Columbine Killers Were Good Darwinians
david ford
guide to some new ideas in evolutionary theory" _Canadian Journal of
Zoology_ 61: 2637-45. On 2644:
Lastly, it is impossible for scientists to divorce themselves
from their personal world view in setting about doing their
science. In my case, I have always been unhappy about the
implicit violence, racism, and sexism of the metaphors
surrounding the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian traditions. Last
year, during the centennial of Darwin's death, one museum group
in the United States produced a T-shirt which said, "Be a good
Darwinian--Kill a weakling today." And this was not from a
group of anti-Darwinians. Both "Survival of the Fittest" and
"Nature Red in Tooth and Claw" are powerful metaphors.
Michael Suttkus, II
Congratulations, you're the fifth creationist to be presented with my essay
refuting "Evolution requires us to be immoral" notions. Perhaps you would
like to be the first to actually respond to it?
Evolution as philosophy
I've been thinking about the root of the conflict between evolution and
religious fundamentalists.
I've asked this question before and I've never received an adequate answer:
Why is it that evolution is somehow antithetical, but the sun centered solar
system (which contradicts the "It doesn't move" lines) and Newtonian physics
(which removed the "necessity" of God in maintaining the solar system)
aren't?
I think I've found part of the reason.
Evolution tells us things we don't want to hear.
Bear with me for a minute, I'll get back to this point.
How many times have you heard the phrase "all natural" with the inherent
assumption that that means that something must be good? Shampoo that has
only natural ingredients must be good for you, right? Food without man made
additives is better, isn't it? Our children's stories all give us examples,
drawn in terms of cute animals and forests and such full of moral teachings
and so on.
Well, amanita poison is all natural, as is poison ivy, deadly nightshade, and
potassium cyanide. So are earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, and other
disasters.
The problem is, we don't like hearing that we live in a very nasty world that
really doesn't care about us. It isn't enough to understand that God loves
us, we have to believe that mother nature loves us, too.
How many of our children's books give moral guidance in the guise of nature
fables? How many cartoons present Mother Nature as a kindly, wonderful old
lady who takes care of her animals? I remember Mother Nature on the Smurfs
(embarrassing revelations #101) taking care of poor hurt animals. Reality is
a bit more brutal. Injured animals recover on their own or they die.
Evolution puts all of this in straightforward terms. Although there are
clearly examples of "good" survival of the fittest (cooperation, bees and
flowers, etc.), there's also the inherent declaration that nature really
doesn't care what you do.
People don't like to hear that.
(Strangely, that fits right into the Christian paradigm of the world as a
testing ground. It's not supposed to be a nice place.)
But, we are used to drawing moral lessons from nature and discovering that
nature is really quite amoral seems counter to our "common sense."
We don't mind that the planets circle the sun because of gravity. That's
fine. There aren't any moral implications of orbits (at least, not anymore,
they used to insist that they had to be circular as proof of God's
perfection). We don't mind the sun at the center of the solar system, our
morals weren't based on metaphors of the earth not moving anyway.
But learning that nature, right down here with us and around us, really just
doesn't care is scary.
The proof of this is really all around us. Hurricanes, tornadoes, disasters
of all sorts happen with regularity, yet we still want to believe that
somehow it's all for the best.
In the end, the theory of evolution, but declaring in no uncertain terms that
nature really doesn't care who survives seems somehow anti-God. "Certainly
God would have made a nicer world for us" was actually used as an argument
against Darwin in the old days. But He didn't.
Nature is a terrible place to get morals from. Sure, you can look at
symbionts and declare "look good morals in nature," but for every beneficial
relationship, I can point to a disease or an act of straightforward predation
that counters it. Nature is not moral. Gravity pulls atheists down as hard
as it does Christians.
You can use nature for metaphors, but you have to be selective. Nature over
all is as violent as it is peaceful.
Stephen Jay Gould seems to agree:
"nature is sometimes nasty, sometimes nice (really neither, since the human
terms are so inappropriate). By presenting examples of all behaviors (under
the metaphorical rubric of struggle), nature favors none and offers no
guidelines. The facts of nature cannot provide moral guidance in any case."
and:
"Nature is not intrinsically anything that can offer comfort or solace in
human terms–if only because our species is such an insignificant latecomer in
a world not constructed for us. So much the better. The answers to moral
dilemmas are not lying out there, waiting to be discovered. They reside,
like the kingdom of God, within us–the most difficult and inaccessible spot
for any discovery or consensus."
(Both quotes are from "Bully for Brontosaurus," a complete reference is
available if requested.)
In other words, nature is a bad place to take moral guidance from.
So, the fact that evolution means nature is amoral shouldn't have any bearing
on human morality since we shouldn't be getting our moral guidance from
nature anyway.
--
"I dislike stupidity, especially when it masquerades as virtue."
- The Duke, "The Man of La Mancha"
NKEndymion
> from their personal world view in setting about doing their
> science.
Why? Scienctists are susposed to do just that, it is called objectivity.
> In my case, I have always been unhappy about the
> implicit violence, racism, and sexism of the metaphors
> surrounding the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian traditions.
This ideas, often called Social Darwinism, are a clear perversion of actual
Darwinism. They should not even be considered a part of Darwinism. They are
applying a theory to something that it was not meant to apply to. I believe
Darwin would roll in his grave if he saw such twisting of his theory. The
theory is only meant to apply to the natural world, not society.
>Last
> year, during the centennial of Darwin's death, one museum group
> in the United States produced a T-shirt which said, "Be a good
> Darwinian--Kill a weakling today." And this was not from a
> group of anti-Darwinians.
I hope this person realizes these shirts are meant to be humorous. This dry
humor is not meant to be taken seriously, since the shirt's developers are
using sarcasm. A "good Darwinian" understands the humor in this misapplication
of evolution.
>Both "Survival of the Fittest" and
> "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw" are powerful metaphors.
>
I agree, both statements are powerful metaphors. But as I said before they are
not meant to be applied to society. Humans have morals and if they were not
applied our very humanity would be at stake. However, I am proud to say most
humans, including Evolutionists we are human too, still apply morals that
seperate us from our not so distant kin, the other members of Kingdom Animalia.
"Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every
preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss nature leads,
or you shall learn nothing" -Thomas Huxley
jerry and judy
II" <The...@nowhere.in.particular> wrote:
I disagree with your conclusions. Our intelligence and our potential
longevity (which are both far larger than any other of our parallel
species) are 'naturally' the result of our unique natural origins, solely.
What people confuse is the 'concept' of nature with a god concept or a
maternal force when really it's just a very complicated nexus or 'coming
together' that the human mistakenly perceives because it is of tremendous
survival value for him to think in these shortcut terms!
Thanks for taking the time,
Jerry
Chris C.
actual
> Darwinism. They should not even be considered a part of Darwinism. They
are
> applying a theory to something that it was not meant to apply to. I
believe
> Darwin would roll in his grave if he saw such twisting of his theory. The
> theory is only meant to apply to the natural world, not society.
I think I disagree even if this makes me afraid many of you will throw me in
with nazis and early industrialists. We adopt social attitudes and thus the
are not genetic and therefore not part of traditional evolution. Having said
that don't ideas rise and fall compared with competing theories? Survival of
the most popular?
J. Thomas Ford
david ford wrote:
>
> Brooks, Daniel R. 1983. "What's going on in evolution? A brief
> guide to some new ideas in evolutionary theory" _Canadian Journal of
> Zoology_ 61: 2637-45. On 2644:
> Lastly, it is impossible for scientists to divorce themselves
> from their personal world view in setting about doing their
> science. In my case, I have always been unhappy about the
> implicit violence, racism, and sexism of the metaphors
> surrounding the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian traditions. Last
> year, during the centennial of Darwin's death, one museum group
> in the United States produced a T-shirt which said, "Be a good
> Darwinian--Kill a weakling today."
Oh? Which group might that be?
bob
>Brooks, Daniel R. 1983. "What's going on in evolution? A brief
>guide to some new ideas in evolutionary theory" _Canadian Journal of
>Zoology_ 61: 2637-45. On 2644:
> Lastly, it is impossible for scientists to divorce themselves
> from their personal world view in setting about doing their
> science. In my case, I have always been unhappy about the
> implicit violence, racism, and sexism of the metaphors
> surrounding the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian traditions. Last
> year, during the centennial of Darwin's death, one museum group
> in the United States produced a T-shirt which said, "Be a good
> Darwinian--Kill a weakling today." And this was not from a
> group of anti-Darwinians. Both "Survival of the Fittest" and
> "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw" are powerful metaphors.
>
remember that they eventually killed themselves off at the end because
they were too chickenshit to face the consequences of their actions.
ro...@my-deja.com
Yes, they were very poor Darwinians. They died before they reproduced,
therefore their genes were not passed on (thankfully).
