| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
22 Nov 2005 01:54:51 PM |
| Object: |
Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/110518.html
November-December 2005
Intelligent Evolution
The consequences of Charles Darwin's "one long argument"
by Edward O. Wilson
Snips throughout.
Evolution by
natural selection
==
has taken on the
solidity of a mathematical theorem
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
French persons that rejected the theory of NS
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1129861996.983559.40030%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
contributing more offspring to the next generation than
the other variants, the overall composition of the
population changes, and evolution has occurred.
legerdemain in the use of the word 'evolution'
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
biological processes are ultimately
obedient to, even though far from fully explained by, the
laws of physics and chemistry.
2001 Gerald Schroeder, 1999 Paul Davies, 1992 Hubert Yockey, & 1968
Michael Polanyi: [Davies]"life cannot be 'written into' the laws of
physics" presently known
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-33b2blF3tdum0U1%40individual.net
The impact of the theory of evolution by natural
selection, nowadays grown very sophisticated (and often
referred to as the Modern Synthesis), has been
profound.
historical background to rise and fall of the Synthetic Euphoria; 1936
A. Franklin Shull
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com
Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), 352pp., 195:
Much of what Darwin said is, in detail, wrong.
surrounding material in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=u2k2i0dlm2htnq42avhemsueaqi7pje2mh%404ax.com
without any kind of external guidance. Evolution in a
pure Darwinian world has no goal or purpose
concept of "blindwatchmaking"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401101006.38dc8f17%40posting.google.com
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
we were descended from animals
by the same blind force that created those animals
The revolution begun by Darwin was even more
humbling: it showed that humanity is not the center of
creation, and not its purpose either. But in freeing our
minds from our imagined demigod bondage, even at the
price of humility,
1949 Simpson: "man is the result of a purposeless materialistic
process
that did not have him in mind":
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1949. _The Meaning of
Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its
Significance for Man_ (New Haven: Yale University Press),
364pp., from the chapter "Epilogue and Summary" on 344:
Man is the result of a purposeless materialistic process
that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He
is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a
species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to
all of life and indeed to all that is material.
On 343:
Although many details remain to be worked out, it is
already evident that all the objective phenomena of the
history of life can be explained by purely materialistic
factors.
Sagan, Carl. 1980. _Cosmos_ (NY: Random House), 365pp. Chapter
1's first line:
THE COSMOS IS ALL THAT IS OR EVER WAS OR EVER WILL BE.
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking
Views
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
ID as a metaphysical research program
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
The Descent of Man (1871) to include human origins
1859 Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120016676.023811.113660%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Multi-Pronged Role of Darwinian Thought in Shoah's Arrival
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132080322.482544.299440%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
famous remark made by the evolutionary geneticist
Theodosius Dobzhansky in 1973 that "nothing in biology
makes sense except in the light of evolution."
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990727211344.2639819A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
evolution is a fact. The
evidence they and thousands of others have adduced
over 150 years falls together in intricate and interlocking
detail. The multitudinous examples range from the small
changes in DNA sequences observed as they occur in
real time
legerdemain in the use of the word 'evolution'
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
to finely graded sequences within larger
evolutionary changes in the fossil record.
1989 Christopher Wills on insignificance of known cases of gradual
'evolution' in fossil record
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8bhf4m%24eta%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
Further, on the
basis of comparably firm evidence, natural selection
grows ever stronger as the prevailing explanation of
evolution.
1999 Leigh: "creationists and antidarwinians are multiplying"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406141942.49257583%40posting.google.com
They support the alternative
explanation of intelligent design. The reasoning they
offer is not based on evidence but on the lack of it.
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
ID as a metaphysical research program
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
The
formulation of intelligent design is a default argument
advanced in support of a non sequitur. It is in essence
the following: There are some phenomena that have not
yet been explained and that (and most importantly) the
critics personally cannot imagine being explained;
therefore there must be a supernatural designer at work.
Strawman.
the deliberate, careful manner with
which he approached every subject.
1959 Gertrude Himmelfarb on 1871 Darwin backtracking
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0312222212.4728f71b%40posting.google.com
Barzun, Jacques. 1941. _Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage_
(Boston: Little, Brown and Company), 420pp. A paragraph on 82-83:
A worse fault than obscurity, in view of the wide
faith accorded by the nineteenth century and ours to
scientific works, is Darwin's hedging and self-
contradiction; for it enabled any unscrupulous reader
to choose his text from the _Origin of Species_ or
the _Descent of Man_ with almost the same ease of
accommodation to his purpose as if he had chosen
from the Bible. But the Bible is a whole library,
written by different men at different times, whereas
Darwin's books are supposedly consistent from
beginning to end. On the subject of war, for
example, Darwin can be used equally well to prove
its utility to the race or the reverse, and this without
any indication that war may have contradictory
virtues.
scientific humanism,
the only worldview compatible with science's growing
knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature.
1997 Edward O. Wilson: "scientific materialism explains vastly more of
the tangible world.... Its discoveries suggest that, like it or not,
we are alone. We must measure and judge ourselves, and we will decide
our own destiny."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408121848.fb6ab07%40posting.google.com
in biology. The inexorable
growth of this science continues to widen, not to close,
the tectonic gap between science and faith-based
religion.
Habermas interview with Flew
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-336m89F3u087fU1%40individual.net
1992 Antony Flew
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990311073639.27782B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Robert Jastrow Speaks
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980502234441.3024B-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
humanism based on science is the
effective antidote, the light and the way at last placed
before us.
Humanist Manifesto I extracts at the bottom of
Hitler opposed Christianity
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1117657689.616680.167840%40g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
.
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
23 Nov 2005 01:10:32 AM |
|
|
In article
<dford3-1132667691.730506.19980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/110518.html
November-December 2005
Intelligent Evolution
The consequences of Charles Darwin's "one long argument"
by Edward O. Wilson
Snips throughout.
Evolution by
natural selection
==
has taken on the
solidity of a mathematical theorem
[...clipcrap...]
*
Edward O. Wilson is a Professor of Biology at Harvard with two
Pulitzer Prizes.
David Ford is a snotty little troll Jesus freak.
Who do you believe?
earle
*
"The most dangerous of devotions, in my opinion, is the one
endemic to Christianity: I was not born to be of this world. With a
second life waiting, suffering can be endured--especially in other
people. The natural environment can be used up. Enemies of the faith
can be savaged and suicidal martyrdom praised."
--Edward O. Wilson -- "Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge"
BTW, just like me, Wilson was born in Alabama and got out as quickly
as possible!
ej
*
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
23 Nov 2005 02:01:26 AM |
|
|
Earle Jones wrote:
In article
<dford3-1132667691.730506.19980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/110518.html
November-December 2005
Intelligent Evolution
The consequences of Charles Darwin's "one long argument"
by Edward O. Wilson
Snips throughout.
Evolution by
natural selection
==
has taken on the
solidity of a mathematical theorem
[...clipcrap...]
*
Edward O. Wilson is a Professor of Biology at Harvard with two
Pulitzer Prizes.
David Ford is a snotty little troll Jesus freak.
Who do you believe?
Ford and Schlafly should be [Friedan]"burn[ed]... at the stake."
From
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/critics/051107crbo_books
The larger significance of events is, of course, often
obscure to those busy living them out. Exactly what
seemed most ridiculous about [Phyllis] Schlafly in
the early seventies-- her antiquarian views, her
screwball logic, her God's-on-our-side self-
confidence-- was by the end of the decade revealed
to be her political strength. First the ratification
process for the E.R.A. [Equal Rights Amendment]
slowed, then it stalled out entirely. The last state to
approve the amendment was Indiana, in January,
1977. Meanwhile, five states that had already voted
to ratify rescinded their approval, a move of
uncertain legal force but of ominous implications. As
it became clear that the E.R.A. was going down, the
tone of the Schlafly jokes began to sour.
"I just don't see why some people don't hit Phyllis
Schlafly in the mouth," a well-known feminist lawyer,
Florence Kennedy, told a Miami radio station.
"I'd like to burn you at the stake," Betty Friedan
blurted out during a debate with Schlafly in
Bloomington, Illinois. "I consider you a traitor to
your sex. I consider you an Aunt Tom."
earle
*
"The most dangerous of devotions, in my opinion, is the one
endemic to Christianity: I was not born to be of this world. With a
second life waiting, suffering can be endured--especially in other
people. The natural environment can be used up. Enemies of the faith
can be savaged and suicidal martyrdom praised."
