Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert
LifeSiteNews ^ | 2/17/12 | Kathleen Gilbert

Posted on 02/17/2012 4:17:50 PM PST by wagglebee

WASHINGTON, February 17, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - What do Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, “father of the sexual revolution” Alfred Kinsey, Lenin, and Hitler have in common?

All these pioneers of what some call the culture of death rooted their beliefs and actions in Darwinism - a little-known fact that one conservative leader says shouldn’t be ignored.

Hugh Owen of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation told an audience on Capitol Hill before the March for Life last month that the philosophical consequences of Darwinism has “totally destroyed many parts of our society.”

Owen pointed to Dr. Josef Mengele, who infamously experimented on Jews during the Holocaust, Hitler himself, and other Nazi leaders as devotees of Darwinism who saw Nazism and the extermination of peoples as nothing more than a way “to advance evolution.” Darwinism was also the “foundation” of Communist ideology in Russia through Vladimir Lenin, said Owen, who showed a photograph of the only decorative item found on Lenin’s desk: an ape sitting on a pile of books, including Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” and looking at a skull.

“Lenin sat at this desk and looked at this sculpture as he authorized the murder of millions of his fellow countrymen, because they stood in the way of evolutionary progress,” Owen said. He also said accounts from communist China report that the first lesson used by the new regime to indoctrinate religious Chinese citizens was “always the same: Darwin.”

In America, the fruit of Darwinism simply took the form of eugenics, the belief that the human race could be improved by controlling the breeding of a population.

Owen said that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a prominent eugenicist, promoted contraception on the principles of evolution. “She saw contraception as the sacrament of evolution, because with contraception we get rid of the less fit and we allow only the fit to breed,” he said. Sanger is well-known to have supported the spread of “birth control,” a term she coined, as “the process of weeding out the unfit.”

Alfred Kinsey, whose “experiments” in pedophilia, sadomasochism, and homosexuality opened wide the doors to sexual anarchy in the 20th century, also concluded from Darwinist principles that sexual deviations in humans were no more inappropriate than those found in the animal kingdom. Before beginning his sexual experiments, Kinsey, also a eugenicist, was a zoologist and author of a prominent biology textboook that promoted evolution.

Owen, a Roman Catholic, strongly rejected the notion that Christianity and the Biblical creation account could be reconciled with Darwinism. He recounted the story of his own father, who he said was brought up a devout Christian before losing his faith when exposed to Darwinism in college. He was to become the first ever Secretary General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

“The trajectory that led from Leeds and Manchester University to becoming Secretary General of one of the most evil organizations that’s ever existed on the face of the earth started with evolution,” said Owen.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: abortion; communism; cultureofdeath; darwinism; deatheaters; eugenics; fascism; gagdadbob; lifehate; moralabsolutes; onecosmosblog; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650651-669 last
To: betty boop; exDemMom; Alamo-Girl; Agamemnon; grey_whiskers; Mount Athos; metmom; GodGunsGuts; ...
exDemMom cannot answer questions like this, because the scientific method cannot engage them.

I know. That’s why I ask them.

. . . the reasoning goes, they really aren't valid questions at all, because the scientific method cannot engage them.

Isn’t that called self-referential exclusivity? Or have I just invented a term? (grin)

In any event, it’s a commonly observed phenomena. For instance, in Politics. A Black pontificates; no White may disagree; the White isn’t Black, therefore he has no knowledge of the Black Experience, and is disqualified from comment; any Black who disagrees is an Oreo, black only on the outside but white on the inside; a true Black, contrarily, possesses an all-encompassing experience that allows him to pontificate on all matters (so long as he remains true, a Progressive, in other words).

Thank you, betty, illuminating, as always.

651 posted on 04/19/2012 4:57:40 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS; exDemMom; Alamo-Girl; Agamemnon; grey_whiskers; Jeff Head; Mount Athos; metmom; ...
... the White isn’t Black, therefore he has no knowledge of the Black Experience, and is disqualified from comment.

Yeah, this is the identical "logical argument" lodged against Mrs. Romney: She has no right to mention a word to her husband about matters financial, fiscal, or economic — because, in the words of Bill Maher (and Hillary What's-Her-Name's), she "never got her *ss out of the house to do an honest day's work in her life." So, what could she possibly know about "money?"