Very poor evolutionary strategy.
Rod
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
cats...@my-deja.com
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> Brooks, Daniel R. 1983. "What's going on in evolution? A brief
> guide to some new ideas in evolutionary theory" _Canadian Journal of
> Zoology_ 61: 2637-45. On 2644:
> Lastly, it is impossible for scientists to divorce themselves
> from their personal world view in setting about doing their
> science. In my case, I have always been unhappy about the
> implicit violence, racism, and sexism of the metaphors
> surrounding the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian traditions. Last
> year, during the centennial of Darwin's death, one museum group
> in the United States produced a T-shirt which said, "Be a good
> Darwinian--Kill a weakling today."
Hmm, that reminds me of those bumper stickers of the 60s & 70s: "Kill a
Commie for Christ". I suppose we should judge Christianity by those too!
> And this was not from a
> group of anti-Darwinians. Both "Survival of the Fittest" and
> "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw" are powerful metaphors.
>
>
Ahem, you *do* know that "nature red in tooth and claw" has nothing to do
with evolution, don't you? It was written by Alfred Lord Tennyson in his poem
"In Memorium" some 8-10 years *before* Origin of the Species was published.
Or are you saying that poetry caused the shootings in Colorado?
--
J. Pieret
"A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes."
- Robert Heinlein -
Michael Suttkus, II
>
>
> I disagree with your conclusions. Our intelligence and our potential
> longevity (which are both far larger than any other of our parallel
> species) are 'naturally' the result of our unique natural origins, solely.
Well, actually, you disagree with a conclusion somewhat different than I
intended. My sole purpose was to show that deriving morality from natural
law (evolution, gravity, 2LoT, Boyle's Law, whatever) was silly.
Please reread my document and tell me how I'm not expressing this correctly.
Michael Suttkus, II
I have no doubt that cultures do engage in "survival of the fittest" to see
which one survives, as well as cultural evolution (although it's more
Lamarkian than Darwinian, as culture lacks genetics).
However, building a society around supposedly Darwinian laws doesn't work for
the same reasons I explained to Duane a month or so ago. Natural selection
(or it's sociological equivalent) is a far more accurate judge of what is fit
than humans are.
Basically, you've switched contexts. Trying to actively apply eugenics on
the false assumption that one is following Darwin's laws is different from
researching to discover how Darwin's laws really apply to societies. We
can't work to apply the theory of gravity, it just happens. Likewise, we
can't apply evolutionary theory.
I hope I said all that right. I'm not quite awake yet.
NKEndymion
>actual
>> Darwinism. They should not even be considered a part of Darwinism. They
>are
>> applying a theory to something that it was not meant to apply to. I
>believe
>> Darwin would roll in his grave if he saw such twisting of his theory. The
>> theory is only meant to apply to the natural world, not society.
>
>I think I disagree even if this makes me afraid many of you will throw me in
>with nazis and early industrialists. We adopt social attitudes and thus the
>are not genetic and therefore not part of traditional evolution. Having said
>that don't ideas rise and fall compared with competing theories? Survival of
>the most popular?
I wouldn't throw you in with Nazis and early industrialists because my
statement wasn't as clear as could be. I didn't mean to imply that social
additudes don't evovle in a way. I meant the perversion of the theory is when
it is used by groups that may not even understand it to justify their beliefs.
The destruction of the Jewish population by the Nazis and mistreatment of the
poor by the early industrialists are examples. They are using a theory about an
amoral nature, and are applying it to a moral society to justify their actions.
A theory based on evolution, such as your idea of survival of the most popular
attitudes, could be used to explain the change in social attitudes. However,
the theory of evolution should never be used to justify the mistreatment of
humans, whcih is the point I was trying to make. Sorry about the confusion.
Mitchell Coffey
100...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
[snip]
David,
Explain the association in America between racism and creationism.
Explain why, until recent decades, most white-dominated creationist
churches in America supported segregation and other racist
institutions, and were indeed themselves segregated. Explain their
support for the creationist version of eugenics: laws forbidding
"racial intermarrage". Explain why they even opposed the enforcement
of existing laws against lynching.
Tell us which denomination you belong to, unless you're afraid to know
your church's own history.
> Both "Survival of the Fittest" and
> "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw" are powerful metaphors.
And Darwin is responsible for neither of them. Why don't you know that?
--
Mitchell Coffey
__________________________________________________
I read a book on cognitive dissonance once,
but it only proved my point.
Charles Dye
>In article <Pine.SGI.3.96A.9906272...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>>
>> [clip: the Jabriol argument, with improved spelling]
>>
>> And this was not from a
>> group of anti-Darwinians. Both "Survival of the Fittest" and
>> "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw" are powerful metaphors.
>
>Ahem, you *do* know that "nature red in tooth and claw" has nothing to do
>with evolution, don't you? It was written by Alfred Lord Tennyson in his poem
>"In Memorium" some 8-10 years *before* Origin of the Species was published.
>Or are you saying that poetry caused the shootings in Colorado?
How about that "Survival of the fittest" phrase? Who came up with
that one? (Not Darwin.)
david ford
Rod <ro...@my-deja.com> on 28 Jun 1999:
bob <B...@BoB.com> on 28 Jun 1999:
david ford on 27 Jun 1999:
df Brooks, Daniel R. 1983. "What's going on in evolution? A brief
df guide to some new ideas in evolutionary theory" _Canadian Journal of
df Zoology_ 61: 2637-45. On 2644:
df Lastly, it is impossible for scientists to divorce themselves
df from their personal world view in setting about doing their
df science. In my case, I have always been unhappy about the
df implicit violence, racism, and sexism of the metaphors
df surrounding the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian traditions. Last
df year, during the centennial of Darwin's death, one museum group
df in the United States produced a T-shirt which said, "Be a good
df Darwinian--Kill a weakling today." And this was not from a
df group of anti-Darwinians. Both "Survival of the Fittest" and
df "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw" are powerful metaphors.
b remember that they eventually killed themselves off at the end because
b they were too chickenshit to face the consequences of their actions.
R Yes, they were very poor Darwinians. They died before they reproduced,
R therefore their genes were not passed on (thankfully).
R Very poor evolutionary strategy.
For purposes of discussion in this thread, I will argue as if I were an
adherent of evolutionary thought.
The object of the game called "life" is surviving and reproducing so
that one's genes may continue their existence. If killing other animals
improves one's genes' chances of survival and continued propagation,
then killing of other animals is acceptable as far as mother nature is
concerned. Humans are animals, with DNA programs for survival and
reproduction, just like all other known living entities. If killing
humans improves one's genes' chances of survival and continued
propagation, then killing of other humans is acceptable as far as mother
nature is concerned.
If forcing other animals to have sex with you improves your genes'
chances for continued survival and propagation, forcing-of-sex is
acceptable as far as mother nature is concerned. When I said "animals,"
I included "humans," for humans *are* animals.
J. Pieret <cats...@my-deja.com> 28 Jun 1999:
david ford on 27 Jun 1999:
df Brooks, Daniel R. 1983. "What's going on in evolution? A brief
df guide to some new ideas in evolutionary theory" _Canadian Journal of
df Zoology_ 61: 2637-45. On 2644:
df during the centennial of Darwin's death, one museum group
df in the United States produced a T-shirt which said, "Be a good
df Darwinian--Kill a weakling today."
JP Hmm, that reminds me of those bumper stickers of the 60s & 70s: "Kill
JP a Commie for Christ". I suppose we should judge Christianity by
JP those too!
Does killing of Communists flow from Christianity? Communists are
atheists. Does killing of atheists flow from Christianity?
df And this was not from a
df group of anti-Darwinians. Both "Survival of the Fittest" and
df "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw" are powerful metaphors.
JP Ahem, you *do* know that "nature red in tooth and claw" has nothing to
JP do with evolution, don't you?
Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (NY: Oxford University
Press), 352pp. On 2:
....I think 'nature red in tooth and claw' sums up our modern
understanding of natural selection admirably.
Being a devout neo-Darwinian, I wholeheartedly agree with Dawkins.
JP It was written by Alfred Lord Tennyson in
JP his poem "In Memorium" some 8-10 years *before* Origin of the Species
JP was published. Or are you saying that poetry caused the shootings in
JP Colorado?
Chris C.
> adherent of evolutionary thought.
>
> The object of the game called "life" is surviving and reproducing so
> that one's genes may continue their existence. If killing other animals
> improves one's genes' chances of survival and continued propagation,
> then killing of other animals is acceptable as far as mother nature is
> concerned. Humans are animals, with DNA programs for survival and
> reproduction, just like all other known living entities. If killing
> humans improves one's genes' chances of survival and continued
> propagation, then killing of other humans is acceptable as far as mother
> nature is concerned.
