Evolution: a red herring?

When I first read this I though you were raising the question of why an all-powerful creator would secrete (apparently false) evidence of evolution all around us.But instead when you talk about a hoax, it seems you are talking about some kind of hoax on the part of the scientific community - is that right?I guess its true that it might all be a hoax by scientists.I still don't know why no public-spirited soul hasn't studied to become a scientist, and having gained their confidence, revealed the fact that evolution and related disciplines is a hoax. Surely bringing down the whole edifice of post-enlightenment science would be worth the effort: humanity would forever be disabused of a false idea (and that's disregarding the fame and riches that individual would almost certainly be garlanded with).To be honest, I'd rather talk about my first reading of your post because I find it more interesting. Assuming that there is a divine creator, why do you think they left a lot of evidence that seemingly supports the idea of evolution through natural selection lying around, in the genetics and taxanomics of living species, and in the fossil record?Edited by Tusko, : No reason given.

It seems to me that you are making several claims. You claim, I think, that eugenics is a direct product of the theory of evolution. (You may also be making the wider claim that racism generally is a product of the TOE as well - I'm not sure.) You also claim that in education, TOE is treated as gospel, rather than as a theory.To address the first point - if ideas can in some way be judged negatively if appropriated by racists, then I think Christianity (for instance) has a much longer charge sheet than the TOE. After all, the bible has been used to support slavery, something that most of us now find pretty abhorent.You also claim that TOE is taught in a misleading way. I don't think it is - I think it is merely presented as the best scientific explanation of the evidence.

I didn't address what I saw as your main point when I initially read your post, so I will do so here.You seem to believe that TOE is not descriptive but ultimately prescriptive - that is, that people might be justified in drawing moral or philosophical lessons from what we observe in nature. I totally reject this on two grounds. Firstly, why should we take any lead from what we observe in nature? At best we can observe enlightened altruism, but it is generally ruthless and uncaring. What kind of a basis is that for a society? Secondly, we face the difficulty that whenever we look at nature for answers as to how to order our society, we must interpret. Our interpretations are largely the product of our own beliefs, so while TOE might, to 19th century colonialists and industrialists, have seemed to offer support to their widely shared racist and classist views,we thoroughly reject their racist and classist beliefs and so have no interest in using the TOE to support them. TOE, like any other idea, can be appropriated to offer support for philosophical or social views. The TOE, like any other idea, in itself, can bear no responsibility of the views of those who chose to co-opt it in this way.ABE: Perhaps it would make more sense if I put it like this: because evolution can be used to support contradictory moral and social beliefs (we could, for instance, use TOE to argue against our unenlightened 19th century friends that all men should be treated equal), then it cannot be said to have a specific moral colour.So when you say that TOE supports eugenics, I totally disagree. It has been used by those who support eugenics as a justification however.Does that distinction make sense?Edited by Tusko, : No reason given.Edited by Tusko, : ABE: bit

Ok.Are you saying that science would be more useful if it offered more than tentative conclusions, theories, and the like?In your opinion, how could science be improved?

I'm wondering why people would go to the bother of thinking out a scientific theory that could be used to justify racism, and then go to the bother of cunningly disseminating it through society when people are perfectly capable of being racist all by themselves.Surely it seems like a massive waste of time for any evil cabal bent on world domination? Its not like people in the 18th, 17th, 16th, 15th, 14th and indeed 13th and 12th centuries weren't horribly racist without the aid of Darwin and those who thought he'd hit on a really good idea. In fact, if they are aiming to promote racial discord, they are doing spectacularly badly. Why? because the idea that prejudice based on racial difference has only really been widely considered a Bad Idea, at least in the West, since the time of Darwin. How do you explain that? It would appear that these despicable folks aren't really very much to be afraid of - unless the anti-racism campaign is an even more subtle tool that they have fashioned themselves to achieve an even more diabolical end?Doesn't this kind of conspiracy look like a phenomenal waste of effort to you? To use a phrase that's probably incomprehensibly parochial - isn't this like sending coals to Newcastle?So enlighten me. Why is this worth someone's time and effort? What are they gaining? Maybe first I should be asking who they are, these "powers that be". I don't think that you are saying here that all crazy crackpot websites should be heeded. So how do i distinguish the crazy websites from the ones doing good science?Basically I'm hoping that you will throw caution to the wind and lay your position out pronto.

I have to go now - jsut wanted to reply to your two questions.ABE is added by edit - use the edit button on the bottom of your posts if you want to change something, but make a note of what you have changed/added for others to see that its a later addition.I don't know what digital effect you mean for the avatar. Perhaps you mean the difference between the original and the pixelated quality of the avatar as it is seen by posts? This isn't my doing - its the compression or reduction that the site perfoms to shrink images to an appropriate size.As for the rest of your post I'm a bit perplexed, to be honest.