Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

@Francis,

Nevertheless, it is possible to generalise with people.

Quote:

what mankind think about death or morality doesn't bother me the least.

Yet you were bothered enough to say we mustnt generalise about the entire human race..why is that ?

0 Replies

See, Spendi, again, contrary to what you can have as prejudices, I do read your posts.
The thing is that, for various reasons, I'm not always able or willing to reply to them.

This one for example:

Spendi wrote:

it is impoosible from a look at Darwin's Origins and from reading history to conclude that morality is natural.

To me it's the perfect archtype of a twisted thinking in order to induce people in error. Rhetorical stuff, kinda straw man.

It's impossible, maybe, from a look at the Darwin's origins but not from any other point of view..

2 Replies

@Francis,

Quote:

I don't fear death and I'm in peace with my morals.

What are your morals? Admitting to selfishness, in the normal course of events rather than the Winston Smith admission, enables us to derive all your moral positions and thus view every pattern of behaviour you exhibit as a mere strategy imbued with cunning and devious acting. Such a morality is belied by every award for courage in the military, in the police and in the fire service.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Quote:

See, Spendi, again, contrary to what you can have as prejudices, I do read your posts.
The thing is that, for various reasons, I'm not always able or willing to reply to them.

I didn't say you didn't read my posts. I was wondering why you confine your responses to posts you feel comfortable with doing?

What are the various reasons? Is being stumped one of them?

0 Replies

@Francis,

Quote:

It's impossible, maybe, from a look at the Darwin's origins but not from any other point of view..

The thread is about Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection and I'm glad you agree, maybe, that no morality can derive from it. As for history my reading of it is that morality can't be derived from that either. Life was nasty, short and brutish before Christianity and it still is pretty nasty and brutish in places in our era. The love of cruel spectacles for example. In the coleseum, in the bullring, in wildlife programmes and in many movies. The public torturing to death which France has a few examples of as with public executions. The concentration camps. The Gulags.

From what point of view do you think morality can be derived without some sort of other-wordly sanction assuming Lord Acton's dictum that --"power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." --is true.

What does it matter what we indulge our vanity with. We are not great men.

From whence absolute authority then? You have a straight choice--God or man. And great men I mean.

Okay--we invent God. So what? He exists if people believe in Him according to the Materialist Theory of Mind. Where else can facts exist but in minds?

We are dealing with consequences no matter how much you try to pretend we aren't. It's implied in the thread title. What can possibly be dangerous that has no consequences?

Why can't you keep your unbelief private and pay lip service to belief when you have to and take the conveniences as a bonus. I bet you do at times. I don't know of any restrictions on sexual depravity and libertinage other than those the secular law insists upon. What's the big deal?

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
The only people giving out any real facts on the thread are fm and jason. You two are accorded all the respect you deserve.

Don't you think this is a real fact Ed?

Quote:
No idea can be considered dangerous, or beneficial, if the future consequences of it are of no importance.

Really? It makes me wonder whether you understood your own question.

Your knickers are showing.

What facts related to the topic have fm and JP offered? All they've done, with a little help from Io, is hide the few facts that have been on here. All mine of course. No doubt you approve as you don't like anything which says evolution is a dangerous idea and you are unable to counter anything that does. So are fm and JP.

You'll be issuing team shirts next and getting a rattle.

Your "facts" are so mired in your own fears and misapprehensions as to be insignificant to the thinkers among us.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Your "facts" are so mired in your own fears and misapprehensions as to be insignificant to the thinkers among us.

Dream on Ed. That's not even an answer. Thinkers my Aunt Fanny. It's bloody woeful.

1 Reply

@spendius,

By your own admission, you were well on the way to accepting evolution, until it collided with your own subjective considerations.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

No idea can be considered dangerous, or beneficial, if the future consequences of it are of no importance.

Is that a fact or isn't Ed? Just answer yes or no.

It's a perfectly neutral statement. No fears or misapprehensions are involved in it and self-evidently so. The only evidence of fear and misapprension is your's by the shifty and meaningless way you have tried to deal with it.

Francis is on your side of the fence. Ask him whether my statement was one of fact or not.

You take advantage of a public forum. I can do atheist properly. I can **** all over priests, bishops, cardinals and Popes if I undulge my vanity and pretend there are no consequences.

I don't think I would get banned if I did. I know I would. You like debating in front of the maiden aunts and the sweet pretty things because you know that the real opposition is inhibited. You probably don't even know what the inhibitions prevent being exposed such is your innocence and ignorance.