Same "logic" involved in both cases.

So twisted, so very TWISTED. Indicating to me a total inversion of Reality....

When are We the People going to start complaining about this state of affairs? In a (hopefully) effective manner?

Whatever. It seems to me that Obama plans to be reelected on the basis of successful (rhetorical) promulgation of the mantras of class and racial division — as his Chicago-based (???) campaign defines such "divisions."

And so I very much like your neologism, "self-referential exclusivity." It seems to describe the situation which Obama must try to provoke in order to be successful in recruiting new people (against all logic and experience) to His (electoral, political) Cause.

First, he makes his "target" think of his own grievances; then he tries to make that person think/feel/believe that the source of his grievance, of his own personal suffering, is someone else. The "magical doctrine" reads: The source of your suffering is some rich white guy. [Who is probably also a Jew, in the turbid imaginations of the deranged persons responsible for such an interpretation of so-called "objective," historical "Reality"....]

If Obama succeeds in signing up a majority of such "cultivated" morons next November, then We the People of the Preamble are utterly doomed.

JMHO FWIW.

Meanwhile, it seems We the People of the United States are "fiddling" while our Constitution — the order of our free, just, and equal society — burns....

Thank you so much for your beautiful essay-post, dear brother in Christ!

652 posted on 04/19/2012 5:41:54 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
"Thank you so much for your beautiful essay-post, dear brother in Christ!"

And thank you for the comeback.

Your posts are always a blessing dearest sister in Christ.

653 posted on 04/19/2012 9:40:42 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 652 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; YHAOS; exDemMom; Alamo-Girl; Agamemnon; grey_whiskers; Jeff Head; Mount Athos; ...

“Whatever. It seems to me that Obama plans to be reelected on the basis of successful (rhetorical) promulgation of the mantras of class and racial division....”

Spirited: Obama’s magic successfully mesmerizes because it speaks to what his listeners really want to believe about themselves and others.

Broadly speaking, Obama’s listeners fall into two categories: self-righteous do-gooders and victims, the patients and/or clients of the do-gooders.

Do-gooders (commissars in the Soviet Union) really want to believe that with enough power and money they can save the planet, save their clients (victims of social injustice), and perfect man and society. As they are impervious to their own capacity for wrongdoing, like stiff-necked bulls in a china shop, they trample, smash, bankrupt, and cause great suffering on behalf of their clients, saving the planet, etc.

Since clients—the victims— want to believe that they are in no way responsible for their suffering, real or imagined, do-gooders enable and perpetuate feelings of victimhood in order to empower themselves.

As the relationship between magician, do-gooders and clients is parasitic (enabler/enabled) it turns society upside-down in order to thrive. The upside-down society is the “total inversion of Reality” betty boop referred to.

In an upside-down society the covetous (envy-filled souls)are enabled to believe that they’ve been wrongly denied the property (i.e., status,wealth, success) of another. “Other” is evil-doer rather than the covetous ones.

The violence-filled soul is enabled to believe that the object of its’ hate deserves not only to be hated but likewise deserves whatever violence befalls the object.

The lazy, slovenly, and indolent (i.e. Occupiers) are applauded and financially and legally empowered rather than condemned.

Pathological liars are enabled to believe that their lies are ‘personal truth claims’ deserving of respect and consideration.

And of course “gays” are enabled to believe that state-and-school-sanctioned sodomy, bestiality, lesbianism, pedophillia, and pederasty really are valid expressions of ‘normal love.’

The magician is really just a more powerful mirror image of his self-deluded listeners hence he knows their darkest desires. He knows what they want to believe and his job consists in enabling and empowering self-delusion and fomenting disordered passions.


654 posted on 04/20/2012 3:19:36 AM PDT by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 652 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish; YHAOS; metmom; Alamo-Girl
He knows what they want to believe and his job consists in enabling and empowering self-delusion and fomenting disordered passions.

By which means Obama means to transform citizens into helpless, hapless victims of an overweening state....

His pitch to, and manipulation of, human weaknesses is hardly an appeal to "the better angels of our nature."

