Evolution has never been observed

[D H]

While this troll uses extremely poor arguments, he is correct when when by evolution one means the idea that known and observed evolutionary process operating today account for all biological diversity. It is far from established that this is the case.

Correct, but at the same time very, very wrong.

 

What you wrote is correct because of course our limited knowledge of today does not explain everything. Wrong because the only people who use that argument do not understand what science is. Very very wrong because you are implicitly invoking the god of the gaps argument. That argument didn't fly very far over a century ago, and its flying power has only diminished since then.

 

 

 

Hitler used evolutionary theory to justify his belief that the Arian race was superior, whereas Stalin used the same theory to support his belief that those who rejected communism were genetically predisposed to resist communism and therefore he was obligated to isolate them in Gulags lest their genes spread throughout the population.

How politicians of all ilk abuse scientific notions has absolutely zip, zero, nada to do with the validity of those scientific notions. All that this does is to speak ill of the politicians.

 

 

 

Today, social Darwinism seems to be making a comeback, for example by those who look for the "God Gene".

Non sequitur. Edited November 6, 2010 by D H

[Edtharan]

You are walking on dangerous ground here my friend. You need to be careful what you say. Please read actually everything i have written here, and you will see how wrong you have been.

Genocide is not about religion. It is about thinking that one group of people have the right to kill another group of people.

 

With Humans there is not real differences genetically between people. What the Nazis believed had nothing whatsoever to do with biology, it was an irrational and completely wrong belief. If they had any understanding of biology, or even of history, then they would not have been able to justify their actions.

 

If you trace the ancestory of any person curently alive in Europe back a few hundred years, then you will find that they are realated to any other person in Europe. The genetic mixiing of all the peoples in Europe is so great that the beliefs of the Nazis is not supported by biology. If the beliefs are not supported by biology, then they could not be using Evolution as a justification as it is part of biology.

 

You are trying toi use emotive arguments to prove your point, but the facts say other wise.

 

Besides there has been many incidences over the last 2000 years where christians have killed christians, so the fact that christians were killed does not make a single bit of difference.

 

There were also people of other religions and even Athiests killed by the Nazis, so where does this leave your arguments that it was an Athiests attack against religions?

 

Please do not deny these evil crimes, they happened.

I am not denying they happened, nor have I ever denied that they happened. I know people who were in the death camps. I am insulted that you think I am denying them and it appears that you are using this to further your arguments by trying to lable me as a holocaust denying. I too have releatives killed by the Nazis. You aren't alone in this. And because this attrocity occured to your family does not automatically make you right.

 

Now, did you know that in the Congo there have been more people murdered because of genocide than were killed in the Nazi holocaust. The beliefs that lead to genocide are still around and it is centred on beliefs that are in direct contradiction to biolgy and evolution.

 

Have you read "On the Origin of Species"? Nowhere does it say that humans are seperated into races. In fact, Darwin was against this because of what he saw in Tierra del Fuego. He saw people (christian priests) that "reverted" to a primitive state because of the isolation and the environment that they were in. The belief at the time was that Europeans were more civilised because they were of a different race.

 

This very fact alone means that anybody who claims that Darwin, evolution or "On the Origin of Species" supported seperating humans into different races did not get it from him, or his book. So your claims that the Nazis used Darwin's work to justify their crimes is factually wrong. Darwin provided evidence that it was not the case. If the Nazis were using Darwin's work to justfy their actions, then they were lying. And, if you just repeat these claims, the you are just repeating Nazi lies.

 

Hitler was well read in Darwins work. He was a strong evolutionist. Seeing the aryan race as the highest evolved with all the others are inferior. Hitler was also influenced by Nietzsche views on the "superman" and Nietzsche strong atheism - Which he quoted throughout his works.

He may be well read, but that does not mean that he actually followed what Darwin wrote. The fact that he was extremely racists prove that he didn't follow it as Darwin's work disproves racism.

 

Actually, if you have read the bible, the belief of a superior or favoured race is a core part of the bible. The Israleites were the favoured race of God and they were allowed to commit genocide against other races (there are even parts of the bible where God helps them to commit genocide). The whole concept is rooted deep within the Abrahamic religions (Judeism, Christianity and Islam). It is a core tennent of how their religions were created.