You're noises off.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

By your own admission, you were well on the way to accepting evolution, until it collided with your own subjective considerations.

I can run rings round the lot of you on evolution by natural selection. I've read more about the matter than all of you put together.

I accept that the fire brigade should rush to a fire but not through a crowd of kids mowing them down. You're completely confused Ed. You're in a semantic maze and I can't see you finding a way out.

I demonstrated yesterday that it is incoherent to use the word "theory" in relation to gravitation and evolution in the same way. But you lot do. Your side are always churning out that rubbish about if religious people reject evolution theory they automatically reject gravitation by the brainless use of the word "theory" applying equally to both cases. All that does is prove the stupidity of those who do that sort of thing. There is no argument about the dangers of gravitation. There is an argument about the dangers of evolution. As your thread title proves. "Is gravitation a dangerous idea? If so, why?" would get you laughed at.

In posing the question you have posited the two different uses of "theory".

1 Reply

@spendius,

Give me a specific example of my misuse of those terms.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I was careful not to include you Ed. I said your side.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Writing on another thread about Joe Arpaio mm25075 wrote--

Quote:

Therefore, the ideas tend to be short term in nature without much thought given to the repercussion of time effect on them.

So it looks like I'm not the only one who is looking at "consequences". The post was critical of Joe. Why is consideration of consequences so blithely overlooked on these evolution threads and I would guess nowhere else? Fear I suppose of the lack of confidence in defending them or even dealing with them.

Hence all the bullshit we've seen recently on here.

0 Replies

There is an argument about the dangers of evolution.

The argument for ditching evolution is largely inside the heads of the faithful. There is danger in evolution in the same sense there is danger in yin/yang. Life is like that. Positives and negatives. The same forces that allowed humans to become so destructive are the same ones which allowed them to reach the sublime. You are stuck in a mindset that recoils from acknowledgement that the negative is a flip side, that balancing one's life is the way, regardless of faith or science. You think by rejecting evolution you can expell that side of your nature. Not gonna happen. Atheist or deist, you have to deal with it.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

You KNOW without reading, but you arent a bigot....

.
Yes, I'm not a bigot...I don't do hate, Ionus...and if I didn't read something you posted(which you claimed I didn't) that is well known by A2Kers with a rational brain to be garbage, doesn't make me a bigot...

Quote:

shortness must be terrible !

No, it's wonderful...especially with that 11'' attached to that 4'...

Quote:

I will yet again link the definition : bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
http://dictionary.die.net/bigot

Let's see if this applies to me...I give you the definition of "Prejudice"..and tell me if it applies to me:

prej·u·dice
/ˈprɛd?'ədɪs/ Show Spelled [prej-uh-dis] Show IPA noun, verb, -diced, -dic·ing.
"noun
1.
an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2.
any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3.
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4.
such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5.
damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.

Don't I tolerate you, Ionus? I've been tolerating you since I've got the chance to "debate" you...

Quote:

Of course you cant....you cant see past your rear in the mirror.

That's because you're blocking my rear in the mirror... and we all know that asses aren't transparent...which is a fact.

Quote:

It would take you a month to list all your qualifications ? Perhaps you are overcompensating.

I meant to you...it will take me more than a month (or a month) to list all my qualifications to you, Ionus...

Quote:

I have..are you pleading helpless stupidity now ?

Yes, you have explained it before...we believe you...

http://www.icanhasmotivation.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/doublefacepalm21.jpg

Quote:

You try to be dismissive in the hope someone who believe you know what you are talking about.

Let's see..

Quote:

Forlorne hope. Can you tell which theories are failed theories before more facts are known ?

They are failed theories (or scientific explanations)when they are proven wrong by peer review scientists...happy? And so we come to this question:
Can you name me a theory that is not factual?

Quote:

No it wasnt.

You are amazing !...in the colloquial sense.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

Seek help.

Are you implying that I'm going to need help with trying to make you see reason?

Quote:

So you want to change tack...

.

Nope...I'm just telling you that it isn't relevant because this doesn't contribute anything to the core argument.

Quote:

OK. I have explained before, in one of those posts that you as a self proclaimed non-bigot have surely read and understood, that the Catholic Church changed its opinion with the changing of the guard.

And you can't understand this: that those changes were not derived from the Bible , but from scientific observations in nature...the Bible didn't contribute anything.

Quote:

Some years it believed the earth was flat, followed by bouts of it was a globe.

These days there are people who still think that the Earth is flat...there's even an organization that promotes such ignorant idea...where do you think these people got the idea from? Not from science, I hope.

