nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 235:
Line 235: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Evolution (view source)
Revision as of 03:32, October 3, 2008
, 03:32, October 3, 2008→My response to your essay: My response to your response
I hope I have not blathered too much, and I look forward a great deal to hearing your thoughts.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:19, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
I hope I have not blathered too much, and I look forward a great deal to hearing your thoughts.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:19, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
: Thanks for your well-stated response, Sam99foster.
: Regarding what is the "right question", I believe that I was correct in deriving the questions I did. We humans are not computer programs or robots that will provide clearly-defined outputs according to the inputs, but are, by our very nature, creatures who see meaning in things. My first derived question was deliberately broad because asking the question that you derived ignores this point that people do derive meanings from facts. Perhaps to some extent my question presupposed the answer, but I think yours does too, and it's often the case that you have to know the answers in order to know what the right question is to ask.
: True, gravity does not tell us falling is good, but you've heard the saying that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it? That's because you ''learn things'' from history, and not just learning ''what happened'', but learning that particular ''ideas have consequences''. That is, you learn, for example, that people who get absolute power generally end up abusing it. Does that mean that abuse ''inherently'' and ''unavoidably'' follows from absolute power, like water unavoidably follows from combining oxygen and hydrogen? No, but it's not sufficient to say "it doesn't inherently follow" and then ignore that things ''do'' follow anyway.
: I'm at work at the moment and can't view the Youtube link, so I'll comment later on that if I feel the need once I've seen it.
: Yes, people have been arguing that meaning ''should not'' be drawn from evolution, but who's to say that it ''should not''? ''That'' doesn't inexorably follow either, does it? Simply by saying that it "should not" follow, they are themselves not talking about whether meaning is inherent, but expressing a ''view''. And the view of many others is that meaning ''can be'' drawn from evolution.
: Yes, insignificance (or other meaning) is up to people to decide for themselves. I agree with that, and would therefore argue that racists who use evolution to justify their racism cannot thereby avoid responsibility for the views. They ''decided'' to go along with that idea. Nevertheless, when you have (a) experts (e.g. evolutionists) claiming that evolution means such-and-such, and (b) large numbers of people ''accepting'' those claims because they appear reasonable, it's kind of missing the point to dismiss that by saying that they have to decide for themselves.
: I disagree that "the Earth is 4.6 billion years old" is a scientific statement, but that's beside the point for this discussion, so I won't comment further on that now.
: I totally agree that some conclusions are improper to derive. That's half the point of my second derived question (the other half is that some meanings ''are'' proper to derive).
: As to whether chemistry, geology, or etc. is different to evolution, it ''is'' different because evolution is tantamount to a religion (unlike chemistry, geology, etc.).
:Shallis said:
{{QuoteBox|It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing).[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3819/]}}
:Michael Ruse commented:
{{QuoteBox|Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
<br />
‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139]}}
: And that's the point: evolution is not merely the study of something; it is a ''substitute'' for Christianity. As Christianity has moral values, evolution ''replaces'' those moral values (with nothing). Perhaps I do need to elaborate on that point in the article itself, however.
: Evolution is racist because it contains the idea that some people are less advanced than (or inferior to) others.
: My article ''does'' show that evolution has had terrible social consequences. Your dispute is whether people acted properly in basing their views on evolution or not. But whether properly or not, they ''did'' base them on evolution, with terrible consequences.
: When you ask for an example of someone becoming a racist by studying evolution, you seem to be asking for an example of someone who was not a racist but became a racist as a result of studying evolution. I have little doubt that such examples could be found, but off the top of my head I can't think of any. However, the ''main'' factor in this regard would not be people ''becoming'' racists from non-racists from studying evolution, but ''growing up'' as racists as a direct ''and indirect'' result of evolution. For example, a teacher who may have been a racist to begin with studies evolution, finds "biological arguments" there to support his racism, and then teaches that to his students. Without the biological arguments he may not have had much to say, and his students may not have been all that convinced, but ''with'' those biological arguments, his case is stronger and his students more likely convinced. Of course this is not limited to teachers, but anybody who has influence on others, including parents and journalists. Evolution-based racist ideas were rife in the early 20th century, including in textbooks (see the George Hunter quote in the article) the mass media, and publications of the Ku Klux Klan[http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_1/j18_1_65-70.pdf]. Do you really think that all these things had ''no influence'' except on those who were already racists? Many of these things would have been seen by children who were still forming their ideas about humanity. They may never have been non-racists, but that doesn't mean that evolution played no part in them becoming racists.
: My argument doesn't really address whether evolution prescribes moral values. But my argument was that even if it technically doesn't, it still effectively does.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:32, 2 October 2008 (EDT)