For Soc: Hatred & science.

[AtheistArchon]

- Socrates, please explain to me why labeling someone as anti-Christian and unpatriotic has anything whatsoever to do with valdiating or debunking claims of a scientific nature.

- It's been my experience that whenever cornered, you begin lashing out at your opponent by use of ad hominem and diversion, i.e. the following:

"science and mathematics..."

Except that evolutionism has NOTHING to do with science and math and EVERYTHING to do with bigoted materialism. We already know that Jimmy has the typical humanist hatred of Christianity and Patriotism.

- Childish. Science and math not on your side? The poster is obviously a nazi, and unpatriotic to boot!

- What the heck does someone's patriotism have to do with scientific arguments, Socrates??

- I await your response with... baited... breath.

[Jimmy Higgins]

In short defense of the unpatriotic claim, Socretes can do a web search on "Jimmy Higgins"
Debs is my favorite American of all time. The greatness of a hero without all that slave ownership or smutty relationship Fore-Father stuff.

[Tycho]

This may be related to the creationists' tactics of relating evolution to some 20th century atrocites. Many of them seem to think that if a theory somehow affects morals negatively, then the theory magically becomes false.

In much the same manner, Socrates may believe that if he can make his opponent into an anti-Christian or somesuch, his opponent's argument automatically is negated. The gods will bear witness to the impotency of his AiG link-arguments, after all.

[Socrates]

AtheistArchon whinges:

• Socrates, please explain to me why labeling someone as anti-Christian and unpatriotic has anything whatsoever to do with valdiating or debunking claims of a scientific nature.

With me, it's always both/and. I have provided plenty of scientific arguments. But it's worth reminding people who accuse creationists of "religious bias" as an excuse to dismiss their scientific arguments that evolutionists have their own religious/ideological axe to grind.

[AtheistArchon]

With me, it's always both/and. I have provided plenty of scientific arguments. But it's worth reminding people who accuse creationists of "religious bias" as an excuse to dismiss their scientific arguments that evolutionists have their own religious/ideological axe to grind.

- I think you are wrong. Evolution is merely a product of science, and not all who understand it or adhere to it are anti-Christian. You may feel that evolutionary theory attacks your belief system, and in some ways you're absolutely right (genesis), but don't make the mistake of thinking that science goes out of its way to specifically attack religious belief.

- It happens, of course, that science disproves a lot of religious beliefs... look at Zeus and Apollo, and look at the geocentric model of the Earth. Those people who held belief in those things were incredibly upset by science contesting their beliefs.

- I don't think there are a great deal of evolutionists who hold onto evolutionary theories just because they contradict genesis. I might have an axe to grind, sure, but that doesn't dictate my adherence to the scientific method. If science showed Christianity to be valid... believe it or not... I'd convert.

[Socrates]

I wrote:

With me, it's always both/and. I have provided plenty of scientific arguments. But it's worth reminding people who accuse creationists of "religious bias" as an excuse to dismiss their scientific arguments that evolutionists have their own religious/ideological axe to grind.

Atheist Archon replied:

• I think you are wrong. Evolution is merely a product of science,

No it's not. It has nothing to do with real operational science, and everything to do with explaining the complexity of life given an a priori rejection of a designer. The writings of Dawkins make this abundantly clear.

• ... and not all who understand it or adhere to it are anti-Christian.

They are certainly anti-BIBLICAL-Christian even if they may profess some form of vague "Christianity" which is really churchianity.

• You may feel that evolutionary theory attacks your belief system, and in some ways you're absolutely right (genesis),

And since Genesis was specifically endorsed by Christ as HISTORY, this IS and attack on Christianity.

• but don't make the mistake of thinking that science goes out of its way to specifically attack religious belief.

I don't, because real science flourished BECAUSE of the Christian belief that this universe was made by a "God of Order".

• - It happens, of course, that science disproves a lot of religious beliefs... look at Zeus and Apollo, and look at the geocentric model of the Earth. Those people who held belief in those things were incredibly upset by science contesting their beliefs.

In the case of geocentrism, the leading people upset by Galileo were the Aristotelians at the Universities, who hated the challenge to their Ptolemaic cosmology.

• - I don't think there are a great deal of evolutionists who hold onto evolutionary theories just because they contradict genesis.

Darwin was the first who set out to undermine the traditional Christian argument from design.

