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

Holding their feet to the fire ...

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    And it doesn't matter to the science of evolution if Chuck WERE in favor of eugenics.
    What would be morally unacceptable about eugenics from an evolutionary or atheistic perspective? Especially in light of Richard Dawkins recent comments concerning unborn babies with Downs.
    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


    • #92
      Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
      Are you talking about the scientific theory of evolution, or are you talking about something else? If its the philosophy, put it in philosophy, if its the politics, put it in Civics, if its relationship to Christianity, put it in Apologetics 301.

      Since the question about whether or not animal species are undergoing evolution, and how this happens is a scientific question, and the answers have no imperatives, there's literally no point to be made at pointing at the consequences.

      Even if it led to child molestation, as long as it anything is true knowledge, Christians should acknowledge it as true.
      It's not a bright idea to step into a thread at the 80-posts stage and post things like that above. In a previous post (#67, I believe) I had written:

      " ... what [...] writes above neglects to mention what I have posted here time and time and time again. Evolution is not presented as ideology or philosophy or theology - Evolution is presented as pure science. That's why it's in this forum, Santa Klaus.

      My aim is to put a spotlight on this issue so as to hopefully make some of you here aware and alert to the deceptions taking place under the guise of "science". I say "some of you here" because I do not kid myself - I know full well that many people are beyond help, either because they have closed their minds tighter than a sealed drum or because they know what the score is but they have willingly chosen to believe the lie rather than the truth. Why? I believe that the primary reason (there are many reasons) is because this allows them to live as they wish rather than as they should (submitting to the truth)."


      That answers/silences your post, Leonhard.

      Jorge
      Last edited by Jorge; 09-02-2014, 02:41 PM.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
        Wanna have a dialogue about it in the Basketball Court? I won't derail this thread.
        Thank you, Leonhard. Method had me contemplating Hari kari (Seppuku).

        Jorge

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Roy View Post
          That's a poor excuse for not trying, and no excuse at all for not demonstrating to all those who aren't like that.
          Isn't that precisely what we would expect you to say? Yup, it sure is!


          I 'got it' decades ago. Roy
          Whatever it is that you think you "got", stay away from me - it could be contagious!

          Jorge

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
            And it doesn't matter to the science of evolution if Chuck WERE in favor of eugenics.

            Why can't Jorge and Company realize this simple truth?

            My only conclusion is profound intellectual dishonesty.

            Pure and simple...

            K54
            What part of "BOOTED OFF" are you not grasping? Could you use a tutor?

            Jorge

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              What would be morally unacceptable about eugenics from an evolutionary or atheistic perspective? Especially in light of Richard Dawkins recent comments concerning unborn babies with Downs.
              I admit I can't quite make sense of this question. Morality is ultimately a matter of personal preference, though we as a society do tend to reward preferences that benefit society, and punish those that society finds harmful. This has nothing to do with biology, and really nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of any number of gods. I suppose the preference of trying to breed healthier people conflicts with the goal of noninterference with other peoples' breeding choices. And while I come down in favor of noninterference, I am saddened by couples who knowingly breed one deformed or otherwise congenitally unhealthy child after another.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by phank View Post
                I suppose the preference of trying to breed healthier people conflicts with the goal of noninterference with other peoples' breeding choices. And while I come down in favor of noninterference, I am saddened by couples who knowingly breed one deformed or otherwise congenitally unhealthy child after another.
                Like the point Dawkins made about aborting the unborn child with Downs. I mean are not such children a drain on society and scarce resources? Can not many of them later reproduce and possibly pollute the gene pool? I don't see why most atheists would have a real moral problem with eugenics - based on what?
                Last edited by seer; 09-02-2014, 03:03 PM.
                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


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                  That much is clear Cerebrum, however its also very clear that Charles Darwin didn't hold to eugenics in any of his writings. His son is free to interpret what practical utilities you can have from the work, but that's a side point.



                  I did not, and I'm not sure he said anything like this. Degeneration to what?



                  This smells a bit like quote mining, we can find icky one liners from the Bible as well, hence the need to read the fulness of the work.



                  Again, where does he say that his father taught him the eugenics he's arguing about? He says clearly that he believes that Charles Darwin would have supported it, but it doesn't say that Charles Darwin did.



                  I've read a lot of his personal writings and I haven't come across this. He expresses quite a few opinions, and he has some wrong ideas about how traits are inherited, as he went along with Lamarckism, which was a mistake many scientists made back then.



                  My mistake.



