DescentBB

Posted: **Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:54 pm**

Commmentary from Breakpoint.org wrote: -------------------------------------------------------------
Mendelssohn, Lincoln, and Darwin
-------------------------------------------------------------

Two hundred years ago, three boys were born a few days apart in Germany, England, and the United States. All of them would become renowned and affect the lives of not only their contemporaries but of generations to come.

One would produce great works of art and revive interest in long-forgotten artistic treasures. One would lead his nation to a “new birth of freedom” and pay with his life. The third would be responsible for an idea that, intentionally or not, would rationalize the worst cruelty and oppression the world has ever seen.

Whose birthday is getting the most attention? Of course, the third one.

The three boys were the composer Felix Mendelssohn, born February 3, 1809, Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin, both born on February 12, 1809.

In his time, Mendelssohn was regarded as a kind of second Mozart: a child prodigy who, in an equally-short life, single-handedly revived interest in the music of Johann Sebastian Bach.

Hopefully, you don’t need me to tell you about the importance of Abraham Lincoln. Still, judging by the way the 200th anniversary of their births is being covered, maybe you do.

For instance, the cover story of this month’s Smithsonian magazine purports to tell readers “How Lincoln and Darwin Shaped the Modern World.” According to the article, Lincoln and Darwin had “midwifed” a new world where “the hierarchies of nature and race and class that had governed the world” had been, if not overthrown, brought into question. In this account “evolution” and “emancipation” are co-laborers in this transformation.

Tell that to the tens or hundreds of millions of people murdered in the name of ideologies that cited Darwin’s On the Origin of Species as justification for their acts. The perpetrators of the gulags and the death camps didn’t hum “The Reformation Symphony” or recite the Gettysburg Address as they went about their grim tasks. But they did see themselves as acting in concert with the laws of nature: specifically, nature according to Darwin and his acolytes.

Likewise, “Social Darwinism,” far from weakening the “hierarchies of . . . class that governed the world” was employed to justify those hierarchies.

These social consequences are portrayed as after-the-fact corruptions of Darwin’s thoughts. Darwin’s ideas, we are told, is “humanism in flight” and “roomy enough for ordinary love to breathe in.”

But, as writer Peter Quinn has documented, that’s nonsense. Darwin’s own notebooks make it plain that he anticipated his ideas’ influencing “competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality.” He endorsed his cousin Francis Galton’s ideas about eugenics.

Yet, while we still debate whether Lincoln himself was a racist, little mention is made of the pernicious social consequences of Darwinism and even less about his complicity in these consequences.

Intelligent, secular, scholars argue about whether Darwin was right regarding the origin of species. What they can’t reasonably disagree with, however, is the destructive impact those ideas have had one particular species: man himself.

So for me, I’ll celebrate Lincoln today.

I've known this about the Darwin for some time. Sad.
Link to article

I'd add my own thoughts, but this pretty much sums it up.

Posted: **Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:20 pm**

c'mon, Duper; the whole \"Darwin caused Hitler\" thing is pretty much a non sequitur.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html

Pretty much any idea can be perverted to evil by the warped mind and the willing followers. This is at the root of what Christians call \"sin\". There is nothing in the actions of Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao or Pol Pot that is \"acting in concert\" with Darwin's theory.

Posted: **Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:42 pm**

Darwin wasn't a Social Darwinist. Darwinism is a scientific theory that describes the way things are. Social Darwinism is an ethical theory that prescribes how things should be. You can accept either one without necessarily having to accept the other. You can think, for example, that only the fittest animals tend to survive, but think that this shouldn't always be the case, especially with humans. In fact, in general, the way things are serves as a rather poor rule for telling us the way things should be, since accepting such a rule suggests that our ethical obligation is simply to maintain the status quo.

On a related note, when somebody brings up the crusades as an argument for why Christianity is bad, you Duper would be the first to say, \"But the Bible doesn't actually say that we should commit crusades anywhere.\" But now you are being unfair to make this error with respect to the theory of evolution, which doesn't actually say anywhere that only the fittest humans should survive.

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:23 am**

much more dangerous than dangerous ideas is the belief that ideas can be dangerous.

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:28 am**

Jeff250 wrote:Darwinism is a scientific theory that describes the way things are.

I would just like to point out that you contradicted your self in this sentence..

A "theory" can NEVER tell you the way things are

Websters wrote:the⋅o⋅ry
/ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:42 am**

I have to agree with dissent and Jeff250 here. There is considerable difference between Darwin's ideas and what people have done in the name of those ideas.

As a Christian, I of course disagree with those (including Darwin himself) who take his work and infer a random non-intentional creation. However, attempts to cast him as some kind of pioneer of evil are misguided.

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:11 pm**

I seriously recomend this literature for this subject:

http://www.harunyahya.com/disaster1.php

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:34 pm**

While i don't think that Darwin himself ever intended to inspire such people, it is however true that his theories intended to dismiss God. The equation falls apart from there.

Pan, if you really understood human morality, you would understand how silly a statement that is. It assumes too much and incorrectly.

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:17 pm**

Cuda wrote:
Jeff250 wrote:Darwinism is a scientific theory that describes the way things are.
I would just like to point out that you contradicted your self in this sentence..

A "theory" can NEVER tell you the way things are

Of course theories can describe the way things are, namely when they are correct theories. Correct theories describe the way things are, and incorrect theories do not. In fact, I think you could even say that incorrect theories describe the way things are, albeit incorrectly. I don't know why you are being pedantic about something that isn't even pertinent to this topic.

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:36 pm**

I don’t think for one microsecond Darwin’s work was anti-God, anti-mythology yes, anti-God no.

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2009 8:43 pm**

Nothing about Darwin's theories disproves God; it's mere an explanation biological life that says nothing about God at all. Given the horrifically bad chances of life coming from non-life on its own, evolution seems to almost require some sort of supernatural intervention to be feasible.

Unfortunately, many people still don't realize this and automatically equate Darwin with atheism.

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:34 pm**

CUDA wrote:A "theory" can NEVER tell you the way things are

Websters wrote:the⋅o⋅ry
/ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Not this "just a theory" rhetoric... A Scientific Theory is not the same as a normal theory. A scientific theory is a very well supported statement of ideas that are believed to explain some form of phenomenon. A scientific law states a fact that is always true; the conservation of mass is just plain truth.

A scientific theory, on the other hand, is a large sum of observations that explain something. You know those things called atoms? Those are only theory - there is no law that states "stuff is made of atoms", instead, it is a large sum of observations that have crafted the idea that everything is made up of atoms. A law cannot be changed, but the cell theory has changed from the plum-pudding model, to the current quantum mechanical model.

The theory of evolution may change upon new research, but it is supported with many facts.

I assume if evolution is just a theory, we shouldn't teach the strange theories of atoms, cells, and plate tectonics as well

EDIT: And to reinterate the saying of others, Darwinism was an observation that the fittest will survive, and continue to evolve. Human society tends to not follow that law and attempt to help weaker people, but some choose not to. The Spartans killing small babies was an example of Social Darwinism - because Darwin coined the term doesn't mean it's his fault.

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:46 pm**

Dakatsu wrote:
CUDA wrote:A "theory" can NEVER tell you the way things are

Websters wrote:the⋅o⋅ry
/ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Not this "just a theory" rhetoric... A Scientific Theory is not the same as a normal theory. A scientific theory is a very well supported statement of ideas that "ARE BELIEVED" to explain some form of phenomenon. "A scientific law" states a fact that is always true; the conservation of mass is just plain truth.

I tend to agree. I think.

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:07 pm**

some folks believe in tinkerbell.

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:26 pm**

Duper wrote:some folks believe in tinkerbell.

Tinkerbell is not supported by scientific observations, while cells and atoms are

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:21 am**

Jeff250 wrote:Of course theories can describe the way things are, namely when they are correct theories. Correct theories describe the way things are, and incorrect theories do not. In fact, I think you could even say that incorrect theories describe the way things are, albeit incorrectly. I don't know why you are being pedantic about something that isn't even pertinent to this topic.

HUH????? so what your saying is an correct guess tells you the way things are but an incorrect guess doesn't??, still sounds like your guessing to me.

my point wasn't to hijack this thread, it was to point out that a Theory (inc Darwin's) is a best guess scenario based partly on what we know and partly on what we think is true. it is in NO WAY FACT. it is as the definition say, Conjecture pure and simple.