• I might have an axe to grind, sure, but that doesn't dictate my adherence to the scientific method.

I haven't noticed. You definitely have an adherence to a materialistic philosophy that coors your interpretation of data.

• If science showed Christianity to be valid... believe it or not... I'd convert.

I do NOT believe you, based on Christ's teaching in Luke 16:31 and Paul's in Romans 1:18 ff.

[Socrates]

Tycho:

• This may be related to the creationists' tactics of relating evolution to some 20th century atrocites.

It wasn't just the creationists. The Communists proclaim how their system was an application of evolution-based "dialectical materialism" (i.e. the only reality is matter in conflict).

And Sir Arthur Keith, a leading British evolutionary anthropologist, wrote (Evolution and Ethics, Putnam, NY, USA, p. 230, 1947):

The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.

[GrayPilgrim]

Social Darwinism while discounted by many today was part and parcel of Darwin's theory and popularly held in Germany upto and during WW2. Hitler beleived that the Aryans were the most evolutionarily advanced race. He saw the Jews as having missed some evolutionary steps and thus as part of a different root race. With the Aryans as part of the 5th root race. He got his views from the Houston Stewart Chamberlin's book The Foundation of the 19th Century, Guido von List and Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels (among others) is a paganized varient of Social Darwinism. And remember that as the Marquis DeSade said that if all there is is matter than what is, is right. de Sade was commited to a materialistic view of the universe and it is a materialisitc view lived consitiently thta is what Socrates is speaking out against.

[Yog^sothoth]

I have some comments:

AthiestArchon:

- I think you are wrong. Evolution is merely a product of science, and not all who understand it or adhere to it are anti-Christian. You may feel that evolutionary theory attacks your belief system, and in some ways you're absolutely right (genesis), but don't make the mistake of thinking that science goes out of its way to specifically attack religious belief.

I just finished a section of my anthropology class on the processes of macroevolution. The whole point of the series was that macroevolution is nigh impossible to prove as they think the processes will take well over 1.5 million years or more. Also, "punctuated Equilibrium (long periods of no change accented by sudden and abrupt evolutionary changes) may actually be closer to the truth than macroevolution would be...or mayhap a combiniation of the two is in order?

In either case, it is a working hypothesis which some people adhere to more violently than some would to christian and or religious principals.

Just my money on that.

Socrates saysa lot but i only want to comment on this sentence:

Darwin was the first who set out to undermine the traditional Christian argument from design.

darwin didn't want to publish his works. Also, Buffon and Linneaus, as well as Malthus, Lammark, and Lyell, came before Darwin and stated in not so many words, that man changes and has been changing since our creation on this world. Darwin published merely an observation and a hypothesis on the birds of the gallapagos and did so under duress from his peers and friends and most especially Alfred Russel Wallace, who was going to publish the exact same thing as Darwin only he asked Darwin if it was ok.

I always took Darwin's theories to be somewhat dated and though brilliant, somewhat lacking in applied proof. Indeed, punctuated equilibrium would be called a reworking of speciation and it shows that although there is a definite religious order of the holy evolutionists, there are real scientists left trying to make sense of everything through the veil of egoo and anger which seems to permeate anthropology today.

Coincidentally, I recently watched this Nova video on the finder of Lucy, Johansen...what a goob!

[Tycho]

Yesterday @ 11:00 PM post located here
Socrates:
It wasn't just the creationists.
[snip rest]

Ah, the advanced troll stage: snipping out parts of his opponent's post in the hope that he won't have to address them. Why don't you try again? Here's what you failed to address:

• This may be related to the creationists' tactics of relating evolution to some 20th century atrocites. Many of them seem to think that if a theory somehow affects morals negatively, then the theory magically becomes false.

[tgamble]

I see Socrates is still spewing out his antiscience bigotry and hatred of those Christians who aren't fighting science.

Pathetic!

------------

Social Darwinism while discounted by many today was part and parcel of Darwin's theory and popularly held in Germany upto and during WW2.

It had nothing to do with Darwn's theory.

Hitler beleived that the Aryans were the most evolutionarily advanced race.

Which, of course makes no sense at all. He believed the Aryan people were superior but this was hardly a new attitude and there's no evidence it had anything to do with social Darwinism.

