Movie Expelled Gives Insight Into Eugenics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steve40
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
drpmjhess said:
Steve, I fear you don’t understand science: evolution is simply a scientific explanation of biological diversity. It is no more an ideology than gravitation or plate tectonics are ideologies.

Petrus
Click to expand...
Ideology has been poisoning science for some time now.
 
Jennifer123 said:
How so? 🙂
Click to expand...
The ideology of hierarchy and of “Father knows best,” contributing to little things like clergy sex abuse, moving priests to different parishes rather than disciplining them, cover-ups by bishops, sale of parishioner-donated church property to pay for abuse lawsuits, etc. That’s an ideology as damaging to the credibility of Catholicism and to the spiritual wellbeing of the faithful as any imaginary “Darwinian ideology” at which you hint.

Petrus
 
Steve40 said:
Even conservatives are not always conservative. A non-position on evolution is the conservative position. Science must maintain a questioning attitude even continuing to question evolution. To confine thought within a politically correct (PC) box, the evolutionary box, the National Review has taken a modern day liberal/progressive position. The PC position, the non-questioning, non-thinking position. Don’t stop thinking. Thinking means you even question evolution. If you don’t question it your thought has stopped on the subject.
Click to expand...
Well I would put it differently. Even a conservative on occasion gets a flash of intelligence. Science is based on questions. It never claims an answer. Evolution is an evolving concept, one that is continually reaffirmed while at the same time qualified and directed into new avenues of inquiry. I have no idea why you think the NR confined evolution into a politically correct box. They certainly have no fear of being incorrect on most any other issue. You have not in any fashion addressed their arguments. When you do, we can talk.
 
ribozyme said:
What is the “liberal” position on evolution?
Click to expand...
The liberal position is to remove anything that prevents them from doing what a liberal wants to do. Or to cling to whatever will justify what they want to do. It varies depending on desire.

In this case most liberals are in favor of evolution because it is a justification for saying there is no God and no moral absolute.
 
drpmjhess said:
Steve, I fear you don’t understand science: evolution is simply a scientific explanation of biological diversity. It is no more an ideology than gravitation or plate tectonics are ideologies.

Petrus
Click to expand...
It is treated like an ideology because there is great resistance to questioning it. If it was treated as theory and counter arguments were considered or even permitted for discussion I would agree with you. But, because there is great resistance to questioning it I believe it is more of an ideology than science. Science is about questioning things. Even if you believe for the sake of science you should maintain a questioning attitude.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Well I would put it differently. Even a conservative on occasion gets a flash of intelligence. Science is based on questions. It never claims an answer. Evolution is an evolving concept, one that is continually reaffirmed while at the same time qualified and directed into new avenues of inquiry. I have no idea why you think the NR confined evolution into a politically correct box. They certainly have no fear of being incorrect on most any other issue. You have not in any fashion addressed their arguments. When you do, we can talk.
Click to expand...
If it is continually being reaffirmed it is not being questioned. Questioning tears down before it can build up. Questioning includes keeping an open mind to the point of scraping the whole idea if the evidence leads there. This is not the attitude of most scientists or science teachers and it is very sad. I believe this non-questioning attitude will leak into other areas of science and knowledge will be lost.
 
Steve40 said:
If it is continually being reaffirmed it is not being questioned. Questioning tears down before it can build up. Questioning includes keeping an open mind to the point of scraping the whole idea if the evidence leads there. This is not the attitude of most scientists or science teachers and it is very sad. I believe this non-questioning attitude will leak into other areas of science and knowledge will be lost.
Click to expand...
Not true – science renews itself constantly, and is constantly being questioned. When sufficient counter evidence builds up to overturn a theory, the theory is gone. Since 1859 the evidence has built up, but in support of evolution, not in opposition to it.
 
drpmjhess said:
Not true – science renews itself constantly, and is constantly being questioned. When sufficient counter evidence builds up to overturn a theory, the theory is gone. Since 1859 the evidence has built up, but in support of evolution, not in opposition to it.
Click to expand...
Then why is the questioning of evolution being scilenced?. They don’t want it questioned in schools where questions should be asked. When was the last time you questioned it?