>
> If forcing other animals to have sex with you improves your genes'
> chances for continued survival and propagation, forcing-of-sex is
> acceptable as far as mother nature is concerned. When I said "animals,"
> I included "humans," for humans *are* animals.
>
I agree. What's the point? Nature isn't the source of morality or our laws.
maff91
>Brooks, Daniel R. 1983. "What's going on in evolution? A brief
>guide to some new ideas in evolutionary theory" _Canadian Journal of
>Zoology_ 61: 2637-45. On 2644:
> Lastly, it is impossible for scientists to divorce themselves
> from their personal world view in setting about doing their
> science. In my case, I have always been unhappy about the
> implicit violence, racism, and sexism of the metaphors
> surrounding the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian traditions. Last
> year, during the centennial of Darwin's death, one museum group
> in the United States produced a T-shirt which said, "Be a good
> Darwinian--Kill a weakling today." And this was not from a
> group of anti-Darwinians. Both "Survival of the Fittest" and
> "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw" are powerful metaphors.
Slavery, segregation and the Bible
<http://x6.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=439145525>
<http://www.mindspring.com/~israel/NEWS2.HTML>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/U_S__History/Slavery/>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/History/By_Subject/Slavery/Atlantic_Slave_Trade/>
Darwin denounces slavery when the Bible Belt practices it.
<http://www.unb.ca/web/units/psych/likely/voyage/lagoa.htm>
<http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Biology/Evolution/Darwin__Charles_Robert__1809_1882_/Texts/>
Creationism Implies Racism?
A number of creationists have stated that evolutionary theory
leads logically to racism. This brief article discusses aspects of
leading ICR creationist Henry Morris's own beliefs that appear to be
racist. Also included is a summary analysis of the racism-creationism
connection by Tom McIver.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/racism.html
David Ford has been appointed the spokesman for Christian Identity/
Reconstructionist movement.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_ident.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
--
L.P.#0000000001
Michael Suttkus, II
>
> Brooks, Daniel R. 1983. "What's going on in evolution? A brief
> guide to some new ideas in evolutionary theory" _Canadian Journal of
> Zoology_ 61: 2637-45. On 2644:
> Lastly, it is impossible for scientists to divorce themselves
> from their personal world view in setting about doing their
> science. In my case, I have always been unhappy about the
> implicit violence, racism, and sexism of the metaphors
> surrounding the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian traditions. Last
> year, during the centennial of Darwin's death, one museum group
> in the United States produced a T-shirt which said, "Be a good
> Darwinian--Kill a weakling today." And this was not from a
> group of anti-Darwinians. Both "Survival of the Fittest" and
> "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw" are powerful metaphors.
I saw another T-shirts that might be of interest:
"I hope I'm Christian enough not to gloat when the rest of you are burning in
Hell."
Clearly we see that the only way to truly be moral is... um...
Mark
your thought...if you ever had one other than persecution.... and if
they worshiped hitler, he professed a catholic belief. Their hatred
towards christians came from christians persecuting them. And Darwin
never put his theory to society...christians used it to justify
conquest and slavery. A peace loving god???? YEAH RIGHT.
John Wilkins
II" <The...@nowhere.in.particular> wrote:
|"Chris C." wrote:
|>
|> > This ideas, often called Social Darwinism, are a clear perversion of
|> actual
|> > Darwinism. They should not even be considered a part of Darwinism. They
|> are
|> > applying a theory to something that it was not meant to apply to. I
|> believe
|> > Darwin would roll in his grave if he saw such twisting of his theory. The
|> > theory is only meant to apply to the natural world, not society.
|>
|> I think I disagree even if this makes me afraid many of you will throw me in
|> with nazis and early industrialists. We adopt social attitudes and thus the
|> are not genetic and therefore not part of traditional evolution. Having said
|> that don't ideas rise and fall compared with competing theories? Survival of
|> the most popular?
|
|I have no doubt that cultures do engage in "survival of the fittest" to see
|which one survives, as well as cultural evolution (although it's more
|Lamarkian than Darwinian, as culture lacks genetics).
You just pushed one of my buttons.
Culture is not Lamarckian. For culture to be Lamarckian (and here I take
that to mean the inheritance of acquired characters), culture would have
to exclusively track genes. So, something learned by ancestor A should
then be passed on to all descendents of A and only them. But the elements
of culture are passed along on different lineages (which still, to be
fair, tend to follow genetic lienages but only roughly).
What seems to be happening here is that people think that because
individuals learn and then pass on their learning, that this is analogous
to Lamarckian inheritance, but it is not. Learning, in the case of
culture, is analogous to either mutation or recombination. There is still
trial and error and the "inheritance" in culture is fairly digital in its
own right (being the transmission of information).
The evolutionary dynamics of culture are Darwinian - but what is fit or
not are the elements of culture, not groups or individuals or societies.
What cultural elements are fit relative to is a complex mix of practical,
cultural and psychological factors. Darwinian evolution in culture, as in
biology, will not guarantee that the result will be optimal, just
adequate.
The state of the culture at the time an idea arises will determine whether
that idea is fit or not, just as the state of a population will determine
the fitness of a novel trait.
I believe that culture and biology are decoupled in the main, so that
while one has a Darwinian process occurring over both domains, they are
distinct and largely unconnected Darwinian processes. What is optimised in
biology may not affect what is optimied in culture, although it happens
that biology often constrains culture (but not always).
|
|However, building a society around supposedly Darwinian laws doesn't work for
|the same reasons I explained to Duane a month or so ago. Natural selection
|(or it's sociological equivalent) is a far more accurate judge of what is fit
|than humans are.
|
|Basically, you've switched contexts. Trying to actively apply eugenics on
|the false assumption that one is following Darwin's laws is different from
|researching to discover how Darwin's laws really apply to societies. We
|can't work to apply the theory of gravity, it just happens. Likewise, we
|can't apply evolutionary theory.
|
|I hope I said all that right. I'm not quite awake yet.
|
You are right, IMO. Even if we could "eumemically" control ideas - that
would be separate from eugenically controlling reproduction.
However, the reason why we cannot do either with 100% accuracy is very
basic: Hume's problem of induction. Even in a Laplacean deterministic
universe, we cannot, short of infinite computational and storage power and
a complete specification of all parameters and variables, be sure that our
models of how things behave will cover all cases. Eugenics is either a
rough and ready set of rules of thumb, to be used when the stakes are not
so high that failure is catastrophic (as in plant or pigeon breeding), or
it is an ideological conception that is open to abuse on other grounds.
Moreover, as I never tire of explaining, knowing *what* happens does not
tell us what *should* happen (another Humean argument, as it happens).
Desriptions do not set goals.
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Melbourne, Australia
<mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
John Wilkins
|In article <Pine.SGI.3.96A.9906272...@umbc9.umbc.edu>,
| david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
|> Brooks, Daniel R. 1983. "What's going on in evolution? A brief
|> guide to some new ideas in evolutionary theory" _Canadian Journal of
|> Zoology_ 61: 2637-45. On 2644:
|> Lastly, it is impossible for scientists to divorce themselves
|> from their personal world view in setting about doing their
|> science. In my case, I have always been unhappy about the
|> implicit violence, racism, and sexism of the metaphors
|> surrounding the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian traditions. Last
|> year, during the centennial of Darwin's death, one museum group
|> in the United States produced a T-shirt which said, "Be a good
|> Darwinian--Kill a weakling today."
|
|Hmm, that reminds me of those bumper stickers of the 60s & 70s: "Kill a
|Commie for Christ". I suppose we should judge Christianity by those too!
|
|> And this was not from a
|> group of anti-Darwinians. Both "Survival of the Fittest" and
|> "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw" are powerful metaphors.
|>
|>
|
|Ahem, you *do* know that "nature red in tooth and claw" has nothing to do
|with evolution, don't you? It was written by Alfred Lord Tennyson in his poem
|"In Memorium" some 8-10 years *before* Origin of the Species was published.
|Or are you saying that poetry caused the shootings in Colorado?
|
"Survival of the fittest" was published in 1857 in Herbert Spencer's
synthetic philosophy, two years before the Origin, and Darwin denied
getting the general idea from him. In fact, Darwin had to be badgered by
Wallace and Spencer to adopt it in later editions.
Both ideas predate Darwin by about half a century.
Michael Suttkus, II
>
> In article <37777F8F...@nowhere.in.particular>, "Michael Suttkus,
> II" <The...@nowhere.in.particular> wrote:
>
> |I have no doubt that cultures do engage in "survival of the fittest" to see
> |which one survives, as well as cultural evolution (although it's more
> |Lamarkian than Darwinian, as culture lacks genetics).