 

See the problem is that it does not matter if Hitler believed in evolution, or was an Athiest. It doesn't even matter if he was right in his beliefs (As I believe I have made clear I do not in any way think he was right in his beliefs). What matter in this discussion is whether or not Evolution exists.

 

None of your arguments have even come close to addressing this question. All you have said is that people can be evil.

 

So, that does not address the quesiton and is completely off topic.

[ajb]

See the problem is that it does not matter if Hitler believed in evolution, or was an Athiest.

 

From a pure scientific angle you are right.

 

However, this question and similar on parental inheritance etc and the connection with Nazi ideology has been focused on by various groups wishing to promote creationism or similar anti-scientific ideas. So unfortunately, is does seem to matter. The behaviour of the German nation in the 1930's and 1940's still to this day places a large taboo on certain topics of thought and investigation, particularly when it comes to race and genetics.

 

Anyway, this thread has now degenerated far away from the original post.

[cypress]

Correct, but at the same time very, very wrong.

 

What you wrote is correct because of course our limited knowledge of today does not explain everything. Wrong because the only people who use that argument do not understand what science is.

 

False, I am very aware of what science is.

 

Very very wrong because you are implicitly invoking the god of the gaps argument. That argument didn't fly very far over a century ago, and its flying power has only diminished since then.

 

I am correcting statements by other posters that stated evolution (the idea that all observed diversity is accounted for by known natural process observed today) is a fact, these people who make statements that evolution is fact are making appeals to ignorance. For my part, I do not know how the diversity of life actually occurred and do not make any claim that I do know and so I am not making any appeal to god. I do note that while observed evolutionary processes have thus far failed to produce the kinds of intermediate subcomponents that are required to generate the novel forms predicted by the theory despite trillions of trillions of observed opportunities to do so, genetic designers have been quite successful at producing far more than simply the subcomponents. Nearly all developmental forms require complex molecular machines at the cell level to produce distinct functional forms and these require multitudes of novel protein tertiary structures, new protein binding sites, new protein expression controls, new developmental controls, new cell process controls, new inventory and transportation controls and a host of protein hosts to aid in construction. All these components must come together to generate new functional forms. The fact is that evolutionary theory is approaching a crisis because of this growing dichotomy in molecular biology.

 

 

How politicians of all ilk abuse scientific notions has absolutely zip, zero, nada to do with the validity of those scientific notions. All that this does is to speak ill of the politicians.

 

I don't see how Hitler and Stalin abused evolutionary theory. If the theory is correct, then the conclusions they reach are correct as well. Let's be honest about what these two men believed and how they put their beliefs into practice. If their beliefs were correct but their practices were not correct then the theory must be able to explain how the practices were wrong and why. I have not seen this explanation.

 

The fact that Social Darwinism is making a comeback today seems to vindicate that especially Stalin was correct in at least his beliefs or at least this new bread of Social Darwinists must think so.

[ajb]

I don't see how Hitler and Stalin abused evolutionary theory. If the theory is correct, then the conclusions they reach are correct as well. Let's be honest about what these two men believed and how they put their beliefs into practice. If their beliefs were correct but their practices were not correct then the theory must be able to explain how the practices were wrong and why. I have not seen this explanation.

 

Let me say that science, morality and politics do not necessarily mix well and often don't agree with each other. Questions of Hitler and Stalin (or anyone else similar) doing something right or wrong is not as clear cut as them interpreting the science correctly or not. As human beings we can take the science into our policy making, however it is never going to be the soul factor. Nor should we attempt to make it the soul factor when interpreting the polices of Hitler and Stalin.

 

Anyway, none of this casts any shadow of doubt on the theory of evolution. In exactly the same way as Roosevelt 's commissioning of the atomic bomb and Einstein's pressure to do so places nuclear theory in doubt.

[cypress]

Genocide is not about religion. It is about thinking that one group of people have the right to kill another group of people.

 

With Humans there is not real differences genetically between people. What the Nazis believed had nothing whatsoever to do with biology, it was an irrational and completely wrong belief. If they had any understanding of biology, or even of history, then they would not have been able to justify their actions.

 

Nonsense. different breeds of animals and races of people do have genetic differences . Population genetics confirms this.

 

If you trace the ancestory of any person curently alive in Europe back a few hundred years, then you will find that they are realated to any other person in Europe. The genetic mixiing of all the peoples in Europe is so great that the beliefs of the Nazis is not supported by biology. If the beliefs are not supported by biology, then they could not be using Evolution as a justification as it is part of biology.

