Posted on 06/02/2003 1:46:54 PM PDT by Heartlander
Evolution is not materialism, it is a subpart of biology. Materialism is a worldview and is not limited to the strict holding that only what exists is real. See Websters. Anyone can and will corrupt something to foster the shaping of the world to goals of their own will. Whether it's materialism, theology, biology, or anything else.
"not in matters technical, nor in matters of the humanities"
Biology, of which evolution is a subpart, is technical. There is no place in it for the humanities.
As far what is to be gained by evolution. It covers the relationships of structure and composition of organisms. Because my body is and has components related to other organisms, I can use an animal physiology text to learn about my own components. That is of course if I heed my relative position on the evolutionary tree. I can also do so to with any animal, as long as I heed the tree.
"Then there is the wonderful impact upon schoolchildren, by telling them repeatedly that they are animals and forget about an afterlife"
That is a corruption. There is no valid reason for addressing an afterlife in a public school whatsoever. In fact, they don't tell them that there is no afterlife, they tell them that they will- just go to a nice place, where they can do whatever makes them happy with others like them. Religion should be kept out, just as politics should be kept out. There is no justification for using the public schools as a socialist indoctrination center as they are.
Were this so, the so-called crevo debates here on FR would not exist. As it is, biology textbooks still make much of abiogenesis and Discovery Channel still promotes Evolution with its Apeman glorifications. So Evolutionist disclaimers notwithstanding (that itself is a fairly recent phenomenon), promoters of Evolution do indeed trod on forbidden philosophical territory, and with a vengeance, at least judged by the 20th Century. This alone is a "mortal sin" but it gets worse. Evolution does not even show that one species transforms into another or explain the mechanics of such transformation, and it does not therefore even qualify as science. "Mutation" and "chance" are suppositions, not explanations, and neither is supported by the evidence. From day one, Evolution has been an exercise in rhetoric only, as laid out in exquisite detail by Gertrude Himmerfarb in Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (written in 1959 but still avialable at Amazon.com in paperback).
The debate should have ended. So the relevant question to me is: "Why has Darwinism not long since gone the way of the Dodo?" And the answer that constantly springs to my mind is that Darwinism still represents the last best hope for a science-based counterforce to Christianity. This "answer" is supported by the constant Creationist-bashing committed by the Evolutionists on the "crevo" threads.
Until biology struggles into the 20th Century by abandoning Materialism and Reductionism, Darwinism will require continued refutation. The physicists have stepped back (to say the least!) from these modes of thought. Will the biologists begin to listen to the physicists?
Evolution is a subpart of biology, nothing more, nothing less.
Changing the genetic code sufficiently, so that one species transforms into another is not a one step process. As for what processes do occur and the mechanics of them, they are known and a long while back I studied them. Your statement indicates you are not familiar with molecular biology and the mechanics of genetics. If you were, you would not have said that. These are not suppositions, they are fact. Also, just because something is not known and/or well understood, does detract from what is known and understood.
"Darwinism still represents the last best hope for a science-based counterforce to Christianity."
Evolution is a subpart of biology, nothing more, nothing less. It is not a counterforce to Christianity whatsoever. In as much as it is the truth, it tells us about one small defined part of existence. If someone uses it as part of a con, that does change its original nature.
"Until biology struggles into the 20th Century by abandoning Materialism and Reductionism, Darwinism will require continued refutation. The physicists have stepped back (to say the least!) from these modes of thought. Will the biologists begin to listen to the physicists?"
Biology doesn't contain the things you say it does. The fact that there are people that construct corruptions of other things does not mean that what was used to form the corruption is now corrupt. I haven't noticed a slowing in attempts to corrupt things.
Parsing ...
Changing the genetic code sufficiently, so that one species transforms into another is not a one step process.
Over long spans of time, species retain their genetic integrity. They resist change. Transformation is not only not the rule, it has not been shown at all.
As for what processes do occur and the mechanics of them, they are known and a long while back I studied them.
I think it's fair to say that these need to be specified, and in plain language.
Your statement indicates you are not familiar with molecular biology and the mechanics of genetics. If you were, you would not have said that.
You must realize that this is an appeal to authority, an approach that I reject. Again, please state the case in plain language. The physicists do it all the time.
These are not suppositions, they are fact.
Saying so doesn't make them so. With suitable irony, I say they are suppositions.
Also, just because something is not known and/or well understood, does ["not", I presume] detract from what is known and understood.
