Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Abusus usum non tollit

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

  • Abusus usum non tollit

    A particularly vociferous YEC started a thread on the evils of Social Darwinism with the clear implication that the theory of evolution was wrong by reason of its putative misappropriation.

    This particular YEC kicked me off his thread, so I thought we could try to have a reasonable discussion here on an uncensored one.

    Facts:

    1) How a scientific theory is applied culturally has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth value of the theory.

    This should be obvious to all but the most ignorant. It's like trying to refute Newton's Law of Gravitation by pointing out human defenestration or the strong nuclear force for the ability to destroy civilization via the hydrogen bomb.

    2) Since hardly any type of false reasoning is more transparent, why do anti-evolutionists use this dirty trick? What kind of blatant credulity would cause one to circumvent all reason so as to be influenced by this garbage? It blew me away that there two (or three) creationist posters that seemed to buy into the argument.

    3) Are there other examples of attempting to negate a scientific theory by pointing out (putative) misapplications to culture?

    Even the most vehement evolution-hater is free to post in this thread sans fear of censorship.

    K54

  • #2
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    A particularly vociferous YEC started a thread on the evils of Social Darwinism with the clear implication that the theory of evolution was wrong by reason of its putative misappropriation.

    This particular YEC kicked me off his thread, so I thought we could try to have a reasonable discussion here on an uncensored one.

    Facts:

    1) How a scientific theory is applied culturally has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth value of the theory.
    Well exactly. Think of all the millions of men, women and children killed over the past few hundred years, thanks to the application of Newton's theory. Think of the ten times the number of these, maimed and crippled for life. And think if the trillions of dollars of property damage done by the application of his theory.

    If you read a lot of the literature from AiG, you will see that creationists think that Newton is the pre-eminent creation scientist.

    Killer Newton, I say.

    As I pointed out to a certain YEC earlier, he's simply too blind to see the silliness of his argument. But hey, when you are as desperate as the YEC to make a sensible argument against ToE, you'll side with the devil himself and offer dimwitted stupidity under the pretence of a brilliant thought.

    Now, if instead, said YEC burried his head into creation science, and described their papers which deal with experimental systems for testing the plausibility of intelligent designers making organisms by speaking to dirt, then he might come across as more credible to reasonable people which includes mature, sober Christians.
    Last edited by rwatts; 08-21-2014, 02:52 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
      2) Since hardly any type of false reasoning is more transparent, why do anti-evolutionists use this dirty trick? What kind of blatant credulity would cause one to circumvent all reason so as to be influenced by this garbage? It blew me away that there two (or three) creationist posters that seemed to buy into the argument.
      It's implicit association.

      Remember GW Bush repeatedly mentioning Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence to foster the illusion that Iraq was connected with 9/11? It's the same technique, except that it's Darwin being falsely associated with atrocities rather than Iraq.

      Roy
      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

      mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

      Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
      Mountain Man: this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by klaus54 View Post

        This particular YEC kicked me off his thread, so I thought we could try to have a reasonable discussion here on an uncensored one.

        K54
        Are you EVER going to exhibit honesty?

        I stated the ground rules in the OP and I gave you a chance when you broke the rules. YOU disregarded both and so YOU, in essence, kicked yourself off the thread. I merely carried out the sentence that you pronounced upon yourself.

        Furthermore, you insinuate that I practice "censorship" when people do not agree with me. That is yet another instance of your dishonest reporting. I shan't dignify your accusation beyond saying that.

        In short, had you (or your amigo - Beagle Boy) written rational, scholarly, honest ... posts, then there may have been some benefit to everyone and I wouldn't have had any grounds to boot you off the thread. You brought it upon yourself ... man-up and live with it.

        Jorge

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
          ... man-up and live with it.

          Jorge
          No word on the Newtonian atrocities then Jorge? Other than a rant that is?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            Are you EVER going to exhibit honesty?

            I stated the ground rules in the OP and I gave you a chance when you broke the rules. YOU disregarded both and so YOU, in essence, kicked yourself off the thread. I merely carried out the sentence that you pronounced upon yourself.

            Furthermore, you insinuate that I practice "censorship" when people do not agree with me. That is yet another instance of your dishonest reporting. I shan't dignify your accusation beyond saying that.

            In short, had you (or your amigo - Beagle Boy) written rational, scholarly, honest ... posts, then there may have been some benefit to everyone and I wouldn't have had any grounds to boot you off the thread. You brought it upon yourself ... man-up and live with it.

            Jorge
            Yes. In this thread for sure.

            So, right here and now -- do you or do you not endorse this kind of argument?

            It's combination of equivocation of theory/fact with application and a form of ad hominem towards Darwin and other "evolutionists."

