Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Ingersoll's Vow

Expand Messages
  • Jim Goff
    INGERSOLL S VOW Me: ...the likelihood that (Hitler s) public professions of Christian faith were sincere is nil, given that destroying Christianity was one of
    Message 1 of 106 , Oct 1, 2009

      Me: "...the likelihood that (Hitler's) public professions of Christian faith were sincere is nil, given that destroying Christianity was one of his goals."
      dr.lindberg: "What evidence do you have that 'destroying Christianity was one of his goals?'"

      You complain that I don't answer your questions, yet quite typically you ask questions that I've already answered. Your question here is an example. You can find my previous answer to it in message #18,644.

      dr.lindberg: "There ARE No 'moral systems built on Darwinian principles.'"

      So you say, but historians of modern Europe are virtually univocal in saying that the Nazis' moral system was shaped by Darwinian principles. As Weikart put it, "(I)t is a commonplace, uncontroversial assertion among most historians writing about Nazi ideology that social Darwinism was a central ingredient of Nazi ideology." Darwinism informed Social Darwinism, which in turn informed Nazism. That's why Deputy Fuhrer Rudolf Hess described Nazism as "applied biology."

      dr.lindberg: "Didn't you just say that we can't take Hitler at his word?"

      When a man's actions and his words are in conflict (as was the case with Hitler's actions and his claims to be a Christian), then his words are in doubt. When a man's actions and words are in agreement (as was the case with Hitler's actions and his claims that his genocidal project would bring about "a more noble evolution" of humanity), then his words are credible.

      dr.lindberg: "Darwinism IS helping us discover how to make the world better, by guiding research into disease, for example, in order to find better ways to treat and prevent them - such as the H1N1 vaccine, or in developing new more disease-resistant crop strains."

      Darwinism provides no guidance at all to medical or agricultural researchers. The kind of research you cite is guided by the researchers' knowledge of genetics. Knowledge of genetics, for example, is sufficient to tell medical researchers that viruses and bacteria mutate and adapt, and that disease-fighting strategies must take that adaptability into account. Whether or not the researchers know the Darwinian tale of life's evolution is irrelevant to their research. The following, taken from an essay by National Academy of Sciences member Phillip Skell, is apt:


      (T)he modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000. "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

      I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

      I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

      (End quote)

      Skell's complete essay can be found at: http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

      dr.lindberg: "How many diseases has the intelligent design theory led to a cure for?"

      So far as I know, both ID and Darwinism have led to cures for the same number of diseases, that is to say: zero. But ID research may prove fruitful in that regard, as the following press release from 2005 suggests:

      Another Biology Journal Publishes Article Applying Intelligent Design Theory to Scientific Research
      By: Staff
      Discovery Institute
      June 8, 2005

      Seattle, WA � For the second time in nine months, an article explicitly applying the theory of intelligent design to scientific research has been published in an internationally respected biology journal--despite Darwinists' claims that this never happens.

      An article by molecular biologist Jonathan Wells, a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, has just appeared in Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, one of the oldest still-published biology journals in the world. Wells's article uses the theory of intelligent design (ID) to formulate a testable hypothesis about centrioles, which are microscopic structures in animal cells whose function is not yet understood. Wells' hypothesis--if confirmed by experiments--would explain how centrioles function in normal cell division and malfunction in cancer. The hypothesis could also help to explain why there is a correlation between calcium and Vitamin D deficiency and major types of cancer.

      "Darwinian evolution, despite the claims of its defenders, has been remarkably unsuccessful in guiding practical research in biology and medicine," said Wells. "Although ID is still controversial in the scientific community, some of us are now using it to formulate testable hypotheses."

      "The interesting thing here is that scientists are applying the theory of intelligent design to cancer research," said Discovery Institute President, Bruce Chapman. "Who knows what new avenues of research and experimentation this could open up. I think you will see more and more scientists applying ID to their research in coming years.�

      The complete press release can be found at: http://www.discovery.org/a/2627

      James McCartney (as quoted by dr.lindberg): "And anybody who has given birth or had appendicitis has had a personal demonstration of the lack of intelligent design."

      McCartney's statement is typical of those who don't understand intelligent design. He's quite clearly in thrall to the misconception that the "intelligent" in "intelligent design" refers to design accomplished with great skill and mastery. In point of fact, it simply refers to design effected by an intelligent agent (or cause) - that is to say, it refers to real design as opposed to apparent design - irrespective of the designer's skill (or lack thereof). He's also apparently in thrall to the misconception that intelligent design contends that all biological features and all biological changes are the products of an intelligent agent (or cause).