He saw the Jews as having missed some evolutionary steps and thus as part of a different root race. With the Aryans as part of the 5th root race. He got his views from the Houston Stewart Chamberlin's book The Foundation of the 19th Century, Guido von List and Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels (among others) is a paganized varient of Social Darwinism.

You have evidence for this?

[Tycho]

Yesterday @ 10:57 PM post located here
Socrates:
No it's not. It has nothing to do with real operational science, and everything to do with explaining the complexity of life given an a priori rejection of a designer. The writings of Dawkins make this abundantly clear.

Still trying to pretend that there's some sort of difference between science and evolution, Socrates? Really now, this is getting old. Why don't you explain why if something happens in the past, it's magically barricaded from the scientific method? Of course, what you don't seem to realize (even though you've been told many times), is that the lack of scientific investigation into the supernatural isn't because of some arbitrary decision. Rather, the supernatural is not testable! This is why we have the germ theory of disease and not the "demon-possession" theory of disease.

Darwin was the first who set out to undermine the traditional Christian argument from design.

I thought that after your "Galileo" comment, you'd be finished trying to re-write history. Sorry, but Darwin's most recognized contribution is hsi mechanism of evolution. As for undermining a literal reading of Genesis, geologists did away with the flood quite a while before Darwin. Of course, the simple theories that the Earth is spherical and that it moves are quite enough to disprove a literal reading of the Bible.

You definitely have an adherence to a materialistic philosophy that coors your interpretation of data.

So, are you going to give us a scientific theory of creationism any time soon? Or are you going to dodge the question, again and continue whining about materialistic/anti-Christian/"origins"-bias?

[tgamble]

Today @ 05:57 AM post located here
Socrates:

Atheist Archon replied:

• I think you are wrong. Evolution is merely a product of science,

No it's not. It has nothing to do with real operational science, and everything to do with explaining the complexity of life given an a priori rejection of a designer. The writings of Dawkins make this abundantly clear.

• ...

• Your judging the entire science of evolution on Dawkins theistic views? Are you really that stupid?!
  
  Of course evolution has to do with real operational science! Genetics, the fossil record, embryology etc. All support evolution and refute the myths of creation "science".
  
  

  and not all who understand it or adhere to it are anti-Christian.

They are certainly anti-BIBLICAL-Christian even if they may profess some form of vague "Christianity" which is really churchianity.

• I see. So you ARE saying that you can't be a Christian AND accept evolution.
  
  

  You may feel that evolutionary theory attacks your belief system, and in some ways you're absolutely right (genesis),

And since Genesis was specifically endorsed by Christ as HISTORY, this IS and attack on Christianity.[list]

TS. Science doesn't have to conform to your theology.

• - I don't think there are a great deal of evolutionists who hold onto evolutionary theories just because they contradict genesis.

Darwin was the first who set out to undermine the traditional Christian argument from design.[list] [/QUOTE]

That's a lie of course. Darwin didn't set out to any such thing. He came to his conclusions by hnnesty examining the data. Something creationists are unable and unwilling to do.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 01:00 AM post located here
Socrates:

It wasn't just the creationists. The Communists proclaim how their system was an application of evolution-based "dialectical materialism" (i.e. the only reality is matter in conflict).

That's a rather odd statement since Communist Russia rejected Darwinism because it was too "capitalistic."

[Saxonella]

Today @ 11:05 AM post located here
Yog^sothoth:

I have some comments:

AthiestArchon:


I just finished a section of my anthropology class on the processes of macroevolution. The whole point of the series was that macroevolution is nigh impossible to prove as they think the processes will take well over 1.5 million years or more. Also, "punctuated Equilibrium (long periods of no change accented by sudden and abrupt evolutionary changes) may actually be closer to the truth than macroevolution would be...or mayhap a combiniation of the two is in order?

I find the phrase "processes of macroevolution" interesting. What processes were outlined in your class? How did they differ from the "processes of microevolution"?

PE and macroevolution describe two different things, neither one of which is about processes of evolution. PE is a statement about rates of evolution and differential preservation in the fossil record, and macroevolution is essentially a description of the pattern of life over long periods of time. "Process", as in evolutionary mechanisms, is not addressed.

SJ Gould himself certainly did not regard them as contradictory statements about the same thing; in fact, PE is often an intimate part of the research programs of those who study macroevolutionary patterns, i.e. Elisabeth Vrba and her turnover-pulse hypothesis.