Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
No.
People who lie about others are the ones who do. For examples, people who suggest that scientists want to round Christians up and put them into death camps.
Argument from adverse consequences? even neoPlatonists know better than that.
one point: were the synthetic theory of evolution to be faithfully developed into a sociopolitical philosophy, it would be antithetical to socialism.
socialism, in a nutshell, essentially has the artificially-determined welfare of the species determining the daily lives and fates of the individuals within its population. it also contains as a root tenet that all individuals are identical and interchangeable.
a philosophy extrapolated from evolution would have the daily lives and fates of the individuals naturally determine the status of the species they comprise. it would also have as a central tenet that all individuals are unique, that none are precisely interchangeable, that distribution of characteristics are NOT equally distributed.
this "evolution-based" philosophy strongly resembles the the ideal of individualistic elitist meritocracy towards which capitalistic free societies aspire.
on the other hand, there really is little difference between theocrats and leftists. both are raging statists - they just dress different, have different names for their oligarchic masters, and use slightly different scare tactics.
[hiatus mode]
Good heavens, not you too.
To which you replied:
I will give them the benefit of the doubt and just note that the people who throw those epithets are a small percentage of FReepers who don't understand TToE.
Point taken. However, this website is realtively prominent, and reaches a wide audience. Even if, as you say, the number of people making suggests like "scientists want to round Christians up and put them into death camps" is very small, this message has the potential to color the perceptions of a very large number of people.
Good points as always. Thanks.
Maybe this is some kind of turf war between the life scientists on the one side, and the physicists and mathematicians on the other, with the former regarding the latter as illegitimately poaching on their territory? The late, great Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr, for instance, suggested that perhaps biology should be an independent discipline from the rest of science, to be regarded as sovereign in its own way as physics is in its. But to me this wouldn't be a very good idea, for without doubt living systems have a material basis in physics and chemistry, notwithstanding they are more than what that material basis can describe....
Well FWIW. Thanks for writing, tomzz!
= = =
Great points.
Thanks.
I do think turf war and ego stuff are way up there in motivations on the part of the EVOS.
That's a very interesting suggestion, metmom!
It seems to me any creation account really belongs to cosmology. Evolutionary theory isn't the least bit cosmological, it does not and cannot say what the origin of life or consciousness is; it only speaks to what happens to species once they're here (so to speak).
Darwin said that "life can only come from life." He never said where life came from. Neils Bohr agreed, saying the origin of life is simply unknowable -- not just "unknown," but "unknowable" on principle -- and thus could never be a proper subject for scientific investigation. And Hubert Yockey agrees with both men that the origin of life is "unknowable." And yet: There Life is!
All this really boils down to for me is that the origin of life is "unknowable" on the basis of reason alone, thus scientific methodology cannot give an account for it. To get the "full picture," Spirit, faith is required: Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, but equally necessary complementarities for a proper understanding of man and the universe.
Yockey is really interesting -- I'd love to see him taken up in the public schools. He suggests that living systems do not "bottom out" in physics and chemistry, but have a deeper cause, which is essentially mathematical or geometrical in form.
But to me the main point is that for neither the case of an origin in geometry nor an origin in physics/chemistry, no one knows what the origin of the geometry or the physics/chemistry is. THIS is the PRIME "unknowable." Science must remain silent with respect to it, for its method cannot reach to it.
And so we are left in a situation where there is no evident "objective standard" by which either theory (chemistry vs. geometry) can be falsified.... (Might this be a tip-off that they may actually be "complementary," in Bohr's meaning of that word?)
Still from a cosmological or even explicitly theological point of view, Yockey's "geometry" seems to comport very well with what is meant by the word, "Logos." (Though I don't have reason to believe that Yockey is at all a "religiously-minded" person. I am, however; and so am mindful that the word comes up in the very first line of Saint John's gospel.)
Anyhoot, just because the ULTIMATE source of the universe cannot be a problem for the scientific method does not mean there is no ULTIMATE source. Speculations about what was going on before the big bang, or in universes parallel with our own, or in multiverses, etc., belong not to science class, but to cosmology. FWIW.
Perhaps with caveats the creation account could be offered in connection with a course on ToE. My preference, however, would be to offer cosmology itself as a course for high school students, where origin accounts from both science and the humanities (i.e., the Western cultural past) can be freely discussed on an equitable basis.
I hope something can be worked out. For our high school science students definitely are not getting the "full picture" of what Life is. Again, FWIW.
Thank you so much, metmom, for your engaging, thought-provoking post!
