Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The moral implications of evolution, and their discontents.
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 124 (439588)
12-09-2007 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Granny Magda
12-09-2007 6:48 AM


Re: I guess maybe I don't know the quality of a South African education.
Living in SA, I'm sure that attempts to describe black people as "un-evolved" are nothing new to you.
Actually, the apartheid regime in South Africa discouraged the teaching of evolution. Their racism, like racism here in North America, was based more on religious belief.

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Granny Magda, posted 12-09-2007 6:48 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 124 (439591)
12-09-2007 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Beretta
12-09-2007 5:37 AM


Re: I guess maybe I don't know the quality of a South African education.
Well because people tend to use evolution as a base for their racist tendencies....
Actually, that's not true. The number of people who use evolution as a justification for their racism has been a minority of racists. Racists have tended to use religious beliefs as a justification for their racism. In North America (as well as South Africa), racism has traditionally been based on interpretations of Christianity, not on an eisegesis of evolutionary theory.

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Beretta, posted 12-09-2007 5:37 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Beretta, posted 12-10-2007 9:54 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 93 of 124 (439603)
12-09-2007 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Beretta
12-09-2007 5:37 AM


Re: I guess maybe I don't know the quality of a South African education.
double post
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Beretta, posted 12-09-2007 5:37 AM Beretta has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 94 of 124 (439605)
12-09-2007 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Beretta
12-09-2007 5:37 AM


Re: I guess maybe I don't know the quality of a South African education.
Beretta,
Well because people tend to use evolution as a base for their racist tendencies - as if some people groups are not so 'evolved' Like when people used to shoot aboriginees to send their skulls to natural history museums as missing links.
Oh, right, the KKK were atheists, then?
everything scientific that goes against the evolutionary conclusions are left out in the textbooks -it's called 'deception by omission'.
Such as?
Provide scientific evidence that "goes against" the ToE. This is a strangely persistent creationist paranoia, a paranoia that not a single creo has managed to support. Maybe you can be the first, if not, then I expect you to retract your statement.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Beretta, posted 12-09-2007 5:37 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Beretta, posted 12-10-2007 9:39 AM mark24 has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 95 of 124 (439622)
12-09-2007 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Hyroglyphx
12-08-2007 2:53 PM


The false conclusion of spawning naturalism
It is my position that there are no moral, social, or philosophical implications to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is simply a description of observable phenomena, and the use of those phenomena to explain other observable phenomena.
Perhaps it should be, but there is no question that an entire philosophy of science spawned from it.
Presumably you mean that naturalism was spawned by evolution, seeing as your subtitle was "The inescapable conclusion of strict naturalism" which is not surprising, as many creationists try to portray the science of evolution as some evil thought process.
Let's see how this assertion holds up to the evidence of reality:
Naturalism
History
The ideas and assumptions of philosophical naturalism were first seen in the work's of the Ionian pre-Socratic philosophers. Particularly Thales, the man considered to be the father of science, as he was the first to give explanations of natural events without the use of supernatural causes. Jonathan Barnes's introduction to Early Greek Philosophy (Penguin) describes these early philosophers as subscribing to principles of empirical investigation that strikingly anticipate naturalism.
But the modern emphasis in methodological naturalism can be traced back more directly to the ideas of medieval scholastic thinkers during the Renaissance of the 12th century:
By the late Middle Ages the search for natural causes had come to typify the work of Christian natural philosophers. Although characteristically leaving the door open for the possibility of direct divine intervention, they frequently expressed contempt for soft-minded contemporaries who invoked miracles rather than searching for natural explanations. The University of Paris cleric Jean Buridan (a. 1295-ca. 1358), described as "perhaps the most brilliant arts master of the Middle Ages," contrasted the philosopher’s search for "appropriate natural causes" with the common folk’s erroneous habit of attributing unusual astronomical phenomena to the supernatural. In the fourteenth century the natural philosopher Nicole Oresme (ca. 1320-82), who went on to become a Roman Catholic bishop, admonished that, in discussing various marvels of nature, "there is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the last refuge of the weak, or demons, or to our glorious God as if He would produce these effects directly, more so than those effects whose causes we believe are well known to us."
Enthusiasm for the naturalistic study of nature picked up in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as more and more Christians turned their attention to discovering the so-called secondary causes that God employed in operating the world. The Italian Catholic Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), one of the foremost promoters of the new philosophy, insisted that nature "never violates the terms of the laws imposed upon her." [7]
Isaac Newton, when asked about the lack of mention of God in his works on physics, is said to have replied, "Hypotheses non fingo." ("I do not make hypotheses.") Similarly, Pierre Simon de Laplace, when asked about the lack of mention of God in his work on celestial mechanics, is said to have replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis."
During the Enlightenment, a number of philosophers including Francis Bacon and Voltaire outlined the philosophical justifications for removing appeal to supernatural forces from investigation of the natural world. Subsequent scientific revolutions would remove much of the remaining theistic baggage from scientific investigation culminating in the development of modern biology and geology which rejected a literal interpretation of the prevailing Christian origin beliefs. For four centuries scientific research has never had to fall back on supernatural explanations for any phenomena within the reach of experiment and theory, in spite of recurring claims that some particular phenomenon cannot have a scientific explanation. This is a powerful set of evidence in favor of naturalism as a scientific theory in its own right.
The term "methodological naturalism" for this approach is much more recent. According to Ronald Numbers, it was coined in 1983 by Paul de Vries, a Wheaton College philosopher. De Vries distinguished between what he called "methodological naturalism," a disciplinary method that says nothing about God's existence, and "metaphysical naturalism," which "denies the existence of a transcendent God."[8]
(Wikipedia, 2007)
In other words, it was started by the pre-Socratic greeks like Thales (620 - c. 546 B.C), then it was taken up by christians in the 12th century and also saw development during the “enlightenment” before the application of it to science in general led to the development of modern sciences, like biology and geology.
Nor does "methodological naturalism" by it's definition accomplish what you imply.
Looks like it's a typical creationist-got-it-all-wrong myth, Nem.
Naturalism Naturalism is any of several philosophical stances, typically those descended from materialism and pragmatism, that do not distinguish the supernatural (including strange entities like non-natural values, and universals as they are commonly conceived) from nature. Naturalism does not necessarily claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong, but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either nonexistent or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses. Some naturalists also insist that a legitimate distinction between supernatural entities and natural entities cannot be properly made (focusing on the conceptual distinction itself), and that when someone is talking or thinking about supernatural entities, they are actually referring to natural entities (though confusedly).
Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic.
Many modern philosophers of science[1][2] use the terms methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism to refer to the long standing convention in science of the scientific method, which makes the methodological assumption that observable effects in nature are best explainable only by natural causes, without reference to, or an assumption of, the existence or non-existence of supernatural notions. They contrast this with the approach known as ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism, which refers to the metaphysical belief that the natural world (including the universe) is all that exists, and therefore nothing supernatural exists.
This distinction between approaches to the philosophy of naturalism is made by philosophers supporting science and evolution in the creation-evolution controversy to counter the tendency of some proponents of Creationism or intelligent design to refer to methodological naturalism as scientific materialism or as methodological materialism and conflate it with metaphysical naturalism.[3] These proponents of creationism use this assertion to support their claim that modern science is atheistic, and contrast it with their preferred approach of a revived natural philosophy which welcomes supernatural explanations for natural phenomena and supports "theistic science" or pseudoscience.
(Wikipedia, 2007)
Yes it is just so evil to only use natural explanations for investigating only natural phenomena. The ideas been around for a while (more than 2600 years?), and you might want to try it sometime.
Now do you want to talk about evolution and what it says about racism?
See Message 25
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added quote

