How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?

From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 1/4/09 | Purple Mountains

[PurpleMountains]

All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Teleology is a branch of philosophy or metaphysics, and should be taught in school classes on such subjects. But it is not a branch of science, and should not pretend to be.

Is it ok to teach theories which deny final causes to students, in science classes?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I notice you've posted a number of pretty random off-topic comments, so I let them go.

You should address the one on Malthus. Is it ok, in your view, to teach the principles of Thomas Malthus in science class, as scientific fact?

[NicknamedBob]

" I'll say again, science has NOTHING to do with your uninformed opinions about it.
...
But NO ONE is required to respect your ignorant stupidities."

Herein lies the reason these threads will never reach any kind of accord or resolution.

When you end up attacking and insulting those who are on your own side, you've allowed emotionalism to cloud your judgment. I did not say, and you have no reason to assume, that my opinion was uninformed.

Also, I do not ask people to respect my ignorant stupidities. I ask them to gawk in stupefaction at my well-reasoned and intelligently stated stupidities.

Further, while you may have the intellectual satisfaction of being, say, innocent of a particular crime, if the evidence is against you, and your winning personality has even your own lawyer dubious about you, then you will probably be convicted anyway.

It is always prudent to keep your wits about you, and not let an angry tongue wrap itself around more than you can deal with on your own.

[BroJoeK]

"Is it ok to teach theories which deny final causes to students, in science classes?"

You say "final cause," I'd say, "First Cause."

First Cause is a philosophical argument which goes back to the ancient Greeks, and is also implied in the first verses of Genesis. I think it's a completely valid philosophical-theological argument.

But it's not science. There's no physical scientific evidence of a First Cause, no scientific theory of First Cause, not even a hypothesis relating to a First Cause that might be scientifically tested.

So First Cause is not science.

Now, if you send your children to private school, religious school or home school, then you can chose however you want them to be taught. It's nobody's business but yours & the school.

But PUBLIC schools are a different matter. There, ideally, we have to label things by their true names -- and not call every philosophical idea "science," or science a form of "religion," etc.

Finally, I notice your question takes a very odd form. Except in the realms of cosmology, ALL of science is taught without reference to a First Cause.

Do you have a problem with that?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

But PUBLIC schools are a different matter. There, ideally, we have to label things by their true names -- and not call every philosophical idea "science,"... Finally, I notice your question takes a very odd form. Except in the realms of cosmology, ALL of science is taught without reference to a First Cause.

My question is pretty simple, but for some reason you don't get it. I did not ask if it is ok to teach the philosophy of final causes in science class. I asked if it is ok, in your view, to teach a theory that denies final causes to students in public-school science classes.

[NicknamedBob]

From Britannica

"Teleology (from Greek telos, “end”; logos, “reason”), explanation by reference to some purpose or end; also described as final causality, in contrast with explanation by efficient causes only. Human conduct, insofar as it is rational, is generally explained with reference to ends pursued or alleged to be pursued; and human thought tends to explain the behaviour of other things in nature on this analogy, either as of themselves pursuing ends, or as designed to fulfill a purpose devised by a mind transcending nature.

The most celebrated account of teleology was that given by Aristotle when he declared that a full explanation of anything must consider not only the material, the formal, and the efficient causes, but also the final cause—the purpose for which the thing exists or was produced."

It may be a convenient, allegorical, and even poetic way to describe events, to say that an object intended something; "The shoe wanted to hit President Bush, to stomp him flat, to squish him ignominiously beneath it, but fortunately he ducked out of the way."

But that is only prettiness of phrasing. Inanimate objects can not plan or have intent. Aristotle's heavyweight philosophizing notwithstanding, the concept of "final cause" is a simple oxymoron.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Inanimate objects can not plan or have intent.

Well, obviously. Whoever suggested they did, aside from you?

[NicknamedBob]

"Whoever suggested they did, aside from you?"

Not I. Aristotle did, and perhaps less famously, you did.

[BroJoeK]

"My question is pretty simple, but for some reason you don't get it. I did not ask if it is ok to teach the philosophy of final causes in science class. I asked if it is ok, in your view, to teach a theory that denies final causes to students in public-school science classes."

I'll say again, it's an oddly formed question, and I suspect there's a more straightforward way of asking it.

Do you want to be more specific about which theory you mean, and exactly how it "denies final causes"?

[BroJoeK]

"When you end up attacking and insulting those who are on your own side, you've allowed emotionalism to cloud your judgment. I did not say, and you have no reason to assume, that my opinion was uninformed."

Sorry pal, but you've made a reasonable point by first distorting mine.

My point was that in this country, anyone is free to say, "two plus two equals five," but no one is required to believe them, or even respect them for it.

Where you get whole groups of people claiming divine inspiration for "two plus two equals five," and calling all others "conspiracies" or "the religion of two-plus-two-equals-four," then I'd say the time has come for some pretty blunt words.

But, if you take that as an insult, then I appologize. Sorry.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Not I. Aristotle did

I don't think Aristotle said that flying shoes and such plan and intend to fly.

[BroJoeK]

"My question is pretty simple, but for some reason you don't get it. I did not ask if it is ok to teach the philosophy of final causes in science class. I asked if it is ok, in your view, to teach a theory that denies final causes to students in public-school science classes."

I think you're trying to be both clever and coy. Which "theory" do you claim "denies final causes," and is now being taught as such in science classes?