He is deliberately trying to destroy the "human capital" which created and sustains our strong and prosperous nation.... The entire culture of Liberty must be expunged in order for Obama to achieve his goals.

We can't call Obama the Father of Lies, because that title belongs to someone else already. But he is a chronic, pathological liar: Anything he says, believe the opposite. His rhetoric and the reality of what he is actually doing never match up.

Kinda reminds me of an old TV commercial for a perfume: "Promise her anything, but give her Arpège."

Thank you so very much, dear spirited, for your deeply insightful and illuminating essay/post!

655 posted on 04/20/2012 8:49:53 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon
Makes you wonder what "peer reviewed" journals she's been placing her "faith" in doesn't it?

Even atheists have to live by faith (in their "peer reviewed" journals one supposes) -- a faith that demands that there is no God, and as internally contradictory as the Darwinism is that they use to affirm their faith ...

Why do you assume to know something about my faith? All you know is that I'm a scientist. That tells you nothing about my religious beliefs.

Like exDemMom, I too am a professional biochemist. Unlike her though I have advanced in my career to a place well-beyond simply mixing the buffers, prepping the samples, running the gels, taking the Polaroids, and creating "poster sessions" for coffee break discussions at scientific gatherings.

Hmm, how do you know where I am in my career? I just checked my home page; as I thought, it says nothing about my current career status.

And taking Polaroids? We stopped doing that while I was in grad school, sometime in the 90s.

I also, despite what you try to imply, am quite aware of the current status and reliability of scientific research. No scientific study is perfect; some are utter trash--but that topic, although I am passionate about it, is best left to another discussion. So is the issue of scientific misconduct, which is a topic I care about deeply.

One may observe that what ever they think they know about their biochemistry, they certainly don't rely on Darwin-speak to prop it up.

Within the scientific community, there is no real debate over whether evolution is a real process or not. And the fact that our language isn't peppered with the words "evolution" or "Darwin" is not an indication that the principles of evolution are not being used. They are. It is difficult to even envision how life science research could advance without taking into consideration the many implications of the theory of evolution, because it forms such a fundamental basis of our science.

It appears from your post that you work in a legal firm of some sort, dealing with patent issues. I do not expect someone whose primary exposure to scientific research is at the level of clinical trials to be aware of the evolutionary considerations that guided the research before it entered the clinical trial state. The purpose of clinical trials is not to advance scientific knowledge; it is to procure regulatory approval for a product.

656 posted on 04/21/2012 7:23:54 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: Agamemnon
Oops, I know I already replied to this one, but I forgot to address this last night.

One may observe that what ever they think they know about their biochemistry, they certainly don't rely on Darwin-speak to prop it up.

One might suspect that the reason for this is because they actually hope to get their projects funded, and to do so one will have to actually stick with observable, testable, reproducible science!

One would assume that those sitting on the review committees are fully aware of the evolutionary relationships being exploited/explored as the basis for whatever research proposal they are considering. Someone, for example, studying a disease in mice as a model for the human disease does not have to resort to "Darwin-speak" in order for the review committee to understand that they are, in fact, utilizing the established evolutionary relationship between humans and mice for their research.

As for supposedly not explicitly mentioning evolution in grant proposals--well, it actually is mentioned by name in many proposals; scientists discuss it routinely. I'd like to see a scientist who tries to deny the process of evolution and still manage to get funded. They might as well try to get funding for the study of fairies and elves--there is just as much of a scientific basis for that as there is for young earth creationism.

657 posted on 04/22/2012 5:26:09 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
Although you ( exDemMom) seem quick enough to assert the superiority of scientific knowledge over all of human experience, you’ve yet to explain what peer-review process, published in what scientific journal, has lead Mankind to conclude all men are created equal, that they are then endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, and that governments thereby derive their just power from the consent of the governed. These are questions that you seem unable to bring yourself to answer, while you continue to assert Science’s superiority and tout it as the only endeavour worthy of serious human pursuit.