 

The Nazis focused on differences and downplayed similarities. They were neither correct nor incorrect to have done so.

 

You are trying toi use emotive arguments to prove your point, but the facts say other wise.

 

It is you who have the facts mixed up.

 

Now, did you know that in the Congo there have been more people murdered because of genocide than were killed in the Nazi holocaust. The beliefs that lead to genocide are still around and it is centred on beliefs that are in direct contradiction to biolgy and evolution.

 

I can see that some are neutral to evolutionary theory but in the case of Hitler and Stalin, their actions were driven by their faith in evolutionary theory.

 

Have you read "On the Origin of Species"? Nowhere does it say that humans are seperated into races. In fact, Darwin was against this because of what he saw in Tierra del Fuego. He saw people (christian priests) that "reverted" to a primitive state because of the isolation and the environment that they were in. The belief at the time was that Europeans were more civilised because they were of a different race.

 

You would have to read his other book "Descent Of Man" to understand his thoughts on human race. He devotes an entire chapter in it to the application of natural selection to civilized societies.

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that 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 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 civilised 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 any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

 

Darwin regarded blacks as lesser humans when he observed that the progression of evolution between apes and humans fell

between the negro or Australian and the gorilla

 

This very fact alone means that anybody who claims that Darwin, evolution or "On the Origin of Species" supported seperating humans into different races did not get it from him, or his book. So your claims that the Nazis used Darwin's work to justify their crimes is factually wrong. Darwin provided evidence that it was not the case. If the Nazis were using Darwin's work to justfy their actions, then they were lying. And, if you just repeat these claims, the you are just repeating Nazi lies.

 

He may be well read, but that does not mean that he actually followed what Darwin wrote. The fact that he was extremely racists prove that he didn't follow it as Darwin's work disproves racism.

 

Darwin frequently maintained in "Descent of Man" that natural selection produced human intellectual development and thus significant differences in the mental faculties of "men of distinct races." Again you are reading the wrong book Edtharan.

 

See the problem is that it does not matter if Hitler believed in evolution, or was an Athiest. It doesn't even matter if he was right in his beliefs (As I believe I have made clear I do not in any way think he was right in his beliefs). What matter in this discussion is whether or not Evolution exists.

 

Actually both points matter. It matters that Hitler and Stalin exercised their beliefs in evolutionary theory because if their beliefs were correct but their conclusions were wrong then the theory must explain how and why their conclusions and actions were wrong. It also matters that the idea of evolutionary theory (that all diversity is accounted for by know evolutionary processes) is not an established fact.

 

Let me say that science, morality and politics do not necessarily mix well and often don't agree with each other. Questions of Hitler and Stalin (or anyone else similar) doing something right or wrong is not as clear cut as them interpreting the science correctly or not. As human beings we can take the science into our policy making, however it is never going to be the soul factor. Nor should we attempt to make it the soul factor when interpreting the polices of Hitler and Stalin.

 

If evolutionary theory accounts for all observed diversity and all biological processes, then it accounts for behaviors as well. The theory places an additional burden on those who support the idea of evolution because of the grand claim that evolution accounts for every aspect of biology and every function that biological systems perform.

 

Anyway, none of this casts any shadow of doubt on the theory of evolution.

 

It does since the theory cannot reconcile the dichotomy. It does since molecular biological experimentation seems to contradict many of the predictions that follow from the theory.

[swansont]

Nonsense. different breeds of animals and races of people do have genetic differences . Population genetics confirms this.

 

But that's not really the issue, for there are genetic differences within breeds and races as well. It is the pronouncement that one set of traits is objectively better than another, outside of reproductive fitness, that is the problem. That's a matter based on belief, not evolution.

 

 

I can see that some are neutral to evolutionary theory but in the case of Hitler and Stalin, their actions were driven by their faith in evolutionary theory.

 

Can this be objectively established? One does not need the knowledge of the theory of evolution for those actions; similar ones predate the theory. There are many examples.

[dragonstar57]

shouldn't this thread be in religion?

could someone outline all the proof so i can see it in one comment?

i know many creationists who constantly complaining that "ID" should be taught in schools and would like very much to acquire some new talking points thankyou

Edited November 6, 2010 by dragonstar57

[Moontanman]

Cypress, even if, and it's a big IF, evolution has inspired people to do terrible things, it would be ridiculously easy to point out terrible things that religion has inspired people to do. What an individual does in the name of something is really not necessarily representative of what that something really is. Religion has in recent times been used to kill, rape, and molest children, do we blame religion or twisted humans?

 

Evolution is real, lots of evidence seems to point natural selection as being the driving force behind it. So far no other driver for evolution has been supported by any evidence what so ever. ID is a joke, creationism is not science but it is pseudo science pure and simple, not because it's impossible but because there is no evidence to support it. ID or creationism has never explained any part of the natural world. every time religion has been used to explain the natural world it has failed miserably. maybe one day evidence for ID or creationism will show up, it's not like people aren't looking, but until then ID has no leg to stand on what so ever. your need for a creator is yours, you're are entitled to it but if you want to support if with anything but faith so far you have failed miserably.

[swansont]

Cypress, even if, and it's a big IF, evolution has inspired people to do terrible things, it would be ridiculously easy to point out terrible things that religion has inspired people to do.

 

I don't think this argument even needs to be advanced. Genocide is a choice made by humans, who are conscious beings. Using evolution as a justification is no different from using any other physical law as justification. You cannot weigh someone down with weights and drown them, only to blame Archimedes principle. You cannot push them off the cliff and lay all the blame on gravity.

[cypress]

But that's not really the issue, for there are genetic differences within breeds and races as well. It is the pronouncement that one set of traits is objectively better than another, outside of reproductive fitness, that is the problem. That's a matter based on belief, not evolution.

 

It was the issue to which I was responding. As for your notion that Hitler and Stalin's pronouncement that the traits they favored were outside reproductive fitness at best only demonstrates that they were wrong in their belief about their favored race being superior. Had either succeeded in their objective of ridding the world of these lesser humans, those they exterminated would not successfully reproduce so reproductive fitness would have been demonstrated.

 

Can this be objectively established? One does not need the knowledge of the theory of evolution for those actions; similar ones predate the theory. There are many examples.

 

That Hitler and Stalin's actions followed from their beliefs about evolution is not subject of speculation. They both wrote about it.

 

The chapter in Mein Kampf, "Nation and Race," Hitler discusses the need to defend the Aryan race from the Jewish menace.

 

His argument is couched in Darwinian terms. He writes:

 

"In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right of opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a mean for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of higher development."

 

In this chapter he praises "the iron logic of Nature" with its "right to victory of the best and stronger in this world."

 

But what if the strong Aryans choose not to dominate and exterminate the weak Jews? According to Hitler, this would be against Nature, whose "whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow."

 

Stalin wrote about his ideology in "Anarchism or Socialism?", speaking of evolutionary science where he said, "Evolution prepares for revolution and creates the ground for it; revolution consummates the process of evolution and facilitates its further activity."

 

Hannah Arendt speaks of Darwin and Marx in his book, "The Origins of Totalitarianism", where he says, "If one considers, not the actual achievement, but the basic philosophies of both men, it turns out that ultimately the movement of history and the movement of nature are one and the same."

 

 

Evolution is real, lots of evidence seems to point natural selection as being the driving force behind it.

 

The idea that evolutionary processes accounts for all biological diversity is not real. It is the result of a prior commitment to materialism and little more. Though mutation and natural selection is proficient at generating adaptation to existing function it seems unable to generate any evidence that it is capable of generating even the precursors to novel form and function.

 

So far no other driver for evolution has been supported by any evidence what so ever. ID is a joke, creationism is not science but it is pseudo science pure and simple, not because it's impossible but because there is no evidence to support it. ID or creationism has never explained any part of the natural world. every time religion has been used to explain the natural world it has failed miserably. maybe one day evidence for ID or creationism will show up, it's not like people aren't looking, but until then ID has no leg to stand on what so ever.

 

You are wrong. Genetic Engineers are wildly successful at generating and placing new functional components in organisms that previously lacked them. Design is miles ahead of evolution at explaining diversity. I am fairly certain that one day soon designers will successfully generate a completely novel life form.

 

your need for a creator is yours, you're are entitled to it but if you want to support if with anything but faith so far you have failed miserably.

 

For my part I continue to suspect there are processes that do account for observed diversity. I would not be too surprised if they turn out to have a natural explanation, but it is becoming clearer by the year that the processes are not the ones currently promoted by current evolutionary theory. At this time the process that explains it best is design and the evidence is the success of Genetic Engineers.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The idea that evolutionary processes accounts for all biological diversity is not real. It is the result of a prior commitment to materialism and little more. Though mutation and natural selection is proficient at generating adaptation to existing function it seems unable to generate any evidence that it is capable of generating even the precursors to novel form and function.

How is it a result of a commitment to materialism? Proponents of alternative hypotheses, such as intelligent design, claim that their hypotheses do not require appeal to supernatural powers or God -- the intelligent designer could just as well be an alien, for example, or a time-traveling prankster from 32nd-century Earth. If scientists were unfairly biased towards materialistic hypotheses, they'd still have no reason to choose evolution over forms of ID.

 

I'd also like to ask what you believe the alternatives to materialism are. For example, is there an alternate "scientific method" that does not assume materialism? What are its advantages over the current system?

[swansont]

It was the issue to which I was responding. As for your notion that Hitler and Stalin's pronouncement that the traits they favored were outside reproductive fitness at best only demonstrates that they were wrong in their belief about their favored race being superior. Had either succeeded in their objective of ridding the world of these lesser humans, those they exterminated would not successfully reproduce so reproductive fitness would have been demonstrated.

 

Which is artificial selection, not natural.

 

 

That Hitler and Stalin's actions followed from their beliefs about evolution is not subject of speculation. They both wrote about it.

 

The chapter in Mein Kampf, "Nation and Race," Hitler discusses the need to defend the Aryan race from the Jewish menace.

 

His argument is couched in Darwinian terms. He writes:

 

"In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right of opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a mean for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of higher development."

 

In this chapter he praises "the iron logic of Nature" with its "right to victory of the best and stronger in this world."

 

But what if the strong Aryans choose not to dominate and exterminate the weak Jews? According to Hitler, this would be against Nature, whose "whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow."

 

Stalin wrote about his ideology in "Anarchism or Socialism?", speaking of evolutionary science where he said, "Evolution prepares for revolution and creates the ground for it; revolution consummates the process of evolution and facilitates its further activity."

 

Hannah Arendt speaks of Darwin and Marx in his book, "The Origins of Totalitarianism", where he says, "If one considers, not the actual achievement, but the basic philosophies of both men, it turns out that ultimately the movement of history and the movement of nature are one and the same."

 

Those are Malthusian sentiments, and selective breeding predates the theory of evolution by thousands of years. Are Darwin, natural selection or biological evolution ever mentioned in Mein Kampf?

 

The idea that evolutionary processes accounts for all biological diversity is not real. It is the result of a prior commitment to materialism and little more. Though mutation and natural selection is proficient at generating adaptation to existing function it seems unable to generate any evidence that it is capable of generating even the precursors to novel form and function.

 

The so-called "commitment to materialism" is common to all of science. Do you think your computer works by magic? Are you kept from floating away by invisible pink fairies?

[michel123456]

(...)invoking the god of the gaps argument. (..)

 

Agree. My opinion is:

_It is a huge problem for science. Each gap in knowledge is an open door to imbecility. So scientists are too many times obliged to fill the gaps with "serious nonsenses", instead of declaring simply "we don't know, still searching". The 'still searching" is not politically correct. You can say it between scientists, but not to the outside world.

_the other "politicaly correct" problem is that scientific investigation should not care a dam about what "politically correct" is or not. It may happen that scientific evidences are awful. If Evolution theory show that life is a jungle where the strong eat the weak alive, I see no reason why we should act in such a way, or why we should blindly the stupid fellow that makes us act following some "scientific truth". Mr hawking would be dead now, and who knows how many Archimedes, Newtons & Einsteins have been killed stupidly along the innumerable wars & treatable diseases humans have endured so far.

 

The rest of the discussion has absolutely no interest to me, but it may have for other members. Go on.

Edited November 7, 2010 by michel123456

[swansont]

Agree. My opinion is:

_It is a huge problem for science. Each gap in knowledge is an open door to imbecility. So scientists are too many times obliged to fill the gaps with "serious nonsenses", instead of declaring simply "we don't know, still searching". The 'still searching" is not politically correct. You can say it between scientists, but not to the outside world.

_the other "politicaly correct" problem is that scientific investigation should not care a dam about what "politically correct" is or not. It may happen that scientific evidences are awful. If Evolution theory show that life is a jungle where the strong eat the weak alive, I see no reason why we should act in such a way, or why we should blindly the stupid fellow that makes us act following some "scientific truth". Mr hawking would be dead now, and who knows how many Archimedes, Newtons & Einsteins have been killed stupidly along the innumerable wars & treatable diseases humans have endured so far.

 

The rest of the discussion has absolutely no interest to me, but it may have for other members. Go on.

 

The problem is not political correctness, but just politics. When ideological buffoons are willing to seize upon "we don't know yet" in order to buttress their arguments and misrepresent science, you will naturally get scientists who change how they present their work. In a world where science has political implications, some scientists most certainly can and will (eventually) give a damn about "political correctness."

[cypress]

Which is artificial selection, not natural.

 

If humans are nothing more than overachieving worms then what difference does it make that one organism uses teeth and claws to effect selection and another uses brains? Evolutionary theory holds that all observed diversity is accounted for within the theory and by this model, the actions of humans are part and parcel of observed diversity.

 

Those are Malthusian sentiments, and selective breeding predates the theory of evolution by thousands of years. Are Darwin, natural selection or biological evolution ever mentioned in Mein Kampf?

 

Hitler does address Darwinian theory, evolution, and the application of eugenics which was promoted by Darwin's followers. This book does a thorough job addressing your issue.

 

The so-called "commitment to materialism" is common to all of science. Do you think your computer works by magic? Are you kept from floating away by invisible pink fairies?

 

Nonsense, unless you begin with the prior commitment to materialism I articulated in my first response in this post. The search for intelligent life, and forensic science both admit intentional contingency and intelligent cause. Materialism I believe admits deterministic and random cause. My computer of course works because of the functional intelligence applied to designing, constructing, and programming it.

[D H]

Would you please drop the Hilter nonsense, cypress? Invocations of Godwin's law never amount to anything. It is bad enough when opponents of some topic invoke Godwin's law. When the proponents self-invoke it, out of the blue, the discussion is absolutely worthless. All that your continued invocation of Godwin's law does is to make your argument look incredibly weak.

 

 

That said, everything you have said is incredibly weak.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Nonsense, unless you begin with the prior commitment to materialism I articulated in my first response in this post. The search for intelligent life, and forensic science both admit intentional contingency and intelligent cause. Materialism I believe admits deterministic and random cause. My computer of course works because of the functional intelligence applied to designing, constructing, and programming it.

Please do answer my questions in post #112 about this commitment to materialism.

 

Why should materialism exclude intentional contingency and intelligent cause? Materialism -- or, more accurately, methodological naturalism -- states that reliable knowledge of the universe can only be gained through reference to natural causes and events. It does not state that natural causes are the only possible causes, as that is metaphysical naturalism, and not part of the scientific method.

 

An appeal to a designer is not supernatural in nature unless one requires the designer be supernatural. If the designer is not supernatural, why does materialism/naturalism matter here? A methodological naturalist has no philosophical reason to exclude a designer from his studies.

[swansont]

 

Hitler does address Darwinian theory, evolution, and the application of eugenics which was promoted by Darwin's followers. This book does a thorough job addressing your issue.

 

 

 

Nonsense, unless you begin with the prior commitment to materialism I articulated in my first response in this post. The search for intelligent life, and forensic science both admit intentional contingency and intelligent cause. Materialism I believe admits deterministic and random cause. My computer of course works because of the functional intelligence applied to designing, constructing, and programming it.

 

I can't help but note that you didn't actually answer the questions I asked.

[Edtharan]

Nonsense. different breeds of animals and races of people do have genetic differences . Population genetics confirms this.

Yes there are differences, but the differences are not enough to lable them as different "races".

 

Human genetic diversity went through a bottle neck a few hundred thousand years ago. The estimated population of humans at this time number in the thousands. We were almost extinct.

 

This bottle neck means that the variation within human genetics is actually highly constrained compared to other species. There is often more genetic diversity within a breed of an other animal than there is in the whole human popualtion of Earth.

 

The Nazis focused on differences and downplayed similarities. They were neither correct nor incorrect to have done so.

The differences they were basing these on were due to very small differences in the genetics (almost point mutations), things like the amount of melenin produced in hair, skin or eyes (eg: to produce blond hair or blue eyes rather than brown hair and dark eyes or skin).

 

 

These differnces were so minute tha any definition of "breed" or "race" based on these is not supported by biology.

 

It is you who have the facts mixed up.

When you are stateing as Fact certain aspects of biology and gentitics that are false, then you have mixed fact with lies.

 

Fact: Variation is essential to evolution. Any action that is taken to reduce variation is to reduce the ability of evolution to work. This has been known for thousands of years. Inbreeding has been known to be a bad thing for thousands of years. Evolution does not say any different and confirms this.

 

The Nazis, by using genocide were in direct contradiction to this fact of biology and evolution

 

Fact: Evolution does not state there is a "Master Race". Actually evolution does not even say that any species is "more evolved" than any other species. Thus any claims that state evolution says this is in contradiction to evolution. The Nazis stated that they were superior and thus are in contradiction to evolution.

 

So either the Nazis were not basing their actions on evolution, or you are wrong that the Nazis stated this. In either case the Nazis were not using evolution as a basis of their actions.

 

I can see that some are neutral to evolutionary theory but in the case of Hitler and Stalin, their actions were driven by their faith in evolutionary theory.

Nope, their actions are in direct contradiction to what evolution states. So they could not have their actions driven by their belief in evolution. It would be a bit like me justifing a disbelif in God because of God telling me that He didn't exist. It is that big of a contradiction.

 

This means you either have no idea about evolution, or someone lied to you about all this.

 

You would have to read his other book "Descent Of Man" to understand his thoughts on human race. He devotes an entire chapter in it to the application of natural selection to civilized societies.

And his journals of his voyages on the Beagle...

 

Darwin regarded blacks as lesser humans when he observed that the progression of evolution between apes and humans fell

Nope. Read what occured in Tierra del Fuego, it was one of the key moments in his voyages that lead him to evolution and his understanding that huamns are subject to it.

 

Darwin frequently maintained in "Descent of Man" that natural selection produced human intellectual development and thus significant differences in the mental faculties of "men of distinct races." Again you are reading the wrong book Edtharan.

Can you actually quote where he says this?

 

Actually both points matter. It matters that Hitler and Stalin exercised their beliefs in evolutionary theory because if their beliefs were correct but their conclusions were wrong then the theory must explain how and why their conclusions and actions were wrong. It also matters that the idea of evolutionary theory (that all diversity is accounted for by know evolutionary processes) is not an established fact.

IF they believed they were acting in accordance with evolution, then they got it wrong. The actions taken are in direct contradiction to what evolution and biology state (and much of this has been know for thousands of years anyway).

 

No. What they were acting on is a belief in a religious ideology that states that one "race" of people are superior to other "races" of people. You can not come to this conclusion if you correctly apply evolutionary theory, thus if they were doing so then it was not evolutionary theory they were using but their own beliefs not derived from evolution.

 

If evolutionary theory accounts for all observed diversity and all biological processes, then it accounts for behaviors as well. The theory places an additional burden on those who support the idea of evolution because of the grand claim that evolution accounts for every aspect of biology and every function that biological systems perform.

And it does so quite well actually.

 

It does since the theory cannot reconcile the dichotomy. It does since molecular biological experimentation seems to contradict many of the predictions that follow from the theory.

Nope. It doesn't. Name one.

[cypress]

Please do answer my questions in post #112 about this commitment to materialism.

 

I believe I addressed this question in similar questions posed by others. Extending the observed processes the lead to adaptation today in organisms to say that these same processes account for all observed diversity when these processes are known to lack causal adequate explanatory power for the result that is being claimed requires a prior commitment.

 

Why should materialism exclude intentional contingency and intelligent cause? Materialism -- or, more accurately, methodological naturalism -- states that reliable knowledge of the universe can only be gained through reference to natural causes and events. It does not state that natural causes are the only possible causes, as that is metaphysical naturalism, and not part of the scientific method.

 

I'm not sure why many scientists exclude intentional contingency and design from the list of allowable modes of natural explanation. Those who exclude them from the list of possible explanations for biological diversity, instead claim evolution is a fact and that the only question is precisely how it proceeded. there are several poster here with this viewpoint.

 

An appeal to a designer is not supernatural in nature unless one requires the designer be supernatural. If the designer is not supernatural, why does materialism/naturalism matter here? A methodological naturalist has no philosophical reason to exclude a designer from his studies.

