Social Darwinism"? What are "these things" scientists say? Why is it that Bill Gates "supposedly gives millions in charity" when it is a well known fact? The entire article smacks of false accusations, misrepresentation and confirmation bias.

Evolutionary Theory is Darwins theory of evolution. Talented animals are those who are supposed to have the better genes, all so called herd animals have a pecking order, the alpha males and the beta males...please learn to read between the lines without getting too emotional and pedantic. If you do not know what social darwinism is look it up it is not that difficult. Bill Gates does not give millions in charity...it is marketing and the act of giving selflessly means one gives without trying to control people. You do not give with conditions. Do you really think these people who made their millions through robbery will just give the money away selflessly?

"I do not know" "suspect" "probably" "mostly" are a showing a not too confident and knowledgeable approach to this topic without any serious research or reasoning. Throw in a couple of false accusations and blinkered views and you arrive at cheap propaganda.
Personally, I hate Apple and Microsoft for their monopolistic business tactics, but I stay honest when it comes to their representation.
So sorry: fail.

This is how I write because I am trained in the humanities...I know it is difficult to be certain about most things there are always possibilities that I could be wrong...therefore I do not make concrete assertions.

[NNoor]

I disagree on Apple and Microsoft's successes, as well as Bill Gates' motivations behind his charity. They are successful because they produce good products, and because they know how to market themselves. IE being bundled with Windows...may have seemed a big deal in the early days of personal computing and the internet, but now no one bats an eyelid.

[Abu Zakir]

I disagree on Apple and Microsoft's successes, as well as Bill Gates' motivations behind his charity. They are successful because they produce good products, and because they know how to market themselves. IE being bundled with Windows...may have seemed a big deal in the early days of personal computing and the internet, but now no one bats an eyelid.

They are successful because they managed to get the government to protect them and give them (welfare) or government contracts. Free markets are supposed to work where firms and corporations compete against each other freely, the US market is not a free market and never has been, the government has been captured by the rich corporations who use it to protect themselves from competition through laws (aka regulatory capture), or they get plenty of free money from the government. We cannot say they are good products and that is why they are successful because competitors have not been allowed to freely compete against the big corporations which as I have said have been sheltered by the government.

If you open up a company and the government gives you money that your competitors do not get, or they make laws that allow you to gain dominance and prevent competitors from entering the market....it is not because you are a good business person that you would be successful.

[NNoor]

They are successful because they managed to get the government to protect them and give them (welfare) or government contracts. Free markets are supposed to work where firms and corporations compete against each other freely, the US market is not a free market and never has been, the government has been captured by the rich corporations who use it to protect themselves from competition through laws (aka regulatory capture), or they get lost of free money from the government. We cannot say they are good products and that is why they are successful because competitors have not been allowed to freely compete against the big corporations which as I have said have been sheltered by the government.

While this is true in the case of many corporations and especially the financial institutions, I don't think it applies to Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft was subjected to anti-trust legislation in the 90s, remember? They even saved Apple from going under. If people don't like Microsoft or Apple, or don't feel their products are sold at a fair price, they are free to use open source software.

[AbuFatimah]

They are successful because they managed to get the government to protect them and give them (welfare) or government contracts. Free markets are supposed to work where firms and corporations compete against each other freely, the US market is not a free market and never has been, the government has been captured by the rich corporations who use it to protect themselves from competition through laws (aka regulatory capture), or they get plenty of free money from the government. We cannot say they are good products and that is why they are successful because competitors have not been allowed to freely compete against the big corporations which as I have said have been sheltered by the government.

If you open up a company and the government gives you money that your competitors do not get, or they make laws that allow you to gain dominance and prevent competitors from entering the market....it is not because you are a good business person that you would be successful.

free market is an idea the west promotes to stop the rest of the world catching up with them. They dont practice it themselves but its pretty handy getting wealthy countries to allow all their work to be run by private western businesses rather than strong state owned assets

[StopS]

[QUOTE=Abu Zakir;763445]

Dawkins science is naturalistic giving the impression that cause and effect are self governing.

What language is this? What are you trying to say? What is "Dawkins science"? What cause and what effect are self governing? What does "self governing" mean?

