Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[jonathan180iq]

Darwin read his cousin's work with interest, and devoted sections ofDescent of Manto discussion of Galton's theories.

Sir Isaac Newton dabbled in the occult and spent many years of his life studying and practicing alchemy... Does the fact that he devoted a lot of time to ridiculous ideas mean that his discoveries in physics are a hoax or that calculus isn't a real math anymore?

Isaac Newton's occult studies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since Newton's personal and professional shortcomings had no effect on his overall contribution to knowledge, what does it matter if a 19th Century Scientist shared a few idiotic 19th Century ideas with his peers? Like Newton, the main body of Darwin's work is not affected by his personal shortcomings... Admittedly, there are a lot of things about evolution that Darwin didn't understand of that he simply got wrong. But who cares?

 

[JM2C]

You know we are currently living in the year 2015, right? What schools are promoting eugenics in 2015?

Eugenics is very well alive today. Eugenics is the same as human genetics.

Arthur Dyck, a professor of ethics at Harvard, wrote the following: "Science, medicine and law at present willingly provide the information, rationale, and technical know-how for current eugenic practices in the United States, some of them quite coercive and arguably unethical… Eugenics is not simply a matter of history. Eugenics is practiced today… [and] the very ideas and concepts that informed and motivated German physicians and the Nazi state are in place."

Would you adopt a baby without checking the health and the mental background of the parent first?
Based on prenatal diagnosis a baby with a genetic condition, would you abort the baby?

 

[leibowde84]

It is bound by law, the availabe options are described by a probability distribution. Meaning as per law of nature, the electron can't turn up outside it. But within this scope it can turn up any place, one moment to the next.

You are youself making an error in reasoning. You presume all must be forced, unless there is evidence that it is free. But of course you have no warrant for the presumption that it is forced. And the available evidence points to that it is free, simply by observing one moment to the next, it is unpredictable where the electron ends up within the possibilities described by the probability distrubtion. That is reasonable evidence that it is free.

And you are obviously ideologically opposed to subjectivity. You reject subjectivity, and this is why you counter any finding of freedom found in nature.

I don't assume anything without sufficient reasoning and I don't think our limitations in scientific reasoning should lead to an assumption that photons move randomly. Maybe we will find that out someday, but I fail to see why we should make any assumption about it currently.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Sir Isaac Newton dabbled in the occult and spent many years of his life studying and practicing alchemy... Does the fact that he devoted a lot of time to ridiculous ideas mean that his discoveries in physics are a hoax or that calculus isn't a real math anymore?

Isaac Newton's occult studies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since Newton's personal and professional shortcomings had no effect on his overall contribution to knowledge, what does it matter if a 19th Century Scientist shared a few idiotic 19th Century ideas with his peers? Like Newton, the main body of Darwin's work is not affected by his personal shortcomings... Admittedly, there are a lot of things about evolution that Darwin didn't understand of that he simply got wrong. But who cares?

Alchemy is of course perfectly valid in principle. It is possible to change one substance to another substance, because all the substances are made from the same buildingblocks. And presently they did make a limited amount of gold from another substance than gold.

Darwin's error of confusing ought with is, making good and evil into a scientific fact, kills science. It is the anti-thesis of science, as well it provides for horrid ideology. And it is no coincedence that he did this. In his work Darwin systematically went out of his way to try to remove the spirit creating in regards to origins. And incorporating morality into science was just one more way that he could remove the spirit. Social darwinism was part of his main agenda.

And we can see today in China social darwinism is still vastly popular on account of Darwin's theories, even after the holocaust. And any evolutionist you ask today, they all say they can deal with morality, what is good and evil, without reference to the human spirit. They are all social darwinists, none of them attributes the goodness or evil of a man to the spirit choosing, but in stead they attribute goodness and evil to genetics, brainchemistry, actions in relation to the environment, which are all objectively measurable.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Eugenics is very well alive today. Eugenics is the same as human genetics.

