Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design? [Human Events goes with ID]

Human Events ^ | 12 December 2005 | Casey Luskin

[b_sharp]

"Don't bother replying. If you do, please understand that I have no time to reply to your pedantic nonsense"

Apparently you have no time for serious threats to your world view either

[Physicist]

Evidently you missed the word "IF" at the beginning of that sentence. Clearly I don't believe that's the case.

Look again at the post I was answering. He was insinuating that the diversity of opinion among educated people was a sign of weakness. I was pointing out that the diversity is even stronger among the superstitious.

[Dimensio]

I'll join the rest of this forum in attempting to spell this out for you: Making the claim that something will NOT be observed is NOT sufficient to make a scientific theory falsifiable.

I wouldn't go so far. There are a few "impossible observations" that serve as criteria for evolution; the theory predicts that precambrian rabbit fossils will never be observed, for one.

The problem here lies in the alleged falsification criteria hinging upon the claim that ID can only occur if evolution is impossible, which is itself a strange and unsupported assertion. If it is true that ID cannot occur if common descent can occur, then there are observations that, if made, would falsify ID, however thus far there's no logical argument for postulating that the possibility of common descent occuring makes ID impossible.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Altruism means acting for the other." RWP

---

"No it doesn't. You destroy the meaning of the word by omitting the word selfless which is well, Orwellian." Jwalsh07

Acting for the *other* is the definition of selfless.

As an aside, I am against any act that is *selfless*. That's another issue. :)

[PatrickHenry]

More than you ever dreamed of knowing: Time Cube (Wikipedia article).

[jwalsh07]

"Morality can be an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage and if only the force of natural selection were in play, it should have been selected out long ago. Why?

I'll guess that you agree that morality or immorality if you will can be both advantageous or disadvantageous. That would seem self evident. So the why must be directed at should morality have been selected out. I can offer you any number of examples along the line of the strong sacrificing themselves for the weak in opposition to natural selection.

We are still social animals, which is the reason it was selected for in the first place.

You assert that morality was selected for. Presumably you have some proof other than sociobiologic hypotheses or evolutionary psychobabble?

Take a look at kin selection.

Why? You'll have to expand on this, I don't follow.

Certainly. Winnowing of the gene pool by immoral acts of man. Expanding the gene pool by moral acts of man providing and caring for those who would be naturally selected out. Unintelligent design and intelligent design.

Not if you consider the reason morals were selected for in the first place.

:-} I like you sharp but you're gonna have to back up these kinds of assertions and you'll have to do better than "reciprocal altruism".

[jwalsh07]

Acting for the *other* is the definition of selfless.

Really? You have just sent untold lawyers to the poor house. Now that may not be a bad thing but it certainly puts the kabosh on your definition of altruism.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Really? You have just sent untold lawyers to the poor house. Now that may not be a bad thing but it certainly puts the kibosh on your definition of altruism."

How? Altruism is a selfless philosophy. Acting for the *other* is selfless, and the epitome of altruism. Please explain my error.

[jwalsh07]

Lawyers act for another, the other if you will. Acting for the other does not assert non reciprocity, so to speak. The lawyer acts for the other for one third of the proceeds in personal injury cases. An altruistic act? Certainly not. So when you leave out the word selfless you destroy the meaning of the word altruism.

[jwalsh07]

I'm out for now but I always come back, be it for good or not so good, depending on your vantage point. Adios.

[NewLand]

Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design?

The future of political conservatism will not be impacted by this, either way, nor should it be.

[longshadow]

More than you ever dreamed of knowing: Time Cube (Wikipedia article).

Boy, it must frost your ass for you and your faithful mascot, Plato the Platy, to labor dilligently in obscurity in your basement laBORatory on your anti-Gravity machine whilst wackjobs like Gene Ray get this sort of publicity in Wikpedia, and is even invited to speak at academic institutions like MIT.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Lawyers act for another, the other if you will."

Altruism is acting for the other when acting for the other will hurt you. It's a self sacrifice. Lawyers are NOT self sacrificial.

"So when you leave out the word selfless you destroy the meaning of the word altruism."

But I have NOT left out the word *selfless*. I specifically said that altruism is a selfless act. Here is what I said,

"Altruism is a selfless philosophy. Acting for the *other* is selfless, and the epitome of altruism."

So where did I define altruism incorrectly?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I'm out for now but I always come back, be it for good or not so good, depending on your vantage point. Adios."

Coming back is always good, or else I would be talking to myself. :)

[Ichneumon]

I can offer you any number of examples along the line of the strong sacrificing themselves for the weak in opposition to natural selection.

Maybe you're just not expressing yourself clearly enough, but your statement as written is trivially incorrect.

First, you seem to think that "the strong sacrificing themselves for the weak" is some sort of contradiction to natural selection, and the reason for this seems to be the common misunderstanding of "survival of the fittest" as "survival of the *strongest*" (which it is not) at the *expsense* of the weak (which it is not).

Second, a mother animal sacrificing herself to save her children is certainly an example of "the strong sacrificing themselves for the weak", and yet not only is it hardly the "opposition to natural selection" you claim, it is actually a *classic* example of evolutionary "selfishness" -- protecting the perpetuation of one's genes.

Do you have any examples that aren't so vaguely overgeneralized as to be obviously fallacious?

Furthermore, make sure that any new examples you might offer don't fall under the evolutionary instinct of "kin selection". Note also that the instincts of kin selection also apply to sacrificing oneself for other members of a close-knit group, for a variety of reasons.

If you're looking for examples of counter-survival morality, you'd do best looking elsewhere than the variations on "protecting the tribe" which you've been unsuccessfully mining so far.

[dread78645]

MNF placemark

[ChessExpert]

Stultis, I like your tagline.

I haven't read Hitchings, Gish, or Morris. I have read other critics of evolutionary orthodoxy: Johnson, Wells, Behe, Cremo & Thompson, and Milton. So, it seems our Venn diagrams don't intersect. I found the authors that I read to be very knowledgeable. This is contrary to claim of some that these men are "ignorant." Nor do I have any reason to question their honesty. But thanks for the citations and opinion. It seems there is a "The Fossils Say No" and a "The Fossils Say Yes." Maybe that would be a good set to read sometime. Thanks for sharing your experiences.

[bobdsmith]

Is the explaination any more than just "intelligence did it"?

[Gumlegs]

My theory says that pigs fly ... but only when no one is looking.

I call it Intelligent Aerodynampigs.

[hosepipe]

[ Need I point out that every single "metaphysical naturalist" alive is a "closeted philosopher?" Who simultaneously claims for himself the "objectivity" of a scientist? ]

Evolution(and various iterations of it) carried back to the ultimate source would be the earth itself, wouldnt it?..

And would be responsible for the "Spontaneous Humanation"(I just made that up).. of our species on this planet.. Or am I missing something.?.

If so then the Spontaneous Humanation of awareness beyond consciousness that could invent a God let alone inventing philosophies that would deny that God looks like a Chinese Fire Drill to me..

Did I get myself all confused on this?.. Help?.. Its so confusing.. I'm having trouble dealing with the possibility I'm a parasite on a little blue planet using resources that are in fact my father.. its so cannibalistic..

(basically rhetorical screed displaying, "Who's yo Daddy")