Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[BCP1928]

Yes, you hit upon the mark. I commend you for sticking it through momentarily to reach this realization about folks like Nietzsche and Marx.

So, you get an "A" on this first assignment.

They don't need it, but as I alluded to earlier, we live in a world and time where people are amply MIS-learning the ToE and it ends up, whether by hook or crook, being the wedge that drives them away from their earlier faith. It doesn't have to happen that way, but it does often enough every day.

Is that your point? I think you need to be less equivocal about what 'they' are being driven from and why. The theory of evolution, either as a theory of science or misapplied as a theory of politics cannot of it self drive a person away from faith, only from theology. And it turns out that the theology of Evangelical Protestantism is vulnerable on both fronts.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is that your point? I think you need to be less equivocal about what 'they' are being driven from and why. The theory of evolution, either as a theory of science or misapplied as a theory of politics cannot of it self drive a person away from faith, only from theology. And it turns out that the theology of Evangelical Protestantism is vulnerable on both fronts.

Have you ever been immersed within the evangelical/fundamentalist church social contexts? Or have you only and ever been socialized within Traditional Church settings (like Anglicanism)?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is that your point? I think you need to be less equivocal about what 'they' are being driven from and why. The theory of evolution, either as a theory of science or misapplied as a theory of politics cannot of it self drive a person away from faith, only from theology. And it turns out that the theology of Evangelical Protestantism is vulnerable on both fronts.

Firstly, I find your conceptual partitioning of "faith" from "theology" to be a little on the ambiguous side of things and as such, also a bit on the side of providing less than an explanation.

Secondly, the ToE definitely CAN be a wedge that separates a person from finding or maintaining faith in any religion. I am one such specimen of that experience, and I've done enough basic research to understand the why and how of such alienation from religion (or from Christianity in general, of whatever denominational stripe). Some of this cause to doubt can be seen in works like Vernon W. Grant's old book, The Roots of Religious Doubt, among others that can be cited along with the fact that both Darwin and Captain Fitzroy, each in their own way, were severely challenged by what they found during their travels aboard Fitzroy's ship, the HMS Beagle.

Sure, you're right to imply that the ToE doesn't affect EVERYONE in this way, but because of the conceptual tensions inherent within the issues, the ToE has a tendency to undercut one's ability to place credence in some dusty, ancient religious writings, particularly when the findings of Archaeology, Paleontology, Anthropology and Genetics are added to Biology.

So, let's not say "cannot."

 

[BCP1928]

Have you ever been immersed within the evangelical/fundamentalist church social contexts? Or have you only and ever been socialized within Traditional Church settings (like Anglicanism)?

I grew up in a Traditional Church setting in a part of the country which was largely free of Evangelical influence and at a time when Evanglicals had not yet become as publically active as they are today. We knew about them, of course, and understood they had strange beliefs of some kind. My parents used to send me to vacation Bible schools and one summer the Episcopal Church didn't have one so I was sent to the Methodist's instead. The Methodist pastor had done what many churches do, and hired an itinerant couple to run it (That's how Jim and Tammy Faye, and I believe Mr. Rogers got their start.) Unfortunately he hadn't vetted them very well and the result was hilarious. When I got home from the first day and told my mom all I had learned about something called the Rapture and the Millenium she was on the phone at once (along with other mothers, I imagine) Vacation Bible School was forthwith cancelled and the poor Methodist pastor was teased about it for years after. But it was not until I was just graduating from (an RC) college that The Genesis Flood came out as a part of Fundamentalist Evangelicalsim becoming political. I read the book and my reaction was "They believe what about the Bible? Why?" I still don't know why. As to socialization, I moved to a part of the country which is now openly run by an armed fundamentalist Christian militia with the connivance of the county government. Even when I lived there it was considered good sport to set dogs on Jehovah's Witness canvassers and some were severely injured. The Sheriff wouldn't take a report because he belonged to the fundamentalist megachurch whose pastor encouraged it. I was a machinist then, working in a shop where I had to tell the owner that I was a Christian in order to get the job. When he found out I was an Episcopalian he fired me for lying to him. But anyone who has lived in the rural part of the Bible Belt will have stories like that. Now that Trump is in office perhaps more urban Americans will have them as well. Sill, justifying their aspiration for political power with the literal inerrancy of Scripture doesn't seem to be quite why they started to believe it in the first place.