I would ask, why do you expect science to function as a system of morality? How can describing a physical system (even in excruciating detail) inform one as to an ethical and moral way to live one's life? I have never said that science fulfils that role; why do you assume that I believe it does? On a larger scale, why do you assume that I believe that science is the "only endeavour worthy of serious human pursuit"? I do not recall ever saying or implying such a thing. In fact, much of my reason for engaging in these discussions is to try to get people to stop assuming that scientists hold such beliefs. I realize that most people don't know any scientists, and it is easy to dehumanize people one has never met--I'm here to say that we are just as human as anyone else; we don't form some dark conspiracy meant to devalue and discredit religion; our concerns in life are similar to the concerns of people in other professions. In short, I am trying to counter the outright lies that the charlatan promoters of young earth creationism (e.g. Gish, Bebe, Hovind) tell about members of my profession.

Nor have you yet explained what part of the formula E=mc2 impelled the Truman Administration to go into an extensive internal ethical debate before the decision was made to drop the bomb that ended WWII. Further, you have been reminded that there was no scientific reason to not simply drop the bomb without a moment’s hesitation beyond the technical considerations involved in the bomb’s effective delivery. What, then, caused the Truman Administration to hesitate? 
Although you seem more than willing to preach the standard doctrine about what’s “testable” and what’s “falsifiable” you appear to have no reply to that elementary inquiry.

As I have said above, and will continue to say, ethics and morality are not intrinsic to the scientific process. Science is a method used to measure and describe the physical world in as objective a manner as possible, no more and no less. What is to prevent someone like me from using scientific knowledge to create a killer disease capable of wiping out a large fraction of earth's population? Technically, it's not that difficult. I have a sense of morality that tells me it is wrong to try to kill millions of people, and it is that moral sense--not science--that keeps me from designing, even if merely as a thought experiment existing only on paper, a disease that could cause that kind of destruction. I would hope that the people being selected to enter PhD programs share my sense of values so that such a thing never occurs.

When reminded, you were quick to report that the Tuskegee Experiment had been terminated and that steps had been taken to assure that a repetition would not be allowed. Why? What breach of scientific process protocol or of scientific practice brought about the abrupt termination of that experiment? 
Again, no reply . . . just assurances that such mistakes will not be repeated. What mistakes? According to what peer-reviewed scientific publication?

Need I point out the history of Bad Things perpetrated by religious people? What about the Spanish Inquisition? The Crusades? The decades-long war in Ireland between Catholics and Protestants? Do I even need to mention Islam? Ethically questionable practices are not unique to science, and seem to be part of the "human condition." All we can do is try to develop and improve our sense of ethics and morality, and carry it with us no matter what activity we engage in.

658 posted on 04/22/2012 6:15:27 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Popper is the missing link: but we wouldn't EXPECT to find any direct evidence of him in the literature, anymore than we would necessarily find the changes in the funding/regulatory environment which drive paradigm shifts in the sciences, within the intellectual "fossil record" which is the peer-review literature.

Popper is the missing link of what, exactly?

I strongly suggest that, instead of trying to ascribe characteristics to a field that you do not know at all, you go and take a few introductory science classes. While you keep trying to assign to Popper a significance he does not have, you have yet to mention a single person who actually has impacted the field of life science in the way you imagine Popper has. People who are influential in science are actually discussed within the scientific literature. And that includes Obama and his policies--which you seem to think scientists are ignorant of, only because you know so little about the scientific community.

659 posted on 04/22/2012 6:26:38 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
exDemMom cannot answer questions like this, because the scientific method cannot engage them. And thus as the reasoning goes, they really aren't valid questions at all, because the scientific method cannot engage them. These sorts of questions only refer to epiphenomena, ad hoc "penumbras" that arise purposelessly from physical/mechanical/chemical processes. As such, being intangible by-products of real processes in Nature, they are not to be regarded as "real" in themselves. They are only shadows of the real, having no inherent significance in themselves worthy of note by scientists and other enlightened folks.

*Sigh*

I already answered this to YHAOS; I do not answer such questions from the basis of science because science is a methodology and a knowledge base, not an ethical/moral framework. I have never said that ethics and morals aren't important--they are. But they are imposed onto the scientific method, not derived from it.

660 posted on 04/22/2012 6:38:13 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
Agamemnon: “Makes you wonder what “peer reviewed” journals she’s been placing her “faith” in doesn’t it?”

