I posted before about an event in Niceville about intelligent design, Expelled, and evolution. I’m a bit late, but here is the local paper’s writeup of the event. Sounds like a lot of wacky mumbo-jumbo to me.
NICEVILLE — Not religion pitted against science, but philosophy against philosophy.
In a truly liberal education system, that’s how academic Nancy Pearcey says educators would approach intelligent design and the theory of evolution.
Nearly 800 people attended Pearcey’s lecture Thursday at Okaloosa-Walton College on the foundation of Darwinism and its far-reaching implications in American culture.
…
Because strict Darwinians cannot account for morality as more than a social construct to control society, society focuses on political correctness — not right or wrong, she said.
…
Referring to books written in recent years from the Darwinian perspective, rape becomes a natural biological phenomenon that is a product of human evolution and sex across the species ceases to be an offense, she said.
Pearcey cited a number of renowned evolutionary scientists who are hard-pressed to live the same truths outside of the laboratory.
Many are forced to live with inconsistent beliefs, because with true Darwinism there can be no room for free will, love or human dignity, she said.
So, does anyone here live their life based on “true Darwinism”? I don’t. My simplistic view of what Pearcey is doing here is taking a scientific fact and trying to contort it into a world view philosophy, and then projecting it onto those who don’t subscribe to her own particular belief. That’s just my admittedly uninformed two cents, though. Your mileage may vary.
Based on the McDonald troll, who appears to be some sort of disciple of this woman, I think your summary is completely accurate.
The YECs here are completely unable to attack evolution, so they must generate a strawman to attack. Their strawman, that evolution forces a certain ridiculous worldview, is hilarious. I would have loved to have attended the event, so I could watch a train wreck as it happened.
It is truly sad to see what lengths some will go to defend their backwards and ignorant beliefs.
McDonald in 5…4…3…
Pearcey has been a creationist for decades. Based on the article, she gave a formulaic demonization of a minority (she hopes). The bad people have no morals! And as a creationist she thinks the solution is to teach BS in science class. What else in new?
The more important question is how did folks in the region respond? Based on comments to the article, not badly as America goes. I hope there were some good letters to the paper from local folks.
Zygo,
I was thinking the same thing.
Point that creationists miss is that evolution has also given us the need for a moral system, and atheists have moral systems as well. It is nothing more than a strawman that goes nicely down the throats of fundies…..
Yikes!
Perhaps I’m being optimistic here, but, as a resident of local Nicevulle, I saw this event as a coming out; finally, the movement doffed the cloak of invisibility! ID is all about religion (as if there were any doubt), and we Xians must change the definition of science to include the supernatural to make this work, so we can teach it in high school. Hmm! As Spongebob said when confronted with an evil doer intent on taking over the universe (OK, Bikini Bottom), “Uh, …, Good luck with that!”
Honestly, I saw the whole thing as a incestuous group mind-meld that would have absolutely zero effect on local politics. Remember, the Niceville community is composed of many Air Force personnel at Eglin and Hurlburt (and other peripheral bases). They’ve been around the world, and are more pragmatic than the locals when it comes to what works and what doesn’t in the real world. To suggest to these engineers that a newly developed religious view with no material support trumps four centuries of scientific progress, well, it’ll take more than a lone lecture to a sympathetic audience to have much impact.
Of course, we should remain watchful. There are folks with influence in the local school system who could capitalize on this to introduce non-science into the high school biology curriculum, all in the interest of “fairness” and “academic freedom”, as it were. The ultimate motives were exposed for all to see. To hell with the new standards, it’s business as usual. And another generation of Florida students will share the shameful ignorance shown by Rep. Hays…
Dang! I miss a preview to use to correct spelling. I didn’t intend NicevUlle to be a slur; just didn’t catch the misspelling before submitting.
I’m curious as to the origins of this strawman argument which the fundies such as McChurch love to rant about. Is there any sort of instance in history where evolution as a philosophy was practiced? The Hitler/holocaust/ eugenics example that keeps getting dragged up has largely been debunked as a product of Catholic dogma and other interpretations of biblical scripture, and most modern day incidences of ethnic cleansing and genocide are found to be caused by religious differences or good ole’ fashion racism (which is another animal entirely).
My challenge to YECs and other Christian fundies: Can you find a historic event of mass death/murder/catastrophe in which the perpetrator(s) attribute their actions to Darwinism/evolution to justify this strawman argument?
*Failure to provide an actual example will render evolution “philosophy” as yet another fictional construct of an overactive imagination.
@zygosporangia
If you’re not aware, you might be interested in McDonald’s postings over at Karl’s blog, The Inoculated Mind, initially in response to a post on the Pearcey presentation, but then in a Hume/Kant “debate”.
@Alan,
Good to “meet” a fellow local. I wish I could be as optimistic as you: if only the audience wasn’t filled with students. I’m not worried about military personnel, who have seen the world and know the world. I’m worried about young minds who may not know much about the world at all yet. Of course, those there wouldn’t have gone if they weren’t already believers, but still.
Personally, it was kinda eerie sitting in that packed auditorium and knowing that the majority of the folks (800?!?) did not believe in evolution. I felt pretty alone in there. Of course, I didn’t feel unsafe, but to be surrounded by people whose beliefs you simply cannot fathom… And then to hear things like this:
*Audience questions were written down on 3X5 index cards and turned in to ushers, who gave them to . . . McDonald, who would read one to Pearcey, then read the next one to himself while Pearcey answered the previous question. He denies this was “screening” the questions. I saw something different than his assertion. Perhaps he thinks it’s no big deal. I think it’s fairly distasteful. I guess that’s a good word for how I found the whole enterprise.
Marni, screening the questions is reading and censoring, i.e. removing irrelevant, disrespectful, illegible, questions, etc. I never censored a single question. I read them as they appeared in the stack that was given to me. And I did glance down to read the next question to myself because they were hand written and thus sometimes difficult to read, plus grammatically structured in awkward ways. Well, I look forward to meeting you as I am frequently at OWC speaking at the Christian Apologetic Fellowship meetings. I invite you to attend.
Karl, read and weap – (yep, straight from AIG):
“Russian dictator and revolutionist, Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), is regarded as one of the most notable men in Russian history. He was also one of the most influential in world affairs in the periods immediately before and after the Second World War. But early in his life Stalin experienced a dramatic change of career. While studying at the Tiflis Theological Seminary, he began to read the works of Charles Darwin. He developed a critical mind and revolutionary bent. One of his friends later said in a book—which was published in Moscow while Stalin was still in power—that when Stalin began to read Darwin he became an atheist. At the age of 19, in 1898, Stalin was expelled from the theological seminary because of his revolutionary connections. His newly acquired philosophy did enormous damage in the years that followed. But he gained political prominence. All the major policies of the Soviet State after 1928 were formulated by Stalin. He established a terrorist police State, and in the mid- 1930s instituted the notorious trials in which most of the surviving Bolshevik leaders were found guilty of treachery and executed. One of Stalin’s most notable characteristics, according to many of his biographers, was his approval of the cult of ‘Stalinist adoration’. Instances of this idolatry included the official dedication of cities to him (such as Stalingrad, Staliniri and Stalinogorsk), and the ceremonial homage given to him in virtually all public speeches and in print. In February, 1956, three years after Stalin’s death, Communist Party leader Nikita Khrushchev charged Stalin with perpetrating ‘mass arrests and deportations of many thousands of people, execution without trial and without normal investigation.’ Khrushchev also stated that during Stalin’s reign 70 per cent of the members and candidates of the party central committee in 1934 were subsequently arrested and shot. Most of these, claimed Khrushchev, were simply ‘innocent communists’. Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ ideas thus powerfully shaped Stalin’s approach to society. Oppression, self glorification, atheism and murder resulted from Stalin’s rejection of his Creator after reading and believing the evolutionary ideas of Darwin. And the most tragic aspect of all? That while Stalin was turning his back on his Creator, he was building his philosophy on a lie.”
excuse me, meant weep
Nice try (actually one of the better examples), but this runs into the same problem as with all attempts of trying to link our favorite dictators/tyrants to Darwin:
Darwin’s theories DO NOT advocate the concepts of biological/social/racial inferiority. It even goes on to emphasis the similarities between ethnic groups and the ultimate irrelevance of the minute biological difference between them.
Stalin’s policies were racist and classist, with a great deal of focus on his own self-glorification. The principles behind these policies have nothing to do with Darwinism, but plenty to do with Lenin/Marx’s works and Stalin’s own antisemitism beliefs. As for the self-glorification part, maybe his ego was just that big. The problem here is that none of these policies can be attributed to Darwin.
The only stretch of a connection you have left is the fact that Stalin’s ruthlessness and disregard for human life from implementing these policies was a result of him turning atheist/following “survival of the fittest” from reading Darwin. The point here that creationists like to crow about is that it was true that Stalin did read Darwin’s works. Whether or not it turned him into an atheist is debatable from both sides, but we have established time and again that atheism /= no morals.
Still following the logic? So now we come to the crux of the problem (which I’m surprised that even AIG itself doesn’t do a better job explaining): Did Stalin’s WILLFUL IMPLEMENTATION of his policies have anything to do with the influence of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” concept? At a glance, you may say yes, but if one were to actually read and understand Darwin’s Origin of Species and other works, one would realize the inanity of applying this one concept to identify and promote the struggle for survival between ethnic and social groups (which are all part of the human species with biologically insignificant differences, with the mere presence of these biological variations being a necessary mechanism for a species survival. Killing off a particular ethnic group for whatever reasons actually hurts the survival of humans as a species overall).
For Stalin to be so influenced and devout a follower of Darwin, he would have needed to recognize these facts, and therein lies the problem: Racism/Classism are incompatible with Darwinism for the above mentioned reasons. So when it comes down to it, once again, Stalin was just another good ole fashioned racist/classist. Darwin’s teachings may or may not have turned him atheist, but it has been shown that his policies were definitely not Darwin-inspired, and that his willingness to implement them actually contradicts Darwin’s teachings, assuming that Darwin had such a profound influence on him. Kudos to you McChurch for actually getting me off my ass and reading more about Stalinist Russian history. It was an interesting read.
*I actually had in mind another example that I thought you were going to dredge up (Hint: it has something to do with the abortion)
I suppose I shouldn’t be all that surprised that Americans are such suckers for logical fallacies (such as this idiotic “argument from consequence” used by Pearcey) given their international standings in (a href=”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120400730.html”>math and science. After all, logic is the basis of both math and science.
While were at it, lets go ahead and reject Newtonian laws of gravity and motion because they are used to calculate trajectories for weapons of mass destruction.
(I can haz preview button plz? Kthanxby.)
here’s the link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120400730.html
People like McChurch are confusing Darwinism with Social Darwinism, a concept which predates Darwin, and only adopted the “Darwinism” moniker fairly recently. Much of this concept can be attributed to the works of Thomas Malthus and Herbert Spencer, whose collective works formed the principles of social Darwinism, published several years before Darwin’s Origin of Species I’m sure a few would like to drag Francis Galton’s works on eugenics as being influenced by Darwin, but Darwin himself ultimately rejects eugenics in several of his later publications.
McChurch, did you form your opinions about the evils of evolution from actual evolution source materials, or are you just parroting what AIG tells you?
(I can haz preview button plz? Kthanxby.)
If you have any idea how to install one, let me know and I shall do so. Seriously.
@ Mr. McDonald, your reference to AIG as your source of information immediately diminishes your argument to a smoke-screen; it’s as if I used a flat-earther website to argue for geocentrism because, see, there is significant dissent, why, there’s this whole website!
AIG has a significant ax to grind for their particular young earth beliefs, and very little in the form of facts to support their arguments. The relevant situation is that a theory of science does not have to conform to what we want to believe. Even if (a very big IF) Stalin did all his horrible actions because he thought he was applying Darwinian theory, that doesn’t detract one whit from its essential accuracy, only from a pathetic and crass application of the theory (as interpreted) by a crazy man.
Also, I note the AIG, as quoted, doesn’t mention Lysenko, Stalin’s darling of genetics, who, with Stalin’s complete and unswerving support, absolutely repudiated Darwin’s theory. The world-wide evolutionary biology community has estimated that Lysenko set the USSR behind by decades in genetics research. This man architected the famines of the 30’s in the Soviet Union, in major part because he favored Lamarckian inheritance. That doesn’t sound like a Darwinian to me.
Karl, of course not everyone who accepts Darwinism takes the theory to its logical conclusions. Some like to accept Darwinism, and having a great sense of moral obligation (because it is built into man by his Creator I might add) then address the issue of ethics by turning to existentialism with its ethical subjectivism which of course boils down to personal preference, or try to establish ethics upon statistical ethics, which is nothing more than the personal preference of the majority. Thankfully, utilitarianism has long passed away as another attractive alternative. But in the end it comes down to this: “If there is no God, everything is permissible.” — Dostoyevsky
@Marni,
You are not alone in this. There are quite a number of rational people here, who just aren’t as vocal as the ones who believe that advocating God in a load voice will still their inner demons or perhaps cement their beliefs.
I didn’t realize there were so many students in the audience. My comments were based on what I thought would be a general sampling of the Niceville population, albeit already skewed/drawn to the one side of the ID argument presented, hence the Air Force (i.e., non-local) representation.
I agree it IS serious when so many students are led to the slippery slope of non-reason to support what they’ve been taught as fact in fundamentalist Sunday schools. (I mean, “there’s no evidence for evolution”? Where are these people getting their information from? When one has a question about the fossil record, ask a paleontologist, not your pastor!) The “logical” arguments I’ve heard opposed to evolution are so scientifically twisted and breathtakingly inane that they seem to cross the line of “bearing false witness”, which, I seem to recall, is a sin. Oh well, maybe lying for Jesus carries some saintly exception.
Dang, another misspelling. Replace “load voice” with “loud voice”
Alan Con-well : we get our information from paleontologists and other scientists who do not assume evolution from the outset and who thus try to squeeze data into an assumed evolutionary mould. Yes, you can be a scientist and not believe in evolution.
And you can be a Christian and still believe in evolution. You can’t however, be a biologist and not believe in evolution. Ignoring the fact that AIG’s credibility is shaky at best since it still promotes the Hitler-Darwin connection as a truth (despite Hitler’s own words and written works pointing to the contrary) the Stalin argument falls into the same specious reasoning that a rejection of god enables a person to commit great evils without remorse/regret. What about a person who accepts and embraces god but still goes on to commit great evils without remorse/regret (like Hitler and many others)? And the multitudes of people who don’t believe in God but still displays good moral character? The logical conclusion from this is that a belief in god is ultimately irrelevent to a person’s moral character. It may play a contributing factor, but it can go either way, and nothing is gauranteed.
Here’s a question for you McChurch: Is it ever okay to sin (lie/cheat/steal/kill) if the ultimate result of these actions is the further glorification of God?
Good job John. They will never understand, because they love the darkness.
John,
These people become unsettled when you try and introduce the logical conclusion of their theory. They wail about keeping philosophy and science as two distinct subjects. Of course because the logical conclusion of their theory leads to all kinds of moral behavior which they either endorse or ignore as “irrelevant”. They have a veil in their thinking which to all who are of good moral character can see clearly. The poor people who think they are smarter than their Creator. They exalt their “intelligence” as their “god”. The irony is that they then pooh pooh intelligent design. Anyone can take “evidence” and come to any “conclusion” they want to. They can make up a “model” to prove it. Then when part of their model is cast down they look for more “evidence” and come up with a slightly different “model”. This is an ongoing thing to where they end up going full circle in their logic. It would be amusing to see if it wasn’t so sad. It’s like trying to coax one off a sinking ship and you throw them a lifeline but then they move to a different part of the ship and laugh at you for an inaccurate throw and yet the water comes up around their ankles and they cling to the deck chairs. I only hope they see the error of their ways before its too late.
“Here’s a question for you McChurch: Is it ever okay to sin (lie/cheat/steal/kill) if the ultimate result of these actions is the further glorification of God?”
Why, do you believe this Karl ?
You ask a question not out of genuiness but out of craftiness. Answer this question – Do you believe that Stalin and Hitler were Christians ?
Hitler most certainly was Christian. Try reading Mein Kampf, it will open your eyes.
Stalin was raised in a seminary, and later chose to rebel against Christianity.
Both have very Christian roots.
Well this is the problem. Your definition of a Christian is way off base. You were right about Stalin, his rebellion was the same as the anti-christ – he rejected Christian doctrine and therefore was not a Christian. Hitler was no more a Christian than Dawkins is a Christian. If you read the scriptures you will see that the fruit of a Christian is no where that of one of Hitler’s ilk. It also says that many will come in My Name (Christain) and do abomnable things – you shall know them by their fruits. He sure didn’t have the fruit of Christ. Understand what a Christian is before you claim someone is one.
Its interesting that you site Mein Kampf instead of the Bible. You are more familiar with Hitler’s writings than you think.
Well, Hitler did not look to Darwin to come up with his excuses for what he did. He looked to his bible, to the writings of Martin Luther, and to classic interpretations of his bible at the time. Let’s take a look at the fruits of his labor and compare them to modern Fundamentalists. He was against homosexuality, passed laws to “protect the sanctity of marriage” and to make homosexuality illegal. He blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus (ring any bells with The Passion of the Christ?). The majority of his speeches, especially in the thirties, were full of Christian mythology and symbolism. He may have been misguided, but no more misguided than others who mis-interpret scripture, like Young Earth Creationists.
You’d think if he was such a big fan of Darwin, that he would use Darwinian symbolism in his speeches. It is very odd that he didn’t, very odd that he did not mention evolution as the driving force for what he did. He spoke of purity, which is a YEC belief, specifically, the belief that man was being corrupted. I can find much more Christian symbolism in what he did than scientific or evolutionary symbolism. Sorry.
Well, one of those books has historical relevance, the other book is a bunch of fairy tales. Personally, I’d rather read the ravings of a historically relevant lunatic, at least it better helps me to understand that he was evil, and what his true motivations were. The typical YEC talking points here stem from complete ignorance of what made this man tick, willfully ignorant of the truth that he was one of your own.
You ask a question not out of genuineness but out of craftiness. Answer this question – Do you believe that Stalin and Hitler were Christians ?
Your refusal to give me an answer is out of wilfull ignorance. I like out you throw logic out there as a buzzword when once again, you fail at understanding what logic is. I’ll play along and answer your question:
The literal definition of Christian is one who believes in the Christian mythos. Technically, Satanists are Christians too. Hitler was a devout believer of God (and hated atheists) and thought what he was doing was in accordance with the Catholic interpretation of biblical scripture. Stalin, which I’m sure even you would agree with, started out as a Christian, but as evidenced by some of his written works and statements of those close to him, turned to atheism after reading the works of Marx, Darwin, and others (although further evidence from his personal works showed that he remained very spiritual.). So, your answer would be, yes, at one point, he was, but later became atheist for the most part.
Now let me ask you:
Was Cotton Mather, who was involved in the Salem Witch Trials, a Christian? Are Catholics considered Christian? You can again accuse me of being “crafty” with these questions, but I’m betting that you are afraid that a truthful answer would make you out to be an intolerant ignoramus.
Wow! Two ignorant fundie trolls for the price of one on this thread! Gotta’ have that No True Scotsman fallacy from the True Believers, of course. 🙂
Wolfhound –
Indeed. When they discover that their “Darwinian” strawmen were actually Christian, they must adjust their definition of Christian accordingly. Heh.
Kind of like the way you redefine science so that ID scientists are no longer scientists….
Karl, to answer your question, in order to bring glory to God one must love Him above all else and give obedience to His law.
By the way, the argument is not that Darwinism leads to immorality, it leads to NO morality. Right and wrong become an illusion. This is the problem.
in order to bring glory to God one must love Him above all else and give obedience to His law.
And therein lies a glaring contradiction with most of what AIG is presenting as the the so called “truth.” Rather vague answer overall as I’ve come to expect. I’m sure that bearing false witness would violate one or more of His laws, yet you and others continue to do so. Maybe this is one of those open-ended metaphorical types of “obedience” you were talking about. Is there some sort of loophole you are exploiting?
It’s been reiterated several times on how the scientific process works (its development predates ID), and it has been shown exactly where ID gets stalled when presented as a scientific theory. No matter how you perceive science to be “redefined” ID has consistently shown to be stuck at the hypothesis stage. Until an experimental method is developed that can detect the presence of a metaphysical intelligence and prove its involvement in the development of life on earth, ID will remain an scientifically untestable hypothesis. An even bigger problem here, is that while ID remains untestable, the theory of evolution has consistently proven itself through decades of continuous scrutiny.
the argument is not that Darwinism leads to immorality, it leads to NO morality
Your AIG site says differently with that Stalin example, and I quote:
“Oppression, self glorification, atheism and murder resulted from Stalin’s rejection of his Creator after reading and believing the evolutionary ideas of Darwin”
Morality doesn’t magically vanish in the absence of religion, yours included. History has shown that morality can vanish with or without religion. And since the majority of AIG’s arguments insist that the immoral conduct of these dictators and tyrants was from their rejection of God when actual accounts have proven otherwise, it shows that the good people behind AIG have lost some of their morality in telling these lies despite embracing Christianity.
HYPOTHETICALLY, you yourself, McChurch, completely lost your faith due to whatever reason. Would you at this point choose to abandon your morality and take the so called “anything goes, it’s all just an illusion anyways” approach? I’m betting no.
John McDonald:
I understand your comment, but I don’t think “dogmatic” is the correct way to think about this. (OK, you didn’t use that word, but it was sure to come up soon given your argument). Biologists accept evolution because it so well supported by the evidence. The theory has been vociferously attacked for ~150 years, and survived every one. Of course it’s going to be the first thing that comes to mind when a biologist looks at something new.
At the same time, if some fact were to surface that refutes current evolutionary theory, if there were some incontrovertible evidence that cannot fit the theory without breaking it completely, the person making the discovery would be ecstatic as this would be a career maker! Rather than assume that the biologists have some idealogical blinkers on because they don’t agree with you or the small group at the Discovery Institute, perhaps you should find out what the scientists are really saying. I would suggest popular books such as Carroll’s “Endless Forms Most Beautiful” and “Making of the Fittest”; Prothero’s “Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters”, and, indeed, Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish”. Admittedly, these are written by committed evolutionists (and I don’t know or care about their religious affiliations). However, the science is lively and interesting. For other books, you might try Francis Collins’ “Language of God” (I’ve loaned the book to a Walton HS student, so I might have the title a bit garbled, sorry)
I’d be interested in references to the “paleontologists and other scientists” you mentioned in your response above. Thanks.
No one has redefined science. Science is based on empirical evidence. ID relies on something that can never be proven empirically, therefore it is not science. You should attempt reading a gradeschool level text book on science, the definition that ID scientists try to skirt around is very explicit.
The “No true Scotsman” fallacy certainly does not apply here.
The argument is still asinine. Evolution and morality have nothing to do with one another. This is nothing more than a red herring. You can’t attack evolution, so you must attempt to invoke a strawman slippery slope argument.
“If man is only part of nature and nature is indifferent ot the human venture, why should man have any special concern or compassion toward fellow human beings?” Robert L Johnson. Indeed, why should man concern himself with ethics at all? If you posit that nature is all that is, you can’t arrive at anything resembling an “ought.”
McDonald… McDonald… Are you about to tell me that if it was proven that your god did not exist that you would resort to lawlessness? Do you need a god in order to figure out the difference between right and wrong? Is the reason why you are good because you fear the punishment of a fictional father figure? If so, then you are truly a sad case.
Man can rise to greatness, it does not matter how man got here. The fact that we are capable of rational conversation is enough to make us strive to become better in what we do. Benjamin Franklin came up with thirteen virtues that he followed, these virtues he did not get out of a bible, as he was a Deist, but he discovered through philosophical thought.
You are so hung up on this idea that your god is required for morality that you never stop to think how you can become a better person yourself. You are intolerant to homosexuals because you claim your bible tells you to do so. You close your mind to the world around you, because it might go against your fairy tales. You decry the progress of science, because it might go against your ignorant redneck YEC biblical interpretation. You don’t aspire to become great, you wish to become more like a fictional character in a fairy tale. This is not greatness, it is the opposite of greatness.
If you choose to be a Luddite, a witch burner, a bigot, and ignorant; this is your choice. However, don’t tell me that your path leads to greatness, unless you wish to make me laugh. Your path leads only to the antithesis of what your Jesus stood for.
Zygo, point by point:
1). To assume that it could be proven that God did not exist is a gratuitous assumption
2) It would not be resorting to lawlessness, because no moral law would exist. It would only be matter in motion. To say the term “right” or “wrong” would be meaningless. They would be mere illusions.
3). You need a transcendent ought to decide between RIGHT and WRONG. I would like to know how else you could determine if an action was right or wrong. Please sir, inform me how rape could be considered wrong if all that existed was matter.
4). You use the term “good” but do so without any ethical justification. If the material universe is all that is, the term “good” is meaningless. You also use the term “greatness” but that again presupposes something to be valuable and good. This is impossible if all is matter. This grouping of matter is really not any better than that grouping of matter in regards to quality.
5) Rational conversation itself does not imply or obligate one to any action.
6) Deists are ethical objectivists. They believe that God created the world to operate under certain natural laws. They believe that man can discover objective moral laws from nature which are binding and obligatory upon all men everywhere because they originate in God, a transcendent and supreme moral being.
7). How can you show that I do not stop to think about how I can become a better person? A gratuitous assumption, and so unbecoming one who claims that everything must be empirically verified…
8). In regards to homosexuality, I do not agree with the act or lifestyle, but I do care for those involved in this sin. I tolerate them but I do not accept their lifestyle. I never said the Bible teaches to be intolerant toward this sin. Only that we are not to accept this lifestyle as something other than sin.
9). I like the progress of (observational) science. It makes my Crossfire go faster. But I do protest stupid ideas like evolution which are not based upon observational science but rather upon unprovable and faulty assumptions.
10) You speak of greatness. Tell me, a man made of nothing but matter, how shall you rise above your material nature? In the end, you will only remain matter in motion. You will die and eventually turn to dust particles. You speak of greatness when you are nothing but manure in the making.
Correction
To assume that it could be proven that the FSM did not exist is a gratuitous assumption!
Fixed 🙂
So the concepts of “right” and “wrong” and “good and bad” only appeared with the bible? Rascism? Genocide? Hmmm….Old Testament comes to mind.
I see Mr Fundie still hasn’t been Touched by His Noodly Appendages
Oh and here’s something I’m sure will interest John.
http://www.youvebeenleftbehind.com/
Heh. Is there any limit to the depths of stupidity the sheeple will sink? Apparently not, if that website’s “services” are any indication. Sadly, there are likely enough credulous fundies willing to pay out $40 a year to keep the owner of said website living high on the hog whilst his clients pray in vain for the End Times. Which is pretty much genius. 🙂
All we are is dust in the wind …
Sheesh. You can’t even accept hypotheticals.
As I said, if you truly believe this, then you are a sad case.