                  We don't do argument by weblink on this forum. That's precisely the kind of thing I was worried you'd bring up. I might read it, but so far you haven't exactly sold me on the idea that Charles Darwin actively supported eugenics, or taught his son about it.



                  I can as well since Lamarckian genetics implies that when different races mate, something is lost. The white race can be tainted by other races, and once the taint is in it can't be removed only diluted. There was this fear that weaker races could mix their blood with ours and we'd lose the vitality the European race has built up through centuries. Remember in Lamarckian genetics, traits you inherit in life are passed on.

                  It was pure bonkers of course, but it would have to wait until Mendelian genetics took the place. Itself to be replaced later with even more sophisticated models of inheritance.



                  That may or may not be true, if it is, its tragic. However as I've yet to find a nazi who actually understood the theory of evolution, I'm not sure the theory itself should be blamed.



                  Its very ballsy of you, and not really all that gracious. You don't look like someone who really has a foot on what he's saying. Giving out a rhetorical fib like that is something typically done by people who aren't really sure what they're talking about, or who don't know enough to assess how little they know of a subject. You're free to do it, but I think its bad taste.



                  Our Lord wasn't exactly fond of hypocrites.



                  I got that.



                  This was quite a mouthful. Cerebrum I'm definitely not angry at you, or dismissive. I only saw a quote you gave which didn't really seem up to the task of painting Charles Darwin as a eugenics supporter. Lets say you show that he was, I'll do the following:

                  I'll admit it.

                  Even if Charles Darwin's character was completely obliterated, that he was dishonest, lying, committed serial fraud, scientific fraud and so on. It wouldn't touch the theory of evolution. All it would show is that Charles Darwin was a bad character. Martin Luther went nuts at times and was a huge anti-semite, some think that can be defended as him being a product of his times. Calvin, whom the Reformed venerate, said the Bible was to the be ultimate authority, however he attacked anyone who would dare open their mouth against him, as if they were attacking a bishop, or the entire Church's sanctity, even though those people were merely following the dictates of their conscience.

                  Sometimes a person is a product of their times. At one point a legally acceptable form of capitol punishment was immolation on a fire. So people who sentenced other people to this, and were the ones to light the fire... were they acting in an evil fashion? They might merely have understood that capitol punishment was justified sometimes (as I believe), and that it was deemed acceptable to do it by fire.

                  We can have these questions all day long. Some people sometimes rush in and quickly explain that Calvin was merely very anxious about the Bible being read correct (yes, his way, or the highway), at a time when these things were hotly contented and many things were at stake. Some say that Luther was merely dramatic in a way not uncommon and acceptable back then. We can discuss whether Darwin simple held various opinions on the subject as private mussings, and not as actually stated theories, or imperatives.

                  However its true that we need to read a person in their historical context. How much Darwin can be faulted, morally, for being wrong depends on what he knew.



                  In my experience it depends on the forum Cerebrum. I remember being an atheist and spending time on those forums, and we'd get creationists who made the most awful arguments. They'd stand up proudly and recite "Evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics." And then they'd make an analogous argument about order and disorder. Once you point out to them that the Earth isn't a closed system, they'd either handwave and talk about information (never getting back to their original point), or accuse atheists of 'trying to wriggle out'. They'd make long, long, long since debunked arguments, completely unaware of any posts about it.

                  At least any creationist should have read the Talk.Origin post on these things and be able to address the points there, but we didn't even get that. Eventually you just get tired of hearing it Cerebrum. Maybe you're different, I can't say, I choose to be open and nice.

                  Jorge is grating on my ears though, no offence to the owner of this thread.



                  You do that, thank you for walking the quote through me. Sorry if this got long and fractioned. Respond to any of it if you want. Take care Cerebrum.
                  Just a quick comment to make sure that I'm not being misrepresented (again!). My thesis in this thread was/is not about whether or not Darwin "favored, supported, taught, advocated ..." eugenics. Rather, my thesis was/is that 'Darwinism' (under any name or version), and especially a foundational Evolutionary Principle - "survival of the fittest" - that remains every bit as valid today as it did in 1859, has been and continues to be used as "scientific" justification for eugenics (as well as euthanasia, abortion, genocide, and a host of other social atrocities).

                  Just be sure to not misrepresent my actual position - commonplace around here.

                  Carry on ...

