Links for the Creation/Evolution Controversy (not a debate topic)

While it is true that eugenics is about artificial selection, that alone does not prevent eugenics from being based on Darwin's observations and writings. Origin of species has a lot to say about artificial selection, and builds upon ideas observed about artificial selection to make statements about natural selection.Eugenics was once considered a progressive idea in the US and was not completely disavowed until late in the twentieth century. From the wikipedia article on the Eugenics in the US.

quote:

---

Eugenics was practised in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany[5] and U.S. programs provided much of the inspiration for the latter.[6][7][8] Stefan Khl has documented the consensus between Nazi race policies and those of eugenicists in other countries, including the United States, and points out that eugenicists understood Nazi policies and measures as the realization of their goals and demands

---

So what was the scientific basis for eugenics (if any?)

quote:

---

The American eugenics movement was rooted in the biological determinist ideas of Sir Francis Galton, which originated in the 1880s. Galton studied the upper classes of Britain, and arrived at the conclusion that their social positions were due to a superior genetic makeup.[11] Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution. They tended to believe in the genetic superiority of Nordic, Germanic and Anglo-Saxon peoples;

---

Now given the connections between Galton and Darwin, I think it would be foolish to deny the source of some of the ideas behind eugenics. On the other hand, there is little reason to blame Darwin for reporting truthful observations. Galton and his followers, or the other hand...

Here's a page I found on Cram Evolution Flashcards - Cram.com that gives all biology terms related to Evolution.

Brian Josephson, Welsh physicist and 1973 Nobel laureate discusses evolution, theistic evolution, intelligent design, and creationism
Evolution and God? | Closer to Truth

God, Gods, and Fairies
One of the strangest claims often made by purveyors and consumers of today’s popular atheism is that disbelief in God involves no particular positive philosophy of reality, much less any kind of religion or creed, but consists merely in neutral incredulity toward a certain kind of factual asseveration. This is not something the atheists of earlier ages would have been very likely to say, if only because they still lived in a culture whose every dimension (artistic, philosophical, ethical, social, cosmological) was shaped by a religious vision of the world. More to the point, it is an utterly nonsensical claimso nonsensical, in fact, that it is doubtful that those who make it can truly be considered atheists in any coherent sense.

This is jibberish - jumbled, confused thinking and newage babble.Atheism is a non-belief in god/s. That's it, nothing more.For some reason believers need to make it a really complicated thing invoving all sort of pseudo-philosophical bunk like this. Accept it.

Accept what?I dont think you are addressing the philosophical argument behind this article.Perhaps many believers do attempt to make it complicated, but you are dismissing a concept without providing any reason other than the simple idea that you don't embrace or accept it. Do you have any idea of the basic argument in this piece?

First, you cannot simply make the argument that you are merely ignoring something with no evidence. You are ignoring a philosophical assertion without providing a counter-philosophy.

​

quote:

---

To speak of God properlyin a way, that is, consonant with the teachings of orthodox Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Vedantic and Bhaktic Hinduism, Bah’, much of antique paganism, and so forthis to speak of the one infinite ground of all that is: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, uncreated, uncaused, perfectly transcendent of all things and for that very reason absolutely immanent to all things.

​

God so understood is neither some particular thing posed over against the created universe, in addition to it, nor is he the universe itself. He is not a being, at least not in the way that a tree, a clock, or a god is; he is not one more object in the inventory of things that are. He is the infinite wellspring of all that is, in whom all things live and move and have their being.

---

​

Do you believe that there is no infinite wellspring of all that is, in whom all things are quite literally defined? Of course, you do...you believe in human wisdom and assemblage of evidence and scientific methodology. All that the article is saying is that God=Reality. Would you be prepared to defend the idea that consciousness=reality, or would you argue only that matter and the behavior of matter (as observed through consciousness) = reality?

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

I wouldn't call the philosophy nonsense, but I would agree that in order to be classified as an atheist one has to have a deeper philosophy than simply I believe neither in God nor in the fairies at the bottom of my garden or Everyone today is a disbeliever in Thor or Zeus, but we simply believe in one god less!

That an atheist is simply someone that accepts that there is no god/s. That's it end. Nothing more. I am. I'm stating that the article is built on the false premise that there is some underlying philosophical notion in not believing in a fantasy god. There isn't. The concept that there is a counter-philosophy, is a believer's fallacy. There isn't. You see, you just can't understand or even contemplate the idea that there is nothing beyond what we have now. That's why this silly straw man keeps being built by believers about non-believers, the crudest version being that atheism is a belief system. That is not a replacement for 'infinite wellsprings' whatever they are. Nor is it a 'belief'; the scientific method is just a useful tool for properly understanding how stuff works. It saves us from wrongly making stuff up. Human knowledge is the sum of what we've learned - it's not a belief system. If you must make me believe in something, it's that people need to create their own mechanisms for the survival and well-being of our societies out of what we have here and now and prepare our children to do the same. How can god=reality if he doesn't exist? He's totally inaccessible even to those who believe in him.Discussions of what reality is are irrelevant to atheism and always end in semantics and a logical mess. Like this one.

Then you're just wrong. All you're doing is inflicting your own views on others - you simply don't get it. 'I don't believe in god' is atheism. Period.You imagine that a non-belief in god must leave a hole to that must be filled by a belief in something else. It doesn't. You can't get that can you?

What do you mean by "of course?"Because my answer to this question is: "No, I do not believe that there is an infinite wellspring of all that is, in whom all things are quite literally defined."Why should we "of course" believe in such a thing?I do believe in human wisdom existing, assemblage of evidence existing and scientific methodology existing.
I believe that each exist with their benefits, their limitations, and their errors.But I do not believe that any of them (or even all of them together) "quite literally define all things."
I think such an idea is nave. Yes, I understand that this is what the article says.
I simply do not see the article providing a reason why I should agree.
Without a reason to take it seriously, I simply do not agree that God = Reality. No.
Consciousness exists within reality, but consciousness is not equal to reality. Reality is reality. Again, no.
Matter exists within reality, but matter is not equal to reality. Reality is reality.Why can't Reality=Whatever Reality Is?
Why must it be dumbed down or stuffed into some other definition?
Reality is vast.
There is lots we know.
There is more we don't know.
There is some that, perhaps, we can't know.
It is what it is.
And it definitely is not any of these other suggestions.Why can't Reality = Reality?

Yet Christians keep telling us that a Christian is just one who has a personal relationship with Jesus. No deeper philosophy in that.Of course, then Christians go off into deeper theologies, most of which conflict with each other. Similarly, most atheists also have deeper philosophies, most of which don't agree with the deeper philosophies of other atheists. So what's your point?Here's a glimpse into mine. All theists have created their own gods. Even if some supreme supernatural entity does exist, not only are we incapable of determining that, but even if it were to communicate directly with one of us we are incapable of understanding it accurately. Therefore, theists have to create their own gods just to be able to talk about such ideas.I cannot believe in your made-up gods. I cannot put my faith in your misunderstandings about your made-up gods, especially when you insist that your made-up understandings are the absolute truth. We all have to work that out for ourselves and your own heresies would just get in my way (refer to the first quote in my signature).This topic is not a debate topic.

Why can't it just be an absence of philosophy?

Guys, NOT a debate thread. Propose it as a new topic if you want, there seems to be enough interest.

an example postNote that the book mentioned in the opening has since been published.

And another Naturalis Historia