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-08-2007 2:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 96 of 124 (439756)
12-10-2007 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by mark24
12-09-2007 2:00 PM


Re: I guess maybe I don't know the quality of a South African education.
Provide scientific evidence that "goes against" the ToE. This is a strangely persistent creationist paranoia, a paranoia that not a single creo has managed to support.
Well maybe not on this site though I doubt it. The evidence against evolution is being presented all over the world at universities everywhere by ID and creationist proponents -I don't think you haven't heard it -perhaps your brain switches off at the point that they begin to present their case but it is out there nonetheless. Which thread would you like me to take it to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by mark24, posted 12-09-2007 2:00 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by AdminNosy, posted 12-10-2007 10:27 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 102 by mark24, posted 12-10-2007 10:28 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 103 by jar, posted 12-10-2007 10:33 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 12-10-2007 10:51 AM Beretta has not replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 97 of 124 (439757)
12-10-2007 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Beretta
12-09-2007 5:37 AM


Re: I guess maybe I don't know the quality of a South African education.
and all the classic icons of evolution are misrepresented
Finally maybe something we can work with. All is a lot...let's start with one. List ONE "classic icon of evolution" that is "misrepresented." And please clarify--misrepresented by whom? The scientific community? The media?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Beretta, posted 12-09-2007 5:37 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Beretta, posted 12-10-2007 10:20 AM JB1740 has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 98 of 124 (439758)
12-10-2007 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Chiroptera
12-09-2007 1:05 PM


Re: I guess maybe I don't know the quality of a South African education.
Racists have tended to use religious beliefs as a justification for their racism
Well Chiroptera I'll have to give you some points there -a lot of racism is based on perverting scripture for justification for hatred towards other races -but it is a perversion of Christianity since the Bible specifically says to 'love your neighbour as yourself' and so many other things that point in the same direction.
Some religions specifically exhort their followers to cut off the infidels heads if they refuse to convert (eg.Islam) so when they do that they are being true to their religious book -which is why it is obvious to me (and many others) that Allah and the Christian God are not one and the same. Think how much easier it is to justify genocide if you believe in survival of the fittest though. It sure gets a message across and if there is no God, then why worry.Hitler used the Roman Catholic church as a front to reassure his followers -he used to pose in front of the church but he was actually an evolutionist in thought and believed fully that some races were less evolved and on that basis he devised his hit list with the Jews at the top. They weren't people and didn't deserve to live according to him so he could use them like the less evolved animals he believed they were for experiments.
I suppose since the Roman Catholic church comes up for evolution that may say something for the connection -just a thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Chiroptera, posted 12-09-2007 1:05 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Chiroptera, posted 12-10-2007 11:04 AM Beretta has not replied
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2007 9:59 PM Beretta has not replied
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2007 7:56 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 99 of 124 (439763)
12-10-2007 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by JB1740
12-10-2007 9:50 AM