Now I agree with this. Science is, however, about what is known and how it is known. Any conversation about what is not known falls outside the boundaries of science and circumscribes what science can legitimately claim.
Ah, but it is something less....most of "biology" has been proven...evolution is still just a "theory"....look back to the fossils, supposedly millions of years old, and they find fosseils of moths...hmm...we still have moths today. Evolution at it's purest would mean the elimination of species...or rather the evolution of species into something else. We see today many animals on "endangered" species lists, and ones that have gone extinct....Now, we know they're extinct, they did not evolve into something else, so where is the basis for evolution???? I just don't get it.
Perhaps you need to develop a new "theory", one I personally think is closer to right, the theory of adaptation. Species have never evolved into other species, they have merely adapted to different environments over time. It's also genetics. For example...A tall man marries a tall woman, genetics would calculate they will have a tall child (more than likely), the population gradually gets taller. In Shaekesepere's time it was theorized that the "average" height of man was "about" 5'3", short by today's average. That's not a fact, just a theory, so I am not quoting it.
If we evolved from ape, than why are their still apes?
Evolution has too many exceptions to be accurate. It has become a "religion" any more. People going around with the Christian symbol with Darwin in it. So many evolutionist mock religion that it's almost like being part of WICCA. In fact, I would gather that many Darwinists are also part of WICCA. So, you are still partaking in the belief of a "higher being" or "higher power". You need that to answer just what started that big bang???? Don't say "gases"...because then I will say "where did those gases come from???"
You might as well believe in Greek Mythology as believe in evolution as the end all be all answer for being here.
(Big '88, Tame...you guys want to jump in this debate?)
Neither do I. This comment sums it up quite nicely.
I suppose it's the humor in the debate...the wanting to see what inane answer they will come up with next. Like a game of chess, only we know the outcome, we will win, their *strategy* is far inferior to ours. :o)
Yes. If Darwinism is not religion, or is not at least a shot at Christianity, what's the point? The Darwin symbol, mocking Christianity, that we see on the back of autos speaks volumes as to what the Evolutionists are really all about. I've considered buying one of those Darwin symbols and placing it upside-down, feet in the air, on the back of my vehicle, but that has to do with my warped sense of humor, not science ... ;-}
ROTFL....that's hysterical!!!! Only, we need to make it a bumper sticker, and there should be a smoking gun aimed at the thing!!!! ROTFL
This is pretty much impossible, spunkets. There is no content-neutral education. Supreme Court Justice Scalia was wise enough to note this about public education. There is no content-neutral education. We are human beings and only through analysis do we separate what in real life exists integrally. Your earlier response was good, and I concur with your sentiments about Ridley, that he abuses science and that he misapplies its principles. It is also possible to swing another way, to pretend like Patrick Henry that the principles of science "is what it is." Science, as in physics or biology, is the product of an interaction of human thinking about something else.
If we can fault Ridley for thinking mind is the extension of body, we could also fault (as does general_re) for making body the extension of mind. We rarely want to confess to the same error that we've seen in others. There is no pure science that can be equated with isness. If you do, you collapse the distinction between mind and body, you make them coeval. Raising phenomena to the status of law may be useful, but it is an abuse of reason to equate that law with isness. For science is partial. It cannot be equated with an "is what it is." Sometimes scientific theories mate happily with the things it studies, sometimes not. But they are not one and the same, otherwise the mind loses its object. It's quite possible to come close to objectivity by getting rid of the objects.
Evolutionary theory doesn’t deal with life. And because it doesn’t, it can’t deal with consciousness. And it’s hostile to spirit.
Personally, I find that attempt at being clever rather humorous. But, sadly, many people trust scientists absolutely, pretty much the same way they trust medical doctors. But there are dangerous doctors just like there are scientists with ill motive.
Well, A-Girl, whatcha gonna do with some of these guys? You can't censor scientists who express personal philosophical beliefs, even when they go way beyond what their science literally indicates. And you don't want to literally outlaw science because of those who make such statements. However, people who select high school texts should take care that they contain only science, and not the author's unsupportable philosophical agenda. (There's a tendency to get carried away here, which is a topic for another thread.)
Besides, it's not just scientists who do this kind of thing. All kinds of people make all kinds of unsupportable claims that go well outside of their areas of professional competence. Preachers do it too. Personally, I wish they'd stop telling us about economics and taxes and all that Great Society stuff. But it's precisely because all fields of learning have blowhards that we must learn to do our own thinking. Life just ain't easy.
[Wildly enthusiastic hugs!]
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.