There are dozens of philosophers who have tackled this problem. I think Locke poses the simplest way to derive ethics and morals without your god. In a world where rape was allowed or even encouraged, chaos would reign. Hence, it is immoral. reductio ad absurdum
As per my previous point, your point here is completely asinine. You aren’t even trying to argue here, you are merely plugging your ears and shouting “Law requires a lawmaker” without even understanding what you are saying. Truly pathetic.
Plato would certainly disagree.
Bzzt! Wrong. Deists believe that their god is unknowable, uncaring, and most likely not even conscious. It merely set up the world for an unknowable reason. Of course, if you can shift the definitions then we are right back into a “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
You have demonstrated it on this website repeatedly. You close your eyes and your ears and parrot talking points from AIG. Your responses are mechanical, programmed, and show no desire to learn. How can one who thinks he has all the answers ever better himself?
The crass comments that you have made regarding homosexuals on this board, indicate otherwise, even if these comments are in jest.
Ah, falling back to two points ago. Incapable of learning, incapable of reading, and incapable of bettering yourself. If you won’t even bother reading the links we post here, then how can you possibly claim that you are for bettering yourself? There are mountains of evidence for evolution, it can be demonstrated in the lab, transitional fossils exist, the Earth has been proven to be more than 10000 years old, etc. You simply parrot back talking points, you are incapable of arguing from the science perspective, which is truly sad.
My impact on my family lasts for at least a generation after I am dust. My impact on the world around me lasts as long as my legacy. I could be base, nothing more than an animal, but that would be a waste of what I have. Your question has an obvious answer. We aspire for greatness because we can be great. Why would anyone want to remain stagnant? I don’t need a god to show me the way here.
We all die, McDonald. You have no proof that there is an afterlife. What if you’re wrong? Have you lived life to its fullest, or do you think you’ll have a chance to do it over again after you die? No one has come back from death, other than in fairy tales. Death is permanent. As the Christian death rites say “ashes to ashes, dust to dust.” With only death to greet you, do you not feel inspired to make this brief time on Earth count? Or, will you stay awake at night worrying about the inevitable? The idea of an afterlife is nothing more than a security blanket, a safety net. It does not empower us, it holds us back.
Yes, I will die some day, so will you. I will return to the earth and I will be consumed by saphrophytic organisms. What of it? Unlike those who fear death and choose to inject their bodies with poison after death to “preserve” those bodies for an afterlife, my will is quite explicit. I am to be buried in the ground with no preservatives. From that which I came I will return again.
Death is inescapable. How we die is not important. How we live is important.
No doubt. Wow… that site is truly sad. I love how the “end times” have been at hand for the past 2000 years… Rapture will come any day… are you prepared? 😉
What a load of crock.
John:
I was willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt up until this one:
9). I like the progress of (observational) science. It makes my Crossfire go faster. But I do protest stupid ideas like evolution which are not based upon observational science but rather upon unprovable and faulty assumptions.
Evolution is based on a lot of observed data from a lot of different disciplines. The thing that makes it so powerful is that it provides a testable, coherent and adaptable framework for interpreting those observed data, and it does it without resorting to supernatural entities.
It doesn’t speak to the existence or nonexistence of God, which is properly a matter of faith; but it does demonstrate that man’s current ideas and notions about God may need to be expanded or changed. And it does conflict with some peoples’ beliefs, where those beliefs make statements about the natural world that don’t agree with “observational science”. That leads to cognitive dissonance on a large scale, which leads to the kind of denialism and intellectual buffoonery you see from creationists like Behe or Dembski (omitting opportunists like Ken Ham).
In a perfect world, where faith really *is* the evidence of things not seen, this wouldn’t be a problem. You could still have faith in an afterlife and morality and believe in divine justice without needing to buttress it with appeals to the natural world; in fact, there are a number of denominations that already do this. Needing to appeal to observations in the natural world to confirm a faith has always been fraught with problems; Saint Augustine (who was not an evolutionist, by the way) admonished religions not to make pronouncements that could be contradicted by material observation lest the religion itself become open to question.
Ah, McChurch, you mean like the ID poster boy Behe saying that he/ID defines science so loosely that astrology would fit his/ID definition of science.
awaiting McChurh to bring up his ‘tree falling in the forest’ question.
You could always beat him to it, in full parody. 😉
You want parodies?
Going back to the sinking boat analogy that was brought up, I like to think of this whole struggle between religion and science as two boats carrying relief supplies to a disaster area. One boat, science, carries fresh water and medical supplies, and the other, religion, carries non-perishable food items, clothing and materials for temporary shelters. Now obviously both are needed to “save” the refugees of the disaster area (and yes, I think that in real life, religion can and does serve certain useful humanitarian functions i.e. counseling and whatnot, but for the purpose of this analogy, I’m giving them a lot more credit).
Now at the start of the journey, the religion boat enjoyed a lead, but now, the science boat, whether due to better engines, lighter cargo or favorable currents, is traveling slightly faster than the religion boat, and is slated to overtake the religion boat and reach the disaster area first. The captain of the religion boat decides to turn this into some sort of d*ckwaving competition and begins to undermine the science boat by sending out fake SOS messages, trying to board it and destroy its relief supplies, and even ramming into it in a bid to get there first, ignoring the fact that the supplies on his own boat are not enough to save the refugees, and that further escalation might damage his own boat to the point where no relief supplies reach the the refugees. All the while, the captain of the science boat is sitting there with a “WTF” look on his face.
In case this analogy is too “deep” for the fundies to understand, sciences like evolution has applications beyond a greater understanding of the natural world. For example, it has shown itself to be extremely useful in life-saving medical applications such as the development of vaccines and antibiotics. The unscrupulous manner in which these fundies conduct their anti-evolution efforts is also contributing to a growing backlash against religion overall. With the recent attempts at taking this fight into the education system, multi-billion dollar industries which require scientifically proficient employees might begin to shun Florida due to the perceived instability of the education system, thereby denying employment opportunities for future generations. By undermining evolution, these religious extremists are ultimately hurting everyone, themselves included.
Good job John !!!
The rest of you, your existance proves that God is patient !
This proves you know a hose job when you see one.
Fine Zyg
McChurch,
When you brought up your bs philosophical question in another thread, you asked how do we know a falling tree in a forest makes a sound
To that I say dear sir, How do you know the tree fell?
ooops change philosophical to metaphysical
If you don’t know a tree has fallen, then how can you believe in evolution ?
Here is the point: .
Here is your head: O
Here is what happened:
—————–. (whoosh)
O???
As FC would say- the stupid, it burns!
Firemancarl:
First, please read all of my posts here on the entire FCS site. You will find that I myself have never anywhere asked that question. Who are you confusing me with? Are you that unfamiliar with what has been said here? If so, I don’t think you have much to contribute. If you are not going to do your homework better than that you should just refrain from the discussion, you know, stay on the porch.
If I don’t believe in The Voice, why do I care what it posts?
Actually, McChurch, you have posted a similar inane metaphyiscal bs type question. You will of course forgive me for not #1looking and #2 remembering your quote. You keep changing between (non)scientific arguments and metaphysical arguments against evolution.
Zygo:
Locke was a Christian, so he already had a moral belief system in place. But to derive morals from empirical observation alone is impossible. Also, if chaos were to reign what gives you the right to say that chaos is “bad”? It is simply matter in motion. What could be wrong with matter in motion? Once again, your good and bad is only a mirage. A nice illusion. You really should read Nietzsche.
Also, I never said that Deists believed in a caring and knowable God, only that they believed in a Creator God who had provided a moral law knowable through a study of nature. Quit putting words in my mouth like your friend Firemancarl.
And in regard to the Last Times “Left Behind” Eschatology, I also do not agree with this system and find the system out of accord with Scriptural teaching. I am a postmillennialist. You should not assume that all Christians hold to a premillennial eschatology. There are premillennial, amillennial, and postmillennial positions all in the Christian church.
Firemancarl: That’s right, I do switch back and forth because I have scientific and metaphysical problems with the idea of evolution.
The argument you refer to is one of epistemology. Empiricism cannot provide a basis for epistemology. Neither can naturalism with its evolutionary scheme. If you hold to these philosophies you have no basis for thought and knowledge is impossible. And if you have no basis for thought, why in the world are you here arguing and why do you want something like this taught in the schools where THOUGHT is to be encouraged? If knowledge is impossible, why even have school? You should change this site to Florida Citizens for Stupidity. Hey, you could still keep the original initials FCS!
So what role does “faith” play in epistemology? Would faith alone be enough to provide a basis?
Your point is ridiculous. His works on morality show that it can be derived outside of Christianity or any other arbitrary set of morals. Calling him a Christian does not make his works vanish. He is one of hundreds of philosophers who can derive absolute morals without needing fantasy stories interpreted as literal.
Only, this isn’t true. Morality is not a necessary part of being a Deist, period. Go fish. A Deist could believe that the universe was created by the Old Ones, who are chaotic and evil and created the universe for food. Deism does not presuppose Christianity, in fact many Deists rejected Christianity and Genesis outright.
Did you, or did you not attempt to claim that Deists derive morality from a god that they can know nothing about? I’m not putting words in your mouth, you have merely become so incoherent that you are incapable of remembering the points you were trying to make.
Which one do you think is right? 😉
You have yet to bring up a single scientific problem. Each time you try, you only show your absolute ignorance of science.
When you attempt to toss around big words like this so clumsily, you make me laugh. Thank you for that.
Empiricism is a form of epistemology. I’ll break it down for you logically. Empiricism and Epistemology have an is-a relationship. Empiricism is-an epistemology. You seem to be confusing is-a with has-a.
Furthermore, to put this whole thing to bed, empiricism makes sense in science. To prove something scientifically, we need a posteriori knowledge. We cannot utilize a priori knowledge, as there is no objective grounds for this knowledge. This is not to say that rationalism is not ever used in science, it takes rational thought to develop hypotheses, but only when these hypotheses can be proven through empirical means can they be called science.
I would be happy to educate you in epistemology and philosophy, you seem to be confusing terms and perhaps a bit out of your league here. Could I recommend that you start with Plato and Aristotle and work your way up before you try to tackle Hume, Locke, and maybe even William James? It seems that your philosophical knowledge is all discombobulated, perhaps from being spoon fed talking points.
Ugh. Along the lines of the forest/fallen tree question, I have one for you John. It directly relates to your epistemology/metaphysical/scientific issues.
How do you know there’s carbon monoxide in the room?
Karl, define what you mean by “faith”
Zygo, you are so stupid. Empiricism is a philosophy which tries to provide a basis for epistemology, but of course fails. Epistemology itself is not a philosophy but is the study of knowledge. Rationalism is a philosophy which tries to provide a basis for epistemology as well, but also fails. Kantian Dualism is the same thing. You may not be a strict empiricist, but you still have to have an epistemology. It seems you follow Kant.
Please provide a philosopher who has provided absolute universal morals on secular grounds.
You need to do some reading on Deism, as you obviously have little familiarity with it. Deists held to an objective morality. Also, I did not say they presupposed Christianity but that they presupposed a Creator. Once again you reveal your incredible stupidity. If you weren’t so ignorant, you might have been able to answer your own question by a careful reading of my post above, but you have never been one known for careful reading on these posts now have you? I already said above that I am a postmillennialist….Are you so stupid that you missed this? Or are you just pointing out that some Christians disagree on the interpretation of certain passages which are peripheral in terms of the cardinal doctrines of Christianity?
And yeah, I am out of my league because I am talking philosophy with a math major? Get real. Why don’t you go play some sudoku and dismiss yourself for the sake of all of us.
I brought up a question about transitional forms and you guys almost crapped yourself in replying that there were vast amounts of them. Get real. Gould himself said “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.’ Now there’s a real problem for evolution, but will you ever admit it? Better start cleaning up those pants dudes.
firemancarl: buy a detector, or leave zygo locked in the room for 24 hours.
Wowzers John. You areluanching a series of ad hominem attacks. Why’s that?
John:
In an effort to bring some definition to the philosophical debate, try this tutorial: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/.
The money text is this:
“The dispute between rationalism and empiricism takes places within epistemology, the branch of philosophy devoted to studying the nature, sources and limits of knowledge. The defining questions of epistemology include the following.
1. What is the nature of propositional knowledge, knowledge that a particular proposition about the world is true?
Knowing a particular proposition requires both that we believe it and that it be true, but it also clearly requires something more, something that distinguishes knowledge from a lucky guess. Let’s call this additional element ‘warrant’. A good deal of philosophical work has been invested in trying to determine the nature of this additional element.
2. How can we gain knowledge?
We can form true beliefs just by making some lucky guesses. How we can gain warranted beliefs is unclear. Moreover, to know the world, we must think about it, and it is not clear how we gain the concepts we use in thought or what assurance, if any, we have that the ways in which we divide up the world using our concepts correspond to divisions that actually exist.
3. What are the limits of our knowledge?
Some aspects of the world may be within the limits of our thought but beyond the limits of our knowledge; faced with competing descriptions of them, we cannot know which description is true. Some aspects of the world may even be beyond the limits of our thought, so that we cannot form intelligible descriptions of them, let alone know that a particular description is true.
The disagreement between rationalists and empiricists primarily concerns the second question, regarding the sources of our concepts and knowledge. In some instances, their disagreement on this topic leads them to give conflicting responses to the other questions as well. They may disagree over the nature of warrant or about the limits of our thought and knowledge. Our focus here will be on the competing rationalist and empiricist responses to the second question.”
Neither rationalism nor empiricism “tries to provide a basis for epistemology”, as you put it. They are both systems of knowledge with diametrically opposing claims about the way in which you obtain knowledge of the world.
John fund a mentalist says: May 29th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
“You should not assume that all Christians hold to a premillennial eschatology. There are premillennial, amillennial, and postmillennial positions all in the Christian church.â€
zygosporangia Says: May 29th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
“Which one do you think is right? “
Well, whilst looking for some definitive info regarding: Revelation 14:1-5 “144,000 unmarried jewish male virginsâ€, I happened across an interesting (in a train wreck kinda way) and lively discussion between those who having information directly from “the study I have learned from God†and “I have been told by our Lord a small part of what is going to happen.†regarding the tribulation.
Overall though, the general verdict in that discussion appears to be that it depends on which *version* of the Bible one reads!
Sigh…..
Ooops….linky…
http://www.rangerforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=5989
My sentiments exactly.
Apparently, McDonald is so far out of his league now that he must resort to outright ad hominem attacks.
It’s so sad to watch a YEC drowning in his own sophistry.
No, you are out of your league because you are losing a debate about philosophy with a math major (actually, a CS and math major). How pathetic is that? What cow school did you get your “education” at again?
donewithsheep: Empiricism says knowledge comes from the senses, Rationalism says knowledge comes via reason. Epistemology – well, now, that is the field of philosophy that asks how is knowledge possible? Empiricism and Rationalism try to answer that question. Why am I having to write this AGAIN? Your info above is good for those like Zygo who need a little brushing up on the rudiments of philosophy, but is nothing new to me. Oh I get it…you posted that for Zygo so he could read it under the pretense that it was for me because you felt sorry for him and his ignorant statements.
So which of you guys are going to challenge your good friend Mr. Gould? That’s right, I’m not all ad hominem. I put something out there like Gould and you guys go lame like Zygo’s personality. And Zygo, where are those 100+ philosophers who have all arrived at an absolute universal moral ethic upon secular grounds? And how is the sudoku game going? And did you have to throw away those pants?
And as for the Book of Revelation, you must have a familiarity with the Old Testament, as Rev. uses much of OT symbolism. But since very few of you could claim or would want to claim any proficiency in the OT, I would not recommend you guys try and write a commentary on it, much less make smart remarks about it. For one thing, you already seem to assume that the Book refers to only end time events. Nothing could be further from the truth as the Book covers the entire range of Church History from the Ascession of Christ to His Second Advent.
firemancarl – sorry about the ad hominem stuff, something just snapped in my brain and I started typing. It was just a chemical reaction. Come on now, you can’t seriously hold me responsible for saying those things when it was just the product of the interaction of atoms, right? It was just in my genes.
Alan Conwell – you wanted to know some scientists who are not Darwinian, check out http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org and you will find a list of 700 of them who have signed a document stating:
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Why should anyone challenge an obvious creationist quote mine. Try googling the following terms: gould quote mine fossil. The very first link completely refutes this talking point that you have pulled from AIG. Like what I said, McDonald, you will get slammed each time you pretend to talk about science.
Although, I like how you are going down the talking point list on AIG. It’s great to see that you have not bothered to do any of your own research on the subject. Even googling the dubious claims made by AIG for less than five minutes would show you just how ignorant you look when you parrot these claims. 😉
So, do you have anything else for you to “put out there”, or should I continue exposing your lack of knowledge in philosophy? You ought to be ashamed, because you certainly aren’t representing your alma mater with anything to be proud of. Wasn’t it you who wanted me to show some alma mater pride? 😉
Perhaps you missed the creationist memo, but you weren’t supposed to use that talking point anymore. It turns out that the majority of those 700 “scientists” aren’t actually scientists at all. This petition is nothing more than additional lying for Jesus, or in this case, name forgery.
Also, I don’t think you have a firm grasp on math. I recommend that you look up “Project Steve”.
My definition of faith is “the belief in a the existence of a being or concept that can not be verified or is contradicted by empirical evidence.” Of course, you can play along and replace it with your own definition of faith for the purpose of this trainwreck of a discussion. It really doesn’t matter any ways since we are so off topic right now. Philosophy is not my expertise.
Initially, I would have fit faith into the rationalism aspect of knowledge acquirement, but after re-reading your claims, it appears you need to get some things straightened out. Epistemology seeks to define knowledge and the various methods of acquiring it. Empiricism and rationalism are two methods of acquiring knowledge. I don’t know what you are trying to debate by claiming that our arguments defines them as the basis for epistemology (which they don’t).
What I do find interesting is the definition of truth in terms of defined knowledge. The Aristotelean definition of truth is
“To say of something which is that it is not, or to say of something which is not that it is, is false. However, to say of something which is that it is, or of something which is not that it is not, is true.”
Most of the claims made by AIG regarding Darwin and evolution fail to meet this most basic of definitions as proven by contradictory evidence most conveniently ignored by AIG. As such, they are lies, which renders AIG, and you yourself, McChurch, as liars. Where has your morality gone?
A is A. 🙂
John, I am callin bullshit on this! The people on this list…yeah, many are not scientists! Funny,, for a guy who keeps telling us to do more research, you sure are lacking. That list includes…wait for it!….a park ranger!
Time to do more research. Better yet John, google project steve you will find more scientists named Steve who agree with evolution then you entire list of “scientists”
PROOF
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM
Bring the noise you pomous windabg!!!!
Oh, since you haven’t done the research that the maker of the above video did, you have no hope. repeat NO HOPE to refute the video. Thank you for once again painting xtian creationists who not only don’t understand science and evolution, but cannot tell the truth!
firemancarl said:
“bring the noise you pomous windabg” (sic)
I guess he meant to say “bring the noise you pompous windbag”
Either way, he should not talk about his wife like that.
Like I said before, any scientist who disagrees with Darwin you will find a way to dimiss them. Ok, so tell how you will dismiss Antony Flew.
Oh, you mean, like the fact that most of the people on that list aren’t even scientists? Is that honestly the best response you can come up with? Pathetic.
Aww. Did you just google Flew? He certainly does not subscribe to your asinine YEC views.
John:
Epistemology asks about the nature of knowledge, and only incidentally how it’s possible. (The fact that we know some things and don’t know other things leads me to believe that it is possible, but that’s an empirical observation on my part. 😉
As to scientists who disagree with Darwin, you’re not really doing much if you don’t tell us what kind of scientists they are and where they get their credentials. And you’re not going to convince anyone unless you find a bunch of *biologists* who disregard Darwinian evolution and its descendants. Absent that, and you’re just listing plumbers who disagree with an explanation of why your roof leaks.
Oh look, more crap from Churchy McChurch. I do note with irony how you are trying to side step my calling you out. Though, I suppose you figure that an electrician should be able to tell an MD a better course for treatment. Yes, that is what you’re doing John. If that list was full of evolutionary biologists who had a problem with common descent, I would pay attention and listen. That fact that the ID has lied in order to make that list fit their “side” is utterly repulsive. No matter what you say, your use of bullshit to try to sway the argument to your side, will always fail. I believe that epic fail is a good term to use to describe your arguments.
John, I am gonna guess that you didn’t even watch the video. it’s only 10 minutes of truth. That however, might make it the worst 10 minutes of your life.
More lies purpetrated by the YEC/ID crowd.
Guys, the truth is, there are plumbers out there who are better scientists than many of your heroes. The crap you guys adore have all been brought up within the system and have no ability or interest in trying to question it. Antony Flew is not a creationist, of course. But why can’t you admit that he is one example of a scientist who says, hey, Darwinism is questionable???????
Maybe because he hasn’t?
talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA115_1.html
Like what I said, five minutes of fact checking would make you appear much smarter than you do here.
Zygo, what are you stupid? I checked your little site above. It says clearly that he renounced atheism and became a deist. Also, he has not renouned his deism since. You wanted a scientist who questions Darwinism. You got it.
Now how about giving a name when it comes to one of those 100 + philosophers who have arrived at an absolute universal moral system based upon secular grounds which you claim. This is the third time I have requested this info. Either provide it or shut up.
Mr. McDonald, you still haven’t addressed the Lysenko point.
Darwinian evolution was a TREASONOUS PHILOSOPHY in Stalinist Russia. For his biological insights, Stalin turned instead to a local scientist, Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, who put forth a theory later called “Lysenkoism” – that the things that happened to organisms during their lifetime would carry on to their children. You could get more fruit out of a line of peach trees, for example, if you plucked many of the leaves off – the next generation would bear fewer leaves and more fruit.
This fit Stalin’s image of how a capitalist society would turn to communism – by the shaping of parents through their lives to change the next generation. So he talked up Lysenkoism, and any scientists who dared to advance evolution were imprisoned, exiled, or killed.
But the problem with Lysenkoism is twofold – first, it had already been rejected in the guise of Lamarckian evolution many years prior. Second, it led Soviet researchers to make predictions at odds with reality. When you’re trying to improve your country’s food crops, this causes problems.
Problems like MILLIONS OF PEOPLE STARVING TO DEATH.
And further millions later on, when Chairman Mao would kick the proponents of Darwinian evolution out of his universities and adopt the same failed philosophy.
And then there are people like Norman Borlaug, who’ve used the principles of Darwinian evolution to breed new food crops and STOP billions of people from starving to death. Yes, that’s “billions” with a “b”.
Mr. McDonald, why do you want millions of Americans to starve?
Deism is far far away from YEC, McDonald. Second, he has recanted his belief:
So, apparently, you can’t read.
Specifically, you should consider reading Locke.
Along the lines of a more progressive system of morality, I like what William James had to say. Instead of being stuck in an absolute system of morality which is impossible to adapt, he suggests a system in which morals are adjusted through trial and error. He can perform the same litmus test that Locke can, but also draw upon the experience of generations. For instance, he could handle complicated moral situations like slavery (which your bible fails at handling) by drawing upon experience and historical perspective.
Even ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle discussed moral systems that did not directly involve gods. While these greek philosophers talked about harmony between the body, mind, and soul; the definition of soul here is misleading and subtle. This is not to mention that a critical reading of Euthyphro would show that Plato does not think too highly of gods or of theistic religion in general.
There’s four. I’ve got dozens more.
As we can all see by the last few posts of our resident YEC/ID defender, he knows he’s falling flat on his face. It is patently obvious that he has nothing of substance to add to the discussion other than obfuscation.
Well, if he can confuse the issue, he can find a place to hide his god.
Glazius: Again, the issue is that Naturalism with its implicit Darwinism leads to NO morality. It’s not that it leads to immorality, it leads to the impossibility of morals. That’s the point.
For example, I asked Zygo for anyone who could produce UNIVERSAL ABSOLUTE MORALS upon secular grounds. He gave me pragmatism. He is so foolish. He thinks pragmatism can produce universals. Dude come on, speak of utter failure, that’s worse than firemancarl’s blog name. Zygo I don’t want relativism, pragmatism, or situational ethics. I want ABSOLUTE UNIVERSALS. And BTW Zygo, if Flew recanted, WHY DID HE REMAIN A DEIST AND BELIEVE IN A CREATOR EVEN AS YOUR SITE ITSELF CLEARLY STATED?
First, nothing about Locke’s system could be called relativism, despite the ignorant creationist claims to the otherwise. His system does yield absolute morals. Of course, you have completely ignored this point. How intellectually dishonest for you, but par for the course.
Second, there is nothing wrong with the pragmatic treatment of morality. Even your King David did some very pragmatic things. He is considered to be a model of biblical morality.
Universal morality is overrated. Times change, people change, morals change. At one time, it was considered moral to cut down trees as a process of bettering land. Now, wholesale tree removal is considered immoral. One needs some system for deciding how to update morality to match the times. Pragmatism fits the bill. It is certainly better than blindly claiming that things are right and wrong because it is so written, and that without your god in place the world would devolve into chaos. A philosophical system that constantly challenges what we hold to be true, that examines morality continually will result in a more moral society than a mystic rule book full of outdated ideas.
Wow, McDonald, you are dense. First, you are still subscribing to an improper definition of Deism, which does not match Flew’s definition at all. Second, Flew has been very clear that his conception of Deism is only slightly different than outright atheism. He merely believes that there is an underlying order to the universe. He doesn’t believe that Jesus and Friends magicked the world for all.
Second, Flew is anything but an evolutionary biologist. Who cares what “just-so” stories he tells to himself to sleep comfortably at night. An authority he isn’t.
zygo:
Why bother understanding what you’re talking about when you can just toss out “have you stopped beating your wife”-type questions and think you’ve won the day?
You mean, that’s the point that has been blown out of the water. How we got here has absolutely nothing to do with how we should live. You are stuck in some sort of existential dilemma and have somehow tied this dilemma to morality. The truth is that you cling to your fairy tales as a security blanket, and you cannot imagine a world in which your fairy tales are merely stories. You are so desperate to assume that your mythology must be true that you fear that if any scientific discovery goes against your mythology that the whole world would fall apart in decay. You are raving like a mad man, you have built this mass-delusion world around you. A piece of pottery has hit your head, and now you’re convinced that the sky is falling.
One does not need religion to define morals. I’ll repeat: one does not need religion to define morals. I find it sad that I must explain this to you, even though you claim to be a philosophy major. What did they teach you in cow college, exactly?
That does seem to be McDonald’s MO.
Obfuscation. We don’t deal in absolutes. Unless of course we say that science <b.absolutely trumps religion.
Actually, this should be turned around, and John should have to answer for the horrible morals in the bible.
firemancarl –
Well, I am enjoying this. McDonald claims to be a philosophy major, yet seems to be vexed by some basics when it comes to morality and ethics. He is so convinced that his bible is necessary for either to exist that he must have conveniently forgotten his philosophy lessons in cow college. 😉
Zygo,
Yep. I couldn’t agree more. I would chalk his underwhelming position up to a degree from world renown Liberty University!
