Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3


<nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1126070169.075794.50470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<snip>

> Again you have replaced simple reproduction, with being better then the
> other, as the fundamental criterium in natural selection. A fundamental
> criterium of being better then, does much imply a moral imperative
> eventhough it is weird for organisms yes.

Not in natural selection. Better is a numerical consideration -- more
surviving to reproduce. It has nothing to do with good and evil, and
no scientist claims it does. *You* are the only one who is confused.

> As before it implies it of
> rocks, when rocks are said to struggle rolling down the hill the
> furthest, and the one's rolling down the hill most far are said to be
> the best.

Are you insane? Because if you are, then my confidence in your
ability to understand would be diminished. Nobody but *you*
would say that a rock that rolls the farthest is the best rock. And
if they did, what moral qualities could a rock have?

<snip>

> Dawkins, Darwin, Haeckel, all of them suffering from severe mental
> illness.

You're in charge of the asylum now?

The mental health of the proponents of an idea doesn't matter.
The idea stands or falls on evidence. The Best Rock theory
is nonsense independent of your mental state.

<snip>

> And
> after going round the circular logic a few hundred times, the social
> darwinist finds the escape from this circle in equating fitness with a
> moral goodness.

Add social darwinism to the list of things you don't understand.
The social darwinist equates fitness with social utility, nor moral
goodness.

>
> Is it not true then, that all organisms die, and that the shape of the
> next generation, if any, depends on which organisms reproduce? Is it
> not true that when a partially maladapted organism reproduces, nature
> selects a maladapted organism for reproduction? And when a well adapted
> organism does not reproduce, is it not true that nature selects against
> such well adapted organism?

Is it not true that you haven't started the necessary study of statistics?
You should, you know. Then you wouldn't be so confused.

<snip>

> Your inability to describe an organism in view of the event of it's
> reproduction, without comparing to variants, leads me to believe that.

Any sensible conversation about natural selection is about populations,
not individual organisms. Why don't you understand that?
<snip>

> Ah, you and they are simply dishonest to acknowledge that a value-laden
> goal may lead to a moral imperative. Lying is what it is, there's no
> other word for it. Even when there is a truckload of Darwinist racist
> pseudoscience, from some of the most influential Darwinist scientists,
> you bluntly deny any relation at all to a moral imperative.

I, for one, have acknowledged the errors of taking Darwinist thought
to the social sciences. But we're talking about biology.

> The errors
> are mostly on the part of Darwinist science, much as they whine about
> being misunderstood. We can justifiably say they share responsibility
> for the Columbine massacre, where a confused highschool student, who's
> notebook revealed an obsession with natural selection theory, went on a
> killing rampage.

Oh, not the parents, not the school officials, not the students themselves.
"Darwinist science"? That is pathetic. Also please give a cite for this
notebook obsession.

> It is science's responsibility to keep to it's own
> standard of a science free of valuejudgement. That standard includes
> that denial of values, denial of the spiritual as affecting the
> material, is out of bounds. You forget this when you assert
> purposelesness as some kind of scientific fact of nature.

Science by definition is free of the kind of value judgment you cite.
No one denies the effect of the spiritual on the life of human beings.
It's just not a subject for scientific study.

>
> And apart from the odd massacre, the number of people who become
> somewhat depressed upon reading Darwinism and have some spiritual
> crisis, is rather large.

I think you're making that up. Cite please? And even if it were true,
how would that affect the validity of the science?

> It's a common theme in Hollywood movies how
> depressing Darwinism makes everything seem.

What movies? And what difference to scientific validity does
Hollywood have?

> A review of Dawkins book by
> a reader that attests to the scientific accuracy of Dawkins
> pseudoscientific hypothesis of selfishness, but nevertheless complains
> of a spiritual crisis on account of the book, get's about 200+
> supporting votes. The phenomenon of the encroachment of science into
> the domain of religion is a real and broad, and the people responsible
> are generally the darwinists.

No it isn't. Name one instance of scientific "encroachment" into religion.

>
> Thank you for allowing me to believe that God exists. But now I wish
> still further to believe that God may if he so pleases turn out any
> decision of people, or any decision falling in nature, the way he sees
> fit. It would not be appropiate here to make ignorant argument about if
> or not it denies free will when God can influence the way a decision
> turns out. Your role here is as a scientist. And by that you simply
> have to drop your assertions of purposelesness someplace, which
> assertions belong to atheism.

The assertion is that purpose cannot be discerned by science. Science
isn't all that there is.

<snip>

> Why don't you study some creationist literature, to understand the
> appropiate meaning of choice, in stead of your grotesk metaphor of it
> in terms of natural selection, further mangled by evolutionary
> psychologists conceiving of emotions as mechanical.

Why study creationist literature? What is there besides Goddidit?
The word is "grotestque" by the way.

<snip>

> Relative numbers are not useful and deceptive when the population is in

You'll understand their use when you study some math. When are you
going to start?

<snip>

Deadrat

> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3
    ... > part of science, Darwinism is ideology, social darwinism = darwinism. ... I didn't say that the organisms themselves consciously put a value on ... > That this Darwinist practice of mixing valuestatements into science has ... prevent its reproduction with every means I have available. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Francis Collins: Atheist in sheeps clothing
    ... Yet, GTR and young earth beliefs are not compatible, Ray. ... I am an OEC because the Bible says the Earth is old; science ... That is the position of Darwinism and its takeover of Science since ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Reproductive Selection
    ... "Speciation" is what your original claim was supposed to be about. ... reproduction. ... to stick with the operational definition of reproductive compatibility ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: KT boundry event
    ... Robin Levett wrote: ... failed to convince the general public of the validity of Darwinism? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Bible and Homosexuality
    ... left-handedness does not DIRECTLY prevent reproduction. ... Why did you snip this, ... It is NOT a genetically transmissable trait. ... Under the Christian paradigm, we are born into a fallen world, with ...
    (soc.religion.christian)