Evolutionary Theory is Darwins theory of evolution. Talented animals are those who are supposed to have the better genes, all so called herd animals have a pecking order, the alpha males and the beta males...please learn to read between the lines without getting too emotional and pedantic. If you do not know what social darwinism is look it up it is not that difficult.

Excuse me, but YOU are the one talking about a scientific theory, which is very precise and accurate. There is no "talent" and no "supposed". There is no Darwinism. And no, there is no Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is an invention by Christians how felt threatened in their belief by the ToE. So they tried to take a negative name like Hitler and associate it with evolution. Stupid, but some people will believe anything when it comes to their belief system.

Bill Gates does not give millions in charity...it is marketing and the act of giving selflessly means one gives without trying to control people. You do not give with conditions. Do you really think these people who made their millions through robbery will just give the money away selflessly?

Ak, ok, thank you, I do not know Bill Gates personally. Which means he never told me it was just marketing.

I don't know why he donated money and I will not comment on this. I just know that Microsoft and Apple were initially not "mostly protected" by some government. Learning about the early rise of Microsoft and Apple was part of my curriculum, so I am pretty confident about this.

Both your sources refer to the farewell address of Dwight Eisenhower. Both talk about the merging of suppliers with the armaments industry. I did not see in either that Apple received any money from the US government. Maybe I missed it. If so, can you point out where it says that?

This is how I write because I am trained in the humanities...I know it is difficult to be certain about most things there are always possibilities that I could be wrong...therefore I do not make concrete assertions.

Well, the Theory of Evolution is based on facts. The donations of Microsoft are a fact. The one is biology, the other commerce. You are conflating the two. Why? Do you answer any questions?

[Abu Zakir]

Well, the Theory of Evolution is based on facts. The donations of Microsoft are a fact. The one is biology, the other commerce. You are conflating the two. Why? Do you answer any questions?

Allah is the Cause who creates what we might call Effects. Dawkins thinks all this is Natural and happens by itself, no God, just silly humans who think Gods exist.

Microsoft is not repeat not going to "give charity", it is a corporation, it makes profits, when they quote give charity end quote, they publicise it and once again I am telling you it is given conditionally and some of the amounts given are exaggerated for marketing purposes. Why publicise your giving charity? If you as a individual started to promote yourself saying how much charity you give it would raise red flags as to your intentions...a corporate entity only appears to do good and promotes itself because they want to make more profits...it is publicity seeking, public relations and marketing.

You said both Microsoft and Apple did not start out as part of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), (maybe not), however they definitely gained dominance as a result of their links to government. The microchip, semi-conductor and computing industries are built on war Research and Development and the MIC...without these we would not have a Microsoft or Apple in existence.

Sociobiology and Social Darwinism are promoted by Scientists like Dawkins. They really do believe there is no God and that we are all genes competing for social dominance and of course this story fits in well with the Microsoft and Apple stories of dominance.

This is not "conflating" Science with Economics or Politics, it is describing the real world Scientists have links to corporations and governments they build their reputations and earn a living through Science...it is not a neutral activity that takes place in a vacuum. It looks like it is a mutually self reciprocating relationship...meaning governments and corporations promote scientists who justify the social world that governments and corporations desire, and scientists are happy to do what they want because they get large sums of money and status. Microsoft built through government largesse, promotes Dawkins, the atheist social darwinian, who says the world as built by Microsoft and the US government is naturally as it should be and implicitly those of us who are dominated by them should just accept it and do not try to change or compete against it...because you just do not have the genetic material.

For the MIC and its involvement in the Semi-Conductor Business see:

http://understandingpower.com/chap3.htm

Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Who's Bashing Whom?: Trade Conflict in High-Technology Industries, Washington: Institute for International Economics, 1992. An excerpt (pp. 88-90):

In its early years, up to 100 percent of the [semiconductor] industry's output was purchased by the military, and even as late as 1968 the military claimed nearly 40 percent. In addition, there was a derived defense demand for semiconductor output from the military's large procurement of computer output throughout the 1960s. Direct and indirect defense purchases reduced the risk of investment in both R&D and equipment for semiconductor producers, who were assured that a significant part of their output would be sold to the military. The willingness and ability of the U.S. government to purchase chips in quantity at premium prices allowed a growing number of companies to refine their production skills and develop elaborate manufacturing facilities. . . .

The government continued to pay for a large share of R&D through the early 1970s, providing roughly one-half of the total between 1958 and 1970. As late as 1958, federal funding covered an estimated 85 percent of overall American R&D in electronics. . . . [T]he military, which remained the largest single consumer of leading-edge components throughout the 1960s, was willing to buy very expensive products from brand-new firms that offered the ultimate in performance in lieu of an established track record.

[StopS]

Allah is the Cause who creates what we might call Effects. Dawkins thinks all this is Natural and happens by itself, no God, just silly humans who think Gods exist.

What does the Theory of Evolution have to do with a god?
"Dawkins thinks" NO! Dawkins shows us the proof for the validity of the theory. We can prove evolution happens and does not require any outside assistance. Neither the Koran, nor the Sunnah or anyone in Islam postulates that evolution is a contradiction to a god.
Just like there is gravity and star formation, you need to respect reality.

Microsoft is not repeat not going to "give charity", it is a corporation, it makes profits, when they quote give charity end quote, they publicise it and once again I am telling you it is given conditionally and some of the amounts given are exaggerated for marketing purposes. Why publicise your giving charity? If you as a individual started to promote yourself saying how much charity you give it would raise red flags as to your intentions...a corporate entity only appears to do good and promotes itself because they want to make more profits...it is publicity seeking, public relations and marketing.

Do I disagree with you on this? NO!

I do, however, disagree with your earlier statement:

most of these elites are followers of Thomas Malthus who said there are too many people in the world and we (the rich and powerful people) need to help reduce the human population, some of these people hate human beings and see them as nothing more than 'a virus'. Gates is probably not giving as much as it is claimed he gives, and the donations are never given free with no conditions tied.

That is what I am showing to be wrong.

You said both Microsoft and Apple did not start out as part of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), (maybe not), however they definitely gained dominance as a result of their links to government. The microchip, semi-conductor and computing industries are built on war Research and Development and the MIC...without these we would not have a Microsoft or Apple in existence.

And that's all I want. The truth. If you want to postulate your opinion as a taunt or whatever, go crazy, but don't state it as a fact.
The next step would be to substantiate a claim. You claim that

they definitely gained dominance as a result of their links to government.

they, being Microsoft and Apple specifically. And here, again, you are wrong. They are not definitely connected with the government. The founders of Apple worked for HP and Atari. Are these also government "protected"? They were the first with a colour display and an intuitive GUI. Like I said: it was part of my studies, so you need to bring substantial evidence to the table to make this stick. Just some rumours and your wishful thinking is not enough.

Sociobiology and Social Darwinism are promoted by Scientists like Dawkins. They really do believe there is no God and that we are all genes competing for social dominance and of course this story fits in well with the Microsoft and Apple stories of dominance.

Oh dear, you really are a dreamer without any substance. What do Sociobiology and Social Darwinism have in common? Ah, I forgot: you can't answer questions, you just pile claim upon claim.

This is not "conflating" Science with Economics or Politics, it is describing the real world Scientists have links to corporations and governments they build their reputations and earn a living through Science...it is not a neutral activity that takes place in a vacuum. It looks like it is a mutually self reciprocating relationship...meaning governments and corporations promote scientists who justify the social world that governments and corporations desire, and scientists are happy to do what they want because they get large sums of money and status. Microsoft built through government largesse, promotes Dawkins, the atheist social darwinian, who says the world as built by Microsoft and the US government is naturally as it should be and implicitly those of us who are dominated by them should just accept it and do not try to change or compete against it...because you just do not have the genetic material.

For the MIC and its involvement in the Semi-Conductor Business see:


Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Who's Bashing Whom?

"100 percent of the [semiconductor] industry's output was purchased by the military"

What do Microsoft or Apple have to do with the semiconductor industry?

And yes, wars drive development. BMW used to build aircraft engines for the Nazis. Does that mean it is still protected by the German government???
But what you are doing is taking single words you don't understand and where you don't understand the context and combining them to make them look evil. This reminds me of what Harun Yahya does: no idea, no concept - but bash evolution.
No, the world is not built by the US government or Microsoft. No, Dawkins, to my knowledge, is NOT a social darwinist.
You don't understand the words you are using.