knowledge

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
So let me get this straight you make an arguement by authority, and what is more the only way this authority can argue its case is by misrepresenting mine (well ours I guess given that you reckon Nielsens are the same)...

---

we all make arguments from authority, you even admitted locke's influence on your thinking... there was no misrepresentation of nielsen, and i've seen no misrepresentation of your views... i quote you verbatim... if you don't mean to say a thing, say something else...

quote:

---

You (plural now) have yet to offer any evidence to show that objective morality exsists, you have yet to show that people cannot commit genocide etc if objective morality exsists, and if you argue, as I am sure you will, that people can disobey objective morality I fail to see the relevance of claiming that moral subjectivism leads to said distastefull attitudes....

---

now you're vastly misrepresenting what i said... there isn't even the semblance of my words there... people obviously *can* commit genocide in a world where objective standards of good and evil exist... it seems intuitively true that when a people believe a certain act is without moral significance, no matter how abhorrant it is in reality, they are less hesitant about committing the act

quote:

---

Why not? Do it if you want just don`t be surprised when I give you a RGK (Reet Good Kickin) if you do it around me...

---

but you'd have no right to give me an rgk, even if you could... for the heck of it, assume you can't... assume your attempt ends in failure... assume germany and japan won ww2... might makes right?

quote:

---

(Oh and there are various reasons that Mother Theresa is not the best person to contrast against Hitler, her intentions were certainly good but there are certain lines of evidence that demonstrate that she made the situation worse (staunch stance against contraception) and failed to use all of the resources at her disposal in an effective manner.)

---

she might not be the best example, but she'll suffice

quote:

---

As for the exsistence of God if you really feel like conceeding that then I won`t quibble too much but it ignores the possibility of a God who is not both omnibenevolent and omnipotent for one or even a malevolent God, you are constructing a false dichotomy where either your own omni(insert set of characteristics here) God exsists along with objective morality or neither do....

---

no, i'm giving a reason why objective morality exists... if God doesn't exist, if all there is is nature, you are correct... all things are reduced to opinion... the group with the most power can enforce its opinion, no matter what it is, and it'll be no better or worse than anyone else's

quote:

---

I could go out tommorow and hear a voice in my head that says its God and tells me to push old grannies out in front of traffic, its not my fault that society disagrees.....

---

i believe i already said that... yes you could, in your world, with or without the voice in the head... and you'd be just as correct as society... no right, no wrong, only opinion and the will and means to enforce it

[QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven (aka bud):
[B][QUOTE]no, it doesn't mean that[/B][/QUOTE]So would God be acting:a)Morally?or,b)Immorally?(from the viewpoint of a moral objectivist that is?)[/B][/QUOTE]i can't say... i lack the knowledge of God's ways, my God-given attributes are imperfect

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
i think i can agree with this, but i'd ask the same of others...

---

Ask what of others? I don't follow.

quote:

---

but there is a difference in the goals one has when some things are held to be true by both parties

---

It effects the types of arguments that would be accepted, but how does it effect the goals?

quote:

---

and should prevent each from dismissing intuitively logical statements simply because empirical data isn't forthcoming...

---

Except when those intuitively logical statements are not intuitively logical to one party or the other. That is the problem with intuitive truths. They are intuitive to whomever asserts them, but that is about as far as it goes.

quote:

---

i think we hold our beliefs so strongly that we aren't willing to *hear* another... we listen, meaning we understand the words and concepts, but we don't hear... again, i plead guilty to this myself...

---

It sounds to me like Plantinga is asserting that we ought to try to understand the other person's point of view. That is reasonable, but hardly earth-shaking.

quote:

---

i agree... my point was, if man is simply another animal, if man falls under darwinism, mental redardation (for example) would be wiped out forcefully...

---

But we aren't just another animal. We are a specific animal and we have specific traits. That makes the attack a straw man.

quote:

---

we can limit it to mental illness if you want, tho we both know i can give countless examples of physical defects that mankind would be better off without...

---

Mental illness? Many very famous and influential people have been severely mentally ill. Several mathmeticians for example. (This makes intuitive sense to me by the way. ) Cantor for one.No. I wouldn't list traits that should be expunged. My crystal ball ain't so crystal clear.

quote:

---

i define our natures as mirroring God's...