 

[BCP1928]

Sure, you're right to imply that the ToE doesn't affect EVERYONE in this way, but because of the conceptual tensions inherent within the issues, the ToE has a tendency to undercut one's ability to place credence in some dusty, ancient religious writings, particularly when the findings of Archaeology, Paleontology, Anthropology and Genetics are added to Biology.

So, let's not say "cannot."

Let's just say that if that's what the theory of evolution does then it is a blessing to the Christian faith.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I see I stand corrected.


Or maybe Dawkins has learned a few things since then, just as has Jerry Coyne and Stephen Pinker, and he's trying to play "gingerly" since there's a new smackdown taking place in "progress"?

That he entertained the "race/intelligence" question seriously given how nearly impossible it is to quanitfy intellegence in the first place, was just a demonstration of how much his politics overrides his use of the science (and his decency). Dawkins *knows* that "differential intelligence" is virtually impossible (if not actually impossible) to measure and yet he allows the question to linger. Beyond this illustration, my main point was on the "end of human evolution", a claim for which Dawkins accedes with out any backing evidence. This is the more important question, the application of evolution by humans to humans.

On another note, since you mentioned something about humanity not being required "to apply the mechanisms of evolution" for self-improvement, I take it that you see folks like Ray Kurzweil as cranks?

I have no idea who that is.

What I found most disturbing about that clip was notion that to improve humanity we need to apply the same brutal conditions that natural selection uses. In the wild, those that pass on their genes are the ones lucky enough to survive the conditions of the environment. If the environment changes rapidly the number of survivors in each generation may be small (or zero) and change can be rapid. In other times "excess births" result in some that die from lack of resource.

We do not live under those conditions. Humanity can feed its population. It can keep most alive until senescence with medical technology, and those who reproduce are those who choose to do so (mostly). The traditional natural selection pressures don't directly affect us. There are those who think humanity has stagnated and needs to apply some selection to move forward. They believe in their own superiority over others and want to at least prevent the "lesser" from reproducing and in extreme cases, living. They disgust me. Nothing about how evolution through natural selection function requires this. Even if a global engineering of humanity is "needed" there are other ways other than mass sterilization or murder.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What I found most disturbing about that clip was notion that to improve humanity we need to apply the same brutal conditions that natural selection uses. In the wild, those that pass on their genes are the ones lucky enough to survive the conditions of the environment. If the environment changes rapidly the number of survivors in each generation may be small (or zero) and change can be rapid. In other times "excess births" result in some that die from lack of resource.

We do not live under those conditions. Humanity can feed its population. It can keep most alive until senescence with medical technology, and those who reproduce are those who choose to do so (mostly). The traditional natural selection pressures don't directly affect us. There are those who think humanity has stagnated and needs to apply some selection to move forward. They believe in their own superiority over others and want to at least prevent the "lesser" from reproducing and in extreme cases, living. They disgust me. Nothing about how evolution through natural selection function requires this. Even if a global engineering of humanity is "needed" there are other ways other than mass sterilization or murder.

This is the main problem with 'social Darwinism' is that it really does not understand how evolution and natural selection works.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yeah. It sort of is because not everyone sees the practicality or the justification for using Methodological Naturalism as the assumed modus operandi, right. On a certain level, it is a philosophical choice to do so where science is concerned.

Obviously. Paul the Apostle, and I think Jesus too, would agree with your epistemologically laced statement here.

I agree. You have no clear obligation to do it.