Spirited: The differences between those on one hand who have actually done the hard work of digging into, unpacking, and analyzing the underlying meaning, logic, and purpose of philosophies, ideologies, and evolutionary scientism (what passes for ‘science’ these days) and those on the other hand who have not must not be understated.

The former seek truth, whether pleasant or unpleasant, while the latter most generally seek self-gratification, self-glorification, power, and/or entry to “inner circles.”

The latter affix labels to themselves such as Ph.d, scientist, and Progressive and sport them for the same reason as they wear designer label clothing, jewelry, etc.

Being high on conceit and hot-air but very low on real knowledge, they must pretend to know what they really do not know.

Excuse me, but what gives you or anyone else the right to claim you know what I believe?

Just because you know that I am a scientist doesn't mean you know ANYTHING else about me. You don't know my faith. You don't know my political leanings. You have no right to label me as a Progressive, an atheist, or an adherent of any other belief system. Nor is it moral of you to label any other scientist that way.

661 posted on 04/22/2012 6:47:19 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

I’m going to order some of Phillip Johnson’s books soon, just re-read “Darwin on Trial” which had one chapter or so on science and naturalism, being the default view. I’m sure you’ve read his books; I’ve only read DoT but these look good:

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&keywords=Naturalism&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3ANaturalism%2Cp_lbr_one_browse-bin%3APhillip%20E.%20Johnson&page=1


662 posted on 04/22/2012 6:59:21 AM PDT by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell. Signed, a fanatic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 647 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Popper is the missing link of what, exactly?

Among other things, your sarcasm meter. I was mimicking the structure of your earlier post to show by mocking example in another context, how the assertions therein were insufficient to support the conclusions.

The classic example of that form of argument can be summarized by the syllogism, "If that chair had an invisible cat in it, that chair would look empty. But the chair does in fact look empty; there is therefore an invisible cat in that chair."

("If punctuated equilibrium were true, we would find a dearth of apparent transitional forms in the fossil record. But there is in fact a paucity of observed transitional forms in the fossil record; the existence of punctuated equilibrium is therefore confirmed.")

And you are apparently frustrated to the point of ad hominem ("go and take a few introductory science classes"). I won't answer this either way, because I found that when someone is in the kind of mood to retort like that, anything said in response is used merely as grounds to further the attack.

People who are influential in science are actually discussed within the scientific literature. And that includes Obama and his policies--which you seem to think scientists are ignorant of, only because you know so little about the scientific community.

Apparently you misunderstood my comment, and from that jumped to the conclusion that I am ignorant about science.

The actual issue I was addressing, however, was not in that subculture of science consisting of the professors and governmental lab type researchers (and their students and post-docs) who reference one another's papers and prior results, and argue out interpretations in order to develop a consensus on the best model.

That is one form of influence, one of having developed a new area of inquiry, or begun or significantly impacted a model.

But there is an entirely different form of influence, one which is "upstream" of all of this, and it is invisible much as the water spots and dirt on a window are invisible: present all the time, but ignored as part of the sine qua non of much of modern science as we know and practice it.

People who are the MOST influential in science, and who are generally not discussed extensively (other than a perfunctory tip o' the hat at the end of the article), are those who FUND the research: the governmental, military, and other bureaucratic entities who provide the grant money.

'Tis much harder to publish without equipment, lab, or students; and for that you need cash.

See also "anthropogenic global warming" and the antics of the likes of Ben Santer or Michael Mann or James Hansen for more details.

Cheers!

663 posted on 04/22/2012 9:01:30 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 659 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; Agamemnon; spirited irish; YHAOS; betty boop; Alamo-Girl
Within the scientific community, there is no real debate over whether evolution is a real process or not.

See also "no true Scotsman" fallacy: and argument from authority -- (Heliobacter pylori).

And the fact that our language isn't peppered with the words "evolution" or "Darwin" is not an indication that the principles of evolution are not being used. They are.

