THE "BABY DOCTOR," BENJAMIN SPOCK, ON DARWIN AND MORALITY

Institute for Creation Research ^ | February 2003 | Jerry Bergman

[Dataman]

Please refer to my post #47 for a rather simple reason why personally didn't waste my time with the original post.

No thanks. Retro can read it for me.

[Remedy]

You just admitted you rejected something without knowing what it says.

VadeRetro is evolving from misleading to honesty?

Social darwinism can be reversed?

DEVO!

[Dataman]

You are aware that Remedy, aka Ted Holden, holds this view?

Remedy is not Ted Holden. You evos seem to thrive on being incorrect. But dimensio, (you know how easy it would be to change the s to a t?) before you start throwing real names around, I would remind you how upset a certain evo got when her real name was revealed. I would expect that suggesting real names is good reason for hitting the abuse button as well.

[Dataman]

VadeRetro is evolving from misleading to honesty?

It was one of those random happenings. I don't think he meant to admit it. Retro does, at times, show a sense of humor and it is remotely possible that he was attempting humor- but then again,...

[whattajoke]

As we all know well and good, Ted Holden gave us all his real name. While I tend to agree with you that Remedy is not Ted Holden (Ted wouldnt spend so much time on his profile page simply to be banned again in short order), bringing up the "exposing" of Ted is not reason to push the abuse button. Ted exposed himself.

[whattajoke]

since you, for some wacky reason, state that you have no interest in why some of us have no interest in the original post, I'll spell it out for you:

The author is a fraud who attaches PhD to his name, despite the fact that the unaccredited Columbia Pacific "university" was shut down b/c it was simply a diploma mill, with no courses, and no justification for its degree programs. therefore, the author is a liar and a fraud. Nothing new for the creationists I understand, but I for one won't give credence to one who lies.

[PatrickHenry]

As we all know well and good, Ted Holden gave us all his real name.

Right. Holden (a/k/a medved) gave the world his name in threads, like post 68 in this one, and his FreeRepublic home page gave a link to his own website, where his name was given.

[Dataman]

Sigh. We're supposed to be grown up here. I'll leave it up to others to push the abuse button. Dimensio blew it and let's leave it at that.

[Dataman]

Regarding your #66, If you can ignore the author's thoughts (are you MENSA material?)and qualifications because of some projected (and incorrect) absurd technicality then I can, with absolute certainty, ignore FR evos because of some projected and incorrect absurd technicality.

You said:

The author is a fraud who attaches PhD to his name, despite the fact that the unaccredited Columbia Pacific "university" was shut down b/c it was simply a diploma mill, with no courses, and no justification for its degree programs. therefore, the author is a liar and a fraud.

The truth is:

Dr. Bergman rec'd a Ph.D. in Evaluation and Research with a minor in Psychology from Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.

Therefore it is you, whattajoke, that is the liar and the fraud.

You guys are just toooooo easy.

[whattajoke]

Why bother? I give ICR credit for eliminating his dubious PhD, but Answers in Genesis proudly proclaims his phony degree here http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_bergman.asp
Whoops. Conveniently and interestingly, you and ICR don't mention this degree.

Since you wish to continue this all "too easy" line of thought, He was denied tenure at Bowling Green due to his shoddy research, there's no such thing as far as I can tell as a "MSBS Biomedical Science degree" offered at the Med College of Ohio, and I can't find any record of the good doctor at the Medical college presently.

Now, I will be the first to admit those last two statements are NOT backed up by solid evidence. The first two ARE. I am open to be corrected regarding the last two statements about the Med. College of Ohio.

(See how we critical minded folks work?)

Lord knows if he's really a Mensa member or not... but then again, so is Geena Davis.

[jennyp]

Your table is hopelessly flawed. Jerry Bergman Himself blames Darwinism for the rise of laissez-faire capitalism! How perverted is that???

[Remedy]

Your table is hopelessly flawed

You are certain that your claim isn't hopelessly overstated?

[jennyp]

Why Refrain from Harming Others?

