Churches urged to back evolution

British Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 20 February 2006 | Paul Rincon

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I checked into the quote, and discovered that it was given by Aldous Huxley, Julian Huxley’s brother. Not quite in the same context, but here is the quote:

“For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”"

This had nothing to do with evolution. This is also a misquote. It's also in a book arguing AGAINST nihilism. Aldous Huxley was not an atheist. Nor was he ever a scientist. Your claim that,

"As can be demonstrated, early evolutionary theorists confessed that they were not drawn to the idea of secularist evolution because of any scientific merit, but rather because of its implications in morality."

is still unsubstantiated. We are waiting for some documentation.

[Thatcherite]

I was astray in using that quote to back up my statement. A few contentions amidst dozens of others doesn’t spoil the whole lot, especially when there’s more where that came from.

CG and I are still waiting for any quote that backs up your statement about early evolutionary theorists being attracted by the moral and sexual implications rather than the actual evidence for the theory. As there are more where that came from ("that" being none at all that match the description, so far) presumably you can produce some of them.

I am not inclined to let you off the hook for the Julian Huxley fabrication when you'd been told about it before. Such carelessness with the truth on your part speaks volumes of your good faith in this issue.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I think few among Frevolutionists will deny that evolution from a philosophical stance, is one of meaninglessness."

So is relativity theory, by itself. Or Germ Theory. You don;t find meaning for living from science.

"Regarding your criticism, I believe you missed the last paragraph in my comment. Please read it again."

And you've ignored my demolition of your Aldous Huxley quote. As for the quotes, almost all are taken out of context, and have been examined many times here. I won't bother myself with dozens of quotes stripped from their proper contexts.

So, do you actually have any evidence of an early evolutionist who "confessed that they were not drawn to the idea of secularist evolution because of any scientific merit, but rather because of its implications in morality."? So far you have provided nothing to back that up.

[donh]

I think few among Frevolutionists will deny that evolution from a philosophical stance, is one of meaninglessness.

I deny that evolution has a philosophical (or any other kind of) stance. Science, evolutionary or otherwise, is not the same thing as philosophical naturalism: whether darwinian evolutionary theory has meaning or not is outside of science's capacity to inquire.

[gobucks]

I deny that evolution has a philosophical (or any other kind of) stance. Science, evolutionary or otherwise, is not the same thing as philosophical naturalism: whether darwinian evolutionary theory has meaning or not is outside of science's capacity to inquire.

Ahem. Deny it all you want, but the world is round, not flat. If you need a primer on exactly what philosophical assumptions do indeed underlie 'science' and its 'capacity', I have a lot of links to offer you. First in the list ... no, wait a sec...

"Google and the Internet make it duck soup.." is how it was put by a poster once...

[Elsie]

This thread STILL going??!

[Thatcherite]

This thread STILL going??!

Yeah, DLR made the mistake of making claims that he apparently cannot provide evidence to support and is now doing the usual creationist dance. Duck and weave, dodge and dive. When pressed he posted a link to a long list of quote-mines that have nothing to do with his claim, along with a couple of fabrications and misquotes that would vaguely support part of his claim if only they were true. Anything rather than just admit that he made it up. Fancy that, a creationist unwilling to admit to fabrication. Have you ever seen the like? This dance of denial could go on for a while yet.

[Thatcherite]

But I am afraid I do not at all see the bearing your essay has on the scientific validity of ToE

Permit me to summarise:

• Gobucks enjoys sex more since adopting Christianity
• Therefore sex is better for Christians
• Therefore Christianity is true
• Therefore God exists
• Therefore evolution is false

I've already notified the appropriate authorities after Gobucks proposed his Theory of Marital Satisfaction to me about a year ago, and as soon as they have video evidence of Gobucks new-found marital bliss, along with a signed deposition from his bride, his Nobel Prize will be in the post.

[Thatcherite]

I pondered for a while what it is about the creationist mindset that leads them to denial rather than concession when they are caught out in a minor dishonesty.

Then I realised that what I was looking for was the source of denial.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Then I realized that what I was looking for was the source of denial."

[longshadow]

Then I realised that what I was looking for was the source of denial.

Lake Victoria, last I knew....

[PatrickHenry]

... the source of denial

Har-de-har har.

[donh]

I deny that evolution has a philosophical (or any other kind of) stance. Science, evolutionary or otherwise, is not the same thing as philosophical naturalism: whether darwinian evolutionary theory has meaning or not is outside of science's capacity to inquire.

Ahem. Deny it all you want, but the world is round,

It's not. It's a highly irregularly surfaced, unbalanced oblate spheroid.

not flat. If you need a primer on exactly what philosophical assumptions do indeed underlie 'science' and its 'capacity', I have a lot of links to offer you. First in the list ... no, wait a sec...

Don't bother, if you want to make this point, I'd like references from the vast number of scientists who think science rules out the existence of metaphysical explanations of things--which is what philosophical naturalism, not science, assumes.

[gobucks]

You are so much more polite now. I really appreciate it. Btw, I would suggest you at least link to the items you are referring to.

You do realize that a post made over 'a year ago' CLEARLY has made quite the impression upon you....

I think that bodes very very well for you ... still.

[balrog666]

Yeah, DLR made the mistake of making claims that he apparently cannot provide evidence to support and is now doing the usual creationist dance. Duck and weave, dodge and dive. When pressed he posted a link to a long list of quote-mines that have nothing to do with his claim, along with a couple of fabrications and misquotes that would vaguely support part of his claim if only they were true. Anything rather than just admit that he made it up. Fancy that, a creationist unwilling to admit to fabrication. Have you ever seen the like? This dance of denial could go on for a while yet.

Do you think that if such people would just convert to Christianity they would quit bearing false witness?

[donh]

"Google and the Internet make it duck soup.." is how it was put by a poster once...

Sorry, I didn't realize that was a challenge. I'm sure you can find and quote to me plenty of philosophical blovation about how philosophy underpins every worthwhile notion everyone ever had. Particularly from academic philosophers who get paid by the state to sit around and think up a philosophical storm. Science's pressing need for philosophy, however, stands on about a par with its pressing need in auto mechanics or fish farming or writing traffic tickets.

[gobucks]

"I'd like references from the vast number of scientists who think science rules out the existence of metaphysical explanations of things--which is what philosophical naturalism, not science, assumes."

?Que? I think I might risk misunderstanding what you mean here; which assumptions to which do you mean?

[gobucks]

"Science's pressing need for philosophy, however, stands on about a par with its pressing need in auto mechanics or fish farming or writing traffic tickets."

Right. Ok. Science is Independent of any underlying philosopical basis. Got it, trust it, I'm there. It just stands alone, sort of like Kant's first imperative. It is just 'there'. Like the sky being blue....

I get it.

'a par' .... nice attempt at using a golf metaphor though.