Creationist: Before you start debating evolutionists..

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
Socialists use the term "social darwinism" in order to spread their political agendas. Hitler actually used darwinism as a defense of Germans as the "master race".

---

First, let me say, I very much appreciate that you condemn those who attempt to saddle evolutionary theory with this despicable baggage. However, to say "socialists use the term social darwinism" is a bit misleading as it suggests the term is in current use in overt political thought - it was a late 19th century movement - and that it was primarily left wing, when in fact it was primarily espoused by free market capitalists. The following quote from Mary Midgely gives a concise background ...The unwillingness of many educated people to accept evolutionary concepts fully and apply them to Homo sapiens does not just flow from lack of information, which could be remedied by a good clear textbook. It flows from that early, widespread and deep-rooted bunch of misunderstandings of Darwin’s ideas, which is called (somewhat misleadingly) Social Darwinism. This consists in supposing that evolution endorses the simple social ethic of devil-take-the-hindmost. That ethic was in fact already provided with a theory long before Darwin wrote, as a spin-off from free-enterprise economics. But since the word fit can unfortunately mean deserving or suitable as well as healthy, Herbert Spencer’s concept of the ‘survival of the fittest’ seemed to slot admirably into this framework, and to supplement what had before been merely prudential advice by deriving it from a universal law of life. Darwin himself, though he accepted the phrase, rejected such applications. But Spencer had full confidence in them, and toured the United States giving the explicit scientific blessing of evolutionary theory to the wilder excesses of free-enterprise capitalism. The damage was deep and lasting. It remains to plague us today. And sociobiological thinking, especially in its Dawkinsian form, actually reinforces Social Darwinism, both by its language and by some of its substance.Mary Midgley rightly identifies that social darwinism as a school of thought has had its day, but its dangers are still to be found, lurking beneath the surface (often not very far beneath) in the genetic determinism which seems to greet every discovery of a new gene linked in some way to apparent behaviour.Fortunately this is a lively, often acrimonious, debate and many evolutionists and geneticists express their concerns. As a regular reader of magazine New Scientist in the UK, I well remember that few things led to a healthier crop of letters to the editor than the regular mini debates over this very issue. [b] [QUOTE]Silence in the face of these accusations (which have never been made by me because I know better) may be considered a subtle admission of complicity with these ideas.[/b][/QUOTE]The trouble is that those whose minds work this way - who see complicity in silence - will always find some other to throw mud at ideas they don't like.The churches, protestant and roman alike, are still trying to shake off their complicity in Nazi thinking and practice - even the outstanding examples of christian courage in the face of that oppression hardly lifts the cloud from the churches as a whole. But it would be a terrible thing if the teachings of Jesus were brought into disrepute by the weak-mindedness and inhumanity of so many of his soi-disant followers.In all such cases it requires not only those who hold the views being misused, but those of good faith who do not agree with them, to denounce the misuse. In many ways the latter is a better examplar and more compelling. If an evolutionist was to say that some despicable doctrine had nothing to do with the theory of evolution, many would think "well he would say that, wouldn't he?" But when an opponent of evolution, like yourself, is prepared to stand up and say that belief in evolution does not support belief in racism or discrimination, then that is most helpful move. Thank you for it.

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-13-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-13-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert:
... a person who is silent in the face of a crime is considered an accessory.