>
> You just pushed one of my buttons.
Oh No!
> Culture is not Lamarckian. For culture to be Lamarckian (and here I take
> that to mean the inheritance of acquired characters), culture would have
> to exclusively track genes. {Snip good arguments}
Okay, so culture has Darwinian and Lamarkian elements, as well as lots of
mutation and tons of horizontal transfer.
Reality is complicated, who woulda thunk it?
John Wilkins
II" <The...@nowhere.in.particular> wrote:
|John Wilkins wrote:
|>
|> In article <37777F8F...@nowhere.in.particular>, "Michael Suttkus,
|> II" <The...@nowhere.in.particular> wrote:
|>
|> |I have no doubt that cultures do engage in "survival of the fittest"
to see
|> |which one survives, as well as cultural evolution (although it's more
|> |Lamarkian than Darwinian, as culture lacks genetics).
|>
|> You just pushed one of my buttons.
|
|Oh No!
|
|> Culture is not Lamarckian. For culture to be Lamarckian (and here I take
|> that to mean the inheritance of acquired characters), culture would have
|> to exclusively track genes. {Snip good arguments}
|
|Okay, so culture has Darwinian and Lamarkian elements, as well as lots of
|mutation and tons of horizontal transfer.
No! It has *no* Lamarckian elements. This is because no information is
retrotranscribed into genes on the basis of the life experience of a
single organism.
There are dynamics of culture that *look* Lamarckian, but, like the
Baldwin Effect, are not. The only differences I will accept in process
between culture and biology is that there are more lineages recombined in
culture than in (normal) biology (and even that is just a matter of
emphasis), and there are higher rates of directed mutation.
|
|Reality is complicated, who woulda thunk it?
|
Not I. Give me simple black and white models every time...
The world divides into two kinds of people - those who divide the world
into two kinds of peope, and those who don't.
Thomas Scharle
[...snip...]
|> I agree. What's the point? Nature isn't the source of morality or our laws.
Which brought to mind this question ... what kind of religion
*would* look to nature for morality or laws? May I suggest that
this is some sort of nature religion (or, as I have elsewhere
suggested, "paganism")?
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
J. Thomas Ford
Thomas Scharle wrote:
>
> In article <7l8i3o$mm1$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, "Chris C." <ckco...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> [...snip...]
> |> I agree. What's the point? Nature isn't the source of morality or our laws.
>
> Which brought to mind this question ... what kind of religion
> *would* look to nature for morality or laws? May I suggest that
> this is some sort of nature religion (or, as I have elsewhere
> suggested, "paganism")?
The nature religions that I know of nuture and encourage diversity.
Which ones did you have in mind?
--
"Apparently, the Wiccan Creed is evil because it runs counter to
mainstream Judeo-Christian military beliefs of truly loving your fellow
man by training to drop napalm on him."
Michael Suttkus, II
>
> The world divides into two kinds of people - those who divide the world
> into two kinds of peope, and those who don't.
I belong to the second class.
Thomas Scharle
|>
|>
|> Thomas Scharle wrote:
|> >
|> > In article <7l8i3o$mm1$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, "Chris C." <ckco...@mindspring.com> writes:
|> >
|> > [...snip...]
|> > |> I agree. What's the point? Nature isn't the source of morality or our laws.
|> >
|> > Which brought to mind this question ... what kind of religion
|> > *would* look to nature for morality or laws? May I suggest that
|> > this is some sort of nature religion (or, as I have elsewhere
|> > suggested, "paganism")?
|>
|> The nature religions that I know of nuture and encourage diversity.
|> Which ones did you have in mind?
I didn't say anything about nuturing and encouraging diversity.
Am I wrong about nature religions looking to Nature for the source
of morality and laws? If not, then I apologize, and ask for a
better characterization of what kind of religion does.
BTW, I belatedly realized that the title of this thread may
have caused offense. I certainly don't mean to make use of that
tragedy or tie it to any group of people.
J. Thomas Ford
Thomas Scharle wrote:
>
> In article <3778F508...@nowhere.com>, "J. Thomas Ford" <jtf...@nowhere.com> writes:
> |>
> |>
> |> Thomas Scharle wrote:
> |> >
> |> > In article <7l8i3o$mm1$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, "Chris C." <ckco...@mindspring.com> writes:
> |> >
> |> > [...snip...]
> |> > |> I agree. What's the point? Nature isn't the source of morality or our laws.
> |> >
> |> > Which brought to mind this question ... what kind of religion
> |> > *would* look to nature for morality or laws? May I suggest that
> |> > this is some sort of nature religion (or, as I have elsewhere
> |> > suggested, "paganism")?
> |>
> |> The nature religions that I know of nuture and encourage diversity.
> |> Which ones did you have in mind?
>
> I didn't say anything about nuturing and encouraging diversity.
I gathered that you were obliquely referring to Social Darwinsim or
similar, which is likely what whomever started this thread meant,
whether they thought so or not.
> Am I wrong about nature religions looking to Nature for the source
> of morality and laws?
Yes and no. Neo-pagan religions seem to be children of neo-democracy and
deism in this respect; life has an inherent sacredness and human
behavior is conducted with a deep respect for that sacredness. It's
possible that some paleo-pagan religions saw things differently.
However, the term 'pagan' in it's most basic sense simply means
non-Judeo-Christian-Muslim, and that's a *lot* of ground to cover.
Making generalizations-as we both did- is a sure way to be wrong.
> If not, then I apologize, and ask for a
> better characterization of what kind of religion does.
Truthfully, I know of none, unless you wish to count Social Darwinism as
a religion. I think a good argument could be made for just about any
type of racist philosophy falling under this category, and the
fanaticism that often accompanies it could certainly be termed
'religious,' even if, strictly speaking, the adherents recognize no
divine being and can be termed 'atheist.'
> BTW, I belatedly realized that the title of this thread may
> have caused offense. I certainly don't mean to make use of that
> tragedy or tie it to any group of people.
>
> --
> Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
--
cats...@my-deja.com
> df Brooks, Daniel R. 1983. "What's going on in evolution? A brief
> df guide to some new ideas in evolutionary theory" _Canadian Journal of
> df Zoology_ 61: 2637-45. On 2644:
> df during the centennial of Darwin's death, one museum group
> df in the United States produced a T-shirt which said, "Be a good
> df Darwinian--Kill a weakling today."
>
> JP Hmm, that reminds me of those bumper stickers of the 60s & 70s: "Kill
> JP a Commie for Christ". I suppose we should judge Christianity by
> JP those too!
>
> Does killing of Communists flow from Christianity? Communists are
> atheists. Does killing of atheists flow from Christianity?
>
Some people think so apparently, just as some people think natural selection
really has to do with killing weaklings (not counting humerous T-shirts).
"Weakness" isn't the criteria or else mice wouldn't be *far* more successful
evolutionarily than elephants and just about every thing alive wouldn't wind
up as food for bacteria!
> df And this was not from a
> df group of anti-Darwinians. Both "Survival of the Fittest" and
> df "Nature Red in Tooth and Claw" are powerful metaphors.
>
> JP Ahem, you *do* know that "nature red in tooth and claw" has nothing to
> JP do with evolution, don't you?
>
> Dawkins, Richard. 1989. _The Selfish Gene_ (NY: Oxford University
> Press), 352pp. On 2:
> ....I think 'nature red in tooth and claw' sums up our modern
> understanding of natural selection admirably.
> Being a devout neo-Darwinian, I wholeheartedly agree with Dawkins.
>
Oh, so the fact that one scientist endorses one snatch of poetry is what
caused the shootings in Colorado! Darn powerful poetry or darn powerful
scientist!
> JP It was written by Alfred Lord Tennyson in
> JP his poem "In Memorium" some 8-10 years *before* Origin of the Species
> JP was published. Or are you saying that poetry caused the shootings in
> JP Colorado?
>
>
Why not tell is if, and how, evolutionary theory is connected to the recent
rash of school shootings?
--
J. Pieret
"A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes."
- Robert Heinlein -
Charles Dye
wrote:
>However, the term 'pagan' in it's most basic sense simply means
>non-Judeo-Christian-Muslim, and that's a *lot* of ground to cover.
>Making generalizations-as we both did- is a sure way to be wrong.
Distinction: A pagan is a heathen you respect; a heathen is a pagan
you don't respect. Pagans mostly wore togas, drank wine, wrote
lengthy poems, and died noble deaths long long ago. Heathens, by
contrast, just sit around and pick fleas all day.
