38
   

Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

 
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 02:52 am
@MASSAGAT,
Quote:
I submit, Ionus, that in a Universe where such a thing occurs, anything is possible.
Yeah, I love science with a passion beyond sex. One scientist (I forget his name) has been ostracised for daring to suggest that the nature of all the universe is waves, not particles. Then string theory popped up and it basically agrees with him. I wonder if anyone was killed in the stampede to tell him they were wrong and apologise ? Probably not.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 04:06 am
Setanta wrote-

Quote:
Jesus Christ . . . the gobshite Spurious once again succeeds in suckering all of y'all into discussing what he wants to discuss, rather than the topic.


There's a typical example of the point I've been making Ed. The remark is trite and lacks wit, style or verve. It also labels you as a sucker.

And it ignores that fact that you invited us in your starter post to say our piece on why we take the stand we do. That was the topic.

So it is easy to see that taking pains to avoid the company of suchlike is a useful thing to do.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 04:24 am
@spendius,
Yes, but he does start it with a religious acknowledgement so I guess he has contributed a little ...why is he jealous of you spendy ?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 05:00 am
@Ionus,
He jealously guards the mental construction he has created, which is indeed a fragile entity, and fears that even the knocking down of one prop of it will result in a collapse of the whole edifice.

The edifice is, of course, entirely subjective. It is complicated (up to a point) rather than complex and real life is the latter.

His having me on Ignore is a protection and a tacit recognition that I might kick a prop away which is too risky for him.

He hasn't a scientific bone in his body. He just uses science by selecting some simple isolated and unconnected aspect of it, which he doesn't understand and asumes no one else does, to beat people over the head with.

Fundamentally he is a "city man" and I am a peasant. If you have studied Spengler you will know what fantastic implications exist in such a distinction.

If you haven't I recommend the work.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 05:38 am
@edgarblythe,
Apparently, the concept of evolutionary "doctrine" has been a dangerous idea even amog the preachers and scientists. When Daniel Dennett had his book "Darwins Dangerous Idea" Published, he took on, in its depth, Jay Goulds work , so this began an interesting feud that got really nasty and wasnt really resolved as of Goulds death in 2002. Gould said that:
Quote:
"Daniel Dennett devotes the longest chapter in Darwin's Dangerous Idea to an excoriating caricature of my ideas, all in order to bolster his defense of Darwinian fundamentalism. If an argued case can be discerned at all amid the slurs and sneers, it would have to be described as an effort to claim that I have, thanks to some literary skill, tried to raise a few piddling, insignificant, and basically conventional ideas to "revolutionary" status, challenging what he takes to be the true Darwinian scripture. Since Dennett shows so little understanding of evolutionary theory beyond natural selection, his critique of my work amounts to little more than sniping at false targets of his own construction. He never deals with my ideas as such, but proceeds by hint, innuendo, false attribution, and error." [17]


I like it when Gould pats himself on the back with his self praise of "some literary skill" , when almost any objective critic would agree that Gould was the Bulwer Lyton of Scientific writing and he was a bore in the lecture hall becauase he as always sidetracking himself with his baseball and His History anecdotes. These often got him so sidetracked that hed forget his main point (I speak as a former student of his lectures). Dennett made his points very well and, even though several were dead wrong, he did his case proud by true literary skill.Often thats often where the danger resides, in the ability to support ones argument. Ive always noted that the Creationist "scientists" were really good speakers and they excelled at crowd whipping and passion. SO its easy to confuse the crowds with style rather than substance.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 06:24 am
@farmerman,
That is a good example of how a number of debates on A2K are conducted.

But I don't see why being styled the Bulwer Lyton (sic) of Scientific writing is anything to be particularly ashamed of. I have been accused of that myself and I have always taken it as something of a compliment. The good Lord's "The Last Days of Pompeii" is reputed to have inspired Madame Blavatsky and that was no mean feat.

It always brings a tear of joy to my eye when clever dicks take the piss out of someone who was himself taking the piss by the simple expedient of believing he wasn't taking the piss.

And I have never found lecturers " boring" who indulged in sidetrackings and digressions. In fact I have learned some very important lessons from writers and speakers who were given to those genteel amusements. It is rather those who don't do that, probably lacking the skill or the nerve, who are boring. And it may be that the sidetracks and digressions do actually bear upon the main point in some subtle way which those who are impatient of subtlety designate as boring having no other hole in which to occupy.

The argument being discussed at present fm is that evolution is a dangerous idea to those who embrace it too exclusively because it transforms them into bigoted silly-sods who nobody who hasn't taken leave of their senses would socialise with in the pub for longer that it took the manifestations to show or 5 minutes, whichever is the shortest.

