New Book Examines Genetic Flaws in the Human "Design" (note the quotes)
Steven L.
February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
In his new book, UCI evolutionary biologist John Avise examines why
flaws exist in the biological world.
Humanity's physical design flaws have long been apparent - we have a
blind spot in our vision, for instance, and insufficient room for wisdom
teeth - but do the imperfections extend to the genetic level?
In his new book, Inside the Human Genome, John Avise examines why - from
the perspectives of biochemistry and molecular genetics - flaws exist in
the biological world. He explores the many deficiencies of human DNA
while recapping recent findings about the human genome.
Distinguished Professor of ecology & evolutionary biology at UC Irvine,
Avise also makes the case that overwhelming scientific evidence of
genomic defects provides a compelling counterargument to intelligent
design.
Here, Avise discusses human imperfection, the importance of
understanding our flaws, and why he believes theologians should embrace
evolutionary science.
Q: How flawed is the human body?
A: Many of the defects, such as those causing difficult childbirths,
appendicitis or bad backs, have been painfully obvious for millennia.
What was less apparent until very recently is the extent to which
biological flaws might also be present deep within our DNA.
Technological advances in the last decade have made it possible to
examine our genetic material in excruciating detail. We now know that
the human genome is riddled with molecular defects of many sorts.
Q: Why is it important to identify and understand these biological
flaws?
A: That's what medicine is all about, really - trying to heal our bodies
when things go wrong. It's interesting to contemplate what the practice
of medicine might look like a century or more from now. It's quite
possible that science will find ways to cure patients or maybe even rid
our species of serious genetic disorders through molecular-level
microsurgery on some of our faulty genes.
Q: How does scientific evidence of human imperfection contradict
intelligent design?
A: Proponents of intelligent design understandably focus on the many
beauties of life, claiming that smooth-working biological traits prove
direct creation by a supernatural deity. However, natural selection in
conjunction with genetic processes can also produce complex biological
systems that usually function well. So both natural selection and
intelligent design are consistent with the appearance of biological
craftsmanship. Serious biological imperfections, on the other hand, can
only logically be expected of nonsentient evolutionary processes that
are inherently sloppy and error-prone. They're more troublesome to
rationalize as overt mistakes by a fallible God.
Q: Why do you think theologians should welcome evolutionary discoveries?
A: Theodicy is the age-old conundrum of how to reconcile a just God with
a world containing evils and flaws. With respect to biological
imperfections, evolution can emancipate religion from the shackles of
theodicy. No longer need we feel tempted to blaspheme an omnipotent
deity by making him directly responsible for human frailties and
physical shortcomings, including those we now know to be commonplace at
the molecular and biochemical levels. No longer need we be apologists
for God in regard to the details of biology. Instead, we can put the
blame for biological flaws squarely on the shoulders of evolutionary
processes. In this way, evolutionary science can help return religion to
its rightful realm - not as a secular interpreter of the biological
minutiae of our physical existence, but rather as a respectable
counselor on grander philosophical issues that have always been of
ultimate concern to theologians.
Q: What do you hope readers will learn from your book?
A: First, I hope they'll learn a great deal about the structure and
operation of the incredible human genome. But more generally, I hope
they'll come to see that the evolutionary and genetic sciences can and
should be viewed as helpful philosophical partners - rather than
inherent nemeses - of theology and religion.
Q: You have researched ecology and evolution for more than 40 years.
What interests you most about these fields?
A: My academic "grandfather," Theodosius Dobzhansky, once wrote that
"nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," and
it's taking me a lifetime to fully appreciate the wisdom of that truism.
Evolution, genetics and ecology are central to so many areas - not only
in biology but also in countless human affairs ranging from religion to
medicine to environmental issues. I can't imagine a more fascinating and
stimulating set of fields in which to be engaged.
[
My take:
"Theodicy is the age-old conundrum of how to reconcile a just God with a
world containing evils and flaws. With respect to biological
imperfections, evolution can emancipate religion from the shackles of
theodicy."
Evolution can explain the flaws--but not the evils.
It still can't explain why God didn't intervene to stop the Holocaust of
the Jews (and others!). Or why God didn't intervene to stop the 9-11
terrorist attack.
Still, solving the conundrum of a flawed natural world isn't bad.
]
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Kalkidas
news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
> New book examines the flawed human body
> February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on deliberate
avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings, and the unsupported
assumption of materialism.
All-seeing-I
> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
When the ToE can show how the ability of making a "choice" or
"decision" evolved then maybe they would have a theory.
The ability to make a choice in order to avoid danger can only be a
'designed-in' feature given from a brilliant designer and completly
necessary from the very start of life.
.
Boikat
Argument from ignorance and incredulity. How non-surprising.
Boikat
T Pagano
A "flaw" is a relational term used by an intelligent agent in
criticizing an intelligently designed plan. So John Avise apparently
concedes that intelligent design is a reasonable position worthy of
both consideration and criticism. That the books from the secular
orthodoxy (read, "atheists") criticizing ID are on the rise concedes
that the levee has sprung so many leaks (apparently Eugenie Scott's
political efforts are failing miserably) that atheists must defend or
be crushed in its wake.
Next, the atheist "argument from imperfection" (raised by atheist
greats like Darwin and the late Gould) have been so thoroughly
debunked that one wonders if Avise even bothered to do a literature
search. This failure to do any such search generally occurs when the
author's arrogance gets the better of him.
Notwithstanding Avise's arrogance the origin of biological novelty via
some purely naturalistic means is still unknown (including and
especially the origin of life) and the scientific method can only
peripherally approach what everyone agrees to be unique, unobserved,
non recurring, and experimentally non reproducible events. And not a
single atheist has succeeded in showing anywhere in Scripture or
Tradition that our material world was designed by God to be perfect.
Nor does the exstence of evil make the fairy tale of purely
naturalistic evolutionism any rosier.
Regards,
T Pagano
Dan Listermann
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:hl4452$ttp$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
.
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:madman-90fbad6b-8c02-...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
.
Kalkidas
news:madman-90fbad6b-8c02-...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Living beings continually do things that cause their future degradation.
So-called "genetic mistakes" are simply the accumulation of many bad
decisions over time by free-willed beings. To blame God for it is to assume,
contrary to observation, that God is the sole causal agent in every act.
The argument "if God existed, He would not have made things the way they
are" is childish, and reveals only the ignorance of the one who poses it.
For one thing, it assumes that this world is the only one God made, and
therefore must represent His best effort. This is observably false, as the
spiritual Kingdom of God is also a world, and there is no imperfection
there. These pseudo-scientists cannot observe it, of course, since they lack
the humility. Therefore, they say, childishly, that it does not exist.
haiku jones
> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
>
> > New book examines the flawed human body
> > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
>
> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on deliberate
> avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings,
Yeppers. I freely chose to have bad knees, 20/500 vision,
and a badly deviated septum.
And I'd do it again, by crikey!
