Freethought & Rationalism Archive

liquid · 04-03-2002, 02:14 AM

Just backing up the toon and dawkins here.

People seem to have some misconception that Dawkins is all for some social darwinism and evolutionary morality simply because he is an ardent critic of religion.

These people tend to be the ones who have not read his work. The central 'moral' message of 'the selfish gene' (and it must be made clear it is not a moralising book)is that we are no longer subject to our genetic and evolutionary urges but can now decide on our morality useing our intelligence.

A lot of people are uncomfortable with the attitude that Dawkins takes with religion, but in many ways, I agree with it. If we see something as stupid as a belief in astrology, then why must we respectfully tip-toe up to it, just because it is 'religion'?

Of course, it's not always the most practical course to take, but then no-one is advocating taking it all the time!

Oolon Colluphid · 04-03-2002, 03:12 AM

Tricia, if evolution is a religion, it is the only testable one there's ever been. And having been tested, it has been found to be true.

Perhaps you could define 'religion' for us as you see it, and we'll see if evolution is one.

Oolon

hezekiah jones · 04-03-2002, 04:09 AM

Howay and liquid:

Points taken. I was just trying to show the little creationist hit-and-runner that there is a broader context to Ruse's article (I doubt she even read the whole thing anyway).

One of Ruse's projects has been to try and build a bridge between scientists and some of the more thoughtful creationists (such as Plantinga). This has necessarily involved his use of theological terminology and in the process the production of some rather controversial statements.

Me, I find the suggestion that evolution is a religion entirely ridiculous. I have no problem with Dawkins' personal views. People that are unable to separate them from the hard facts of evolution are simply showing their true agenda, and the inherent lack of substance in their own "arguments," such as they are.

Of course the creationists (without the science to back it up) say the same thing about Dawkins, and that issue is what I was referring to when I said it's already been discussed here, so it's nothing new.

The bottom line, however, is that Ruse is no friend to either the paleo-creationists or the neo-creationists, that is, the "intelligent design theorists."

Also Ruse's testimony, for better or worse, was the inspiration for Judge Overton's so-called demarcation criteria, as articulated in McLean v. Arkansas. The IDers have seized on these criteria, and in fact a <a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/utah.pdf" target="_blank">law review article</a> written by three Discovery Institute "fellows" advising on how to get ID around the establishment clause dwells briefly on these criteria.

Of course the search for demarcation criteria has occupied philosophers of science for the better part of the 20th century. This debate has been useful to the creationists, since articles in the philosophy of science are an especially fruitful ground for creationist quote mining, one that perhaps they have yet to fully exploit for their nefarious agenda, although I know they've already completely mangled both Popper and Kuhn.

I'm thinking of another article by W.T. Stace, in which Stace refers to theoretical terms and concepts as "useful fictions," and that it doesn't matter whether the objects and processes pointed to by the terms exist or not, so long as they do the work of explanation.

I've never seen a creationist pick up on this one yet, but if there are any creationists (paleo- or neo-) lurking, it's in a book called Man Against Darkness. Go get it and topple the evolutionary priesthood once and for all.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

Tricia · 04-03-2002, 05:06 PM

What I think about it?

hmmm.... I thought it was very interesting. More interesting perhaps if Micheal Ruse was an atheist.

As for my def of religion, I'm gonna think about that one before jumping. But I think it's more a way of life rather than my beliefs system. It's how I live my life, not what I can quote or preach at someone.

more later....

~Tricia

Coragyps · 04-03-2002, 05:29 PM

Quote:

either the paleo-creationists or the neo-creationists,

hezekiah jones · 04-04-2002, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricia:
hmmm.... I thought it was very interesting. More interesting perhaps if Mich[ae]l Ruse was an atheist.

I don't get it. What do you mean?

Quote:

As for my def of religion, I'm gonna think about that one before jumping.

What's at issue here (i.e., your OP) is whether evolution is a religion. Is it? If it is, why?

Godless Dave · 04-04-2002, 08:26 AM

I know of no "evolutionists" who try to draw moral lessons from the biological theory of evolution. Creationists just seem to assume that we all do. They get their moral code from their religion, so they assume everyone does. And since they think (wrongly) that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive, and many seem to equate evolution with all of science (hence all their criticisms of Big Bang theories), they conclude that we must get our morality from it.

Beelzebub · 04-04-2002, 10:08 AM

From the article:Evolution, Darwinian evolution, is wonderful science. Let us teach it to our children. And, in the classroom, let us leave it at that.

I agree totally. Tricia, if you had a point, what might it be?

Tricia · 04-05-2002, 05:08 PM

The whole reason I posted this tidbit was because I thought it was written by an atheist evolutionist.

I just wanted to get your opinion on it, because I thought it was interesting because of the aforementioned description of the author.

I didn't have a point, really, I just wanted to see what you guys thought about it.

~Tricia

Lizard · 04-05-2002, 07:09 PM

Tricia,

No point, no opinion? How strange.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-03-2002, 02:14 AM	#11
liquid Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: UK Posts: 1,440	Just backing up the toon and dawkins here. People seem to have some misconception that Dawkins is all for some social darwinism and evolutionary morality simply because he is an ardent critic of religion. These people tend to be the ones who have not read his work. The central 'moral' message of 'the selfish gene' (and it must be made clear it is not a moralising book)is that we are no longer subject to our genetic and evolutionary urges but can now decide on our morality useing our intelligence. A lot of people are uncomfortable with the attitude that Dawkins takes with religion, but in many ways, I agree with it. If we see something as stupid as a belief in astrology, then why must we respectfully tip-toe up to it, just because it is 'religion'? Of course, it's not always the most practical course to take, but then no-one is advocating taking it all the time!

04-03-2002, 03:12 AM	#12
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Tricia, if evolution is a religion, it is the only testable one there's ever been. And having been tested, it has been found to be true. Perhaps you could define 'religion' for us as you see it, and we'll see if evolution is one. Oolon

04-03-2002, 04:09 AM	#13
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Howay and liquid: Points taken. I was just trying to show the little creationist hit-and-runner that there is a broader context to Ruse's article (I doubt she even read the whole thing anyway). One of Ruse's projects has been to try and build a bridge between scientists and some of the more thoughtful creationists (such as Plantinga). This has necessarily involved his use of theological terminology and in the process the production of some rather controversial statements. Me, I find the suggestion that evolution is a religion entirely ridiculous. I have no problem with Dawkins' personal views. People that are unable to separate them from the hard facts of evolution are simply showing their true agenda, and the inherent lack of substance in their own "arguments," such as they are. Of course the creationists (without the science to back it up) say the same thing about Dawkins, and that issue is what I was referring to when I said it's already been discussed here, so it's nothing new. The bottom line, however, is that Ruse is no friend to either the paleo-creationists or the neo-creationists, that is, the "intelligent design theorists." Also Ruse's testimony, for better or worse, was the inspiration for Judge Overton's so-called demarcation criteria, as articulated in McLean v. Arkansas. The IDers have seized on these criteria, and in fact a <a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/utah.pdf" target="_blank">law review article</a> written by three Discovery Institute "fellows" advising on how to get ID around the establishment clause dwells briefly on these criteria. Of course the search for demarcation criteria has occupied philosophers of science for the better part of the 20th century. This debate has been useful to the creationists, since articles in the philosophy of science are an especially fruitful ground for creationist quote mining, one that perhaps they have yet to fully exploit for their nefarious agenda, although I know they've already completely mangled both Popper and Kuhn. I'm thinking of another article by W.T. Stace, in which Stace refers to theoretical terms and concepts as "useful fictions," and that it doesn't matter whether the objects and processes pointed to by the terms exist or not, so long as they do the work of explanation. I've never seen a creationist pick up on this one yet, but if there are any creationists (paleo- or neo-) lurking, it's in a book called Man Against Darkness. Go get it and topple the evolutionary priesthood once and for all. [ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

04-03-2002, 05:06 PM	#14
Tricia Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: College Station, Tx Posts: 675	What I think about it? hmmm.... I thought it was very interesting. More interesting perhaps if Micheal Ruse was an atheist. As for my def of religion, I'm gonna think about that one before jumping. But I think it's more a way of life rather than my beliefs system. It's how I live my life, not what I can quote or preach at someone. more later.... ~Tricia

04-04-2002, 08:26 AM	#17
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	I know of no "evolutionists" who try to draw moral lessons from the biological theory of evolution. Creationists just seem to assume that we all do. They get their moral code from their religion, so they assume everyone does. And since they think (wrongly) that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive, and many seem to equate evolution with all of science (hence all their criticisms of Big Bang theories), they conclude that we must get our morality from it.

04-04-2002, 10:08 AM	#18
Beelzebub Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Connecticut Posts: 554	From the article:Evolution, Darwinian evolution, is wonderful science. Let us teach it to our children. And, in the classroom, let us leave it at that. I agree totally. Tricia, if you had a point, what might it be?

04-05-2002, 05:08 PM	#19
Tricia Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: College Station, Tx Posts: 675	The whole reason I posted this tidbit was because I thought it was written by an atheist evolutionist. I just wanted to get your opinion on it, because I thought it was interesting because of the aforementioned description of the author. I didn't have a point, really, I just wanted to see what you guys thought about it. ~Tricia

04-05-2002, 07:09 PM	#20
Lizard Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Kansas Posts: 169	Tricia, No point, no opinion? How strange.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.