Can survival of the fittest accomodate morals?

For example, lions murder the cubs of other lions and then rape the lionesses when they take over a new pride, rape is common in Dolphins, yet all this is considered as a positive natural process in the eyes of biological science.

No, just as stuff that happens. No scientist believes that it is a moral good.

At this point your whole argument collapses.

---

It seems to me that you have a much bigger question to answer. You're a creationist, right? Very well then.

I attribute the behavior of lions to a blind, stupid, immoral process that knows nothing of good or evil.

But you attribute the behavior of lions to a God who is perfectly good and wise and who is love itself (1 John 4:8).

You have a problem there. I don't. I don't need to pretend that nature is moral. But you do --- or, at least, I shall be fascinated to hear your explanation of why it isn't.

Do tell me. You think that nature is the result of fiat creation by a perfect God. So why did he make dolphins rapists?

Your call.

Since homo sapiens follows a completely different moral code to the entire animal kingdom is it possible that humans fit outside the order of the rest of the animal kingdom?

I don't know if you've noticed --- perhaps you never read a newspaper --- but we humans also commit rape and infanticide.

If you want to say that we are "completely different", don't say that we're better than animals, rather say that we are worse. It was not a lion or a dolphin who devised the Holocaust. It was a human. (And, I might add, a theist and creationist). Has any mere animal ever done anything so thoroughly wicked?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Since rape, murder and poligamy is common in the animal kingdom and I dont know of any case in the animal world where biological science considers that any animal which uses either rape, murder or poligamy in order to pass on its genes unsuccessful. For example, lions murder the cubs of other lions and then rape the lionesses when they take over a new pride, rape is common in Dolphins, yet all this is considered as a positive natural process in the eyes of biological science.

There's a guy on these forums you ought to talk to. By a curious coincidence, his name is also Den, and he also comes from Australia. And here, he wrote:

You say Nature as stupid,wasteful and cruel? Thats just your perception of reality. Everything is perfect [...] Nothing is wasted in nature, nothing is wrong or imperfect [...] Nature in all its forms is perfect.

Now he really does thing that rape and infanticide are not merely "positive", but absolutely perfect in every respect. Funny thing is, though (this will surprise you) he's not a biologist. He's a creationist.

Perhaps you could challenge him to a debate. I'm sure the two of you must have a lot to talk about.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You are taking what I have said out of context, maybe I've failed to explain myself properly or perhaps you are just on an immature ego trip.

I provided the context --- I gave the link to your post.

But if I have misrepresented your ideas, then please feel free to explain yourself further. You wrote "Nature in all its forms is perfect". Now, please tell us. Does that include dolphins committing rape and lions committing infanticide, or doesn't it?

I even encountered a creationist on another site who screamed at me that the fact we have opposable thumbs was proof we aren't related to other primates! I asked him if he'd ever been to a zoo and gazed at the opposable thumbs, and big toes, of the chimps, monkeys, gorillas ......he went very silent.

It would be a pretty bizarre argument even if his premise was true. Evolution is not, after all, a process whereby things stay exactly the same ...

If when man departed from the plan of God nature also collapsed and if man's salvation is the salvation of nature also, is your above "problem" for the creationist still a problem ?

It's a problem for both his arguments as they stand.

Argument #1 is that nature is so gosh-darned perfect that we must attribute it to God. Now, it doesn't matter if you have some explanation of why nature isn't perfect: once you have conceded that it isn't, then this argument fails.

Argument #2 is that evolutionists must wish to imitate the worst imperfections of nature. Now, creationists feel under no such obligation even though they attribute these imperfections to God. So why should we evolutionists feel such an obligation when we attribute these imperfections to a cause which we do not think is particularly wise and just, and which we do not worship? The phrase a fortiori comes to mind.

Again, it doesn't matter if you have an explanation or excuse as to why nature isn't perfect, because your excuse attributes these imperfections to God. Now, if the creationist feels no obligation to imitate the works of God, whom he worships, how much less must the evolutionist feel an obligation to imitate the works of nature, which he does not worship.

---

But what I really object to is the combination of the two arguments. For together they rob the whole Genesis argument of any predictive power. Anything good in nature you can attribute to the wisdom of God in the initial creation; everything bad in nature you can attribute to the really-pissed-off-ness of God at the Fall. This leaves nothing at all that you can't explain one way or the other.

---

The moral question is perhaps not germane to this thread. But I can't help thinking about it. According to your doctrine of the Fall, we have to say that because a snake persuaded humans to eat a forbidden fruit ... God condemned female dolphins to be the victims of rape? And baby lions to be killed and eaten?

I have to think that if that is justice then I do not know good from evil and so should be exempt from the curse laid on those who ate the forbidden fruit. For in that case I have clearly not profited from their crime: I don't know right from wrong.