Haiku Jones
haiku jones
Yep. Well, either that, or because ...hands? ...class?..
anyone?..That's RIGHT, little Tommy: those animals which
didn't avoid danger didn't last very long. CHOMP!
Haiku Jones
>
> .
jillery
The argument about what God would not do is no different than the
argument about what God would do, and so the claim you criticize is
only as childish and ignorant as your own.
gregwrld
> >terrorist attack.
>
> >Still, solving the conundrum of a flawed natural world isn't bad.
> >]
>
> >--
>
> A "flaw" is a relational term used by an intelligent agent in
> concedes that intelligent design is a reasonable position worthy of
> orthodoxy (read, "atheists") criticizing ID are on the rise concedes
> that the levee has sprung so many leaks (apparently Eugenie Scott's
> be crushed in its wake.
>
> Next, the atheist "argument from imperfection" (raised by atheist
> greats like Darwin and the late Gould) have been so thoroughly
> debunked that one wonders if Avise even bothered to do a literature
> author's arrogance gets the better of him. �ｿｽ
>
> Notwithstanding Avise's arrogance the origin of biological novelty via
> some purely naturalistic means is still unknown (including and
> especially the origin of life) and the scientific method can only
> peripherally approach what everyone agrees to be unique, unobserved,
> single atheist has succeeded in showing anywhere in Scripture or
> Tradition that our material world was designed by God to be perfect.
> Nor does the exstence of evil make the fairy tale of purely
> naturalistic evolutionism any rosier.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
No intelligent design advocate has ever shown
the world to be designed. How about the eye,
Tony? Creos often argue it must have been
designed. So was it designed with deliberate
flaws? Is there any science in ID that could even
answer this question? Or are you capable of
nothing but apologetics?
gregwrld
Kalkidas
news:070e2d4e-5e21-45db...@f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 12, 10:46 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
>>
>> > New book examines the flawed human body
>> > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
>>
>
>> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on deliberate
>> avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings,
>
> Yeppers. I freely chose to have bad knees, 20/500 vision,
> and a badly deviated septum.
>
> And I'd do it again, by crikey!
You probably will, if you decide to procreate and transmit your genetic
defects to your descendants, as you ancestors did.
John Stockwell
and too poorly designed. Conclusion. The design concept is
meaningless.
Dan Listermann
future generations. Some need to be spoon fed.
.
Dan Listermann
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:madman-90fbad6b-8c02-...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 12, 11:46 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
>>>
>>> > New book examines the flawed human body
>>> > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
>>>
>>> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on deliberate
>>> avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings, and the unsupported
>>> assumption of materialism.
>>
>> When the ToE can show how the ability of making a "choice" or
>> "decision" evolved then maybe they would have a theory.
>>
>> The ability to make a choice in order to avoid danger can only be a
>> 'designed-in' feature given from a brilliant designer and completly
>> necessary from the very start of life.
>
> Living beings continually do things that cause their future degradation.
> So-called "genetic mistakes" are simply the accumulation of many bad
> decisions over time by free-willed beings. To blame God for it is to
> assume, contrary to observation, that God is the sole causal agent in
> every act.
Do you here contend that genitic mutatuions are cause by bad moral choices?
.
Dan Listermann
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
.
haiku jones
> "haiku jones" <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
One must wonder why God hated the Dodo so, failing to
give it -- just as He failed other animals living on islands which had
no predators -- "The ability to make a choice in order to avoid
danger".
Haiku Jones
haiku jones
> "haiku jones" <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
And thus we find ourselves running smack into theodicy
yet once again.
"...visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
unto the third and fourth generation..."
Haiku Jones
Kalkidas
> On Feb 12, 12:39 pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "haiku jones" <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:070e2d4e-5e21-45db...@f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 12, 10:46 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> >> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
>>
>> >> > New book examines the flawed human body
>> >> > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
>>
>> >> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on
>> >> deliberate
>> >> avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings,
>>
>> > Yeppers. I freely chose to have bad knees, 20/500 vision,
>> > and a badly deviated septum.
>>
>> > And I'd do it again, by crikey!
>>
>
>
>> You probably will, if you decide to procreate and transmit your genetic
>> defects to your descendants, as you ancestors did.
>
> And thus we find ourselves running smack into theodicy
> yet once again.
No, we find that people make bad decisions that lead to future degradation,
just as I said.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com>:
Still pretending you can't understand what differential
survival and thus differential reproductive success mean?
I'm beginning to think you're actually as stupid as you
pretend to be.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Kalkidas
news:d4e000c9-06e9-4843...@x9g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> The argument about what God would not do is no different than the
> argument about what God would do, and so the claim you criticize is
> only as childish and ignorant as your own.
Um, I didn't give an argument about what God would not do.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good post.
It is very childish. Selfish as well.
It is also behaving like an animal.
If an animal cannot perceive you with it's senses then the animal
thinks you do not exist.
Humans have a higher sense of perception and that is why so many can
realize there is a God while others do not. Like selfish and spoiled
children they have shut out their perception of God to make it easier
to believe there is no God. The conversion moment for the atheists
that have found God had an experience that was stronger then their
ability to deny their their perception of God.
jillery
> "jillery" <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Um, I didn't say you did. OTOH you did say somebody else said that.
Kermit
> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
>
> > New book examines the flawed human body
> > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
>
> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on deliberate
> avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings,
Who avoids the concept of free will? And what do you mean by it?
Some folks mean that their behavior cannot be predicted.
Some claim free will means their behavior is (at least partially) not
part of a causal chain, i.e. random.
Some simply refuse to talk about it.
> and the unsupported assumption of materialism.
Science assumes that the material world exists. Not all scientists
insist that it is the only thing that exists, although I am sure they
would all be interested in a demonstration that there is something not
material. Perhaps you are one of those that insist that science
should, somehow, study things which cannot be perceived with any
senses, even using the indirect tools currently available.
Kermit
John Harshman
> Good post.
>
> It is very childish. Selfish as well.
>
> It is also behaving like an animal.
>
> If an animal cannot perceive you with it's senses then the animal
> thinks you do not exist.
>
> Humans have a higher sense of perception and that is why so many can
> realize there is a God while others do not. Like selfish and spoiled
> children they have shut out their perception of God to make it easier
> to believe there is no God. The conversion moment for the atheists
> that have found God had an experience that was stronger then their
> ability to deny their their perception of God.
Can either of you explain how human (or animal) decisions cause them to
gain "genetic mistakes"? What control do you have over your genes?
Madman, just exactly how do you perceive god, if not through your
senses? Perhaps an extra "god-perceiving sense"? What is the nature of
that sense? And how do you objectively distinguish a perception of god
from a delusion?
Kermit
> On Feb 12, 11:46�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
>
> > > New book examines the flawed human body
> > > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
>
> > Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on deliberate
> > avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings, and the unsupported
> > assumption of materialism.
>
> When the ToE can show how the ability of making a "choice" or
> "decision" evolved then maybe they would have a theory.