Quote:

This was not an official permanent policy based on the Bible

It wasn't based on the Bible, because the Bible teaches that the Earth is flat...period!

Quote:

. Those who thought the world was flat, like you, would torture the Bible to mean what they wanted.

I thought the world was flat? Are you kidding?
I wrote:

Quote:

I thought ships were made of wood and people were made of mud, according to the belief that you so ardently defend.

Ionus responded:

Quote:

So what ?

That you made a mistake and I'm correcting you.

Quote:

Do you homestly think that your constant smart arse so what shows you for anything more than a crack addict ?

Have you heard the phrase: "Religion is the opium of the people"?

Quote:

Who will think you are clever because you can say "So what ?"

Well...examining your argumentative skills and your sources (which are none) any word that contains an "!" at the end is more clever than what you have to say.

Quote:

It almost brings a tear to my eye to think of you struggling pathetically and you can still manage a smile. Brave, brave little Gayson Prodmemore ! Sad

Bring on the insults, Ionus...for not agreeing with you...those that make you a...waitaminute...a..bigot?

Quote:

You will need them when you quote from the oldest known source for the Bible passages you wish to analyze.

And those sources are...?

Quote:

This will be fun.

We'll see who'll have more fun...

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

There is an argument about the dangers of evolution.

Well Ed--I'm glad we have established that. Some on your side refuse to discuss the matter. There is no argument about gravitation, osmosis, chemical combination, geometry, mathematics, and a host of other things in science which religious people accept just as readily as atheists.

I'm not stuck in any mindset at all outside of seeking to explore those dangers, debating them and seeing if we can find a way of out of them. I've never been against evolution. I don't reject it. It is one way of looking at things. It has its limits and especially for human organisation. Racehorses are bred on the principle of evolution but they are artificial beasts and would not survive long in the wild just as a wild horse would never win a Derby.

It has its attractions to certain political, economic, sociological and emotional ways of thinking and acting. Its acceptance as the only way of looking at things by the whole community has implications in all those regards. And it is a Kantian notion that I agree with that one shouldn't promote an idea unless one is ready to accept that the whole community will embrace it. Only attention seeking crackpots preach ideas which would be ridiculous if they reached a consensus.

Okay- I'll start on one of the dangers. If more than half of Americans don't accept evolution then the pool from which biology teachers are recruited is reduced and that cannot but lower the average intelligence in a number as large as biology teachers represent. Also, the teachers will likely contain a large number who are attracted to the teaching of evolution in order to promote extreme views in one or other of the areas I mentioned and they will drive a wedge between the students and their parents which I know some might argue is a good thing. There will be dissension. In the community, in the school boards and in the staff rooms. If watering down of evolution takes place to avoid those things then evolution is not being properly taught.

The dissension can be avoided by only having evolutionists on the school boards and on the teaching staff. Education itself, as a whole, would have to become evolutionist from top to bottom.

0 Replies

Ionus wrote:

Nevertheless, it is possible to generalise with people.

Francis wrote:
what mankind think about death or morality doesn't bother me the least.

Yet you were bothered enough to say we mustnt generalise about the entire human race..why is that ?

Another of your poorly reflected statements?

First, I didn't say "we', my comment was directed at you personally, as you made the generalisation.

Second, if I don't care about a general belief, I can address an individual and ask him to stop uttering nonsense.

1 Reply

The thing is, spendi, nobody is being told in school that they cannot accept religion. Science classes only teach about the mechanics of evolution. Speculating about religion is forbidden in these classes. I think people are tougher than you give them credit for. I believe a person is for the most part born atheist or deist. No amount of learning dispels that basic character component. Even if a religious person does learn about evolution, that does not cause him to be less religious, if he were truly such in the first place. Madeline O'Hare did all she could to teach her son to be an atheist. But, as soon as he could, despite all the indoctrination and evolution, he rejected it and showed himself to be very religious.

I don't believe that by lying to people you are sparing them a thing.

1 Reply

Spendi wrote:

What are your morals?

Suffice it to say that they do not proceed from any religion. And they are too private to share..

Spendi wrote:

What are the various reasons? Is being stumped one of them?

I'm surprised you ask. Is that part of evolution or creationism?
Well, one of them is that I'm currently in sunny California and have a work to do. Another is that I've better things on which to employ my time. And finally, sometimes, the arguments are so inane that I just give up.

As for being stumped, I expected you would know better, I'm amazed that you could even ask...

1 Reply

Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know