It is not an answer to Io's question what Jerry Fallwell sounds like. The question stands on its own. And it's an obvious one.
It's just the same as responding to a question you can't answer, or don't want to, by declaring the questioner drunk. It is proof of the absence of a scientific sensibility and that any semblance of a scientific sensibility on easier occasions is faked. A scientific sensibility is a characteristic like skin colour. It isn't turned on and off.
I would assume that rape is beneficial to a species from a biological point of view. The idea that it is "OK" is as daft as it not being. To approve of it is a moral position. It occurs naturally surely. "Romance is rape" the feminists say. Cecil Rhodes, when asked what to do about the natives, said "**** 'em white" and his name is attached to your most prestigious university honour. Which Bobby Jindal won through to. As did Bill Clinton.
I have not been derisive about religions of the world.
That's disingenous fm. You have been derisive about Christianity. And on many occasions. You have looked under every stone to find one with a bad priest under it and when you have found one in your newspaper you have made an great fuss about it. That's not only derisive but unscientific.
but my beliefs v my craft are two separate worlds.
That's a ridiculous statement and not one your posts provide credibility for.
I don't think you were critical of Dawkins at the beginning of this thread. You might recently have been critical of him but I would say it is because you have felt him becoming marginalised as his position comes under closer scrutiny and you are leaning with the wind.
The position of anti-IDers has relied all along on not being under close scrutiny. You lot have done some grabbing at straws. The bad priests and the Freshwater incident spring to mind. At the same time you refuse to consider potential incidents with equally extreme views in operation when a kerygmatic atheist gets his or her hands on a biology class.
As for answering your (weirdly worded) question.
Same old trick. Why was the question "weirdly worded"? The question was straightforward enough.
LAter, tribal practices (such as cooperation) were constructed into morality codes that seemed to preceed religious practices from times before the Wurm .
But isn't a Higher Power needed to reduce any deviance. The whole point of religion is to avoid the terror tactics needed to prevent deviance and opposition from laws deriving from humans who are untrustworthy. And don't start banging on about the Inquisition because that's dead and gone and wasn't dealing with modern, industrial societies. Atheist societies use terror far more than Christian societies do.
The crux of the matter is that the scientific method is applicable to inanimate matter as in physics and chemistry but when it comes to psychology it is involved, so far, in speculations.
E.A.Bennet M.C., M.D., SC.D., D.P.M. wrote-
By scientific proof I mean an explanation of phenomena capable of being checked and observed by others and found to possess an unchanging and predictable order. This implies a general agreement about the nature of the phenomena--that is, the data--under consideration. Scientific proof in these terms can be found for phenomena in the non-living experimental sciences, like chemistry or physics. But my view is that it is not possible to produce such scientific proof in psychological matters. Naturally, this does not invalidate the use of a scientific theory or hypothesis.
(From a letter to C.G. Jung.)
Religion is an entirely psychological matter. As is lingerie and the whole industry, which is very large, which deals with the alchemy whereby mutton is transformed into lamb with the evidence standing out as bold as a chapel hat-peg.
The application of scientific method to psychological matters is basically cheating. It is similar to measuring volume by weighing.
If the scientific method ever does become applicable to psychology, and there are plenty of people attempting the feat, it seems to me we will all become identical autonoma and ladies will become objects to which only vectors of deterministic forces will apply.
Shades of the "controversial issues" the Texas senator alluded to in one of wande's quotes.