Fact is, this theory is under attack (Evolution Revolution Alert)

Baltimoresun.com ^ | 5 Feb 2005 | Arthur Hirsch

[gobucks]

ELKTON - Charles Darwin and his intellectual descendants have taken a lashing here lately.

With the Cecil County Board of Education about to vote on a new high school biology textbook, some school board members are asking whether students should be taught that the theory of evolution, a fundamental tenet of modern science, falls short of explaining how life on Earth took shape.

*snip*

The politically conservative county of about 90,000 people bordering Pennsylvania and Delaware is joining communities around the country that are publicly stirring this stew of science, education and faith.

*snip*

At the Board of Education's regular monthly meeting Feb. 14, the five voting board members are scheduled to decide whether to accept the new edition of the book and might discuss Herold's call for new anti-evolution materials in addition to the book.

*snip*

The consensus in mainstream science, represented in such organizations as the National Academy of Sciences, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the Smithsonian Institution and the American Museum of Natural History, was, in effect, captured in 31 pages of text and illustrations published in November in National Geographic magazine. In big red letters, the magazine cover asks: "WAS DARWIN WRONG?" In bigger letters inside, the answer is: "NO. The evidence for Evolution is overwhelming."

*snip*

Joel Cracraft, immediate past president of the American Institute of Biological Sciences, compared the scientific agreement on evolutionary theory to "the Earth revolving around the sun."

*snip*

Then there's the matter of teaching the meaning and method of good science.

"The issue is science," Roberts said. "What is science, and, if there's a conflicting view, does it meet the rigor of science we're seeking?"

[gobucks]

Because this life is the only chance we receive to experience consciousness, we should give every human being the opportunity to experience it.

Why should we defend the unborn to experience 'consciousness'? Who taught you that 'this life is the only chance to experience consciousness', such that it is something that is intrinsically good? And how was that larger goodness rationally justified?

[AntiGuv]

The analogy works just fine, because the items in the bucket (concept of human rights) were never ultimately contingent on the bucket (concept of God) but rather on the owner (humanity). It might be accurate to say, however, that the owner did once think that the bucket was required to carry the items. In fact, it may very well even be true that the owner would've never been willing to carry the items without the bucket. It may still be true to an extent.

Someday humanity will grow up. ;)

[gobucks]

By us, or more precisely by human value-judgment, which is a product of human nature, which has been determined by human evolution.

In other words, man invented the descriptions and titles to 'human rights', and then entitled them himself .... as a consequence of the process of evolution. Have I got it?

[ValenB4]

Do you read only half the words people write? I said I wasn't an atheist but was attempting to provide an atheistic argument against abortion.

[ValenB4]

I take it you're not interested in talking about your idiotic idea that evolutionists are promoting sexual hedonism.

[gobucks]

Maybe. But, maybe YOU are from DU, and are here to attract in a negative way attention to the Christians w/o whom W would not have been elected.

[AntiGuv]

Have I got it?

For the most part, but it was directly a consequence of civilization, which is itself a consequence of our evolution. The descriptions and titles of human rights were as a point in fact invented during the course of recorded history, under a process that is extremely well documented at that, so it is hardly a mystery how they were developed.

It's worth noting that for the most part their current formulation differs significantly from that outlined by ancient religious texts.

[gobucks]

I have found the creationist Christians the worst offenders when it comes to bearing false witness.

The idea that you'd be willing to stand and fight for an absolute truth, even if it is a poorly structured attack on a W. supporter, is welcome by me.

A leftist wouldn't get caught dead fighting for 'true witness'.

I'm proud of you WT. You may be borrowing the invention of absolute truth from its inventor, but at least your fighting with me for the same reason. Defending the idea that truth does, indeed, exist ... well, that can only be called 'conservative'.

[AntiGuv]

To be sure, the whole concept of generic human rights didn't really exist in ancient times, but rudimentary aspects of certain basic features had emerged by that time.

[gobucks]

I said I wasn't an atheist but was attempting to provide an atheistic argument against abortion.

But, why would you do that?

[gobucks]

"I take it you're not interested in talking about your idiotic idea that evolutionists are promoting sexual hedonism."

Uh oh. I didn't suggest you are a fount of any idiocy. But now you are with me.

Hedonism ... not quite, though many take it that way. I am suggesting however, that sexaul license without limitations is indeed what is at stake in the entire fight.

[balrog666]

Do you read only half the words people write?

Don't sweat it - "gobucks" makes up whatever he needs.

[ValenB4]

It's called trying to put yourself in someone else's shoes. Call it an intellectual exercise. Very often it is important to think outside of one's accustomed way of thinking. I was never on a debating club or anything like that, but it is common to have to have to argue for a position with which one disagrees in order to understand it. You do not have to agree with someone's point of view in order to understand it.

Furthermore, it it necessary to come up with non-religious arguments against abortion.

[balrog666]

The idea that you'd be willing to stand and fight for an absolute truth, even if it is a poorly structured attack on a W. supporter, is welcome by me.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!

The idea that you'd be willing to stand and fight and lie and cheat and steal for an imaginary "absolute truth" is all too obvious to all of us.

[gobucks]

Here's all I'm arguing. Ethics either have a reference point arbitrailly selected by mankind, and then enforced by the strongest interest group, or ethics have a reference point outside of people.

You seem to be arguing that referencing ethics to a point outside of people is irrational.

[balrog666]

It's called trying to put yourself in someone else's shoes. Call it an intellectual exercise. Very often it is important to think outside of one's accustomed way of thinking. I was never on a debating club or anything like that, but it is common to have to have to argue for a position with which one disagrees in order to understand it. You do not have to agree with someone's point of view in order to understand it.

Furthermore, it it necessary to come up with non-religious arguments against abortion.

I salute you for that.

[gobucks]

" Furthermore, it it necessary to come up with non-religious arguments against abortion."

Nonreligious arguments against abortion? From an evolutionary point of view, abortion on demand for convenience is a defendable position. Attacking abortion from a nonreligious perspective, that is persuasive? How would you pull this off?

[ValenB4]

I just showed you how evolutionary theory tends to go against moral licentiousness - based on the biological advantages of human altruism and cooperation. But those aren't my ideas. Richard Dawkins, Jared Diamond and others write about that.

Sexual licentiousness is a by product of civilization and is something to be addressed on its own. Transfering what is repugnant about the left and cultural and moral relativism onto evolution is not going to work. On the contrary, evolution is cultural absolutism - there is a correct way to do things - as we see when societies that engage in widespread improper conduct decline in their productivity and creativity.

[gobucks]

The idea that you'd be willing to stand and fight and lie and cheat and steal for an imaginary "absolute truth" is all too obvious to all of us.

You are consistent; it is always about at this point in these threads you throw your particular brand of silliness around. You must be bored again to post anything to me.

I'm still waiting, what was the 1st?

And, as for theft, what am I stealing?

[furball4paws]

I understand, but I was looking at this sequence:

God is used to explain the creation of the universe and everything in it. If God is removed, it seems to me by your original words, then it must be man that created the universe and everything in it. That is absurd. Do you mean just non-material things, like morality, sense of beauty, evil, etc.?