Posted on 02/05/2002 8:18:30 AM PST by JediGirl
Just saying something is "flawed" doesn't cut it.
Are you in a hurry? I and others had a long go-round with "Ol'Sparky" on that very subject. Here were two of my last posts.
The "link" with what you refer to as moral collectivism and the point that was being made about evolution, is the devaluing of Humans. No, I do not assert that this follows necessarily from evolution, but it is an implication that has arose from pure naturalism.
Let me explain. If one accepts evolution as fact, this produces the realization that we are accidents. We are not special, here for no reason, coming from no where and going no where.
we are the only species with the ability & the necessity to use our big brains to consciously direct our lives, shape our society, etc. I think it's morally neutral for a lion to instinctively hunt down & chew into a gazelle that's minding its own business, since we are the only species who can even conceive of debating whether such actions are good or evil
Even the reason, so beatifully praised here (and I agree with you), is only an accident. For many (excluding objectivists, of course), this produces a strong inference that if all this is an accident for no reason, than there really is'nt a set of ethics that we all should follow. Why bother, since that accidental reason is what produced a so called "moral standard" anyway.
This turns into a real problem when total naturalism takes control, and the realization sinks in that you have about 70 or 80 trips around the sun to have a good time, and there is no one to answer to, except other people.
The whole point was that Darwin started an intellectual justification for debasing man, and various philosophers did that too. Furthermore, now there was an actual SCIENTIFIC justification for denying necessity of G-d's existence, and modern philosophers took age old questions (i.e., the problem of evil) and took them to absurd conclusions, emboldened by a theory.
well, then we wouldn't be gazelles if we were discussing such abstract ideas, would we?
No, we sure would'nt. And as long as I have interesting people around me that will make me think, I thank my G-d that he gave me the attributes he did. ;-)
I don't take these discussions seriously, so there is no anger. I would have to care to be angry. :-) But seriously, I do get tired of rehashing the same stuff over and over.
In short though, you are begging the question. The assertion is speciously premised on a number of things which could very arguably be false (or at least not verifiable), rendering the conclusion false even if the reasoning is consistent.
That is to say, If I had an absolute infinite amount of computers; infinite Dell and infinite HP. Then I was to sell the Dells. I would still have the same amount of computers. How is this possible? Let’s say that I now sold all the purple HPs that made up part of my collection. I still have an infinite amount of HPs. How is this possible?
...and is zero (but why do you think energy is conserved?)...
and you cannot create order from chaos...
...which is not a law of thermodynamics. In fact, your assertion is trivially disproven by watching a (highly ordered) salt crystal grow from a highly disordered salt solution.
We will probably never know all the variations that actually occurred, and our progression scale has huge gaps.
As a basic mechanism, we know the genetic rules of mutation exist.
I am simply saying, why not include evolution on the list of basic rules that God must have put in place just before the "big bang"-the first moment of creation. It's God's way of controlling creation without actually having to do what- lay His hands on it, I suppose.
The Bible actually goes beyond rights, O. The big problem is that this wonderful model for living, coming directly from G-d in the flesh has been entrusted to people.
Roughly akin to having a pack of chimps in to Sardis for a 7 course dinner.
You need to go back to school, because you don't understand thermodynamics. While it is true you can't get something from nothing (though there are very technical caveats that go along with that statement), I don't see how that is relevant to evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the TANSTAAFL rule (which really says that you can never even break even).
As for the tendency towards entropy in all closed systems, biology does not violate this either. Any system with an external enthalpy gradient can locally reduce entropy, so sayeth Gibb's Free Energy equation. If you knew Gibb's equation this would be obvious, and since Gibb's equation is one of the central equations of thermodynamics, one has to wonder how much you actually do know about thermodynamics.
Go study Gibb's equation, come back, and explain to me EXACTLY how biological systems violate the fundamental equations of thermodynamics. The equation only has four variables and is accessible to anyone with first year algebra; the answer to your questions will be obvious. HINT: If what you believe was true diamonds could not exist, as they too are formed from graphite by reducing entropy.
It formed from formless air because the sun evaporated water and heated some areas of the earth more than it did others. No design. No "organizing principle" except the laws of physics.
Life is like that.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
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.