Argumentum ad populi now. It could be, you know, that people use the buzzwords based on what they have come to mean in the popular press, which is far removed from the definitions of practitioners in the field; and that the populist usage is meant as a shortcut to real thought, merely to borrow the mantle of supposed intellect and wisdom (cf. "It's not rocket science" even while funding for the space shuttle is being cut, but private sector groups are preparing to fill the void. In that case, significant research is being done, but the esoteric quality is diminishing.)

It is difficult to even envision how life science research could advance without taking into consideration the many implications of the theory of evolution, because it forms such a fundamental basis of our science.

It'd be interesting to hear your examples, as I suspect they would go to the heart of one of the main bones of contention on crevo threads: that of supposed "merely natural selection" with the so-called "macroevolution".

The fracture plane in these discussions seems to be (at least on crevo threads here on FR) that pro-evo people engage in intellectual ad hominem dismissing pro-cre people as morons or worse, and unable to comprehend, let alone synthesize, the essential scientific components behind genetics, natural selection, and evolution; one of the examples used to bolster this is to make fun of the pro-creationists' request for examples of so-called "macro-evolution".

The irony in this, is that when the pro-evolutionists *are* pressed for examples of real uses of evolution within biology, the examples given are of natural selection within a population, and not of what would be called "macro-evolution".

I do not expect someone whose primary exposure to scientific research is at the level of clinical trials to be aware of the evolutionary considerations that guided the research before it entered the clinical trial state.

What "evolutionary considerations that guided the research"? Links or it didn't happen. /wondering if it will get more specific and reproducible than AGW or the 'utility' function in economics>

Cheers!

664 posted on 04/22/2012 9:19:20 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“Just because you know that I am a scientist doesn’t mean you know ANYTHING else about me”

Spirited: Faux moral outrage will get you nowhere. And as for not knowing anything about your inner workings and about what you imagine is true how can any of us not know when you’ve been determinedly broadcasting both?

” Nor is it moral of you to label any other scientist that way.”

Spirited: The invented ‘morality’ of autonomous natural-man is not moral law but rather arrogance and selfishness passed off as morality.


665 posted on 04/22/2012 11:42:38 AM PDT by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 661 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; Religion Moderator
I would ask, why do you expect science to function as a system of morality?

I don’t. But apparently you do. Or, more probably, you anticipate no need for any information beyond what is to be gleamed from a science textbook.

#553, this thread:
“Their [scientists] inclusion in an encyclopedia of philosophy does not make them philosophers. Most of the names on that list were scientists who used the scientific method--observation, logical deduction, formulation of testable hypotheses, experimentation, etc. Perhaps some of them engaged in philosophical thought meandering as a hobby, I don't know.
Thought meandering?
You seemed unsure for what Aristotle is remembered but you were suspicious that it was for “philosophical nonsense.”

#549, this thread:
You disavow any knowledge of philosophers, or of their work, and deny that they have any effect on your thoughts, or on the thoughts of your colleagues. “The scientific method was not developed by philosophers, but by scientists. Science and philosophy are, as far as I can tell, diametric opposites. Throughout undergraduate and graduate school, the subject of philosophy never came up.”

#520, this thread:
“I honestly do not expect the majority of scientists to be aware of the work of even major philosophers, even if those philosophers [referring to Popper, I assume] tried to phrase scientific methodology in the existentialist mumbo-jumbo language of philosophy. Philosophy (the discipline) is almost the antithesis of what science is all about: a very lot of thought exercises, which have no evidentiary basis whatsoever. I have no use for it.”

#506, this thread:
“We don’t delve into the existentialist nonsense that is typical of the subject philosophy.”

Need I point out the history of Bad Things perpetrated by religious people?

Changing the subject (trying to). Need I point out that the “Bad Things” perpetrated by religious people do not excuse the errors (“Bad Things”) of “science people” (re: the Tuskegee Experiment), and do not excuse what happens when “science people” dismiss philosophy as “existentialist nonsense”? It wasn’t Science that caused people to comprehend the horror of the Tuskegee Experiment. Pointing to other people’s dirty underwear doesn’t clean yours. You have declared that you have no use for anything but Science. I have presented examples illustrating this to be a foolish attitude.

Science is a method used to measure and describe the physical world in as objective a manner as possible, no more and no less.

