Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3

Deadrat wrote:
> <nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1125488520.961836.31970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > It sure is a very strange way to say something does not imply a moral
> > imperative, by saying it is value-laden.
>
> *You're* saying it is value-laden. And you're the only one.

Well correct, Ariew and Matthen retracted the word, and John Wilkins
seems to say there is nothing at all "entirely inappropiate" about the
standard conception of natural selection.

> > But that is just utter nonsense of course.
>
> As is most of your discourse.
>
> > As before, there is no other rational explanation
> > to the word value-laden, your previous explanation of it referring to
> > circuity was false, as shown.
> >
> > You are the best human being?
> >
> > It implies a moral claim yes, especially since it's a result of a
> > mistakenly goalbased process.
>
> Best says nothing about my characters, only about my survival
> to reproduce.

But the Darwinist pseusoscientists say you're wrong, because your
inherent character is supposedly determined through this process.

> > The struggle / competition then becomes
> > conceived as the act of will that drives natural selection towards the
> > goal of optimal fitness, the mistakenly goalbased theory.
>
> Only in your tiny mind. The struggle is a metaphoric one. There
> is no conscious "will" behind it.

But I can remember these Darwinists who were absolutely convinced that
natural selection says organisms *want* to reproduce as much as
possible, and that this was not metaphoric at all.

<snip>

> > In any case Ariew and Matthen are still saying it is "entirely
> > inappropiate". Why it seems you are saying there's nothing much
> > inappropiate about it?
>
> Ariew says you misunderstood him. Stop relying on Ariew. He
> doesn't back you up.

Whatever, you have no clue whatsoever what Ariew means by "entirely
inappropiate", because of your communication with Ariew. The author is
fudging his own paper.

> > When so ever are you going to blame Darwinist scientists for
> > conceptualizing natural selection wrong for 150+ years, in stead of
> > just blaming people who interpreted natural selection according to
> > reasonable human understanding ?
>
> This sentence; no meaning.

It means wrong conceptions of natural selection result from mistakes in
the theory, which is the responsibility of the Darwinist discipline,
and less so results from people interpreting the theory without them
correcting the mistakes in it.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3
    ... > Ariew and Matthen retracted the word, ... >>> conceived as the act of will that drives natural selection towards the ... there are no more "Darwinists." ... > correcting the mistakes in it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3
    ... by saying it is value-laden. ... The struggle is a metaphoric one. ... > preserved by natural selection, the struggle for higher, and higher. ... Ariew says you misunderstood him. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3
    ... Because of your goodness. ... preserved by natural selection, the struggle for higher, and higher. ... In any case Ariew and Matthen are still saying it is "entirely ... inappropiate about it? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Scopes trial, an alternate view
    ... >Ariew and Matten wish to dispute whether natural selection, ... >alone, ...
    (sci.skeptic)
  • Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3
    ... but your conception of natural selection is still ... Ariew in an email exchange with me says you don't know what ... support you absurd notion of natural selection. ... >>> Starting from Darwins conception of natural selection as beneficial ...
    (talk.origins)