If you're planning to capture a large number of human beings, ship
them across the ocean in steerage, then enslave the survivors and
their offspring in perpetuity, you should always refer to them as
heathens -- not pagans -- and please remember to point out that
you are bestowing the blessings of Christianity upon them. On the
other hand, if you're going to quote from the Meditations of Marcus
Aurelius, it's important to refer to him as a pagan. You wouldn't
want to quote a heathen; they don't say anything worth hearing.
Got it?
Adam Noel Harris
:>
:> The world divides into two kinds of people - those who divide the world
:> into two kinds of peope, and those who don't.
:
:I belong to the second class.
And I to the third.
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
J. Thomas Ford
Even the socially-stunted U.S. has gotten past this phase, at least. We
now seem to be at the "Uppity nigg...uh, pagans seem to think they're
good enough for the same civil rights as everyone else."
It's progress, of a sort.
My sig line is from an editorial concerning Rep. Bob Barr's comments on
Wicca in the military.
Matt Silberstein
Noel Harris):
>Michael Suttkus, II <The...@nowhere.in.particular> wrote:
>:John Wilkins wrote:
>:>
>:> The world divides into two kinds of people - those who divide the world
>:> into two kinds of peope, and those who don't.
>:
>:I belong to the second class.
>
>And I to the third.
And I to both (or is it all three?).
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
I would sooner believe a yankee professor would lie
than stones would fall from the heavens.
Thomas Jefferson
John Wilkins
(Matt Silberstein) wrote:
|In talk.origins I read this message from ad...@stanford.edu.XX (Adam
|Noel Harris):
|
|>Michael Suttkus, II <The...@nowhere.in.particular> wrote:
|>:John Wilkins wrote:
|>:>
|>:> The world divides into two kinds of people - those who divide the world
|>:> into two kinds of peope, and those who don't.
|>:
|>:I belong to the second class.
|>
|>And I to the third.
|
|And I to both (or is it all three?).
|
It happens I belong to neither...
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne,
Kevin Delgado
1 - Nature is amoral
2 - Deriving morals from something amoral (in this case nature) is absurd.
It should be noted that morels, however, can ONLY be derived from nature, and
should be served in a white wine and cream sause.
Michael Suttkus, II wrote:
> jerry and judy wrote:
> >
> >
> > I disagree with your conclusions. Our intelligence and our potential
> > longevity (which are both far larger than any other of our parallel
> > species)
What does "parallel species" mean? And individually, our longevity isn't that
much compared to giant snapping turtles. As a species, our longevity isn't dick
compared to sharks or alligators.
> are 'naturally' the result of our unique natural origins, solely.
>
> Well, actually, you disagree with a conclusion somewhat different than I
> intended. My sole purpose was to show that deriving morality from natural
> law (evolution, gravity, 2LoT, Boyle's Law, whatever) was silly.
>
> Please reread my document and tell me how I'm not expressing this correctly.
>
Bruce Salem
Michael Suttkus, II wrote in message
<37777DD9...@nowhere.in.particular>...
>jerry and judy wrote:
>>
>>
>> I disagree with your conclusions. Our intelligence and our potential
>> longevity (which are both far larger than any other of our parallel
solely.
>
>Well, actually, you disagree with a conclusion somewhat different than I
>intended. My sole purpose was to show that deriving morality from natural
>law (evolution, gravity, 2LoT, Boyle's Law, whatever) was silly.
Is it, now? Are you proposing that morality is based in appeals to
supernatural
authority? I could argue, in fact, that morality reflects consensus choices
wholely
based on evolution but butressed by arbritary historical convention,
economics,
and appeal to authority. Most marriage conventions are based on the human
reproductive stretegy formed in human evolution, but legalized through
sanction
of the family as an economic institution. This leads directly to the
Columbine
problem as the family is no longer supported by society, the parents of the
errant boys weren't watching their sons and minding their tendancies.
Bruce Salem
Bruce Salem
Michael Suttkus, II wrote in message
>Clearly we see that the only way to truly be moral is... um...
...is to be an example for the conduct you value.
No ammount of Bible-thumping can replace that. I think that Colombine
tells us about the excesses of economics in our culture, how people's
communities, roots, and families are being destroyed by the expediences
of Corporate and business life. It may be that greed is destroying our
society from within, or that the economic processes are so askew that
people are being driven over the edge to survive or to maintain. The
casualties are family and children. We need not blame lack of moral
teaching, or violence in media, or guns, for our own inattention and for
not being a good example. We are all to blame.
Bruce Salem
jab...@juno.com
On 7-Jul-1999, "Bruce Salem" <Bruce...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> No ammount of Bible-thumping can replace that. I think that Colombine
> tells us about the excesses of economics in our culture, how people's
> communities, roots, and families are being destroyed by the expediences
> of Corporate and business life. It may be that greed is destroying our
> society from within, or that the economic processes are so askew that
> people are being driven over the edge to survive or to maintain. The
> casualties are family and children. We need not blame lack of moral
> teaching, or violence in media, or guns, for our own inattention and for
> not being a good example. We are all to blame.
>
> Bruce Salem
Blame us? we are not responsible, we only are because, of evolution.
Columbine High, has brought on a new species if Human.. homokillerteenus..
Evolution taught them there no future, no right, no wrong, no morals.
and they can do whatever they want.. and they did, and took 13 along with
them. Ramdom natural selection in action!
--
Here is where real discussions take place:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/issues
Para asuntos hispanos:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/Boriken
ED702
>Columbine High, has brought on a new species if Human.. homokillerteenus..
>Evolution taught them there no future, no right, no wrong, no morals.
>and they can do whatever they want.. and they did, and took 13 along with
>them. Ramdom natural selection in action!
It is interesting how ignorant that statement is. The Columbine High incident
isn't sweeping the country like you make it appear. A few isolated incidents
get national attention and the igorant blame the teaching of evolution. What
people do with what we learn is our own responsibility. Besides, the facts of
evolution shouldn't be covered up with our heads burried in the sand. Who is
it that really seeks the truth?
J Eidsath
jab...@juno.com wrote:
>
>
> On 7-Jul-1999, "Bruce Salem" <Bruce...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > No ammount of Bible-thumping can replace that. I think that
Colombine
> > tells us about the excesses of economics in our culture, how
people's
> > communities, roots, and families are being destroyed by the
expediences
> > of Corporate and business life. It may be that greed is destroying
our
> > society from within, or that the economic processes are so askew
that
> > people are being driven over the edge to survive or to maintain. The
> > casualties are family and children. We need not blame lack of moral
> > teaching, or violence in media, or guns, for our own inattention and
for
> > not being a good example. We are all to blame.
> >
> > Bruce Salem
>
> Columbine High, has brought on a new species if Human..
homokillerteenus..
> Evolution taught them there no future, no right, no wrong, no morals.
> and they can do whatever they want.. and they did, and took 13 along
with
> them. Ramdom natural selection in action!
It's pretty obvious, Jabby. They were just being good Jehovah's
Witnesses. Since they killed all those kids, your God Jehovah won't
have to kill them at Armagedon.
>
> --
> Here is where real discussions take place:
> http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/issues
>
> Para asuntos hispanos:
> http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/Boriken
>
>
--
J Martin Eidsath
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull" . . . and it
*WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0 --Dan Johnson
Chris C.
> Columbine High, has brought on a new species if Human.. homokillerteenus..
> Evolution taught them there no future, no right, no wrong, no morals.
> and they can do whatever they want.. and they did, and took 13 along with
> them. Ramdom natural selection in action!
Maybe it is a new mutation ... homokillerteenus sounds good. I don't see
much future for this variant though. We seem to be weeding them out pretty
well. Natural selection is never random.
Valerie Sheehan
jab...@juno.com wrote in article <7mb4ki$3vj$1...@talia.mad.ttd.net>...
>
>
> On 7-Jul-1999, "Bruce Salem" <Bruce...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > No ammount of Bible-thumping can replace that. I think that Colombine
> > tells us about the excesses of economics in our culture, how people's
> > communities, roots, and families are being destroyed by the expediences
> > of Corporate and business life (i.e.,tithing).
Obviously you have not been staying awake during your history classes!
More people have died for religious reasons, (alas where can you find a
"good" Christian these days-and just what is a "good" Christian anyway?
With the full history you carry, it would not be anything I would put on my
sleeve)in human history, than have died for economic reasons.
It may be that greed is destroying our
> > society from within, or that the economic processes are so askew that
> > people are being driven over the edge to survive or to maintain.
Oh, give me a break! To "survive" in these times? We are living in the
best times the world has seen in the last few thousand years. We have
freedom of religion, an abundance of food, "more than enough" government
support; and here you are whining about the masses trying to survive and
maintain. Oh, please!(Now go back and read those history books (not those
printed by the Vatican)!
The
> > casualties are family and children.