Thank you gentlemen. You admit that universals are impossible on a naturalistic basis. But ethics is about justifying universals, and as you have just admitted, naturalism fails to deliver here. For you, morality changes over time and is contingent upon situations. Now it doesn’t take a genius to see where that is going – “every man did what was right in his own eyes”. I can rationalize any act on the grounds supplied by pragmatism.
So let’s recap:
Naturalism fails epistemologically – If mental processes are determined only by the activity and motions of matter in the brain, why should we trust our mental processes? They may not be true, thus we have no real reason to believe or trust anything.
Naturalism fails in regard to ultimate reality – what’s behind the big bang? No one knows…why is there order rather than disorder? No one can tell.
Naturalism fails in regard to explaining man – no one believes his intended thoughts and actions are solely the result of chemical processes, but that’s all naturalism can give us. This of courses removes responsibility and accountability – machines are not morally culpable.
Naturalism fails to establish universal, absolute morals. Although naturalists certainly try by turning to relativism, pragmatism, and other foolish schemes, the fact remains that if all is matter, right and wrong are illusions. All is matter in action, and there is nothing right or wrong in that.
Naturalism fails to establish ultimate, universal purpose. We can’t know why we are here, so life is what you want it to be about. This is good news for the rapist, terrorists, homosexuals, and pedophiles. And what you do, do it with all you got, because tomorrow you die and become fertilizer. That’s right Zygo, nothing is forbidding you from murdering your wife, abandoning your children, and having a homosexual relationship with firemancarl, all the while planning to blow up Liberty University.
Now that is one pathetic worldview. It doesn’t make sense of reality. It makes a mockery of man and of life. And this is what is to be taught to students in our public schools. No wonder suicide is the third leading cause of death in teens. Good job guys.
Hmm…absolute morals?
What is the “absolute” age of consent in the bible? (lower case seeing there are so many versions…just another noun…like “novel”)
How about during the dark ages?
I’d like a dollar for every fund a mentalist who has stated that they haven’t any morals without their HoLEy BoOK
John
Would you like to buy some more higher grade straw? Of much finer flexibility. Cheap…bulk prices?
Special just for you though 🙂
No, only a bible thumper. There is a huge difference between pragmatic morality and the “moral relativism” that is cautioned by your religion. Even your religion has changed its stance on morals over time. I challenge you to find examples of this, which would be more entertaining to me than simply giving you the answers.
Once again, you fail to even acknowledge Locke. Once again, you are being intellectually dishonest. You aren’t actually debating here, you are simply moving from one talking point to another. You have no reading comprehension, you are simply following a recipe that was probably taught to you in cow college. Your point here is a complete non-sequitur, a result of trying to put words into my mouth.
Ah, so if you completely ignore anything that anyone has said here to refute your point, I guess you could claim this. You are nothing more than a blow hard. You aren’t even debating anymore. You are simply putting your fingers in your ears and braying like an ass.
Naturalism is truthful. “We don’t know” is acceptable. It’s better than trying to claim that a fairy tale with absolutely no evidence and absolutely no rational justification is how it happened. How can you possibly believe that your “just-so stories” are even in the realm of possibility? You are delusional.
Apparently, you have never talked to a cognitive scientist. Thoughts are absolutely based in the brain. As I have repeated here and you have conveniently ignored, changes in the brain change personality and thought patterns. They are directly linked. There can be absolutely no doubt that the mind is part of the brain. On the other hand, there is abolutely no evidence to point to the existence of a soul. I have challenged you repeatedly to give me evidence for a soul, and you have fallen flat on your face.
As I have demonstrated repeatedly and as you continue to ignore as you bray like an ass, religion is not required to derive morals. Even lower animals show evidence of morals, animals who you would claim do not have souls and therefore have no basis for morality according to your kooky beliefs. Why do apes and chimps protect weaker members of their clan? Why do they show compassion?
You aren’t even debating anymore, you are braying. I don’t think YEC nutjobs can tell the difference though.
You are truly dense. Even the morals that are given by your church are created by interpretation. Your bible says absolutely nothing about abortion, yet you claim that it is immoral. Your bible says absolutely nothing about mixed race marriage, yet previous generations of your “faith” have claimed that it is immoral. So, even your church does not have absolute morals.
As such, your whole point here is a red herring. If your religion cannot even provide universal absolute morals that are fixed and unmoving, then how can you possibly expect anyone to deliver this? Bray some more, why don’t you?
I never said that the answer here is unknowable, I said that it is not known. There is a huge difference between the two. Did they even teach you epistemology at your cow college?
One does not need to have existential answers in order to derive purpose. If you did, then you would be an actor. Your god created you out of entertainment.
Do you even know who Locke was? You have not even acknowledged his existence here. You are simply braying, and being very intellectually dishonest. He answered these questions.
Also, I love how you toss homosexuals in with rapists, terrorists, and pedophiles. You are showing your true colors.
…except that I can rationalize that these actions are wrong. You need your god to tell you that they are wrong, you are incapable of coming to that conclusion yourself. If it was shown that your god did not exist, then you would have no choice but to rape and pillage, because you need fairy tales to tell you what to do. This is a sad admission on your part that you believe things to be thus.
As I said before, there is a huge difference between pragmatic morals and moral relativism. I don’t think you can comprehend this difference. I don’t expect you to, as you have obviously made up your mind, and aren’t actually participating in this discussion at all anymore. You are merely braying your talking points.
Hey Zy – I believe you are wasting your time with McD as he is obviously “whacko”.
However, I am enjoying your rebuttals – so for that – Thank you. 🙂
Zygo, please show me how you yourself would rationalize that murder, homosexuality, and rape are “wrong” in a world of nothing but matter. Please!
You are fine with “we don’t know” because you don’t really want to know…if there was really a God (and there is) you apparently wouldn’t be very happy. I assure you my friend that you will find out whether you want to or not. The very fact that you don’t know and the possibility exists would seem to obligate you to investigate the matter.
Well, now there is no doubt that all that you have said is only evidence of a chemical reaction in your brain. I am arguing with a computer, something like a Tandy 1000SL at that. You are not a person, you’re a machine. And you can’t even trust what your thoughts at that. Truly sad.
The Bible says murder is wrong because life is sacred. That it a general universal absolute moral rule, and thus includes the specific act of abortion. Wow, that was hard.
Mixed race marriage? Yeah, there is nothing immoral about it and that is why the Bible doesn’t say anything about it. There is nothing to say about it. Only people like Darwin have commented on the inferiority of different races. You won’t find that in the Bible. Darwinian evolution, yes. That’s right Zygo, your Darwinism is ipso facto racist because you know that if all evolved not all have evolved to the same level. Some are less evolved.
Homosexuality is a sin just like rape, pedophilia, and murder are sins. What’s the problem? Seems you have vested interest in this point.
Well, I’ll be waiting for that rationalization, and in the meantime I will give more attention to Locke.
S. Scott – I know what the “S” stands for…
I agree, Zygo. I don’t read McDumbo’s posts themselves (just as I choose not to eat worms), just skip to the folks with brains and read their point by point eviscerations of his spew. You’re awesome. And I get a big chuckle out of Carl. 🙂
There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, just because you say so because your story book says so. NO homosexuality does not fall in the same category as rape, pedophilia and murder.
Mr. McDonald, you don’t know anything about Darwinian evolution if you honestly think “not all have evolved to the same level”. I grant that it’s true only so far as people have had more or fewer ancestors depending on when in their parents’ lifetime they were born, but in the long run this should even out.
So long as we are both capable, I can produce fertile offspring with any other opposite-gendered human being on this planet, and so long as that is true, we are all at the same level. If you’re trying to raise the spectre of eugenics, that’s just more Lamarckianism or Lysenkoism or whatever it’s calling itself these days – more assumptions that what happens to an organism during its life will affect its offspring.
Speaking of “absolute morality”, it’s of course true that Darwinian evolution leads to no absolute morality. Neither do the theorems of mathematics – do we need “intelligent counting”? Neither does the theory of gravity – do we need “intelligent falling”? Neither does the germ theory of disease, which being advanced as it was by a German physician was a favorite analogy of Hilter, likening Jews to a sociological germ – do we need “intelligent plaguing’?
Statements of absolute morality are not the provenance of science. So whatever guise they come in, they shouldn’t be taught IN SCIENCE CLASS. Not “at all”. Just in science class.
Also, it helps if whatever morality you want to teach outside of science class doesn’t somehow rely on statements of “fact” which are demonstrably wrong by the same principles people learn in science class.
Speaking of absolute morality, was the verdict in Loving v. Virginia “moral” or “immoral”, Mr. McDonald? Surely if there is an absolute morality there should be a consensus.
First, homosexuality isn’t wrong. You are so quick to judge, your bigotry is kept so close to the surface. Perhaps I’ll try hitting a little closer to home. Have you forgotten Matthew 7:1-6?
Where do you derive that idea? There is no evidence for the existence of your god, anywhere. It is not that I don’t want to know, but rather that I prioritize finding your mythical sky fairy with finding Buddha, unicorns, leprechauns, trolls, fountains of youth, El Dorado, or any other fairy tale. People believe in a lot of crazy things with no empirical evidence, why should I waste time looking for your crazy thing?
Oh, I get it. If I am afraid of finding your god, then perhaps that means that I am wicked, part of the conspiracy, ad nauseum. This is classic psychotic behavior: when someone goes against your delusions, you must turn them into an enemy.
As I said, you’re breaking down. Now, I’m a twisted machine. Heh. 😉
Your bible does not explicitly forbid abortion. I thought we were talking in absolutes here? Apparently, your morality is relative to interpretation. Absolutes require explicit statements. I guess your morals aren’t absolute or universal after all.
Actually, both the NT and OT have specific instances where murder is condoned. The OT is full of this, for a relevant example, may I direct you to Psalm 137:9?
Oh, that’s right… you’ll claim that this is not a threat, it is a graphic metaphor.
Yet, plenty of people have made this interpretation to make racism moral, using your bible as a source to create morality that does not exist in your bible.
Bzzt! Wrong. talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_1.html
I am not a fan of redneck intolerance, like the hatred that your church spews towards homosexuals. Do I have an interest in this point? Certainly. I’m a human being, and your bigotry disgusts me.
McD said …
…and to that I say – So What! – Was that supposed to scare me or something?
Anyone that “clicks” on my name can get to my blog and read all about me.
I guess you didn’t read the post about fruit flies – but being the “homophobe” that you are I guess that’s understandable.
Stacy
Bonobos….. read Frans de Waal
They love darkness and will not come to the light. It’s their choice John. Let them be. They will wail and gnash their teeth when the time comes. That is why it says not to strive with them. They love their “right” to be impure. So let them be. They mock their Creator. Let him deal with them. Vengeance is His not ours.
For once, the sanctimonious religious bullshit aside, I agree with the Voice. Listen to it, John!
Teh stupid burns! Make it stop!!!!!
Suhweet! Now I totally have the hots for a fellow ex-Navy(erer). Who also just happened to usedta live in Colorado Springs too. ( Longfellow elemerntary rulez!!!)
Total super crush, and do ya know who I have o thank for it? Churchy McChurch!
yeah, and my mum keeps threatening me with exclusion in her will!
Hey FC! Longfellow is only a couple miles from where I grew up – just accross Academy Blvd.
Are you a Broncos fan?? McD should know that Sundays are for Broncos worship in CO. The only man I’d ever leave my husband for is John Elway-LoL. 🙂
Well it took long enough, but you guys have finally admitted that your worldview reduces man to a machine, and that is cannot produce absolute, universal morality. No wonder there are so few of you and that the majority of people completely reject your worldview as absurd and regard it as a complete failure to make sense of reality. Now I wonder how long it will take for you guys to confess up on other points .
Green Earth – please tell me upon what basis you can say that homosexuality is not wrong??? I can’t wait to hear this!
Zygo, while I have no bigotry toward homosexuals (although I do disagree with the lifestyle and call it for what it is, SIN) you certainly are a bigot toward Christians.
McDonald –
You are being intellectually dishonest as usual. You asked for a philosopher who has provided absolute morals without your god, and I provided you with Locke. Yet, you are attempting to claim victory? Is that a bit premature?
The majority of Christians do accept evolution. You are in the backwards redneck minority.
First, you have made several disparaging comments about gays on this website. You have even used the term “flaming homosexual”, which is definitely derogatory. Your bigotry is so deep-rooted that you are unable to comprehend it.
Also, I’m not bigoted against Christians. I have no problem with mainstream Christianity. I do have a problem with your kooky cult, which is by no means mainstream.
Zygo – Regarding Locke:
“Although he [Locke] realized that without God morals become a MATTER OF TASTE, Locke had to admit that his empiricism did not establish the knowledge of God. What it did was to leave ajar the door to skepticism.” John Blanchard, Does God Believe in Atheists, p. 50, emphasis added.
Sorry Zygo, but like I said before, you don’t know what you are talking about, and totally misrepresent Locke. I’m not surprised.
McDonald –
No, I did not misrepresent Locke. Rather, Blanchard has misread Locke.
I thought you were a philosophy major. Could you seriously get a degree in philosophy without studying John Locke? I am surprised. What did they teach you at your cow college? Your degree is less than worthless.
I highly recommend that you give Locke a thorough reading. Sadly, as with most works of philosophy, he builds upon previous works before he defines morality. As such, most creationists would get bored before reading that far into him. However, since I have already offered to properly educate you in philosophy, since your own education in this area is obviously lacking, allow me to point you to the relevant sections.
