Posted on 11/06/2002 9:25:58 PM PST by general_re
True, however, even alternate theories besides gradualism - e.g., punctuated equilibrium - generally accept the central theses of natural selection and common ancestry, so I think the author is speaking mostly in terms of those who reject the thing outright, as literalists do. IOW, most non-gradualists take issue with the mechanisms, generally speaking, whereas literalists take issue with the very concept itself, and he is mostly commenting WRT those who reject the whole shebang...
Words from the wise.
This may be a bit off-topic, but I noticed in the election threads, some posts that were copied verbatim from unrelated crevo threads. Interesting.
;^)
Notice my nice, clean language too ;)
I find this attitude to be an abomination. The central fact of political morality is that people, both the bad and the good, will seek out ideologies that support their desires. Raw facts are like bricks. They can be made into anything.
I couldn't agree with you more on this. I would disagree, however, that Johnson, Bork, et. al. attack Darwinism because they fear that others will interpret the truth of Darwinism to mean that religion and morality no longer have any real bearing on human conduct. I think they attack it, not because they know it is true and don't want anybody else to know, but because they simply believe that it is not objectively true. The battleground among decent, right-thinking people should be over what is objectively true, not over what might be a useful fiction.
...some people will use the truth of Darwinism to argue that religion and conventional morality have no bearing on human conduct, no doubt...
I would simply reply for example that Dawkins and many others before him already have done just that. If Dawkins' atheism is true, his conclusions about the non-existence of real morality are at least rigorously consistent with his premise.
I think we should bear in mind that there is a distinction between the logical consequences that flow from a premise, and the actual contingent effects of a truth or a fact.
Cordially,
Thank you so very much for the link to the article, Varda! Not surprisingly, your article is “on the mark” for what I understand to be the view from the Vatican. From the article you posted (emphasis mine):
It was not the first time in intellectual history that God allowed a monumental half-truth so that full truth might be perceived the more effectively. The half-truth was the combination of an inadequate mechanism of evolution with a magnificent vision of the coherence of all material beings, together with a much needed radical exclusion of special creation. Darwin's greatest mistake was that he did not take that vision for what it was, a genuinely metaphysical vision.
Thank you so much for your posts!
Right - I agree with this. But the interesting question, then, is why don't they believe it is objectively true? Consider - in the scientific community (albeit not in the court of public opinion, of course) the debate over the truth of evolution is settled. It's over, and the conclusion has largely been reached, Dembski and Behe notwithstanding. So, then, the question is, do Bork and Kristol and Johnson believe they have found some scientific truth that science has ignored or missed, or are they fallaciously extrapolating "truth" from their perception of the consequences?
They probably do believe that it isn't objectively true, you're right. But if that belief is essentially a denial of the truth of a thing because the consequences are too horrible to contemplate, then that belief in the falsity of evolution is not a logically tenable position.
I would simply reply for example that Dawkins and many others before him already have done just that. If Dawkins' atheism is true, his conclusions about the non-existence of real morality are at least rigorously consistent with his premise.
Are they? That seems to beg the question of whether the truth of evolution necessarily invalidates religion - as the author points out, many, many people do not believe that to be the case. Dawkins is the requisite odd duck among students of evolution - based on exactly the same premise as Biblical literalists (that religion and evolution are mutually exclusive), he simply comes to the opposite conclusion and believes that evolution is true and religion is therefore not. It is curious to note that, IMO, in reaching the opposite conclusion of creationists, Dawkins is guilty of exactly the same transgression as many creationists - the fallacy of the false dichotomy.
I think we should bear in mind that there is a distinction between the logical consequences that flow from a premise, and the actual contingent effects of a truth or a fact.
As a practical matter, yes, but in either case, the results do not change the premises ;)
Who is to say what is 'beneficial'? The knowledge of biology, like other types of knowledge, is a double-edged sword in the hands of corruptible human beings. Consider the results of this type of 'natural selection':
"If any one age really attains, by eugenics and scientific education, the power to make its descendants what it pleases, all men who live after it are patients of that power. They are weaker, not stronger: for though we have put wonderful machines into their hands, we have pre-ordained how they are to use them. . . . The real picture is that of one dominant age . . . which resists all previous ages most successfully and dominates all subsequent ages most irresistibly, and thus is the real master of the human species. But even within this master generation (itself an infinitesimal minority of the species) the power will be exercised by a minority smaller still. Man's conquest of Nature, if the dreams of the scientific planners are to be realized, means the rule of a few hundreds or men over billions upon billions of men. There neither is nor can there be any simple increase in power on Man's side. Each new power won by man is a power over Man as well. Each advance leaves him weaker as well as stronger. In every victory, besides being the general who triumphs, Man is also the prisoner who follows the triumphal carriage." [emphasis mine]
C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
Cordially,
‘I am the true vine.’ (John 15:1)
"These words of Jesus must be placed alongside all nations, institutions, movements, and organized groups that claim, in some way, to represent the will of God in the world. The church is not exempted. The church is infected with the same moral decrepitude that plagues the rest of humanity. Sometimes the church has stood in the way of justice, and compassion. There have been times when signal advances in human dignity have been achieved-against the will of the church."
"Jesus' claim to be the 'true vine', counters the messianic hoax; the self-confident tendency in individuals and social groupings, to think they are smart enough, and good enough to make the world safe for democracy; to resolve the problems of war, disease, and poverty; to effect deliverance for the human race. But history shows that when in various epochs, we have pinned our hopes in human systems and structures, they have let us down. Neither Capitalism, nor communism, have proved to be saviors. Nationalism, liberalism, humanism, have all been a disappointment. The fact is, no human structure has been able to match its own ideals."
"If we think that the world is peopled by basically harmless souls who have the wherewithal to create paradise, we have missed the situation addressed by the gospel."
"There is only... one true vine---without Him, we can do nothing. With Him, we can do something."
The debate over un-observed putative evolutionary historical events is not so easily settled as, say, a known historical fact such as who won the most recent World Series. That's why there are no threads devoted to the affirmation or denial of the Angels' win.
...the results do not change the premises
Yes, but if the logical results that flow from the premise are false, then the premise must be flawed.
Cordially,
We follow the preponderance of the evidence. It's not 100% logically guaranteed to be conclusive, but on the other hand, destroy the records of the games, wait a thousand years, and observe the discussions of baseball that ensue. I think you'd find that a thing we currently know to be true couldn't be conclusively proven true either - the best they'd be able to do is construct an inductive case for the truth of it.
Yes, but if the logical results that flow from the premise are false, then the premise must be flawed.
Yes, but even if the logical results are true, it does not follow that the premise(s) must be true.
P1) All ducks are mammals.
P2) All cats are ducks.
C1) Therefore, all cats are mammals. QED.
:^)
Article VI, US Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.I await your refutation of the above, and your authority for your claim about "Darwinism."
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.