---

That scares me. It really does, given what things are written about God.

quote:

---

in fact, man goes out of his way to preserve life, even the weakest of lives, even lives that would be harmful to the gene pool

---

It is still survival. But the dynamics are different. This is what I was getting at with the cripple elephant vs. the crippled old lady.

quote:

---

that shouldn't be so in a naturalistic world, in an atheistic world...

---

Why? This is how we survive.

quote:

---

we're no different, that philosophy goes, than any other species, we have no more right to live than the cockroach... we have no more value than a spotted owl... mankind in general obviously disagrees with that, but why (given evolutionary theory)?

---

Because people don't like to think they are bags of meat. It is a harsh realization.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This is kind of a side note as this conversation loses me alot i don't know that i even understand what is goin on here. However i have seen it said that (so and so) is taking something on some authority. This is a moot point for either side on any subject. Now what I am about to say is not bashing science, merely using it as an example to what i'm saying. Any scientist today is taking alot on authority themselves, in that they use other scientists data and results. Now did this new scientist go back and re do all these experiments to ensure the data is valid, that their procedures are 100% efficient? No who has time for that they'd never get to anything new. So they are taking this information on authority. Can you prove to me these people existed and all, that the data they collected is acurate? No you take their very existance on the authority of someone else. Realize we are all taking things on the authority of others. I believe science to be a wonderful thing given to us by God. I think the credibility of science is shaky sometimes because of the hierarchy and money involved. Science has become more about keeping your funding than finding the truth. I'm off topic here just trying to point out that we all take alot on authority. Hope i don't distract the conversation. This is like i said a side note and you can come refute me if need be on the "why hate God thread" don't want to interfere and run a topic off course guys. Thanx ------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
However i have seen it said that (so and so) is taking something on some authority.

---

An appeal to authority is a form of argument that runs "Person X is an expert in SomeSubject. And Person X says This about SomeSubject. Therefore, This is true." What you'll notice is that there is no reference to anything other than what Person X said. Person X could be wrong, despite being an expert.Science does not rest on the opinions of scientists but on the data and analysis of the data. There is a difference. That data can be evaluated and re-evaluated. The conclusions can be retested. The arguments can be dissected and reworked. This is much different than saying that something is true because someone said so.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
However i have seen it said that (so and so) is taking something on some authority.

---

​

An appeal to authority is a form of argument that runs "Person X is an expert in SomeSubject. And Person X says This about SomeSubject. Therefore, This is true." What you'll notice is that there is no reference to anything other than what Person X said. Person X could be wrong, despite being an expert.

​

Science does not rest on the opinions of scientists but on the data and analysis of the data. There is a difference. That data can be evaluated and re-evaluated. The conclusions can be retested. The arguments can be dissected and reworked. This is much different than saying that something is true because someone said so.

​

---

ummm... yeah what he said... i was accused of doing that very thing, by someone who did that very thing... problem was, i wasn't basing an argument on an appeal to authority, i was simply quoting someone's answer to a stance taken by another which was identical to that of the accuser

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
i think i can agree with this, but i'd ask the same of others...

---

​

Ask what of others? I don't follow. [/quote]

​

this quote by you is what i was referencing: "Now, if it isn't truth that you are after but instead are looking to develop a propaganda campaign ..."

​

so i meant by the above, i'd ask others to seek truth without those propaganda motives you mentioned

quote:

---

quote:

---

but there is a difference in the goals one has when some things are held to be true by both parties

---

​

It effects the types of arguments that would be accepted, but how does it effect the goals?

---

​

the goals of the questioner... as you said above, is it truth they're after? and do they come at the question with an 'innocent until proven guilty' attitude?

quote:

---

quote:

---

and should prevent each from dismissing intuitively logical statements simply because empirical data isn't forthcoming...

---

​

Except when those intuitively logical statements are not intuitively logical to one party or the other. That is the problem with intuitive truths. They are intuitive to whomever asserts them, but that is about as far as it goes.

---

​

not always... again, it depends on the presuppositions held and how much we allow them to prevent us from "hearing"

quote:

---

quote:

---

i think we hold our beliefs so strongly that we aren't willing to *hear* another... we listen, meaning we understand the words and concepts, but we don't hear... again, i plead guilty to this myself...

---

​

It sounds to me like Plantinga is asserting that we ought to try to understand the other person's point of view. That is reasonable, but hardly earth-shaking.

---

​

it's more than that... it's a whole epistemology

quote:

---

quote:

---

i agree... my point was, if man is simply another animal, if man falls under darwinism, mental redardation (for example) would be wiped out forcefully...

---

​

But we aren't just another animal. We are a specific animal and we have specific traits. That makes the attack a straw man.

---

​

then this isn't the accepted norm of the materialist, the naturalist... strict darwinism, taken to its logical conclusion, is inherently racist...

quote:

---

quote:

---

we can limit it to mental illness if you want, tho we both know i can give countless examples of physical defects that mankind would be better off without...

---

​

Mental illness? Many very famous and influential people have been severely mentally ill. Several mathmeticians for example. (This makes intuitive sense to me by the way. ) Cantor for one.

---

​

i don't doubt it, but that fact in and of itself doesn't mean that darwinists would agree with preserving those lives

quote:

---

No. I wouldn't list traits that should be expunged. My crystal ball ain't so crystal clear.

---

​

egggzactly

quote:

---

quote:

---

i define our natures as mirroring God's...

---

​

That scares me. It really does, given what things are written about God.

---

​

again, this depends on the source and how much you trust him

quote:

---

quote:

---

in fact, man goes out of his way to preserve life, even the weakest of lives, even lives that would be harmful to the gene pool

---

​

It is still survival. But the dynamics are different. This is what I was getting at with the cripple elephant vs. the crippled old lady.

---

​

look john, i agree that we *do* the things you're saying... i'm only saying that if we adhere to evolutionary principles we *wouldn't* do them... if we believed, really believed, darwinism to be true we'd live it

quote:

---

quote:

---

that shouldn't be so in a naturalistic world, in an atheistic world...

---

​

Why? This is how we survive.

---

​

because it goes against the guiding principle of naturalism, survival of the fittest... your crippled elephant may have bred simply dandy elephant pups or cubs or whatever they're called had all the other elephants banded together and bought her a prosthesis, but that isn't darwinism [quote]

quote:

---

we're no different, that philosophy goes, than any other species, we have no more right to live than the cockroach... we have no more value than a spotted owl... mankind in general obviously disagrees with that, but why (given evolutionary theory)?

---

​

Because people don't like to think they are bags of meat. It is a harsh realization.[/B]

---

i agree we don't like that, with good reason... but in a strict darwinism, what we like or don't like isn't the point... if true, we're breeding our species out of existence

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
This is kind of a side note ~~snip~~ don't want to interfere and run a topic off course guys. Thanx

---

side note all you want, i enjoy reading your posts... and never think you're interfering... i would add that your point viz history, especially, is valid and germane... i've seen it argued that Jesus didn't exist, and there's far more historical data for him than most people who existed during that era

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
it's more than that... it's a whole epistemology

---

Sound like a whole lot made out of very little, a very popular pasttime among modern philosphers. I found some of Plantinga's papers online and really, I see nothing striking. He appears to be just another apologist.I did not find anything concerning this epistemology, however. So all I have is what you posted. How does 'assume everybody is right' translate into a whole epistemology?

quote:

---

then this isn't the accepted norm of the materialist, the naturalist... strict darwinism, taken to its logical conclusion, is inherently racist...

---

You are just reasserting your straw man. I'm not sure why you say this is not the accepted norm. I am also not sure why it matters.

quote:

---

i don't doubt it, but that fact in and of itself doesn't mean that darwinists would agree with preserving those lives

---

What "darwinists"? At best, you are talking about a small number of people yet speak as if there is a global conspiracy of millions. Another straw man.

quote:

---

again, this depends on the source and how much you trust him

---

I was thinking about the Bible.

quote:

---

look john, i agree that we *do* the things you're saying... i'm only saying that if we adhere to evolutionary principles we *wouldn't* do them... if we believed, really believed, darwinism to be true we'd live it

---

I have just put the whole process INTO an evolutionary perspective-- more of a cultural ecological perspective really, but close enough.In other words, I do not believe, and I have said why, that evolution demands the eugenics that you claim it does.Sort of a side note but evolution doesn't really demand anything. It isn't a compulsory process, just a description of the diversity of life.

quote:

---

because it goes against the guiding principle of naturalism, survival of the fittest...

