How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

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 )

Ver rarely for good?? Since when is causing millions of people to challenge what they've been led to believe, and to USE their own brains, and reason, and think, and be able to choose whether to accept or to discard new ideas and new ways of thinking, since when is this "rarely for good?" Charles Darwin's work very DEFINITELY changed our human history, by showing people new and different ways to THINK FOR THEMSELVES. Whether his work is all scientificallyu verifiable as THE ULTIMATE TRUTH or just to conatin some truth, or even NO truth - it has brought dramatic, enormous change.

[rohirrim TR]

uhh.... lotesse, i think thats pretty much what i said

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

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.

i'm not blaming Darwin for racsism, I just wanted to provoke some thought, i don't believe either article blames anything on Darwin either,

so what exaclty are you reffering to?

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks Lotesse and Sun-star.

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

i'm not blaming Darwin for racsism, I just wanted to provoke some thought, i don't believe either article blames anything on Darwin either,

so what exaclty are you reffering to?

Well, Paul G. Humber's article did say that reading Darwin contributed to Stalin's agnostic (not believing in God, is that the right word?) which contributed to his atrocities.
I've already commented on the illogic of connecting these three statements, and besides, no one agrees with him anyway. So we can move along.
EDIT: But it was definitely thought-provoking, so right on Rohirrim TR.

RÃ*an, what did Darwin say about God? To my immense relief, I realized that this doesn't affect the fact that the Theory of Evolution doesn't make a comment about God. However, I'm curious to know what Darwin thought. (Sorry if you already answered that.)

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Thanks Lotesse and Sun-star.


Well, Paul G. Humber's article did say that reading Darwin contributed to Stalin's agnostic (not believing in God, is that the right word?) which contributed to his atrocities.
I've already commented on the illogic of connecting these three statements, and besides, no one agrees with him anyway. So we can move along.

i thought we had moved along too, thats why i was asking him what he's refering to (geez how do you spell that? )

as to the term agnostic i would have to look it up, i'm not positive on that one but off hand i would agree with your definition, if only for the moment

[Nurvingiel]

Er yeah, sorry for bringing up the old post.

Referring. Double "r".

[Count Comfect]

Agnostic is a refusal to believe for certain that God does OR does not exist. It's a fancy term for indecision . Atheism is I think closer to Stalin, and that is the belief that God does NOT exist.

Also, I think IR was referring to a much larger argument than you actually brought up - a lot of people do blame Darwinism for racism (for whatever reason... it is completely absurd).

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

uhh.... lotesse, i think thats pretty much what i said

Nooooo, what you said was that Darwin's theory of evolution brought changes that were very rarely for good. And my reply to that is, since when is offering new ways in which people can think about a thing, and broadening ideated horizons overall, "very rarely for good?"

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

...a lot of people do blame Darwinism for racism (for whatever reason... it is completely absurd).

I think there is a fine but important distinction here - going from Darwin's ideas to racism may (I repeat - may) be an absurd step, but it is undeniable that people have made it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

i don't believe either article blames anything on Darwin either,

so what exaclty are you reffering to?

Wasnt that the general topic you have been trying to point out the past few pages? And I mean the title of the piece was "Evolutionary Racism" so I didnt think it was out of bounds to comment on it. Furthermore it says right in the article itself:

The sinful desire to dominate, reject, ignore or mistreat others for one's own particular motives has never required much excuse. However, Darwin gave it a tremendous impetus, as has been shown before by both evolutionist and creationist writers. An unusual book helps document the links between evolutionary thinking and an upsurge in racism in Australian colonial history.

Isnt that an attempt to directly link evolution with racism?

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Isnt that an attempt to directly link evolution with racism?

Ahem...isn't the goal of evolution a "master race"? Hello, people...I'm experiencing a wierd sort of 1944 deja vu here!

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Rian

I think there is a fine but important distinction here - going from Darwin's ideas to racism may (I repeat - may) be an absurd step, but it is undeniable that people have made it.

