Darwinists Running Scared

[laptop]

It is perfectly clear that

Whenever anyone - especially an academic - says "It is perfectly clear that X", understand that this means "I an asserting that X and I know I can't stand it up".

I can stand this up: it's been appearing in dictionaries of academic-speak for many years.

 

[Jonti]

Matter = energy = matter and we've known that for 100 years or so. So, really there's no such thing as materialism any more. That's fine, because we've discovered that the material world has other things besides matter in it. I guess we just need a new word. How about 'naturalism' ?

And 'particle' is as much a metaphor as 'wave' - when you start trying to think about these things in terms of macro-scale 'particles' and 'waves' (billiard balls, ripples in a pond), then it all starts to break down. Hell, the whole of science is a metaphor, really.

In the Seventeenth Century, science was known as Natural Philosophy. I think it's time to reclaim the term.

Scientists are Naturalists -- people who seek the explanation of Natural events in terms of Natural causes. But there are those who would instead seek for explanations of Natural events by appealing to the supernatural or some other agency held to be somehow outside Nature. These people are called theologians.

This way of looking at things is very powerful. By definition, so-called "Intelligent Design" does not seek to explain Nature in natural terms. It invokes a supernatural designer (rather than Natural causes) to explain the difference between species. So it is a theology and not a science.

If that strikes the reader as too simple, the argument is gone into in great detail here . The link is to a recent US Court decision (the "Dover School Board" case) which found that Intelligent Design is a theology, and not any form of science. Enjoy!

 

[Jonti]

if light is not made out of "matter", then why is it affected by gravity~?

If you had read the short account that Herr Einstein wrote for the intelligent layman (as suggested by Laptop and linked to by myself) then you would know the answer to this question.

Sorry and all that -- but you have to do some of the work here. And anyway, the thread is about evolution, not physics. Why not start another thread to address your cosmological interests?

 

[phildwyer]

In the Seventeenth Century, science was known as Natural Philosophy. I think it's time to reclaim the term.

Scientists are Naturalists -- people who seek the explanation of Natural events in terms of Natural causes. But there are those who would instead seek for explanations of Natural events by appealing to the supernatural or some other agency held to be somehow outside Nature. These people are called theologians.

In that case, by your own definition, *all* your precious seventeenth-century "natural philosophers" were in fact "theologians." I suggest you hit the books for a while and try again.

 

[Jonti]

I suggest you fuck off

 

[phildwyer]

By definition, so-called "Intelligent Design" does not seek to explain Nature in natural terms. It invokes a supernatural designer (rather than Natural causes) to explain the difference between species. So it is a theology and not a science.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that ID is a science. Certainly my own objection is to the fact that science is currently taught in isolation from history and philosophy. In my view, this leads to the perversion of instrumental reason into an end in itself, and so to all the ethically disastrous effects of science that we have witnessed over the last three centuries. Francis Bacon is the biggest intellectual villain in all history.

 

[phildwyer]

Matter = energy = matter and we've known that for 100 years or so. So, really there's no such thing as materialism any more. That's fine, because we've discovered that the material world has other things besides matter in it. I guess we just need a new word. How about 'naturalism' ?

There already is one: "physicalism." Its still bollocks though.

 

[Fruitloop]

Well, it's true that there's a problem in that the science that's taught in school is basically a complete load of bollocks and bears no relation to science as it's practised by scientists, but I think a helpful start would be teaching science on its own properly, lest we confuse the little fuckers even more than at present.

Philisophy basically isn't touched on at all in school regardless of which courses you take, which is also less than ideal.

 

[Fruitloop]

Event and observation aren't the same thing, but they are entangled and mutually dependent - you cannot talk about one but not the other.

 

[gurrier]

....all the ethically disastrous effects of science that we have witnessed over the last three centuries. Francis Bacon is the biggest intellectual villain in all history.

If we live in a world where the ethics of the middle ages have been consistently undermined for 3 centuries, then I'm our twelve dimensional furry friend.

Inquisition anybody? Slave trade? Numerous genocides? Feudalism?

 

[phildwyer]

Inquisition anybody? Slave trade? Numerous genocides? Feudalism?

The last three hundred years--the age of science--have been witness to far greater atrocities than these. Stalin, Hitler and Mao anybody? The near-total extermination of the native Americans and Australians? The First World War? The nuclear bomb? Ecological destruction? And capitalism is morally far worse than feudalism if you ask me.

 

[Fruitloop]

It's a pointless comparison. What would you rather have cut off, your nose or your ears? IMO the increased destruction of the C20th just represents an increase in capability - Gitmo is just the Inquisition with a degree in psychology.

 

[phildwyer]

It's a pointless comparison. What would you rather have cut off, your nose or your ears? IMO the increased destruction of the C20th just represents an increase in capability - Gitmo is just the Inquisition with a degree in psychology.

But the point is that an increased *capability* for evil *is* an increase in evil. You can't just look at this quantitatively and say: "well we've always had war, so the fact that we can now destroy all life on the planet with nuclear bombs is just a matter of increased capability." Where did that increased capability come from and why did we develop it? What mode of thought made it possible?

 

[Fruitloop]

I think opposable thumbs was the start of the rot, actually.

 

[Gmart]

Or taking ourselves too seriously

 

[Crispy]

I'd be quite interested to see the following statistics:

Life expectancy
Cause of Death

plotted on a graph over the last 1000 years. What percentage of people died from what causes every year. And which of those causes could be assigned to Phil's demonic science.

 

[phildwyer]

I'd be quite interested to see the following statistics:

Life expectancy
Cause of Death

plotted on a graph over the last 1000 years. What percentage of people died from what causes every year. And which of those causes could be assigned to Phil's demonic science.

