Posted on 04/24/2008 11:04:16 PM PDT by RussP
Darwin critics know Ernst Haeckel as the German philosopher whose faked embryo drawings helped generations of clueless students accept Darwinism – "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" and all that.
But there is still another problem with Haeckel, a darker one than mere fraud. Critics of the Ben Stein film, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," apparently do not know this.
If they had, they would not have savaged Stein for daring to connect Adolf Hitler to Charles Darwin. In Scientific American, for instance, editor John Rennie describes this connection as "heavy-handed." In Reuters, Frank Scheck calls it "truly offensive."
In reality, it is neither. If anything, Stein and the makers of "Expelled" understate this historically irrefutable link, and the key to understanding it is Haeckel.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
What gap? Have you read it?
Until science can explain and reproduce the origin of life in the lab, ID is the only reasonable explanation. Hell, scientists cannot even *build* a living cell from scratch, let alone cause one to pop up at random in the lab.
Oh, and how can anyone “prove” that the first cell could not have popped up at random? That cannot be proven any more than the idea that the entire text of Macbeth never appeared at random on the sands of the Sahara desert due to random winds. In other words, it’s unfalsifiable — therefore UNSCIENTIFIC. Do you get that, or do I need to spoon feed it to you slowly?
Obviously, the lack of scientific evidence for God's existance.
Evolution theory doesn’t address first causes.
Precisely.
the moral meme offers an evolutionary advantage for individuals that accept it.
Therefore you are defining "moral" as that which has an evolutionary advantage. Isn't "evolutionary advantage" that which better enables its possessor to reproduce and therefore survive (the fittest).
And haven't you then defined "moral" as survival - which you agree say "doesn't imply morally good?"
As already stated, it is a meme and not a gene. To process a meme all that is needed is a brain. I'm not sure what genes are responsible for brain development, but I can provide scientific evidence that brains exists.
“Evolution theory doesn’t address first causes.”
OK, here we go with this one again. These things just never die. So are you saying that ID *is* allowed to get to the first cell, but prohibited thereafter? If so, that’s some kind of funny physical “law” that applies only after some apparently arbitrary point in time.
So is the esteemed scientist Dawkins (and I am a fan of his writing on evolution) simply illogical or unaware of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam?
-Obviously, the lack of scientific evidence for God's existance.
-Dawkins would be the first to admit that science can not prove that God doesn't exist.
“Morally good” is a concept (meme) that provides survival advantage. Natural selection, or survival doesn’t contain value judgement. In other words “morally good” isn’t good or bad in an objective sense. It is just useful.
So are you claiming that morality is nothing more than a survival mechanism that evolved at random throughout history?
If so, do you also believe that no absolute standard of morality exists? So, for example, the most hideous torture of a child is wrong only because we have evolved a sense of shame for doing such things — but that sense of shame is really only some kind of psychological illusion?
If you really believe that, you would have been a fine Nazi. All you would have needed to do is to see through that annoying little cultural “illusion” of conscience.
Thanks, that's much clearer way to put your position.
It does divorce the meaning of "good" from moral. In other words if "immoral" (or bad morals) provides survival advantage, then morally bad in our view is morally good in evolution.
Another way of putting it is we are hardwired to think what we think is "good" is "good". But this doesn't mean it's good. Had "bad" survived, "bad would be "good."
Now, can you see why some would say that evolution applied to philosophy or religion is relativistic or devoid of morality?
Or as you put it: "doesn’t contain value judgement. "
True moral values, if they are to exist for man, must come from something transcending science.
It will happen during our lifetimes. If it does, will you accept evolution?
I should make clear that “we are hardwired to think what we think is “good” is “good”. is the pure scientism way of seeing; not one agree with. And I think not one that you agree with. Unless you think your morality is an illusion. :)
And will science also create its own matter/energy and laws of physics? Or will it borrow these from elsewhere?
The gap of reducing man to matter and animal.
I am a member of the same culture that you are. I am anti-abortion and very conservative. The source of the meme doesn't change it's power. I say it evolved, you say it is because "God says so". The source is different, but the result is the same.
What kind of a parent are you???
The fact is that Darwinism was used to rationalize traditional racial bigotry and give it a “scientific” basis. And that’s just fine with you? You don’t care that so-called “science” was used to justify bigotry? Just what the hell is your point — or are you just throwing sand?
The Ascent of Man wasn’t about evolution of matter. It simply placed man in the same group as primates and suggested that all primates evolved from a common ancestor. This has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by genetic research.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.