What would prevent it from evolving?
What do you mean by it? I am not willing to accept its existence
unless you can define what *you mean by it.
Some folks claim it is unpredictable behavior, some claim that it is
partially random behavior. I do not see how being unpredictable means
that behavior is free from cause and effect. I do not see how some
tiny fraction of my behavior being non-causal would add to my freedom.
>
> The ability to make a choice in order to avoid danger can only be a
> 'designed-in' feature given from a brilliant designer
Here is a positive claim which I would love to see supported by
evidence.
(Hint: not having a clue is not evidence for gods; nor is it a
definition of free will.)
> and completly necessary from the very start of life.
Please explain. Justification would be nice, but let's start small.
Are you saying amoebas have free will? What would an amoeba without
free will look like? How about the first self-replicating molecules?
Kermit
Kermit
> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>
> news:madman-90fbad6b-8c02-...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 11:46 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
>
> >> > New book examines the flawed human body
> >> > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
>
> >> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on deliberate
> >> avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings, and the unsupported
> >> assumption of materialism.
>
> > When the ToE can show how the ability of making a "choice" or
> > "decision" evolved then maybe they would have a theory.
>
> > The ability to make a choice in order to avoid danger can only be a
> > 'designed-in' feature given from a brilliant designer and completly
> > necessary from the very start of life.
>
> Living beings continually do things that cause their future degradation.
> So-called "genetic mistakes" are simply the accumulation of many bad
> decisions over time by free-willed beings.
No, I did not choose myopia. Nor did my ancestors.
> To blame God for it is to assume,
> contrary to observation, that God is the sole causal agent in every act.
This is not the dance of Brahma? OK. How about if I don't blame gods
for anything?
>
> The argument "if God existed, He would not have made things the way they
> are" is childish, and reveals only the ignorance of the one who poses it.
> For one thing, it assumes that this world is the only one God made, and
> therefore must represent His best effort. This is observably false, as the
> spiritual Kingdom of God is also a world, and there is no imperfection
> there. These pseudo-scientists cannot observe it, of course, since they lack
> the humility. Therefore, they say, childishly, that it does not exist.
I would be more impressed if you were not arguing for the concrete
reality of your favorite myths. We can all imagine stuff. Just
because I can imagine being a superhero or very rich doesn't make it
so.
Kermit
Steven L.
> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:madman-90fbad6b-8c02-...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 12, 11:46 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
> >>
> >> > New book examines the flawed human body
> >> > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
> >>
> >> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on deliberate
> >> avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings, and the unsupported
> >> assumption of materialism.
> >
> > When the ToE can show how the ability of making a "choice" or
> > "decision" evolved then maybe they would have a theory.
> >
> > The ability to make a choice in order to avoid danger can only be a
> > 'designed-in' feature given from a brilliant designer and completly
> > necessary from the very start of life.
>
> Living beings continually do things that cause their future degradation.
> So-called "genetic mistakes" are simply the accumulation of many bad
> decisions over time by free-willed beings.
One of my cousins was a hemophiliac.
What "bad decisions over time" by him or his ancestors caused that?
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Kermit
> >terrorist attack.
>
> >Still, solving the conundrum of a flawed natural world isn't bad.
> >]
>
> >--
>
> A "flaw" is a relational term used by an intelligent agent in
> criticizing an intelligently designed plan.
Or it could simply be falling short of an imagined ideal. I am
nearsighted; I can imagine seeing as well as half the population does.
Calling it a flaw only illuminates my attitude toward it, not a belief
that it was designed. Even if someone uses language incorrectly, you
can't establish the nature of reality by claiming someone said other
than what they really meant.
The most you can do with that is assert they are using language
incorrectly.
> �ｿｽSo John Avise apparently
> concedes that intelligent design is a reasonable position worthy of
> both consideration and criticism. �ｿｽThat the books from the secular
> orthodoxy (read, "atheists") criticizing ID are on the rise concedes
> that the levee has sprung so many leaks (apparently Eugenie Scott's
> political efforts are failing miserably) �ｿｽthat atheists must defend or
> be crushed in its wake.
An alternative explanation is that more people have come to different
conclusions than their grandparents did, or that they are less
intimidated than they used to be by the theist majority. It *has been
a few generations since heretics were burned at the stake. We hardly
ever even get fired from our jobs.
>
> Next, the atheist "argument from imperfection" (raised by atheist
> greats like Darwin and the late Gould)
Darwin never claimed to be an atheist that I know of.
> have been so thoroughly
> debunked that one wonders if Avise even bothered to do a literature
> search. �ｿｽ This failure to do any such search generally occurs when the
> author's arrogance gets the better of him. �ｿｽ
An ironic, if true, observation.
>
> Notwithstanding Avise's arrogance the origin of biological novelty via
> some purely naturalistic means is still unknown
Ummm, no, Try natural selection acting on a pool of inheritable
variability.
> (including and especially the origin of life)
The are several scientific models addressing this question. As we
learn more about the nature of the early Earth environment and
chemistry in particular, we will come to a consensus.
> and the scientific method can only
> peripherally approach what everyone agrees to be unique, unobserved,
> non recurring, and experimentally non reproducible events.
Molecules interacting? How would that be non-reproducible?
>�ｿｽ And not a
> single atheist has succeeded in showing anywhere in Scripture or
> Tradition that our material world was designed by God to be perfect.
> Nor does the exstence of evil make the fairy tale of purely
> naturalistic evolutionism any rosier.
I agree with you. The Yahweh depicted in the traditional bible is a
monster. Were he a concrete reality, he would be capable of all sorts
of vicious acts. It is the insistence of later theologians that "God
is love" that is the source of this confusion. I was raised
fundamentalist: I would never argue that God doesn't exist because
he's mean.
Look at this, for example, on I-35 in Minnesota, USA:
http://www.mnatheists.org/billboard.jpg
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Kermit
Steven L.
I see! Creationism implies that hemophilia, childhood leukemia, Down's
Syndrome, etc., were the result of stupidly failing to implement a
eugenics policy. How could our ancestors have been so wrong? Something
about "unalienable rights," I believe.
So if you creationists were in charge, you would have all prospective
parents screened and issue "birth licenses" to those who are genetically
free of "defects."
So much for arguing that Darwinism brought about Nazi racial theories.
You got a few eugenics theories of your own going here.
Steven L.
Yes, only blond, blue-eyed, six feet tall men and women should have
children. Can't have sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs disease or
dwarfism in the human gene pool. Right?
Do you realize how you sound?
Mark Evans
Well choice, usually uninformed choice, does play a part. Choosing
to pitch camp on a patch of uranium ore can have genetic effects on
one's descendents.
