Spirituality
12 Feb 06
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseI think evolution is as much a philosophy as it is a scientific theory.
I think evolution is as much a philosophy as it is a scientific theory.
So the root of an issue should never be discussed? Should Marx be left out of the actions of Stalin? Should Nietzsche and his Übermensch be left unconnected from Nazi ideology? Just because the likes of Herbert Spencer and Thomas Malthus perfected/perverted Darwin's thought int ...[text shortened]... rather that discussing a matter objectively, you just want to sweep it all under the carpet.
Quite simply, you are wrong. It is clear that your use of "philosophy" here implies, at least in part, some mechanism that gives rise to normative conclusions. But the "root" of a normative conclusion is always a normative premise; you simply cannot argue in a logically valid way from purely descriptive claims to a normative conclusion. Since evolutionary theory is nothing more than a collection of descriptive claims about how the world may operate, it cannot be the "root" of any prescriptive conclusion. The best you can hope for is to show that the evil persons of which you speak (e.g., the Nazis) were guilty of committing (among other things) the Naturalistic Fallacy.
_____________________________________________________________________________
"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it"
--David Hume
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by LemonJelloWow! All that philosophy reading has really rubbed off. It's almost like having Bennett back on here.
[b]I think evolution is as much a philosophy as it is a scientific theory.
Quite simply, you are wrong. It is clear that your use of "philosophy" here implies, at least in part, some mechanism that gives rise to normative conclusions. But the "root" of a normative conclusion is always a normative premise; you simply cannot argue in a logically va ...[text shortened]... a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it"[/i]
--David Hume[/b]
15 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseSo did heliocentrism. So did Relativity. So did Quantum Mechanics. So did the "Big Bang".
Wow. Sensitive subject. Perhaps I should give everybody a chance to simmer down. No, not you, Tell, I like you angry (and of course those that never got wound up have no winding down to do).
Homework for the day: Did the Theory of Evolution undermine the Judeo-Christian view of humanity (I'm only taking essays in excess of 100 words – the rest flunk)?
...[text shortened]... sour grapes and how stupid the Judeo-Christian view is anyway, lets just stick to the question.
Anytime a scientific explanation is accepted, it undermines the "hocus-pocus, goddunnit" view of extreme Judeo-Christians.
15 Feb 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzMaybe I didn't make myself clear enough.
"Any field which posits its interpretations as unerring has historically been fodder for future ridicule."
Like christianity?
Any field which posits its interpretations as unerring has historically been fodder for future ridicule.
Christianity wouldn't fit this assertion. People within the set obviously could, but as Christianity springs from the Bible as a reflection of its truth, it does not interpret the same.
15 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHow is viewing the bible as infallible different from viewing anything else as infallible?
Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.
Any field which posits its interpretations as unerring has historically been fodder for future ridicule.
Christianity wouldn't fit this assertion. People within the set obviously could, but as Christianity springs from the Bible as a reflection of its truth, it does not interpret the same.
15 Feb 06
Happy birth day Darwin!
Lets all sing:
Happy anniversary of survival and reproductive success due to adjustment to enviroment leading to perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to your particular environment to you.
Happy anniversary of survival and reproductive success due to adjustment to enviroment leading to perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to your particular environment to you.
Happy anniversary of survival and reproductive success due to adjustment to enviroment leading to perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to your particular environment dear Darwin.
Happy anniversary of survival and reproductive success due to adjustment to enviroment leading to perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to your particular environment to you.
I would have gotten a birth day cake, but I am still waiting to see if vanilla or chocolate comes out on top in the evolutionary ladder.
15 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWho are you kidding?
Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough.
Any field which posits its interpretations as unerring has historically been fodder for future ridicule.
Christianity wouldn't fit this assertion. People within the set obviously could, but as Christianity springs from the Bible as a reflection of its truth, it does not interpret the same.
No scientific theory is ever presented by scientists as unerring. Religious dogma is without error by definition (although only believers accept it as such).
16 Feb 06
Originally posted by WulebgrPerhaps you haven't been paying attention to either current events or, barring departure from this website, the posts from the fervent believers herein, those ardently on the offense for any idea in opposition of evolutionary theory. As you say, dogma.
Who are you kidding?
No scientific theory is ever presented by scientists as unerring. Religious dogma is without error by definition (although only believers accept it as such).
16 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDo you teach your kids grammar and composition as well?
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to either current events or, barring departure from this website, the posts from the fervent believers herein, those ardently on the offense for any idea in opposition of evolutionary theory. As you say, dogma.
Oddly enough, you managed to construct a post in which I cannot find reason for objection.
current events = ID getting it's butt kicked
fervent believers = going on the offense (i.e. promoting) any and every wild-haired and erroneous idea in opposition to evolution.
Looks like you're starting to come around.
16 Feb 06
Originally posted by telerionThe reference, of course, was directed toward evolutionary biologists, not ID-er's. So fragile is the theory, it requires special protection from any and all dissention. It must needs our guardianship from any attack, whether from other legitimate scientific fields, or "others."
Do you teach your kids grammar and composition as well?
Oddly enough, you managed to construct a post in which I cannot find reason for objection.
current events = ID getting it's butt kicked
fervent believers = going on the offense (i.e. promoting) any and every wild-haired and erroneous idea in opposition to evolution.
Looks like you're starting to come around.
ID proponents are simply attempting to use plays out of the evolutionists' playbook, to bad effect. Their attack would be far more effective simply using the science available from other fields.
One can hardly fault the ID folks, though, as they are essentially getting to the root of the issue: faith.
By going on the offense, I am referencing the evolutionists who are pouncing on even the hint or smell of dissention to their fragile belief. From Pennsylvania to now Ohio, the ardent supporters of evolution are taking their case to the courts, as they know it is all about public opinion. Almost as though they have given up on the whole 'shut them up with proof' idea. Sound familiar?