From An Essay of Human Understanding, Book III, Chapter 11, paragraphs 15-16:
Let me know if that’s too dense for your cow college education. I’d be happy to explain the big words for you. 😀
What was that word that you used, McDonald? Oh, yeah. SLAMMED!
Sorry folks, been out of the loop for a few days. Wow! It’s gotten a bit shrill in this forum. John McD, you would have had to suppose you’d get flamed in this, a forum for science defenders, but the rancor has really gotten shrill. For that, I apologize. Still, you’ve got to admit that you’ve used, as scientific reasoning, the same tired arguments that have been used for decades against evolution. This gets pretty frustrating when the next person jumps into a forum like this and repeats the same stuff again as if it were fresh insight. I’m quite willing to discuss the science we’re non about; not the philosophical implications (which are human concerns, not the universe’s). I submit the infamous statement you referred me to:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
Think for a moment like a scientist (OK, it’s a stretch, but humor me). The first sentence says that pure Darwinian thought is incomplete. Woah! Hold the presses! Oh, wait. The current Theory of Evolution expects neutral drift, symbiosis, gene duplication, …, in addition to natural selection, although NS is expected to dominate in most ecologies. Darwin’s ideas, as brilliant as they were, are just the basis of current theory (150 years is a long time in science), so even the least demanding of real scientists who understand this stuff could agree with that statement. Consider the second sentence. Well, any real scientist would agree with that statement about anything we think we understand about any scientific topic. It’s in the nature a scientist to not think dogmatically (Sorry, again, you’ve not used that word yet; it just irks me the number of times irrational people use that to refer to people who really do science because the first group doesn’t like the result). As I said earlier, any scientist who can truly challenge the current paradigm is not “expelled”; just forced to put up or shut up. If they put up, they’ve a Nobel! For any real scientist, evidence trumps all! Show them that what you say is correct (i.e., supported by the evidence), and the community will follow (eventually). Fail to even try to provide evidence, well, you have the current situation with Intelligent Design. They’ve been at it for nearly twenty years and still haven’t produced any real science; just popular books published by vanity presses aimed at a non-professional audience (Hint: negative evidence about the current paradigm does not support any alternative theory; you’ve got to support YOUR theory with evidence. Even if the theories espoused in those few books were correct, which most reviewers would deny happened, they would ONLY falsify evolution.)
Be that as it may, I am familiar with the list from DI. I was disheartened to see that as your reference to those scientists who don’t think inside Darwin’s box. This is your serious scientific take? I just showed that the statement was so innocuous (for a scientist) that even the most ardent evolutionist could easily sign it. To take that as dissent from evolution (as the DI does continue to promote) just lends credence to the real scientists who signed it and have regretted that because of its later political uses. (They have mostly insisted on an interpretation I just espoused, and resolutely deny ID.)
I did take a few moments to review the DI’s list of dissenters. I didn’t see one paleontologist on that list (OK, I admit, the PDF was not text-searchable, no doubt a trifling oversight of the DI keepers of the list, so I could have missed someone). So my question still stands, since our commentary was about “paloentologists and other scientists”. Note specifically I asked for fossil scientists, that you know about, that question evolution?
Forest rangers (don’t get me wrong on this; those folks are the most underpaid and underappreciated of our public servants! It’s just that that’s one of your authorities from the list that is supposed to sway me about “Darwinism”), physicists, and mathematicians are not uniquely qualified to serve as authorities on evolutionary biology, any more than your web guru should be your authority to comment on your car troubles, or your dentist on your tax liabilities. Perhaps they are capable in these capacities; it’s just that their credentials don’t inspire overwhelming trust.
I know it’s only been a few days, but did you even try to find those books I mentioned at the public library?
Ugh, barfola! I’ma Packers fan! 🙂
Alan,
here’s where Johns EPIC FAIL for his argument comes to light
FC – Oh … Sorry about XXXII . 🙁 ————- Not!!! 🙂
Oh well. 🙁 … I was going to invite you up to a game. They haven’t been to Jax in 2 years – so they are due.
Homosexuality is not wrong- it’s love and attraction between two people. Why do people always try to make rules about who a person can and can not love? Love does not have boundaries such as skin pigmentation or gender just because people say it should.
My basis for this would be that my parents did not raise me to be fearful, hateful, intolerant or bigoted toward others. They taught me to understand, appreciate, value, care for, etc. I’ve said before, I think the fact that I was not raised with christianity also helps.
because the vast majority are scaredof their own true sexuality.
Welp, the Pack are playing in Jax this year!
So true. If often find that those that are most vocal against homosexuals are conflicted themselves. Perhaps McDonald has some questions regarding his own sexual orientation? 😉
Zygo, I have studied Locke and that’s the point. I went back to see if anything could even compare to your claims for him. And of course, there was nothing. Blanchard does a good job of summing up his position in regard to morality, so I included it here for your benefit. Even your quotes above show Locke trying to get an ought from an is (not to mention the entire failure of a tabula rasa to formulate thought in the first place, and Hume’s bringing Locke’s own position to its logical conclusion of skepticism) thus failing to deliver any universal morality. Just because we observe an act doesn’t make it right or wrong, and a tabula rasa has no way to make a distinction between the two when observed. Slammed. So who will you turn to now? I thought you said you had 100 + philosophers.
Sorry Green Earth, appeals to emotion and upbringing to not make an act right or wrong. So please, besides emotion and upbringing, how can you justify the statement that homosexuality is not wrong?
Alan – yes, I expected there to be disagreements here but not ad hominem attacks calling people relics, etc. I appreciate your post. I will respond soon – Sunday is a busy day for me as you could guess.
Sunday’s a busy day for me too, Mr. McDonald, but I generally finish up in the mornings so here I am.
Can we please drift slightly back to the original topic? Should the modern theory of evolution be taught in science classes, to the exclusion of all other views on the diversity of life? Yes or no?
If no, why not? And are any of those reasons good reasons for keeping something out of a science class?
Mr. McDonald, consider this scenario. There is a school shooting, and in his deranged ramblings the shooter writes: “You know what’s great? Gravity. It keeps people crawling on the ground like the worms we are.” Is this reason to ban gravity from our schools, or introduce “intelligent falling”?
Or, say, there is some terrible fascist dictator who justifies his mass murder with the words: “It is one of the greatest revolutions there has ever been in the world. The Jew will be identified! The same fight that Pasteur and Koch had to fight must be led by us today. Innumerable sicknesses have their origin in one bacillus: the Jew! Japan would also have got them if it had remained open any longer to the Jew. We will get well when we eliminate the Jew.” Is this reason to ban the germ theory of disease (formulated by Pasteur and advanced by Koch) from our schools, or introduce “intelligent plaguing”?
In both cases, I say that it is not. Science is the act of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena, no more, no less. It can inform ethical arguments, by presenting accurate pictures of causes and effects, but on questions of the nature of God, or the meaning of life, or the destiny of humanity, it must remain silent. Anyone who tries to use science to advance moral arguments is using it incorrectly.
The only thing that will help this is more instruction in the rigors and limitations of science, not less. And it certainly won’t help if we confuse the issue by withholding scientific instruction, or offering unsupported and unsupportable alternate explanations, because of the moral judgments it may lead people to make.
I ask again: should the modern theory of evolution be taught in science classes, to the exclusion of all other views on the diversity of life? Yes or no?
Homosexuality is not wrong, nor is it right, it just is. As I already said, it is attraction between two people. Why do you get to judge and say they are in the wrong? How does it affect your life? It doesn’t REALLY- it only affects you to the extent that you allow it to. I’m sure you will tell me that it is a sin and therefore causes bad things to occur, which is crap. If two people love each other, let them be!
Bonobos, one of our closest relatives, engage in homosexual activity as well as heterosexual activity. Read “Our Inner Ape” by Frans de Waal- it is about Chimps and Bonobos and how observing their behaviors helps to provide insight about ours.
Homosexual activity has been observed in other animals as well. Are the animals sinning?
Then why must you go to other authors for interpretations of Locke? If you have studied Locke, then why don’t you quote him when arguing with me? The reason why you don’t is because you can’t.
I provided you with the relevant information, and now you are trying to weasel your way back into “moral relativism” even though Locke himself showed that defining morals based on definitions is possible.
I’m sorry that your cow college did not properly prepare you for this debate. My recommendation for you would be to write the estate of Jerry Falwell and ask for your money back.
Glazius –
McDonald won’t argue evolution without pulling quotes from AIG because he is entirely ignorant of biology and modern science. He’s a self-proclaimed philosophy major (which I highly doubt), educated at a cow college founded by Jerry Falwell. Other than a bit of rhetoric, he really has nothing to bring to the discussion.
What are you smoking, McDonald? Can I have some?
First, the concept of tabula rasa, or a blank slate, is where many philosophers start. The easiest way to explain the world around us in philosophy is to start from nihil.
Second, humans are born with very capable minds. Part of this capability is the concept of empathy. Empathy has been distilled in the lab to consist of mirror neurons. When we observe things around us, especially things that involve people, part of our brain simulates what would happen if we were in the same situation. It is from this very simulation that empathy is derived, and the interpretation of this very simulation leads to the viceral reaction that we feel when we observe situations around us. Ever see a sports injury on live television? The reaction you feel is empathy at work.
Now, from the interpretation of empathy and the visceral reaction of empathy comes the majority of simple morality. When we see a child injured, we try to comfort the child. We make it a point to not hit others, because we know how it feels to be hit. When we wrong someone, our brain simulates how that person must feel, and we feel guilty. Empathy is not only good for negative consequences. With our empathy, we can tell when something will make someone feel good. In turn, doing good for others makes us feel good. Bettering ourselves, and bettering ourselves in the eyes of others also feels good.
All of this is from tabula rasa, because it is the way we are wired.
Moving on, it is not difficult to derive even higher levels of morals from this empathy. Furthermore, using a common language, logic, and reason, we can develop higher rules of morality. Most societies consider morality to be the minimization of suffering and the raising of virtues. Virtues can be defined from the primal roots through logic and reason in the same way.
If done using logic and reason, it is possible to build a system of morality which is rigid and just. Such a system is not, and cannot be relative, as it would not be logically sound unless studied at all levels, from the individual to society as a whole.
Obviously, there can be many different permutations of such systems. This is reflected by the different moral systems we see today in the world around us. Of course, such variety is not limited to systems built up from tabula rasa. Your own church, with its supposedly rigid absolute morals, has many different permutations that act as subsets of your morals. Some of your flock are Democrats, some are Republicans. Both parties, in general, derive their political motivations from two different sets of morals. However, both of these sets of morals could be considered subsets of the morals in your church, if the members of your flock ultimately derive their morals from the teachings from your bible (which, as I have shown previously, is not entirely true).
FiremanCarl – I appreciate your post; I refrained from that one since its so old ( only 100+; good analysis that supports my view, and subsequent analysis will only add to the toll; just dated ). I am well aware that the DI’s list is just so much fluff, and the Steve’s List (my he rest in peace) is still vibrant and still going strong! No ambiguity there; tell if like you see it and all, with ten times the adherents to “Darwinian” evolution, and counting. Not that authoritarian pronouncements mean much as regards science …. Doesn’t evidence count for all?
John McD: I understand this is your busy time; no problem waiting for a response. (This issue is not going away anytime soon). Go save some souls. Just don’t do it using your book as the science text for all ages. Please use the good things preached in the texts to reach/teach the people to be better people. Let them revel in the affirmed God without requiring they blindingly adhere to Bronze Age mythology about the nature of the world they inhabit. You’ll do both worlds a favor if you can do this (and pull it off, good luck to you!).
Glazius: I have already answered your question, but since you might not have read all the posts, once again I will say I do not think molecules to man evolution should be taught in the schools as a fact. I am fine with natural selection and mutation, but the idea that this can lead to new never before functionally useful information has never been shown. Thus it should not be taught as if it did. Students have had to look at Haeckel’s fake embryo diagram long enough. I believe students should be aware that information comes from an intelligence. There is no known way to produce information by purely natural phenomena.
You are wrong in that science can inform in regard to ethics. Please provide an experiment that can confirm any act to be right or wrong. You can’t. You can’t get an ought from is.
“In both cases, I say that it is not. Science is the act of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena, no more, no less. It can inform ethical arguments, by presenting accurate pictures of causes and effects, but on questions of the nature of God, or the meaning of life, or the destiny of humanity, it must remain silent. Anyone who tries to use science to advance moral arguments is using it incorrectly” – COULD YOU PLEASE INFORM RICHARD DAWKINS ET. AL. OF SOME OF THESE THINGS?
I ask you, why is it so important for molecules to man evolution be taught in school as fact when it has not been proven that information can arise by purely natural processes?
Green Earth – so you admit that you have no basis for saying homosexuality is right or wrong. Unfortunately, you also have no basis for saying beastiality is wrong either. Nor can you say rape is wrong, because for you rape just is. Your worldview utterly fails to deliver anything resembling universal morality. Moral skepticism is the logical consequence of your worldview. BTW, in regard to your love for animal and insect behavior, which is interesting in light of my beastiality comment, it proves nothing. Animals have no moral nature. The fall has affected all of life, and this kind of activity in the animal world is no different from carnivory. Nature itself teaches us that homosexual activity is useless in regard to the survival of the species. Not even evolution can support it. And your idea of a “gay” gene is even more proposterous. It’s more like wishful thinking…
Zygo, how stupid are you, really? Defining morals on the basis of definitions? Sounds pretty circular to me, and still does not deliver absolute, universal morality with “oughtness.” SLAMMED. AGAIN.
