61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Nov, 2009 02:58 pm
@Lightwizard,
That a sitting duck Wiz that I wouldn't get any satisfaction in potting.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Nov, 2009 03:36 pm
Once again demonstrating how a troll always manages to step in his own crap.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Nov, 2009 04:17 pm
@Lightwizard,
Is that all you can manage Wiz? Anybody can do that.

What about the poll and the conditions of it which were designed to get the answer you lot want so as to keep you up to scratch.

What do you think of the monkey being the long searched for missing link?
oolongteasup
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Nov, 2009 07:39 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
What do you think of the monkey being the long searched for missing link?


i'd ask the father
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Nov, 2009 07:45 pm
@oolongteasup,
The mother would be more reliable.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Nov, 2009 09:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
We're back to kindergarten mistakes -- a chimpanzee is not a monkey, it's a great ape. What a lunatic.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 06:20 am
@Lightwizard,
Quote:
The extra-causal propensity or agent has a very high utility
as a recourse in perplexity, but its utility is altogether of a
non-economic kind. It is especially a refuge and a fund of
comfort where it has attained the degree of consistency and
specialization that belongs to an anthropomorphic divinity. It
has much to commend it even on other grounds than that of
affording the perplexed individual a means of escape from the
difficulty of accounting for phenomena in terms of causal
sequence. It would scarcely be in place here to dwell on the
obvious and well-accepted merits of an anthropomorphic divinity,
as seen from the point of view of the aesthetic, moral, or
spiritual interest, or even as seen from the less remote
standpoint of political, military, or social policy. The question
here concerns the less picturesque and less urgent economic value
of the belief in such a preternatural agency, taken as a habit of
thought which affects the industrial serviceability of the
believer. And even within this narrow, economic range, the
inquiry is perforce confined to the immediate bearing of this
habit of thought upon the believer's workmanlike serviceability,
rather than extended to include its remoter economic effects.
These remoter effects are very difficult to trace. The inquiry
into them is so encumbered with current preconceptions as to the
degree in which life is enhanced by spiritual contact with such a
divinity, that any attempt to inquire into their economic value
must for the present be fruitless.
The immediate, direct effect of the animistic habit of
thought upon the general frame of mind of the believer goes in
the direction of lowering his effective intelligence in the
respect in which intelligence is of especial consequence for
modern industry. The effect follows, in varying degree, whether
the preternatural agent or propensity believed in is of a higher
or a lower cast. This holds true of the barbarian's and the
sporting man's sense of luck and propensity, and likewise of the
somewhat higher developed belief in an anthropomorphic divinity,
such as is commonly possessed by the same class. It must be taken
to hold true also -- though with what relative degree of cogency
is not easy to say -- of the more adequately developed
anthropomorphic cults, such as appeal to the devout civilized
man. The industrial disability entailed by a popular adherence to
one of the higher anthropomorphic cults may be relatively slight,
but it is not to be overlooked. And even these high-class cults
of the Western culture do not represent the last dissolving phase
of this human sense of extra-causal propensity. Beyond these the
same animistic sense shows itself also in such attenuations of
anthropomorphism as the eighteenth-century appeal to an order of
nature and natural rights, and in their modern representative,
the ostensibly post-Darwinian concept of a meliorative trend in
the process of evolution. This animistic explanation of phenomena
is a form of the fallacy which the logicians knew by the name of
ignava ratio. For the purposes of industry or of science it
counts as a blunder in the apprehension and valuation of facts.


That was a cut from Veblen's essay The Belief in Luck.

So I am well aware that religious belief is a fallacy when seen from the standpoints of industry and science but, as Veblen is careful to point out, there are other standpoints. He lists them: "the aesthetic, moral, or
spiritual interest, or even as seen from the less remote
standpoint of political, military, or social policy", all of which the industrial and scientific standpoints necessarily have on Ignore.

Of course, I am also well aware that when your tables are set out for your Thanksgiving meals they will not be arranged according to the industrial and scientific standpoints. Not even remotely.

So look at those magnificent tables and know what a bunch of phonies you are when your aesthetic, moral, spiritual and social interests have been energised due to your egos having been chucked under the chin by the presiding matron and the advertising industry. It would be very difficult to account for the procedures in the strict scientific terms of causal sequence.

The type of intelligence which is of especial consequence for
modern industry was covered by Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 06:36 am
Quote:
Beyond these the
same animistic sense shows itself also in such attenuations of
anthropomorphism as the eighteenth-century appeal to an order of
nature and natural rights, and in their modern representative,
the ostensibly post-Darwinian concept of a meliorative trend in
the process of evolution. This animistic explanation of phenomena
is a form of the fallacy which the logicians knew by the name of
ignava ratio. For the purposes of industry or of science it
counts as a blunder in the apprehension and valuation of facts.


