Re: A scientific theory against God and morality


nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx kirjoitti:

So many "metaphores" right there in the most basic formulation of
Darwinism it's like religion, religion also has many metaphores.

So, language makes use of metaphors. Deal with it. You will come across
metaphors in religious literature, fiction, every day conversation,
evening news, everywhere you come across language. By the same logic,
religion is like fiction and fairytales are like evening news. What do
you make of that?

Actually it is you who is excluding very many scenario's from natural
selection, such as extinction,

No I didn't. Read again and this time try to understand.

and there are many more scenario's like
that, which suddenly aren't covered by Darwinist natural selection.

Like what? This is a strawman anyway, nobody claims that natural
selection can explain everything. Of course it doesn't. But it doesn't
mean natural selection isn't happening.

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.
What the heck is this supposed to mean? Define "the fittest" and "less
fit" and explain how it becomes the *most likely* outcome that the
fittest go extinct and the less fit are preserved. The way I see it, If
the "less fit" win out I'd conclude that they're the fittest.

Why is it not
said to be "succes" when the less fit win out huh?

In your usage success and survival fitness are contradictory concepts
but it's not what everyone else means when they speak about natural
selection.

The "success" interpretation is not a metaphore, it is just plain
wrong.

Your version is.

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.

Even if your claim were true, it would be irrelevant. Scientists may
hold political opinions that you and/or I don't agree with, but it
doesn't mean that they were wrong in their science or that their
science was responsible for those political opinions and therefore must
be evil. If we were to throw out the discoveries and theories of every
field of study that has ever had practitioners with nasty political
thoughts, we wouldn't have biology, physics, engineering, agronomy,
theology, chemistry, psychology. Goodbye computer science, goodbye
farming, goodbye wheels and fire.


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.

Don't say "we know" when you actually mean "I think". My common
knowledge and I dare say that most other people would agree with me
that emotions are not completely unpredictable and not always under the
control of free will. It's very difficult for a depressed person to
just will himself cheerful again, and you can't easily stop hating
someone and start to love him just by telling yourself that you want it
so. Say that an airplane comes down. I predict that people who lost
their relatives in the plane will feel shock and grief, maybe anger,
especially if they find out that the accident was due to carelessness
and neglicence of the airline people. When a child is born, most
parents will feel joy and love and want to protect the baby. Sounds
pretty predictable to me, and anyone who pays attention to the feelings
of his fellow-men will soon learn that people do tend to react somewhat
similarly in similar situations. Having even some rudimentary level of
this awareness (it's called social cognition) makes it much easier to
live with other people and to take them into account. It's also the
basis of empathy.

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.

Long before modern science and Darwinists, whoever they are, people
recognized that there are predictable patterns in human emotions and
acted accordingly. They knew that if they hit someone, that someone was
likely to get angry and avoided doing it if they didn't think they
could handle a fight or run away. They knew what they had to do if they
wanted to make someone like them. They recognized when their children
were fearful and knew what sort of things were likely to comfort them.
You don't need evolutionary psychology or Darwin to realize this.


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.

What has reproductive will to do with eugenics? Eugenics isn't
concerned with who wants to have the most children. If you wanted to
optimize reproductive will you'd make sure that everyone who wants
children has the opportunity to have lots of them, not sterilize people
or perform abortions.

This Darwinist reproductive will gives no
cause for ethical consideration of harm or violation of rights,

Biology isn't concerned with ethics and does not deal with human
rights. Neither do chemistry, physics or computer science. You can't
look at what is in the nature and tell from that what ought to be.
Moral decisions are important in our lives but they are not what
biology or geology are all about. Sorry.

in fact
this Darwinist reproductive will they see in individuals only
encourages Darwinist doctors in their striving for optimal fitness.

Whatever do you mean by optimal fitness this time? Earlier you said
that those who are the fittest go extinct, so do you now mean that
Darwinist doctors strive for the extinction of humankind?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New Evolution/ID debate thread
    ... > Admit that science is a religion, ... What is your definition of "Darwinism?" ... then support your assertion to a more exact definition. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Palestinians Under Attack
    ... with people who are already dedicated to their religion. ... Further on multiple GardenS of Eden, what better idea from science ... I agree that creationism should not be taught in science class. ... OR Darwinism is Intelligent Design. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Evolution of the Brain
    ... A religion provides the believer ... simply science doing what science does, but rather the revelation of a ... Most chose Darwinism because... ... detail how it was passed on from one high priest ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hitlers innumerable mentions of human evolution
    ... not Darwinism, in the sense of it's conjecture about choices, morality, ... or is not a defacto religion. ... So to say, if we want science not to become religion, we have to state ... emotions, spiritual things, values, etc. outside of science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hitlers innumerable mentions of human evolution
    ... not Darwinism, in the sense of it's conjecture about choices, morality, ... or is not a defacto religion. ... people like Hitler, ... So to say, if we want science not to become religion, we have to state ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast