sonya_post
Posts: 478
Karma: 103 Baby: 1 Latest: 8y 2m 22d
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: December 12, 2012, 06:57:37 AM » |
|
Chris,
This will be my last post on this. Since in particular, there is no way to respond that will not appear to be flaming, and since it was partly my fault the original thread was pulled, I've no desire to enter that territory again. And since my original post was intended to be inflammatory, offensive and sarcastic, I've no desire to have my current/future comments to be misconstrued. And, considering this is a forum for a variety of people, I've no desire to be an offense that drives them away from these forums. This is not the place for this kind of conversation.
First let me say that as a homeschooler we not only absorb evolution from everything science that is available, we intentionally teach evolution. My son has read all of "The Origin of the Species" not just bits. We have read Dawkins, Gould, Shermer, Ridley and others. So we do not shy away from these things nor am I ignorant of the arguments or the positions of current church denominations. Considering many people here have belief systems that would be inline with these churches and scientists, it makes it difficult to answer without giving offense. So I won't. Or at least I will try not to.
On your previous point: Social Darwinism and evolutionary racism are both currently out of fashion, which is not the same thing as having been refuted, given the premises. There is absolutely no scientific ground for saying, given evolution, that once the human species has arrived, that all portions of that species must henceforth evolve at the same rate of speed. What scientific basis could there be for saying that all humans must continue to evolve? Why can't some of us get stuck here, in much the same way that the chimps got stuck there? Evolution is inherently and necessarily committed to racism. Because you suggest that it should be rightly understood your way does not mean that it must be in any scientific way. How, given the premises of evolution, can it be understood "rightly" and what can that possibly mean?
Consider a fairly recent book "A Natural History of Rape". Cover blurbs refer to rape as "one of the most hideous scourges" and a "loathsome crime." Which at one time was how the species necessarily developed. So we haul the moral outrage in at the last minute, do a little handwaving, and voila! rape is now wrong. But back in the day, we couldn't exactly say that. Which really just proves that it makes it very difficult to declare anything morally "wrong" for certain. Consider our friend Mr. Dawkins again.
The theory of evolution is also a problem because it does not account for the rational preconditions of theory itself. If materialistic evolution is correct, then all my thoughts in my brain are merely chemical reactions, and there is no basis for connecting them in any way to the outside world. But knowledge of chemical reactions is knowledge that comes from the outside world. If my thoughts are merely chemical reactions then I have no reason to believe my thoughts to be true, and this would include the truth that my thoughts are merely chemical reactions. Raw matter and energy cannot give an account of itself. Accidents do not explain themselves. If you come into the kitchen and discover a puddle of milk on the floor, and you want to know what happened, you don't ask the milk. It doesn't know. It is the accident. This remains the case even if you identify a cluster of bubbles on one side of the puddle as a prestigious university.
EDIT: I do not here mean to imply that all evolutionists are racist or rapists. But merely that because we have waved our hands and declared our moral outrage does not mean that there is anything in the premises of evolution that would support your moral outrage. And should the Social Darwinists ever make a strong comeback - what could possibly be the argument against them?
|
Digg