I will be weeding out concepts that I hold from concepts that you may have heard someone else express. Fair?

Not really.

I was criticizing a creationist for putting forward a bogus argument.

Then you criticized me for criticizing him.

And now you say that you don't agree with his argument, and that you won't defend it.

Well in that case you should be taking my side and not his.

As a biblicist for God to look upon His creation and pronounce it "very good" (Gen 1:31) does not demand that I recognize it as "perfect".

But you think that God is perfect, yes? And you think that it is his creation? So you have to think that there are no screw-ups in nature.

The paragraph establishes a dichotomy between creationist and evolutionist which I think may be false dichotomy as there are theistic evolutionists.

Obviously it is not a false dichotomy. A theistic evolutionist is an evolutionist.

If I'd set up a dichotomy between theists and evolutionists, that would have been a false dichotomy. But I didn't.

I think this "imperfection" in your concept necessitates no freedom of will for the creature.

I didn't say so, and as a matter of fact I believe in free will. My reasons for this are probably outside the scope of this thread, but I can assure you that I do.

You lose me when you speak of "obligation to imitate" the works of God. What do you mean by that ?

Well, whatever Den meant by his OP.

He seemed to be saying that since rape exists in nature, evolutionists should imitate it and be rapists. But this argument would hold no water even if we attributed dolphin rape to the works of God.

I can't make his argument any clearer than he made it himself.

As for being annoyed that one has an explanation for everything and anything ? Sounds to me like your standard hard core Evolutionist. Why are you annoyed at getting a taste of your own medicine?

But this is typical creationist nonsense.

I don't have an explanation for everything imaginable. Show me rabbits in the Cambrian, and I'll fold up and admit that everything I thought I knew about biology was wrong.

I just have an explanation for everything that actually exists. That's how I know I'm right. Evolution explains what is there, and could not possibly explain a million other scenarios.

But the problem with creationism is that you could explain every scenario. Whatever the universe was like, you could just say: "Well, it's that way because God wanted it to be that way ... for reasons that I can't explain because I'm not as wise as God." You could answer every exam question like this:

Q : Explain why phosphorus trichloride is polar.

A : Because God made it that way.

Before you become annoyed that this gives the creationist a way to explain everything, remember that you can and do exercise the same kind of speculation to explain Evolution as the only cause of nature's continuation.

But again, you are wrong.

I am tied down by the evidence. Morphology, the fossil record, genetics, embryology, biogeography, geology --- my beliefs are constrained by reality.

But yours aren't. Whatever the facts are, you can still say: "God did it ... by using his special God-magic ... for reasons that we as mere mortals cannot explain".

In this case the same principle that worked against me also works for me. By one man's sin all were constituted sinners. Yet in converse by one man's act of obedience all men can be justified and constituted righteous.

Yes, I know what your theology is.

My point is this.

You think that it is right and just for God to condemn dolphins to be raped as a punishment for a human eating a piece of fruit.

To me that seems so bizarre that if this is justice I clearly have no idea what justice is. If this is good, then I don't know good from evil.

In which case I am in the pre-Fall state. I'm like an infant in the womb. I have no idea what is just and what is unjust. The consequences of eating the forbidden fruit are clearly no part of my inheritance. I have no need of Christ as my saviour.

Maybe this theological point is so subtle and involved that we should start a new thread.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You speak here about what I "have to think". All I really "have to think" is that what is spoken in the revelation of His word is truth. And what I am told is that He looked upon His creation and pronounced it "very good" (Gen. 1:31). That is all I "have to think".

But I think that you are forced into certain positions.

You believe that God is perfect, yes?

And a perfect being would never screw anything up, yes?

And you believe that God is responsible for nature, yes?

So the consequence of these beliefs is that there are no screw-ups in nature.

When I look out at the probably millions of life forms and the variety of them all, it is hard for me to say "Evolution explain what is there". I am not too concerned for the millions of other scenarios hypothetically imagined. I am concerned about the millions of scenarios that I know exist.

I think you've missed my point.

The point is that evolution perfectly explain everything that actually exists.

Evolution would fail to explain a zillion sceanarios that we could imagine. But it works great for stuff that is actually true.

We have to count that as a big score for evolution.

To me gradualism is difficult to imagine as explaining everything. The fossil of any living thing found is no garuantee that the creature had any offspring at all. How do I know that animal was the ancestor to another ?

But no evolutionist claims that this is the case. You've just got confused.

And it most mutations are said to be destructive and harmful and the minority of lucky ones are helpful, why don't we see many fold more fossils of the harmfully effected organisms.

You seem to be saying that there are fewer screw-ups in the fossil record than there would be if evolution was true.

SHOW YOUR WORKING.

Oh, but you don't have any working. You just learned to recite this nonsense after reading it on some creationist website, but you have no reason whatsoever to think that it's actually true.

This is exactly why creationists disgust me.