            We evolutionists could easily bring up numerous examples of slaughter and racism in the name of God. If I were you, I wouldn't go there.

            How about the Hamite curse which was used over the age as an excuse for racism?

            How do feel about the Crusades being (falsely!) applied as an attack on NT Christianity?

            Don't like those, huh?

            There's a term for what you do. Intellectual dishonesty.

            And even worse, you use the projection fallacy to forward this dishonesty.

            K54

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Roy View Post
              It's implicit association.

              Remember GW Bush repeatedly mentioning Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence to foster the illusion that Iraq was connected with 9/11? It's the same technique, except that it's Darwin being falsely associated with atrocities rather than Iraq.

              Roy
              Thanks, Roy.

              Yep, I forgot guilt by association.

              Oops! I guess that's the ad hom fallacy.

              In addition to being a fallacy, that sword cuts both ways and probably more applicable to Fundy Christians than "evolutionists".

              E.g., Anyone who knows anything about Chuck Darwin knows that he was a good man and a humanitarian, especially within the context of the time which he lived. OTOH, Jim Baker not so much...

              K54

              Comment


              • #8
                http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...yndrome-foetus

                The scientist Richard Dawkins has become embroiled in another Twitter row, claiming it would be “immoral” to carry on with a pregnancy if the mother knew the foetus had Down’s syndrome.

                The British author made the comment in response to another user who said she would be faced with “a real ethical dilemma” if she became pregnant and learned that the baby would be born with the disorder.

                Dawkins tweeted: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”
                Doesn't this makes sense from an evolutionary point of view? With other species the weak and infirmed die off, don't breed, and therefore are less likely to pollute the gene pool.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...yndrome-foetus



                  Doesn't this makes sense from an evolutionary point of view? With other species the weak and infirmed die off, don't breed, and therefore are less likely to pollute the gene pool.
                  Again, this has NOTHING to do with the truth value of the SCIENCE of biological evolution.

                  Why doesn't this SIMPLE fact sink in?

                  BTW, the Dawkinsian atheists are doing harm to the science by saying this kind of thing, i.e., applying a scientific notion to culture in an inhumane way.

                  Hell, you might as well blame H. habilis for inventing stone tools to make murder easier. (Actually you'd be blaming geologic processes over deep time for making that chert available! LOL)

                  Abus usum non tollit.

                  K54

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Doesn't this makes sense from an evolutionary point of view? With other species the weak and infirmed die off, don't breed, and therefore are less likely to pollute the gene pool.
                    Not necessarily. People with Downs syndrome are, I understand, capable of having children, and the condition is not always inherited. Nor are they necessarily physically weak or infirm. From a purely evolutionary point of view they may be less likely to compete successfully, survive and succeed in raising children, but* that is not necessarily a reason to remove their chance altogether.

                    Roy

                    *apart from the risks to the mother inherent in carrying to term
                    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                    Mountain Man: this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                      A particularly vociferous YEC started a thread on the evils of Social Darwinism with the clear implication that the theory of evolution was wrong by reason of its putative misappropriation.
                      One reply, and one reply only so I can get this out of my system. Then I'm unsubscribing from the thread.

                      This particular YEC kicked me off his thread, so I thought we could try to have a reasonable discussion here on an uncensored one.

                      Facts:

                      1) How a scientific theory is applied culturally has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth value of the theory.
                      Ah, way to miss the point entirely. This isn't about "abuse" of a "scientific theory", but the logical application of Charles Darwin's naturalistic philosophy/theology*. Strike one.

                      This should be obvious to all but the most ignorant. It's like trying to refute Newton's Law of Gravitation by pointing out human defenestration or the strong nuclear force for the ability to destroy civilization via the hydrogen bomb.
                      Guessing you meant Einstein and relativity, right? Doesn't matter anyway since your first point missed the mark by a few galaxies.

                      2) Since hardly any type of false reasoning is more transparent, why do anti-evolutionists use this dirty trick? What kind of blatant credulity would cause one to circumvent all reason so as to be influenced by this garbage? It blew me away that there two (or three) creationist posters that seemed to buy into the argument.
                      Since you are not describing the reasoning involved at all, this is a moot point. If anything, it's this description that's dishonest.

                      3) Are there other examples of attempting to negate a scientific theory by pointing out (putative) misapplications to culture?
                      Again, a complete misrepresentation of the argument. Oh, and btw, it's not only creationists who see the link between Darwin and eugenics/"Social"(more correct name would be "Applied")Darwinism. Here's a good example of an evolutionist who was able to connect the dots(and his writing helped me do the same). http://zthoughtcriminal.blogspot.com...Charles+Darwin Language warning for his blog. It's not part of the post, but he does have a link to a blog name that breaks TWeb Decorum.


