Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwin and the Descent of Morality
First Things ^ | November 2001 | Benjamin Wiker

Posted on 11/28/2001 8:21:55 PM PST by Phaedrus

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 501-515 next last
To: Phaedrus
...Darwinism itself leads directly and inevitably to Social Darwinism, an extremely destructive philosophy with suitably destructive social impacts...

So, basically, even though the Darwinist principles of random mutation and natural selection have been shown time and again to be true, Darwinism must suppressed because it might be detrimental to the stability of your mental world. Consider the following quotes from Resentment as a religion:

"The notion that all knowledge is in the Great Text [Koran] is a great disincentive to learning."

"Because Islamic states are theocratic, they dare not encourage theoretical inquiries and technological innovations that would tend to produce strains in what should be a perfect and immutable God-ordained system. And because the Islamic motivation to do science is only religious, the kind of disinterested, open-ended "pure" science that has so benefited the world is rarely pursued."

Notice the similarities between the Creationist stance (Darwin bad because it upsets the Divine Order) and the Taliban stance (Science bad because it upsets the Divine Order).

Also, we see echoes of liberalism in this posting: Darwinism must be banned "for the children." There are things you obviously think that the average human being cannot handle so you seek to ban it. You claim that Darwinism is not science yet that sentiment is nowhere echoed in any scientific writings -- except among the pseudo scientists at such questionable organizations as the Institute for Creation Research or Answers in Genesis. The frantic handwaving of science done by these organizations may cool the egos of the Creationist crowd, but it barely causes a stir in real scientific circles.

41 posted on 11/29/2001 5:31:50 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
'Now counting the seconds before the first bald-faced liar says "THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS'-

So, where are they? There is a fossil showing one species changing into another? Now, this wouldn't be one of those evolutionist finds when they find a piece of a bone and build a whole man around it,only to find out it was a bone of a pig! Talk about 'bald-face' liars! Oh,I know,you believe that they are out there-somewhere!

From The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [Revision 10]:

Transitional Fossils 

  1. 20 Answers from an Evolutionist

  2. A Critique of Wallace: "There are no transitional fossils"

  3. Common Ancestry Of Monkeys, Apes And Humans

  4. Evolutionary Theory FAQ

  5. Observed Instances of Speciation

  6. On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"

  7. Punctuated Equilibrium Example: Some Dinosaurs

  8. Proofs of Macroevolution

  9. Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium

  10. Talk Origins:  Horse Evolution

  11. Talk Origins:  The Archaeopteryx FAQs

  12. Talk Origins:  Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

  13. Transitional Fossils -- Age and Descent

  14. Transitional Fossils Leading to Orbulina

  15. Transitional Fossils FAQ

  16. Transitional Vertebrate Fossils


42 posted on 11/29/2001 5:46:55 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

To: Junior
So, basically, even though the Darwinist principles of random mutation and natural selection have been shown time and again to be true, Darwinism must suppressed because it might be detrimental to the stability of your mental world.

Your continued unthinking devotion to the Cult of Darwin is blatantly obvious, Junior. First, "Random mutation" is not a principle. Random is random and has been shown to beget nothing. Second, I made no suggestion that Darwinism be suppressed, just that it be seen for the sham that it is. Third, you continue to indulge in the disgusting habit of snotty mischaracterization, specifically: "because it might be detrimental to the stability of your mental world". Just grow up, Junior. Face the fact that Darwinism is Scientific Bunk. You behave on these boards as though you were abused by your Sunday School Teacher.

44 posted on 11/29/2001 6:04:33 AM PST by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
It's very simple. If Darwinism were science, there would be no necessity for its acolytes to shriek "Creationist!". The physics profession doesn't do this. It stands mutely by the evidence.

Physicists don't have their ideas attacked constantly by the Bible thumpers. Evidently, your average fundamentalist does not know enough about physics or chemistry to discern any threat to his or her world view. And, this is a conflict over worldviews; Creationists have a set picture of how the world should be ("God did it, 'nuff said") and science, as it advances, calls into question this worldview -- prompting the anti-science backlash by fundamentalists. You can see the same thing with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Much like the latter, the Christian fundamentalists are finding their views increasingly marginalized by progress. Whereas the Taliban strikes back violently, though, the average Christian fundamentalist attempts to pass laws banning the ideas he finds inimical, or rales against the progress sweeping his world away.

We see this increasingly on these threads. The Creationist arguments have become more strident as it has become clearer that their position has become more untenable. Often they use the same tired arguments which have been refuted time and again. That is one reason I came up with The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource -- so we wouldn't have to keep going over the same tired ground. Because the science is nearly irrefutable in regards to Evolution though, the creationists have now resorted to using the "Darwin is bad for society" tact. As pointed out in my previous post, this is the same tact used by the Taliban and fundamentalist Moslems in general.

45 posted on 11/29/2001 6:06:06 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
First, "Random mutation" is not a principle. Random is random and has been shown to beget nothing.

