Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: "nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx" <nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 9 Feb 2006 14:13:08 -0800
So many "metaphores" right there in the most basic formulation of
Darwinism it's like religion, religion also has many metaphores.
Actually it is you who is excluding very many scenario's from natural
selection, such as extinction, and there are many more scenario's like
that, which suddenly aren't covered by Darwinist natural selection.
That dramatically reduces the unity in our understanding of nature.
When the fittest go extinct, and the less fit are preserved, as is the
*most likely* outcome in common scenario's when there are relatively
very few fittest, it is not covered by natural selection. Why is it not
said to be "succes" when the less fit win out huh?
The "success" interpretation is not a metaphore, it is just plain
wrong. You can't say it's just a metaphore in the context of the
evidence of many a leading Darwinist advocating eugenics based on
Darwinism, such as Darwin, Spencer, Galton, Haeckel, Lorenz, almost
every Darwinist prior to the holocaust.
The role these "metaphores" play is in substituting free will with
reproductive will. That is also evident in evolutionary psychology,
where emotions are not the fundamentally unpredictable entities of free
will that we know them to be according to common knowledge, but are
actually very complex, but totally predictable mechanisms. Emotions,
yet another mystery solved by science through methodological
naturalism, but more actually, yet another area of free behaviour that
scientists, and especially Darwinists, deny.
So again, in making eugenic plans the scientists simply ignore free
will, which they don't have any hard science for, and only acknowledge
Darwinist reproductive will. This Darwinist reproductive will gives no
cause for ethical consideration of harm or violation of rights, in fact
this Darwinist reproductive will they see in individuals only
encourages Darwinist doctors in their striving for optimal fitness.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: neverbetter
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: David Canzi -- non-mailable
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: Joe Blow
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- References:
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: Mitchell Coffey
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: Robert Weldon
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: wf3h
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: wf3h
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: neverbetter
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: neverbetter
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: neverbetter
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- From: neverbetter
- Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- Prev by Date: Re: concise statement of basis for creationism
- Next by Date: Re: All Evidence is Subjective...
- Previous by thread: Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- Next by thread: Re: A scientific theory against God and morality
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|