In case you don't understand that part it means you are talking out of your arse.

There is no tree of life. There is just life. You have been led to imagine there is a tree so that you, and Darwin and Dawkins, can imagine yourselves as the pretty little blossoms on the top most branches. It is a religious belief I'm afraid but of a particularly banal type.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 07:11 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
There is no tree of life. There is just life. You have been led to imagine there is a tree so that you, and Darwin and Dawkins, can imagine yourselves as the pretty little blossoms on the top most branches. It is a religious belief I'm afraid but of a particularly banal type.


The idea of a hierarchy comes from religions which see a "ladder" rather than a "tree". The ladder idea suggested man was the pinnacle of evolution. Darwin replaced the ladder model with his tree model (with outward spreading branches rather than a "top rung").
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 07:27 am
@wandeljw,
Don't go into education wande. That's an ignoratio elenchi.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 12:29 pm
@wandeljw,
Pope Splendious XXX is trapped in a Medieval mentality he will never recover from. The tree of life was a rudimentary illustration which Darwin stated several times would be modified according to progressive discoveries. As farmerman pointed out, it's more of a bush (with some interconnected branches, even if extremely thin) because of all the modern day technologically advanced biology and fossil discoveries. The original tree was a visual analogy of something a great deal more complicated and obviously none of this is going to be understood by someone who thinks a chimpanzee is a monkey, or that luck has anything to do with natural selection.

A ladder doesn't work either unless it's to illustrate climbing up to rescue an imaginary being from the fiery chaos and sub-zero coldness of the Universe. The "ladder" is believed to ascend into the clouds and beyond, where, incidentally, one had better be wearing a space suit 'cause their ain't no air.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 12:42 pm
@Lightwizard,
You can have your bush and your thin interconnected branches but a bush has roots, main stem and upper foliage. It assumes evolution wears a wrist watch. The image works for those who see themselves at the top. For scientists it is a childish nonsense and it should not be taught in science classes. It is a fairy tale. The bush makes just as much sense upside down from a scientific point of view. Or at any other angle. The arrogance of Darwinian man drew it and thinks it means something. It even looks ridiculous.

Life is a seething mass of organic **** in which certain patterns emerge and then sink back probably powered by cosmological events.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 12:46 pm
@Lightwizard,
The fact that you have given your bush interconnected thin branches merely signifies your desperation and your pedantic and un-scientific approach.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 06:02 pm
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 06:16 pm
@wandeljw,
I'm sorry wande. One minute was quite enough. I find American accents extremely tiresome I'm afraid. They seem to function in the service of trying to make the uttermost banalities seem significant.

I decided years ago that my seducing an American lady would be out of the question on account of the ridiculousness of the sound of her voice.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 06:23 pm
@spendius,
It amazes me that you can communicate with others of your own persuasion, spendi. Drunk
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 08:37 pm
I keep a book at work, to identify the snakes and reptiles that somtimes wander onto the property, because it has lots of color drawings. I had never bothered to read the text, despite looking at it for perhaps 15 years. Today, I perused a paragraph in it, that concluded that it would make no difference at all if every single reptile went extinct. It was copyright 1953.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 10:14 pm
If I believed this to be the truth, I would opt for Hell after death:


Answer: Many people say that the first thing they want to do when they arrive in heaven is see all their friends and loved ones who have passed on before them. In eternity, there will be plenty of time to see, know, and spend time with our friends and family members. However, that will not be our primary focus in heaven. We will be far more occupied with worshipping God and enjoying the wonders of heaven. Our reunions with loved ones are more likely to be filled with recounting the grace and glory of God in our lives, His wondrous love, and His mighty works. We will rejoice all the more because we can praise and worship the Lord in the company of other believers, especially those we loved on earth.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 10:28 pm
@edgarblythe,
That really sounds like "hell" to me! Bored to death. How many times can anybody rehash a life on earth that's been less than a century old in a place that's for eternity?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Nov, 2009 10:44 pm
Being an atheist myself I fine it sorely amazing the degree of animosity that erupts with vehemence. This absurd display (mostly by anti-religionists towards believer although not always) is as productive as skipping a bowling ball across a pond. I would plea for tolerance and civility towards those seeking meaning for their lives whether we agree with them or not
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 06/19/2025 at 11:50:56