---

Survival of the fittest is not the guiding principle of naturalism. Survival of the fittest is an almost colloquial term for natural selection/evolution. "Naturalism as a world view is based on the premise that knowledge about what exists and about how things work is best achieved through the sciences, not personal revelation or religious tradition" from Page not found | Naturalism.org

quote:

---

your crippled elephant may have bred simply dandy elephant pups or cubs or whatever they're called had all the other elephants banded together and bought her a prosthesis, but that isn't darwinism

---

But elephants can't band together and buy prosthesis. The argument is absurd on that alone. Remember when we were talking about how HUMANS adapt through culture? If elephants could do as you say, then perhaps they would, and it would be just as darwinistic as letting the lame elephant die.Evolution has no rules really. hmmm.... adaptive strategies are bound by no rules. Survival is survival whether via crippled animal deaths or old ladies passing along information or elephants wearing wooden legs.

quote:

---

i agree we don't like that, with good reason... but in a strict darwinism, what we like or don't like isn't the point... if true, we're breeding our species out of existence

---

You agreed with me that we don't know what traits will be useful in a hundred years. Remember the crystal ball? Yet for you to claim we are breeding our species to extinction is to claim that you do know what will and will not be useful in the future.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Okay i'm going on the assumption here that i'm half following what's going on. John you have stated that we just figured out what works, only humans came up with this idea of culture to defend themselves when evolution made them in danger? We were the only ones who figured out we should band in groups and defend at all costs any land, possesion or power we had, only to war with each other between the groups, and within the groups, And at our rate globally we are toast anyways. Either we'll just poison this planet to death to make some $ and gain some power. Or some power with $ is going to blow up half the planet and render the rest useless. This theory would project this course, history proves mankind never solves anything, we just blunder on making the same mistakes over and over. How many times do you think man has figured this time we've got it and sounded the victory trumpet and the wretched machine runs a few feet and breaks down again. (yet another little c.s lewis thing). How far can this wretched machine really go without going back to the dealership for repairs. You can keep on buying the cheap parts not made and installed by the dealer and keep on breaking down or you can go back to the dealership and get the whole thing fixed with quality parts and craftsmenship and have it all done on warranty. I gave up on the used parts yard.------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
it's more than that... it's a whole epistemology[/b][/quote]

​

Sound like a whole lot made out of very little, a very popular pasttime among modern philosphers. I found some of Plantinga's papers online and really, I see nothing striking. He appears to be just another apologist.

---

yeah well that's the problem with me trying to post a little here, a little there and expecting someone to put all the pieces together... he is a very respected philosopher who also happens to be a christian... his epistemology goes something like this:knowledge is true, warranted belief held by a properly functioning mind... now the way if differs from the epistemology of others (but not all) can be found in the difference between the words 'warrant' and 'justification'... quite a lot of philosophers believe that the two words are the same, and maybe they are, but most of them don't speak to the 'properly functioning mind' part... therein lies the differenceas for the evidentialist/anti-evidentialist thingy, plantinga's views are that rational discussion can be achieved much more easily when the ones discussing the issue grant the necessary conditions laid out in his epistemology, and when an "innocent until proven guilty" attitude is brought to the table.. all in all a rational, non-arbitrary approach that should appeal to those who are seeking to learn but will not appeal to those (and i admitted my guilt in this) who only want to propagate an agenda

quote:

---

then this isn't the accepted norm of the materialist, the naturalist... strict darwinism, taken to its logical conclusion, is inherently racist...

​

You are just reasserting your straw man. I'm not sure why you say this is not the accepted norm. I am also not sure why it matters.

---

it can't be a straw man by any stretch since that's exactly what i *thought* i was discussing...

quote:

---

i don't doubt it, but that fact in and of itself doesn't mean that darwinists would agree with preserving those lives

​

What "darwinists"? At best, you are talking about a small number of people yet speak as if there is a global conspiracy of millions. Another straw man.