Unfortunately not martyrs...
We need not blame lack of moral
> > teaching, or violence in media, or guns, for our own inattention and
for
> > not being a good example.
So, you mean to tell me that I have to be responsible for over two hundred
fifty million other people? How do you plan to be attentive to everyone?
And not being a good example...does that mean we should all be cattle... a
good example of what? The amount of slaughter that has taken place on this
small planet over the "right" manner to worship one's god is amazing. And
they all felt justified in killing men, women, children and infants. So
tell me if your cult has the nerve to look over it's shoulder and remember
what it has done in the past...
We are all to blame.
No, having a dead mind, not questioning what is being preached/washed into
your brain, and following each other like a bunch of cattle led to the
slaughter.
> >
> > Bruce Salem
>
> Blame us? we are not responsible, we only are because, of evolution.
> Columbine High, has brought on a new species if Human..
homokillerteenus..
> Evolution taught them there no future, no right, no wrong, no morals.
No, it was the morality of Christianity, which provided the foundation for
the Western Civilization that yielded worldwide imperialism, World Wars I
and II; and it was the rejection of this civilization and its agonistic
Christian morality in the post modern age which has resulted in our
angst-ridden and alienated youth.
> and they can do whatever they want.. and they did, and took 13 along with
> them.
Can say the same thing about throwing Christians to the lions...
Ramdom natural selection in action!
Survival of the losers are the antithesis of natural selection!
jab...@juno.com
On 11-Jul-1999, ed...@aol.com (ED702) wrote:
> >Blame us? we are not responsible, we only are because, of evolution.
> >Columbine High, has brought on a new species if Human..
> >homokillerteenus..
> >Evolution taught them there no future, no right, no wrong, no morals.
> >and they can do whatever they want.. and they did, and took 13 along with
> >them. Ramdom natural selection in action!
>
> It is interesting how ignorant that statement is. The Columbine High
> incident
> isn't sweeping the country like you make it appear. A few isolated
> incidents
> get national attention and the igorant blame the teaching of evolution.
> What
> people do with what we learn is our own responsibility. Besides, the
> facts of
> evolution shouldn't be covered up with our heads burried in the sand. Who
> is
> it that really seeks the truth?
columbine High is the cusp, of what is going on in schools.
a product of our evolutionary process.
jab...@juno.com
On 11-Jul-1999, "Chris C." <ckco...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Blame us? we are not responsible, we only are because, of evolution.
> > Columbine High, has brought on a new species if Human..
> > homokillerteenus..
> > Evolution taught them there no future, no right, no wrong, no morals.
> > and they can do whatever they want.. and they did, and took 13 along
> > with
> > them. Ramdom natural selection in action!
>
>
> Maybe it is a new mutation ... homokillerteenus sounds good. I don't see
> much future for this variant though. We seem to be weeding them out pretty
> well. Natural selection is never random.
sellimng them more weed as tranquilizers.. seem to be more likely.
pau...@mediaone.net
>
>
>On 11-Jul-1999, ed...@aol.com (ED702) wrote:
>
>> >Blame us? we are not responsible, we only are because, of evolution.
>> >Columbine High, has brought on a new species if Human..
>> >homokillerteenus..
>> >Evolution taught them there no future, no right, no wrong, no morals.
>> >and they can do whatever they want.. and they did, and took 13 along with
>> >them. Ramdom natural selection in action!
>>
>> It is interesting how ignorant that statement is. The Columbine High
>> incident
>> isn't sweeping the country like you make it appear. A few isolated
>> incidents
>> get national attention and the igorant blame the teaching of evolution.
>> What
>> people do with what we learn is our own responsibility. Besides, the
>> facts of
>> evolution shouldn't be covered up with our heads burried in the sand. Who
>> is
>> it that really seeks the truth?
>
>columbine High is the cusp, of what is going on in schools.
>a product of our evolutionary process.
>
>
>--
>Here is where real discussions take place:
> http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/issues
>
>Para asuntos hispanos:
>http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/Boriken
>
Then how come it is the losers and other evolutionary outcasts who are
becoming the predators and eliminating those whom evolution would
normally pick to survive and excell? More accurately it would seem
that Columbine type incidents are more rebelling against evolution on
the part of the doomed.
Byte me.
GARRYOWEN!
Chris C.
Natural selection is not a random process. Mutation is the random process.
> > Maybe it is a new mutation ... homokillerteenus sounds good. I don't see
> > much future for this variant though. We seem to be weeding them out
pretty
> > well. Natural selection is never random.
>
> sellimng them more weed as tranquilizers.. seem to be more likely.
I didn't hear anything about drug use and the columbine brats. Are you just
randomly typing or have you read reports they were using drugs?
Steve Hawley
> columbine High is the cusp, of what is going on in schools.
> a product of our evolutionary process.
How now, black kettle?
(hint: this sentence no verb.)
--
Steve Hawley
Bit Banger
haw...@plinth.org
--
"Worship the potato? The idea seemed silly to me. But then I thought,
what else is more deserving of worship? It's simple, it comes from the
earth, and it can kill you if you disobey it."--Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey
http://www.plinth.org
Bruce Salem
jab...@juno.com wrote in message <7mcnak$fuf$4...@talia.mad.ttd.net>...
>columbine High is the cusp, of what is going on in schools.
>a product of our evolutionary process.
Due to human biological limitations being strained past the breaking
point by technology. not due to moral decay and the lack of moral
authority. If parents aren't teaching morals, it is because they are not
spending time with their kids being an example of moral behavior, or
they are sending a confusing and conflicting message. The answer IS
NOT more Bible Thumpming. It is not falling back on facile old recipes,
but in looking at much more than the failure of some parents and their
kids. It is but the tip of a much bigger problem that manifests itself in
people who doen't normally commit this kind of crime, or any crime at
all.
Bruce Salem
Bruce Salem
jab...@juno.com wrote in message <7mb4ki$3vj$1...@talia.mad.ttd.net>...
>
>
>On 7-Jul-1999, "Bruce Salem" <Bruce...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> No ammount of Bible-thumping can replace that. I think that Colombine
>> tells us about the excesses of economics in our culture, how people's
>> communities, roots, and families are being destroyed by the expediences
>> society from within, or that the economic processes are so askew that
>> casualties are family and children. We need not blame lack of moral
>> teaching, or violence in media, or guns, for our own inattention and for
>>
>> Bruce Salem
>
>Blame us? we are not responsible, we only are because, of evolution.
>Columbine High, has brought on a new species if Human.. homokillerteenus..
>Evolution taught them there no future, no right, no wrong, no morals.
>and they can do whatever they want.. and they did, and took 13 along with
>
>Here is where real discussions take place:
> http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/issues
>
>Para asuntos hispanos:
>http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/Boriken
>
Surely, you jest! And that is not what I said. The problem with moral
conversations is that everyone assumes that we are talking about
absolute standards that are not analyzable or given to being based on
anything more than an appeal to force.
I think that moral standards are based on universal human tendancies
in turned based on human social biology and hence on evolution. If
there is blame to be laid for things like Columbine it is that we are
violating not God's law, but natural tendancies in mankind which can
be indetified by science. It is not moral certitude, but biological
limitations that come into play here.
Bruce Salem
Bruce Salem
Valerie Sheehan wrote in message <01becc1a$193e93a0$de06440c@valerie>...
>
>jab...@juno.com wrote in article <7mb4ki$3vj$1...@talia.mad.ttd.net>...
>>
>> On 7-Jul-1999, "Bruce Salem" <Bruce...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> > No ammount of Bible-thumping can replace that. I think that Colombine
>> > tells us about the excesses of economics in our culture, how people's
>> > communities, roots, and families are being destroyed by the expediences
>> > of Corporate and business life (i.e.,tithing).
>Obviously you have not been staying awake during your history classes!
>More people have died for religious reasons, (alas where can you find a
>"good" Christian these days-and just what is a "good" Christian anyway?
>With the full history you carry, it would not be anything I would put on my
>sleeve)in human history, than have died for economic reasons.
Do you think that the causes for two world wars in this century was
religious? Please tell me the number of military and civilian casualties
in the wars of this century. I think that it is in excess of 100 million and
a good deal of that carnage was made possible strictly by technical
"advances" in weaponry. Surely our ability to destroy all of mankind is
not due to some jahad, although a jahad might unleash it.
>It may be that greed is destroying our
>> > society from within, or that the economic processes are so askew that
>> > people are being driven over the edge to survive or to maintain.
>Oh, give me a break! To "survive" in these times? We are living in the
>best times the world has seen in the last few thousand years.
"Who is 'We', white man?"