Mark Evans
haiku jones
> "haiku jones" <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0417fbb6-b38b-45a7...@b1g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 12:39 pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> "haiku jones" <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:070e2d4e-5e21-45db...@f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Feb 12, 10:46 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> >> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
>
> >> >> > New book examines the flawed human body
> >> >> > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
>
> >> >> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on
> >> >> deliberate
> >> >> avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings,
>
> >> > Yeppers. I freely chose to have bad knees, 20/500 vision,
> >> > and a badly deviated septum.
>
> >> > And I'd do it again, by crikey!
>
> >> You probably will, if you decide to procreate and transmit your genetic
> >> defects to your descendants, as you ancestors did.
>
> > And thus we find ourselves running smack into theodicy
> > yet once again.
>
> No, we find that people make bad decisions that lead to future degradation,
> just as I said.
Definitely theidiotic. Any god who gives me shitty
knees because somebody way back down
the assembly line "made bad decisions that
lead to future degradation" is either:
-- morally bankrupt
-- mistakenly thinks I choose my parents
-- simply not smart enough to come up with a system
where the innocent do not pay for the "bad
decisions" of the guilty
-- non-existent.
Me, I going with number four as his only acceptable
excuse.
Haiku Jones
Kalkidas
news:x6SdnTcJGpGKV-jW...@earthlink.com...
> "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
> news:hl4ape$a7p$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> "haiku jones" <575j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:070e2d4e-5e21-45db...@f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Feb 12, 10:46 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> >> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
>> >>
>> >> > New book examines the flawed human body
>> >> > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
>> >>
>> >
>> >> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on
>> >> deliberate
>> >> avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings,
>> >
>> > Yeppers. I freely chose to have bad knees, 20/500 vision,
>> > and a badly deviated septum.
>> >
>> > And I'd do it again, by crikey!
>>
>> You probably will, if you decide to procreate and transmit your genetic
>> defects to your descendants, as you ancestors did.
>
> I see! Creationism implies that hemophilia, childhood leukemia, Down's
> Syndrome, etc., were the result of stupidly failing to implement a
> eugenics policy. How could our ancestors have been so wrong? Something
> about "unalienable rights," I believe.
Give empirical evidence that human beings have any "unalienable rights".
> So if you creationists were in charge, you would have all prospective
> parents screened and issue "birth licenses" to those who are genetically
> free of "defects."
The euthanasia movement, as you know, was started by Social Darwinists, not
"creationists".
> So much for arguing that Darwinism brought about Nazi racial theories.
>
> You got a few eugenics theories of your own going here.
Your feigned "moral outrage" isn't an argument.
Kalkidas
news:af7306bd-559f-4006...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Yes, but some folks think that giving us the option to live there that makes
God evil. I wonder what kind of world they imagine God *would* have created
if He existed, perhaps a world without motion, and hence without entropy,
where literally nothing ever happens, but, hey, at least no one would ever
get hurt?
SkyEyes
> On Feb 12, 10:58 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 11:46 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > > "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
>
> > > > New book examines the flawed human body
> > > > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
>
> > > Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on deliberate
> > > avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings, and the unsupported
> > > assumption of materialism.
>
> > When the ToE can show how the ability of making a "choice" or
> > "decision" evolved then maybe they would have a theory.
>
> > The ability to make a choice in order to avoid danger can only be a
> > 'designed-in' feature given from a brilliant designer and completly
> > necessary from the very start of life.
>
> Yep. Well, either that, or because ...hands? ...class?..
> anyone?..That's RIGHT, little Tommy: those animals which
> didn't avoid danger didn't last very long. CHOMP!
But don't you *see*, Haiku, what a bad moral choice it is to be unable
to avoid danger? Why, any *moral* animal with free will should choose
traits allowing it to avoid danger! Therefore, if they get chomped,
well, it's the fault of their own, innate immorality!
<Cough>
<Choke>
<Gasp>
Wow. Even just *typing* that idiocy brought on an asthma attack.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Rodjk #613
> "haiku jones" <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0417fbb6-b38b-45a7...@b1g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 12:39 pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> "haiku jones" <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:070e2d4e-5e21-45db...@f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Feb 12, 10:46 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> >> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
>
> >> >> > New book examines the flawed human body
> >> >> > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
>
> >> >> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on
> >> >> deliberate
> >> >> avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings,
>
> >> > Yeppers. I freely chose to have bad knees, 20/500 vision,
> >> > and a badly deviated septum.
>
> >> > And I'd do it again, by crikey!
>
> >> You probably will, if you decide to procreate and transmit your genetic
> >> defects to your descendants, as you ancestors did.
>
> > And thus we find ourselves running smack into theodicy
> > yet once again.
>
> No, we find that people make bad decisions that lead to future degradation,
> just as I said.
So you are in favor of eugenics?
Rodjk #613
haiku jones
Are you, like, grafting a Kalkidas branch onto an ASI
trunk there?
If so, can we get that Jesus guy in here to curse it?
Haiku Jones
Kalkidas
news:8997db5a-17dc-4b88...@l24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Taking a break from begging for money for the obese diabetics and chronic
alcoholics on the rez, are we?
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>
>A "flaw" is a relational term used by an intelligent agent in
>criticizing an intelligently designed plan. So John Avise apparently
>concedes that intelligent design is a reasonable position worthy of
>both consideration and criticism. That the books from the secular
>orthodoxy (read, "atheists") criticizing ID are on the rise concedes
>that the levee has sprung so many leaks (apparently Eugenie Scott's
>political efforts are failing miserably) that atheists must defend or
>be crushed in its wake.
tony forgets the key concept of science: testability
and neither he, nor any other ID advocate, has shown any testable
predictions from ID at all. in fact, phillip johnson, the doyen of ID,
has admitted ID is supernatural. so it stands outside science.
>
>Next, the atheist "argument from imperfection" (raised by atheist
>greats like Darwin and the late Gould) have been so thoroughly
>debunked that one wonders if Avise even bothered to do a literature
>search. This failure to do any such search generally occurs when the
>author's arrogance gets the better of him.
unfortunately the argument from perfection...AKA 'design' is a key
central concept of ID.
it's meaningless. even they can't tell us what 'perfection' is, where
we can see it, how we 'fell' from perfection, etc.
>
>Notwithstanding Avise's arrogance the origin of biological novelty via
>some purely naturalistic means is still unknown (including and
>especially the origin of life) and the scientific method can only
>peripherally approach what everyone agrees to be unique, unobserved,
>non recurring, and experimentally non reproducible events.
and religion can't approach them at all. that's why creationism is a
failure
And not a
>single atheist has succeeded in showing anywhere in Scripture or
>Tradition that our material world was designed by God to be perfect.
i guess tony's forgotten about genesis 1:1.
oh well. creationists talk alot about the bible
but they've never read it.
bpuharic
>
>Yes, but some folks think that giving us the option to live there that makes
>God evil. I wonder what kind of world they imagine God *would* have created
>if He existed, perhaps a world without motion, and hence without entropy,
>where literally nothing ever happens, but, hey, at least no one would ever
>get hurt?
creationists are very impressed with their own importance. they get
alot of mileage telling us what god can and can't do.
fortunately for them, god seldom listens to them
>
bpuharic
>
>Living beings continually do things that cause their future degradation.
