Pheobe Debates The Theory of Evolution

Original scene from the show... Friends. ^ | NA | NA

[Mr.Atos]

I was just lisening to Medved debating Creationism with Athiests on the air. I found it interesting that while Medved argued his side quite effectively from the standpoint of faith, his opponents resorted to condescension and beliitled him with statements like, "when it rains, is that God crying?" I was reminded of the best (at least most amusing)debate that I have ever heard on the subject of Creationism vs Evolution, albeit a fictional setting. It occurred on the show, Friends of all places between the characters Pheobe (The Hippy) and Ross (The Paleontologist). It went like this...

Pheebs: Okay...it's very faint, but I can still sense him in the building...GO INTO THE LIGHT MR. HECKLES!!

Ross: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, uh, you don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: Nah. Not really. Ross: You don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: I don't know. It's just, ya know, monkeys, Darwin, ya know, it's a, it's a nice story. I just think it's a little too easy.

Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact. Like, like, the air we breathe, like gravity... Pheebs: Uh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.

Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity? Pheebs: Well, it's not so much that ya know, like I don't *believe* in it, ya know. It's just...I don't know. Lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down, as I am being pushed.

Ross: How can you NOT BELIEVE in evolution? Pheebs: [shrugs] I unh-huh...Look at this funky shirt!!

Ross: Well, there ya go. Pheebs: Huh. So now, the REAL question is: who put those fossils there, and why...?

Ross: OPPOSABLE THUMBS!! Without evolution, how do YOU explain OPPOSABLE THUMBS?!? Pheebs: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts!

Pheebs: Uh-oh! Scary Scientist Man!

Pheebs: Okay, Ross? Could you just open your mind like, *this* much?? Okay? Now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the Earth was flat? And up until what, like, fifty years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess o' crap came out! Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny, tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?!?

Pheebs: I can't believe you caved. Ross: What? Pheebs: You just ABANDONED your whole belief system! I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. Ross: But uh.. Pheebs: Yeah...how...how are you gonna go in to work tomorrow? How...how are you gonna face the other science guys? How...how are you gonna face yourself? Oh! [Ross runs away dejected] Pheebs: That was fun. So who's hungry?

[ALS]

bwhahaha!

Now you two are engaged in trying to "micro-manage" Marxism away from evolution. Definitely an exercise in dishonesty.

for the intelligent lurker:
http://www.designeduniverse.com/als/notconservatism.html

[ALS]

"By NOT signing on to the agreement, they have given up ANY rights to criticize you on such compliance."

Making up new rules there sparky? Are you suddenly above all us "2nd class" FReepers now?

what a pompous putz

[Stultis]

Karl Marx on Darwin:
"Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.

Except that it doesn't. Marx was wrong. (Big surprise!)

If you think Marx was right, please explain HOW darwinian evolutionary theory "provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle".

[gore3000]

You will please desist from criticising a signatory for violoating said agreement since you are under no such constraints

False on all counts. First of all ALS signed on to the agreement, the only part he withheld from accepting and being bound by was the 'troll' section. Second of all, the agreement protects all, not just the signers. Thirdly, as to section 6A both jennyp and Patrick Henry have gotten involved in that discussion which has been going on for a long time. So if you wish to invoke that section you have to invoke it against all that have been involved in that part of the discussion, not just against ALS. In addition, it seems a bit late to invoke it. The appropriate time would have been when it had just started.

[Aric2000]

You have a great night as well.

Time for me to hit the sack as well, good night.

[ALS]

Marx was wrong about his own beliefs? hahahaha

Yes, he was wrong that socialism is the way to go, but I don't think you are talking about that. I think you are trying to speak for Marx.

here are his own words again:
Karl Marx on Darwin:
"Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle. One does, of course, have to put up with the clumsy English style of argument. Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, ‘teleology’ in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained."


Now are you going to try and tell us he didn't say that?
hmmm? Are you that desperate to defend evolution you would actually try to rewrite history in front of us all?

[Aric2000]

I engaged when I had sure footing and advice from others, I engaged when it was appropriate.

He is NOT a signatory to the agreement, he backed out of it.

Therefore, anything he has to say or critique is not worth the keyboard it's typed on.

He is NOT complying with said agreement and has stated that he won't, and seeing his behavior on this thread, it is obvious that he will not.

Therefore, EVERYTHING that I have stated is true, I have complied with said agreement, as witnessed to by everyone here.

THe moderator of the agreement even stated that I was in compliance.

It is time for me to go to bed, have a wonderful evening.

[Stultis]

Now you two are engaged in trying to "micro-manage" Marxism away from evolution.

What's to micromanage? There has been absolutely no coherent argument offered here -- bald assertion, mere association, and arm-waving commie double-speak does not qualify -- that there is any logical or inferential relationship whatsoever between communism and evolutionary theory.

Again, HOW does darwinian evolutionary theory support communism?

[ALS]

You are dancing all around Marx's own words and respinning the fact that he indeed did embrace Darwin and evolution.

Here's a letter from Darwin to Marx:
Dear Sir:
I thank you for the honour which you have done me by sending me your great work on Capital; & I heartily wish that I was more worthy to receive it, by understanding more of the deep and important subject of political Economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of Knowledge, & that this is in the long run sure to add to the happiness of Mankind.
I remain, Dear Sir
Yours faithfully,
Charles Darwin
Letter from Charles Darwin to Karl Marx
October, 1873

[gore3000]

Any way you call it sickle cell anemia is not beneficial. It has not created anything which is beneficial in an organism.-me-

In the heterozygous condition, it does offer some protection from malaria.

That may be true, but it does not address my statement above nor my other statement in the post which deals with the fact that it would be disastrous for a group that had this condition in order to survive malarial infection. It would kill 1/4 of their children. Clearly people do survive living in malarial infested areas without the benefit of this mutation. Let me also remind of why this is not the kind of mutation that would verify evolution - it adds nothing to the organism that leads to greater complexity and new functions of which there had to be tons of in order for man to have descended from bacteria.

[ALS]

I didn't back out of anything sparky. I agreed to a no name calling agreement which did not pass.

[gore3000]

We recommend not engaging a non-complying poster because it could lead to disruptive dialogue and flame wars.

You are way out of line. The agreement was made to enhance discussion and to make it a more pleasant environment for all concerned - not just those who agreed to it. In addition, ALS did agree to the agreement with the exception of going around calling people trolls due to his belief that it was uncivil to do so. Thirdly, this agreement is about civility and a call for not talking to someone because in the future they may be disruptive is uncivil and wrong according to the agreement. Any charges made by those who signed up have to be supported. Since you are calling for his being silenced ahead of his doing anything chargeable, it is you who is breaking the agreement, not ALS.

Lastly, the purpose of this agreement was to stop this constant bickering and letting people discuss the subject at hand. Discuss the subject, if the agrieved do not complain, it is not your business to do so in their behalf.

[ALS]

"Again, HOW does darwinian evolutionary theory support communism?"

All you never wished you never knew about Darwin and Marxism

[gore3000]

It also explains the existence of "junk" dna.

Problem with the above is that junk DNA is not junk. Scietists do not call it that, they call it 'non-coding DNA' because they are quite aware that it does have a purpose even though it does not code for genes. One of the obvious purposes of it is the control of gene expression - when, and how much of a particular protein to make and where. Genes do not control themselves, they are just factories and do what the DNA outside of the genes tells them to do.

[Stultis]

Marx was wrong about his own beliefs? hahahaha

Marx was wrong that "the class struggle" is a deterministic factor that will guide history to the collapse of capitalism and the emergence of the communist utopia. (Duh!) He was also wrong that darwinian evolutionary theory "provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle". Even if one commits the fallacy of arguing from a scientific theory to a political theory (the naturalistic fallacy, or arguing from "is" to "ought") the two theories are divergent in every respect, as I have noted: Communism is historically deterministic, evolution is contigent; communism is collectivist, evolution is individualist; communism is finalistic, evolution is open ended; and so on.

Again, HOW does evolutionary theory provide a scientific basis for the "historical class struggle"?

[Virginia-American]

check this: history of Marx/Darwin correspondence

[Aric2000]

You have freepmail...

Good night

[ALS]

"Marx was wrong that "the class struggle" is a deterministic factor that will guide history to the collapse of capitalism and the emergence of the communist utopia."

Now you are arguing a completely different subject. What other dishonesty do you wish to inject?

Let's see if you finally get it.

If you want to know if Marx embraced evolution, then his own words are a valid source.

If you want to know if socialism is better than capitalism, then his words are NOT a valid source.

get it yet?

[ALS]

That link is about as lame as it gets.

There's a far more definitive source than a few evo soundbites frought with an evo agenda.

The entire collection of Marx's letters and works are at:
http://marxists.org

whoda thunkit!

[Stultis]

Thanks! In fact I've posted that same link here a few times, although I only recently discovered this. For lurkers: The link demonstrates that the oft repeated claim that Marx wrote to Darwin asking if he (Marx) could dedicate Das Kapital to him (Darwin) is false, based on misfiled correspondence.