Dakatsu wrote:
CUDA wrote:A "theory" can NEVER tell you the way things are

Websters wrote:the⋅o⋅ry
/ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Not this "just a theory" rhetoric... A Scientific Theory is not the same as a normal theory. A scientific theory is a very well supported statement of ideas that are believed to explain some form of phenomenon. A scientific law states a fact that is always true; the conservation of mass is just plain truth.

thank you for agreeing with me

I think

if you read the definition of theory and Scientific theory, they say the same thing

Websters wrote:the⋅o⋅ry
/ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Websters wrote:con⋅jec⋅ture
/kənˈdʒɛktʃər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhn-jek-cher] Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, -tured, -tur⋅ing.
–noun
1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.

Websters wrote:scientific theory

systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner

Websters wrote:pos·it (pŏz'ĭt) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. pos·it·ed, pos·it·ing, pos·its

1. To assume the existence of; postulate. See Synonyms at presume.

OK the English Lessons are over for the day

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:53 am**

I think what I'm getting from Cuda is this: in today's culture we all too often substitute the word \"thoery\" for the word \"Axiom\".

Evolution is only a theory, and a poor one at that. Sarwin had mostly flimsy and faulty data. Yet, the idea is purpetutated with newer data .. that's still flimsy and many times faulty. Evolution has yet to be prove, thus it is still theory; but it's taught as fact and anyone that thinks to the contrary is ridiculed ... very much demonstrated here.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:47 am**

that story is absolutely insane. i don't even know where to start.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 11:28 am**

Duper wrote:I think what I'm getting from Cuda is this: in today's culture we all too often substitute the word "thoery" for the word "Axiom".

How is evolution an axiom?

Duper wrote:Evolution is only a theory, and a poor one at that.

Just like that atomic theory, we are actually made of small emoticons that combine together! Where is your data on this, as most scientists point to this theory being strong and solid, and believed by most of the scientific world.

Duper wrote:Darwin had mostly flimsy and faulty data. Yet, the idea is purpetutated with newer data .. that's still flimsy and many times faulty.

What is the faulty data? Please point me to information of his that is faulty (and you have a source for it).

Duper wrote:Evolution has yet to be prove, thus it is still theory;

I think I just explained that it can never become law, all scientific theories can never become law, even if it is proven beyond any possible doubt. Once again, I lead you to the cell theory. No debate about the cell theory; because it doesn't conflict with religion.

Duper wrote:but it's taught as fact and anyone that thinks to the contrary is ridiculed ... very much demonstrated here.

Actually, evolution is taught as a scientific theory, just like atoms and cells and stuff like that. I suppose we should remove any reference to cells and their structure as well as the periodic table? Evolution has a lot of evidence; it is possible a new breakthrough could disprove it, or drastically change it, but the current data is from over a century of research that formed this theory.

Does anyone here understand the difference between a scientific theory and a regular theory yet!?!?!?

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:06 pm**

Dakatsu wrote:...as most scientists point to this theory being strong and solid, and believed by most of the scientific world.

Not only is evolutionary theory solid, but it forms the foundation of modern biology and without it's understanding, we would not have had this year's flu vaccine.

The "theory" of evolution like the "theory" of relativity isn't waiting to become fact.

Bee

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:33 pm**

Law and Fact are being are being used interchangeably here, and that is a mistake, as well as theory and scientific theory.

I find this all well and good, but something people tend to overlook is the “fact” that scientific theory, can and will change over time. Just as there was no such thing as galaxies before Hubble. (fact and theory in conflict)

People just need to understand that scientific theory and religion both require faith and belief.

And Bee…all scientific theories “do” want to become “laws”…just like “bills”…

JFTR…

Theory:

1. rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
economic theories
Many coaches have a good grasp of the theory of football but can't motivate players.

2. speculation: abstract thought or contemplation

3. idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
She believed in the theory that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

4. hypothetical circumstances: a set of circumstances or principles that is hypothetical
That's the theory, but it may not work out in practice.

5. scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 3:13 pm**

Bet51987 wrote:
Dakatsu wrote:...as most scientists point to this theory being strong and solid, and believed by most of the scientific world.
Not only is evolutionary theory solid, but it forms the foundation of modern biology and without it's understanding, we would not have had this year's flu vaccine.

The "theory" of evolution like the "theory" of relativity isn't waiting to become fact.

Bee

Exactly; you hear about new strains of viruses that are immune to vaccines? It's because of evolution and natural selection; the viruses who mutate and change that are immune to the virus become a new strain.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:00 pm**

Dakatsu wrote:
Bet51987 wrote:
Dakatsu wrote:...as most scientists point to this theory being strong and solid, and believed by most of the scientific world.
Not only is evolutionary theory solid, but it forms the foundation of modern biology and without it's understanding, we would not have had this year's flu vaccine.

The "theory" of evolution like the "theory" of relativity isn't waiting to become fact.

Bee
Exactly; you hear about new strains of viruses that are immune to vaccines? It's because of evolution and natural selection; the viruses who mutate and change that are immune to the virus become a new strain.

That's "Natural Selection" at work and it in no way involves "evolution" The virus is still a virus, it's not a new virus, it's just a new strain of virus. I guess what I'm getting at is, it's just a virus.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:23 pm**

Duper wrote:Pan, if you really understood human morality, you would understand how silly a statement that is. It assumes too much and incorrectly.

Please expand. And who *does* understand human morality, really?

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:12 pm**

Cuda wrote:HUH????? so what your saying is an correct guess tells you the way things are but an incorrect guess doesn't??

I couldn't think of a better way to distinguish a correct vs. incorrect theory.

But to the point, in my post, I was setting out the domain of scientific theories vs. the domain of ethical theories. Scientific theories deal with the way things are. Ethical theories deal with the way things should be. There is nothing controversial about this.

Cuda wrote:...dictionary stuff...

Why should we abandon what someone meant by a word in favor of what a dictionary defines it to be? If scientists use the word theory in a much stronger sense than what is in the dictionary, then why should we prefer the dictionary definition when we are interpreting what scientists mean when they call evolution a theory?

Duper wrote:Evolution has yet to be prove, thus it is still theory;

The scientific method cannot prove things. It can only find contradictions. There is no device in science to prove things. If an experiment was a success, then you didn't prove your theory was correct; you just failed to contradict your theory with what we already think is true and the results of the experiment. A better theory has fewer contradictions with what we already think is true, and a worse theory has more contradictions. At some (admittedly not well defined) point, when a theory seems to have very few contradictions despite many experiments, then we begin using it as a building block for newer theories, i.e. it becomes the "what we already think is true."

This has practical import with respect to the theory of evolution. When scientists are researching cures to contagious diseases like HIV, I want them to believe the theory that describes that the fittest of a species in an environment will survive and pass this fitness onto future generations, not the theory that says that the earth was created spontaneously 8000 years ago, since that theory gives no insight into solving the problem.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 6:41 pm**

Duper wrote:Evolution is only a theory, and a poor one at that. Sarwin had mostly flimsy and faulty data. Yet, the idea is purpetutated with newer data .. that's still flimsy and many times faulty. Evolution has yet to be prove, thus it is still theory; but it's taught as fact and anyone that thinks to the contrary is ridiculed ... very much demonstrated here.

Tut tut ………..

The modern synthesis of evolution is a remarkably well supported theory; it is the cornerstone of modern biology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution, ... _Synthesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evo ... _synthesis

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

http://students.washington.edu/gw0/modernsynthesis/

As I’ve heard it said from time to time, “proof” only exists for mathematics and alcohol. For the rest of science, there is only evidence, and more and better of it. There is no theory of science that is “proven”, in the sense that any other possibility is precluded. Any new piece of evidence can overturn any of our theories.

warning – it’s an “only a theory “ alert.

I haven’t had a chance to read Miller’s book yet. I expect that his arguments will be as compelling as those he made in “Finding Darwin’s God”.

The theory of biological evolution does not preclude the existence of God. Only people like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and PZ Myers, among others, think so. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that’s all that it is.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:54 pm**

AlphaDoG wrote:
Dakatsu wrote:
Bet51987 wrote:
Dakatsu wrote:...as most scientists point to this theory being strong and solid, and believed by most of the scientific world.
Not only is evolutionary theory solid, but it forms the foundation of modern biology and without it's understanding, we would not have had this year's flu vaccine.