Well, Hans, as an apologist, I'm concerned for the fact that I see Christians falling away from the faith every day for exactly this reason (which is one of several reasons, really, rather than the only one).

It is useful to know that you are approaching this as an appologist, but I'm not sure what good that does the conversation. I'll put it in an SAT question format you'll understand:

Appologetics are to science as:


E, Starships are to God.

Not that you need be concerned over whatever sympathy pains I have for people and for what I think is leading them on in life for the worse.


It's really not irrelevant, and you're showing here that it isn't irrelevant. It's all politics; in fact, it always has been and it always will be, ultimately.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is the main problem with 'social Darwinism' is that it really does not understand how evolution and natural selection works.

I'm not sure about "main problem", but it is certainly a foundational problem it has. (The moral problems seem at least as bad.)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not sure about "main problem", but it is certainly a foundational problem it has. (The moral problems seem at least as bad.)

I call it the main problem if it's the foundational problem.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Let's just say that if that's what the theory of evolution does then it is a blessing to the Christian faith.

Maybe, but some of how we view this will depend on which interdisciplinary slice of the whole social assessment we choose to eat.

 

[River Jordan]

Yeah. It sort of is because not everyone sees the practicality or the justification for using Methodological Naturalism as the assumed modus operandi, right. On a certain level, it is a philosophical choice to do so where science is concerned.

Then those people need to go and conduct a different type of science under their preferred method and show how it gets better results. If they don't then they're just engaging in empty rock throwing.

Well, Hans, as an apologist, I'm concerned for the fact that I see Christians falling away from the faith every day for exactly this reason (which is one of several reasons, really, rather than the only one).

Who's telling them they have to choose between science and Christianity? Where are they getting that idea?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I grew up in a Traditional Church setting in a part of the country which was largely free of Evangelical influence and at a time when Evanglicals had not yet become as publically active as they are today. We knew about them, of course, and understood they had strange beliefs of some kind. My parents used to send me to vacation Bible schools and one summer the Episcopal Church didn't have one so I was sent to the Methodist's instead. The Methodist pastor had done what many churches do, and hired an itinerant couple to run it (That's how Jim and Tammy Faye, and I believe Mr. Rogers got their start.) Unfortunately he hadn't vetted them very well and the result was hilarious. When I got home from the first day and told my mom all I had learned about something called the Rapture and the Millenium she was on the phone at once (along with other mothers, I imagine) Vacation Bible School was forthwith cancelled and the poor Methodist pastor was teased about it for years after.

I agree that a number of things evangelicals teach about Eschatology are questionable, but at the same time, I'm not going to pretend that Eschatology is solely within the purview and jurisdiction of any one denomination or that any opinions others hold about it can just be blithely dismissed wholesale.

But it was not until I was just graduating from (an RC) college that The Genesis Flood came out as a part of Fundamentalist Evangelicalsim becoming political. I read the book and my reaction was "They believe what about the Bible? Why?" I still don't know why. As to socialization, I moved to a part of the country which is now openly run by an armed fundamentalist Christian militia with the connivance of the county government. Even when I lived there it was considered good sport to set dogs on Jehovah's Witness canvassers and some were severely injured. The Sheriff wouldn't take a report because he belonged to the fundamentalist megachurch whose pastor encouraged it. I was a machinist then, working in a shop where I had to tell the owner that I was a Christian in order to get the job. When he found out I was an Episcopalian he fired me for lying to him. But anyone who has loved in the rural part of the Bible Belt will have stories like that. Now that Trump is in office perhaps more urban Americans will have them as well. Sill, justifying their aspiration for political power with the literal inerrancy of Scripture doesn't seem to be quite why they started to believe it in the first place.

I'm sorry you had to go through those difficulties at the hands of some obvious 'bad actors.' As we both know, Power often corrupts and attempts to sideline other people in the most inhumane of ways. It's sickening to see this sort of thing taking place at the hands of "Christians," wherever and whenever that might be.

 

[BCP1928]

Maybe, but some of how we view this will depend on which interdisciplinary slice of the whole social assessment we choose to eat.

Of course we could also say that those who are vulnerable to losing their faith because of science or even to attacks on it using (or misusing) science have been wrongly instructed. I have no sympathy for their instructors and see no need to defend them or apologize for them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is useful to know that you are approaching this as an appologist, but I'm not sure what good that does the conversation. I'll put it in an SAT question format you'll understand:

Appologetics are to science as:


E, Starships are to God.

Of course I'm approaching this as an apologist. It's just not the form anyone expects or that evangelicals typically use. This is nothing new for me.

And your micro-lampooning of what it is you "think" I mean by it shows me have far off you are from knowing my mind on these things, or on my view of science.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That he entertained the "race/intelligence" question seriously given how nearly impossible it is to quanitfy intellegence in the first place, was just a demonstration of how much his politics overrides his use of the science (and his decency). Dawkins *knows* that "differential intelligence" is virtually impossible (if not actually impossible) to measure and yet he allows the question to linger. Beyond this illustration, my main point was on the "end of human evolution", a claim for which Dawkins accedes with out any backing evidence. This is the more important question, the application of evolution by humans to humans.

I have no idea who that is.

What I found most disturbing about that clip was notion that to improve humanity we need to apply the same brutal conditions that natural selection uses. In the wild, those that pass on their genes are the ones lucky enough to survive the conditions of the environment. If the environment changes rapidly the number of survivors in each generation may be small (or zero) and change can be rapid. In other times "excess births" result in some that die from lack of resource.

We do not live under those conditions. Humanity can feed its population. It can keep most alive until senescence with medical technology, and those who reproduce are those who choose to do so (mostly). The traditional natural selection pressures don't directly affect us. There are those who think humanity has stagnated and needs to apply some selection to move forward. They believe in their own superiority over others and want to at least prevent the "lesser" from reproducing and in extreme cases, living. They disgust me. Nothing about how evolution through natural selection function requires this. Even if a global engineering of humanity is "needed" there are other ways other than mass sterilization or murder.

And I think I agree with what you're generally assessing here. Thanks for doing some of my **ahem** "apologetics" work for me.

 

[BCP1928]

I agree that a number of things evangelicals teach about Eschatology are questionable, but at the same time, I'm not going to pretend that Eschatology is solely within the purview and jurisdiction of any one denomination or that any opinions others hold about it can just be blithely dismissed wholesale.


I'm sorry you had to go through those difficulties at the hands of some obvious 'bad actors.' As we both know, Power often corrupts and attempts to sideline other people in the most inhumane of ways. It's sickening to see this sort of thing taking place at the hands of "Christians," wherever and whenever that might be.

The "No true Scotsman" defense is not credible in the case where "bad actors" are driven by doctrine.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The "No true Scotsman" defense is not credible in the case where "bad actors" are driven by doctrine.

One could call it a... 'bad faith' explanation?

I'll see myself out.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The "No true Scotsman" defense is not credible in the case where "bad actors" are driven by doctrine.

Who said that I was referring to the No True Scotsman fallacy by my use of 'bad actors'? Maybe stop assuming you can anticipate me. I'm cut from a completely different cloth than I think many here assume that I am.

Here's my clarification: Bad actors can sometimes be what we might call "politically delusional" Christians.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then those people need to go and conduct a different type of science under their preferred method and show how it gets better results. If they don't then they're just engaging in empty rock throwing.

I think we already know that they "try" and don't get anywhere with it other than to publish a few books on their favored topics.

Who's telling them they have to choose between science and Christianity? Where are they getting that idea?

Their churches are tell them this; and this often comprises their pastors, their favored denominational apologists, and maybe their mommies and daddies, too.

Fortunately, I've never had to suffer in that way.