The benefits of the current boom are rather uneavenly distributed and it
seems to have benefitted the rich more than everybody else. I agree that
technology has improved the lot of many people on the earth, but unless
you are going to use that "trickle down" nonsense, you would have a hard
time convincing me that more than a few get most of the benefit and that
more than that have actually lost. Be that as it may, the problem at
Columbine
was in that group who was supposed to benefit the most. Violence that isn't
even reported on in poor schools now appears on affluient campuses. I think
that is connected to the effects of the boom on people. And we haven't delt
yet with the possibility of a Bust, a Big Bust, and its effects on us.
> We have
>freedom of religion, an abundance of food, "more than enough" government
>support; and here you are whining about the masses trying to survive and
>maintain. Oh, please!(Now go back and read those history books (not those
>printed by the Vatican)!
I can tell that you don't know the reputation I have in this group or
that you
didn't read my posting correctly. My message is not either religion or
something
else, it is that repeating old religious moral authority is not the solution
to the
violence in Colorado, as that idiot Tom Delay in the House of
Representatives
would have us think after that bit of demigogery in his speech on the gun
legislation. It is that most people have missed the cause for Columbine, or
that the truth gets too close to home and is not dealable with an easy fix
provided in a traditional or established remedy: Thump the Bible, Ban Guns,
Lock 'em up and throw away the key. The solution has to do with things that
we do everyday and think are constructive, but are not. Our failure here is
the very thing that we think is success.
>The
>> > casualties are family and children.
>Unfortunately not martyrs...
>We need not blame lack of moral
>> > teaching, or violence in media, or guns, for our own inattention and
>for
>> > not being a good example.
>So, you mean to tell me that I have to be responsible for over two hundred
>fifty million other people? How do you plan to be attentive to everyone?
No, if you manage people, encourage parents to know what their children
are doing with their time. Encourage your employees to spend quality time
with their families. Encourage your associates to have balance between their
careers and the time needed for children. Encourage people to find value
in the things money cannot buy, and don't encourage consumption as a
substitute for contact between parent and child. Restrict unsupervised
access of children to media, TV, video games, computers and the Internet.
The Internet is not a replacement in a child's learning for the one-on-one
interaction with a teacher or a parent. None of this has to do with moral
authoritarianism or religion or amorality. It has everything with the very
instrument of success having the same effect as if there was no morality
or guidence, and only through neglect.
>> >
>> > Bruce Salem
>>
>> Blame us? we are not responsible, we only are because, of evolution.
>
>> Columbine High, has brought on a new species if Human..
>homokillerteenus..
>> Evolution taught them there no future, no right, no wrong, no morals.
Although evolution entails no moral messages, because it does not
describe certanties, it leads to a description of "human nature", of
tendancies in
mankind which can be studied by comparison with other species. The human
social behavior and reproductive stretegy can be understood in relation to
other primates from which we are derived, and further compared with other
animals. It is from this that we can draw certain generalities that help us
understand tendancies that look like universals in moral systems. such as
the importance of family and marriage, and kinship relations. It can also
help us understand human tendancies that are outside of moral norms but
which are also universal, such as adultry, and other power-related sexual
conduct. There are some direct paralles with primate troop behaviors. The
same can be said for the larger social fabric of human tribal bands. Mankind
achieves much larger social organization and the harnessing of technology
is key. The problem, as I see it, is that this technical and organizational
development has far outstripped Man's biological heritage. The biologic
and mental resources are stressed to the breaking point by rapid technical
and social change, and we are beginning to see the effects. Note, if you
will, the effects of 7x24 business operations on people. Recall that the
mother
of one of the boys involved in the Columbine shootings was a nurse who is
probably on 72 hours straight and then off 48. How hard can it be to raise,
even watch, a son with that kind of work schedule?
>No, it was the morality of Christianity, which provided the foundation for
>the Western Civilization that yielded worldwide imperialism, World Wars I
>and II;
Religion is always a tool for the power structure of the society.
Christianity
is a good religion for colonial society that is an oligarchy, where few own
most of
the wealth. The promise of a better life in heaven can be used to placate
the
awful lot one has now. But religion alone wouldn't have lead to the present.
It was the replacement of the older divine right monarchies at the beginning
of this century that lead to the world wars, to be sure, but it was science
and industrial might that enabled the scale. Crusaders in the 14th century
had
more zeal to slay the Infidel than any modern conscript, the only problem is
that they were a whole lot less efficient killers. The bloodthristiness of
humans
at war has nothing to do with which social paradign they are replacing, but
with what tools they have to enact the will to do so.
>and it was the rejection of this civilization and its agonistic
>Christian morality in the post modern age which has resulted in our
>angst-ridden and alienated youth.
>> and they can do whatever they want.. and they did, and took 13 along with
>> them.
No, it is the fact that any social order can run amok and not tend to
what is important. In the New World, the collapse of the farming ecology
of several civilizations lead directly to their downfall. The symptom is the
abandonment of their Gods and temples. We could similarly abandon
technocracy and our economic system and with them our God, if they
fail us.
>Can say the same thing about throwing Christians to the lions...
>Ramdom natural selection in action!
>Survival of the losers are the antithesis of natural selection!
It is amusing how easy it is to fall into the trap of Social
Darwinsim.
Bruce Salem
Matt Silberstein
[snip]
>
>columbine High is the cusp, of what is going on in schools.
>a product of our evolutionary process.
And what, may I ask, is your reaction to statistics that show overall
school violence is way down in the last few years? Is that also due to
teaching evolution?
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
She used her body just like a bandage, she use my body just like a wound
I'll probably never know where she disappeared
But I can see her rising up from the back seat now just like an angel
rising up from a tomb
But it was long ago and it was far away, oh God it seems so very far
And if life is just a highway, then the soul is just a car
And objects in the rear view mirror may appear closer than they are.
J.S.
Matt Silberstein
<Bruce...@worldnet.att.net>:
>
>
>Valerie Sheehan wrote in message <01becc1a$193e93a0$de06440c@valerie>...
>>
>>jab...@juno.com wrote in article <7mb4ki$3vj$1...@talia.mad.ttd.net>...
>>>
>>> On 7-Jul-1999, "Bruce Salem" <Bruce...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > No ammount of Bible-thumping can replace that. I think that Colombine
>>> > tells us about the excesses of economics in our culture, how people's
>>> > communities, roots, and families are being destroyed by the expediences
>>> > of Corporate and business life (i.e.,tithing).
>
>>Obviously you have not been staying awake during your history classes!
>>More people have died for religious reasons, (alas where can you find a
>>"good" Christian these days-and just what is a "good" Christian anyway?
>>With the full history you carry, it would not be anything I would put on my
>>sleeve)in human history, than have died for economic reasons.
>
> Do you think that the causes for two world wars in this century was
>religious?
WWI started with a fight in the Balkans. A bit of religion involved
there. Now please show the economic reasons for WWI.
As for WWII I think we could have an interesting discussion on whether
Fascism/Communism are religions or not.
> Please tell me the number of military and civilian casualties
>in the wars of this century. I think that it is in excess of 100 million and
>a good deal of that carnage was made possible strictly by technical
>"advances" in weaponry. Surely our ability to destroy all of mankind is
>not due to some jahad, although a jahad might unleash it.
>
>>It may be that greed is destroying our
>>> > society from within, or that the economic processes are so askew that
>>> > people are being driven over the edge to survive or to maintain.
>
>>Oh, give me a break! To "survive" in these times? We are living in the
>>best times the world has seen in the last few thousand years.
>
> "Who is 'We', white man?"
>
> The benefits of the current boom are rather uneavenly distributed and it
>seems to have benefitted the rich more than everybody else. I agree that
>technology has improved the lot of many people on the earth, but unless
>you are going to use that "trickle down" nonsense, you would have a hard
>time convincing me that more than a few get most of the benefit and that
>more than that have actually lost. Be that as it may, the problem at
>Columbine
>was in that group who was supposed to benefit the most. Violence that isn't
>even reported on in poor schools now appears on affluient campuses. I think
>that is connected to the effects of the boom on people. And we haven't delt
>yet with the possibility of a Bust, a Big Bust, and its effects on us.
>
First off, school violence is down across the country. Second, while
the benefits of the current boom have been unevenly distributed (e.g.
U.S. much more than Asia) the last 20 years or so have seen a general
rise in conditions around the world. Or do you have another
explanation for the population explosion?
[snip]
I wonder if it is a bit panadaptionist (at least metaphorically) to
see a 'Grand Cause' behind Culumbine. It may well be that there are no
particular social/political/moral lessons to be learned from it.
[snip]
Ken Cox
> WWI started with a fight in the Balkans. A bit of religion involved
> there. Now please show the economic reasons for WWI.
I always liked the explanation in David Bensen's _And Having Writ_.