The "theory" of evolution like the "theory" of relativity isn't waiting to become fact.

Bee
Exactly; you hear about new strains of viruses that are immune to vaccines? It's because of evolution and natural selection; the viruses who mutate and change that are immune to the virus become a new strain.

That's "Natural Selection" at work and it in no way involves "evolution" The virus is still a virus, it's not a new virus, it's just a new strain of virus. I guess what I'm getting at is, it's just a virus.

The virus evolved to be immune to the vaccine, hence evolution. Natural selection does dictate that it becomes the major strain though.

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:10 am**

Dakatsu wrote: The virus evolved to be immune to the vaccine, hence evolution. Natural selection does dictate that it becomes the major strain though.

I doubt it very seriously, but that's just me. How can you determine if it's evolution? or just a more adept virus? The virrii that has the most protection from the outside world will survive while the ones that do not, will not. Same as in the Macro world. A bullfrog that can leap farther than the rest will tend to survive more than a bullfrog with shorter legs. The dna remains the same, the defensive mechanism is all that's changed in either example.

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:04 am**

but here's the rub, Alphadog. If the virus (or better, further generations of a virus) are now resistant, but earlier generations were not, then its DNA *must* have changed. And I think this has been experimentally demonstrated.

Posted: **Sun Feb 15, 2009 10:26 pm**

Pandora wrote:but here's the rub, Alphadog. If the virus (or better, further generations of a virus) are now resistant, but earlier generations were not, then its DNA *must* have changed. And I think this has been experimentally demonstrated.

You know this first hand? You've seen a virus mutate? Has any one witnessed a mutant virus? Not even a geneticist, not one, has.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted: **Mon Feb 16, 2009 1:31 am**

“The virus evolved to be immune to the vaccine, hence evolution. Natural selection does dictate that it becomes the major strain though.”

See the problem here is the free and loose use of terminology, as I pointed out earlier.

1. vti develop gradually: to develop something gradually, often into something more complex or advanced, or undergo such development
2. vti biology develop via evolutionary change: in evolutionary theory, to develop from an earlier biological form

Notice the difference between the two definitions, the first is a known fact, the second is a theory.

Using the two interchangeably is disingenuous, it’s a givin that life can “evolve” as in the first definition, but the issue here is the second definition. That being said, I personally believe the theory of evolution, but I’m not dumb enuf to convince myself that it’s not based on speculation.*

I would have to change the sentence to…”The virus ‘adapted’ to be immune“…the same thing, without the deliberate use of the word “evolved”, which is used here to imply “Biological Evolution”.

It’s a known fact that life can and does adapt and change, but the argument is and always will be…can one species evolve into another…And that’s the part of the theory that is pure speculation, and as long as you accept that “fact” all is good.

*1. opinion based on incomplete information: a conclusion, theory, or opinion based on incomplete facts or information

Posted: **Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:49 pm**

AlphaDoG wrote:You know this first hand? You've seen a virus mutate? Has any one witnessed a mutant virus? Not even a geneticist, not one, has.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I am pretty sure you're wrong. Mutations leading to resistance are EXTENSIVELY studied in HIV therapy, for example. The fact that viruses change their DNA to become resistant is not controversial at all.

edit: Sorry, I have not found a link that lays it out clearly, but if you use google scholar a bit you'll find lots of papers that report DNA changes in viruses as a consequence of medication.

Posted: **Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:06 pm**

Spidey wrote: It’s a known fact that life can and does adapt and change, but the argument is and always will be…can one species evolve into another…And that’s the part of the theory that is pure speculation, and as long as you accept that “fact” all is good.

No, a species does not evolve into another species. It is a population within a species that evolves into another species. Furthermore, evolution IS essentially just adaptation - descent with modification. It's never a question of getting "better" or "more advanced" - these concepts have no meaning in biology, except in the sense that a "better" adapted species is more likely to pass its genes on to the next generation. However, "better" adapted in the present environment can always end up being less well adapted in some future environment.

DescentBB

Happy Birthday Darwin?

Happy Birthday Darwin?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: