10-14-2005, 06:11 PM | #81 | ||||||||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, I fail to see the purpose in comaring extreme evolutionists to religious extremists; why not just say that extreme evolutionists are rare? I could say that people who wear shoes are very common, just like people who ride bicycles. While this statement is true, it serves no purpose. The reason I take issue with your comparison is because, though you may not have intended this, you suggested that extreme evolutionists and religious extremists have something in common besides both being rare. Your statement has connotations of both being violent. This is why I felt the comparison had no useful purpose. I am 99% sure you didn't intend that, so we can just move along. Quote:
Anyway, reading now... Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
10-14-2005, 06:38 PM | #82 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
I think a distinction between Darwinism (ie ToE) and Social Darwinism would be helpful here. One is a scientific theory that we've been discussing here for a while. The other is the theory that within human society, groups compete in a "survivial of the fittest" manner, which is often used to claim that the poor are poor because they deserve it. It isn't scientific (or accurate, mostly because its major claims have been actually discredited) and it is that, rather than ToE, that influenced Nazism.
Also, there is plenty of room for God in evolution, as Eärniel and Nurv have both said - since evolution does not postulate the existence or non-existence of God, God's existence is not inconsistent with evolution. And evolution is not intended as a way to deny God. Some extremist religious people think it is that (and I daresay there are extremist evolutionists who would say that) but evolution is a scientific theory that tries to explain how creatures change over time. It is neither a denial nor an affirmation of God. It does violate some religious sensibilities by not postulating God as a potential force, but it, in itself, has nothing to do with God.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
10-14-2005, 07:14 PM | #83 | |||||||||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Response to Stalin's Brutal Faith [link], by Paul G. Humber:
Quote:
My belief in God, my belief in Jesus, my belief that Jesus' teachings are true, etc. are religious beliefs. Moving on to the next paragraph (ignoring the accidentally repeated one) reveals why the author stated faith in the self and other human beings is actually religion. I'm glad I think this is wrong, since what the author says next scares me. Quote:
Quote:
The author misses an opportunity to quote Solzhenitsyn here, which would have been useful and relevant. Anyway, onwards. Quote:
It's worth mentioning that religion (and this led to many terrible persecutions) was supressed by many Communist regimes, including Mao's and Stalin's. Quote:
However, the author seems to reach the conclusion that since Stalin believed that there is no God based on what he read in The Origin of Species, this is somehow true. I can safely state that Stalin had many ideas that are not the slightest bit acceptable to most human beings regardless of their beliefs. Darwin causing agnosticism can go on that list. I don't have a problem with agnosticism, but I do have a problem with Stalin. A few pages later, another individual--also reflecting on Stalin's youthful pursuits, added the following: Quote:
This is just to point out that many Christians, in fact, don't take Genesis literally. I'm not judging the rightness or wrongness of different Christian beliefs, I'm just saying that the author needs to get the context of his quotes straight. Quote:
I was originally going to make an unkind statement about Solzhenitsyn's Nobel Prize, but this wouldn't be fair because: 1. This quote could very easily have been taken out of context. I strongly suspect it was. 2. This isn't exactly how natural selection works, which leads me to believe that Solzhenitsyn was using this as a literary device (the name of the exact type escapes me), rather than actually making a statement about how natural selection works. 3. According to Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's Autobiography [link], from Nobelprize.org, Solzhenitsyn won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Literature. Just as I would not expect the winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics to make an insightful comment on the significance of "War and Peace", quoting Solzhenitsyn's book does not lend any credibility what-so-ever to statements that the Theory of Evolution contributed to Stalin's atrocities. Well, I've spend a lot of time examining the first part of the article (ending with the last part I quoted) so let's pause for now and discuss it. However, if the rest of this article is as poorly referenced and badly thought-out as the first part was, I don't know if I want to bother finishing it. I expect better from a scientific essay. Incidentally, there is nothing wrong with writing a scientific essay. This is what the author is doing (even though he wedged an abstract in at the beginning); like many scientific essays, he is examining a number of articles about his main theme and drawing conclusions from them. The author is actually rather vague about the point of his essay. He needs to sharpen up that introduction, big time. As far as I can tell, the entire essay is about faith in the self and other humans is actually religious faith. He goes on to (somewhat vaguely) extrapolate that believing in the works of Darwin, and therefore ToE, is also a religious belief. I suppose the main conclusion from this article is that ToE contributed the Stalin's atrocities, and is therefore wrong. By extension, this would make Creationism right. Note that this is my own conclusion from what I have read so far, and not anything the author stated. This entire essay (glaring faults aside) seems to have been a waste of time for the Institute for Creation Research since the author did not do any actual research beyond studying articles*, and he also said nothing about creationism. Edited to add: *Actually, studying articles is a perfectly valid form of research. Unfortunately for the author, the articles in question don't appear to support his points. The essay seems to merely exist to cast doubt on the Theory of Evolution. This is actually the main why I don't consider Creationism of any kind to be a valid scientific view point. I think it's a perfectly valid and logical world view (or religious belief if you will), but it is not science. Why? Because it seems that the main case for the science of creationism is poking holes in evolution. That alone does not prove the validity of a scientific theory. A scientific theory needs to have stand alone evidence to support its hypotheses - ToE having flaws (which it does) is not enough. Ultimately, there is no scientific evidence for the presence of a Creator (aka God, aka a supernatural being of any name). Even R*an's arguments fall down at this point, which is rather central to the theory, and R*an has presented the best, most logical, and very thoughtful and intelligent arguments for Intelligent Design I have ever read. I think the intent behind this article is to further Creationism as a valid scientific theory. I don't think scientific theories are necessarily better than religious theories, therefore I fail to see why the Institute for Creationist Research bothers. Creationism (and ID) is a perfectly valid world view. Why would you (general you) put forward a rubbish scientific theory rather than a good world view?