Every scientist should question it at least once a week. How’s about questioning it for a day. Could you do it? Could you be God’s advocate, for a day?
 
Steve40 said:
Then why is the questioning of evolution being scilenced?. They don’t want it questioned in schools where questions should be asked. When was the last time you questioned it?

Every scientist should question it at least once a week. How’s about questioning it for a day. Could you do it? Could you be God’s advocate, for a day?
Click to expand...
It’s not being silenced. Biologists are asking challenging questions every time they go into their labs. I ask challenging questions every day. Why do you think questioners are being silenced?
 
drpmjhess said:
It’s not being silenced. Biologists are asking challenging questions every time they go into their labs. I ask challenging questions every day. Why do you think questioners are being silenced?
Click to expand...
Good. I think the micro-biologists are key. A lot of their work has caused me to doubt evolution to the point of abandonment. But this view is not as wide spread as I would think it should be and this causes me to believe that the truth is being suppressed. Perhaps you right. I know of more scientists which have once believed in evolution and today to not than those coming to the conclusion of evolution on their own. Maybe the tough questions really are being asked and listened to.
 
ribozyme said:
My own name I picked on this forum is a homage to Gerald Joyce. Such a name was chosen because it had a hidden meaning. Joyce’s research mainly involved “evolving” catalytic RNA molecules in an in vitro setting. Under Joyce’s tutelage, a large population of RNA molecules, can be influenced by various selection pressures to perform catalytic tasks (mainly cleaving phosphodiester bonds and ligating RNA) using the relatively simple to understand techniques. Long story short (since I could not recall the details of the aforementioned research vividly anymore), I have gained an appreciation of the stochastic processes of nature and appreciated its power to generate “order” from chaos from this research. In my mind, Joyce’s research dispelled the veracity teleological argument in biology. I do not buy the theistic conclusion of the “fine-tuning” argument, as I think our observations are simply the result of anthropic bias. (See the Ikeda-Jefferys Bayesian argument)

Define “eugenics.” I view “eugenics” with some ambivalence now. But I am a liberal and I do not advocate “eugenics” in the sense of what the Nazis did (e.g. mass murder and sterilizations.) Did the Nazis quote On Liberty or Utilitarianism to justify their actions? (Mill probably wasn’t significantly influenced by Darwin, but my main point is that secular morality does not promote what the Nazis did and even rejects it.) I do not see how adopting a naturalistic view on the origin of the flora and fauna on Earth will naturally lead to such actions. It might lead one to abandon a religiously influenced morality and replace it with a secular one such as utilitarianism, Rawlsian morality, or Objectivism. (Or one can simply be a nihilist or an existentialist) I know the former two do not even advocate Nazi eugenics. (I do not know enough about Objectivism to say anything significant although it might be congruent with Nietzscheism as it rejects “slave morality”. Ayn Rand explicitly rejected self-abnegation as a virtue.)
Click to expand...
I mean this in a friendly way. There are doubtless a few people here who have read all of the sources you are given to citing. However, since many have not, or read them long ago while in school, I, for one, think it takes away from your arguments. In academic circles, this is doubtless an acceptable “shorthand” way of referring to entire systems of thought in the most economical way. In a diverse audience, however, it tempts one to suspect elitism, obscurantism or intellectual lassitude.

Rather than see you misunderstood, therefore, I respectfully suggest that you might wish to simply lay out the elements of a particular school of thought in lieu of expecting them to be understood as a whole system simply by citing a name. It takes more time, of course, but unless the subject really is, e.g., a particular philosopher or economist or whatever, it doesn’t really add anything to do otherwise.

I would also disagree that this is a “conservative bastion”. In some ways it is, if one thinks of fidelity to the Church as “conservative”. But most posters are actually pretty diverse in their convictions in other ways.

No offense, Ribo. I mean none.
 
Yea and it sounds like sophistic double speak too.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
This thread is an interesting mirror of the larger discussion of evolution in America today, including the MAJOR problem. There are two loudmouth camps that seek to define their positons as the only acceptable one:
  1. Theistic Creationists who seek to demonstrate via science the supernatural origin of life.
  2. The atheistic evolutionists who see to demonstrate via science that life began randomly and accidentally.
Both are fools who don’t understand science or theology.

The vast majority of scientists do not fall into category number 2. The vast majority of christians (including catholicism) do not fall into group number 1. But the loudmouths are very good at fooling people into seeing these two as the only options.

Fortunately, the catholic approach is refreshingly sane in comparison to the above: Science cannot stand in oppostion to true religion. Religion is not in conflict with true science.

The catholic scientist is not under any obligation to draw a line anywhere and claim that beyond that line, God did it supernaturally and therefore it has no natural explanation. The catholic scientist realizes that God simply created nature and he, therefore, is not surprised to find that nature follows a process that can be identified, understood and even predicted.

The atheistic evolutionist merely lacks the imagination to comprehend a God so infinite that he has designed an entire universe to meet His will at all moments in time (which is merely part of that creation). The literal creationist ironically makes exactly the same mistake and fears that natural explanations for the diversity of life on earth will undermine his faith.

It’s good to be a catholic!
 
manualman said:
This thread is an interesting mirror of the larger discussion of evolution in America today, including the MAJOR problem. There are two loudmouth camps that seek to define their positons as the only acceptable one:
  1. Theistic Creationists who seek to demonstrate via science the supernatural origin of life.
  2. The atheistic evolutionists who see to demonstrate via science that life began randomly and accidentally.
Both are fools who don’t understand science or theology.

The vast majority of scientists do not fall into category number 2. The vast majority of christians (including catholicism) do not fall into group number 1. But the loudmouths are very good at fooling people into seeing these two as the only options.

Fortunately, the catholic approach is refreshingly sane in comparison to the above: Science cannot stand in oppostion to true religion. Religion is not in conflict with true science.

The catholic scientist is not under any obligation to draw a line anywhere and claim that beyond that line, God did it supernaturally and therefore it has no natural explanation. The catholic scientist realizes that God simply created nature and he, therefore, is not surprised to find that nature follows a process that can be identified, understood and even predicted.

The atheistic evolutionist merely lacks the imagination to comprehend a God so infinite that he has designed an entire universe to meet His will at all moments in time (which is merely part of that creation). The literal creationist ironically makes exactly the same mistake and fears that natural explanations for the diversity of life on earth will undermine his faith.

It’s good to be a catholic!
Click to expand...
I suspect that one day each of us will find that the creation story is far, far richer than anyone on any side of this has ever dreamed.
 
manualman said:
The atheistic evolutionist merely lacks the imagination to comprehend a God so infinite that he has designed an entire universe to meet His will at all moments in time (which is merely part of that creation). The literal creationist ironically makes exactly the same mistake and fears that natural explanations for the diversity of life on earth will undermine his faith.

It’s good to be a catholic!
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence for that? I do not see any evidence of design in this universe. Of course, the universe does look designed, but do you have another evidence for teleology?
 
ribozyme said:
Do you have any evidence for that? I do not see any evidence of design in this universe. Of course, the universe does look designed, but do you have another evidence for teleology?
Click to expand...
Ribozyme, do you reject both the weak and the strong versions of the cosmic anthropic principle? I do agree that we see teleologies because we look for them, but an atheist who rejects teleology in principle seems to be as dogmatic as a fundamentalist who sees it everywhere.

Petrus
 
drpmjhess said:
Ribozyme, do you reject both the weak and the strong versions of the cosmic anthropic principle? I do agree that we see teleologies because we look for them, but an atheist who rejects teleology in principle seems to be as dogmatic as a fundamentalist who sees it everywhere.

Petrus
Click to expand...
I accept the weak version of it. I am acutely aware of the arugments for fine-tuning and I acknowledged their existence in my first post on this thread.

Yes, I know about the cosmological constant (and the other aspects of it although cosmological constant is the most impressive example ), but there is no need to discuss that here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top