Holding their feet to the fire ...

[Cerebrum123]

@ Leonhard, I was working on a response to much of what you wrote, however there is a storm approaching, and it's far from finished. It might even take more than 1 whole post due to size limits. I will try to remember and get back to this. I did save what I wrote so far, so continuing should be too hard. That is, if I can remember to do so. My memory is not even close to what it used to be.

[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.

WRONG again, tabibito -- at least you are consistent.

I am clearly (except to the most pitifully obtuse) being both sarcastic and figurative by implying that I am about to disembowel myself at Method's endlessly bringing up the "Is/Ought" problem. Adding to that is that he thinks he has found a 'Holy Grail' or something, as if he had discovered the Ultimate Trump Card. He hasn't.

Method then goes on to post this later:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

So? The material that I have presented umpteen times demolishes that entire argument because it does not apply.

Is any of this getting through? If so then ... there you go!

Jorge

[Method]

So eugenics wouldn't be morally unacceptable.

Scientific theories are silent on the issue of morality. Scientific theories describe how nature is operating. They don't tell humans what they ought to do.

If you want to talk about secular humanism, then evolution doesn't enter into it at all. Secular humanism is based on empathy and reason, not natural selection.

[HMS_Beagle]

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?

Dawkins wasn't putting forth a mainstream science position. He was stating his own personal opinion on the topic. The evolutionary sciences don't contain a position on morality any more than chemistry or physics do.

[HMS_Beagle]

So eugenics wouldn't be morally unacceptable.

Morally acceptable or unacceptable only apply to people's personal views, not to any science. Science doesn't takes a position on morality.

[HMS_Beagle]

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).

So does religion. People misusing science to justify their actions doesn't affect the validity of the science one way or the other.

[Jorge]

Spoken by someone who opts for christian theology because of personal preference.

That's Biblical Christian theology.
Yes, it was most definitely my personal choice (or "preference" if you like).

What - weren't your own metaphysical beliefs due to personal preference? No? Really?
You'd better think long and hard about that one, kiddo.

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.

Not the point. Whether or not an Atheist is pro-life or pro-death isn't the point. The point is that those Atheists that ARE pro-death will use Evolution as "scientific" justification for their position. By the way, being the "answer-for-all" that it is, Evolution will also be used by the pro-life Atheists as "scientific" justification for their position. They've got all the bases covered with Evolution.

Compare that with us Biblical Creationists. We cannot, under any circumstances, find justification before God - be it scientific, "scientific" or whatever - for killing the unborn.

Are you getting any of this? Can you 'see' the difference?

Jorge

[Jorge]

So does religion. People misusing science to justify their actions doesn't affect the validity of the science one way or the other.

No, I will NOT repeat again what I've already stated a dozen or more times.
Go waste someone else's time, Beagle Boy.

Hey, hadn't I BOOTED you OFF this thread?

Jorge

[Leonhard]

[QUOTE=Method;94991]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

Saying that its an instance of the "naturalistic fallacy" is overkill. You can rightfully reject that "Eugenics is a good thing" can be derived from The Theory of Evolution, while at the same time affirming that you can get moral imperatives from natural facts. Its just that relevant facts aren't studied by the sciences that apply to evolutionary biology, but those that deal with natural philosophy.

And no I won't argue about it here. Jorge has already indicated he'd appreciate it being taken elsewhere, I might not like his posts, but I want to give him the courtesy. Because I want to be treated the same way in my own threads.

You're obviously itching for this discussion.

[Method]

That's Biblical Christian theology.
Yes, it was most definitely my personal choice (or "preference" if you like).

What - weren't your own metaphysical beliefs due to personal preference? No? Really?
You'd better think long and hard about that one, kiddo.

Then you agree that morality is a personal preference?

Not the point. Whether or not an Atheist is pro-life or pro-death isn't the point. The point is that those Atheists that ARE pro-death will use Evolution as "scientific" justification for their position.

And they would be wrong for doing so. Evolution can not be used to justify the killing of anyone, in the womb or otherwise.

By the way, being the "answer-for-all" that it is, Evolution will also be used by the pro-life Atheists as "scientific" justification for their position.

The justification for the atheist position is a lack of evidence for deities. It really has nothing to do with evolution. Heliocentrism is as much a rationale for being atheist as evolution. At the end of the day, there is plenty of things to pick from if you are looking for "science that fundamentalist christians are wrong about".

We cannot, under any circumstances, find justification before God - be it scientific, "scientific" or whatever - for killing the unborn.

Unless God tells you to kill the unborn and innocent children, right?

"2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Sam. 15:2-3).

God ordained genocide is just fine, right?

Are you getting any of this? Can you 'see' the difference?

I get that you have to misrepresent the atheist position. If you honestly portrayed our position you wouldn't have much of an argument.

[Method]

Saying that its an instance of the "naturalistic fallacy" is overkill. You can rightfully reject that "Eugenics is a good thing" can be derived from The Theory of Evolution, while at the same time affirming that you can get moral imperatives from natural facts. Its just that relevant facts aren't studied by the sciences that apply to evolutionary biology, but those that deal with natural philosophy.

Evolutionary theory is used to answer very real and practical questions.

For example, SIFTER is algorithm based on evolutionary relationships that can predict protein function with a very high success rate.

http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/...l.pcbi.0010045

If the chimp genome paper doesn't deal with relevant facts, then I am not sure what you are asking for:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture04072.html

Or perhaps I have misread your posts?

And no I won't argue about it here. Jorge has already indicated he'd appreciate it being taken elsewhere, I might not like his posts, but I want to give him the courtesy. Because I want to be treated the same way in my own threads.

You're obviously itching for this discussion.

Jorge is obvioulsy itching for this discussion because he started the discussion. Would seem kind of cowardly for him to bow out now.

[rwatts]

I don't see why most atheists would have a real moral problem with eugenics - based on what?

Empathy. (As an example.)

Empathy is not just something which is confined to religious fundamentalists. In fact, I can locate many examples of religious fundamentalists who use God's will as a reason for behaving in the most non-empathetic of ways.

So do you really wish to claim empathy all to yourself seer, and deny it to atheists and other folk?

[phank]

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?

Well, I don't think this is what's important here. What's important is the decision the potential parents must make. And no matter what, that decision will be painful.

Can not many of them later reproduce and possibly pollute the gene pool?

Again, so what? This is a personal decision.

I don't see why most atheists would have a real moral problem with eugenics - based on what?

Personal morality. I personally don't think eugenics is moral according to my preferences.

[phank]

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?

Not I. This is a personal decision of theirs, and none of my business.

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.

I regard these decisions as deeply and entirely personal. Not for me to decide, not even for me to applaud or condemn. None of my business.

[Truthseeker]

Perhaps what Jorge is decrying is that euthanists are taking advantage, wittingly or unwittingly, of the general ignorance of the impossibility of going from a set of "is" statements to a set of "ought" statements, in "selling" their moral positions as "scientific."