>So-called "genetic mistakes" are simply the accumulation of many bad
>decisions over time by free-willed beings.
did this idiot really say that genetics are affected by free willed
decisions??
wonder how an ant makes such a decision that affects genes 10,000
years from now
oh well, he's so busy having his horoscope cast that he kind of forgot
what science is.
To blame God for it is to assume,
>contrary to observation, that God is the sole causal agent in every act.
>
>The argument "if God existed, He would not have made things the way they
>are" is childish, and reveals only the ignorance of the one who poses it.
>For one thing, it assumes that this world is the only one God made, and
>therefore must represent His best effort. This is observably false, as the
>spiritual Kingdom of God is also a world, and there is no imperfection
>there. These pseudo-scientists cannot observe it, of course, since they lack
>the humility. Therefore, they say, childishly, that it does not exist.
every creationist thinks they know who god is.
every creationist disagrees with every other creationist about who god
is.
kind of tells you right away creationists have no idea about
anything...especially god
>
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Feb 12, 11:46�am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
>>
>> > New book examines the flawed human body
>> > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
>>
>> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on deliberate
>> avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings, and the unsupported
>> assumption of materialism.
>
>When the ToE can show how the ability of making a "choice" or
>"decision" evolved then maybe they would have a theory.
when creationists can show they understand science well enough to tell
us what it is, they will have an argument.
>
>The ability to make a choice in order to avoid danger can only be a
>'designed-in' feature given from a brilliant designer and completly
>necessary from the very start of life.
and the opposite is also true.
that's why creationism is useless.
>
>.
>
bpuharic
>"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
>> New book examines the flawed human body
>> February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
>
>Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on deliberate
>avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings, and the unsupported
>assumption of materialism.
>
says the guy who thinks astrology is real
if he doesnt accept materialism, perhaps he'll test his idea by
walking out a 10th story window
see if vishnu saves him
bpuharic
>
>>
>> I see! Creationism implies that hemophilia, childhood leukemia, Down's
>> Syndrome, etc., were the result of stupidly failing to implement a
>> eugenics policy. How could our ancestors have been so wrong? Something
>> about "unalienable rights," I believe.
>
>Give empirical evidence that human beings have any "unalienable rights".
>
>> So if you creationists were in charge, you would have all prospective
>> parents screened and issue "birth licenses" to those who are genetically
>> free of "defects."
>
>The euthanasia movement, as you know, was started by Social Darwinists, not
>"creationists".
which has nothing to do with evolution. apparently you don't know the
history of 'social darwinism'.
>
>> So much for arguing that Darwinism brought about Nazi racial theories.
>>
>> You got a few eugenics theories of your own going here.
>
>Your feigned "moral outrage" isn't an argument.
so is yours; your religion considers certain human beings to be
untouchable
>
Caranx latus
<snip>
> Taking a break from begging for money for the obese diabetics and chronic
> alcoholics on the rez, are we?
</raises eyebrow> I never would have figured you as such an unpleasant
person, Kalky. Fascinating.
Dan Listermann
"Mark Evans" <markev...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:af7306bd-559f-4006...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
So what percentage of genetic mutations are caused by bad moral choices?
.
Dan Listermann
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
.
haiku jones
> "SkyEyes" <skyey...@cox.net> wrote in message
She is?
Boy, Jesus would condemn her in a second for
so anti-Christian an activity.
Haiku Jones
Kalkidas
"Caranx latus" <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:hl4rtd$3qc$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Does it convince you that if there was a God, He would never let me get away
with it?
bpuharic
>\
if there was a god, your mother would have strangled you in your crib
chris thompson
The only thing you "got away with" was making yourself look like an
asshole.
Chris
Caranx latus
Actually, it convinces me that chanting to clean one's consciousness is
ultimately a pointless exercise. How much of your time did you waste
doing it?
Ron O
> New book examines the flawed human body
> February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
>
> flaws exist in the biological world.
>
> Humanity's physical design flaws have long been apparent - we have a
> blind spot in our vision, for instance, and insufficient room for wisdom
> teeth - but do the imperfections extend to the genetic level?
>
> In his new book, Inside the Human Genome, John Avise examines why - from
> the perspectives of biochemistry and molecular genetics - flaws exist in
> the biological world. He explores the many deficiencies of human DNA
> while recapping recent findings about the human genome.
>
> Distinguished Professor of ecology & evolutionary biology at UC Irvine,
> Avise also makes the case that overwhelming scientific evidence of
> genomic defects provides a compelling counterargument to intelligent
> design.
>
>
This is one of the worst arguments against "intelligent design." Just
imagine adman as a designer. No one can claim that any such designer
has to be competent.
Ron Okimoto
David Hare-Scott
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
>> New book examines the flawed human body
>> February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
>
> deliberate avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings, and
> the unsupported assumption of materialism.
Please explain how earthquakes, mudslides and hurricanes which cause huge
death and misery for living things are a result of their free will. Why
does an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god allow them?
David
All-seeing-I
> "Mark Evans" <markevans1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Most of them blame God (a God they do not even believe in) for
everything.
Why is that?
Dan Listermann
.
Virgil
wrote:
> Living beings continually do things that cause their future degradation.
> So-called "genetic mistakes" are simply the accumulation of many bad
> decisions over time by free-willed beings.
Then such things as viruses and prions must have the same sort of free
will that humans have!
> To blame God for it is to assume,
> contrary to observation, that God is the sole causal agent in every act.
If there were a god, it would necessarily be responsible for everything.
Virgil
wrote:
> "haiku jones" <575j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:070e2d4e-5e21-45db...@f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 12, 10:46 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
> >>
> >> > New book examines the flawed human body
> >> > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
> >>
> >
> >> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on deliberate
> >> avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings,
> >
> > Yeppers. I freely chose to have bad knees, 20/500 vision,
> > and a badly deviated septum.
> >
> > And I'd do it again, by crikey!
>
> You probably will, if you decide to procreate and transmit your genetic
> defects to your descendants, as you ancestors did.
And how do viruses and prions decide whether to procreate or not?
Virgil
wrote:
> "haiku jones" <575j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0417fbb6-b38b-45a7...@b1g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 12, 12:39 pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> "haiku jones" <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>
> >> news:070e2d4e-5e21-45db...@f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Feb 12, 10:46 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> >> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> >>news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
> >>
> >> >> > New book examines the flawed human body
> >> >> > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
> >>
> >> >> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on
> >> >> deliberate
> >> >> avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings,
> >>
> >> > Yeppers. I freely chose to have bad knees, 20/500 vision,
> >> > and a badly deviated septum.
> >>
> >> > And I'd do it again, by crikey!
> >>
> >
> >
> >> You probably will, if you decide to procreate and transmit your genetic
> >> defects to your descendants, as you ancestors did.