      Truman: "OK Jim. Please explain to me, quite clearly, on 'pure Darwinian grounds' what is genetically inferior about Jews? Or what is genetically inferior about any other particular race?"

      I've already answered these questions. Go back and read what I wrote again, this time for understanding. (Hint: I don't subscribe to the notion that some races are genetically inferior to other races, but if I did, I'd have no reason - ON PURELY DARWINIAN GROUNDS - to object to the Holocaust. Indeed, on purely Darwinian grounds, I might see the Holocaust as morally praiseworthy, which is how Hitler and his men saw it.)

      Jim in Vermont

      Microsoft brings you a new way to search the web. Try Bing� now
      http://www.bing.com?form=MFEHPG&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MFEHPG_Core_tagline_try bing_1x1

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • notdoctor
      ... . . . . . . ... the words develop and development ? ... It is a basic principle of linguistics and lexicography that NO two words are completely
      Message 106 of 106 , Oct 31, 2009
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Jim Goff <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
        . . . . . .
        > Why is it that everyone is supposed to be bamboozled only when I use
        the words "develop" and "development"?

        It is a basic principle of linguistics and lexicography that NO two
        words are completely interchangeable.

        Although similar, evolve and develop have significant differences in
        their meaning.
        I hope this example makes one difference clear:

        If someone refers to the development of the city of Montreal, they are
        talking about things like how the city's population, economy,
        infrastructure, cultural life, etc. have grown. They might mention the
        founding of the city's four major universities, its rail, highway,
        public transit systems, its highrises, etc.

        If someone refers to the evolution of Montreal, they will be talking
        about how it has changed over 400 years from first an Iroquoyan village,
        to a Roman Catholic mission, to a farming community, to a centre of the
        fur trade for half a continent, then, with a hiatus while under foreign
        (i.e., US) occupation, to an industrial city, a port and railway hub, to
        Canada's economic and financial capital, to a provincial metropolis.
        They might talk about its linguistic evolution, from an Iroquoyan
        language, to French, to an English-speaking majority, and back to a
        French-speaking majority, with large English, Italian, Greek, Arabic,
        Creole, Portuguese, and Vietnamese speaking minorities.

        So the two words are referring to very different things, or when they do
        refer to the same thing, to very different aspects of it

        . . . . . .
        > "Note: I use 'Darwinism' as it is quite commonly used, namely, to
        refer to the most widely accepted form of modern evolutionary theory,
        otherwise known as 'neo-Darwinism' or 'the modern synthesis.'"
        > Yet you insist that I don't define my terms.

        You "define" them, and then ignore your own definitions, as in the
        following, written a couple of days back:
        "In that regard, Darwinism does not deliver the full explanation of
        human existence, thoughts and behaviors that it purports to deliver. "
        Modern evolutionary theory makes no such claim. In fact, I don't know of
        any scientist so arrogant as to claim that he/she can deliver a full
        explanation of anything. (Only creationists do that.) So you are NOT
        using the word Darwinism here the way you defined it above.

        Since the nub of our disagreement is the meaning of these words, and
        their implications, I don't see how trying to clarify them is
        "nit-picking." But if you really mean "evolution," and your aim is
        clarity of communication, why do you refuse to use the generally
        accepted term with its generally accepted meanings? I could decide to
        refer to you in all my postings as Engelbert Abdelkarim Karuizawa, but
        how would that make things any clearer, even if I did start off by
        defining what I meant?


        By definition, science is a way of thinking and seeking information to
        solve problems. Therefore the scientific method can be applied only to
        questions that have factual bases. Questions concerning morals, value
        judgments, social issues, and attitudes cannot be answered using the
        scientific method. What makes a painting great? What is the best type of
        music? Which wine is best? What color should I paint my car? These
        questions are related to values, beliefs, and tastes; therefore, the
        scientific method cannot be used to answer them.
        . . . .
        People need to understand that science cannot answer all the problems of
        our time. Although science is a powerful tool there are many questions
        it cannot answer and many problems it cannot solve. Most of the problems
        societies face are generated by the behavior and desires of people.
        Famine, drug abuse, and pollution are human-caused and must be resolved
        by humans. Science may provide some tools for social planners,
        politicians, and ethical thinkers, but science does not have, nor does
        it attempt to provide, all the answers to the problems of the human
        race. Science is merely one of the tools at our disposal.
        Enger and Ross. (2003). Concepts in Biology, 10th ed. New York: McGraw
        Hill, (pp. 10-11).

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.