Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

New Age civilizations, etc…

July 31st, 2011 · No Comments

Richard comment
Richard, you give yourself away by citing Charles Murray. You should know better than to trust this kind of paid conservative propagandist. You are right that people are so paranoid of this question they can ignore a small tally of valid points from the likes of Murray. But in the final analysis the whole analysis is flawed.

I think I can show the way past this by showing how the emergence of civilization was larger than its particular groups and their intelligence. The point is decisive. You cannot say that ‘smarter’ people created higher civilization.
The sad reality is that man as he is, however intelligent, was not capable of creating civilization by himself. A larger process is clearly at work. So your comparative judgments are false.

The question of New World civilizations is fascianting, and complex. We don’t know to what degree diffusion is involved. The evidence has always pointed toward diffusion, even as mainstream scholars denied it.
The case for diffusion has won out, I think, in recent years. We can discuss that further here later.

The New World civilizations are enigmatic, and the Mayans, we should note, are correlated with the Axial Age. But we can’t close the case.
We should point out that the whole thing, as elsewhere, went into decline, and it is hardly coincidence the Mayans collapsed just as the Old World Dark Ages began (???!). The later Aztecs, we cannot forget, corrupted their culture with human sacrifice and were destroyed on the spot by the aggressive Christian monopoly, which, at least, was beyond that stage. So the evidence here is mixed. I will pass on this. It needs close discussion. But Aztecs were missing some major marbles. Human sacrifice is not a stage of civilization.

The question of intelligence, then, is not the same as that of the energistic of innovation in civilizations. The smartest people have given themselves away in our own time: they are to a large extent all on Wall Street (so to speak) trying to create a new aristocracy. That idiocy again.
I think that it should be obvious that if an entire science cadre of smart people can’t see through Darwinism, then science intelligence is open to question.

Richard
207.138.47.153 Submitted on 2011/07/30 at 12:19 pm
“you will see that Europeans were long delayed in creating ‘higher civilization’.”

I wasn’t referring to just Europeans…I was referring to Eurasians which includes the people from Portugal to East Asia. These civilizations are, no doubt, different in the the specifics, but there is still a commonality between them in including them in the “higher civilizations.”

“Note this point,
the almost impossible to develop Sub-Sahara was in fact developed into a Neolithic state by West Africans.”

One could also say the same thing about Meso America and yet the people were able to create some rather impressive civilizations in isolation (they were still of Eurasian stock.

“Issues of intelligence are highly misleading, and can’t be relied on.”

I think the people who create IQ tests would be the first to admit that they aren’t the end all and be all (I’m not trying to defend Charles Murray, but he makes this point again and again. His critics never seem to pick up on the nuances in his arguments). Yet, in the final analysis, there does seem to be some direct correlation between abilities in abstract thought, etc. and success on IQ tests.

“you will see that Europeans were long delayed in creating ‘higher civilization’.”

I wasn’t referring to just Europeans…I was referring to Eurasians which includes the people from Portugal to East Asia. These civilizations are, no doubt, different in the the specifics, but there is still a commonality between them in including them in the “higher civilizations.”

“Note this point,
the almost impossible to develop Sub-Sahara was in fact developed into a Neolithic state by West Africans.”

One could also say the same thing about Meso America and yet the people were able to create some rather impressive civilizations in isolation (they were still of Eurasian stock.

“Issues of intelligence are highly misleading, and can’t be relied on.”

I think the people who create IQ tests would be the first to admit that they aren’t the end all and be all (I’m not trying to defend Charles Murray, but he makes this point again and again. His critics never seem to pick up on the nuances in his arguments). Yet, in the final analysis, there does seem to be some direct correlation between abilities in abstract thought, etc. and success on IQ tests.
rmbr117@yahoo.com
Richard

1

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment