Posted on 05/20/2002 12:53:27 PM PDT by rpage3
See source for details....
I would go further than this and say that the roman empire fell due to: Moral decline and immigration (sound familiar?)
Cordially,
Unfortunately, I have never seen a viable explanation as to how these "hopeful monsters" could emerge. It is hard to imagine hundreds of simultaneous beneficial mutations occurring at the same time. But a deeper question is: Where would the information from the mutations come from? Just how is new information added to the genome that would allow such wildly progressive evolution as needed in p.e.?
That your ad hoc definition of morality is disfunctional and provides anyone the excuse to do as they wish.
In that culture, yes. In our culture, no.
Interesting. Thanks, I've never read ANYTHING by Gould. Darwin, Dawkins, Ridley, Dennett, Patterson, Pennock, Miller, and (sometime this spring) Mayr, but no Gould.
burp!
Right. And if, like an Egyptian Pharoah, he can die rich and happy after a lifetime of lording it over underlings and slaves, who live or die according to his word, he can be called "successful," and therefore "moral" according to your definition.
Here, what is in the best interest of the people, and that is to allow them to live as they please as long as it does not affect others nagatively.
You're saying this because it suits your interests for the ruling elite to let you live as you please.
But suppose that Joe Slobotnik somehow manages to propel himself into a dictatorship wherein all were required to serve him. You've given yourself no grounds for complaint, other than that you won't like it. Nevertheless, as long as he holds power Joe can kill you, or rape you, or both, as he chooses, and his actions are moral, by your own definition.
Libertarians claim that Joe's actions are wrong, and absolutely so. You cannot make a similar claim -- which is what prompted my earlier comment that you can't hold your view and still be a libertarian.
How nice. Are we to begin trembling? ;-)
twist, twist, twist......
if there is an uprising by the subjects of the dictator, then what he is doing is immoral. our society will view Castro as an immoral man, while some in the Cuban society will view him as a moral man because they either believe it or are afraid to say otherwise. What is moral varies from society to society.
The notion of dsyfunction is related to the ideas of design or purpose. I can say that my refrigerator works as it is ought to because it was designed for a purpose. Presumably there is no corresponding purpose in any evolutionary process. A 'detrimental' mutation is just as much a part of the evolutionary process as a 'beneficial' mutation. A dead organism killed by some mutation is part of the same evolutionary process as a living organism across the street that was not killed by the mutation. Both can be said to function 'normally' in the random, impersonal evolutionary scheme. As far as I can tell, the only 'purpose' of evolution is total extinction.
Cordially,
By your definition of morality, in which one is morally obligated to obey society, whatever society says, an uprising is immoral.
Cordially,
Unfortunately, I couldn't help but notice some (read: many) of the hateful remarks lobbed at Gould. I can't believe some of you are actually mocking him. How sickening. And some of you call yourselves the "Moral Majority." Let the man rest in peace. "Happy is the man who finds wisdom, and the man who gets understanding; for the gain from it is better than gain from silver and its profit better than gold." – Proverbs 3:13. That was what was said at Westminster Abbey when Charles Darwin was buried more than a century ago. Pity that many of the followers of the text that passage was from cannot offer the same support to the late Gould. On a more lighthearted note, I personally liked what someone posted at the Secular Web forum:
"Wherever he [Gould] is now I'm certain he's explaining something to someone. God: So how did I do that thing with the platypus again? Stephen: Its easy. Lets use baseball as an example... " - Italics added
Many of you here are apparently proponents of creationism and therefore opponents of evolution. I would like to point a few things out.
1. Nowhere is it implicitly stated in the Bible that the Earth is only 6000 (6005 1/2 now, actually) years old. That figure was made in the mid-1600s by James Ussher using a method of retrocalculating generations, where he resulted in his determining of Earth's creation in October, 4004 B.C. It is pointed out in the book "Evolution" by Carl Zimmer that such a method does have implications of its own. The one the book mentions is that it results in only about 600 people on Earth at the time the Giza pyramids were built, based on one particular retrocalculation resulting in a 6300 year age for the Earth. I doubt that the whole populus was in Egypt then. How 'bout you? (Note: the info from Zimmer's book is not quoted verbatim. Go read the book to find out what he said exactly.)