Ah, the old "let's leave something out to make the opposition look silly" trick. I said "random mutation" and "natural selection." The latter is very important to evolution (as you well know) as it leads to the organism changing over the generations. Evolution has been backed up time-and-again by tried-and-true scientific findings and random mutation coupled with natural selection does lead to speciation as can be attested by the following threads:

Speciation

  1. Macroevolution: Introduction to Speciation

  2. Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

  3. Observed Instances of Speciation

  4. Pupfish of the Western Deserts: A Case Study in Speciation


46 posted on 11/29/2001 6:11:33 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Posting links is not argument, Junior. Those who have followed those links and reported back report that they are deeply flawed. If you wish to make a point, make it here, but do so civilly. If you ridicule or mischaracterize, it will come right back at you and you will again be made to look very foolish.
47 posted on 11/29/2001 6:12:13 AM PST by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Junior
It's indisputable. An agglomoration of molecules has no basis for making moral judgements.

In other words, if evolution is true and we are not "special" creations of God then humans have no authority when making moral pronouncements? Is this your argument?

Arguing against the "social implications" of "Darwinism" (which is long outdated and has been replaced with more effective and better tested theories regarding evolution) is arguming from the consequences. This does not disprove evolution. Evolution is not falsified just because you don't like its percieved social implications.
48 posted on 11/29/2001 6:15:44 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
Posting links is not argument, Junior. Those who have followed those links and reported back report that they are deeply flawed.

It is evidence, which is necessary to my argument that creationism is wrong and evolution is right (and evidence is far more than anything posited by the creationist side). It seems odd that, when I point out how terribly flawed creationism is, and then give evidence to back up my contention, I'm suddenly not making an argument by your definition.

As for the folks who report these sites to be flawed, most creationists have a very limited and flawed understanding of science (as do most Americans, from the latest studies that have recently been published). When it comes to evolutionary biology, I will trust a biologist over Pastor Bob any day.

49 posted on 11/29/2001 6:17:05 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Junior
You are rambling at #45, Junior. The article is scholarly and speaks for itself, your attempts at mischaracterization notwithstanding. It is you that has the problem with Christianity, Junior, and you have to marshall the Taliban to combat it. Glib mischaracterization won't wash, Junior.
50 posted on 11/29/2001 6:17:23 AM PST by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: *crevo_list
Come on in folks, the water's just getting warm.
51 posted on 11/29/2001 6:18:24 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Your links are not evidence, Junior. They are garbage.
52 posted on 11/29/2001 6:18:25 AM PST by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
76 years and the Scopes monkey trial is still rocking your world.
53 posted on 11/29/2001 6:19:49 AM PST by Who is George Salt?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
Jim Robinson recently had to inform "Junior" that the rules of FreeRepublic apply to him as well as to other people and that he couldn't include outright smear sheets in his little "ultimate crevo" thread. You be the judge....
54 posted on 11/29/2001 6:20:47 AM PST by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
In other words, if evolution is true and we are not "special" creations of God then humans have no authority when making moral pronouncements? Is this your argument?

No, my argument is that rocks don't make moral judgements. And your either/or alternatives are anything but complete. You may see the world this way. I don't.

55 posted on 11/29/2001 6:23:24 AM PST by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: medved
Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point

No it hasn't.

nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore

Science isn't about belief. It's about best fit to to available information.

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs

But none of the things you subsequently list are new organs. The basic plan of as bird is no different to that of any other vertebrate. What is a wing but a specialised limb? A feather but a modified scale?

56 posted on 11/29/2001 6:24:54 AM PST by Da_Shrimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Who is George Salt?
76 years and the Scopes monkey trial is still rocking your world.

You are making a relevant point here? Did you read the article? I am losing patience with folks like yourself. Deal with the fact that Darwinism leads directly to Social Darwinism. Or don't. You have not.

57 posted on 11/29/2001 6:26:30 AM PST by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Come on in folks, the water's just getting warm.

It's all just a game, right Junior?

58 posted on 11/29/2001 6:28:35 AM PST by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
Do you deny that you are reacting to science (particularly biology) in a manner not reminiscent of the fundamentalist Moslem reaction to progress?

Why are you so vehemently anti-Evolution? Why does a simple theory of speciation strike you with such dread? I have no problem with the concept of God - I am a firm believer in the Almighty - I do have a problem with people who refuse to understand basic science because they are afraid of the conclusions they might draw: that the first book of the Bible cannot be taken literally. For some strange, inexplicable reason these folks believe that, if Genesis is just an allegory the whole Bible is a fraud -- completely discounting the humongous store of wisdom found throughout the work might survive any such paradigm shift on their part. Take it from me, such a paradigm shift is liberating and can actually bring one closer to God.

The reason I lump fundamentalist Christians in with fundamentalist Moslems is they both exhibit the same thought processes. They both see the world changing around them and they both fear the results of that change. Both also hold the belief that God cannot let this change occur so He's bound to step in at any moment and bring it all to a halt. The similarities are to obvious to miss unless one is too close to the subject.

59 posted on 11/29/2001 6:30:32 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
>In other words, if evolution is true and we are not "special" creations of God then humans have no authority when making moral pronouncements? Is this your argument?

No, my argument is that rocks don't make moral judgements.

Er, sorry, I must have misread you (I also misattributed my original posting, so I'm apparently not too sharp this morning). I won't argue that rocks don't make moral judgements -- I've never heard of anyone observing such.

And your either/or alternatives are anything but complete. You may see the world this way. I don't.

What are my either/or alternatives? My statement (which wasn't directed entirely at you, as it was present both in the original article and at least one anti-Darwin followup in this thread) is that social implications of "Darwinism" do no falsify (nor strengthen) the truth of evolution, because evolution is about biology and not social engineering.
60 posted on 11/29/2001 6:34:18 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 501-515 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson