Hi there,
So as you will probably be aware, there is a serious problem with the moral disconnect between what people accept as science and what they think it means. There is no sense in which you are expected to behave a certain way, because of the idea that we all become green monkeys once the sun turns purple because that is what selection favours. In fact, selection could favour anything and people would say, "well, that's Evolution, so what?" It's a big moral problem.
The place this moral problem is clearest is perhaps in what you say. It stands to reason that if mutation is how we progress, then theoretically someone can say anything they like (don't try, this board has rules) and it will be deemed ok, since they are probably closer to an adaptation that will help them, even everybody. This is the thinking. The problem is that you obviously can't say everything you like, and if you try you will undoubtedly exhaust yourself well and truly before you ever get anywhere.
There was actually some work done that proved this actually. Reported on Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, a scientist actually described how, if you try to create a chessboard randomly, it would take literally gazillions of attempts before you got it right. That was until you actually created a heuristic that simplified the process somewhat and so arrived at the chessboard by compromise. What this demonstrates is that even a simple person can see that the premise of just saying anything is wrong, yet the problem remains how to convince an Evolutionist that they therefore have to address their theory morally.
The situation is actually that you have a reason to believe some restraint is necessary and a theory that says no restraint matters and a moral imperative to work out what the difference is and how to negotiate it. That is essentially the problem I am putting to you. The reason you will find it difficult is that no one can control their tongue as a man, even at the best of times and that necessarily means relying on what someone else has said, in order to make your point.
So the question is this: if mutation requires free reign and successful Evolution requires restraint, how do you reconcile the two?
And what does this mean for free speech?
So as you will probably be aware, there is a serious problem with the moral disconnect between what people accept as science and what they think it means. There is no sense in which you are expected to behave a certain way, because of the idea that we all become green monkeys once the sun turns purple because that is what selection favours. In fact, selection could favour anything and people would say, "well, that's Evolution, so what?" It's a big moral problem.
The place this moral problem is clearest is perhaps in what you say. It stands to reason that if mutation is how we progress, then theoretically someone can say anything they like (don't try, this board has rules) and it will be deemed ok, since they are probably closer to an adaptation that will help them, even everybody. This is the thinking. The problem is that you obviously can't say everything you like, and if you try you will undoubtedly exhaust yourself well and truly before you ever get anywhere.
There was actually some work done that proved this actually. Reported on Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, a scientist actually described how, if you try to create a chessboard randomly, it would take literally gazillions of attempts before you got it right. That was until you actually created a heuristic that simplified the process somewhat and so arrived at the chessboard by compromise. What this demonstrates is that even a simple person can see that the premise of just saying anything is wrong, yet the problem remains how to convince an Evolutionist that they therefore have to address their theory morally.
The situation is actually that you have a reason to believe some restraint is necessary and a theory that says no restraint matters and a moral imperative to work out what the difference is and how to negotiate it. That is essentially the problem I am putting to you. The reason you will find it difficult is that no one can control their tongue as a man, even at the best of times and that necessarily means relying on what someone else has said, in order to make your point.
So the question is this: if mutation requires free reign and successful Evolution requires restraint, how do you reconcile the two?
And what does this mean for free speech?