                  Jorge

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    What would be morally unacceptable about eugenics from an evolutionary or atheistic perspective? Especially in light of Richard Dawkins recent comments concerning unborn babies with Downs.
                    What would be morally unacceptable with the bombing of Hiroshima from a nuclear physics perspective?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                      Just a quick comment to make sure that I'm not being misrepresented (again!). My thesis in this thread was/is not about whether or not Darwin "favored, supported, taught, advocated ..." eugenics. Rather, my thesis was/is that 'Darwinism' (under any name or version), and especially a foundational Evolutionary Principle - "survival of the fittest" - that remains every bit as valid today as it did in 1859, has been and continues to be used as "scientific" justification for eugenics (as well as euthanasia, abortion, genocide, and a host of other social atrocities).

                      Just be sure to not misrepresent my actual position - commonplace around here.

                      Carry on ...

                      Jorge
                      Yet another creationist who can't understand an Is from an Ought. Just because the less fit tend to have fewer offspring (the Is) does not mean that we put in effort making sure they don't have offspring (the Ought).

                      You are so unimaginative that you probably think the equations defining the flight of a human body from a tall building is justification enough to toss someone from a tall building.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                        Thank you, Leonhard. Method had me contemplating Hari kari (Seppuku).

                        Jorge
                        切腹 (seppuku) being the course for a person who has so dishonoured himself that there is no other way to atone ... seems appropriate.
                        sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                          Wanna have a dialogue about it in the Basketball Court? I won't derail this thread.
                          The Is/Ought problem is entirely on topic since the "Evolution equals Eugenics" argument falls prey to the Is/Ought problem, also described as the Naturalistic fallacy.

                          It's not like I am the only one saying it.

                          "Creationists have often maintained that social Darwinism—leading to policies designed to make the weak perish—is a logical consequence of "Darwinism" (the theory of natural selection in biology). Biologists and historians have stated that this is a naturalistic fallacy, since the theory of natural selection is merely intended as a description of a biological phenomenon and should not be taken to imply that this phenomenon is good or that it ought to be used as a moral guide in human society."
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by phank View Post
                            I admit I can't quite make sense of this question.
                            Seems clear enough to me. But then, I'm not Phankestein.

                            Morality is ultimately a matter of personal preference
                            WOW! Spoken like a true, red-and-cold-blooded Atheist!



                            , though we as a society do tend to reward preferences that benefit society, and punish those that society finds harmful. This has nothing to do with biology, and really nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of any number of gods. I suppose the preference of trying to breed healthier people conflicts with the goal of noninterference with other peoples' breeding choices. And while I come down in favor of noninterference, I am saddened by couples who knowingly breed one deformed or otherwise congenitally unhealthy child after another.
                            As long as that couple fully performs their moral and socially-responsible duty to care (in every way that is needed) for those unhealthy children, then who is anyone to tell them to stop trying to have a healthy child? Are YOU, Herr Phankestein?

                            I know that to a Materialist this sounds like a mix of Swahili with Mandarin Chinese, but there are moral-spiritual aspects to caring for a "deformed" child or a bed-ridden "normal" person for that matter, that go beyond financial or social considerations. That's another subject.

                            Jorge

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                              Seems clear enough to me. But then, I'm not Phankestein.



                              WOW! Spoken like a true, red-and-cold-blooded Atheist!
                              Spoken by someone who opts for christian theology because of personal preference.

                              As long as that couple fully performs their moral and socially-responsible duty to care (in every way that is needed) for those unhealthy children, then who is anyone to tell them to stop trying to have a healthy child? Are YOU, Herr Phankestein?

                              I know that to a Materialist this sounds like a mix of Swahili with Mandarin Chinese, but there are moral-spiritual aspects to caring for a "deformed" child or a bed-ridden "normal" person for that matter, that go beyond financial or social considerations. That's another subject.
                              From what I have seen, most atheists (if that is who are you are referring to) are pro-Choice, so they would have no problem with this statement ([i.e. carrying the child to term]). Most atheists understand that "Survival of the Fittest" is a description, not a proscription. Unfortunately, you can't seem to understand that.
                              Last edited by Method; 09-02-2014, 03:30 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Method View Post
                                What would be morally unacceptable with the bombing of Hiroshima from a nuclear physics perspective?
                                So eugenics wouldn't be morally unacceptable.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-21-2021, 07:42 AM
                                30 responses
                                123 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by rogue06, 09-18-2021, 08:59 AM
                                19 responses
                                94 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 09-15-2021, 11:13 AM
                                23 responses
                                86 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 09-14-2021, 07:34 AM
                                1 response
                                18 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-13-2021, 09:25 PM
                                13 responses
                                76 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X