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Nurvingiel : 10-14-2005 at 07:21 PM. Reason: style and grammar |
|||||||||
10-14-2005, 09:36 PM | #84 | ||
Friendly Neigborhood Sith Lord
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 2,080
|
well sorry for posting the article i didn't check all the sources and crap. i'm not a very good writer so i'm not coming across very well, once again i apologise
my point was darwins works did much more than just, cause science to be viewed differently, it changed history and affected how the world is today, and some of those changes were for the worse.
__________________
I was Press Secretary for the Berlioz administration and also, but not limited to, owner and co operator of fully armed and operational battle station EDDIE Quote:
Quote:
|
||
10-14-2005, 10:30 PM | #85 | ||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
No worries rohirirm TR.
That article showed me the Darwin did not change history. Actually, Darwin's views did affect history, but not Communism or Nazism. I think it was part of a larger rethinking of our world view, but I don't know that much about it. A case could be made for Darwin's influence on history though.
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
||
10-14-2005, 10:36 PM | #86 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç å ™ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|
10-14-2005, 10:39 PM | #87 | ||
Friendly Neigborhood Sith Lord
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 2,080
|
well the term "change history" is somewhat misleading if you think about, after all no one "changed" it although some people got to make it
and don't tell me the darwins' works didn't change the way certain people look at humanity, it had a major effect and very rarely for good. that article that i linked was not my only info, but my other stuff i've got to find and check before i post it (i learned my lesson )
__________________
I was Press Secretary for the Berlioz administration and also, but not limited to, owner and co operator of fully armed and operational battle station EDDIE Quote:
Quote:
|
||
10-15-2005, 01:05 AM | #88 | |||||
Co-President of Entmoot
Super Moderator Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,397
|
Quote:
What does Darwin say about God? I never heard anything about God when we studied ToE. Of course, some parts of ToE may not necessarily be accepted today. I wish I knew more about it. Quote:
Quote:
Darwin's work did influence people's beliefs - mine, for example. I don't think this is a negative influence though, why do you feel that way?
__________________
"I can add some more, if you'd like it. Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to Punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-fools." - Sam Gamgee, p. 340, Return of the King Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
10-15-2005, 07:51 AM | #89 | |
Lady of Letters
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Either Oxford or Kent, England
Posts: 2,476
|
Quote:
The connection between Nazism and evolution is undeniable; the important point to note is that this cannot be used as an argument against evolution. Any idea can be twisted to support repulsive ideologies; it's not Darwin's fault that Hitler used his theories in a terrible way. |
|
10-15-2005, 12:40 PM | #90 |
Word Santa Claus
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,922
|
True, sunstar, but eugenics is also highly linked to Social Darwinism - partly because true ToE says you cannot predict what will be more fit, and so eugenics is doomed to fail, while Social Darwinism would argue pretty much the opposite.
__________________
Sufficient to have stood, yet free to fall. |
10-15-2005, 03:12 PM | #91 |
Lady of Letters
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Either Oxford or Kent, England
Posts: 2,476
|
Yes, I wasn't disagreeing with that part of your post.
BTW Nurv, I loved what you said about Godwin's Law |
10-15-2005, 03:47 PM | #92 |
of the House of Fëanor
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,150
|
This thread has gotten really, really interesting and an actual PLEASURE to read, lately. Good stuff, Count C, Nurvi & Sun-Star, et al...
__________________
Few people have the imagination for reality.
~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe |
10-17-2005, 09:44 AM | #93 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
to me, it's basically completely compatible with intelligent design and the only difference from "young earth creationism" is that it asks one not to take the bible as 100% literal here is the link again i'd be interested in hearing some specifics from you as well if you'd like to rohirrim
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
10-17-2005, 09:47 AM | #94 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
10-17-2005, 11:15 AM | #95 |
An enigma in a conundrum
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,476
|
Of course you realize that the Creator, or the Aliens, are having a huge laugh at all this. Unless we just 'popped' into existance and then the Universe is hysterical.
__________________
Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." |
10-17-2005, 02:28 PM | #96 |
Quasi Evil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 4,634
|
chaos doesnt have a sense of humor.
__________________
"People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." |
10-17-2005, 02:59 PM | #97 | ||
Friendly Neigborhood Sith Lord
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 2,080
|
here are some articles that, if nothing else, will provoke thought click here and here
__________________
I was Press Secretary for the Berlioz administration and also, but not limited to, owner and co operator of fully armed and operational battle station EDDIE Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by rohirrim TR : 10-17-2005 at 03:02 PM. |
||
10-17-2005, 03:03 PM | #98 |
Quasi Evil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Maryland, US
Posts: 4,634
|
Of course the ironic idea about trying to blame darwin for all racism is that ultimately it was evolution and other sciences that showed us that we are all in fact one race... thus undermining the entire argument.
__________________
"People's political beliefs don't stem from the factual information they've acquired. Far more the facts people choose to believe are the product of their political beliefs." "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." |
10-17-2005, 03:04 PM | #99 | |
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Reality
Posts: 3,767
|
Quote:
__________________
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. |
|
10-17-2005, 03:42 PM | #100 |
An enigma in a conundrum
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 6,476
|
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your future plans.
--W.A.--
__________________
Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Evidence for Evolution | jerseydevil | General Messages | 599 | 05-18-2008 02:43 PM |
How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism | Nurvingiel | General Messages | 1199 | 10-05-2005 04:43 AM |
Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution | Rían | General Messages | 1149 | 08-16-2004 06:07 PM |