Posted on 01/20/2002 12:07:19 PM PST by PatrickHenry
The article is posted in the "Philosophy" category, the existence of which indicates that Jim Robinson encourages the free flow of ideas on this excellent website. I suggest that you should disregard this thread if it upsets you.
Where does the Constitution authorize tax-funded socialist public schools?
The US Constitution makes no such provision. It's left to the states. Which you already knew. And I agree that the states are making a botch of it. Private is better.
But evolutionists have been back pedaling since the start of the theory, it's too flexible to be meaningful or decisive. When a theory can cover any combination of facts or a total lack of facts, it doesn't contribute to knowledge. Its like a tautology: something that is true but in a trival way.
What's even worse is when turn of the century philosophers like Nietzche, Marx and Darwin point to evolution as a way of getting rid of God (and specifically Christianity), then they are taking a trivial physical theory and making serve a theological aim.
The problem is this: can any act of creation (the making of an airplane). Limited by the principles of physicalistic science, prove that it was not created by a mind. That is what evolution, in its fullest form, is really trying to do. Its a philosophically nonsensical task.
take any act of creation (the making of an airplane).
>No, it completely ignores religion. If you consider it to have a goal to confound religion, then it is not one specific religion that it confounds, but hundreds or possibly thousands that have origins stories based on ancient tribal explanations for what we see around us.
Darwin, Marx and Nietzche had only one religion in mind, all the others were cultural and philosophical and of no worry to them.
No need. The "bump lists" which he maintains include a listing for such threads. Your argument is with Jim Robinson, not with me. But I suggest that you don't call him "bozo" as he may not like it.
--- if the Universe is blind and pitifully indifferent, and we are the products of said blind and pitiably insouciant Universe, then why are we humans truth-loving and truth-seeing organisms?
Because we die if we don't establish true ideas from false ideology?
IE - We have learned, through the scientific method, to cure many ills, -- instead of listening to a medicine mans mumbo-jumbo.
Now that is a blind, pitiless, indifferent truth. -- Right?
36 posted by tpaine
But according to Dawkins, death is neither good nor bad.
Where did he say that? -- But if he did, he's wrong, - imo. - And in any case, so what? It doesn't have much to do with your question, does it?
Richard Dawkins concluded that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Then, the entire rest of the piece is a denial of this premise. Instead of upholding the view that there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, we are fed all these anything but indifferent evaluations, such as,
In a forced binary choice between the "theory of creationism" and the "theory of evolution," 57 percent chose creationism against only 33 percent for evolution (10 percent said that they were "unsure"). One explanation for these findings can be seen in additional results showing that just 34 percent considered themselves to be "very informed" about evolution.
Although such findings are disturbing,....
But why in the world should they be disturbing if "at bottom," there is, "no purpose, no evil and no good?" What difference does it make to Mr. Michael Shermer what anyone believes, since there is no purpose anyway?
He certainly sounds like he thinks there is a purpose when he says, "To counter the nefarious influence of the ID creationists, we need to employ a proactive strategy of science education and evolution explanation." The obvious question is, why? What difference does it make. Why doesn't he act like he really believes in "nothing but blind, pitiless indifference?"
We could overlook the internal contradictions, if nothing really mattered, but in case he is not being totally accurate (or lucid) about that, we'll mention them.
He refers to evolution as a theory, which it cannot be. It is an unproven hypothesis, in the scientific sense, and can never be proven in the scientific sense, since no experiment can be performed to test it.
He is actually unconsciousnly aware of this, and unwittingly contradicts the assertion that evolution is a theory by the this, "The 19th-century philosopher of science William Whewell called this process of independent lines of inquiry converging together to a conclusion a "consilience of inductions." I call it a "convergence of evidence." Whatever you call it, it is how historical events are proved." So, evolution, he unwittingly admits is not a branch of science, but a hypothetical branch of history, and the "proof" he offers is for history, not the confimation of a scientific hypothesis.
If the author is such a nihilist, doesn't this thread function like posting excerpts from the Communist manifesto or a NY Times editorial? Dawkinsian nihilism certainly has its admirers, and hence political consequences. Besides, the author dabbles in Education policy, obviously of conservative interest. I very much sympathize with JimRob's desire to avoid site-clogging Crevo wars, but at the same time we can't easily ignore the 99lb Bonobos--they can vote in their philosophy just like conservatives can.
The Post Topics 'science' and 'evolution' which once existed on FR were deleted long ago. Do you think that might have been a hint?
Robinson may have since decided for any number of reasons to tolerate these threads, but not because he thinks they have anything to do with FR's mission.
The enthymeme, of course, being "therefore, there is no evil and no good." We should only avoid death if there is something bad about it.
And in any case, so what? It doesn't have much to do with your question, does it?
I thought you were defending Dawkins's nihilism, and I was responding on that assumption. Its relevance is that an influential pop-scientist is being embarrasingly self-contradictory. If there is no good and no evil, then one cannot condemn those who pursue falsehood on any grounds whatsoever, but Dawkins and his epigones do just that.
I responded (excerpt): "Darwin was a failed Divinity student. ...."
You responded: "When logical arguments against another's point fail, always go ad hominem."
I was replying to #5. Please explain what you perceive as the "logical arguments" that were in #5's conjecture above.
What wasn't "logical" about offering a possible explanation for the "issues" that #5 thought Darwin might have had?
The continued popularity of the creation/evolution threads indicates that the subject is of great interest to the FreeRepublic community. However, the management of this website is entirely in Jim Robinson's capable hands. If he allows these threads, they will continue to appear, however contrary to your wishes that may be. As I said before, I suggest that you ignore threads such as this.
My post was clear in responding to YOUR question. -- And I asked you some in return.
-- You can't, - or won't reply? - So be it.
That time was December, 2000. The number of crevo threads since then is quite impressive. Either you are mistaken about Jim Rob's opinion, or he doesn't know how to pull a thread he doesn't like.
Fair enough, but if someone tried to suggest that the 747 was created in seven days by an invisible man who lived in the sky, I don't think we'd take him seriously.
I'm agnostic (or maybe not, I'm not sure...) so I don't categorically deny the possibility that we and the universe we live in is the handiwork of some "thing"- but I would stil see the creation in a sort of deist, cosmic watchmaker way, not an "Abracadabra watch me pull a cosmos out of my hat" sort of thing.
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.