The Dini-gration of Darwinism

AgapePress ^ | April 29, 2003 | Mike S. Adams

[general_re]

Fun trivia for the day - Henry Jones Ford, one of the founding fathers of modern political science, was heavily influenced by Darwinism in his search for the "universal principles" of political behavior ;)

[general_re]

You either made a transistor(PNP or NPN choose your sides) or a baloney sandwich!

Yes, but it was missing something, which you thoughtfully provided ;)

[f.Christian]

Evolution if it has to be on a conservative site should be listed under ideology -- occult ... or the anti - christ --- satanism !!

[AndrewC]

Yes, but it was missing something, which you thoughtfully provided ;)

Yeah, but it is only on the side not in the sandwich, so you must have cut the cheese.;^)

Out of the sandwich, of course.

[Dimensio]

They changed their sentiment? The statement neither confirms nor denies that our existence has any inherent purpose.

[Dimensio]

He would provide a way for us to relate to Him, because He is so beyond our capacity to understand.

For someone beyond your capacity to understand, you claim to understand a lot about Him.

[jennyp]

I think jennyp knows this stuff, so I'm giving her a ping. We discussed it a couple of years ago. All that I remember is that it's supposed to be a bit of evidence that we're related to some other hominids with the same genetic defect, presumably a non-fatal inheritance from a long-ago ancestor of us all.

Hmmm, sorry, the best I can do is point Dark Knight to Talk.Origins & search on "Vitamin C" or maybe "ascorbic acid". (I've just been upgraded to Windows 2000 & I don't know where anything is anymore!)

[PatrickHenry]

Thanks for trying, jenny. DK, it's your homework project now.

[ALS]

get over me

[bondserv]

Hello Dimensio,

These things about God are revealed by Him via the Bible. I have no more knowledge of God than is available to you. There is also a heavenful of knowledge that I look forward to being exposed to in the future.

Because the God I know is completely reasonable, I continue to study science as objectively as I can. Which brings me to this thread, and other science oriented threads, with a hunger to know.

One of the cool evidences of Gods' handiwork in a Christians life is a recognition of the changes (for the moral better) in our lives as we look back at the changes He has made. Often these changes are without our knowledge or recognition of the need.

One confusion that many people watching a Christians life is the seeming hipocracy. What most critics overlook is the fact that some Christians started their Christianity with massive amounts of emotional baggage. God doesn't promise to mature us immediately, only to progressively develope us in character and principled actions.

Some of us have more of a mountain before us than others, please find a forgiving part of your heart for some of our misrepresentations of Gods' ways.

bondserv

[cornelis]

Voegelin characterizes this shift as losing an existential anchor whereby political thinking becomes principled by universals derived from a "climate of opinion." This is one feature operative in these debates on the merit or insufficiency of evolutionary thinking.

The existential consciousness that should be the formative force of public order has been replaced by a "public unconscious" which energetically resists an analysis of its structure"

I'm not sure of all that this resistance entails, but energetic it is. Perhaps one feature is the entertainment value of debate.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Darwin Central weekend message acknowledged.

[Heartlander]

They changed their sentiment?

Interesting question. They changed the statement but they still believe the original statement to be true? Maybe, but I hope not.

According to the NABT's executive director, the change was made ``to avoid taking a religious position'' that might offend believers. The two words that were removed from their statement were; 'unsupervised' and 'impersonal'. These two words made the NABT's statement religious and faith-based. To illustrate, change the words to 'supervised' and 'personal'. Either way, both statements would be outside the purely 'material constraints' that science currently imposes. Their statement boldly claimed that there was no intelligent cause (force, etc.) behind mankind and all existence. It took seven years of prodding before they revised the statement.

The statement neither confirms nor denies that our existence has any inherent purpose.

Another interesting statement. Darwin claims (in a nutshell) that life's purpose is the four F's:
Feeding, Fighting, Fleeing, and… Reproducing. This is natural selection.
But here is the rub; life has purpose but nothing else does? We don't attribute 'purpose' to anything outside of life do we? Someone can give a rock 'a purpose' but the 'rock' (atoms, etc.) has no purpose - does it? Where does life's purpose come from?

Anyway, let's look at a college textbook and see what it has to say on the subject:

According to Douglas Futuyama’s widely used college textbook Evolutionary Biology(1998), Darwin’s “theory of random, purposeless variations acted on by blind, purposeless natural selection provided a revolutionary new answer to almost all questions that begin with ‘Why?’” Darwin “made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous,” and thereby “provided a crucial plank to the platform of mechanism and materialism” that is now “the stage of most Western thought.”

Well, we can't use this because it is a religious statement. I guess we should look at a required/recommended reading book for college biology:

"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between . . . watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in the mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparent purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (p. 5)
Richard Dawkins

Another religious statement? Hmmm… The National Association of Biology Teacher's, college textbooks, and required/recommended reading material.

Maybe it's just human nature...
If the things that you (and I) detest exists in religion i.e. dogmatism, conceit, mockery, intolerance, and power-obsession, why would we not expect to see it in science as well? Especially when science becomes religion.

[Aric2000]

Darwin central, creos at thier silliest placemarker.

[f.Christian]

hl ...

Maybe it's just human nature...

If the things that you (and I) detest exists in religion i.e. dogmatism, conceit, mockery, intolerance, and power-obsession, why would we not expect to see it in science as well? Especially when science becomes religion.


1,933 posted on 05/23/2003 10:01 AM PDT by Heartlander

fC ...

Maybe it's just human nature...

If the things that you (and I) detest exists in religion i.e. dogmatism, conceit, mockery, intolerance, and power-obsession, why would we not expect to see it in EVOLUTION * * as well?

Especially when EVOLUTION * * becomes religion --- POLITICS -- MONEY -- POWER * * .

... * * ... FEW CHANGES // ADDITIONS !

[Dimensio]

But here is the rub; life has purpose but nothing else does? We don't attribute 'purpose' to anything outside of life do we? Someone can give a rock 'a purpose' but the 'rock' (atoms, etc.) has no purpose - does it? Where does life's purpose come from?

Who said that life has a purpose? I never claimed that life has any inherent purpose, at least one moreso than a rock. I simply stated that the theory of evolution does not inherently rule out the possibility of purpose. Just because evolution itself may not address purpose (and may even lead some to doubt certain types of purpose) does not mean that it completely rules out any possibility of purpose at all. Evolution theory and the theories that support it (such as natural selection) do not assume purpose because no purpose is seen inherent in the mechanisms, but that doesn't mean that there isn't any purpose anywhere. There could be purpose in a mechanism outside of evolution, or a hidden purpose not yet discovered.

[whattajoke]

by the way, check out bondserv's profile page. This is who you are "debating" with.

bondserv... I've gotta hand it to ya! You've disproved a few centuries of geologic science, and turned geology upside down with 2 pictures and and a handful of words!

Maybe being a creationist wouldn't be so bad afterall... Life would surely be a bit simpler!

[f.Christian]

Evolution is atheist popery ... existential anarchy --- infantilism !

[PatrickHenry]

PLACEMARKER Whatcha lookin' for?

[music_code]

(1.) Creation from a deity whose attributes do not match those of the Christian God. (2). A temporal loop. (3.) The universe is a computer simulation. (4.) A cat named Queen Maeve created everything Last Thursday.

Option 1 is still creation, regardless which "god" is being spoken of. Options 2 and 3 are events/processes which require an Outside Intelligence, and so also are basically creation. And option 4 is ridiculous - Queen Maeve sleeps all day on Thursdays. Come to think of it, she sleeps all day on every other day in the week, too.