Arthur Dyck, a professor of ethics at Harvard, wrote the following: "Science, medicine and law at present willingly provide the information, rationale, and technical know-how for current eugenic practices in the United States, some of them quite coercive and arguably unethical… Eugenics is not simply a matter of history. Eugenics is practiced today… [and] the very ideas and concepts that informed and motivated German physicians and the Nazi state are in place."

I think it's better to read whole articles, instead of just taking out parts that fit our perspective, isn't it?

Genetics in Medicine - Is modern genetics the new eugenics?

The remaining 4,693 words in this article explain why Dyck's claims of Eugenics in modern genetics is junk.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't assume anything without sufficient reasoning and I don't think our limitations in scientific reasoning should lead to an assumption that photons move randomly. Maybe we will find that out someday, but I fail to see why we should make any assumption about it currently.

All you say is perfidity. When that is not reasonable evidence that an electron is free, then by the same token there is no reasonable evidence that a human being can vote left or right. Actually the freedom in regards to electrons is much better evidenced than freedom of human beings. Except electrons have no autonomy, left to themselves, the electron simply remains in an undecided state, and it is not in any particular position around the atom.

All of what you said to agree on, that it is important to know how things are decided in the universe, that things can turn out several different ways, that a decision is to make a posibility the present or not. All what you said were lies.

 

[David M]

Actually eugenics was Francis Galton’s theory, i.e., after the origin of species and not before. “Eugenics was put forth by Darwin's cousin,Francis Galton, in 1865 and 1869. Galton argued that just as physical traits were clearly inherited among generations of people, so could be said for mental qualities (genius and talent). Galton argued that social mores needed to change so that heredity was a conscious decision, to avoid over-breeding by "less fit" members of society and the under-breeding of the "more fit" ones. In Galton's view, social institutions such aswelfareandinsane asylumswere allowing "inferior" humans to survive and reproduce at levels faster than the more "superior" humans in respectable society, and if corrections were not soon taken, society would be awash with "inferiors."

Darwin read his cousin's work with interest, and devoted sections ofDescent of Manto discussion of Galton's theories.

Eugenics was practised by the ancient Greeks and Romans, they just did not apply that modern label to it.

Would you adopt a baby without checking the health and the mental background of the parent first?

Yes I would, just as my parents did with one of my siblings. In fact in the UK I doubt any such information is provided during the adoption process (and it could be illegal to do so).

In fact people today in the secular UK adopt knowing full well that the child already has health issues.

Based on prenatal diagnosis a baby with a genetic condition, would you abort the baby?

Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on the condition. If it was one that would involve the infant leading a short and uncomfortable life then probably yes because I don't see suffering in babies to be particularly desirable.

 

[leibowde84]

All you say is perfidity. When that is not reasonable evidence that an electron is free, then by the same token there is no reasonable evidence that a human being can vote left or right. Actually the freedom in regards to electrons is much better evidenced than freedom of human beings. Except electrons have no autonomy, left to themselves, the electron simply remains in an undecided state, and it is not in any particular position around the atom.

All of what you said to agree on, that it is important to know how things are decided in the universe, that things can turn out several different ways, that a decision is to make a posibility the present or not. All what you said were lies.

Please cite my comments where you claim I "lied".

 

[jonathan180iq]

Alchemy is of course perfectly valid in principle.

I'm sure it is....

It is possible to change one substance to another substance, because all the substances are made from the same buildingblocks. And presently they did make a limited amount of gold from another substance than gold.

Are you talking about the handful of atoms that are produced in particle accelerators or in nuclear reactors?
I sure hope not, because it's such a minuscule amount that: "GSI would have to operate around-the-clock for 50 million years just to produce one gram of gold!"

Synthesis of precious metals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Darwin's error of confusing ought with is, making good and evil into a scientific fact, kills science. It is the anti-thesis of science, as well it provides for horrid ideology. And it is no coincedence that he did this. In his work Darwin systematically went out of his way to try to remove the spirit creating in regards to origins. And incorporating morality into science was just one more way that he could remove the spirit. Social darwinism was part of his main agenda.

Please quote where Darwin made an academic level argument for good and evil, ought and is.
Please cite some of the horrid ideology that was created because of this.
Please cite evidence that "the spirit creates in regards to origin."
Please quote Darwin's statement of his agenda for Social Darwinism.

And we can see today in China social darwinism is still vastly popular on account of Darwin's theories, even after the holocaust. And any evolutionist you ask today, they all say they can deal with morality, what is good and evil, without reference to the human spirit. They are all social darwinists, none of them attributes the goodness or evil of a man to the spirit choosing, but in stead they attribute goodness and evil to genetics, brainchemistry, actions in relation to the environment, which are all objectively measurable.

It's because there's too many people to feed. Limiting population growth, which maybe an unethical practice, is a necessary evil for a government that already can't feed its people.

Very simply put, morality exists regardless of man's persistence for religion or any god or gods at all. We factually invented morality. So why shouldn't "evolutionists" make the argument that people can decide on a moral code on their own? Morals didn't come floating down from the sky on stone tablets, written by the hand of a fire-breathing man in the sky. Animal groups have moral codes. There is no such thing as a set moral system.

How terrible that we evolutionists base our arguments of those things which are objectively measurable, and based in reality...

 

[JM2C]

Eugenics as a topic discussed in the classroom is nothing surprising. I remember being taught about it myself. I was asking what schools promote it as an ideology that should be followed. Big difference there.

When one’s ideas is push into ones throat it’s an ideology, right?

There is nothing about accepting evolution that requires one to promote eugenics.

It was the author’s theory, wasn’t it?

Heck, micro-evolution is more relevant to eugenics than macro-evolution is and I have yet to see anyone deny micro-evolution (not even creationists do).

No one is denying microevolution. It happens every day. Microevolution is not a theory. Eugenics is a theory base on macroevolution. Macroevolution is a theoretical extrapolation of microevolution.

Can you tell the difference between the two?

 

[metis]

No one is denying microevolution. It happens every day. Microevolution is not a theory. Eugenics is a theory base on macroevolution. Macroevolution is a theoretical extrapolation of microevolution.

Eugenics was not based on "macro-evolution" but on "micro-evolution", as it hypothesized alterations in humans that are not separate species. OTOT, eugenics actually dates back to as early as ancient Greece, and I would suggest they knew noting about the ToE back then.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Eugenics was not based on "macro-evolution" but on "micro-evolution", as it hypothesized alterations in humans that are not separate species. OTOT, eugenics actually dates back to as early as ancient Greece, and I would suggest they knew noting about the ToE back then.

Is meaningless. That racism predates Hitler does not mean that Hitler is not guilty of racism. And that eugenics predates evolution theory does not mean that evolution theory is not eugenicist ideology.

 

[JM2C]

Eugenics was not based on "macro-evolution" but on "micro-evolution", as it hypothesized alterations in humans that are not separate species. OTOT, eugenics actually dates back to as early as ancient Greece, and I would suggest they knew noting about the ToE back then.

Explain macroevolution and microevolution..

 

[leibowde84]

***post moderated***

What specifically do you mean by there could have been other causes? Our universe is the result of those causes.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What specifically do you mean by there could have been other causes? Our universe is the result of those causes.

Those causes you refer to are already the universe in existence. The existence of these causes means the universe exists. It is then a logical error to say these causes cause the universe to exist.

You yourself talked about some different ratio of anti-matter or whatever.

 

[leibowde84]

Those causes you refer to are already the universe in existence. The existence of these causes means the universe exists. It is then a logical error to say these causes cause the universe to exist.

You yourself talked about some different ratio of anti-matter or whatever.

Right, maybe the matter vs. anti-matter is a good example to use to help me to understand your point. When matter came into contact with anti-matter, one side was bound to win out. In other words, at the end of the "bang" there would either be leftover matter or anti-matter. Since, there was a tad more matter, our universe ended up in the way that we see it now. However, anti-matter is a real entity too. If the amount of anti-matter had been greater than it was in actuality, we would be looking at a universe made of anti-matter ... almost an inverse of what we see today. While this is just a theory, it is a reasoned scientific concept.