--Edward O. Wilson -- "Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge"
I freely acknowledge that the secular, scientific religion of atheism
has a 'bloody history.' And I boldly embrace that 'bloody history.'
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1121400956.627638.38960%40g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
have Maff, Humphrey, Dwyer, Dennett, and Dawkins gone around
[LM]"behaving like idiots"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-36ptr0F53hkerU1%40individual.net
Yahya and Koster on the use of fear and force
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030811.4e8cd1bd%40posting.google.com
BTW, just like me, Wilson was born in Alabama and got out as quickly
as possible!
ej
*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
23 Nov 2005 04:11:06 AM |
|
|
In article
<dford3-1132711286.860189.37060@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Earle Jones wrote:
In article
<dford3-1132667691.730506.19980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/110518.html
November-December 2005
Intelligent Evolution
The consequences of Charles Darwin's "one long argument"
by Edward O. Wilson
Snips throughout.
Evolution by
natural selection
==
has taken on the
solidity of a mathematical theorem
[...clipcrap...]
*
Edward O. Wilson is a Professor of Biology at Harvard with two
Pulitzer Prizes.
David Ford is a snotty little troll Jesus freak.
Who do you believe?
[...clipcrap...]
*
You didn't answer my question.
earle
*
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
23 Nov 2005 02:23:26 PM |
|
|
Earle Jones wrote:
In article
<dford3-1132711286.860189.37060@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Earle Jones wrote:
In article
<dford3-1132667691.730506.19980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/110518.html
November-December 2005
Intelligent Evolution
The consequences of Charles Darwin's "one long argument"
by Edward O. Wilson
Snips throughout.
Evolution by
natural selection
==
has taken on the
solidity of a mathematical theorem
[...clipcrap...]
*
Edward O. Wilson is a Professor of Biology at Harvard with two
Pulitzer Prizes.
David Ford is a snotty little troll Jesus freak.
Who do you believe?
[...clipcrap...]
*
You didn't answer my question.
I thought you said: '_what_ do you/ df believe?'
"Who do you [df] believe?"
About what topic(s)?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
23 Nov 2005 06:52:42 AM |
|
|
On 22 Nov 2005 18:01:26 -0800, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
I freely acknowledge that the secular, scientific religion of atheism
has a 'bloody history.'
how can a non religion have a bloody history? ayn rand and joseph
stalin were both atheists. other than that they had zip in common.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
23 Nov 2005 02:27:06 PM |
|
|
George Cleveland wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 06:52:42 GMT, (Bob) wrote:
On 22 Nov 2005 18:01:26 -0800, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
I freely acknowledge that the secular, scientific religion of atheism
has a 'bloody history.'
how can a non religion have a bloody history? ayn rand and joseph
stalin were both atheists. other than that they had zip in common.
I personally think you're wrong on that. I think Uncle Joe and Aynnie
both believed in God. Of course that god happened to be themselves.
Re: [Hitler]"God" or [Hitler]"Providence" referring to Hitler himself:
+ Rauschning.
Q: "Do you believe in a supreme being?"
A: "Emphatically yes, and that supreme being is mankind."
Analysis: surely not _all_ mankind-- just look at a broadcast of your
local evening news. So, humanism-adherents worship only a portion of
mankind. It would make sense for humanism-adherents to worship _the
very best_ portion of mankind. In many cases, that very best portion
of mankind is the _humanist himself_.
Q: 'Do you believe in a supreme being?'
A: 'Emphatically yes, and that supreme being is ME!'
Morain, Lloyd and Mary. 1998. _Humanism As the Next Step_
(Amherst, New York: Humanist Press), 145pp. A paragraph on 32:
Harold R. Rafton, founder of the Humanist Fellowship of
Boston, when asked, "Do you believe in a supreme being?"
replied, "Emphatically yes, and that supreme being is
mankind." Humanists are careful, however, to point out
that this does not mean prideful self-worship of humanity,
because humanists do not worship in the traditional sense.
To be sure, the fulfillment of human life is their highest
value and their goal. But they realize that this fulfillment
is dependent upon human interrelationship with other
varieties of living things and nature as a whole. They
know that nature and its laws largely set the course and
determine the goals humans must seek to be fully human.
Their needs and their hopes are developed in interaction
with each other and nature.
+ May 2003 Timothy Ryback on "Hitler's Forgotten Library"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/895696/posts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
23 Nov 2005 02:49:56 PM |
|
|
On 23 Nov 2005 06:27:06 -0800, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
Analysis: surely not _all_ mankind-- just look at a broadcast of your
local evening news. So, humanism-adherents worship only a portion of
mankind. It would make sense for humanism-adherents to worship _the
very best_ portion of mankind. In many cases, that very best portion
of mankind is the _humanist himself_.
guess he's never heard of the inquisition. there's little difference
between a person who thinks he's god, and a person who thinks he's
speaking on god's behalf.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
29 Nov 2005 02:24:06 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 23 Nov 2005 06:27:06 -0800, "david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
Analysis: surely not _all_ mankind-- just look at a broadcast of your
local evening news. So, humanism-adherents worship only a portion of
mankind. It would make sense for humanism-adherents to worship _the
very best_ portion of mankind. In many cases, that very best portion
of mankind is the _humanist himself_.
guess he's never heard of the inquisition. there's little difference
between a person who thinks he's god, and a person who thinks he's
speaking on god's behalf.
Is it the case that there's "little difference between a person who" is
considered by some to be 'god' e.g. Darwin, "and a person who thinks
he's speaking on god's behalf" e.g. the god Darwin's prophets Huxley
and Haeckel?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Darwin only talks to and through his prophets.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-37f8trF5cdutnU1%40individual.net
Darwin's bible; Hsu
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a18k3F66sgjpU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
29 Nov 2005 03:03:50 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
[...]
Your Christian fascist God isn't going to help you when you're nailed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
29 Nov 2005 01:58:50 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
david ford wrote:
[...]
Your Christian fascist God isn't going to help you when you're nailed.
the atheism-adherent Hitler's actions are quite understandable
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1127506418.014874.230840%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
have Maff, Humphrey, Dwyer, Dennett, and Dawkins gone around
[LM]"behaving like idiots"?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-36ptr0F53hkerU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
30 Nov 2005 10:54:23 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
[...]
Are you still claiming that your Confederate God is going to help you,
Christian fascist?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
03 Dec 2005 06:10:40 PM |
|
|
In article <1133348063.178371.107940@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
david ford wrote:
[...]
Are you still claiming that your Confederate God is going to help you,
Christian fascist?
*
Robert E. Lee was the Confederate God.
earle
*
"I can provide you with an explanation --
I cannot provide an understanding."
--Samuel Johnson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beautiful and Damned" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
23 Nov 2005 07:03:00 PM |
|
|
This is the age-old question, isn't it? "If we kill God do we not have
to be gods to make ourselves worthy of this deed...?" (approx. quote of
Nietzsche from _Gay Science_)
Analysis: surely not _all_ mankind-- just look at a broadcast of your
local evening news. So, humanism-adherents worship only a portion of
mankind. It would make sense for humanism-adherents to worship _the
very best_ portion of mankind. In many cases, that very best portion
of mankind is the _humanist himself_.
Perhaps all scientists should read the _Gay Science_ to see the
nihilistic consequences of materialism. Humanism would seem a possible
replacement; since by saying that Mankind is God we are implying that
every human being has intrinsic value whether stupid, smart, ugly,
beautiful (as myself), rich, poor, decrepit, healthy, criminal,
obedient, etc.. For example, even criminals retain human value and
could be regarded as sick and in need of medicine (and possibly this is
consistent with some aspects of Christianity when Jesus is called
"Physician;" the problems arise when Jesus Judges and *****.) This
is the view, I think, of most normal folk, believers-in-God and
believers-in-evolution (I recognize these are not mutually exclusive
and I am oversimplifying a lot).
BTW, thanks for the links and information, David.... I havent' had time
to read any of it in any depth to make a meaninful response.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
29 Nov 2005 02:47:45 AM |
|
|
Beautiful and Damned wrote:
This is the age-old question, isn't it? "If we kill God do we not have
to be gods to make ourselves worthy of this deed...?" (approx. quote of
Nietzsche from _Gay Science_)
Analysis: surely not _all_ mankind-- just look at a broadcast of your
local evening news. So, humanism-adherents worship only a portion of
mankind. It would make sense for humanism-adherents to worship _the
very best_ portion of mankind. In many cases, that very best portion
of mankind is the _humanist himself_.
Perhaps all scientists should read the _Gay Science_ to see the
nihilistic consequences of materialism. Humanism would seem a possible
replacement; since by saying that Mankind is God we are implying that
every human being has intrinsic value whether stupid, smart, ugly,
beautiful (as myself), rich, poor, decrepit, healthy, criminal,
obedient, etc.. For example, even criminals retain human value and
could be regarded as sick and in need of medicine
Do disabled, non-criminal/ completely-innocent infants "retain human
value"?
Atheism-adherents Watson and Crick signed the Humanist Manifesto III.
Ref:
http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HMsigners.htm
From
1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814%40posting.google.com
In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize
laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA,
granted an interview to _Prism_ magazine, then a
publication of the American Medical Association.
_Time_ later reported the interview to the general
public, quoting Watson as having said,
If a child were not declared alive until three days
after birth, then all parents could be allowed the
choice only a few are given under the present
system. The doctor could allow the child to die
if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery
and suffering. I believe this view is the only
rational, compassionate attitude to have.
In January 1978, Francis Crick, also a Nobel
laureate, was quoted in the _Pacific News Service_
as saying,
. . . no newborn infant should be declared human
until it has passed certain tests regarding its
genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests
it forfeits the right to live.
"even criminals retain human value and could be regarded as sick and in
need of medicine"
Does "humanism" provide for death-inducing "medicine"?
From
1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope slide from devaluing
some human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to mass killings
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
That case came to their
attention in late 1938. A baby had been born with birth
defects: Baby Knauer was blind and had a leg and part of
an arm missing. The parents were distraught and,
accepting the general value system of their time, were
deeply ashamed to have brought a useless eater into the
world. They wrote requesting permission to have their
child "put to sleep." Hitler was quite interested in the
case and sent one of his personal physicians, Karl
Rudolph Brandt, to investigate. Brandt's instructions
from the Fuhrer were to verify the facts of the baby's
condition and, if true, to assure the child's doctors and
her parents that if she was killed, no one would face
punishment or liability. Brandt was then to witness the
euthanasia and report back to Hitler. The doctors in the
case who met with Brandt agreed that there was "no
justification for keeping the child alive," and Baby
Knauer soon became one of the first victims of the
Holocaust.^27
(and possibly this is
consistent with some aspects of Christianity when Jesus is called
"Physician;" the problems arise when Jesus Judges and *****.)
"Jesus is called 'Physician;'" for what?
"Jesus Judges" for what?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Is infanticide "evil"?; Reagan; Nordau
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1131387293.922571.147570%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Taking a firm, godless stand for death
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410291758.3dfffe4b%40posting.google.com
1999 Paul Vitz on personal convenience; 2002 Benjamin Wiker
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-35qe6lF4orjsoU1%40individual.net
convert to secular humanism to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
varieties
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409241109.17e2611d%40posting.google.com
Should a person fear being judged by an utterly-holy Judge for his or
her actions?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1125418165.686474.220010%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
This
is the view, I think, of most normal folk, believers-in-God and
believers-in-evolution (I recognize these are not mutually exclusive
and I am oversimplifying a lot).
BTW, thanks for the links and information, David....
You're quite welcome.
I havent' had time
to read any of it in any depth to make a meaninful response.
Not a problem. Keep asking questions and I'll provide responses.
Sometimes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
23 Nov 2005 04:21:31 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
[...]
David Ford is an IDiot
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4d7acc8b3b957a72
David Ford isn't a scientist
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/73bd9299a30235bf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "r norman" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
23 Nov 2005 02:00:09 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:10:32 -0800, Earle Jones
<earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote:
In article
<dford3-1132667691.730506.19980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Edward O. Wilson is a Professor of Biology at Harvard with two
Pulitzer Prizes.
David Ford is a snotty little troll Jesus freak.
Who do you believe?
I believe Wilson, but not because of his Harvard Professorship nor his
Pulitzer Prizes. S.J. Gould had bitter arguments and fights with
Wilson, totally opposing a number of his biological (and evolutionary)
ideas and Gould had similar credentials. In that case, what appeal to
authority do you invoke?
In this case, I agree with Wilson because of the validity of his
factual data and logical arguments. In this case, I also agree with
your opinion of David Ford, but not because of any lofty position you
may hold. Rather it is because I have read David Ford's writing.
And, to be completely petty about things, it is whoM, not who! ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Earle Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
23 Nov 2005 04:33:55 AM |
|
|
In article <dui7o1pg6sn60flt7lh4i9lnko4l5pco0e@4ax.com>,
r norman <NotMyRealEmail@_comcast.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:10:32 -0800, Earle Jones
<earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote:
In article
<dford3-1132667691.730506.19980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Edward O. Wilson is a Professor of Biology at Harvard with two
Pulitzer Prizes.
David Ford is a snotty little troll Jesus freak.
Who do you believe?
I believe Wilson, but not because of his Harvard Professorship nor his
Pulitzer Prizes. S.J. Gould had bitter arguments and fights with
Wilson, totally opposing a number of his biological (and evolutionary)
ideas and Gould had similar credentials. In that case, what appeal to
authority do you invoke?
In this case, I agree with Wilson because of the validity of his
factual data and logical arguments. In this case, I also agree with
your opinion of David Ford, but not because of any lofty position you
may hold. Rather it is because I have read David Ford's writing.
And, to be completely petty about things, it is whoM, not who! ;-)
*
Whom! Whom!
Next time I'll get it right.
(I hope.)
There is a soft spot in my heart for Edward O. Wilson, because we
have such similar backgrounds. He was born in Birmingham, Alabama
(1929), attended the U. of Alabama (in biology) and then went to
Harvard, where eventually he became Professor of Biology and is now
Curator in Entomology at Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology.
I was born in Birmingham two years after Wilson (1931) and attended
Georgia Tech in Electrical Engineering, and thence to Stanford,
where I have plied my trade ever since. He has two Pulitzer prizes
and I have none, which is, on the average, one Pulitzer each :-)
My interest in Wilson's work was peaked some years ago when a friend
wanted to know about the local ants. (I work as a volunteer
docent/naturalist at the Ano Nuevo State Reserve in northern
California -- the home of one of the largest colonies of northern
elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris). I lead guided walks for
visitors, especially kids with disabilities.)
I checked out Wilson's book on ants (for which he received his
second Pulitzer Prize) co-authored with Hoeldoebler, and passed it
along to my friend.
Wilson is, in my opinion, one of the great biologists of today --
his writing style is superb. His knowledge, at the age of 76, spans
several domains of science. I loved his "Consilience: The Unity of
Knowledge" (Knopf 1998), which ties together the several areas of
basic physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, psychology, social
science, and the humanities.
And when some snotty little troll Jesus freak (like whats-his-name
above) attempts to belittle Wilson -- I get a bit perturbed.
Thanks for your note.
earle
*
.
|
|
|
| User: "r norman" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
23 Nov 2005 03:31:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 20:33:55 -0800, Earle Jones
<earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote:
In article <dui7o1pg6sn60flt7lh4i9lnko4l5pco0e@4ax.com>,
r norman <NotMyRealEmail@_comcast.net> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 17:10:32 -0800, Earle Jones
<earle.jones@comcast.net> wrote:
In article
<dford3-1132667691.730506.19980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Edward O. Wilson is a Professor of Biology at Harvard with two
Pulitzer Prizes.
David Ford is a snotty little troll Jesus freak.
Who do you believe?
I believe Wilson, but not because of his Harvard Professorship nor his
Pulitzer Prizes. S.J. Gould had bitter arguments and fights with
Wilson, totally opposing a number of his biological (and evolutionary)
ideas and Gould had similar credentials. In that case, what appeal to
authority do you invoke?
In this case, I agree with Wilson because of the validity of his
factual data and logical arguments. In this case, I also agree with
your opinion of David Ford, but not because of any lofty position you
may hold. Rather it is because I have read David Ford's writing.
And, to be completely petty about things, it is whoM, not who! ;-)
*
Whom! Whom!
Next time I'll get it right.
(I hope.)
There is a soft spot in my heart for Edward O. Wilson, because we
have such similar backgrounds. He was born in Birmingham, Alabama
(1929), attended the U. of Alabama (in biology) and then went to
Harvard, where eventually he became Professor of Biology and is now
Curator in Entomology at Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology.
