@farmerman,
Oh yeah. The evolutionist position is uneducable by it's own logic. Its scientific certainty means no further education is required. It's on fixed tracks. It going from Glasgow to London and to Manchester doesn't obscure the fixed track.
Yesterday I provided an argument on the illogicality of evolution theories. It has not been answered.
But your boast actually goes to the root of the principle moral argument against evolutionism from which the other moral arguments derive.
Abjectly prostrating oneself before a cosmic/global entelechy which is driven by permanent scientific rules is both comic and contemptible. It is counter to the whole of western scientific thought which says we are here to overcome such rules. Even gravity.
It represents an abdication of morality. Or basing morality on the "victorious" which goes straight to "might is right" but fails to answer the question of the time scale to be used to find the winner. Every extinct species was a winner once. The meek will be the long term winner Jesus said. The validity of such a basis for morality does not exist. The first one now will later be last. Drug testing athletes is a nonsense with a winner morality.
But it should not be underestimated that the temptation is a powerful one. That underestimation of the morality based upon a rigid entelechy story is something I leave to fundies. I don't underestimate the temptation. It's a relief to be guided by determinism. No thinking is required. One is always right. But, and it is a big but, what Faust offered as temptation was realalisable. What have your devils to tempt us with? I think they are incapable of delivering that which they tempt us with. If they were capable our virtue might well falter. Affluence and freedom? As I said--The Holy Grail. To abjectly prostrate one self before the Apollinian God of science is misogyny in its purest form. Everybody knows that the Goddess doesn't do facts.
And to abdicate freedom of moral judgement to a thing, an inhuman process, and to fasten oneself to values rigidly to what it decrees is amorality. Perhaps the decrees are sometimes "good", allowing for the Naturalistic Fallacy, but to give them autonomy on all occasions represents the abandonment of one's own autonomy of judgment and, as such, an all-purpose excuse leaving only fear of the law to mitigate the effects. And other values may not be recoverable once that is accepted and habitual.
Then, all values are conscripted to the theory which is by definition a non human one, be it History, the direction of the entelechy or whatever World Story is excercising the minds of the chattering classes. The
Elan, the dialectic, Shaw's Life Force, Natural Selection or whatever. Which are all tempting.
But, maybe "providentially, these theories are extremely difficult to pin down and the future development almost impossible to predict. Jumping aboard Karl Popper's bandwagon is comical when you don't know where it is or its destination. It is that which girds our loins to resist the temptation.
PS--To demonstrate the incoherence of anti-IDers one need look no further than the threadmaster's quoting of Popper when the guy attacked evolution from the moral standpoint in his
Open Society and its Enemies and
The Poverty of Historicism. Popper is simply being worn as a badge of superiority. Nothing more. Quoted without context as a T-shirt logo.
ci. would make more sense if he quoted Yogi Bear rather than Einstein. "Down the hatch, but natch."
So now you have the logical and the moral argument against evolutionist explanations. There's another one too. Some other time eh?