Why it is dangerous to such persons can be seen in the bank statements of those who rent dock space in boat marinas or fly thousands of miles in search of new friends.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 08:45 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Knowing there is evolution certainly reinforces my atheism, but I would be an atheist if Darwin and his ideas had not yet happened.
Do you know what aethism means Ed ? Because it takes just as much faith to be aethist as it does to be a believer. Perhaps you mean agnostic ? Or can you prove the non-existence of God ?

That's a bullshit statement not worth responding to.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 09:34 am
It is not axiomatic that atheists assert that there is no god. In response to an assertion that there is one, they simply say "I don't believe that." The refusal to believe something entails no "faith." It is idiotic, but typical of the theist to attempt to claim that atheism and theism are two sides of the same coin.

Atheist simply means "without god." It doesn't mean anything else.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 09:37 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

It is not axiomatic that atheists assert that there is no god. In response to an assertion that there is one, they simply say "I don't believe that." The refusal to believe something entails no "faith." It is idiotic, but typical of the theist to attempt to claim that atheism and theism are two sides of the same coin.

Atheist simply means "without god." It doesn't mean anything else.

They try to use that argument to haul you back into the fold. In effect telling us, "You believe as we do, like it or not." Ridiculous.
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 09:41 am
They also tell you "You cannot prove God does not exist" as if we are obligated to come up with evidence to disprove something they made up out of thin air (no evidence at all). I cannot disprove billions of things that do not exist. Why single out the notion of a god?
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 12:11 pm
@edgarblythe,
Because Ed, the inabilty to disprove the notion of a god opens up the door for the exercise of rhetorical devices which then are in competition with other rhetorical devices for the approval of the public whose members have a free choice.

The size of the segment of the population which approves the rhetoric in favour of the notion of a god/s compared with the size of the segment of the population which approves the rhetoric in favour of the notion of "without god", both now and historically, is such that the former holds considerable sway (about 9 to1 I gather in the US) and in a democracy the former is justified as the rhetoric on which to proceed in the matter of social organisation.

Hence my posts concerning the avoidance of rhetoricians in the service of being "without god" in social affairs.

It is a self-comforting straw man that the 90% are ignorant, superstitious fools being led by the nose by unscrupulous weavers of the wind. The onus is on the rhetoricians of the notion of "no god" to up their game which, of course, they have no chance of doing as is easily seen on this very thread and anywhere else one might care to look.

Your tunes are hopeless and consist of little else but snarlings and materialistic simplicities.

All the other "billions" of things you mention do not lend themselves to these considerations.

spendius
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 12:24 pm
@spendius,
I can myself, easily, up the rhetorical game in the service of the notion of being "without god" but I very much fear that I might cause the moderators to intervene and thus demonstrate that they are not in favour of such rhetoric being displayed on their esteemed pages.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 02:06 pm
People have been swayed by such arguments for thousands of years. But now the arguments become transparent in the light of newly discovered knowledge. You seek to prove with emotion and words what you cannot with facts. I don't have to disprove your god, once again. I won't be 'herded' into acceptance by your, "Well others are doing it. Therefore so must you." You have only gone against evolution because you wanted to, not because you found any flaw in the science.
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 02:11 pm
@edgarblythe,
I don't see any flaw in the science except its limitations.

I think you missed the point Ed. I gave the reasons for my questioning of evolution as a way of thinking for a population.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 03:09 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

I can myself, easily, up the rhetorical game in the service of the notion of being "without god" but I very much fear that I might cause the moderators to intervene and thus demonstrate that they are not in favour of such rhetoric being displayed on their esteemed pages.

To which moderators do you refer? I haven't seen one post censored, except spam and the like.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 03:14 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

I don't see any flaw in the science except its limitations.

I think you missed the point Ed. I gave the reasons for my questioning of evolution as a way of thinking for a population.

The people can withstand hearing the truth. They are tougher than you give them credit for.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 03:33 pm
@spendius,
The humbleness fairy surely forgot to spit on your head.

I don't know anyone else who can make Setanta seem so modest and moderate.
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 03:33 pm
@edgarblythe,
Hearing it maybe. But "to live it you have to explode."

Millions threw a wobbler when one tin of fish gave somebody botulism and Orson Wells caused a panic with a Martian's invasion.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 03:35 pm
@ehBeth,
You must live in a quiet neighbourhood Beth.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 03:39 pm
@ehBeth,
<snort>
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 4.27 seconds on 11/22/2024 at 07:32:04