Subject:
|
Re: Mormon bashing again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 2 Mar 2000 22:48:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
773 times
|
| |
|
|
(I hope this formats OK when I submit it)
Toto, I think we're in Kansas...
> > Creationism isn't science, it's a tool for making converts to
> > Christianity. Similarly, posting the Ten Commandments in schools
> > proclaims that authority comes from god ("thou shalt have no
> > other gods before me").
>
> Creationism is actually very scientific. Many secular scientists have become
> christians precisely because their findings lead them to the conclusion that
> everything is too complex to be accidental. I have a few books I could mail to
> you that would make this clear.
I've read most of the supposedly "scientific" Creationist literature,
and nowhere is the necessary connection between belief in a director
or architect ("theistic evolution") and the Christian god. Creationism
is emphatically *not* science, first of all because dressing up dogma
in scientific terminology does not make it scientific, and second of
all because Creation Science (or "Creation Research" or "Theory of
Spontaneous Origins" or whatever Hank Morris et al are calling it
this week) operates on the basis of anti-logic. The latter means
that Creationism depends on disproving evolution to prove itself true.
No other option is seen as possible other than those two--the cyclical
world of certain Asian religions, for example, isn't even considered,
nor the theory I just came up with now that a giant pink bunny made
us all five minutes ago with our memories intact and apparent age.
It's either evolution or creation--and Christianity--for Creationists.
It has no positive evidence of its own, and it's locked in a battle
with evolutionary theory, which is designed to be flexible because it
reflects a visible and verifiable body of evidence. It's like hitting
a moving target--so Creationists do their best to reify evolution into
"Darwin," and lump into "Darwinism" the social Darwinists of the 19th
Century, various Fascist movements, many now-discredited theories,
and the like. By defining the enemy on their terms, it's made easier.
One point of Bill's original post was true: Darwin's theory was wrong.
But it was wrong in precisely the same way that Newton's theories are
wrong--they were only adequate to describe what was then known. Only
the generalities of descent with modification are still present in
today's evolutionary theory. Interesting side notes: Darwin in fact
started as a Creationist, and evolution was first posited over a century
before he wrote! If Creationism is so scientific and correct, how
did evolution ever get a foothold?
As to the books mentioned above, give me citations (Author, Title,
Publisher, Year) and I'll give you reactions. You see, most scientists
ignore Creationism, figuring like the rest of the world that it would
simply go away in the face of overwhelming evidence. As far as
scientists "becoming Christians when faced with evidence," most of
the evo biologists I know already *are* Christians, and they still
firmly understand and accept evolution. The two aren't incompatible
unless you demand a literalist reading of Genesis and a strict
adherence to Revelations eschatology--which is unscientific.
By the way: The "numbers game" you mentioned, the Hoyle/Wrackminsing
conundrum about "chance" formation of amino acids? It's a fallacy.
Hoyle et al are mathematicians, not chemists; but what's more, they
believe that life on Earth was triggered by amino acids on meteors
falling from outer space! Do the Creationists really want to lean
on that sort of evidence? Besides, amino acids are self-ordering--
primitive self-replicating chains of the sort you cite taking "240
million years" to develop can in fact be made in a matter of hours
under mildly controlled conditions with wide variances--wide enough
to be plausable for a primordial environment.
> > I just want to make some quick points in the "off-topic" record:
> > "Atheism" is a straw man. It is usually used to mean Nihilist--someone
>
> Or agnostic.
The difference between agnosticism and gnosticism is dogma--the
belief that one is right and that one knows the truth and it can
be found solely in X or Y. It's still a straw man.
> > who denies everything. But it only means you don't believe in any gods
> > at all. There is no such thing as an "Atheist code of behavior" and
> > you can't lump all your enemies together with such a word.
>
> My intent was to paint the picture with a broad brush. There is no "official"
> atheist code of behavior, but it IS pretty much do what you want.
No, that's the Satanist (and, some would argue, Hollywood) code
of behaviour. If it's anything, it's Utilitarian or Communitarian--
but not Bentham, more like classic Mill.
> > Still, religionists believe that there is no way to have morality without a
> > god. This has to challenged.
>
> That was my previous point and it is valid. If morality does not come from an
> objective point beyond ourselves, then it is entirely of our own making and
> subject to the tyranny of a majority and/or the might of the powerful.
And it's not that way now? It hasn't always been that way, even
with supposedly objective morals in place?
> History
> has proven that powerful people with little or no morals WILL dominate the
> weak.
It has also proven that the righteous and morally upright (as
self-defined, naturally) will also dominate the weaker, in the
name of "civilising" them. It's still going on today in huge
parts of the world, and it's the reason why much of Africa is
such a tremendous mess (not to mention parts of Asia and Latin
America). The belief in moral rectitude unfortunately brings
with it enormous blinders.
> History has also proven that if a well intentioned system is allowed to
> decay it will end in nearly the same chaos. The Roman Empire started with high
> ideals and ended in total depravity. Even the theocracy of Israel collapsed
> many times due to immorality. Morality must originate outside of ourselves -
> there can be no other source - otherwise everything is a house of cards easily
> toppled.