> >
> > And thus we find ourselves running smack into theodicy
> > yet once again.
>
> No, we find that people make bad decisions that lead to future degradation,
> just as I said.
How do bad decisions induce only dangerous mutations but good decisions
induce only good mutations?
Virgil
wrote:
> "jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d4e000c9-06e9-4843...@x9g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > The argument about what God would not do is no different than the
> > argument about what God would do, and so the claim you criticize is
> > only as childish and ignorant as your own.
>
> Um, I didn't give an argument about what God would not do.
By giving an argument about what your infantile notion of what a god
WOULD do, you automatically, and equally infantilely, argue also about
what it would not do.
Virgil
wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:x6SdnTcJGpGKV-jW...@earthlink.com...
> > "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
> > news:hl4ape$a7p$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
> >
> >> "haiku jones" <575j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:070e2d4e-5e21-45db...@f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Feb 12, 10:46 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> >> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> > New book examines the flawed human body
> >> >> > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on
> >> >> deliberate
> >> >> avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings,
> >> >
> >> > Yeppers. I freely chose to have bad knees, 20/500 vision,
> >> > and a badly deviated septum.
> >> >
> >> > And I'd do it again, by crikey!
> >>
> >> You probably will, if you decide to procreate and transmit your genetic
> >> defects to your descendants, as you ancestors did.
> >
> > I see! Creationism implies that hemophilia, childhood leukemia, Down's
> > Syndrome, etc., were the result of stupidly failing to implement a
> > eugenics policy. How could our ancestors have been so wrong? Something
> > about "unalienable rights," I believe.
>
> Give empirical evidence that human beings have any "unalienable rights".
We hold that truth to be self evident! At least in the USA.
>
> > So if you creationists were in charge, you would have all prospective
> > parents screened and issue "birth licenses" to those who are genetically
> > free of "defects."
>
> The euthanasia movement, as you know, was started by Social Darwinists, not
> "creationists".
"Social Darwinism" has no scientific basis, nor anything in common with
Evolution except a stolen name.
Virgil
wrote:
> >> Do you here contend that genitic mutatuions are cause by bad moral
> >> choices?
> >>
> >> .
> >
> > Well choice, usually uninformed choice, does play a part. Choosing
> > to pitch camp on a patch of uranium ore can have genetic effects on
> > one's descendents.
>
> Yes, but some folks think that giving us the option to live there that makes
> God evil. I wonder what kind of world they imagine God *would* have created
> if He existed
Since "He" does not seem to exist, such speculation is only for for
dreamers.
And the universe itself is morally neutral, with no good or evil in it
other than created by humans about human actions.
Virgil
wrote:
If there were a god, I have no idea what it would do or not do.
Other than behave differently from any human expectation.
John Wilkins
<wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:53:54 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> I see! Creationism implies that hemophilia, childhood leukemia, Down's
> >> Syndrome, etc., were the result of stupidly failing to implement a
> >> eugenics policy. How could our ancestors have been so wrong? Something
> >> about "unalienable rights," I believe.
> >
> >Give empirical evidence that human beings have any "unalienable rights".
> >
> >> So if you creationists were in charge, you would have all prospective
> >> parents screened and issue "birth licenses" to those who are genetically
> >> free of "defects."
> >
> >The euthanasia movement, as you know, was started by Social Darwinists, not
> >"creationists".
>
> which has nothing to do with evolution. apparently you don't know the
> history of 'social darwinism'.
And actually it was started by creationists. the original creationist -
Plato - started it by his book The Republic, which is a sustained
defence of eugenics and euthanasia. Sure, the Spartans actually
*practised* it, but Plato supported it.
There never was a "social Darwinist" movement. That's a myth created by
Richard Hofstadter in 1944.
>
> >
> >> So much for arguing that Darwinism brought about Nazi racial theories.
> >>
> >> You got a few eugenics theories of your own going here.
> >
> >Your feigned "moral outrage" isn't an argument.
>
> so is yours; your religion considers certain human beings to be
> untouchable
Hinduist theology is a sustained defence of social slavery.
John Wilkins
Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
They look to their chaperonins for guidance.
Virgil
wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
> > New book examines the flawed human body
> > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
>
> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on deliberate
> avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings, and the unsupported
> assumption of materialism.
Humans seem to BELIEVE that they have free will, and base all their
moral and legal codes on that assumption, but the evidence for it is
entirely subjective, and thus not conclusive.
Kleuskes & Moos
wrote:
Which may be construed as "Karma in action"...
Burkhard
It's OK. For having made this choice of post, he will be reborn as a
flatworm or some such which is quite appopriate, and that would be
telling him the error of his ways if only he'd remember in his
flatworm form his previous life. A small logical flaw in his belief
system which however explains the continuous existence of vile posters
like him.
Dan Listermann
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
>
> The euthanasia movement, as you know, was started by Social Darwinists,
> not "creationists".
>
.
TomS
<130220101356583777%jo...@wilkins.id.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
>
>In article <gbsbn59l7k1r734mt...@4ax.com>, bpuharic
><wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:53:54 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I see! Creationism implies that hemophilia, childhood leukemia, Down's
>> >> Syndrome, etc., were the result of stupidly failing to implement a
>> >> eugenics policy. How could our ancestors have been so wrong? Something
>> >> about "unalienable rights," I believe.
>> >
>> >Give empirical evidence that human beings have any "unalienable rights".
>> >
>> >> So if you creationists were in charge, you would have all prospective
>> >> parents screened and issue "birth licenses" to those who are genetically
>> >> free of "defects."
>> >
>> >The euthanasia movement, as you know, was started by Social Darwinists, not
>> >"creationists".
>>
>> which has nothing to do with evolution. apparently you don't know the
>> history of 'social darwinism'.
>
>And actually it was started by creationists. the original creationist -
>Plato - started it by his book The Republic, which is a sustained
>defence of eugenics and euthanasia. Sure, the Spartans actually
>*practised* it, but Plato supported it.
Those who believe that purposeful intervention (that is, intelligent
design) is necessary to avoid the "deterioration" that supposedly
follows from random variation and natural regularities (that is,
"darwinism")?
--
---Tom S.
Be not ashamed to inform the unwise and foolish, and the extreme aged that
contendeth with those that are young: thus shalt thou be truly learned, and
approved of all men living.: Sirach 42:8
Kalkidas
news:Virgil-64EE36....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
I see. So Social Darwinism is not based on Darwinism? Because if it is, and
if Darwinism is "science", then it would seem that Social Darwinism does
have a scientific basis. So your claim would be wrong.
And if Darwinism is not science, then it ought to be abandoned. Or if Social
Darwinism is not based on Darwinism, why did every Social Darwinist, without
exception, cite Darwinism as the basis for Social Darwinism?
bpuharic
>
>I see. So Social Darwinism is not based on Darwinism?
no, it's not
Because if it is, and
>if Darwinism is "science", then it would seem that Social Darwinism does
>have a scientific basis. So your claim would be wrong.
no one knows what 'based on' means. 2 words hardly make an iron clad
connection between science and fascism.
