Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Origin of the Specious
Reason Online ^ | 1997 | Ronald Bailey

Posted on 11/06/2002 9:25:58 PM PST by general_re

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-185 next last

1 posted on 11/06/2002 9:25:58 PM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *crevo_list; PatrickHenry; balrog666; longshadow; Junior; VadeRetro; BMCDA; Dimensio; Condorman; ...
Large ping for something new to argue about - lots of folks seem interested in the philosophy underlying Darwinism and evolution, so why not examine the philosophical roots of the loyal opposition? ;)

Apologies to anyone I've omitted or included against their wishes - I don't maintain a formal ping list, so this is unlikely to be repeated in this form, either way...

2 posted on 11/06/2002 9:34:09 PM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: general_re
mark for later read
3 posted on 11/06/2002 9:43:09 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Diamond
A belated ping for two resident philosophers ;)
4 posted on 11/06/2002 9:59:42 PM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: general_re
I'll read this later but I thought this was interesting: "Darwinism is on the way out."

Funny but the "Darwinists" don't think so.

5 posted on 11/06/2002 10:18:41 PM PST by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaGman
LOL - don't stop there. It's worth the read, I promise ;)
6 posted on 11/06/2002 10:24:22 PM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Thanks for the heads up!

On first blush, the article seemed to overreach the statements actually made by Vatican concerning evolution, so I checked and confirmed that is the case: Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences October 22, 1996

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

That leaves me wondering what other statements might be inconsistent with the source - but I don't have time to research it further tonight.

7 posted on 11/06/2002 10:29:48 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Gross is much concerned with the interplay of science and politics--he is the co-author of the 1994 book, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science--and is puzzled by the attacks on evolutionary biology by people whose political views he largely shares. Regarding Commentary's anti-Darwin article, he says he is mystified that the magazine "would publish the damned thing without at least passing it by a few scientists first."

Good points. The neo-Creationists and their twins, the Post-Modern-Deconstructionists continue to comment on science without checking with a few scientists first. Sokal's "Social Text" caper is a good example.

8 posted on 11/06/2002 10:33:10 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: general_re
print bump
9 posted on 11/06/2002 10:35:08 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaGman
Neither did the DemoRATS!
10 posted on 11/06/2002 10:36:14 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Forgive me for not immediately seeing it, but I don't see how the article mischaracterizes the papal message you linked to. Perhaps you could give a bit more detail about where you see the conflict when you get a chance...
11 posted on 11/06/2002 10:54:51 PM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Thanks for recomending a thorough reading. I'd written it off as a creationist harangue. I was very glad to see the author explained what Behe actually says in his book. And the Strauss stuff was very interesting.
12 posted on 11/06/2002 11:51:19 PM PST by MattAMiller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Darwin and science(technology) are opposites!

People are confused.
13 posted on 11/06/2002 11:53:08 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MattAMiller
And the Strauss stuff was very interesting.

Yes - that part explains exactly, IMO, why creationist leaders so willingly blind their followers to the plain evidence. They're deathly afraid that if anything makes people start doubting in the existence of a Supreme Authority Figure person, society will collapse and it'll be Mad Max time. Because they think there really IS no right & wrong, so even if God doesn't exist we have to invent Him.

Which is wrong, wrong, wrong! Right & wrong are objectively true or false, and there's a wide range of moral Truths that are true for everybody. It's because individual rights & responsibility flow naturally from the basic facts of human nature. That's why capitalism & the open society are taking over the world. It's not American hegemony, per se. It's just that America is for the most part free & open & prosperous, and that keeps being too plainly true for people in other civilizations to wish away.

But the creationists just don't see that. What's funny is, this is where the real debate should be happening. When we debate the actual science, we're really arguing past each other.

14 posted on 11/07/2002 12:41:23 AM PST by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
and there's a wide range of moral Truths that are true for everybody.

Since you base this on something objective, this requires a rigorous proof.

15 posted on 11/07/2002 1:15:08 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Great article. A few interesting quotes:
Kristol and his colleagues may worry that once this one thread is pulled from the fabric of religious belief, perhaps the whole will become unraveled, with grave social consequences. Without the strictures and traditions imposed by a religion that promises to punish sinners, the moral controls that moderate our base desires will lose their validity, leading ultimately to moral chaos.
Sounds like they should be panicked about the solar system too.
Thus, to preserve society, wise people must publicly support the traditions and myths that sustain the political order and that encourage ordinary people to obey the laws and live justly. People will do so only if they believe that moral rules are divinely decreed or were set up by men who were inspired by the Divine.
Oh yeah, that's getting close to the question of whether evolution is good science.
16 posted on 11/07/2002 4:12:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Thanks for the ping. I've read the bulk of the article fairly carefully, skimmed the rest. This was written in 1997 and the "state of the anti-Darwinian argument" has advanced considerably since then; i.e. much of the author's interpretive narrative is refutable and has been refuted. There is no basis, for example, to assert that the philosophers know there is no God but promote God to the masses to retain social order. That is sheer unfounded speculation. It is an interesting article but the careful reader will find it clearly biased in favor of Darwinism.
17 posted on 11/07/2002 6:13:13 AM PST by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Here is Strauss's purported message:

What is the hidden truth known to philosophers? That there is no God and there is no ultimate foundation for morality. As [Irving] Kristol suggests, it is necessary to keep this truth from the vulgar because such knowledge would only engender despair in them and lead to social breakdown.

The flaw is that this is argument by assumption and attribution of motive and it falls on that basis alone. Nor is Irving Kristol a conservative icon. He is a reformed liberal, and not sufficiently reformed in my humble view. On the other hand his wife, Gertrude Himmelfarb, wrote an utterly devastating book on Darwinism in 1959, which the article references, in which Darwin emerges a scientific non-entity. Himmelfarb and Bork are more of like mind as to the underlying issues and realities and they are very good friends (FWIW).

18 posted on 11/07/2002 6:26:43 AM PST by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
The people to whom the letter was addressed (Pontifical Academy of Sciences)interpreted it as an endorsement of mainstream evolutionary theory. I don't believe the Pope mislead them. Here is the reaction of one member,a Catholic priest/Physicist, Stanley Jaki. This article and the Pope's letter represent IMO very traditional Catholic positions.

The Biblical Basis of Western Science
Rev. Stanley Jaki
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/752515/posts
19 posted on 11/07/2002 6:36:52 AM PST by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
There is no basis, for example, to assert that the philosophers know there is no God but promote God to the masses to retain social order. That is sheer unfounded speculation.

Speculation, yes; unfounded, no. And Bailey says as much - after concluding that scientific attacks on Darwinism have failed, which they generally have, he then seeks to understand why otherwise intelligent people continue to attack it, and proposes that it is essentially a form of our old friend, the fallacy of the argument from the consequences. And Bork, Johnson, Kristol, et cetera, make this an exceedingly easy case to make by their attacks on Darwinism as simply being a masquerade for atheistic humanism, and decrying the presumed effects of said athiestic humanism upon society.

20 posted on 11/07/2002 6:37:59 AM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-185 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson