Re: A lifeline from mass unpleasantness!
- --- In CreationEvolutionDesign@y..., "CLouD5776" <c.l.doyle@o...>
> Hello Group,Well if that is Chris's conclusion, perhaps he can explain the vast
> This is an interesting thread that Mark started off in response to
> the rhetorical nonsense that we have come to expect from hate-
> fuelled, intolerant neo-darwinism. First, a little background.
> I have been participating in these debates, in various forums, for
> quite a number of years now and I'm beginning to realise the sad
> truth about neo-darwinism. The vast majority of its proponents are
> more concerned about insulting God and religion than they are about
> applying the scientific method to their own neo-darwinistic faith.
number of Christians who hold to the Theory of Evolution and neo-
Darwinism. Chris is of course applying a prejudiced and
stereotypical view. It seems to me on these lists that close to half
the supporters of neo-Darwinism are professed Christians.
> message 3075, I referred to the fact that "the general populationof
> the world is sadly ignorant when it comes to thewhy
> CreationEvolutionDesign debate". This goes some way to explaining
> it is that the vast majority of neo-darwinists do not and cannotis
> apply the scientific method to their own neo-darwinistic faith. But
> that is only half of the story. Clearly, the fervent neo-darwinist
> a man on a mission a mission to destroy all religion (well, allChris again makes an insulting and erroneous point based on his
> religions apart from their own neo-darwinistic faith).
disgraceful stereotype of neo-Darwinists. If this is not an ad
hominem attack (trying to disprove your opponents position by
charcterising them as destroyers) I don't know what is.
That is his
> primary, and perhaps, sole concern. This dawning realisation shedsaddress
> light on another subject the main subject of my own personal
> Is there a sound scientific basis for neo-darwinism?
> This is the subject that I have been discussing more than any other
> both here and elsewhere. In my last post to Cliff, in the thread of
> the same name, I decided it was to time to seriously emphasise that
> point hoping that either he or another neo-darwinist, will
> it. Since I posted the original message a couple of months ago now,he
> it has been met by overwhelming silence from the neo-darwinistic
> camp. This is surprising because neo-darwinism is simply an
> economical term for mainstream darwinism or popular belief in the
> theory of evolution. Cliff has decided to opt for the stance that
> is not a neo-darwinist. Apparently, as a naturalist, he issomething
> so fundamentally different that the question doesn't apply to him.I
> don't know why the others remain silent, but I'm beginning toPerhaps Chris will tell us what the scientific hypothesis of
> strongly suspect that this is because the others simply don't know
> what the sound scientific basis for neo-darwinism actually is!
Intelligent Design is?
> Further, most are not here to justify their faith. Their primaryand
> sole concern is their mission to destroy all religion, apart fromneo-
> darwinism.Who is Chris referring to here? I don't personally know any neo-
darwinist who has this motivation.
> Now, that brings us onto this thread. Mark is on a win-win
> here, simply because Alec is trying to defend a completely falseand
> absurd position.It is Chris's contention that my position is false and absurd. I
point out to him that Mark did not go as far as he is going and Mark
presented his strong case with an admirable degree of restraint.
That thread is not as yet complete, so Chris's conclusion is
However, my contention was that terror in secular societies (ie those
in which the overwhelming philosophy is atheistic) is relatively no
greater than in religious societies (ie those in which the
overwhelming philosophy is religious). I made no claims about
Chritianity with respect to other religions (but note that Christian
societies *have* been responsible for some tererible events).
In fairness to Alec, he probably didn't expect Mark
> to pick him up, with such a sound and detailed argument afterall,
> this was just one throw away comment from a mission that is full ofneo-
> such comments in his attempts to destroy all religion (apart from
> darwinism).Chris misrepresents my motivation and my position and I call on him
to withdraw that slur.
Alec probably didn't expect to have to defend a
> rhetorical and offensive device because he probably doesn't reallyA proceeding that we observe perfectly in Chris's post.
> believe it himself. Rhetoric and offensive is not concerned with
> truth, it is concerned with scoring points and winning arguments at
> all costs, and without regard to integrity and justice.
> that he finds himself in this uncomfortable position, I would liketo
> throw him a life line on the off chance that Alec is not like thethe
> vast majority of neo-darwinists, that he is not simply on a mission
> to destroy religion without concern for the application of the
> scientific method to neo-darwinism.
> Alec, your position is false because no religious text sanctions
> sort of activity and bloodshed you list here:Does Chris really think that my position is that religious texts
> > Crusades: 1.5 million
> > Thirty Years War: 11.5 million
> > European wars between 1672 and 1721: 1.5 milion
> > War of the Spanish Succession 1.3 million
> > Seven years War 1.2 million
> > French revolution: 2 million
> > Napoleonic wars: 3 million
> > Zulu wars: 2 million
> > Taiping rebellion: 20 million
> > Paraguayan war: 1 million
> > 19th Cenrtury colonial famines: 46 million
> > Albigensian crusade: 1 million
> > Arian schism: 1 million
> > Carthiginian struggle: 1 million
> > Saracens slaughtered: 7 million
> > Saxon and Scandinavians resisting Christianity: 2 million
> > Other 'Holy' Wars against Netherlands, Albigenses, Waldenses, and
> > Huguenots: 1 million
> > Inquisition: 350,000
> > Ivan the Terrible: 200,000
> > Manchu conquest: 25 million
> > Mughal empire: 2.6 million
> > African American slavery: 18 million
> > Conquestt of the Americas : 20 million
> > Mongols: 30 million
> > Timur: 7 million
sanction *all* these atrocities? That is obviously not the case,
although I am sure that the leaders of the Crusades and other Holy
wars and the Inquistion believed that religious texts sanctiioned
their actions. Furthermore, religious texts were used
(inappropriately no doubt) to justfy African American slavery.
However, my point is not that religious texts justify or encourage
these atrocities but that being 'religious' does not prevent people
from committing them.
> There is one exception to that fact: neo-darwinistic scriptures
> certainly sanction that sort of activity. Those scriptures preachThat is an unjustified and insulting attack on science and on
> amoral values so there is no law which states that thou shalt not
> kill. There is only one law in the neo-darwinistic faith: every man
> for himself. It's a jungle out there and just do whatever takes to
> survive and reproduce. But that is an aside.
scientists. You misrepresent the science and the people who carry it
>I never claimed that it reflected on the theory. I simply pointed
> It is an invalid philosophical argument to move from an ought to an
> is or vice-versa. If religious theory doesn't sanction the activity
> listed above, then no matter if every single practioneer of that
> theory were wanton and evil murderers, it would in *no* way reflect
> on the theory.
out that being 'religious' does not prevent people from carrying out
atrocitioes at the same rate as being 'atheistic' does, against your
scurrilous argument that atheism leads necessarily to more atrocities.
Chris has taken that argument even further in this disgusting post
and stated that neo-Darwinism is somehow morally degenerate and he
has indulged in an unwarranted personal attack against those who
accept the theory of evolution.
He has made the charge that neo-Darwinism preaches amoral values and
by implication those who accept it are amoral. This is as great an
ad hominem as has ever appeared on this list. He ignores the fact
that all science is amoral and that it describes what it finds even
if that upsets his religious sensibilities. The truth in science is
not subject to religious censorship although religious institutions
have tried to do so constantly since the 15th century. And to top it
all, he hopes to persuade us that the Theory of Evolution is
falsified by these spurious charges, whist not being able to present
any sensible scientific argument against it. I hope he is ashamed of
But Alec, I truly hope that you already understand
> that piece of elementary philosophical reasoning. For example, tothe
> suggest that the terrorists of September 11th are a reflection of
> evils of religion would be an invalid philosophical argument. Why?to
> Because the Qu'ran doesn't sanction that sort of activity on the
> contrary, it warns against it with the threat of great punishment.
> But there are people in this world who think the laws don't apply
> them religious or otherwise. That is no reflection on the laws,it
> is a reflection of the motives of the man in question be they20th
> political, selfish, evil or otherwise. Therefore, it is
> entirely "unreasonable to conclude that that 1 in 20 people pre
> century died at the hands of others and that Christian societiesare
> not noticeably better" because Christianity does not sanction theI have not made the argument that Chris ascribes to me, nor would I
> execution of 1 in 20 people.
do so. My contention was, however, that being religious does not
significantly change one's propensity to commit atrocities.
I leave aside for the moment all the passages in the Old Testament
which glory in the destruction of the enemies of god's chosen people
which give the lie to Chris's claim that Christian texts do not
sanction atrocious behaviour.
> Okay, I know, I'm flogging a dead horse now. So here is the
> *Discuss* the sound scientific basis for neo-darwinism. Pick apiece
> of evidence that you find the most compelling, that lends exclusivethe
> support to neo-darwinism, and discuss it. Is that not a great
> lifeline for getting out of a no-win situation and addressing the
> truly important issues? No thanks are necessary, my reward will be
> the enjoyment of the discussion that would follow when you detail
> sound scientific basis for neo-darwinism.Perhaps Chris could tell us what the scientific hypothesis of
Intelligent Design is?