                      Even the most vehement evolution-hater is free to post in this thread sans fear of censorship.

                      K54
                      At this point I would hate it even if I believed it were true. I now see what it really means to accept Darwinism, and it's not pretty. Since I can't find the quote I am looking for, I will just have to settle for G.K. Chesterton.

                      Source: G.K. Chesterton

                      ‘Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals … That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Again, this will be my first and only response, as I had to get this out of my system.

                      ETA:* Charles Darwin, and evolutionists ever since have used a lot of philosophical/theological arguments to justify the theory. In fact, Charles seems to have used more of those than of real science in his works.
                      Last edited by Cerebrum123; 08-21-2014, 10:46 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                        Ah, way to miss the point entirely. This isn't about "abuse" of a "scientific theory", but the logical application of Charles Darwin's naturalistic philosophy/theology*. Strike one.
                        It is about abuse of the theory. The ToE, like all other scientific theories, only describes what the outcome of a particular behaviour will be, it says nothing about how people should behave. Any attempt to use any scientific theory to justify behaviour is abusing that theory.

                        Roy
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                        Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        Mountain Man: this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I wondered how are YECs to do science at all. As I understand, science starts from the assumption that the universe evolves according to certain fixed rules that we call laws. In effect God's decisions or actions relative to the universe or any part thereof can be ignored ("assumed away") while doing science. I could see that would tick off creationists, but so far science has been signally successful. I do not believe the success means we can rule out God; I believe that God is pleased to let the universe evolve "naturally" for the great part; i.e., not many miracles.

                          What was Jorge's purpose in starting his thread, to persuade us that science is wrong? Or at least Darwinism? If pressed, I would concede that Darwinism should not be used to overrule Christian morality. But how could experiments with electromagnetic fields, for example, be generally harmful? My guess is that Jorge does accept science in general; indeed, consider his promise to come up with a like-wow definition of "information." But his efforts to overturn what he calls social Darwinism and thereby raise his brand of creationism is IMO pathetic.
                          The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                          [T]he truth Im after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                            I wondered how are YECs to do science at all. As I understand, science starts from the assumption that the universe evolves according to certain fixed rules that we call laws. In effect God's decisions or actions relative to the universe or any part thereof can be ignored ("assumed away") while doing science. I could see that would tick off creationists, but so far science has been signally successful. I do not believe the success means we can rule out God; I believe that God is pleased to let the universe evolve "naturally" for the great part; i.e., not many miracles.

                            What was Jorge's purpose in starting his thread, to persuade us that science is wrong? Or at least Darwinism? If pressed, I would concede that Darwinism should not be used to overrule Christian morality. But how could experiments with electromagnetic fields, for example, be generally harmful? My guess is that Jorge does accept science in general; indeed, consider his promise to come up with a like-wow definition of "information." But his efforts to overturn what he calls social Darwinism and thereby raise his brand of creationism is IMO pathetic.
                            If you and others here would simply THINK about what I've been posting here for over a decade - that there are two 'evolutions', one science and the other part of a religious metaphysic ... that these two are intermixed and sold as a single "scientific" theory - then you'd be able to connect the dots and everything would start making sense.

                            Instead you refuse to see or accept this reality. I cannot prevent you from that.

                            No, the science (of evolution) is not wrong ... allele frequencies in populations do indeed change over time and these changes are manifested in physical characteristics of the individuals within that population. I have never claimed otherwise.

                            But the ideology/metaphysic/paradigm of Evolution - THAT isn't science.

                            And the intermixing of evolution with Evolution - packaged as a single "scientific" theory - THAT gets used to explain and justify everything from soup to nuts. THAT is used (past, present and future) to "scientifically" justify wars, euthanasia, abortion, genocide, etc.

                            Anyone not agreeing with that can only be one of two things: (1) ignorant (i.e., unaware of the facts) or, (2) dishonest (i.e., (s)he is aware of these facts but does not accept them for self-serving, ulterior motives).

                            Jorge

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post

                              What was Jorge's purpose in starting his thread, to persuade us that science is wrong? .
                              Jorge is the forum jackass. He has to start at least one "make slurs about Darwin and insult all who respond" thread a week to keep up his core competency.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Juvenal, 11-30-2020, 04:47 PM
                              3 responses
                              39 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Terraceth  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-28-2020, 12:54 PM
                              4 responses
                              37 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-26-2020, 09:46 PM
                              0 responses
                              12 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by lee_merrill, 11-23-2020, 10:25 PM
                              5 responses
                              51 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Seeker
                              by Seeker
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              5 responses
                              74 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X