23 Oct 08
Originally posted by WheelyBecause if you ask a scientist you get an answer.
Nobody knows, for sure, where or how life started. There are a few theories of how it might have happened but no proven mechanism as yet. Why would anybody ask a scientist that?
Just wait a bit and a mechanism will be determined.
If you ask God you don't.
Pretty much sums it all up, uh?
23 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarIs there any empirical evidence for ID? I'd be very interested in reading some.
I was just wondering how many failed experiments it will take for people like you to believe that it can't happen. My guess in that no such number of experiments exists. You simply believe.
24 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Dace AceAll in all, I would say that Ben made many good points in the movie. Specifically, I think Ben did a good job showing a Darwinian influence in the promotion of the Holocaust. How is this possible you might ask? First of all, Darwin, like many of his day, was a racist. He was quoted as saying,
Last night I watched Ben Stein's movie "Expelled". I must say that it was very interesting point that Ben points out between the Intelligent Design folks, and those against it. I was hoping to hear from some of the anti-Intelligent Design folks THAT HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE, and see if they were still solid in their beliefs.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaflhausen was remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. the break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between men in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasions, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." ("The Descent of Man"😉
You then get a sense of superior verses inferior in amongst the races in a addition of survival of the fittest and what you wound up with was a distorted Nazi interpretation of what Darwin was saying. In addition, eugenical sayings by Darwin did not help much in his influence over Nazi beliefs. He says:
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated, and those survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination, we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws, and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race, but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant to allow his worst animals to breed." ("The Descent of Man"😉
I will not go so far as to say that Darwin would have approved of Nazi tactics. For example, in Ben's movie they filmed where a former hospital had been where the Nazis "eliminated" the sick and weak in the basement of the facility. I do not think Darwin would have approved of this, rather, I think he would have said that because man is a noble creature he would protect the weak in society. Nevertheless, Darwin's message is a mixed message, to say the least, that says that, on the one hand, allowing the weak to survive and reproduce in society leads to the weakening of society, but on the other hand, man should defend the weak because he is a noble creature.....then again, perhaps Mr Darwin never met Hitler. LOL.
24 Oct 08
4 edits
As for myself, I have take no issue with the science behind evolution even though I believe in creation. I do not consider them to be mutually exclusive as many assume them to be. Perhaps this is where Ben and I differ. Unfortunately, however, it seems Darwin was biased regarding religious thought. Here is a quote that shows this:
"....Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for is so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine....."
So here we have the founder of the field of evolution at war with religion for the most part. At the time, however, it is somewhat ironic that his turn from religion did not seem to be from a result of his scientific findings as how many often declare this was the case such as Dawkins in Ben's movie. It is then no wonder to me that this bias against religion seems to have carried over in evolutionary thought.
For me, however, the question still remains as to how the first life forms came to be rather than questions about evolution. Ben inquired about abiogenesis in the movie and some scientist he was interviewing was asked by Ben how life came to be in the first place. The scientist then made some vague reference to "crystals". Ben then smirked at him and then asked him again, but the man gave the same response about "crystals". I found this to be the funniest part in the movie by far. These people have no clue.
24 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyI don´t believe anybody sees Darwin as some kind of authority on human behaviour or philosophy. He was merely a guy who studied animals and plants extensively around the world and came up with a theory with holes in. However, the theory had a sound base and has been further developed to where it is now.
All in all, I would say that Ben made many good points in the movie. Specifically, I think Ben did a good job showing a Darwinian influence in the promotion of the Holocaust. How is this possible you might ask? First of all, Darwin, like many of his day, was a racist. He was quoted as saying,
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by cen ...[text shortened]... use he is a noble creature.....then again, perhaps Mr Darwin never met Hitler. LOL.
However, despite the fact that I feel no need to hold Darwin up as some kind of visionary I think it is worth taking his quoted comments in the context of the time and society within which he lived. His view of the "uncivilized" races was common throughout the western world. Hence it was possible to justify slavery and wholesale slaughter of other cultures.
24 Oct 08
5 edits
Originally posted by WheelyYou don't see Darwin as an authority on human behaviour? What about an authority in science? It seems to me that he was a maverick of sorts in the world of science and began a study of evolution that continues today.
I don´t believe anybody sees Darwin as some kind of authority on human behaviour or philosophy. He was merely a guy who studied animals and plants extensively around the world and came up with a theory with holes in. However, the theory had a sound base and has been further developed to where it is now.
However, despite the fact that I feel no need to ho rn world. Hence it was possible to justify slavery and wholesale slaughter of other cultures.
You see, the man is an authority figure and therefore, studied and followed to various levels as a result. This includes his morality and unfortunately for Darwin, both morality and science are not mutually exclusive. Case in point is the study of eugenics. Before the Nazis gave eugenics a bad name, it was a popular field of study in science. Additionally, racism ran rampant amongst the scientific elite during the life and times of Darwin. For example, it was a commonly held view that the "black man" was inferior in large part to this white counterparts. You see, morality encompasses all aspects of our existence so the question begs, whose morality and why was Darwin apart of? What is it based upon? For example, Darwin seemed to indicate that the "weak" in society is nothing more than a weight upon such a society in terms of resources, gene pool etc, so how should they be treated? I view the Nazis as those who chose to simply push aside social norms of morality in terms of helping the weak and instead attack them for the greater good of society as a whole. In effect, it was a choice of science over morality in this regard. Using only science, how were the Nazis "wrong" in what they did?
24 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyI think Hitler was far more influenced by Christians and European settlers than Darwin... He cited the genocide of native americans as inspiration for his policies, he even admired their efficiency. Then there were the crusades, the holy roman empire separating christians and jews....
All in all, I would say that Ben made many good points in the movie. Specifically, I think Ben did a good job showing a Darwinian influence in the promotion of the Holocaust. How is this possible you might ask? First of all, Darwin, like many of his day, was a racist. He was quoted as saying,
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by cen ...[text shortened]... use he is a noble creature.....then again, perhaps Mr Darwin never met Hitler. LOL.
Does the misuse of ideas say more about the ideas or those who misuse the ideas?
24 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by mrstabbyThe case for ID is based on the idea that certain things are not explained by natural selection. One example is the ability to see. There are just too many specialized parts of the process. Without the other parts, each mutation would be useless. Therefore all the mutations that lead to the parts being useful would have to happen in a very short period of time. If the mutations aren't useful, but just sit around waiting for the other parts to evolve, then these aren't traits natural selection would pass on.
Then there no experiments are in line to test ID?
If you were to fund research into ID, what would the money be spent on?
Of course this kind of logic is lost on those who embrace an atheistic view of how life came into being.
24 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyI like the question.
Using only science, how were the Nazis "wrong" in what they did?
Unfortunately I feel that as science has nothing to say about what is morally right or wrong it is impossible to judge the morality of the Nazis using only science.
Personally I believe the Nazis, or at least Hitler, was a bit star struck. He was a patriot in action and deeds but he lived in a tiny world that was only black and white. There were no grey areas. He saw any deviation from his tortured logic as an attack on the Fatherland itself (god, this sounds familiar). He was completely swayed by those who had the right character but ultimately was a total soldier who never found the leader as simple as he. My point here is that the Nazis were borne out of emotion, not a science or philosophy but these were tacked on later as justification.
24 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by WheelyNot so. When science indicates that society as a whole is weakened or hurt by the "weak" of society, this is seen as a "bad" thing. How then can we remedy the "badness" of the weak influence?
[b]I like the question.
Unfortunately I feel that as science has nothing to say about what is morally right or wrong it is impossible to judge the morality of the Nazis using only science.
As I said, science and morality are not mutually exclusive because we make interpretations from scientific data. For example, smoking and cancer scientifically appear to show a correlation. Now the data in and by itself means nothing until we intepret it and we interpret it to mean that smoking is "bad". The same can be said regarding eugical evidence that "inferior" gene pools are statistically counterproductive.
24 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarAnswer the questions...
The case for ID is based on the idea that certain things are not explained by natural selection. One example is the ability to see. There are just too many specialized parts of the process. Without the other parts, each mutation would be useless. Therefore all the mutations that lead to the parts being useful would have to happen in a very short period of ...[text shortened]... this kind of logic is lost on those who embrace an atheistic view of how life came into being.
Even wikipedia shows how the eye evolved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
Someone not being able to work out how something complex came into existence doesn't mean God did it.
24 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarBelieve what you may, just keep those unfalsifiable beliefs away from science classes, unless you're showing an example of a theory that has none of the qualities required to define it as scientific (check the link I gave for the definition of a scientific theory).
[b]Even wikipedia shows how the eye evolved:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
You can believed contrived explanations if you wish, but I choose not to drink that Kool-Aid.[/b]