Re: I guess maybe I don't know the quality of a South African education.
Have to find another thread or I will be banished once again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by JB1740, posted 12-10-2007 9:50 AM JB1740 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by JB1740, posted 12-10-2007 10:21 AM Beretta has not replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 100 of 124 (439764)
12-10-2007 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Beretta
12-10-2007 10:20 AM


Re: I guess maybe I don't know the quality of a South African education.
Have to find another thread or I will be banished once again.
Yeah, as soon as I hit send I realized just how off topic that would become.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Beretta, posted 12-10-2007 10:20 AM Beretta has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 101 of 124 (439765)
12-10-2007 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Beretta
12-10-2007 9:39 AM


Beretta 2 hours
Well maybe not on this site though I doubt it. The evidence against evolution is being presented all over the world at universities everywhere by ID and creationist proponents -I don't think you haven't heard it -perhaps your brain switches off at the point that they begin to present their case but it is out there nonetheless. Which thread would you like me to take it to?
I'm only making this two hours since you said you would take it to a suggested thread.
Since we don't know what the evidence is we don't know what thread it should go to. This sounds like a stall.
You have a 2 hour suspension to figure out where to post it or to formulate an opening post. Do not bring up "evidence" again without explicitly posting it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Beretta, posted 12-10-2007 9:39 AM Beretta has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 102 of 124 (439767)
12-10-2007 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Beretta
12-10-2007 9:39 AM


Re: I guess maybe I don't know the quality of a South African education.
Beretta,
The evidence against evolution is being presented all over the world at universities everywhere by ID and creationist proponents -I don't think you haven't heard it -perhaps your brain switches off at the point that they begin to present their case but it is out there nonetheless. Which thread would you like me to take it to?
Start a thread titled "Scientific Evidence Against Evolution"
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Beretta, posted 12-10-2007 9:39 AM Beretta has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 103 of 124 (439770)
12-10-2007 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Beretta
12-10-2007 9:39 AM


Re: I guess maybe I don't know the quality of a South African education.
Remember though, evidence that disproves evolution does not add any weight to some other model. If you wish to support ID or Creationism you must present the model that supports those positions.
See How can "Creationism" be supported? for guidance.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Beretta, posted 12-10-2007 9:39 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 104 of 124 (439777)
12-10-2007 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Beretta
12-10-2007 9:39 AM


Re: I guess maybe I don't know the quality of a South African education.
Hi Beretta,
You're off-topic as you already seemed to realize, but I want to comment generally in the hope of putting discussion on a more constructive footing.
If you're going to debate here then it would help to confine yourself to saying things that are actually true. Creationists always claim that they are excluded by the bias of scientists from academia and from publishing their research results in mainstream journals, but here we see you claiming that "evidence against evolution is being presented all over the world at universities everywhere by ID and creationist proponents." This is contradictory and makes no sense. Are you guys excluded from research and academia, or are you part of it? Make up your minds.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Beretta, posted 12-10-2007 9:39 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 124 (439780)
12-10-2007 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Beretta
12-10-2007 9:54 AM


Racism and genocide.
Hi, Beretta. Sorry to see you suspended. But I'll respond to this and wait for your return.
Think how much easier it is to justify genocide if you believe in survival of the fittest though.
I don't see how. Is it the phrase "survival of the fittest" that bothers you? Darwin didn't like that phrase much, and it is a bit misleading. At any rate, it's pretty much a cartoon phrase that describes evolution like "things fall down" describes the theory of gravity. Not very precise, and it can be misleading.
-
[Hitler] was actually an evolutionist in thought and believed fully that some races were less evolved and on that basis he devised his hit list with the Jews at the top.
I'm not sure that this was true -- my understanding is that Nazism was mostly an eisegesis of Nietzsche combined with traditional European Christian antisemitism. Could you provide some verification of his evolutionary views? Even if he was an "evolutionist", did he use the theory of evolution as understood by scientists to justify his fascism? Can you provide something that would show what he understood evolution to be?
At any rate, all you are doing is repeating an earlier point. We both agreed that a racist can justify her racism with whatever explanatory framework that is available. A racist that is a fundamentalist Christian will use the Bible to justify racism; a racist that is more scientifically minded might justify it using her understanding of biology.
The question is whether racism comes naturally out of the theory of evolution. So far all you have done is say it does -- you haven't explain how it does at all.
-
...if there is no God, then why worry.
Not the subject of this thread. The question is whether the theory of evolution promotes racism or any other moral, philosophical, or social theory.

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Beretta, posted 12-10-2007 9:54 AM Beretta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by NosyNed, posted 12-10-2007 11:07 AM Chiroptera has replied
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 12-10-2007 1:39 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 111 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-10-2007 3:05 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024