But when you say Evolution explains everything we see, you are not being less presumptious ?

Yes, I'm being much less presumptuous.

An evolutionist trying to explain something has to provide an explanation, or admit that he doesn't know.

A creationist can just answer every question by saying "God did it by magic".

But these disciplines all work in their own areas of expertise. I think each does not necessarily know what is going on in the other discipline. The assumption that all together they all agree on major themes of Darwinism is exaggerated.

The word "bullshit" springs to mind.

Really, don't you see what you're doing here? Your fantasy is that although every scientist knows that you're wrong about everything in particular, nonetheless you see the "big picture" and they're all a bunch of fools.

You don't see a problem with that?

There is a lot of concepts in this charge that I do not agree with. For one it kind of insituates that God is a arbitrary despot, a tyrant bent on keeping "mere mortals" kept from their possibilities.

No, that's not at all what I'm saying.

And I've had to ignore quite a lot of your post for that reason. If you disagree with my opinion, then we can debate. If you can't even understand what my opinion is, then all I can do is feel sorry for you.

I didn't call anyone "fools".

I never said that you did.

Do you think that to charge that I called a lot of scientists "fools" strengthens your case ?

I didn't.

See what you're doing here ?

Having statements attributed to me which I did not in fact make.

Huntard said that whoever suggests that is an idiot. What would you say to him on that ?

I would say: "Huntard, I'm sure that you didn't deliberately misunderstand what I meant, because you are not a creationist and have no need to do so."

Quote me an example. I expect to see the word "magic" in the quotation.

Why in the world would you expect that? Creationists are notoriously coy on the subject of magic.

For 110 years this evidence contradicted the theory. Darwin was sure that future fossil discoveries would exhibit his gradualism. They didn't. A long, long, silence.

Until, two years after Darwin published, someone discovered Archaeopteryx, and proved him right. What a "long, long, silence", eh?

And then the evolutionist wish-fulfillment fantasy of Punctuated Equilibrium.

Ah, yes, the concept of punctuated equilibrium which Darwin enunciated in the Origin Of Species:

The period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change. --- Charles Darwin, On The Origin Of Species

The smaller isolated population defies mathematics and out-mutates the larger, unisolated population. Illogical, yes, but hey- it's all we've got.

This gibberish is ... well ... gibberish ... but it appears to refer back to stupid lies which you have already told on these forums and have already been proven false by reference to the facts.

And it's got to be better than a massive, conclusive, rock-solid, worldwide, disproof of Darwinian Gradualism. The theory backs this up? No. The theory, very nervously and with obvious embarrassment, attempts to accommodate this fact. And succeeds only in the mind of the most dogmatically resolute evolutionist.

You are a tiresome little person, aren't you? You have already posted this nonsense and failed and been proved wrong, and yet you'll drool out the same idiocy on yet this thread in a pathetic attempt to dirty another thread with your lies.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Assuming you paraphrased him accurately, I don't see the reason for your victory celebrations. Darwin was saying that the evidence for phyletic gradualism wasn't there.

No, he wasn't.

However, when he wrote the Origin Of Species, no such evidence has been found in the fossil record, and because, unlike you, he was an honest man, he admitted that.

Today, the evidence that has been found in the fossil record is such that you would have to be a fool, an ignoramus, or an imbecile to discount it --- or to put it more briefly, you'd have to be a creationist.

In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182) All at once and fully formed, Modulous. So Darwin's view, which "seems to be that the overall effect is constant gradual change but this could be achieved in fits and starts" is empirically wrong.

Oh, you're pretending that the quoted-out-of-context rhetoric of Stephen J. Gould proves that evolution is wrong.

Didn't you try this one before?

* yawns *

Yeah, you did, but let's quote Stephen J. Gould again:

We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)— reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. --- Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution As Fact And Theory

I want to argue that the "sudden" appearance of species in the fossil record and our failure to note subsequent evolutionary change within them is the proper prediction of evolutionary theory as we understand it. Evolution usually proceeds by speciation -- the splitting of one lineage from a parental stock -- not by the slow and steady transformation of these large parental stocks. --- Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin

In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record --- Stephen J. Gould, Evolution's Erratic Pace

You sad little man. You can only think of one real scientist who you can pretend said you were right, and he has said explicitly that you are wrong and Darwin was right, and that his whole point was that Darwin was right.

And what really makes you utterly contemptible is that this has already been explained to you --- so you are either a moron or a liar.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Having read Kaichos Man's ravings, I replied to them. However, having now read the title of the thread, I realize that his nonsense is off-topic.

Let me try to relate it to the topic. Kaichos Man is a fanatical creationist. And you have seen how he behaves.

So, is it possible for fanatical creationism to "accommodate morals"? He spews out falsehoods like he's a lie-factory. Would it be possible for someone to behave like him and be honest?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.