---

Surely not? An accessory is one who assist the perpetrator in committing a crime but dose not participate in the crime itself.Being silent in the face of wrongdoing is often to be condemned, but those who remain silent are hardly accessories.In the case of evolutionary biologists you're suggestion seems to be that they should condemn the misuse of their science. You will be aware that many leading evolutionary biologists to just that: Jones and Gould are eloquent in their frequent denunciation of racism and biological determinism. To expect every evolutionary biologist to do so explicitly is a great danger - to see this, one need only think of the communist and fascist regimes where scientists were required to endorse a specific set of socio-political doctrines and their application to science.Many evolutionary biologists are involved in research (on single celled organisms, for example) which have little application to the socio-political sphere. Of those evolutionary biologists who do touch on socio-political matters I have not come across the work of any contemporaries who do espouse anything remotely akin to "social darwinism." Do you know of any?Equally, do you know of any whose work engages socio-politcal issues who do not condemn socially discriminatory applications of darwinism when they do cross the path of their work? I would be genuinely interested to hear of it. [b] [QUOTE]Yassar Arafat ....[/b][/QUOTE]I really don't think we should even start that discussion on this forum. There are plenty of opportunities to discuss it elsewhere on the net. [b] [QUOTE]Another thought - Richard Dawkins in his book The Blind Watchmaker tries very hard to make an argument that random processes alone can account for the complexity of the universe rather than an intelligent designer.[/b][/QUOTE]He does not. Indeed, to say so is to reveal almost complete incomprehension of the positon the book advances. It is not random processes alone but constrained random processes which is a hugely different matter.[b] [QUOTE]In attempting to do this he writes a program which he entitles "Evolution".[/b][/QUOTE]A good, if naif, example of a constrained random process - in this case with a predetermined goal.It is important to bear this in mind, because they represent two separate phases of the process, and often in discussing one phase in detail there is no need to reference the other. Thus one may read passages, or pick quotes, which deal only with the mutations without dealing with the constraints. To take the example of your favourite equation, F=ma, there will be passages in any disussion of Newtonian mechanics which explain the nature of acceleration with no reference to mass. It's a danger, especially when reading the quotations of others, to think that excerpts represent the entire thesis. [b] [QUOTE]In reading Darwin's Origin of Species it seems to me that "improvement" is always uppermost in his mind. A less adapted species will die out - thus it will not evolve. Even a subtraction in its genetic code can be considered an "improvement" in the species if the subtraction actually helps the species to survive. Of course, this is all assuming that evolution is true.[/b][/QUOTE]"Improvement" relative to what, however? The point is that evolution is not goal-seeking. An animal which evolves the means to survive better in a warm climate is up the creek without a paddle if the environment changes quickly adn its "improvement" may well lead to its extinction.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"Improvement" relative to what, however? The point is that evolution is not goal-seeking."
I thought that this was the main flaw in Dawkins' argument (there was a goal).

---

Not the flaw in his argument, but certainly the flaw in his language. Unfortunately, as a popular science writer, and a kenspeckle controversialist, he uses words like "selfish" which imply motivation: at best they can be used as a restricted analog to mean something like 'self-replicating'. Indeed, I would venture that 'self-replicating' is about as far one can go in ascribing direction to evolutionary processes: even 'self-preserving' I think is a bit too strong, except insofar as one may say that a molecule with "default behaviour" to self-replicate is in a sense 'self-preserving.'Dawkins unfortunately goes over the top and uses language such as "tyranny of the selfish replicators" which can only mislead the less-than-fastidious reader into thinking of the processes so described as goal-directing.His scientific papers (thankfully) are scrupulous in avoiding such language.See Dawkins? See me? See "not impressed"?

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-16-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wallace:
It requires more faith from me to be an athiest than to believe in a creator.

---

Why? Are you an atheist? If so - how do you exercise your faith? If not, how do you know it requires faith?[B][QUOTE]Because of the infinite laws of the universe, after every theory we create, there must be another theory to explain it.[/B][/QUOTE]Why? What are infinite laws?
[B][QUOTE]One does not find a watch in a field and assume that it was always there.[/B][/QUOTE]The watch is a red herring, if you pardon the mixed metaphor. If you find a watch you know it is created because you know that every watch you have ever seen has been created. You know how to find out who the creator is. Wordswordsman tried to use this argument recently and - hilariously - used the example of a Seiko watch, with its creators name on it!Actually there are very many circumstances when we find things and have no idea if their forms were created or not - eoliths in archaeology for example.You asked us to ponder a paradox - can you clarify what the paradox is?