Morality tries to answer the question, "why shouldn't I harm others if I want to?" There are several reasons people can give for why you shouldn't initiate force or fraud on others. Let's look, as an example, at how I might convince you not to steal:

1) Enlightened Self-interest - If I tell you not to steal because in the long run it destroys that which makes a thriving civilization possible, then I'm giving you a long-term, indirectly selfish reason not to steal.

2a) Eternal Damnation - If I tell you not to steal because this life is really just an audition for a second, infinitely long life that begins when this one ends - and there's this all-powerful God who will punish you forever, then I'm also giving you a long-term, directly selfish reason not to steal.

2b) Karma - If I tell you not to steal because you're going to be reincarnated after this life ends, and your status in the next life depends on your behavior in this life, then I'm also giving you a long-term, directly selfish reason not to steal.

3) Empathy - If I tell you not to steal because if you put yourself in the victim's shoes, wouldn't that feel terrible, then I'm giving you an immediate, directly selfish reason not to steal. This argument depends on you being able to feel empathy. (This is an effective tool for perhaps 98% of the population, and is one of the best tools for teaching morality to children. I think it's so effective because reason #1 is so compelling that it was selected for by evolution.)

4) Crime Does Not Pay - If I tell you not to steal because I & the government I support will getcha if you do, then that is an immediate, directly selfish reason not to steal (or at least to make sure you don't get caught).

5) Duty - If I tell you not to steal because "it's just wrong", then I'm invoking a reason that does not appeal to your selfishness at all. In fact, this argument doesn't appeal to any facts about the real world - it's essentially an arbitrary statement! This sometimes works with children if they recognize me as an authority figure. In that case they implicitly trust that I have a good reason to say it's wrong but for some reason I don't want to explain it to them. But adults demand explanations, so if I use this argument on an adult it basically amounts to me begging you to please please don't steal.

Notice that there is only one argument for moral behavior that does not ultimately appeal to your own self-interest, and that one is arbitrary! This is a pity, because at first blush #5 sounds like it should be the most compelling argument of all: It sounds so final & absolute.

Theists' moral systems are based on #2a, and sometimes #5. Usually they will acknowledge the truth of #1, though they don't think that's enough of a reason to be persuasive. In practice their system would have to depend on #2a, 3, & 4. Atheists' moral system is based on #1. We think that #2a & 2b are factually untrue or (unprovable & therefore moot). In practice our system depends on #1, 3, & 4.

Also notice that atheism & theism both have fundamental rationales for moral behavior. In practice both atheists and theists can agree that #3 & 4 must be supported by a healthy society.

[ALS]

read what i said
this time pull yer head out of your

[Dimensio]

I did read what you said. What's your point, other than that you have nothing to offer other than inane ranting?

Calling people who don't share your particular religious beliefs names does not help your argument.

[ALS]

"I did read what you said. What's your point, other than that you have nothing to offer other than inane ranting?

Calling people who don't share your particular religious beliefs names does not help your argument."

I don't see your rant as being particularly helpful.
Have you pulled your head out of your yet?

btw - what are my religious beliefs?

[metacognative]

I have no idea what 'book of myths' you're talking about. But I would like you to tell me which one 'explains' biological development. Certainly not Physics or Chemistry!

[Phaedrus]

You are squandering bandwidth with ad hominem attack, which is completely irrelevant to the substance of the article. It is completely irrelevant to the substance of any argument. This is a very bad Evol habit, and juvenile, and a complete failure as a debating technique. The "right" answer is to just give it a rest.

[stanz]

I didn't say one book describes anything. Evolutionary biology explains development of species through recordable observations which are taken fossil evidence, dendochronology, molecular work, potassium and argon dating
methods, faunal examination and geologic data. The book of myths I was referring to which creation science embraces upholds that the planet was created by an omnipotent being and was created 6,000 years ago.

[Dimensio]

I don't see your rant as being particularly helpful.

I'm just pointing out that your assertions are meaningless.

Have you pulled your head out of your yet?

My head out of my what? You seem to be missing a noun between "your" and "yet".

btw - what are my religious beliefs?

Well, you implied that people who do not accept the creation story in Genesis as an accounting of history might be ignorant, so I presume that your religious beliefs hold the book of Genesis at some level of authority. Beyond that, I cannot say since I've not seen you state your religious beliefs anywhere.