Why can't it exist in the simple tenet, "Do unto others, as you
would have done unto you?" Do we need the fear of eternal punish-
ment to keep us in line? I'd like to believe a more altruistic
and doctrinally neutral alternative is possible.
> > The religious roots of the US are not the cause of the US as you claim they
> > are.
> > American ideals were, and are, this-worldly, secular, happy and self-reliant,
> > not mystical, humble, or dogmatic. Washington and Jefferson are a long way
> > from the Pilgrims (who recreated much of what they supposedly escaped.)
> > The US is a result of Enlightenment political philosophy, which was an
> > outgrowth of the scientific world view--not the Bible. If you read the • letters
> > of the Founding Fathers, there is not a whole lot of religion there. Instead,
> > they are peppered with "treasonous" statements like "My mind is my own • church"
> >
> That's why I stated the following in my original message:
>
> > This country was founded by people who accepted and, *for the most part*,
> > believed and practiced them (no nitpicks please)
>
> My point was that the ten commandments had an undeniable impact on the framing
> of our system. I realize that Jefferson considered himself a theist, but he
> also didn't reject the label of christian either. As to the "Enlightenment
> political philosophy", this also had great impact on Britian and France, and
> most of Europe for that matter, yet our system is unique and far more
> successful than is any other. So, what makes ours unique? I believe it is the
> Judeo-Christian underpinnings. How can you deny the religious origins when the
> constitution starts by saying that our rights come from our Creator. The
> posting of the ten commandments anywhere does not constitute an endorsement or
> mandate of any kind, it's merely a reference to a historical document that
> impacted the formation of our laws.
Given that the majority of people in the to-be-US were Christian
of some stripe, they had to make the system saleable to *everyone*.
It's a great compromise document, designed to please everyone. We
won't talk about Ben Franklin's code of conduct, though. :)
Bill's right that the overwhelming worldview in the West is that
of Christianity, even among those who deny it--because even the very
act of defining oneself against that is accepting its power to
define thought. It shows up in the founding documents of the US
because the Judeo-Christian way of ordering the world is so very
ingrained.
> > Bill wrote:
> > > things like Columbine? Animals do these types of things. It's normal for
> > > animals to do these types of things.
> >
> > Silly. Animals kill weaker animals to eat them! Stop calling the
> > animals sinful, too. It's right for the lions to eat the lambs, but animals
> > are not suicidal maniacs.
>
> What's silly about it. So, animals only kill to eat, right?! Are you saying
> that like doesn't kill like in the animal kingdom? Have you never seen lions • or
> wolves or kangaroos fight and kill for supremacy in their various groups
> (prides, packs, herds etc.) They kill their own for sexual/breeding dominance
> which brings feeding beni's with it. They mark their territory and kill their
> own kind if it is trespassed. Animals have cannibalized their own species for
> many reasons. Which is precisely my point. Survival of the fittest. It's not
> sinful - I wasn't calling animals sinful - I said it was normal. So, if we are
> evolved from them then it is not wrong to kill for dominance. There is more to
> human needs, desires and morality than mere biology or increased cranial
> capacity. No amount of protiens and enzymes can account for the human spirit,
> personality or desire to be significant.
Death in most like-animal combat is accidental. It also depends on
the particular animal and the niche that it occupies. When you start
making analogies between animals and the horror of Columbine, though,
things break down--since when do animals kill themselves after
killing others of their kind? The two are patently different.
However, you're right that much animal behaviour *is* somewhat
analagous to human behaviour...after all, that's evolution! Think
about it when you get agitated while stuck in a crowded shopping
centre or traffic jam next time. And thus, we come full-circle.
The difference, as Bill points out, is that we are self-conscious.
Now, science can never say what the source of that is, but by the
same token it contains a lot of supposedly "animal" qualities.
However, evolution does *not* stipulate that it is OK to kill for
dominance in human societies. Nowhere. The implication isn't even
there--it's just been used to imply that by criminal regimes. Human
beings are a specific species, with its own social structures, codes
of conduct, and the like, just like every species has (or
conspicuously lacks, in the case of solitary animals).
So do I think that evolution happened? Of course. Do I believe
that human beings are unique in the animal kingdom, the pinnacle
of billions of years of evolutionary adaptation? Yes. (Well,
unless we kill ourselves off, in which case we were an evolutionary
dead-end. On a geological scale, the jury's still out. ;) ) Do I
think that Christianesque morality is a bad thing? No. Do I believe
that all of these are compatible? Absolutely.
best
Lindsay
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) I disagree, creationism can stand quite aptly on it's own two feet. It doesn't get it's validation from disproving evolution. There is quite a lot of geological and biological evidence to support the bible. The fossil record is not as the (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes: nor the theory I just came up with now that a giant pink bunny made (...) That's the stuff that makes my brain hurt. I guess that's why I liked the movie Dark City so much. For those who (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
| (...) Creationism is actually very scientific. Many secular scientists have become christians precisely because their findings lead them to the conclusion that everything is too complex to be accidental. I have a few books I could mail to you that (...) (25 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