I was born in Birmingham two years after Wilson (1931) and attended
Georgia Tech in Electrical Engineering, and thence to Stanford,
where I have plied my trade ever since. He has two Pulitzer prizes
and I have none, which is, on the average, one Pulitzer each :-)
My interest in Wilson's work was peaked some years ago when a friend
wanted to know about the local ants. (I work as a volunteer
docent/naturalist at the Ano Nuevo State Reserve in northern
California -- the home of one of the largest colonies of northern
elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris). I lead guided walks for
visitors, especially kids with disabilities.)
I checked out Wilson's book on ants (for which he received his
second Pulitzer Prize) co-authored with Hoeldoebler, and passed it
along to my friend.
Wilson is, in my opinion, one of the great biologists of today --
his writing style is superb. His knowledge, at the age of 76, spans
several domains of science. I loved his "Consilience: The Unity of
Knowledge" (Knopf 1998), which ties together the several areas of
basic physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, psychology, social
science, and the humanities.
And when some snotty little troll Jesus freak (like whats-his-name
above) attempts to belittle Wilson -- I get a bit perturbed.
Thanks for your note.
I agree with your assessment of Wilson, including his greatness. As
an authority on social insects, he has no equal. I understand he is
also considered a phenomenal teacher and great guy all around. Where
he got into trouble was with Sociobiology and his attempt to apply
biological and evolutionary characteristics to the study of behavior.
The notion applies magnificently to many animals, but its application
to modern human behavior was a serious problem. At the time (70's) it
easily fell into rather racist and anti-progressive political hands
and, along with notions of genetic basis of intelligence, was used as
a biological justification for discriminatory public policy. Lewontin
and Gould were particularly vocal in opposing these ideas, perhaps a
little too aggressively. It really did get ugly for many years. See
Sociobiology on Wikipedia for a taste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology
Modern evolutionary psychology, with all its excessive biologizing
about human behavior, is the current outgrowth of this pattern of
thinking. That is where we get outrageous notions that "rape is
natural" and the like. Yes, there is a lot of good science behind
both sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. However there is a
tremendous amount of real crap in both fields and the practitioners
have failed to take responsibility for trying to prevent the
misapplication of their ideas. Similar things happened before, the
misapplication of Darwinian ideas to produce the excesses of social
darwinism, eugenics, and doctrines of racial superiority. Since
Hiroshima, we scientists cannot dissociate ourselves from the
misapplication of our ideas.
Personally, I was in the Lewontin/Gould camp, met them several times
in sessions devoted to the politics of sociobiology (and the political
strategies for combatting it) and also in different contexts for more
scientific purposes. I never had the pleasure of meeting Wilson but
was familiar with his scientific ideas and couldn't understand (or
thwart) the personal attacks on him as opposed to legitimate attacks
on the abuse of his valid scientific ideas.
I was less enchanted than you with Consilience. It has some
interesting ideas, but is rather arrogant in its presumption that
science in general and biology in particular and evolutionary biology
to be quite specific provide the tools to unite all human thought and
creativity. Evolution truly underlies the production of the human
brain and associated "mind." However, it produced a brain whose
activity deals with ideas and ideals, transmitted culturally and
linguistically, in ways that far transcend biology. Perhaps an
analogy would be to say that electrical engineering has produced the
machinery of television and computers. So we must study electrical
engineering to understand how television and computers and other
electronic media have transformed modern society. It just doesn't
work that way.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
23 Nov 2005 04:18:08 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
[...]
Nah. You're still a certified scientifically illiterate Christian
fascist idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
29 Nov 2005 02:49:04 AM |
|
|
maff wrote:
david ford wrote:
[...]
Nah. You're still a certified scientifically illiterate Christian
fascist idiot.
What would I have to believe to become "scientifically [l]iterate"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
29 Nov 2005 02:57:28 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
[...]
You've to go back to school, Christian fascist idiot. I'm sure that the
people in prison will educate you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
29 Nov 2005 02:00:39 PM |
|
|
maff wrote:
david ford wrote:
[...]
You've to go back to school, Christian fascist idiot. I'm sure that the
people in prison will educate you.
Will I be "educate[d]" in Haeckel's (fraudulent) embryo depictions?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-38m3vrF5o7bk2U1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Reactions to E.O. Wilson article |
29 Nov 2005 02:28:01 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
[...]
I doubt you can be educated, Christian fascist degenerate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