Also, your foolishness continues to be more and more evident in your stupid assumptions. I never said I was a philosophy major, only that I studied philosophy on the undergraduate and graduate level. I also never said I went to Liberty University, because I DIDN”T. SLAMMED. Dude, you just need to take some time out, like several years, and then come back and see how the debate is going. You may go now.
But before you go, you used “tabula rasa” (no info) in the same sentence as “we are wired” (a priori info). You just contradicted yourself. SLAMMED. Logic can show consistency in propositions, but not whether one thing ought or ought not to be done. SLAMMED. Some people regard pain as pleasure, so your hopes of constructing some kind of universal morality on experience will fail every time. S L A M M E D.
Alan – you wanted a paleontologist:
Dr. Kurt Wise. Dr. Wise is a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. Dr. Wise has a Ph.D. in Paleontology from Harvard University (he studied under the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould) and is a biblical creationist (young earth, six literal days, etc.).
Another thing about Zygo’s fascination with Locke. There is not much focus on Locke in philosophy courses because his contributions were mainly stalemated by Hume. Anything said about Locke (besides his social contract theory) is really just setting the stage for Hume. Zygo’s appeal to Locke is the philosophical equivalent of believing in a flat earth. Locke made his contributions at the time but was soon superceded. The only thing we can really appreciate today is his social contract theory of government. Now Zygo, would you care to offer another philosopher? One of the 100+ ?
“I am fine with natural selection and mutation, but the idea that this can lead to new never before functionally useful information has never been shown.”
What, never? Google “unbreakable bones” or “German muscular child” and take the first result. These are mutations which create functionally useful information, unless you’d like to argue that fracture-proof bones or prodigious muscle development aren’t useful. Or on a broader scale, the cichlids in Lake Malawi have speciated to take advantage of the lake’s expansion since the 1900s, monkey-flowers have speciated to grow and survive in the otherwise toxic tailings of California copper mines, and Hawaiian butterflies have speciated to feed on banana flowers, which weren’t anywhere on Hawaii until the Polynesians brought banana trees with them 1000 years ago.
“There is no known way to produce information by purely natural phenomena.”
Of course there is. The natural phenomenon is called time. Information, after all, by the Shannon-Weaver theory, is only the negative log of probability – that is, as an event becomes more improbable, it contains more information. And tomorrow can never be more likely than today, only less likely, so tomorrow’s world necessarily contains more information than today’s. It’s a common human psychological failing to regard the union of two events as being somehow more probable than a single event, but that doesn’t mean they actually are.
“You are wrong in that science can inform in regard to ethics. Please provide an experiment that can confirm any act to be right or wrong. You can’t. You can’t get an ought from is.”
But you can get an “ought” from an “is” and an “ought”. Let’s assume that I “ought” to protect life, and I’m in charge of a company disposing of some lead waste. I have in my hand a report from my company’s scientists that if this lead gets into the water supply, there “is” a good chance many of the children in the town will become brain-damaged. “Ought” I dump my lead waste into the reservoir?
In this way, science lets me predict the future, at least in a very limited fashion. If I already know what I “ought” to be doing, then knowing what “is” will inform what I “ought” to do to accomplish it.
The agricultural researchers who followed Lysenkoism in Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China – do you think they believed that the peasants “ought” to starve to death? Of course not. They were trying to improve their country’s food crops, because farmers “ought” to be able to grow enough food to feed the nation. But because Lysenkoism was a distorted picture of what “is”, the researchers couldn’t accomplish what they “ought” to.
“COULD YOU PLEASE INFORM RICHARD DAWKINS ET. AL. OF SOME OF THESE THINGS?”
Well, I could try, but they’ve somehow got it into their heads that adhering to religion requires belief in the disprovable assertion that humanity is a special creation of God rather than a product of nature, and that all religious morality is founded on this same assertion. I’m not sure where they got the idea from, really.
Dawkins has never said that science can be used for ethics and morals. You are putting words in his mouth. He believes that empathy is hard-wired, and that morality is best left to philosophy. If you ever read Dawkins, instead of reading AIG talking points and other fundamentalist propaganda, you would know this.
Actually, to be technical, the “we are wired” comment is a posteriori, as it has been shown empirically. Once again, you show that you have no idea what you are talking about.
My mistake. That makes sense, given your ignorance of the topic.
Could have fooled me. You sound just like a Falwell nutjob.
Sadly, you have not studied cognition. The pain to pleasure response happens in a different part of the brain than empathy. People who find pleasure in pain (be these sadists or masochists) still have a visceral reaction to seeing others in pain. They still have a visceral judgement of right and wrong, however, they choose to either ignore it or sexualize it. Exceptions prove the rule, as a minority of people will be wired wrong. Those people, under any philosophy as such, would be labeled as immoral.
That’s quite the pathetic statement. In a system of morals derived in such a way, that which is illogical is no different than immoral. Furthermore, logic can be used to decide moral from immoral. Logic can deduce that harming another is immoral, and that one ought not do it. Your point is asinine, and comes from ignorance of the subject of philosophy.
So, what cow college did you go to? Why won’t you fess up, are you embarrassed by your alma mater?
Regarding Locke, you asked for an example of a philosopher who developed morality without implying your god. I gave you an example.
Now, you are attempting to move the goalposts by claiming that other philosophers disagreed with Locke. This is a typical creationist tactic, and I can understand your desire to shift things so you don’t lose this debate.
You never asked me for an undisputed philosopher. You asked me for a philosopher who defined secular morality. I provided this. Your choice is either to refute my point by showing that Locke never said such a thing, or concede that it is possible to define morals outside of your fairy tales.
Since you are unable to refute my Locke example, I think we should move on.
Have you bothered to read any of the links I sent you on speciation, beneficial mutations, or proof of evolution in the lab? If you are still spouting the same talking points, then you are merely lying for Jesus at this point.
Yeah, about your Dr. Wise. As you say….SLAMMED!!!!!!!!
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/a_word_to_the_wise.htm
Zygo,
If you look at the latest posts by our friend who can’t decide if it’s science he has a beef with, or philosophy, you will notice that he seems to be losing his cool and now can do nothing more than call names.
Sadly, about Dr. Wise, even normally intelligent, well educated people can go insane and believe all sorts of stupid crap. I’m sure that MickieD has no problem whatsoever with any of the idiotic fantasies that Dr. Wise presented in the above link. There are a lot more people who believe in a Flat Earth than there are real scientists who are YEC’s so finding that .0002% (or whatever the actual percentage is) of real scientists who comprise the crackpots is hardly a victory for YECkies. But, since their position is untenable, I suppose they must grasp at whatever straws they haven’t already used to erect humanoid shapes.
Yep Wolf, lets just bury their heads in the sand, they seem to have developed and evolutionary mutation that allows them to breathe with their head stuck in the ground.
Well, you know what they say, firemancarl. The more they bury their heads in the sand, the bigger of a target they make their rears. 😉
Zygo, you want thoughts on Locke so I give them:
1) Locke believed reason proves that God exists. Thus Locke had no problem speaking of divine law which man could ascertain by correct reasoning from the principle of good=pleasure and evil=pain. In fact, Locke was a strong advocate of the cosmological argument. Too bad you don’t follow Locke here. Of course that doesn’t surprise me with your cafeteria style of philosophy.
2). Locke was optimistic about his definition of good=pleasure and evil=pain. However, this definition is not workable. Hitler got great pleasure out of genocide. According to Locke’s definition, he was only doing good. Who could speak against him?
3). Locke taught there was the law of opinion, civil law, and divine law. The law of opinion is simply a community’s judgment as to what leads to happiness (oops, just think about Nazi Germany), civil law is the enforcement of the opinion of the people. Divine law, which can be known through reason (good=pleasure, etc.) or Revelation, is the true rule for human behavior and moral rectitude. In the long run the law of opinion and civil law should be made to conform to the divine law.
4). Locke thought that the reason that there were discrepancies between the three kinds of laws was because men tended to choose immediate pleasures instead of choosing those that have more lasting value. I think this was a great insight, but it is impossible for men to accurately calculate the lasting value of pleasure on experience alone.
5). Locke thought the existence of God was demonstrative knowledge and believed God’s existence could be proved. Moral law was thus a possibility. But if all is matter, then morality is impossible. Men are just material machines. Whether one machine experiences pain or pleasure is irrelevant. All is matter interacting with matter. Machines don’t feel pleasure or pain.
ALSO, your link above is simply a link to one man’s interpretation of what Dr. Wise taught. Alan wanted a paleontologist with a credible degree, etc. who was not Darwinian. I have supplied that. I didn’t expect you guys to agree with the supplied paleontologist any more than I expect you to have interesting personalities. I never met a machine that did.
One more point on Locke:
If the mind does not contain innate ideas, Locke has to admit that it does contain innate principles of thought. Where did these innate principles come from? Evolution could not provide them. Locke had no trouble attributing them to a Creator. Again, you take all of Locke’s bad thoughts and dismiss all of his good ones.
Without digging deeper into Locke, of which there are several points that you have oversimplified or have outright misread or misunderstood, I acknowledge that you have conceded the point that there are philosophers who have developed systems of morals that do not require your god. Bravo.
As for which thoughts I take and dismiss, that is my prerogative. You likewise dismiss a lot of Locke, for instance, his thoughts on empiricist deism. You also dismiss a lot of Hume, who you attempt poorly to paraphrase.
Back onto the topic of this website, have you bothered to read any of the talkorigins links that I have posted?
Man cannot know God by his mind alone. He can see evidence of his existance. His conscience also bears withess to this. But to know God takes humility. You must acknowledge by your mind alone you cannot know all truth. Our moral compass (our conscience) is initially sensitive to his moral law within us. This however can be seared and deadened, however not completely destroyed. When God’s truth is presented the conscience is pricked. When this happens one has a choice to either react to it and try and dismiss it with their own failed logic or humble themselves and acknowledge it’s truth. But the mind cannot overule the conscience – it (the conscience) still will leave one uneasy no matter how one tries to supress it. They then have to come up with their own rationalization to try and explain away their own accountability to their maker but they can never dismiss the conviction of their own conscience – thus the reaction to the one who presents the truth to them.
It is God who put the conscience within men and man will be without excuse. They try and block it out with their “theories” but never will be succesful. They try and veil themselves through their vain philosophies – but they will be without excuse. Their heart will be layed bare in that day and then realize that they have no excuse. Hope they humble themselves as all of us have before our maker.
…and your empirical evidence for this is?
Sermons don’t belong in the science classroom, Voice.
Zyg you may wish that you come to all knowledge (science) by just empirical data. But if your honest within yourself you will have to admit that this is not true. The conscience bears witness to a person of what is right and wrong. But this can be quenched by not choosing to obey it and thence the philosophy of empircism to cover their damaged moral discernment. However there is a way you can strengthen your conscience again if you so chose to.
The dogma of unbelief doesnt belong in the classroom Zyg.
@ The Voice. Seriously, dude, you are way whacked out with the woo-woo. Same stupid crap you and your ilk always spew, asserting that anybody who doesn’t believe in a supernatural babysitter in the sky really DOES believe but is merely lying to themselves so they can do whatever the frig they want, consequences in the afterlife, science is dogmatic, yadda yadda yadda crappity crap crap. Didn’t you suggest to MickieD that it was useless to excrete such twaddle here? Howzabout you take your own advice, make like a tree, and you and your goofy, evidence-free philosophical cotton candy get the frig outta’ here? Just a suggestion. 🙂
Voice –
There are hundreds of religions on this planet with just as much evidence as your religion (none). Why is your religion correct, and all other religions wrong? Because you read a book that told you so? Because the book professes that it’s true?
Tell me, do you have difficulty discerning urban legend from fact? Urban legends have just as much authority as your book.
Science is held to a much higher standard than superstitious belief.
Hey Zy- we’ve asked that question before, I wonder if we’ll actually get an answer this time?
The Voice Says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
“The conscience bears witness to a person of what is right and wrong.â€
How is it that many drugs, including simple ethanol, so very easily alter ones conscience, even in the most devout?
Zygo, you must not have read anything I recently said about Locke. The point is that I am saying Locke utterly failed to arrive at any moral system that could hold water. I concede nothing. I am still waiting for you to provide just one philosopher who arrived at absolute universal morality upon secular grounds.
The Voice: I have found a very suitable quote which sums of the position which the FCS takes –
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are AGAINST COMMON SENSE is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. WE TAKE THE SIDE OF SCIENCE IN SPITE OF THE PATENT ABSURDITY OF SOME OF ITS CONSTRUCTS…IN SPITE OF THE TOLERANCE OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY FOR UNSUBSTANTIATED JUST-SO STORIES, BECAUSE WE HAVE A PRIOR COMMITMENT…TO NATURALISM. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, THAT WE ARE FORCED BY OUR A PRIORI ADHERENCE TO MATERIAL CAUSES TO CREATE AN APPARATUS OF INVESTIGATION AND A SET OF CONCEPTS THAT PRODUCE MATERIAL EXPLANATIONS, NO MATTER HOW COUNTER-INTUITIVE, NO MATTER HOW MYSTIFYING TO THE UNINITIATED. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, FOR WE CANNOT ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR.” Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin, emphasis added.
I never said there was a “gay” gene, the same way I do not believe there is a “violence” gene. How the brain works is not completely understood. I mention the reading about Chimps and Bonobos because in studying our relatives, distant as they may be, it can give us some insight about our behaviors. We are all primates, and more specifically apes. If you study a trait in one particular animal, you might study or reference other studies about that trait (or one very similar) in a related animal.