“No more and no less.” In #508, this thread, I observed that you have declared science is so much more than “information gathering” (see #479 & #506, this thread), illustrating your point by describing an ever more sophisticated and elaborate method for gathering information. Admirable, laudatory even, but simply a more sophisticated and elaborate method of information gathering.

Now your remarks seem to indicate an attempt to walk it back a little. I rejoice in the change of your view, and that it more closely approaches mine.

Which leads me to again raise the issue; whence comes the ethics of science? Are there any ethics in science? Should there be (re: Tuskegee study)? I thought I caught a glimpse where you denied that an ethics of science existed, just before your post was removed by the Mod. In that case may I bother you, once again, for a reply? Or, was I mistaken?

I have a sense of morality

I’ve never doubted for a moment that you do. From whence did it come?

666 posted on 04/22/2012 4:10:33 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
“Just because you know that I am a scientist doesn’t mean you know ANYTHING else about me”

Spirited: Faux moral outrage will get you nowhere. And as for not knowing anything about your inner workings and about what you imagine is true how can any of us not know when you’ve been determinedly broadcasting both?

Really? What exactly have I "broadcasted"? You've projected a lot of insulting and degrading characteristics onto me that are not, in fact, supported by anything I have said. I suspect that if I were to do a little digging, I would find the origins of those insulting caricatures of scientists at some anti-science website like Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis.

” Nor is it moral of you to label any other scientist that way.”

Spirited: The invented ‘morality’ of autonomous natural-man is not moral law but rather arrogance and selfishness passed off as morality.

Where have I ever said that science is a system of morality? Can YOU look at a phylogenetic tree and derive from it a code of morality? Well, guess what. I can't, either.

Stop assuming that just because you know I'm a scientist that you know anything else about me, because you don't. The ninth commandment specifically forbids bearing false witness, i.e., lying about people. You might want to keep that in mind before you go around stereotyping scientists with the lies you've read about them at some literal creationism website.

667 posted on 04/29/2012 5:49:26 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 665 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
“I would ask, why do you expect science to function as a system of morality?”

I don’t. But apparently you do. Or, more probably, you anticipate no need for any information beyond what is to be gleamed from a science textbook.

Apparently? Where is the evidence? I don't think you can find any example of my stating that science is a system of morality. Or of my stating that science textbooks (which I rarely read, by the way) are the only source of information. Unless I have specifically stated something, don't assume I think it.

Thought meandering?

You seemed unsure for what Aristotle is remembered but you were suspicious that it was for “philosophical nonsense.”

Yes, thought meandering. Philosophical thought is only loosely related to logic and not at all based in empirical observation. It begins with a supposition that is fully a product of imagination, and then makes deductions about that supposition that are more-or-less logical extensions of the supposition. I have no use for it, and when I feel a need for fiction, I have a collection of fantasy books that are far more entertaining. I believe that philosophy was, in fact, an attempt at understanding the physical world--but it wasn't up to the task, and left people unsatisfied. The scientific method was developed because of the need for better explanations.

You disavow any knowledge of philosophers, or of their work, and deny that they have any effect on your thoughts, or on the thoughts of your colleagues.

“The scientific method was not developed by philosophers, but by scientists. Science and philosophy are, as far as I can tell, diametric opposites. Throughout undergraduate and graduate school, the subject of philosophy never came up.”

That's assuming a lot. While philosophy was not a subject we studied in the graduate biochemistry program, I am not unaware of it. If I were so completely unaware of philosophy, I wouldn't be able to express such distaste for it. I've had the misfortune of actually having to take a class in philosophy during high school. It clashed with my highly logical, literal, and rational thought processes.

”Need I point out the history of Bad Things perpetrated by religious people?”

Changing the subject (trying to). Need I point out that the “Bad Things” perpetrated by religious people do not excuse the errors (“Bad Things”) of “science people” (re: the Tuskegee Experiment), and do not excuse what happens when “science people” dismiss philosophy as “existentialist nonsense”? It wasn’t Science that caused people to comprehend the horror of the Tuskegee Experiment. Pointing to other people’s dirty underwear doesn’t clean yours. You have declared that you have no use for anything but Science. I have presented examples illustrating this to be a foolish attitude.