More wise and wonderful points.
Please keep up the great and impressive work!
LUB
I've searched through this
http://darwin-online.org.uk/
without finding the phrase "life can only come from life."
Perhaps you can provide a reference.
No. Just a desire to keep ignorance and religion out of the classroom (and science).
Darwin said that "life can only come from life." He never said where life came from. Neils Bohr agreed, saying the origin of life is simply unknowable -- not just "unknown," but "unknowable" on principle -- and thus could never be a proper subject for scientific investigation. And Hubert Yockey agrees with both men that the origin of life is "unknowable." And yet: There Life is!
Such a claim is a strawman. It is like saying you can't have astronomy without "knowing" the origin of the Universe. And yet, Planets and Stars exist!
All this really boils down to for me is that the origin of life is "unknowable" on the basis of reason alone, thus scientific methodology cannot give an account for it. To get the "full picture," Spirit, faith is required: Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, but equally necessary complementarities for a proper understanding of man and the universe.
Faith is not a component of any scientific study. It make for a better or at least a more rational person but it is an optional component.
Yockey is really interesting -- I'd love to see him taken up in the public schools. He suggests that living systems do not "bottom out" in physics and chemistry, but have a deeper cause, which is essentially mathematical or geometrical in form.
Philosophy is a very interesting area of study. But it has no place in science (except as a meta-study). Musings are great but they have to be recrafted meet scientific validity.
But to me the main point is that for neither the case of an origin in geometry nor an origin in physics/chemistry, no one knows what the origin of the geometry or the physics/chemistry is. THIS is the PRIME "unknowable." Science must remain silent with respect to it, for its method cannot reach to it.
As must theology and philosophy be silent on an real science for the same reason.
And so we are left in a situation where there is no evident "objective standard" by which either theory (chemistry vs. geometry) can be falsified.... (Might this be a tip-off that they may actually be "complementary," in Bohr's meaning of that word?)
Of course they can be falsified. And neither chemistry nor geometry are "theories" in the way that TToE and TToG are.
Still from a cosmological or even explicitly theological point of view, Yockey's "geometry" seems to comport very well with what is meant by the word, "Logos." (Though I don't have reason to believe that Yockey is at all a "religiously-minded" person. I am, however; and so am mindful that the word comes up in the very first line of Saint John's gospel.)
Because St. John wanted people to use their God-given intellect to solve problems and explore God's Universe.
Anyhoot, just because the ULTIMATE source of the universe cannot be a problem for the scientific method does not mean there is no ULTIMATE source. Speculations about what was going on before the big bang, or in universes parallel with our own, or in multiverses, etc., belong not to science class, but to cosmology. FWIW.
Perhaps with caveats the creation account could be offered in connection with a course on ToE.
No, because that would create the false concept that they are somehow "equivalent." Faith is not science, philosophical musings notwithstanding. And of course, which creation account to present (assuming I bought your argumentation which I clearly don't), becomes a greater problem.
My preference, however, would be to offer cosmology itself as a course for high school students, where origin accounts from both science and the humanities (i.e., the Western cultural past) can be freely discussed on an equitable basis.
"Cosmology" is a cobbled-together subset of philosophy and very reminiscent of drunken sophomoric late night free association (IMHO). It was also the breeding ground for the very disingenuous ID Trojan Horse that has opened up a front to support willful ignorance and complete dumbing down.
I hope something can be worked out. For our high school science students definitely are not getting the "full picture" of what Life is. Again, FWIW.
"What Life Is??" That is not what HS is all about. Life is about putting your nose behind the grindstone and getting your butt in gear. It is about learning facts, figures and some ability to think (but not much since HS brains aren't really ready for much beyond Plato or Shakespeare).
No. Just a desire to keep ignorance and religion out of the classroom (and science).
= = = =
My construction on reality is that the assertion above is virtually 100% false.
1. Most, if not all, EVOS are MORE concerned about keeping God, His values, His demands on their lives and behavior
OUR OF THEIR LIVES--particularly out of their bedrooms.
2. Were the above to be remotely true, then a much greater and far more successful effort would be made to
A) dethrone the Popes of the Religion of Science
B) stop issuing virtually groundless or at best out dated RELIGION OF SCIENCE PAPAL ENCYCLICALS designed to stifle dissent; trash new discoveries; batter folks back into the traditional status quo and maintain the walls of the truest truly true truth as decreed by the fossilized High Priests of the Religion of Science.