The aliens who crash-landed in Tunguska are discussing Europe's
alliances, ententes, pacts, and mutual defense agreements:
Captain: "Sounds sensible to me. When I go into a bar on a strange
planet, I like having a couple of friends in case I get
in a fight."
Doctor: "I seem to remember you coming back from some of those bars
pretty beat-up."
Captain: "Well, that was when the other guy also had some friends...
Oh."
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
jab...@juno.com
On 13-Jul-1999, mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
> And what, may I ask, is your reaction to statistics that show overall
> school violence is way down in the last few years? Is that also due to
> teaching evolution?
>
>
>
> Matt Silberstein
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> She used her body just like a bandage, she use my body just like a wound
>
statistics are only there to impress the public and give them a false sense
of security.
a mechanism of conspiracy, to control people views..
but if you belive the stat are right,
ask any parent in the columbine area about waht they think of the
statistics.
jab...@juno.com
one of those kid were on percsribe medication.. an attempt to stiffil their
evolution.
but it failed and evolution won.
jab...@juno.com
On 12-Jul-1999, "Bruce Salem" <Bruce...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> jab...@juno.com wrote in message <7mcnak$fuf$4...@talia.mad.ttd.net>...
>
> >columbine High is the cusp, of what is going on in schools.
> >a product of our evolutionary process.
>
>
> Due to human biological limitations being strained past the breaking
> point by technology. not due to moral decay and the lack of moral
> authority. If parents aren't teaching morals, it is because they are not
> spending time with their kids being an example of moral behavior, or
> they are sending a confusing and conflicting message.
what moral behaviour? What generation Are we talking about?
do you why Parents do not spend time with their kids?
to support them. Men are making many babies today.. they are not supporting
them.
the mother has to look fo the support..
and now with new welfare laws, single mothers have it harder yet.
the price they pay for spreading their legs.. which they can not help.
Evolution force these women to mate.
maybe evolution is a rapist. No time to teach kids anything
even in a stable household in america, both parents may need to work, so
they go to school, Public school
anyway, were they are force feed the theory od evolution, look around
them..and they conclude..
were animals anyway.. let behave like them.. and they do.. all according to
evolution.
Chris C.
their
> evolution.
> but it failed and evolution won.
You do know you personally can't evolve. right?
How did you pick alt.future.millennium as the winner of your special wisdom?
The anthropologists are probably interested just because you are a great
thesis subject.
Chris C.
>
> do you why Parents do not spend time with their kids?
>
> to support them. Men are making many babies today.. they are not
supporting
> them.
> the mother has to look fo the support..
> and now with new welfare laws, single mothers have it harder yet.
> the price they pay for spreading their legs.. which they can not help.
> Evolution force these women to mate.
> maybe evolution is a rapist. No time to teach kids anything
>
> even in a stable household in america, both parents may need to work, so
> they go to school, Public school
> anyway, were they are force feed the theory od evolution, look around
> them..and they conclude..
> were animals anyway.. let behave like them.. and they do.. all according
to
> evolution.
This has to win the award for the greatest mix of truth, half truth,
misdirection and plan old lies.
David Iain Greig
>In talk.origins I read this message from "Bruce Salem"
><Bruce...@worldnet.att.net>:
>
>>
>>
>>Valerie Sheehan wrote in message <01becc1a$193e93a0$de06440c@valerie>...
>>>
>>>jab...@juno.com wrote in article <7mb4ki$3vj$1...@talia.mad.ttd.net>...
>>>>
>>>> On 7-Jul-1999, "Bruce Salem" <Bruce...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > No ammount of Bible-thumping can replace that. I think that Colombine
>>>> > tells us about the excesses of economics in our culture, how people's
>>>> > communities, roots, and families are being destroyed by the expediences
>>>> > of Corporate and business life (i.e.,tithing).
>>
>>>Obviously you have not been staying awake during your history classes!
>>>More people have died for religious reasons, (alas where can you find a
>>>"good" Christian these days-and just what is a "good" Christian anyway?
>>>With the full history you carry, it would not be anything I would put on my
>>>sleeve)in human history, than have died for economic reasons.
>>
>> Do you think that the causes for two world wars in this century was
>>religious?
>
>WWI started with a fight in the Balkans. A bit of religion involved
>there. Now please show the economic reasons for WWI.
German drive for overseas colonies, leading to a naval arms race.
Coupled with nationalism and lousy communications, the post-Napoleonic
post-Franco-Prussian mania for Grand Army Staff plans drove the whole
mess on to war.
--D,.
J. Rinehart
Not to mention the most illegible. Sigh. Even the most illiterate and
uneducated among us have computers now.
Rinehart
Charles Dye
>do you why Parents do not spend time with their kids?
>
>to support them. Men are making many babies today.. they are not supporting
>them.
>the mother has to look fo the support..
>and now with new welfare laws, single mothers have it harder yet.
>the price they pay for spreading their legs.. which they can not help.
>Evolution force these women to mate.
>maybe evolution is a rapist. No time to teach kids anything
I take it you're in favor of safe, affordable abortion services, then,
to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Mike
Chris Krolczyk
>On 13-Jul-1999, mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>> And what, may I ask, is your reaction to statistics that show overall
>> school violence is way down in the last few years? Is that also due to
>> teaching evolution?
>statistics are only there to impress the public and give them a false sense
>of security.
Actually bothering to look up same in order to confirm or deny their veracity
would've served your cause more, but that would've entailed actual _work_,
correct?
>a mechanism of conspiracy, to control people views..
I'm sure the time you spend on making tinfoil hats is only exceeded by the
hours you spend thinking up conspiracies.
>but if you belive the stat are right,
>ask any parent in the columbine area about waht they think of the
>statistics.
You first. I'm sure they'd all greatly appreciate yet _another_ busybody
putting his spin on the shootings.
--
Chris Krolczyk
krol...@mcs.com http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Towers/3048
UCE: just another way of saying that you're greedy *and* stupid.
Matt Silberstein
>
>On 13-Jul-1999, mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>
>> And what, may I ask, is your reaction to statistics that show overall
>> school violence is way down in the last few years? Is that also due to
>> teaching evolution?
>>
>>
>>
>> Matt Silberstein
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> She used her body just like a bandage, she use my body just like a wound
>>
>
>statistics are only there to impress the public and give them a false sense
>of security.
>a mechanism of conspiracy, to control people views..
>
I see. The news reports that support your worldview are, of course,
absolutely correct. The ones that don't are false and the product of a
Satanic conspiracy.
>but if you belive the stat are right,
>ask any parent in the columbine area about waht they think of the
>statistics.
Ok, then ask all those other parents who's kids did not get hurt.
Matt Silberstein
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
She used her body just like a bandage, she use my body just like a wound
Dick C.
alt.generationx removed.
In article <7mi57u$kbb$1...@talia.mad.ttd.net>, jab...@juno.com wrote:
>
>On 13-Jul-1999, mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) wrote:
>
>> And what, may I ask, is your reaction to statistics that show overall
>> school violence is way down in the last few years? Is that also due to
>> teaching evolution?
>>
>statistics are only there to impress the public and give them a false sense
>of security.
Do you have any statistics to back that up? :-).
Statistics can be used to show any number of things, but most likely school
violence is down, as is the rate of crime in most areas.
But then you and your little cult don't like to hear that things are improving
without your religious influence.
>a mechanism of conspiracy, to control people views..
Naw, that is what the watchtower is.
>
>but if you belive the stat are right,
>ask any parent in the columbine area about waht they think of the
>statistics.
>
Statistics show over all trends, and the school murders are part of the
statistics. Tell me, though, Jabs, were you all this worked up when you
heard about school violence in some inner city school? Or are you only
this way because of all the hype given to the mostly white suburban
schools?
Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
Dick C.
>
>
>On 12-Jul-1999, "Chris C." <ckco...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> > > > them. Ramdom natural selection in action!
>>
>> Natural selection is not a random process. Mutation is the random process.
>>
>>
>>
>> > > Maybe it is a new mutation ... homokillerteenus sounds good. I don't
>> > > see
>> > > much future for this variant though. We seem to be weeding them out
>> pretty
>> > > well. Natural selection is never random.
>> >
>> > sellimng them more weed as tranquilizers.. seem to be more likely.
>>
>> I didn't hear anything about drug use and the columbine brats. Are you
>> just
>
>one of those kid were on percsribe medication.. an attempt to stiffil their
>evolution.
>but it failed and evolution won.
Actually, they were following the examples laid down in the bible.
Ken Cox
> >of security.
> I see. The news reports that support your worldview are, of course,
> absolutely correct. The ones that don't are false and the product of a
> Satanic conspiracy.
It has the advantage of explaining absolutely everything. Sort of
like creationism.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com