 

I tend to agree. Perhaps one of those posters I mentioned before can explain this behavior better. The fact that many do is why I characterized this as having a prior commitment to materialism and avoided using methodological naturalism.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I believe I addressed this question in similar questions posed by others. Extending the observed processes the lead to adaptation today in organisms to say that these same processes account for all observed diversity when these processes are known to lack causal adequate explanatory power for the result that is being claimed requires a prior commitment.

It must require a commitment to something other than materialism, because as you've just agreed, materialism includes "intentional contingency and design" as options.

 

You also have not answered my other question:

I'd also like to ask what you believe the alternatives to materialism are. For example, is there an alternate "scientific method" that does not assume materialism? What are its advantages over the current system?

 

I tend to agree. Perhaps one of those posters I mentioned before can explain this behavior better. The fact that many do is why I characterized this as having a prior commitment to materialism and avoided using methodological naturalism.

Science in general has no commitment to materialism, only methodological naturalism. Do you believe science is correct in excluding explanations that involve supernatural designers or creators, because of methodological naturalism?

[cypress]

I can't help but note that you didn't actually answer the questions I asked.

 

The book provides quotes of Hitler's that add to and build on the quotes I previously offered establishing his commitment to evolution and Darwinian theory. If providing a source for the material you seek is not adequate, I am sorry to disappoint you.

 

It must require a commitment to something other than materialism, because as you've just agreed, materialism includes "intentional contingency and design" as options.

 

No I agreed Methodological naturalism can include intentional contingency and design.

 

Science in general has no commitment to materialism, only methodological naturalism. Do you believe science is correct in excluding explanations that involve supernatural designers or creators, because of methodological naturalism?

 

Science done correctly is a search for objective truth through citation to causally adequate explanations that can be validated. I believe that limiting explanation to methodological naturalism creates a potential blind spot whereby some truths may never be discovered. Causes that transcend this universe but act on this universe should be discoverable and if so should be able to be validated. This universe seems to have a cause that transcends it.

 

Alternatives to materialism includes allowing for teleological processes.

 

I see no harm in allowing for these possibilities. The advantage is that it eliminates this blind spot.

Edited November 9, 2010 by cypress

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Science done correctly is a search for objective truth through citation to causally adequate explanations that can be validated. I believe that limiting explanation to methodological naturalism creates a potential blind spot whereby some truths may never be discovered. Causes that transcend this universe but act on this universe should be discoverable and if so should be able to be validated. This universe seems to have a cause that transcends it.

Hm. How would one validate the action of something that transcends this universe? If it is outside of this universe, it is outside of our known physical laws, and no experiment can determine the laws it operates under. (We cannot experiment outside of our own universe.)

 

As a simple example, suppose I've determined that the action of some simple physical system exhibits the influence of a cause transcending this universe. It would be impossible to falsify this hypothesis. Should another scientist fail to find the influence, I can argue that the transcendent cause does not always occur, or that it hides itself when experimented upon. Should it recur, I have no reason to believe it is from outside this universe rather than an unknown cause inside our own universe.

 

In short: How is a transcendent cause falsifiable?

[swansont]

The book provides quotes of Hitler's that add to and build on the quotes I previously offered establishing his commitment to evolution and Darwinian theory. If providing a source for the material you seek is not adequate, I am sorry to disappoint you.

 

Still dodging, and there were two questions.

 

Science done correctly is a search for objective truth through citation to causally adequate explanations that can be validated. I believe that limiting explanation to methodological naturalism creates a potential blind spot whereby some truths may never be discovered. Causes that transcend this universe but act on this universe should be discoverable and if so should be able to be validated. This universe seems to have a cause that transcends it.

 

Alternatives to materialism includes allowing for teleological processes.

 

I see no harm in allowing for these possibilities. The advantage is that it eliminates this blind spot.

 

Science doesn't claim to have all the answers, and what you propose isn't science.

 

 

I'm not sure why many scientists exclude intentional contingency and design from the list of allowable modes of natural explanation. Those who exclude them from the list of possible explanations for biological diversity, instead claim evolution is a fact and that the only question is precisely how it proceeded. there are several poster here with this viewpoint.

 

 

1. Evolution has been observed, thus it is a fact.

 

2. Define "design"