Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[Astrid]

I have no problem with the evidence. The interpretation, the philosophical speculation surrounding the origin of the evidence is another matter

'science[] such wholesale returns of conjecture, out of such a trifling investment of fact': Mark Twain



I'm not a creationist, far less a young earth creationist, but that explanation does provide more explanatory power than 'pure blind chance'

I'm well aware that it is a forbidden explanation under the confines of methodological naturalism. But we can also choose to remove the arbitrary restrictions and simply follow the scientific method wherever it leads.

Theists need no such arbitrary restrictions on naturalism- if you have a naturalistic explanation, let it compete on it's own merits- I have no problem with that.

Why do we have to explain over and over
and over that "pure blind chance" is not the
mechanism for evolution?

Would you listen if its explained again?

 

[Astrid]

You would need to alter ToE's claim that everything is originated by random chance

Not " pure blind"?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why do we have to explain over and over
and over that "pure blind chance" is not the
mechanism for evolution?

Would you listen if its explained again?

I agree, it's not, pure blind chance cannot explain evolution. Only Darwinism relies on chance.

 

[Bradskii]

Nah. I really don't care what assumptions about me you're willing to asperse.

If one tries to sound educated it can often fail. Case in point: If we take 'asperse' as defined as 'criticising the integrity of' (and I think that's possibly the first time I've seen it used as a verb) then it would be me criticising the integrity of you (which I wasn't doing in the first instance). But you've written that I'm criticising the integrity of my assumptions about you. Which makes no sense, in the second instance.

And the assumptions stand until refuted. Whether you care or not.

 

[Astrid]

I agree, it's not, pure blind chance cannot explain evolution. Only Darwinism relies on chance.

Relies solely on "chance"?

Can you identify anything that does in no way rely
on or involve "chance"? ( random / chaotic elements)

 

[Bradskii]

You would need to alter ToE's claim that everything is originated by random chance

The ToE doesn't claim that everything is originated by random chance. It's not a random process. So there's nothing to alter.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If one tries to sound educated it can often fail. Case in point: If we take 'asperse' as defined as 'criticising the integrity of' then it would be me criticising the integrity of you (which I wasn't doing in the first instance). But you've written that I'm criticising the integrity of my assumptions about you. Which makes no sense, in the second instance.

And the assumptions stand until refuted. Whether you care or not.

Point taken. I'll make sure to refer to your aspersions in a correct grammatical (and syntactical) manner next time.

But whatever. It's not as if we all have to assume your assumptions about me are legitmate. They're legitimate from your particular ethical framework; they may not be from others.

 

[Mr Laurier]

You would need to alter ToE's claim that everything is originated by random chance

Given that there is no such claim...

 

[Astrid]

If one tries to sound educated it can often fail. Case in point: If we take 'asperse' as defined as 'criticising the integrity of' then it would be me criticising the integrity of you (which I wasn't doing in the first instance). But you've written that I'm criticising the integrity of my assumptions about you. Which makes no sense, in the second instance.

And the assumptions stand until refuted. Whether you care or not.

Its not too hard to fake ignorance or stupidity.
Heck, people are often all to eager to think it!

Faking knowledge and intelligence though,
that is tough.
Someone smarter and better educated will
see through the ruse.
Whats really pathetic is someone who cant
admit to themselves they've been busted and
try to keep up the show.

 

[Astrid]

Given that there is no such claim...

Id like to see the origin of ( belief in) this claim

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Bradskii]

But whatever.

Much more natural...

It's not as if we all have to assume your assumptions about me are legitmate. They're legitimate from your particular ethical framework; they may not be from others.

We're not talking about my ethical framework. It's irrelevant. We're discussing yours. And like I said, you are free to dispute the assumptions made (and which were made because you haven't attempted to deny anything I've posted, so I'm left with no alternative).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Its not too hard to fake ignorance or stupidity.
Heck, people are often all to eager to think it!

Faking knowledge and intelligence though,
that is tough.
Someone smarter and better educated will
see through the ruse.
Whats really pathetic is someone who cant
admit to themselves they've been busted and
try to keep up the show.

It's good to know that I can come to you as an authority on these things, Estrid! That alleviates me from having to read any more books or to listen to any podcasts. You're one-stop shop presence is going to save me a lot of time and work from having to do my own thinking!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

" all have to assume" : D

You liked that irony, ay? Me, too.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The ToE doesn't claim that everything is originated by random chance. It's not a random process. So there's nothing to alter.

Its not too hard to fake ignorance or stupidity.
Heck, people are often all to eager to think it!

Faking knowledge and intelligence though,
that is tough.
Someone smarter and better educated will
see through the ruse.
Whats really pathetic is someone who cant
admit to themselves they've been busted and
try to keep up the show.

sticks and stones.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Much more natural...



We're not talking about my ethical framework. It's irrelevant. We're discussing yours. And like I said, you are free to dispute the assumptions made (and which were made because you haven't attempted to deny anything I've posted, so I'm left with no alternative).

No, no, no, no!. That's not how it works. If you're going to play tennis before a crowd, they need to see that you actually have a tennis racket in your hands to know that you're indeed playing with your opponent. When you discuss my view, it's an unspoken corrollory that you already have your own view that you're using to "play me."

So, where's your racket?

 

[Bradskii]

sticks and stones.

Estrid's post was not directed at you. But my heads-up on the evolutionary process was.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Given that there is no such claim...

Bear in mind that you can select exactly nothing into existence.
Natural selection, as any selection process, is a filtering process. You begin with a larger number of options, and end with a smaller one.

The Darwinian tree of life, and natural history, clearly depicts the opposite occurrence, and so we need to explain the origination process, not the selection process.

This has always been the key question, and only Darwinism posits pure blind chance, random mutation to answer it.

Hence blind chance is the defining characteristic of Darwinian theory.

 

[Bradskii]

No, no, no, no!. That's not how it works. If you're going to play tennis before a crowd, they need to see that you actually have a tennis racket in your hands to know that you're indeed playing with your opponent. When you discuss my view, it's an unspoken corrollory that you already have your own view that you're using to "play me."

So, where's your racket?

The question at hand doesn't concern me. I'm an atheist. So asking me on my views regarding the morality of someone I don't think exists is a non starter. But thanks for playing. You've nothing to add so we're done...

 

[Astrid]

sticks and stones.

? I wasnt thinking about you.

Or do you somehow think what I
said is not accurate?

Whats your prob?