I'd like to know that too. Haven't got a source handy, but am pretty sure that life expectancy in seventeenth-century England was around sixty--once you reached the age of two. Infant mortality was around 30% iirc, so obviously that skews the overall life expectancy figure. But they didn't really consider infants to be human beings, it was a way of dealing with such a high mortality rate. They had a ceremony called "breeching" at two, when boys were dressed differently from girls for the first time (in "breeches"), and you were only considered a proper person after that.

Its also reasonable to suppose that death from disease was far more common before the twentieth century, and death from war was much more common in the twentieth century. But in terms of quality of life, I'd rather be a peasant than a proletarian any day of the week.

 

[Fruitloop]

Hmm, I'm not sure I'd give up dentistry with anaesthetics without some serious consideration.

 

[onemonkey]

I'd be quite interested to see the following statistics:

Life expectancy
Cause of Death

plotted on a graph over the last 1000 years. What percentage of people died from what causes every year. And which of those causes could be assigned to Phil's demonic science.

i am fairly sure that the rate of death by internecine violence (both murder and war) have been declining for the last 10,000 years..

iirc, the rate death by homicide (for adult males) in stone-age tribes is about 30%

even in world wars we never come close to that.. (until some idiot presses the big red button of course)

 

[kyser_soze]

The last three hundred years--the age of science--have been witness to far greater atrocities than these. Stalin, Hitler and Mao anybody? The near-total extermination of the native Americans and Australians? The First World War? The nuclear bomb? Ecological destruction? And capitalism is morally far worse than feudalism if you ask me.

As I say on another thread, the problem isn't science, it's that scientific progress hasn't been matched by social progress and we've now got people with the same mindset of pre-Enlightenment Europe waving nukes around.

All the ethnic clearances, all the destruction...it's all based around people taking 'scientific method' and using it to justify their medieval prejudices and religious conceits, or from those who have taken modernism's greatest ideals and twisted them around to suit themselves.

 

[Jo/Joe]

And you cannot halt science at what you think might be a convenient point can you? A society that has reached feudalism is one that has learnt to exploit nature and humans. It's hardly going to stop. The 20C was just a continuation of what went before. There may be more 'evil', but then there are more people to share it. Maybe phil could do some calculations and compare 'evil per capita' throughout key points in history. One thing is for sure, anyone can speak their mind in modern times.

 

[northernhord]

The real problem is that by seeking to repress their critics by censorship and intimidation (instances of which we see frequently on these boards) the Darwinists will leave the field free for religious creationists. Why are they scared of an open debate?

I got the impression that both the Darwinists and Creationists were running scared.

 

[phildwyer]

The real problem is that by seeking to repress their critics by censorship and intimidation (instances of which we see frequently on these boards) the Darwinists will leave the field free for religious creationists. Why are they scared of an open debate?

I got the impression that both the Darwinists and Creationists were running scared.

I think you're right. I see Darwinism and Creationism as mirror-images: both are discredited and untenable dogmas that their adherents espouse for reasons of emotional faith not rational investigation. Neither of them wants a true debate, they each want to impose their own dogma by diktat.

 

[axon]

When you talk about Darwinism I was under the impression you were referring to classical Darwinism, as opposed to neo-Darwinism.
If this is the case I think you need to stop banging on about Darwinism as if it is the contemporary opposing view to creationism.
If this isn't the case, then as you were.

 

[Crispy]

When you talk about Darwinism I was under the impression you were referring to classical Darwinism, as opposed to neo-Darwinism.
If this is the case I think you need to stop banging on about Darwinism as if it is the contemporary opposing view to creationism.

No, it's Origin Of Species or nothing for Phil, I'm afraid. And besides 'The theory of evolution by natural selection and genetic inheritance' etc. etc. is too much of a mouthful and doesn't collapse down to a nice simple ideology to rail against.

 

[kyser_soze]

No, it's Origin Of Species or nothing for Phil, I'm afraid. And besides 'The theory of evolution by natural selection and genetic inheritance' etc. etc. is too much of a mouthful and doesn't collapse down to a nice simple ideology to rail against.

I think he gets confused between the two...

 

[Jonti]

A debate needs some kind of referee. Religionists choose (their particular) Faith. Scientists choose Reason. That's the real issue.

But it's the religionists who have to cheat, Nature providing no support for their claims. The recent judgement in the Dover School Board case illustrates this very well. It really is worth a read. Here's a snippet

... we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

 

[Jo/Joe]

There is no debate to be had. The grown up religions accept evolution, because they know it makes no difference to their faith (plus it's evidence is overwhelming).

 

[Nickster]

Flicking back through this thread, I was intrigued by some assertions about macro-mutations (i.e. big leaps in evolutionary history) popularised by people such as Richard Goldsmith as opposed to the small gradual changes postulated by Darwin. Since we now know that fossil records tend to lend a certain amount of credence to the former, does this really mean that "Darwinists are running scared"? Is there not still a lot to commend in Darwinism?
This is not a loaded question. I'm a physicist not a biologist so I'd be fascinated by those on the u75 members who have a professional knowledge on the subject not just their own opinions.

 

[kyser_soze]

Flicking back through this thread, I was intrigued by some assertions about macro-mutations (i.e. big leaps in evolutionary history) popularised by people such as Richard Goldsmith as opposed to the small gradual changes postulated by Darwin. Since we now know that fossil records tend to lend a certain amount of credence to the former, does this really mean that "Darwinists are running scared"? Is there not still a lot to commend in Darwinism?

Of course it might just be possible that evolution is a combination of those two factors...