C) truly encourage a diversity of opinions trusting that in the free exchange of ideas and the rough and tumble of such exchanges, the few better perspectives from dissenting constructions on reality would rise to the top and that would be beneficial to the world at large.
D) But nooooooooooooooooooooooo! The INQUISITION OF THE RELIGION OF SCIENCE MARCHES ON trashing all who dare to disagree.
E) And, they aren't the least bit honest about it--usually--and seemingly have had all their mirrors shattered.
I don't seem to be getting a citation for the Darwin quote. It's not just pedantry. It's not consistent with the way Darwin thought.
Please provide proof for this assertion.
1. Most, if not all, EVOS are MORE concerned about keeping God, His values, His demands on their lives and behavior
Please provide proof of this assertion. OUR OF THEIR LIVES--particularly out of their bedrooms.
Please provide a linkage between the desire for the support of science and the 1st Amendment and any sexual mores.
2. Were the above to be remotely true, then a much greater and far more successful effort would be made to
A) dethrone the Popes of the Religion of Science
This statement makes no sense.
B) stop issuing virtually groundless or at best out dated RELIGION OF SCIENCE PAPAL ENCYCLICALS designed to stifle dissent; trash new discoveries; batter folks back into the traditional status quo and maintain the walls of the truest truly true truth as decreed by the fossilized High Priests of the Religion of Science.
Please provide a single new scientific discovery that supports any alternative to TToE. But, it is good to see your anti-Catholic hate is showing ("Papal encyclicals."). How Christian of you. Would you like me to ping some Catholics to the thread so they can tear you a new one?
C) truly encourage a diversity of opinions trusting that in the free exchange of ideas and the rough and tumble of such exchanges, the few better perspectives from dissenting constructions on reality would rise to the top and that would be beneficial to the world at large.
We are open. Please provide a single valid, peer-reviewed scientific link that even suggests a single scientific alternative to TToE.
Your version of 'Rough and Tumble' boils down to Scripture.
D) But nooooooooooooooooooooooo! The INQUISITION OF THE RELIGION OF SCIENCE MARCHES ON trashing all who dare to disagree.
So far on these threads (and in this very post), "trashing" is the providence of the Cr/IDers.
E) And, they aren't the least bit honest about it--usually--and seemingly have had all their mirrors shattered.
You have shattered nothing. Unsupported assertions are generally not the coin of the realm here at FR.
You have dug quite a pit for yourself (or built a mountain -- choose your analogy). You have a LOT of work to do to support your disingenuous post.
Get busy.
BB and Quix, your hole is getting deeper. Using fake quotes is a very grave transgression on FR.
Get busy.
= = = =
1. I stay pretty busy.
2. You aren't my boss.
3. I have almost 0.000000000000% motivation to prove truth to folks who have demonstrated an abiding great resistence to it. Gold is available for those seriously interested in it and in digging for it.
Cheers.
And yet even to this day the "theories" of Marx's great epigones Engles and Oparin form the basis of NASA's research into "origins of life":
NASA is totally committed to the Oparin dialectical materialist speculation on the origin of life. Most of the origin of life projects supported by NASA ... are "proteins first" and are due to go the way of perpetual machines. They may produce interesting chemistry but they have nothing to do with the origin of life....One must suppose that the epigones were intimately familiar with the thought of their master, and were faithful proselytizers of it, the comparative publication timing of Marx's and Darwin's principal works notwithstanding. I imagine that Darwin would not have approved of his theory being reinterpreted into the categories of dialectical materialism. But seemingly this has been done anyway, as NASA's commitment to Oparin (that nasty Soviet beast!) clearly shows.It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy, and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may.... Belief in a primaeval soup on the ground that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science, it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life. The best advice that one could have given to an alchemist would have been to go study nuclear physics and astrophysics, although that would not have been helpful at the time. We do not see the origin of life clearly, but through a glass darkly.... [Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, 2005, p. 182f.]
Hitler's racialist policies were undoubtedly justified on "survival of the fittest" grounds, that entailed that people considered to be "less fit" could be expunged. Peter Singer continues to make that argument today, from the hallowed halls of Princeton. You don't think he got that idea from the Gospel of Saint John, do you?
FWIW Doc. Thanks so much for writing!
". . . Using fake quotes is a very grave transgression on FR."
Hey, hotshot . . .
I'm not even aware of any fake quotes.
I certainly have not knowingly engaged in, participated in, fondled, carressed, kissed or even waved at any fake quotes.
So, please tell me, how serious a transgression is it on FR to level false accusations at another FREEPER about false quotes?
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.