---

how so? maybe i'm mistaken so why not just tell me the difference between a darwinist and an evolutionist

quote:

---

look john, i agree that we *do* the things you're saying... i'm only saying that if we adhere to evolutionary principles we *wouldn't* do them... if we believed, really believed, darwinism to be true we'd live it

​

I have just put the whole process INTO an evolutionary perspective-- more of a cultural ecological perspective really, but close enough.

​

In other words, I do not believe, and I have said why, that evolution demands the eugenics that you claim it does.

---

ok, i'll accept that you believe that and i'll accept your reasons for it, and i'll await your answer showing me your belief of the difference between darwinism and evolutionism... maybe therein lies the problem

quote:

---

because it goes against the guiding principle of naturalism, survival of the fittest...

​

Survival of the fittest is not the guiding principle of naturalism. Survival of the fittest is an almost colloquial term for natural selection/evolution.

---

what does "almost colloquial" mean in this context? and if survival of the fittest *does* fit within the evolutionist worldview, isn't that what i've been talking about all along? [quote] i agree we don't like that, with good reason... but in a strict darwinism, what we like or don't like isn't the point... if true, we're breeding our species out of existence[/B][/QUOTE]You agreed with me that we don't know what traits will be useful in a hundred years. Remember the crystal ball? Yet for you to claim we are breeding our species to extinction is to claim that you do know what will and will not be useful in the future.[/QUOTE]wait a sec, *i'm* not making that claim.. what i'm saying is, anyone who takes a darwinist 'survival of the fittest' view is making that claim...

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
his epistemology goes something like this:

---

I'm still not understanding what is special about his epistemology.

quote:

---

knowledge is true, warranted belief held by a properly functioning mind...

---

Innate ideas? And who decides what is a properly functioning mind?

quote:

---

now the way if differs from the epistemology of others (but not all) can be found in the difference between the words 'warrant' and 'justification'...

---

Which difference is what?

quote:

---

and when an "innocent until proven guilty" attitude is brought to the table..

---

Again, big deal? Practical maybe but big deal. This isn't epistemology, its cooperation.

quote:

---

all in all a rational, non-arbitrary approach that should appeal to those who are seeking to learn but will not appeal to those (and i admitted my guilt in this) who only want to propagate an agenda

---

Fine. It is How to Win Friends and Influence People all over again. That's it!

quote:

---

it can't be a straw man by any stretch since that's exactly what i *thought* i was discussing...

---

What I see as the straw man is the portrayal of evolution that started this discussion.

quote:

---

how so? maybe i'm mistaken so why not just tell me the difference between a darwinist and an evolutionist

---

Strictly speaking, a Darwinist would be someone who adheres to Darwin's theories of evolution. An evolutionist is a believer in evolution, which idea is currently associated with Darwin, though he didn't invent the idea. He only invented the version of it that current evolutionary theory is based upon. Darwin's evolution isn't the same as modern evolution. Science is progressive. The theory has changed in some significant ways. If you are talking about Darwin's theories, you are making a moot point. Strict Darwinism isn't the norm. For your objections to be valid you must equate modern evolution and Darwinism, but this creates a straw man-- a frankenstein monster. In other words, Darwin had a very simple model of evolution, essentially correct but over-simplified. Not bad for a first shot at it though. There are holes in Darwins theories and there are things that he didn't consider, and he made some questionable assertions. But this isn't modern evolutionary biology.

quote:

---

what does "almost colloquial" mean in this context?

---

It means that the phrase leads to some absurdly simplistic versions of how the process actually works. Not the least of these is the idea that 'fittest' is some sort of absolute quality.

quote:

---

and if survival of the fittest *does* fit within the evolutionist worldview, isn't that what i've been talking about all along?

---

It does fit, just not in the disgustingly over-simplified way used when talking, for example, of the master race some such trite.

quote:

---

wait a sec, *i'm* not making that claim.. what i'm saying is, anyone who takes a darwinist 'survival of the fittest' view is making that claim...

---

No, they are not. Anyone who proposes eugenics or racial purity is making the claim to know what is absolutely beneficial. Evolutionary biologists know better.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Innate ideas? And who decides what is a properly functioning mind?

---

i already spoke to this... no physical or mental deficiencies which might affect ones thought processes... as for who decides, heck i don't know... you, i guess, each of us individually

quote:

---

quote:

---

now the way if differs from the epistemology of others (but not all) can be found in the difference between the words 'warrant' and 'justification'...

---

​

Which difference is what?

---

warrant deals with proper function of the mind, justification deals with proofs (evidences) as to why a belief is held... iow, the difference is between saying knowledge is "true, warrnated belief" and "that which can be justified by evidence for or lack of evidence against"

quote:

---

Again, big deal? Practical maybe but big deal. This isn't epistemology, its cooperation.

---

it goes to the search for knowledge, however...

quote:

---

It means that the phrase leads to some absurdly simplistic versions of how the process actually works. Not the least of these is the idea that 'fittest' is some sort of absolute quality.

---

ok, from the modern evolutionist view, how would you define "survival of the fittest?" [quote]

quote:

---

[b]wait a sec, *i'm* not making that claim.. what i'm saying is, anyone who takes a darwinist 'survival of the fittest' view is making that claim...[/QUOTE]

​

No, they are not. Anyone who proposes eugenics or racial purity is making the claim to know what is absolutely beneficial. Evolutionary biologists know better.

---

ok, you're saying that darwinism isn't inherently racist... can you tell me how it isn't? maybe you can speak to the "holes" in it that modern evolutionary science has found

So now going by my last post (70) John, we see looking at history, our evidence that we never actually SOLVE any of our actual underlying problems. So then in actuallity we have not adapted to the better to preserve our existance, we have in essence merely prolonged our suffering, and sealed our doom. That's not evolving in the sense i understand the word to mean. That is dying, like the bible states, we, this planet are all dying. Not growing into something else but rather dying.------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
i already spoke to this... no physical or mental deficiencies which might affect ones thought processes... as for who decides, heck i don't know... you, i guess, each of us individually

---

Suppose one has mental or physical defects that effect thought processes? Someone like Cantor, or Nash? Yet these people made enormous contributions to mathematics.The individuals decide? Wow. This is phenomenally relative then? It doesn't seem like much of a base for anything.

quote:

---

warrant deals with proper function of the mind, justification deals with proofs (evidences) as to why a belief is held... iow, the difference is between saying knowledge is "true, warrnated belief" and "that which can be justified by evidence for or lack of evidence against"

---

So belief trumps evidence? A healthy person with no (obvious) mental problems is to be believed for no other reason than that the person is healthy? Sorry, I have known too many people to buy into that. Ever seen that bumper sticker... The more people I meet the more bullets I need?

quote:

---

it goes to the search for knowledge, however...

---

I don't see how, beyond the obvious consequence of mediating some prejudice.

quote:

---

ok, from the modern evolutionist view, how would you define "survival of the fittest?"

---

I seriously doubt it could be defined in terms of individuals, which is part of the problem I see with the colloquial usages of the term. The definitions have to be made at a population level, imho.It just isn't as simple as person A is stronger/smarter/faster than person B. Systems are much more complicated. Among the Pueblo(?) indians rates of albinism are higher than in other populations. Why? An albino cannot spend much time in the sun. The Pueblo were farmers. So albino men stayed home and did chores typically left to the women, and apparently did the women too. This coupled with the belief that having an albino child meant the father had magic in his blood-- father in this case being the mother's husband -- drove the rates up. Evolution in action, but it hardly fits the 'survival of the fittest' mythology.Among certain primates, studies have shown that the stronger and faster males who control the harems actually mate less than the weaker ones that sneak in a little on the side while the stronge male is defending the harem. I love the irony.

quote:

---

ok, you're saying that darwinism isn't inherently racist... can you tell me how it isn't? maybe you can speak to the "holes" in it that modern evolutionary science has found

---

Are you still equating Darwinism and evolution? Darwinism is a particular early form of the theory of evolution. I might be convinced-- might be, I am still undecided-- that strict Darwinism has some elements of racism in it. Darwin was a product of his time, and his time was pretty racist. But strict darwinism isn't the modern ToE and equating the two is missleading, if not downright deceptive.As for holes, well Darwin knew absolutely nothing about genetics for one. He had no idea how traits were passed along. He just inferred that they were passed along. So he consequently missed such things as genetic drift. He made some fabulous observation when formulating his theory, but 150 + years have passed and, frankly, I think evolution is weirder in its manifestations than he imagined.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com