Originally posted by whodeyThat is a useful course though and as long as there is an actual link there shouldn't be a problem.
That is one approach, however, I took a course once in college that intermingled science and the morality therin covering such topics as euginics. It was facinating to say the least.
The problem with ID in science classes is that it shouldn't be taught to be a scientific theory when it isn't. The only real reason to teach ID in science class is as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. The problem is, it isn't even a scientific theory.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI am not so sure ID and evolution are mutually exclusive. I also did not get the vibe in the movie expelled that they were bashing evolution, rather, they simply said there is more here that needs explaining. I think a more correct thing to say is that ID is an alternative to abiogenesis.
That is a useful course though and as long as there is an actual link there shouldn't be a problem.
The problem with ID in science classes is that it shouldn't be taught to be a scientific theory when it isn't. The only real reason to teach ID in science class is as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. The problem is, it isn't even a scientific theory.
Originally posted by whodeyWhether ID claims to be an alternative to abiogenesis or evolution or both is not necessarily relevant to the apparent fact that ID is not a scientific theory.
I am not so sure ID and evolution are mutually exclusive. I also did not get the vibe in the movie expelled that they were bashing evolution, rather, they simply said there is more here that needs explaining. I think a more correct thing to say is that ID is an alternative to abiogenesis.
Those who believe in ID need to develop it into a scientific theory for it to be treated as one in a science curriculum.
If ID is really only an alternative to abiogenesis then there are a lot of people here and elsewhere making the argument that it's an alternative to evolution.
The people who are supporting ID need to make it clear exactly what they claim ID does and does not explain and construct a legit scientific theory around that.
Originally posted by whodeyTo some extent. I can look at behaviours which are culturally amoral, like for example homosexuality was even 50 years ago, (and still is in huge swaths of the church, but wasn't 2000 years ago) and use evolution to decide whether there is any reason why this might detrimental to the group. If it is not, (homosexuality would not be detrimental to the group (a group is, of couse, comprised of "selfish" individuals (I am, of course, not refering to mental selfishness, but rather genetic selfishness))), then that allows me to conclude it is not a truly amoral behaviour, rather one that was given that status later. At which point I would conclude that homosexuality is between the individual and his / her partner, provided it had no ill bearing on me.
You derive your morals from evolution? Can you explain how?
Evolution allows us to understand psychological behaviours, and many cultural norms. This allows us to make informed judgements about the values of any given behaviour for us, since good / bad, moral / amoral are value judgements assigned by people.
Originally posted by whodeyAs for Jesus, well, I think, if everything said about him is true (which seems unlikely) then he was an exceptional individual. That doesn't make him the son of God in my book, any more than Ghandi was.
So where did Jesus get his theology from in regards to loving his enemies? How did this evolve?
Also, could eugenics be used in a "moral" fashion?
However, I would guess he was a guy with a great sense of empathy. That seems apparent from much of what he said. He appreciated the position, perhaps, that his "enemies" were in, and could understand their actions. Of course, without understanding far more about the man, the real man, not the propogandised version in the bible, this remains a "just so" story.
I personally have no enemies. I don't believe in them. Life is too short. Does that make me the son of God, just like Jesus? I would guess it gives me a much better morality than many of the "Christians" who spew vitrol on a regular basis in these forums, and presumably their personal lives too.
Originally posted by whodeyWell, as I also pointed out aboigenesis CAN be tested in the lab. We CAN make predictions about the types of organic molecules we should see given the paleontological information we know.
That is one approach, however, I took a course once in college that intermingled science and the morality therin covering such topics as euginics. It was facinating to say the least.
As far as ID goes, however, I take issues with people saying iit has no scientific basis. People are using scientific data to back up their views on ID and very smart ones t ...[text shortened]... iewed as superior to the other because of this. Of course, that is only one man's opinion. 😛
Abiogenesis has a mechanism, shown to be true over the short term (no reason why it should break down over a longer term) and it had the raw ingredients. It should work, although we haven't recreated life by this process yet. One day we might, but remember, it's a very unlikely event, and any experiment may have to run for tens or hundreds of thousands of years for it to happen. Science has only been about for 3-400 years.
The ID / God argument utilises something which cannot possibly be tested for or verified - an magical, invisible, undetectable being , whom we have no conclusive empirical evidence for.
Originally posted by whodeyEthics can (some would say should) , indeed, be a part of a scientist's curriculum. Ethics that concern science and it's applications could be a major part of that.
That is one approach, however, I took a course once in college that intermingled science and the morality therin covering such topics as euginics. It was facinating to say the least.
However, when scientific knoledge is taught , only scientific theories should be discussed.
Originally posted by whodey
As far as ID goes, however, I take issues with people saying iit has no scientific basis. People are using scientific data to back up their views on ID and very smart ones to boot. Granted, ID cannot be tested, or cannot be tested empiracally to date but neither can abiogenesis. ...
Using science to do something does not make that thing scientific.
I would, however, like to see these data that they are using.
6 edits
I think it only fair to bring up a quote by Charles Darwin used in the movie.
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skills to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is no reason to believe that vaccinations has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propogate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the human race of man. It is suprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel imelled to give to the helpless is mainly an accidental result of the instinct of sympath, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we chech our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our culture. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient, but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propogating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage" (The Descent of Man (p.168-169)
This quote was given in the backdrop of a killing chamber below a hospital the Nazis had constructed in order to do away with the "weak members of society". Can anyone but me see the link here between Darwinism and these death camps for the physically and mentally challenged? Granted, we cannot blame Darwin for their crimes. In fact, I think Darwin would have described it as evil by this quote listed above. However, by what moral authority is it evil if doing away with the weak would be considered beneficial? Nevertheless using this quote in terms of a moral compus how is what the Nazis did immoral?
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyThis is a misquotation of Darwin's work. As you say, This quote was given in the backdrop of a killing chamber below a hospital the Nazis had constructed in order to do away with the "weak members of society". - a vile piece of propaganda indeed, combining the use of misquotation (leaving the part where Darwin says that neglecting the weak and helpless for our gain is an "overwhelming evil" to quote Darwin) with powerful imagery.
I think it only fair to bring up a quote by Charles Darwin used in the movie.
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we ins Nevertheless using this quote in terms of a moral compus how is what the Nazis did immoral?
Let's see the real, full quote (for your convenience, the most important parts that were left out by the "expelled" people are bolded):
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race ; but excepting in the case of man himself , hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Originally posted by scottishinnzI hope you included abiogenesis people in that little group of people
One can try to be impartial.
Creationists and IDers don't seem particularly able to do that.
Were the IDers in the Dover case ever convicted on that charges of perjury that the judge threatened to hit them with for lying under oath??
that also has a hard time being impartial, since it is a human trait
not a belief system trait.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayTrying a little deflection, hmm? The abiyoyo people have nothing to do with the subject he asked about. Why don't you just answer the question as asked instead of simply pointing fingers at something else?
I hope you included abiogenesis people in that little group of people
that also has a hard time being impartial, since it is a human trait
not a belief system trait.
Kelly
Originally posted by RetrovirusWe have a small window to look at things, that window is right now!
If you want to make a proper analogy, it is your job to prove that A is analogous to B, not mine to refute it.
My main disagreement with the analogy is that in designed machines - cars, ect. - cannot evolve.
Biological machines can, and do ; thus, while designed machines features must come from design, biological machines features can come both from ...[text shortened]... cally modified organisms) and evolution.
I thought that we agreed on the evolution part, yes?
We can see several things and make judgments about the past and
the future, we can try to predict the way things are going to play out
in the here and now, or suggest how we think they did play out in the
past. Right now you see life as is, you project into the past and the
future what life will do or has done. None of that touches the here
and now, looking at living systems and cars in the now show us
traits, the way they behave that do not just occur, and if you were
going to build something that does what life does now it would be a
major undertaking. I think you are avoiding the comparisons for
whatever reasons you may have.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzI am not ignoring your points, if what the movie said was not true,
Why are you still ignoring my points regarding the factual basis of the movie? Why not respond to the post I made to Whodey showing the film to basically constitute a string of lies?
it was either a lie or mistake. Just as if the web sites highlighting the
how bad the movie is, if they are making false statements that are
either lies or mistakes they too are flawed. I have said this a couple of
times now.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseDidn't you say we were done talking to each other, why are you
Trying a little deflection, hmm? The abiyoyo people have nothing to do with the subject he asked about. Why don't you just answer the question as asked instead of simply pointing fingers at something else?
bothering to discuss anything I say after making such a statment?
Kelly