Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Commentary Thread: Cerebrum123 & Leonhard regarding Charles Darwin

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Commentary Thread: Cerebrum123 & Leonhard regarding Charles Darwin

    This is the place for those who want to remark on the posts made in the debate thread between Cerebrum123 and Leonhard regarding Charles Darwin.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  • #2
    As I've pointed out before, Alfred Russel Wallace conceived of the theory of evolution independently of Darwin, and would probably be the name most commonly attached to it if he'd more aggressively promoted his findings. And Wallace explicitly condemned eugenics. So in an alternative timeline in which Darwin's ship sank while sailing to the Galapagos, the founder of evolutionary theory would be known for his anti-eugenic stance, and the debate thread wouldn't even exist.
    Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

    I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

    Comment


    • #3
      Um, so what, SP? If the Muslims had succeeded in conquering Europe there probably wouldn't be a ToE anyway. So? Neither has anything to do with reality (a good thing in the latter case).

      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
        Um, so what, SP?
        So Cerebrum's complaints about eugenics being intrinsic to the theory are wrong as well as irrelevant.

        If the Muslims had succeeded in conquering Europe there probably wouldn't be a ToE anyway.
        I'm confident that their scientists would've conceived of and discovered it eventually. Logic and science would've eventually revealed it.
        Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

        I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by square_peg View Post
          So Cerebrum's complaints about eugenics being intrinsic to the theory are wrong as well as irrelevant.
          Er, no, that doesn't follow. the thread wouldn't exist because it's specific to Darwin and eugenics. That isn't at all the same thing as proving that the ToE doesn't ground the philosophy of eugenics which would be a specious claim.
          Originally posted by SP
          I'm confident that their scientists would've conceived of and discovered it eventually. Logic and science would've eventually revealed it.
          You don't know your history or current events very well. It's surprisingly difficult for science to advance when scientists have very real fears of being killed for their theories. Promoting a theory that calls the existence of God into question (which really ToE doesn't do - it's a fallacy to assume that knowing the mechanics precludes a Mechanic) is a really, really good way to end up very quickly dead in many Muslim nations - hence you don't see any Nobel laureates from Saudi Arabia for their work in evolutionary fields.

          And logic would have done no such thing. ToE is based on observational science - logic doesn't get you raw data. I suspect you are confusing logic with reason here - they aren't always interchangeable. Even so, reason would be on its own - few people wish to commit suicide over bird beaks.

          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

          My Personal Blog

          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
            If the Muslims had succeeded in conquering Europe there probably wouldn't be a ToE anyway.
            This assumes that all Muslim nations would be as universally hostile to research and progress as those are today. Culturally, most Muslim nations certainly are today but if the religion was more widespread I don't see a reason to definitively think this would be the case universally. Muslims did make a number of important scientific advances earlier in history, so who knows?

            But personally, I'm just glad it's all a moot point; that they did not succeed in conquering Europe.
            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by square_peg View Post
              So Cerebrum's complaints about eugenics being intrinsic to the theory are wrong as well as irrelevant.
              This is false. Just because the creator of a theory doesn't realise its implications doesn't mean those implications don't exist.
              "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

              There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                This is false. Just because the creator of a theory doesn't realise its implications doesn't mean those implications don't exist.
                That is true. I'm sure that Mendel never anticipated that his work on genetics would inspire so many of the most notorious eugenicists -- far more so than Darwin did (eugenics was reaching its peak toward the end of a period known as the "Eclipse of Darwinism").

                I'm sure that Pasteur and Koch never foresaw that Germ Theory would be cited by the Nazis as the scientific justification for things like the Holocaust.

                And I doubt that Newton ever predicted that his gravitational theories would be a cornerstone of modern ballistics resulting in millions of future deaths from firearms, artillery, rockets and missiles.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                  As I've pointed out before, Alfred Russel Wallace conceived of the theory of evolution independently of Darwin, and would probably be the name most commonly attached to it if he'd more aggressively promoted his findings. And Wallace explicitly condemned eugenics. So in an alternative timeline in which Darwin's ship sank while sailing to the Galapagos, the founder of evolutionary theory would be known for his anti-eugenic stance, and the debate thread wouldn't even exist.
                  Probably a much more important question is even if an unquestionable link from eugenics to evolution and Darwin could be established does it in any way invalidate evolution? Does it somehow make evolutionary theory incorrect?

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Wallace and Charles Darwin are credited with first coming up with the science of evolution. eugenics has been with humanity for all of the known history of humanity. The question is; 'What is the relationship between eugenics and the science of evolution today?'
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                      Um, so what, SP? If the Muslims had succeeded in conquering Europe there probably wouldn't be a ToE anyway. So? Neither has anything to do with reality (a good thing in the latter case).
                      I do not believe this is a valid assumption. Both Christianity and Islam in history before Charles Darwin and Wallace did not believe in evolution.
                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment

                      widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                      Working...
                      X