No, I was not doing the equivalent of PeeWee Herman's "I know you are, but what am I?" I was trying to point out that, no matter what the nature of the human effort is, whether it is religion, science, concern about the environment, entertainment, capitalism, etc., there are always evil people who use it for their own selfish purposes, regardless of how many others are injured or even killed. The fact that an evil person uses a specific human endeavor for evil purposes does not make the endeavor itself evil. Most human endeavors are moral-neutral.

“Science is a method used to measure and describe the physical world in as objective a manner as possible, no more and no less.”

“No more and no less.” In #508, this thread, I observed that you have declared science is so much more than “information gathering” (see #479 & #506, this thread), illustrating your point by describing an ever more sophisticated and elaborate method for gathering information. Admirable, laudatory even, but simply a more sophisticated and elaborate method of information gathering.

I think you are confusing two different concepts here. Science *is* a tool for describing the physical world. It cannot teach us about ethics, morality, how to improve society, etc. (Although the scientific method can be used to examine those questions...)

But acknowledging that the scientific method is an excellent tool for understanding the physical world around us, and that it is limited to that effort does NOT mean that it is nothing more than a "sophisticated and elaborate method of information gathering". No amount of information means anything without analysis. We don't know the structure of an atom because people gathered reams of information. We have, instead, a theory of atomic structure developed because people looked at the information and deduced that only a certain kind of structure could account for the observations. That methodology of taking observations and deducing from them processes that we cannot directly observe, and then making testable predictions based on what we think the processes are, is the heart of science. If you spend your whole life gathering information, and you fill up a warehouse of terabyte size disks with the information you gathered, you are still not engaging in science, because that information by itself is meaningless.

Now your remarks seem to indicate an attempt to walk it back a little. I rejoice in the change of your view, and that it more closely approaches mine.

Not at all. I've expressed consistent views here. My challenge here is finding a way to express those views in such a manner that they are not misinterpreted. People tend to read things that I didn't actually say or imply.

“I have a sense of morality”

I’ve never doubted for a moment that you do. From whence did it come?

Where does morality come from? I have not studied the question. I suspect that it is shaped by a number of factors--societal, familial, religion, etc.--and that some aspects of morality are not shaped by one's environment, but are hardwired into the brain. As an extreme example, psychopaths have no sense of morality as it affects other people; if they live within the law, it is because adhering to the law benefits them. There is evidence to support the view that psychopaths are born, not made.

668 posted on 04/29/2012 7:12:59 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
I don't think you can find any example of my stating that science is a system of morality.

Was not my primary inquiry.

Or of my stating that science textbooks (which I rarely read, by the way) are the only source of information.

Oh darn! Wrong again. Uhhh . . . peer reviewed science journals? A script from My Fair Lady? A paper on the phylogenetic relationships of strains of the papillomavirus? The novels of AA Fair?

That's assuming a lot. While philosophy was not a subject we studied in the graduate biochemistry program, I am not unaware of it.

I thought you said the subject never came up (Post #549, “Throughout undergraduate and graduate school, the subject of philosophy never came up..”) I guess you picked up a little on the side.

I was not doing the equivalent of PeeWee Herman's "I know you are, but what am I?" I was trying to point out that, no matter what the nature of the human effort is, whether it is religion, science, concern about the environment, entertainment, capitalism, etc., there are always evil people who use it for their own selfish purposes . . .

Calling Captain Obvious.

But acknowledging that the scientific method is an excellent tool for understanding the physical world around us, and that it is limited to that effort does NOT mean that it is nothing more than a "sophisticated and elaborate method of information gathering".

I stand corrected . . . it’s a sophisticated and elaborate method of information gathering and processing.

”God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

Courage to change the things I can,

And wisdom to know the difference.”
Existential nonsense? Or, thought meandering?

Where does morality come from? I have not studied the question.

Right . . . the subject never came up.

I suspect that it is shaped by a number of factors--societal, familial, religion, etc.--and that some aspects of morality are not shaped by one's environment, but are hardwired into the brain.

Right . . . but the subject never came up.

669 posted on 05/01/2012 7:50:03 PM PDT by YHAOS (you betcha!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 668 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 501-550551-600601-650651-669 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson