|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Syamsu's Objection to Natural Selection... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Syamsu,
So you see it's not a question of abuse, people are free to derive morality from science if they wish Sure, it doesn't make it right, & it isn't sciences fault that people derive morality from a device that simply seeks to provide explanations. It is an inappropriate extension of science to do so. Do you think it's right that Hitler should exterminate a race on the basis of NS? If not, then you agree with me, non? Like I say, an inapropriate extension, & as Schraf points out, people generally just jump on the bandwagon to support ideas they already possess so they can claim their ideas are scientifically supported. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
The evidence that they get confused is by my own experience, which I see reflected in Hollywood movies and the like that talk about Natural Selection in passing. I hope you're not going to bring up that layman-professional scientist distinction again, since Darwinist professional scientists are among the worst for confusing it, like Konrad Lorenz.
Mendel wrote in the same timeperiod, and he wrote a lot differently then Darwin, so that argument is wrong also. There is more formalism now, but still the main influential works are proza, like Dawkins selfish gene, or Gould's books. Can you name me a single Darwinist paper which is regarded as influential within the science of Darwinism? You yourself suggested that racism comes from a biological instinct of xenophobia. That is what I mean by monopolizing morality. Children should then be taught to overcome this inborn xenophobia, etc. you can make an ethics teaching program from it that is basically indistinguishable from religion. Your last point is just invalidating basic biology, where this variation is not mentioned at all. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, my husband, and several of our frineds, are "real" research Psychologists, and accept the ToE, and none of them talk about any of this in their work, nor have they or I ever encountered anything like you describe in any professional work of any reputable scientist. Unless you would like to show me with citations the this alleged widespread attitude that you seem so certain exists among thousands and thousands of Psyuchologists and Biologists, and indeed all life sciences, then you probably aught to give it up. You have no evidence, Syamsu, that scientists regularly use the ToE in the social and political way you describe.
quote: It's not too clear???? I just said that "science doesn't ever proscribe morality. NEVER."
quote: As it has been explained to you at least one hundered times by now, current Evolutionary theory does not include all of the conversaitional, loos writings of Darwin. He wrote at a time before science was formalized and professionalized. His personal views are not part of current theory. Period. You will not find his comments on who to marry in current theory. You will not find any mention about states of morality in current theory. You will not find anything about killing inferiors in current theory. Show me that these things are prevelant in current evolutionary work, if you don't believe me.
quote: What the hell are you talking about? What is "human rights theology"? What kind of support was derived from gravitational theory to support any theology?
quote: Yes, people are free to derive morality from anything they like. The point I am trying to get you to understand is that no scientific theory, including the Theory of Evolution, contains within it any proscription for behavior or moral judgements. If people take moral messages away from a scientific theory, like you seem to have, then they have left the scientific arena completely. Science does not address morality, nor ethics, nor aesthetics.
quote: How is the descision someone makes about how to apply a non-moral, purely biological description in a moral way (a way which is unintended by the originatior) "forced" upon them?
quote: I have pointed out your misunderstanding of what Evolutionary Psychology is before, Syamsu, but you apparently did not absorb that information. http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/evpsychfaq.html (emphasis added)
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Well handily the majority of people aren't called upon to work in evolutionary biology, which is just as well if they are going to keep making subjective value judgements about the fitness of a flask of E. coli. You just seem to be reiterating the point that a lot of people misunderstand the implications of evolutionary theory.
It's not like Darwinists generally respect that there is some domain of religion and morality where they are not to enter into, on the contrary.
I think the instances of moralistic darwinist demagogues are sparse on the ground, certainly compared to the fact that there is someone in practically every church on the planet prepared to lay down the law about what is and what isn't moral. Certainly Darwinist will hold their own personal views on morality but it is by no means commonplace for them to preach about it, except perhaps on discusion boards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Many of the pinoneers in psychology were Social Darwinists, and they mixed the Social Darwinism with psychology. Anyway, your screechings have no value for further discussion.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Do you think it's right that Darwin in "Descent of Man" talks about belief in an all seeing and knowing being helping to lift morality higher in times past? Is that science?
Actually I think the rest of science is pretty dissatisfied with the standard of objectivity in Darwinism as well, not just creationists. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Well maybe Konrad Lorenz, Ernst Haeckel, and Charles Darwin were better left out of evolutionary biology as well then if you argue like that. Darwinist demagogues are commonplace.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: That's all I was really getting at.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: You can, but religions are amongst the most xenophobicsocial structures on the planet, and can be the basis for racism (like the anti-semitic nature of Nazism). Xenophobia is not about what is 'different' but what is 'foreign'(in the sense of not-of-one's-own-group rather than of a different nationality). quote: This is your opinion, and not necessarily actually there -- perhapsyou could elaborate with specific examples. I wasn't, by the way, going to mention laymen-professionaldistinctions, since we are discussing the effect of Darwinian evolutionary theory on the popular consciousness this would be inapproriate. quote: ToE is a part of basic biology -- and it talks about variationall the time. Mendel's work (ancient as it is) talks specifically aboutvariation and proposes mechanisms for it. Genetics is the study of genomes and mentions variation. You are avoiding the question -- again. One must conclude thatyou do not have an answer to it. quote: If by Darwinist you mean evolutionary then there are wholejournals dedictaed to evolutionary research!!!! Because you have not read them, doesn't mean they don'texist. I am beginning to beleive that you have not read much beyond popular press and antiquated texts. Darwin's work is important for the vision -- we all know it isprosaic and filter accordingly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Wow, three names, I'm impressed, that certainly seems like a monopoly to me and no mistake. What were Darwin's ten commandments again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Perhaps Syamsu could once and for all tell us what this 'basic biology' he keeps talking about is. It obviously doesn't include evolution, ecology, genetics or immunology. I guess it must be gross anatomy and physiology mostly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5621 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Ah so then evolutionary ethics teaching would be less xenophobic then the established religions? I think not, and I should only have to point to history of Social Darwinism to substantiate that there is no apparent reason to believe that.
Kevin McDonald up until recently was a respected evolutionary psychologist, who had some thesis about Judaism as a eugenic religion. He was respected until he testified on behalf of a holocaust denier about some things. People couldn't actually tell from his work if it was scientific or not, they had to have the added information that he testified for a holocaust denier, after which it was quickly dispatched as pseudoscience. The Fight Club has some mention of Natural Selection. Actually I should ask you what movie doesn't have an explicit or implicit mention of Darwinism. It's very common. I read on the evolutionary psychology website, among continuos denials that it proscribes morality, that the "folk" notions of selfishness, correspond with evolutionary psychologist notions of selfishness, but that evolutionary psycholigists concept of selfishness applies more broadly, also to hair, and arms and the like. I'm talking about a Darwinist paper that is influential which could replace the works of proza in providing fundamental understanding of Natural Selection. Again, variation is either not mentioned at all, or it is mentioned differently then Darwinist variation in basic biology about any organism. It's of course ludicrous that biologists should have to refer to variants all the time. They don't. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Hmmm why am I not surprised that Symansu's solid evidence for his position is the movie Fight Club? And do you take your ethics cues from Ace Ventura Pet Detective or Debbie Does Dallas?
quote: Can you substantiate this quote since you claim to know this for a fact? I mean some of us here are biologists and know hundreds of others and have never heard any of them stating anything remotely similar to your "standard definitions"...so please provide a list of a hundred or so biologists (that are actually alive now) and what they have to say about evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I never said that it would. I was simply refuting your claim thatreligous teachings were a means of eradicating racism. I'll point again to the God-fearing south of the good-ole US of A. Teach our children that differences don't matter much ininter-personal dealings and perhaps we'll get somewhere. quote: Never heard of him. Was it discounted on scientific or politicalgrounds though? quote: Once Upon a Time in The West, The Wild Bunch, The Public Enemy,The Roaring Twenties, The African Queen, Citizen Kane, Singin' in the Rain, The Wizard of Oz, Ben Hur, The Adventures of Robin Hood, Jumanji, Love and Death, Bananas, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, The General, Way Out West, The Tall T, The Searchers, El Dorado, Spider-man, Star Wars, The Greatest Story Ever Told, King of Kings, The Bible:In the Beginning, Quo Vadis, .... quote: That's because the branches of biology to which you are referringare looking for GENERAL relationships!!! They are deliberately filtering out variation to look at the norm. The question you are avoiding is: If natural selection is a description of nature how can onejustfy leaving out a part of that description? (At least when describing a relevant aspect of nature).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I think life would be somewhat different if we were to take our ethical queues from Debbie Does Dallas (also I doubt that there is
much mention of Darwinism in that particular work)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024