Green Earth – you might be an ape, and hence your beastiality is understandable, but I’m not. Your worldview brings you to the most absurd conclusions.
I love my cat, don’t get me wrong, but I don’t LOVE my cat.
And yes, I am an ape, and so are you, whether you wish to acknowledge that or not (as you have made clear) is up to you, it doesn’t change the facts.
Maybe not an ape, perhaps a Yeti.
I live in FL, not the Himalayas. If you’re going to insult me (clearly a christian virtue) get it right- Skunk ape.
Ah, more arguments from ignorance. Let me summarize McDonald’s position here: “I ain’t kin to no monkey!”
Does your mystic book force you to turn a blind eye to evidence, McDonald? Does it require you to bear false witness in defense of it? For you to make such a bold claim, that humans are not primates, is either a lie or willful ignorance of evidence.
Now, it is difficult for me to fathom that Green Earth is actually an ape, for she actually has some personality. I got a chuckle from her last post. But I have no doubt that Zygo fits the description of a poo flinging monkey. Not only does he fling it, he eats it too. For breakfast… Yes, I must admit, Zygo’s peculiar behavior resembling a primitive ape is the best evidence of evolution I’ve seen on the entire site.
Uh, Mr. McDonald? Everyone posting in this thread, including yourself, is an ape. Have you got opposable thumbs? Are you omnivorous? Are you missing a tail? Congratulations, you’re an ape.
Now, before you emphatically deny being an ape, you should know that all these things are necessary and sufficient conditions of apehood – that is, if you are not an ape, then you either have no opposable thumbs, are not omnivorous, or have a tail.
You’re also a primate, a mammal, an animal, and a living thing. You may not think of yourself as being any of these things, and there’s a very good reason for it: knowledge of your apeness is not generally useful in your day to day life. When was the last time you ever thought, for example: “Oh look, some succulent greenery. I wish I had teeth that could tear off a piece and then grind it into a digestible mash- wait a minute, I’m an ape! Score!” Because you’ve been acculturated to the point where you know what humans are generally capable of, you don’t need to use the fact of your apeness to deduce anything, and the brain is very good at marginalizing non-useful facts.
But just because knowing something isn’t often useful doesn’t make it any less true. This is what that Harvard professor was talking about in reference to the “patent absurdity” and “counter-intuitive” and “mystifying” nature of science – the brain tends to work in certain ways, follow certain patterns, which are generally useful to life. But just because the conclusions the brain draws are useful, that doesn’t mean they’re actually true. And just because science can present conclusions which run counter to the brain’s – “counter-intuitive”, “mystifying”, “patently absurd” conclusions – that doesn’t make them any less true.
This is why some people even to this day insist on a geocentric cosmos, because the brain doesn’t intuitively accept that the body it’s riding in is hurtling through space at tremendous speeds but that it can’t feel anything because there’s not much acceleration relative to the pull of the earth downward. Jupiter’s retrograde orbit as perceived from Earth, one of the key points of evidence for a heliocentric solar system, doesn’t even raise a doubt for them because it doesn’t matter to their lives what the position of Jupiter is. Not even if they have a GPS in their car – a GPS which is correcting for the motion of the earth and even the relativistic dilation of the satellite signals – because they don’t know how the GPS works, they just know it does.
The divine must be kept out of science. At all costs. Because if we let the divine in, then either we make God into a finite measurable being who can be called upon at will and tested, or we stop doing science, and start calling people with differing conclusions heretics.
Does this somehow put dampers on God? Does it limit Him? What vanity, what arrogance! I say that people who say science is limiting God, or restricting God, or pushing God out — are themselves limiting God. They’re saying that God can only do things that no one can understand, and as people come to understand more, God can only do less and less. This is a terrible and grievous kind of pride, because it also says that anything which humans CAN do and understand, God cannot do.
Glazius:
Taxonomy is relative my dear friend. You forget, I don’t espouse your taxonomy. I believe in Biblical “Kinds.”
You said:
“But just because the conclusions the brain draws are useful, that doesn’t mean they’re actually true.”
I guess this would include the theory of evolution too, so we can’t trust it to be true either.
I am fascinated by your wholehearted acceptance of Lewontin’s statement. Truly a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. This isn’t about science anymore, it’s about wanting to live life without a God.
Not cladistic taxonomy, you fool. As normal, you speak from ignorance.
What a sanctimonious load of bullshit. You can’t challenge science, so you attempt to challenge the character of scientists. Arguments like this only show that you are losing.
“When I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean, no more and no less.” This is of course your prerogative, but communication requires a common vocabulary. My hierarchical taxonomy has to do a lot more lifting than your cladistic one, or at least it has to bear up under the weight of genetic and morphological evidence – evidence which doesn’t, of course, mean anything to you, so you use the taxonomy you please.
Of course we can’t. That’s why scientists all over the world are still testing it, all the time. To the tune of… oh, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science is a grab-bag of disciplines from across the United States and it publishes about four articles a week on evolutionary research. Just for example.
But if I can return to the historical record again? Stalin’s and Mao’s researchers, attempting to improve crop yields, followed the theory of Lysenkoism and failed. Millions starved. Norman Borlaug, attempting to improve crop yields, followed the theory of evolution and succeeded. Billions were, and are, fed. At the very least this suggests that evolution is true enough to be consistently and usefully applied.
That’s as may be, but if I jump out of an airplane it doesn’t matter what my opinion of gravity is, I’ll still be subject to it. If I’m trying to improve food crops, it doesn’t matter what my opinion on biological change is – the crops will evolve.
So do the other FCS cretans agree with Glazius’ reply to my statement?
JOHN: I guess this would include the theory of evolution too, so we can’t trust it to be true either.
GLAZIUS: Of course we can’t.
Well, there it is folks. The argument is over.
As before, you have taken something that Glazius has said entirely out of context, due to your ignorance of science.
Scientists constantly test theories and laws. Nothing is immune from scrutiny. Scientists trust nothing said by a previous generation until they can verify it themselves. Likewise, scientists continually strive to produce more and more accurate conceptions of the world as new evidence is presented.
Let’s see how this differs from creationism. You trust implicitly something written by ignorant sheep herders over three thousand years ago as undisputed truth. These sheep herders knew little of anything about science or medicine. Yet, they made specific and inaccurate statements about how the world began. These “just-so stories” are immune from scrutiny, you trust them implicitly. You trust the words of long-dead witnesses to so-called “miracles” implicitly. You dismiss any interpretation of your bible or of the natural world that is outside of your narrow interpretation and world-view.
The former position (science) can discover new things about the world around us, and can verify or falsify things discovered in the past. It is a living, breathing system of knowledge that continually adapts and changes. The latter position must refer to an ancient text for insight on the world. This position continually rebukes discoveries that may go against the ancient text. This position is dead, unchanging, dogmatic, and can never produce any new insight of the world around us than “My god dun’ it.”
Which, of these two, should we teach to children?
I understand the context in which he made his statement. That’s the point.
John McD,
I wondered how long it would take to bring up Kurt Wise (actually, I’d forgotten the name, but a simple google search brought it all back to me!). This is your shining example of an exemplary scientist who thinks outside the “Darwinian” box? Yes, he studied under Steven J. Gould. Yes, he has a PhD from Harvard in paleontology, with a MS in geology. These are impressive intellectual achievements. He also has the won the label of an “honest creationist” from none other than Richard Dawkins. Given the incredible trash espoused by most creationists concerning science, this is high praise indeed.
However, I do have some issues with this gentleman. He’s stated unequivocally that no amount of evidence could ever persuade him of anything if it conflicts with (his reading of the) Bible. Period! Hmm, so much for his understanding of the scientific method.
So, we have a scientist with eminent credentials who denies science. Who, at an early age (seemingly in junior high, if I recall), determined that science cannot conflict with the Bible in any way if the science can be accepted. There must be “something” wrong with the data that produced THAT result, if it doesn’t reinforce the Bible’s text.
You’ve suggested this guy, sincere as he no doubt is, as the guy who’s not “indoctrinated” into “Darwinism”, but is uniquely able to think outside that box of evilution that’s sapped so many fertile minds. Yet, Dr. Wise is completely trapped inside a self-imposed box of Biblical literalism! I guess it all comes down to which box do we prefer. I personally choose the box of rationalism. At least it’s testable, and I’m not so wedded to it, that my entire world view depends on it; I can change my mind if the evidence so suggests. I doubt you can say the same of your belief.
Sigh! It’s clear neither of us will ever change the other’s mind. You can quote fringe YECs all you want; they will never be in the mainstream of evolutionary thought; they can’t be, since they eschew the very basics of the science they’ve forsaken (kinda reduces their credibility to near zero in the scientific community!) and they are forced to conform to their theological beliefs to interpret the data.
Contrary to your assertions, the acceptance of the modern theory of evolution among the vast majority of people who have studied it has nothing to do with blind “belief” in some authoritarian edicts, but a systematic study of the rock-solid evidence for evolution, and the dearth of evidence that opposes it. Remember, even one “fossil rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian” (as J.B.S. Haldane said many years ago) would falsify evolution, and we’d be looking for a new theory. After 150 years, we’re still waiting.
No, you have completely failed to understand the proper context of his statement, and have taken what he said down an untenable creationist tangent. That’s my point.
Alan,
I didn’t expect you to agree with Dr. Wise. You wanted me to provide you with a paleontologist. I did. I figured of course you would have some little irrelevant remark to add to it.
The argument was over before it began, if you actually think that was some hard-wrought admitted secret on my part. The process of science is mostly about being wrong. When you’re right by happy coincidence you try to create a scenario that you think will go wrong.
A scientific theory isn’t a fact and never can be. What it is is a tautology – something which on its own is meaningless and neither right nor wrong, only self-consistent. But the use of a tautology is that it gives structure to knowledge and helps in understanding the relationship of one piece of knowledge to another. The theory of evolution, for example, talks about the progress of life over generations. It’s absolutely meaningless unless you have some life and some generations for it to give structure to.
People may talk casually about proving or disproving theories, but what they’re really doing is showing them to be applicable or inapplicable. Consider a simpler more concrete example, the theory of gravity, and the equation a = G(m1)(m2)/(r*r). If you set up two masses some distance apart the equation will give you the acceleration of one toward the other, or with a minimum of tweaking the force one exerts on another. If you measure this force but it’s not what you predict, what are the possibilities? “The equation’s wrong” isn’t one of them – the equation is consistent and neither right nor wrong. The possibilities are that either you’ve taken the measurements wrong that go into the equation, or that the equation doesn’t apply to the scenario you set up.
If you could get a body of experts to agree with your measurements and show that the equation leads you to make inaccurate predictions, then you won’t have “disproven gravity”. You’ll have shown that there is a scenario where that equation for gravity does not apply. And the physicists won’t give up and go home to watch American Idol, they’ll try to construct a new equation which applies in more situations, including yours.
Science is about building a collection of tautologies that apply to as many situations as possible. The theory of evolution, over 150 years, has been found to apply to rather a lot of scenarios involving life and generations. That’s why it goes into the science textbooks.
But let’s talk about intelligent design for a minute. Doesn’t it apply to as many situations as possible? More than evolution? Because it can appeal to the “intelligent designer”? Well, yes, that’s true, as far as it goes. But let’s go back to the gravity example for a second.
Let’s say that as a result of your investigation, you propose a new equation: a = G(m1)(m2)/(r * r) + P. P is “the phantom force”, which no one can measure or quantify, but which makes sure that for any masses m and distance r you will obtain the observed acceleration a. Certainly this will make the equation apply to whatever might happen – but it will also apply to the cases where your measurements are wrong. By adding an arbitrary element to the theory, you’ve turned it into a tautology that can apply even to false things. You’ve taken away all the power it had to organize knowledge, by making it always work with everything no matter if it doesn’t fit.
So, that’s the second aim of science. To amass a collection of tautologies as applicable and as powerful as possible. And evolution’s powerful enough to let one man save a billion lives.
hmm, I dunno, JohnnyMac:
[teehee! Sorry, I couldn’t resist…]
Well, I guess the comments don’t allow image tags to work… too bad! So here are links, instead:
Supposedly not an Ape
Unabashedly an ape
Heh. McDonald’s sporting a goatee. The chimp is sporting a reverse-goatee. As far as appearances go, they could be cousins. Maybe McDonald is so adamant about not being an ape because his grandfather / grandmother did something regrettable with such an animal? It makes me wonder what his parents look like. 😀
*ducks*
Good job, guys. But you forget that I am not the one with the worldview that advocates beastiality. That would be you.
Glazius,
So what you are saying is, given time, evolutionary theory might be overturned and dismissed as a clever but subsequently failed attempt to explain biological life? That you hold evolution to be true for now, but perhaps not tomorrow?
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Humanzee? [not really]
Manobo?
Chuman?
Almost. You almost got it right.
Evolutionary theory explains the things we know about life and generations today. If it’s superseded it will be by something that explains all these things and more.
The ideal gas law works for a canister of helium but it doesn’t apply perfectly to my kitchen pressure cooker because it doesn’t handle phase transitions well. Newtonian mechanics works for most movement at sublight speed but doesn’t apply perfectly to orbiting GPS satellites because it doesn’t account for relativistic compression/dilation. Both of the former theories are taught in schools because they explain most common things adequately, and the theories that superseded them work in many ways as extensions, requiring the prior theories to be understood before introducing the explanations that cover all scenarios but only explain edge cases better.
I very much doubt evolutionary theory will pass from schools entirely, even if it is replaced, simply because of the many wide-ranging applications it already has.
These comments are now closed. See here for why:
https://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=600