Famed Harvard Biologist Gould Dies

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20020520/ap_on_re_us/obit_gould ^ | 5/20/02 | yahoo

[rpage3]

See source for details....

[JediGirl]

If 'hate filled' is pointing out the truth of Professors Goulds endeavors, then yes all Christians must be hate mongers.

Enlighten me. What is the truth of Gould's endeavors?

[Junior]

Yes.

[codebreaker]

The truth is that for all the niceties exchanged on talk shows and with his colleagues, he was deeply intolerant of anyone willing to challenge him with resaonable discourse on creation vs. evolution theory.

Being that this is a primary affront to God, the professor should know what to expect.

[JediGirl]

Where does this ability come from to chose right over wrong even though doing wrong has the stronger sensation at the time? If morality is a natural law, how are we able to defy it?

The ability comes from what is socially constructed. Morals evolve over time, unfortunately. Murder is only wrong because society says it is wrong. Once society accepts it as a norm, murder could become alright. But because it is so extreme, it is not. Homosexuality was once regarded as a perversion but is now widely accepted as an acceptable lifestyle because society says it is "okay", they don't want to interfere with the private lives of others.

[JediGirl]

The truth is that for all the niceties exchanged on talk shows and with his colleagues, he was deeply intolerant of anyone willing to challenge him with resaonable discourse on creation vs. evolution theory.

Being that this is a primary affront to God, the professor should know what to expect.

This is a primary affront to God in what way? How was he deeply intolerant? What did he do to show that intolerance? How do you define intolerant?

[AndrewC]

Yes.

Then just what is moral that God does not know?

[biblewonk]

What if heaven becomes too boring?

That's so Talking Heads. "Heaven, heaven is a place, a place where nothing, nothing ever happens"

[codebreaker]

Morals are instucted by the 10 Commandments, there is no need to look the media for instruction.

God put the blueprint for living right there in front of us.

[AndrewC]

Do I hear an echo?

Pinocchio!

[Junior]

Huh? If God is the source of morals, then if tomorrow He declares that slaughtering your next door neighbor is all right, would you still not consider the act immoral? If you understand the act to be immoral even if God declares it to be right, is this not indicative that morals exist apart from God?

[codebreaker]

Continually denying God is a primary sin that one of the most hurtful in existence.

I just hope he came to his senses in those last 3 months when he was racked with cancer.

It couldn't have been easy for him or his family.

[exmarine]

Come on junior, atheists are drawn like magnets to evolution - it's their only refuge on the origin of life. Know any creationist atheists?

[exmarine]

Can you cite one single scientific shred of evidence that supports p.e.? Please, no just-so stories - I want real science.

[Diamond]

"Historians of science make a distinction between what they call context of justification and context of discovery, and it's fair enough. There's a logic of justification, which is independent of the political and social views of the people who develop the ideas. But if you want to ask why certain people develop ideas rather than other people, and why they develop them in this decade rather than that decade, then for those questions, which are about context of discovery rather than context of justification, surely the personal side is very relevant; it has to be explored and understood. But it has very little bearing on whether the idea is right or not. The fact that I learned Marxism from my father may have predisposed me toward being friendly to the kind of ideas that culminated in punctuated equilibrium; it has absolutely nothing to do with whether punctuated equilibrium is true or not, which is an independent question that has to be validated in nature." [emphasis mine]

Stephen Jay Gould
The Pattern of Life's History
Brockman 1995: 60

Cordially,

[exmarine]

The ability comes from what is socially constructed. Morals evolve over time, unfortunately. Murder is only wrong because society says it is wrong. Once society accepts it as a norm, murder could become alright. But because it is so extreme, it is not. Homosexuality was once regarded as a perversion but is now widely accepted as an acceptable lifestyle because society says it is "okay", they don't want to interfere with the private lives of others.

Afghans say enslaving women is okay in their culture. And according to your criteria, they are right as culture defines morality. Where do universal human rights come from - can't be cultural. What are they?

Homosexuality was once regarded as a perversion but is now widely accepted as an acceptable lifestyle because society says it is "okay", they don't want to interfere with the private lives of others.

You have just stumbled into the "is-ought fallacy." Just because certain moral behavior is observed - that says that doesn't require that people OUGHT to be doing it. A conclusion about the nature of morality cannot be made from mere observation of different cultural moral practices. Morality is not judged empirically.

[Junior]

IIRC, Buddhists are technically atheists, as they have no godhead. They, of course, have their own creation stories, so technically a backwoods Buddhist would be an atheist creationist.

Of course, since you only believe the Biblical creation story (all those others are just myths, doncha know), and as by definition there is no such thing as a Christian atheist, there could never be an atheist creationist in your universe.

[tpaine]

The truth is that for all the niceties exchanged on talk shows and with his colleagues, he was deeply intolerant of anyone willing to challenge him with resaonable discourse on creation vs. evolution theory.

Most reasonable people look at the observed world about them, and agree that 2+2 = 4.

In effect, most creationists look at the world and insist:

-- No, 2+2+'X' = 4X. -- ['X' being their beliefs]

Thus, there can be no 'reasonable discourse'. This is not deep intolerance, it is simply an observable truth.

[jlogajan]

Morals are instucted by the 10 Commandments

So where it says in the 2nd commandment "...I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me..."

what moral is being instructed? To be jealous and vengeful against the children to the third and fourth generation?

[AndrewC]

Wouldn't the Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, et. al say that it is their truth I have rejected as well. Is their "truth" more or less "truthful" than yours? Why? Do they not provide equal "grounds" for believing? Faith, faith, faith!

Assuming questions as appropriate.

1. Yes
2. Less
3. That is what I believe
4. No
5. Yes