I believe it is absurd, but you'll notice I said "a lot of people" in my post, so I'm not denying that people have made it. I think it is absurd because one of the points of Darwin is that you cannot predict WHAT traits will be selected for, so even if you thought (which there is science to dispute) that the races are fundamentally different, you would have no reason to, from Darwin, believe another race to be inferior, as for all you know it could be MORE fit. Or equally.

Originally Posted by Curubethion

Ahem...isn't the goal of evolution a "master race"? Hello, people...I'm experiencing a wierd sort of 1944 deja vu here!

Um, how do I say this... NO. It isn't. Very much not. First, there is no "goal" of evolution. It is a natural process. That's like saying "the goal of gravity is to have everything in one big lump" - which also isn't accurate, and anthropomorphizes something which does not have intent. Second, it does NOT produce a "master race" - it produces many, many species, all of which are more fit than the species that are not around. No species is 'intended' to be "master" of any other. Nor are groups within a species "master" of another group, unless that behaviour somehow makes the species more likely to reproduce, or something similar.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

Ahem...isn't the goal of evolution a "master race"? Hello, people...I'm experiencing a wierd sort of 1944 deja vu here!

What the hell!? No. Not at all. A "master race" is not the goal of evolution.

A process, such as evolution, has outcomes rather than goals (as it is not a thinking entity that would set goals for itself).

One outcome of evolution is genetic diversity. A "master race" would be exactly opposite to this. Now, a "master race" does occur, but this is not a natural process. We can observe this in agriculture - thousands of generations of domestication has led to crop species being very different from their wild ancestors. In addition, there is relitively narrow genetic diversity in many widely planted crops (dangerously so in many species).

Compare this to trees (especially conifers), who have the largest genome of any organism. Even the tree with the longest history of domestication (Pinus pinea, the tree whose cones give us pine nuts) is still genetically diverse.

In sum, a "master race" is opposite to any observable output of evolution. Only humans fiddling with breeding programs has led to anything resembling a master race. Humans messing about isn't exactly evolution.

Further, though many agricultural species have advantages like high volume or compatability with Roundup, I would hesistate to think of these species as the best. They are advantageous to the individual farmer, but from a species standpoint this is dangerous. One crop disease (potato blight) led to devastation in Ireland during the Irish potato famine, when only a narrow selection of potato species were planted.

Edited to add:
Cross-posted with Count Comfect.

I also just want to add to RÃ*an and Count Comfects comments about a lot of people supporting racist ideals with evolution.

There is no logical justification of any racist ideas. Evolution is a logical scientific theory - not the ultimate truth of life, but definitely logical. Racism has no basis whatsoever on science. Any jerk who tells you racism is okay because evolutionary theory supports it is not only demonstrating a lack of understanding if ToE, but is also a complete git who needs to remove him/herself from the gene pool.
Please note that my vehemence is directed completely at racism (which is one of the things in the world that pisses me off the most) and not at all at any Mooters.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

Ahem...isn't the goal of evolution a "master race"? Hello, people...I'm experiencing a wierd sort of 1944 deja vu here!

Well since this comment has been thoroughly countered I wont add anything further other then to say did you mean "eugenics" rather then "evolution"? Because the former makes sense. The latter would place you so far out in left field as to have absolultely no connection with reality.

[Spock]

Indeed, that's where a few of our fellows wander from time to time. Now I'd better check right field.

[Nurvingiel]

Just in case some left-handed batters sent something over there.

[HOBBIT]

hmm I might be writing an essay on this stuff soon.

[Nurvingiel]

Interesting! I hope you post it here.

What's the topic exactly? (This thread is rather broad.)

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

Ahem...isn't the goal of evolution a "master race"? Hello, people...I'm experiencing a wierd sort of 1944 deja vu here!

Lol!! Honey, are you on drugs? That's one of the hare-braindest comments I've heard here on the Moot in AGES!

[Nurvingiel]

Not nice Lotesse. Don't mund us Curubethion.

IR pointed out that Curubethion seems to have mixed up eugenics and evolution. So... what is eugenics anyway?