I'll say again, except in rare cases (i.e. cosmology) science does not deal with "final causes."

Of course, I'm assuming that "final cause" equals "first cause," equals God. But possibly I'm assuming wrong?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Of course, I'm assuming that "final cause" equals "first cause," equals God. But possibly I'm assuming wrong?

Yes, you are assuming wrong.

To some extent we can account for your post by talking about efficient causes: muscles moving fingers to hit keys, electrical signals and phosphors or pixels or whatever. But the coordination of all those effects was due to some purpose on your part. That would be the final cause.

[NicknamedBob]

" Of course, I'm assuming that "final cause" equals "first cause," equals God. But possibly I'm assuming wrong?"

I think you are proximately correct. Aristotle did not refer to God as we do today.

In fact, I think his thinking is spot on; a complete description of an object, perhaps even a life form, should go further than a simple physical description. I would be much less than satisfied in reading about a rare and beautiful hummingbird, and the best way to prepare it for a sumptious repast.

I can accept that the beauty of the hummingbird elevates it above such a humdrum practicality. (Humdrum, no pun intended).

As one who studied life, Aristotle attempted to place its denizens at different levels, depending on qualities other than the merely practical.

However, from a scientific or taxonomical viewpoint, a bird is a bird, or as my terrier observes, a cute little chipmunk is a rodent. Terriers know the purpose of rodents.

[BroJoeK]

"The most celebrated account of teleology was that given by Aristotle when he declared that a full explanation of anything must consider not only the material, the formal, and the efficient causes, but also the final cause—the purpose for which the thing exists or was produced."

Thanks, I'll take this as the definition we are dealing with. Sorry for my confusion.

Now I think I can answer my own question.
The theory of evolution assumes that genetic mutations are more-or-less random, without any goal, in mind. In other words, it's pure chance which causes genetic changes, and only survival which determines what changes are kept or die out.

In other words, supposedly evolution denies teleology.

But if you look at the natural history of life on earth, it's perfectly obvious that, over time, life has become ever more complex and, shall we say, sophisticated?

Even episodes of mass extinctions have always raised up survivors in every sense more advanced than those which were destroyed.

So, while SCIENCE says these evolutionary changes were more-or-less random, PHILOSOPHICALLY and theologically we can easily say that life is constantly striving to improve itself.

So, what is life's teleological end point? Who knows, certainly not I. But if the Bible's omega proves as metaphorical as its alpha, then that "point" could well be beyond the imaginations of even our most prescient science-fiction writers. For what it's worth...

[BroJoeK]

"So, while SCIENCE says these evolutionary changes were more-or-less random, PHILOSOPHICALLY and theologically we can easily say that life is constantly striving to improve itself."

Or, I'll say it the way I prefer to think of it: God is constantly striving (sometimes against seemingly hopeless odds) to improve life on earth!

And if you ask, "why didn't God just create EVERYTHING perfect to begin with?" then, my child, we are in for a long, long discussion having NOTHING to do with science!

[BroJoeK]

"Terriers know the purpose of rodents."

Nor do they EVER feel the need to debate such questions. ;-)

[NicknamedBob]

"So, what is life's teleological end point? Who knows, certainly not I. But if the Bible's omega proves as metaphorical as its alpha, then that "point" could well be beyond the imaginations of even our most prescient science-fiction writers. For what it's worth..."

The religious, generally, say that our fate is to merge with God, (if we are worthy).

Ray Kurzweil says that our fate is to merge with machines. (Been there, done that, didn't get the dinner.)

Life is a play that we attend,
but do not understand,
that the entertainment flows the other way,

We who are observing,
are being watched in turn,
and the laughs will be upon us one fine day.

[CottShop]

[[You’re joking and mocking us, aren’t you?]]

Not at all Bro- Don’t mistake certain ID sites for being the voice of ID- Pue ID is PURE Forensics- period- it makes no assumptions about who or what the intellgience is behind the evidnece we find- it simply presents the evidence as any good forensic scientist would- infact quite a number of ID proponents are not infact religious, nor do they think God is hte intelleigence-

[[There is NOTHING scientific about “intelligent design.”]]

Either step it up with intellectual honesty or we’re done- Your comment is so far removed from reality and the facts that it doesn’t warrent a response-

[[ All you did was take your Bible-based “Creationism” file and renamed it “Intelligent Design.” ]]

Again, this is hsowing your ingorance of the FACTS- enough with the Darwin central cliche’s eh?

[[No serious scientific work, no peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals, no actual debate amongst recognized scientists — nothing.]]

first of all a great many discoveries and scientific pursuits were NEVER peer reviewed- Secoindly, Peer review does not science make- thirdly- there is a VERY good reason why some ID is rejected and you know it- there is EXTREME bias agaisnt ID, with peer reviewers conforming to an a priori belief- the peer review system has become a subjective joke and has degraded from the original intent of peer review- fourthly, you claim that there has been no peer review is blatantly FALSE! Again you are simply parroting Darwin central cliche’s and quite frankly, these false claims are ignorant of hte facts and quite childish- Do a little research on your own instead of parroting other’s false claims- there has been ‘serious peer review’ and some have stood for over 15 years unrefuted! Cripes- do a little homework before spouting off abotu osmethign you obviously know little about

[CottShop]

Bob- We’re talkign discontinuity of hte fossils- and quite frankly, they DO do the tedious work of ‘diggign htrough the icky stuff’- not sure where your insult stems from, but certainly not fro mthe facts.