Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[2PhiloVoid]

So no response to the answer. In which case I'm left with making assumptions based on your posts. You can correct them as you see fit.

Have you come to any conclusions yet as to which of your assumptions are going to stick? Or do I need to read some A.C. Grayling to figure out what you're implying?

I can't correct you as I see fit... until I see what your assumptions are.

Either way, you're still offering a non-sequitur about "how" folks apply biblical content to their lives and deliberations, or at least a contingent one at best. The complication here to your thinking is that, from my angle of things, the Hermenuetic Circle remains as an interpretive principle when reading the Bible (or any "text" for that matter) despite the level of one's mental acuity or mental health. We might take this point of mine into firm consideration before jumping to further conclusions about conceptual applications of the biblical books.

So far, all I see from you are conclusions mostly applying to the way in which a full-blown schizophrenic might read the Great Flood tale and then think that he has somehow received ....**GASP!!!***...... a Divine Imperative to go and do likewise.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The premise of Eugenics was explicitly based on Darwinist beliefs.
It unfortunately helped usher in some of the worst horrors of the 20th C.

Despite this I would never equate Darwinists with any of that today- the science has moved on.

It used to be believed that we were all still constantly evolving, drifting apart- each new generation representing a new 'baseline' for future generations. Some took this as a 'justification' for intervening in the human gene pool to 'improve it's quality'

I think we all fortunately have a greater understanding today, we are all 100% human- genes merely represent a list of genetic options- we are not evolving into anything other than more humans, as dogs remain dogs, bacteria remain bacteria.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The premise of Eugenics was explicitly based on Darwinist beliefs.
It unfortunately helped usher in some of the worst horrors of the 20th C.

Despite this I would never equate Darwinists with any of that today- the science has moved on.

It used to be believed that we were all still constantly evolving, drifting apart- each new generation representing a new 'baseline' for future generations. Some took this as a 'justification' for intervening in the human gene pool to 'improve it's quality'

I think we all fortunately have a greater understanding today, we are all 100% human- genes merely represent a list of genetic options- we are not evolving into anything other than more humans, as dogs remain dogs, bacteria remain bacteria.

It's a sad truth that just about any teaching, idea, or principle can be twisted by unscrupulous people to justify or excuse any sort of atrocity.

PS... love the username... but you fight like a dairy farmer.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's a sad truth that just about any teaching, idea, or principle can be twisted by unscrupulous people to justify or excuse any sort of atrocity.

agreed

PS... love the username... but you fight like a dairy farmer.

How appropriate. You fight like a cow!

 

[AV1611VET]

agreed

What's sad though, is you can't get people to admit that the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Witch hunts were done in spite of the Bible, not with respect to It.

I've even been called a hypocrite for not having slaves.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What's sad though, is you can't get people to admit that the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Witch hunts were done in spite of the Bible, not with respect to It.

I've even been called a hypocrite for not having slaves.

I think there is some irony, where we can recognize certain past atrocities committed by Christians- from the perspective of a culture today that is in practice still heavily influenced by Christianity.

Before Christianity, Rome was arguably the most advanced, influential civilization on Earth, yet watching innocent people being ripped to pieces was considered the height of public entertainment, sex slaves were a status symbol, elsewhere sacrifice was a routine integral part of many religions, and I'm including my own ancestors in that.

We take it so much for granted today, it's hard to imagine when 'do unto others..' was something of a novel concept.

 

[AV1611VET]

Before Christianity, Rome was arguably the most advanced, influential civilization on Earth, yet watching innocent people being ripped to pieces was considered the height of public entertainment, sex slaves were a status symbol, elsewhere sacrifice was a routine integral part of many religions, and I'm including my own ancestors in that.

God is going to put an end to all this "entertainment" soon.

 

[essentialsaltes]

....and the Witch hunts were done in spite of the Bible, not with respect to It.

Unlike science, the Bible does instruct people how to behave.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unlike science, the Bible does instruct people how to behave.

I'll tell you what I tell others:

You find me a bona fide witch, put her through due process, and if a righteous judge deems her guilty of death ... not some collegiate wannabe ... but a righteous judge, bring her to me, and I'll witness to her.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Unlike science, the Bible does instruct people how to behave.

'follow the science'

Has certainly been used to instruct behavior, especially in atheist states like USSR, PRC etc

Both are open to interpretation to some extent, which can lead to disastrous results in the hands of the wrong people. But we at least have separation of church and state, not so much for science..

 

[AV1611VET]

'follow the science'

Has certainly been used to instruct behavior, especially in atheist states like USSR, PRC etc

Yup.

And those that didn't follow the science ... well ...

You can read the posts around here.

Not following science breeds hostility.

So you can imaging what a hostile technocracy is capable of doing to those who speak theocracy.

 

[essentialsaltes]

'follow the science'

Science does give us one way to know things and know about things. But science alone doesn't tell us what to do with this knowledge; it does not lead anywhere if you follow it. It can be put to wicked ends or virtuous ones. Or ignored. But the wickedness or virtue is in the user, not the tool.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Science does give us one way to know things and know about things. But science alone doesn't tell us what to do with this knowledge; it does not lead anywhere if you follow it. It can be put to wicked ends or virtuous ones. Or ignored. But the wickedness or virtue is in the user, not the tool.

I think we agree then; science does not, in and of itself, lead to morality. It can be used for good or evil, and we are given the free will to make that choice.

The Bible does say something about using your own personal faith to make that choice.

But as 'VET' touches on- rejecting faith, belief, and claiming 'undeniable scientific fact' breeds hostility towards anyone who dissents.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But as 'VET' touches on- rejecting faith, belief, and claiming 'scientific fact' breeds hostility towards anyone who dissents.

I suppose it does in some, but no more than the other way around, I deem.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I suppose it does in some, but no more than the other way around, I deem.

excellent case in point

Declaring evolution to be 'undeniable fact', means that skeptics are by definition 'deniers of fact' -
irrational axe wielding maniacs who wish to destroy among other things 'Hard Rock' according to the graphic.
As an Iron Maiden fan I refute this accusation!

 

[essentialsaltes]

excellent case in point

Declaring evolution to be 'undeniable fact', means that skeptics are by definition 'deniers of fact' -
irrational axe wielding maniacs who wish to destroy among other things 'Hard Rock' according to the graphic.
As an Iron Maiden fan I refute this accusation!

The graphic was designed, I believe, by the Pittsburgh Creation Society. They considered themselves to be the axe-wielders directing their hostile attacks upon the science they rejected.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The graphic was designed, I believe, by the Pittsburgh Creation Society. They considered themselves to be the axe-wielders directing their hostile attacks upon the science they rejected.

Yes, sorry I was kidding a little..

I'm not a creationist but I think there are some valid concerns there. As mentioned earlier in this thread, eugenics was explicitly based on a belief in 'fundamentalist' Darwinism, where the human genome was blowing in the evolutionary wind - needing government intervention to 'save humanity'. There are certain obvious implications of a purely materialistic/accidental v purpose driven existence, and I agree some can be detrimental.

We all believe in something but this is not an even playing field- You have state education teaching Darwinism/materialism as essentially 'undeniable fact' on one hand, and literally forbidding dissent on the other- rather than letting ideas compete on their own merits.

 

[SelfSim]

What I don't get is the unstated need to hold beliefs in either Evolution, or one religion (or another)?

It seems tightly held beliefs are the actual source of any hostilities .. and not what the respective topics present?

 

[SelfSim]

... We all believe in something but this is not an even playing field- You have state education teaching Darwinism/materialism as essentially 'undeniable fact' on one hand, and literally forbidding dissent on the other- rather than letting ideas compete on their own merits.

The key therefore, is the ability to distinguish believed 'truths' from objective reality.
If one is armed with such a mental skill, then beliefs become optional and a matter of free choice, rather than forced impositions (by self, or by external so-called 'authorities').

 

[essentialsaltes]

As mentioned earlier in this thread, eugenics was explicitly based on a belief in 'fundamentalist' Darwinism

That may have been mentioned, but it is not true. I'm not sure what 'fundamentalist' Darwinism is, but if it is anything, it is a strict adherence to the science, which does not instruct people on what to do or how to act.

You have state education teaching Darwinism/materialism as essentially 'undeniable fact' on one hand

No, it is being taught as factually-based science, as there are no available scientific alternatives to the theory.