2. Creationism also extrapolates to the universal level. A 6000 year old universe is outright refuted by observation. Take SN1987A for instance. It is about 170,000 light years away. that means that it would've taken place around the year 168,000 B.C., much longer than 6000 years. To combat this, there are only two solutions: 1) Reduce the size of the universe to a 6000 light year radius (centered on Earth's position) or 2) speed up the speed of light. Problems crop up immediately. Solution 1 requires stuffing all the mass we have measured into a very small volume, and that would produce large gravitational effects that just aren't observed. Solution 2 is just as problematic. Go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html for more on it.
3. Radiometric dating has placed a firm date of the Earth's origin at 4.5 billion years ago. This is not the result of examinations of one or two rocks. This had been replicated many thousands of times. Replication of experimental and/or observational results is a necessary part of the scientific method, so the 4.5 billion year age is on a very firm basis. I have yet to see a legit scientific refutation of this.
As for evolution itself, it has also been put on a firm ground by countless observation from many different fields of biological and geological study. Evolution is itself the centerpiece of all biological science. Remove evolution and biology collapses. Creationism can in no way provide a clear scientific understanding of how nature works. Some creationists even go as far as (through their own interpretation of scripture) advocating the long-discredited ideas of geocentricism and "flat-Earth theory." To advocate those two ideas is to reject everything we know about both Earthly and space navigation, as well as geometry. Creationists are, in fact, attacking the ENTIRE scientific enterprise, even if they think they are only attacking Darwin (or Copernicus, or whoever).
I am grateful to be living in this country, for if this was the middle ages, I may have already been burned at the stake by religious fanatics. Though fundamentalists are seemingly intent on making the U.S.A. a theocracy, I don't think that'll ever come to be. At least I hope it doesn't. Of course, maybe we should all take George Carlin to heart when he said "Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself!" Good suggestion. Even I myself don't have a problem with any religion, just certain religious people (like creationists and others who feel it necessary to shove their beliefs in my face). So if you are a Christian (or whatever), don't think I am automatically opposed to you.
Cheers,
Stormblast,
Agnostic, freethinker, secular humanist, and amateur scientist
FURTHER READING
http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html
http://www.sciam.com/2002/0202issue/0202skeptic.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/
"Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea" by Carl Zimmer
"Evolution and the Myth of Creationism : A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate" by Tim M. Berra
(Note: Believe it or not, I'm opposed to the Big Bang. Curious? Then ask.)
Well, I'd probably say it was their desire for comfort and safety -- IOW, decadence.
The point is, the health of Rome depended on the motivation of its citizens to continue to actively support its conquest and subjugation of the people surrounding it -- whatever it took to do so (e.g., the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D by Titus. Gibbon described his subsequent crucifixion of thousands of Jews in front of the city.)
Obviously this idea of "group needs" makes the whole idea of unalienable rights untenable.
Just to point out -- the reason we're here at all is because the moral implications of "atheist evolution" permit no other conclusion. Once one acknowledges the existence of God, of God's Will, and the revelation and moral implications of God's Will, these logical difficulties evaporate. (Of course, human nature being what it is, moral misbehavior does not disappear.)
The notion of dsyfunction is related to the ideas of design or purpose.
Or it's simply a matter of definition.
A dead organism killed by some mutation is part of the same evolutionary process as a living organism across the street that was not killed by the mutation. Both can be said to function 'normally' in the random, impersonal evolutionary scheme.
I'm rather curious about this notion that a dead organism is "functioning". ;)
Be that as it may, death is the inevitable result of life, for Christian and non-Christian alike. The wicked person who lives a long happy life and the moral person who steps in front of a bus and dies instantly can both be said to be functioning "normally" in the non-random, personal, theistic scheme. God's will, right?
As far as I can tell, the only 'purpose' of evolution is total extinction.
As far as I can tell, there's no purpose at all.
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.