>
>And if Darwinism is not science, then it ought to be abandoned. Or if Social
>Darwinism is not based on Darwinism, why did every Social Darwinist, without
>exception, cite Darwinism as the basis for Social Darwinism?
well, they didn't, did they? the concepts embodied in 'social
darwinism' preceded darwin.
>
TomS
<dnedn5954tj06021b...@4ax.com>, bpuharic stated..."
And the "social darwinists" didn't even call themselves "social
darwinists".
Kalkidas
news:hl5053$ctm$1...@news.albasani.net...
In the spiritual world, there are no such things. Some of us freely chose to
leave the spiritual world and come here, where such things are commonplace.
God allowed it because we wanted it. God respects our freedom. Aren't you
glad?
Dan Listermann
"Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
Blithering nonsense.
.
Steven L.
news:c65f9e35-021c-437f...@c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 12, 2:18�pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > "haiku jones" <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:0417fbb6-b38b-45a7...@b1g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 12, 12:39 pm, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > >> "haiku jones" <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > >>news:070e2d4e-5e21-45db...@f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > >> > On Feb 12, 10:46 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> > >> >> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >
> > >> >>news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
> >
> > >> >> > New book examines the flawed human body
> > >> >> > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
> >
> > >> >> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on
> > >> >> deliberate
> > >> >> avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings,
> >
> > >> > Yeppers. I freely chose to have bad knees, 20/500 vision,
> > >> > and a badly deviated septum.
> >
> > >> > And I'd do it again, by crikey!
> >
> > >> You probably will, if you decide to procreate and transmit your genetic
> > >> defects to your descendants, as you ancestors did.
> >
> > > And thus we find ourselves running smack into theodicy
> > > yet once again.
> >
> > No, we find that people make bad decisions that lead to future degradation,
> > just as I said.
>
> So you are in favor of eugenics?
That's what it sounds like.
And it gives the lie to creationists claiming that it's Darwinism that
led to eugenics policies such as those of the Nazis.
"kalkidas" just gave a creationist rationale for eugenics.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Kalkidas
news:9234e514-0e44-4630...@b10g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 12, 10:57 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:madman-90fbad6b-8c02-...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Feb 12, 11:46 am, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> >> "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
>>
>> >> > New book examines the flawed human body
>> >> > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
>>
>> >> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on
>> >> deliberate
>> >> avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings, and the
>> >> unsupported
>> >> assumption of materialism.
>>
>> > When the ToE can show how the ability of making a "choice" or
>> > "decision" evolved then maybe they would have a theory.
>>
>> > The ability to make a choice in order to avoid danger can only be a
>> > 'designed-in' feature given from a brilliant designer and completly
>> > necessary from the very start of life.
>>
>> Living beings continually do things that cause their future degradation.
>> So-called "genetic mistakes" are simply the accumulation of many bad
>> decisions over time by free-willed beings.
>
> No, I did not choose myopia. Nor did my ancestors.
>
>> To blame God for it is to assume,
>> contrary to observation, that God is the sole causal agent in every act.
>
> This is not the dance of Brahma? OK. How about if I don't blame gods
> for anything?
>
>>
>> The argument "if God existed, He would not have made things the way they
>> are" is childish, and reveals only the ignorance of the one who poses it.
>> For one thing, it assumes that this world is the only one God made, and
>> therefore must represent His best effort. This is observably false, as
>> the
>> spiritual Kingdom of God is also a world, and there is no imperfection
>> there. These pseudo-scientists cannot observe it, of course, since they
>> lack
>> the humility. Therefore, they say, childishly, that it does not exist.
>
> I would be more impressed if you were not arguing for the concrete
> reality of your favorite myths. We can all imagine stuff. Just
> because I can imagine being a superhero or very rich doesn't make it
> so.
Here's an experiment: make a list of everything you can imagine, separate
the list into things which (you say) exist, and things which (you say) do
not exist. Examine the ratio. I think you will find that the number of
imaginable things which actually exist far outweighs the number of
imaginable things which do not.
Therefore, do not be quick to dismiss imaginability as a poor indicator of
existence.
Garamond Lethe
1. (1) One Universe.
> and things which (you say) do
> not exist.
2. (2) Two other universes nearly identical to the one listed above,
except one is slightly pink and the other is slightly blue.
> Examine the ratio.
1:2
> I think you will find that the number of
> imaginable things which actually exist far outweighs the number of
> imaginable things which do not.
Doesn't appear to, no.
> Therefore, do not be quick to dismiss imaginability as a poor indicator of
> existence.
Looks pretty useless to me.
Burkhard
> "Virgil" <Vir...@home.esc> wrote in message
>
> news:Virgil-64EE36....@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
>
>
>
> >> > "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
> >> >news:hl4ape$a7p$1...@speranza.aioe.org:
>
Why? I can use ideas from quantum physics when writing poetry.
Doesn't make poerty scientific.
So your claim would be wrong.
>
> And if Darwinism is not science, then it ought to be abandoned. Or if Social
> Darwinism is not based on Darwinism, why did every Social Darwinist, without
> exception, cite Darwinism as the basis for Social Darwinism?
And you have evidence for this? Leaving alone the problem that you
would be hard pressed to find anyone who described/describes himself
as social Darwinist.
Caranx latus
> "Kermit" <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<snip>
>> I would be more impressed if you were not arguing for the concrete
>> reality of your favorite myths. We can all imagine stuff. Just
>> because I can imagine being a superhero or very rich doesn't make it
>> so.
>
> Here's an experiment: make a list of everything you can imagine, separate
> the list into things which (you say) exist, and things which (you say) do
> not exist. Examine the ratio. I think you will find that the number of
> imaginable things which actually exist far outweighs the number of
> imaginable things which do not.
You appear to be seriously deficient in imagination.
Virgil
wrote:
> "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:hl5053$ctm$1...@news.albasani.net...
> > Kalkidas wrote:
> >> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
> >>> New book examines the flawed human body
> >>> February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
> >>
> >> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on
> >> deliberate avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings, and
> >> the unsupported assumption of materialism.
> >
> > Please explain how earthquakes, mudslides and hurricanes which cause huge
> > death and misery for living things are a result of their free will. Why
> > does an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god allow them?
>
> In the spiritual world, there are no such things.
There is no spiritual "world". There is only this one.
Virgil
wrote:
A lot of nonsense is nominally "based" on science but in actuality only
on misrepresentations of what the science actually says. And that is the
case for Social Darwinism.
>
> And if Darwinism is not science, then it ought to be abandoned. Or if Social
> Darwinism is not based on Darwinism, why did every Social Darwinist, without
> exception, cite Darwinism as the basis for Social Darwinism?
Why are crazies always claiming to have improved on Einstein's theories,
or disproved them?
Because Einstein's name has clout.
Similarly Darwin's name has clout.
