eyeball Posted March 9, 2008 Report Posted March 9, 2008 Who's afraid of Darwin? Everyone Margaret Wente From Saturday's Globe and Mail Link In fact, the fight over Darwinism and its implications is very far from over. And in the next few years, social liberals will have as much or more to fear than the creationists. That's because the new fields of evolutionary biology and psychology and DNA mapping are yielding some uncomfortable truths about human nature.“The new sciences of human nature resonate with assumptions that historically were closer to the right than to the left,” writes MIT psychology professor Steven Pinker. “They undermine the Utopian outlook that until recently dominated large segments of intellectual life.” In other words, we aren't a blank slate after all. We're a product of our genes, and our genes predispose us to some behaviours that aren't very nice. Ethnocentrism, for example, isn't the product of a flawed society. It's hard-wired into the human race, and that means that group-against-group hostility comes far more naturally than peace and love. Dominance and violence (and patriarchy, alas) are universal, along with the genetic and neurological mechanisms that go with them. The point that Margaret Wente and Steven Pinker have missed is that morality, altruism and a utopian outlook are evolving because the traits that predispose us to not being nice are leading us down an evolutionary dead-end. I imagine the very first left-wingers were the monkeys that were brave enough to climb down to the ground to check it out. The right-wingers who of course are fearful of change climbed higher into the trees and screeched in protest. No doubt this screeching attracted lions which threatened the couragous leftys who in turn had to take responsibility for collectively adapting and evolving new survival traits. The rest of course is history, the right-wingers, who know how to spin a good thing when they see it, have tried to take the credit for all the good ideas ever since. Of course this hasn't stopped them from still screeching in protest in the face of every new change and slamming on the brakes and doing whatever it takes to limit change to a small percentage of an iota per increment. Some even suggest we should start backing up or at the very least move forward with our gaze fixed on the rearview mirror. I'd rather put my faith in evolution thanks. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
August1991 Posted March 10, 2008 Report Posted March 10, 2008 (edited) The point that Margaret Wente and Steven Pinker have missed is that morality, altruism and a utopian outlook are evolving because the traits that predispose us to not being nice are leading us down an evolutionary dead-end.I imagine the very first left-wingers were the monkeys that were brave enough to climb down to the ground to check it out. The right-wingers who of course are fearful of change climbed higher into the trees and screeched in protest. Wow! What a way to inject a political debate into a question of evolution!In fact, we wouldn't be having this discussion through computers or enjoy many of the other creature comforts if it weren't for self-interest (greed) judiciously applied. There are a few species (no more than ten or so - eg. bees and ants) which have evolved to create hierarchical cooperation. Humans achieve cooperation through the price mechanism. It's a wonder to behold and greater in some ways than Darwin's discovery. The idea that humans will evolve into cooperative beings is nonsensical. ---- Why does Darwin's big idea continue to inflame the passions? Prof. Ruse says the fight over evolution isn't really a dispute about the fossil record. It's about modernity itself. It's about gay marriage, capital punishment, abortion, cross-dressing, pornography and the breathless pace of social change. “The big mistake is to think the argument is about scientific issues. It's not. It's about social and cultural ones.”That's a very good point and confirms my experience too. North Americans are a product of the scientific method and the Enlightenment notwithstanding their opinions of evolution or Darwin. Many have their own strong sense of morality.---- Lastly, I am always amazed how Leftists deny the existence of God as a creator of the universe but readily imagine an All-Powerful State or Social Planner capable of organizing human affairs for the good of us all. I once started a thread on that very question. Edited March 10, 2008 by August1991 Quote
Brain Candy Posted March 11, 2008 Report Posted March 11, 2008 Interesting article, but, evolutionary dead end, in what way? I think the first ape to climb down from the trees was neither left or right in the modern sense, but he was both smarter and of higher spirit then the others, does eugenics have a place in your future? Quote Freedom- http://www.nihil.org/
Brain Candy Posted March 11, 2008 Report Posted March 11, 2008 (edited) Lastly, I am always amazed how Leftists deny the existence of God as a creator of the universe but readily imagine an All-Powerful State or Social Planner capable of organizing human affairs for the good of us all. I once started a thread on that very question. Its because modern western morals are essentially a religion without the symbols (though christians can still belong to it), its holy laws are as follows: -all men are created equal, even the dumb ones -all behaviours are equally valid, even the degenerate ones -it's everyones responsibility to help people who cant help themselves -societies should be multicultural, though eventually one culture will dominate the others -violent, undemocratic places should be bombed, invaded and given food and water Edited March 11, 2008 by Brain Candy Quote Freedom- http://www.nihil.org/
myata Posted March 12, 2008 Report Posted March 12, 2008 The idea that humans will evolve into cooperative beings is nonsensical. Humans didn't evolve into "cooperative beings". Their ancestors (i.e apes) were (and are) cooperative being long before they were anywhere near being called "humans". Lastly, I am always amazed how Leftists deny the existence of God as a creator of the universe but readily imagine an All-Powerful State or Social Planner capable of organizing human affairs for the good of us all. Perhaps, watching the creator of the universe doing nothing about people dying of hunger, or those sick of curable illnesses, or etc, inspired them to take matters into their own hands - i.e. collective cooperative hands of many individuals - and with much better success rate than that of a prayer shall we note - of course as long as it (the state) does not become "all powerful". Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
AngusThermopyle Posted March 12, 2008 Report Posted March 12, 2008 Their ancestors (i.e apes) were (and are) cooperative being long before they were anywhere near being called "humans". Like to back this one up? Jane wouldn't wholly agree with you. She has observed signs of co-operative behaviour amongst Apes, on the other hand she has also observed as many or more signs of non co-operative behaviour amongst them. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
Brain Candy Posted March 12, 2008 Report Posted March 12, 2008 (edited) But under what conditions are they cooperative? On the whole they are social and group animals, but there are different groups of them, and sometimes apes are shunned and kicked out of their group. Edited March 12, 2008 by Brain Candy Quote Freedom- http://www.nihil.org/
gc1765 Posted March 13, 2008 Report Posted March 13, 2008 Lastly, I am always amazed how Leftists deny the existence of God as a creator of the universe but readily imagine an All-Powerful State or Social Planner capable of organizing human affairs for the good of us all. Why are you amazed by that? God does not exist (well, probably not). The state does exist. Now, whether a God as a creator would be a good thing if it existed is a different question. I don't believe in unicorns, but that doesn't mean that I think unicorns are bad. Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
Brain Candy Posted March 13, 2008 Report Posted March 13, 2008 (edited) Why are you amazed by that?God does not exist (well, probably not). The state does exist. Now, whether a God as a creator would be a good thing if it existed is a different question. I don't believe in unicorns, but that doesn't mean that I think unicorns are bad. A creator could very well exist, but what real world implications does it have if one does or does not exist, because if the universe was created It also means the creator exists outside of it. This can only have meaning in Plato's ideas about pure forms or something similar. Secular religions very much exist when you think about it. Edited March 13, 2008 by Brain Candy Quote Freedom- http://www.nihil.org/
gc1765 Posted March 13, 2008 Report Posted March 13, 2008 A creator could very well exist, but what real world implications does it have if one does or does not exist, because if the universe was created It also means the creator exists outside of it. This can only have meaning in Plato's ideas about pure forms or something similar.Secular religions very much exist when you think about it. Huh? I'm confused. By the way, the Universe by definition would include God (it includes everything)... Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
AngusThermopyle Posted March 13, 2008 Report Posted March 13, 2008 By the way, the Universe by definition would include God (it includes everything)... Actually they strongly believe now that multiple universes exist. Would that mean that our universe contains all the other universes since it includes everything? Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
Drea Posted March 13, 2008 Report Posted March 13, 2008 Actually they strongly believe now that multiple universes exist. Would that mean that our universe contains all the other universes since it includes everything? you may want to change the word "believe" to "suspect"... They suspect that multiple universes may exist. Belief is for the faithful, not the scientist Quote ...jealous much? Booga Booga! Hee Hee Hee
gc1765 Posted March 13, 2008 Report Posted March 13, 2008 (edited) Actually they strongly believe now that multiple universes exist. Would that mean that our universe contains all the other universes since it includes everything? Yes. edit: compliments of Wikipedia (emphasis added): "The Universe is most commonly defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them." Edited March 13, 2008 by gc1765 Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
AngusThermopyle Posted March 13, 2008 Report Posted March 13, 2008 Belief is for the faithful, not the scientist wink.gif I can see what you are saying but I can also assure you that Scientists do in fact have beliefs, just as much as anyone else. As for the next post with its Wiki reference. It states "commonly", if you were to read some scientific periodicals that deal with the subject you would see that "commonly" is hardly on the cutting edge of scientific research. Just as the theories of dark matter, strong force weak force et al are hardly in the common public discourse. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
White Doors Posted March 13, 2008 Report Posted March 13, 2008 Yes.edit: compliments of Wikipedia (emphasis added): "The Universe is most commonly defined as everything that physically exists: the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter, energy and momentum, and the physical laws and constants that govern them." someone hasn't been reading up on their string theory! Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
GostHacked Posted March 13, 2008 Report Posted March 13, 2008 I can see what you are saying but I can also assure you that Scientists do in fact have beliefs, just as much as anyone else.As for the next post with its Wiki reference. It states "commonly", if you were to read some scientific periodicals that deal with the subject you would see that "commonly" is hardly on the cutting edge of scientific research. Just as the theories of dark matter, strong force weak force et al are hardly in the common public discourse. Much of science starts out as a notion or a kind of belief. They are refered to as 'theories'. Through scientific processes and elimination of some of the notions, you get a better picture. Many of these scientitsts have had their own beliefs changed due to the science not being able to support the theories. God has been in our lives for eons. Science is still a relativley new thing. And as our science and technology improves we are able to understand more of the universe. String theory was unheard of 100 years ago. But science is about unifying some theories. They tried to figure out how gravity works for large planetary masses and interactions between them, but those rules are thrown out the door when dealing with things on the atomic level. So there seemed to be two seperate rules for (in many ways) similar interactions between masses. Just because it is not shown all the time on TV does not mean there is no work being done on it. Many theories in science die because there is no proof to back them up. So they are abandoned. If we stopped science and just all believed in a god, then we would still be back in the stone ages. Thankfully for some guys that thought outside the box, led way to all the wonderful science and technology we have. http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/ And maybe .. it is possible and this I will admit, science may just end up proving the existence of a god. Quote
Brain Candy Posted March 13, 2008 Report Posted March 13, 2008 (edited) Huh? I'm confused.By the way, the Universe by definition would include God (it includes everything)... But if God created the universe, the universe could not be everything. Of course we could be stuck in a weird continuous time loop where God is both created in and then creates the universe, but how the hell can we deal with that! Edited March 13, 2008 by Brain Candy Quote Freedom- http://www.nihil.org/
gc1765 Posted March 13, 2008 Report Posted March 13, 2008 But if God created the universe, the universe could not be everything. God would have had to create Himself. Which is one reason why I don't believe in God. Or he didn't create the Universe, he created part of the Universe which includes everything except for Himself (in which case, what created God?). Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
Brain Candy Posted March 13, 2008 Report Posted March 13, 2008 God would have had to create Himself. Which is one reason why I don't believe in God. Or he didn't create the Universe, he created part of the Universe which includes everything except for Himself (in which case, what created God?). Probably through time being more messed up and open to manipulation then we think, maybe there is a huge Lovecraftian outerdimensional pantheon? Its interesting to think about but its hard to apply to existence, or at least what we know about existence now. Quote Freedom- http://www.nihil.org/
guyser Posted March 14, 2008 Report Posted March 14, 2008 Considering the earth is now about 13 billion years old +/- 120 million years , I will stick with evolution. (new study=13 B yrs old not 4 as previously stated) Quote
eyeball Posted March 14, 2008 Author Report Posted March 14, 2008 What new study? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
guyser Posted March 14, 2008 Report Posted March 14, 2008 What new study? I read it today on another forum, but they have over a 1000 active topics....yes yes I know I should have it handy. Give me some time to find it. Quote
kengs333 Posted March 14, 2008 Report Posted March 14, 2008 I read it today on another forum, but they have over a 1000 active topics....yes yes I know I should have it handy. Give me some time to find it. LOL. Yeah, yeah--whatever... Quote
charter.rights Posted March 14, 2008 Report Posted March 14, 2008 (edited) Considering the earth is now about 13 billion years old +/- 120 million years , I will stick with evolution. (new study=13 B yrs old not 4 as previously stated) ah...but the spark in the primordial soup that created biological life is still a miracle worthy of there being a God behind it all.... Thinking is limited. Knowing only comes from the limitation of thinking. So at the end of the day what is known is minor. What is unknown is God. No one has to prove God just like no one needs to prove the unknown. But once experienced, both God and the unknown become the spark in our lives.... Edited March 14, 2008 by charter.rights Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
kengs333 Posted March 14, 2008 Report Posted March 14, 2008 Considering the earth is now about 13 billion years old +/- 120 million years , I will stick with evolution. (new study=13 B yrs old not 4 as previously stated) You know, guyser, the previous estimate of "4 billion" has nothing to do with age, rather is the age of the oldest known rock... Whatever the case, regardless of how many billions of years old (LOL) people think the Earth is, it still doesn't disprove the existence of God or his creation of the Earth. Of course there are some idiots out there who think that all Christians subscribe to Bishop Ussher's fanciful calculation of 4004BC, even though the Bible do not state when the act of creation occurred. Personally, I don't concern myself with the issue because it has no relevance to the fact that God does exist. Try to remember that for the next time you falsely ascribe to me opinions that I don't hold. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.