Virgil
wrote:
But first, eliminate from your list all of those things you imagined
merely because you have reason to suspect their existence.
For example, I have a sister whose existence I have know about for all
of her life and most of mine (she is younger than I am). To put here on
such a list would be improper as I already have proof of her existence,
and do not have to imagine her.
So one should eliminate from that list AT LEAST everything whose
existence one has already experienced.
And shouldn't one eliminate everything for which one already has
experience of conclusive evidence of existence even if one has not
directly experienced it, such as one might get in a chemistry laboratory.
So that one might have evidence of the existence of elements which one
has never experienced as pure elements.
Desertphile
wrote:
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
> > New book examines the flawed human body
> > February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
>
> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on deliberate
> avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings, and the unsupported
> assumption of materialism.
Idiot.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net>:
>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:57:14 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Living beings continually do things that cause their future degradation.
>>So-called "genetic mistakes" are simply the accumulation of many bad
>>decisions over time by free-willed beings.
>
>did this idiot really say that genetics are affected by free willed
>decisions??
Yepper. That's why it only took him about a week to become a
permanent resident of my killfile, like Nando; he's even
stupider than Non-Seeing-Idiot and as illogical as Nando.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Burkhard
> "Kermit" <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Only if you lack both imagination and math skills. Pink unicorn in
football jersey with number 1 printed on the shirt. Pink unicorn in
football jersey with number 2 printed on the shirt. Pink unicorn in
football jersey with number 3 printed on the shirt. .... aleph zero.
Kalkidas
news:8adaf863-9e56-445d...@z17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On 13 Feb, 17:17, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "Kermit" <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
[snip]
>> > I would be more impressed if you were not arguing for the concrete
>> > reality of your favorite myths. We can all imagine stuff. Just
>> > because I can imagine being a superhero or very rich doesn't make it
>> > so.
>>
>> Here's an experiment: make a list of everything you can imagine, separate
>> the list into things which (you say) exist, and things which (you say) do
>> not exist. Examine the ratio. I think you will find that the number of
>> imaginable things which actually exist far outweighs the number of
>> imaginable things which do not.
>>
>> Therefore, do not be quick to dismiss imaginability as a poor indicator
>> of
>> existence.
>
> Only if you lack both imagination and math skills. Pink unicorn in
> football jersey with number 1 printed on the shirt. Pink unicorn in
> football jersey with number 2 printed on the shirt. Pink unicorn in
> football jersey with number 3 printed on the shirt. .... aleph zero.
Stop playing dumb.
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
He's not playing dumb. He's mocking your foolish claim.
David Hare-Scott
This does not get out of the bind at all.
Even if I accept that we chose to come here (which I see no evidence for)
this doesn't mean we chose to have catastrophes unless they were already
here and an unavoidable part of the package. This postulated excercise of
free will by humanity has nothing to do with the existence of natural
catastrophes.
But why were catastrophes already here? Either god is not responsible for
natural catastrophes and thus god is not all powerful or god is responsible
and thus she is not all good.
Which do you choose?
David
jillery
> Kalkidas wrote:
> > "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >news:hl5053$ctm$1...@news.albasani.net...
> >> Kalkidas wrote:
> >>>news:goWdnQpNINKjEujW...@earthlink.com...
> >>>> New book examines the flawed human body
> >>>> February 11th, 2010 in Biology / Evolution
>
> >>> Another version of the "straw man God" of Theodicy, based on
> >>> deliberate avoidance of the fact of free will in living beings, and
> >>> the unsupported assumption of materialism.
>
> >> Please explain how earthquakes, mudslides and hurricanes which cause
> >> huge death and misery for living things are a result of their free
> >> will. �Why does an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god allow them?
>
> > In the spiritual world, there are no such things. Some of us freely
> > chose to leave the spiritual world and come here, where such things
> > are commonplace. God allowed it because we wanted it. God respects
> > our freedom. Aren't you glad?
>
> This does not get out of the bind at all.
>
> Even if I accept that we chose to come here (which I see no evidence for)
> this doesn't mean we chose to have catastrophes unless they were already
> here and an unavoidable part of the package. �This postulated excercise of
> free will by humanity has nothing to do with the existence of natural
> catastrophes.
>
> But why were catastrophes already here? Either god is not responsible for
> natural catastrophes and thus god is not all powerful or god is responsible
> and thus she is not all good.
>
> Which do you choose?
Not that I agree with Kalkidas here, but there is a third option,
which is that natural catastrophes are not bad or evil. This of
course, depends on your definition of such things. My definition
doesn't apply subjective value judgements to inanimate events and
objects, but that's just me.
Kalkidas
>>> Please explain how earthquakes, mudslides and hurricanes which cause
>>> huge death and misery for living things are a result of their free
>>> will. Why does an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god allow them?
>>
>> In the spiritual world, there are no such things. Some of us freely
>> chose to leave the spiritual world and come here, where such things
>> are commonplace. God allowed it because we wanted it. God respects
>> our freedom. Aren't you glad?
>
> This does not get out of the bind at all.
>
> Even if I accept that we chose to come here (which I see no evidence for)
> this doesn't mean we chose to have catastrophes unless they were already
> here and an unavoidable part of the package. This postulated excercise of
> free will by humanity has nothing to do with the existence of natural
> catastrophes.
>
> But why were catastrophes already here? Either god is not responsible for
> natural catastrophes and thus god is not all powerful or god is
> responsible
> and thus she is not all good.
>
> Which do you choose?
I don't know who "god" is. Perhaps you could explain.
Virgil
wrote:
As he is playing by your own rules, if his play follows those rules and
produces dumb results, ....
bpuharic
the nice thing about the spiritual world is, since it doesn't exist,
it can be made to say whatever you want it to say.
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:22:57 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net>:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 11:57:14 -0700, "Kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Living beings continually do things that cause their future degradation.
>>>So-called "genetic mistakes" are simply the accumulation of many bad
>>>decisions over time by free-willed beings.
>>
>>did this idiot really say that genetics are affected by free willed
>>decisions??
>
>Yepper. That's why it only took him about a week to become a
>permanent resident of my killfile, like Nando; he's even
>stupider than Non-Seeing-Idiot and as illogical as Nando.
>
><snip>
he's impressive in his idiocy. even for a creationist
David Hare-Scott
The same as "God". The one you said allows humans freedom. The one who is
either not all good or not all powerful.
So choose.
David
Burkhard
> "Burkhard" <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
You mean: stop showing others how dumb my argument was? My production
rule very easily creates uncountably many things we can imagine which
are not real.
Kalkidas
And orders of magnitude more that you can imagine and which *are* real. That
was my point. What's the difficulty?
Kalkidas
Oh, you mean God. God is certainly omnipotent, which is why no matter how
much you want to blame Him, you'll never,ever, be strong enough to "bring
Him to justice". And God is all good, which is why no matter how much you
want to blame Him, He won't take offense, but will keep tolerating your
nonsense.