The issue I am having is this. The amount of each substance determined what was to happen after the "bang". So, because of these amounts, there was no other possibility. Those amounts determined the possibility. Thus, there was only one possible outcome.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Yes very terrible, because then you have no emotional depth. To be sure it cannot be the case that you have significant emotional depth, because you simply reject subjectivity altogether for the simple reason that it is not objectivity.

None at all. I'm a cold, calculating shell of a man, completely void of emotion, incapable of understanding feelings at all. I should be ashamed of myself. Who knew that simply studying scientific principles could make me so apathetic to the human experience...

You've certainly set me straight, what with all of your substantiating material and reasoned and sound arguments...

To require evidence of the spirit means to require evidence for good and evil, it means to regard good and evil as fact. So we can know that Jonathan hasn't much of any emotion in regards to murder and rape, that it is disgusting, horrid, but in stead he has some calculations how murdering and raping makes some statistics by which he measures good and evil turn out sub-optimal.

By your own argument then, you must not regard good and evil as fact... Think about that for a minute, since regarding good and evil as a fact is a your subjectivity argument.

Is it not possible to view things that are objective objectively and things that are subjective subjectively?
I mean, perhaps you can't do so in your black and white world, but I've never met anyone who acts as you presume all "evolutionists" do. So obviously, other people can differentiate between the two.
If you can't, it makes all of these arguments of yours more of a projection of your own inadequacies rather than a critique of evolutionary theory or whatever it's supposed to be.

The Hitler youth were taught natural selection theory in reference to Charles Darwin. The books of Hitler, Mein Kampf and his second book, have the struggle in the context of selection as the main theme. There is also a reference to natural selection in the minutes of the meeting where Hitler's order to work out the practicalities of the holocaust was worked out. But we can also trace social darwinist ideology in the Japanese and Italian fascism of the times. Emperor Hirohito was an amateur biologist espousing social darwinist ideology. Mussolini an atheist espousing social darwinist ideology.

Godwin's Law...

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[leibowde84]

Yes very terrible, because then you have no emotional depth. To be sure it cannot be the case that you have significant emotional depth, because you simply reject subjectivity altogether for the simple reason that it is not objectivity.

To require evidence of the spirit means to require evidence for good and evil, it means to regard good and evil as fact. So we can know that Jonathan hasn't much of any emotion in regards to murder and rape, that it is disgusting, horrid, but in stead he has some calculations how murdering and raping makes some statistics by which he measures good and evil turn out sub-optimal.

The Hitler youth were taught natural selection theory in reference to Charles Darwin. The books of Hitler, Mein Kampf and his second book, have the struggle in the context of selection as the main theme. There is also a reference to natural selection in the minutes of the meeting where Hitler's order to work out the practicalities of the holocaust was worked out. But we can also trace social darwinist ideology in the Japanese and Italian fascism of the times. Emperor Hirohito was an amateur biologist espousing social darwinist ideology. Mussolini an atheist espousing social darwinist ideology.

By your last quote, it seems that you are being a bit hypocritical. You often say that Islam should not be tarnished or judged by the actions of terrorists and brutal regimes, yet you judge "evolution" by the actions of ruthless dictators who used Darwin's ideas as reasoning for their own evil plans. Why is it ok to judge evolution by the actions of a minuscule amount of those that believe it to be true, but the same is not reasonable when done with Islam?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

None at all. I'm a cold, calculating shell of a man, completely void of emotion, incapable of understanding feelings at all. I should be ashamed of myself. Who knew that simply studying scientific principles could make me so apathetic to the human experience...

That's reality. Because studying evolution theory you reject subjectivty and deny freedom is real. That places you outside the human experience.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

By your last quote, it seems that you are being a bit hypocritical. You often say that Islam should not be tarnished or judged by the actions of terrorists and brutal regimes, yet you judge "evolution" by the actions of ruthless dictators who used Darwin's ideas as reasoning for their own evil plans. Why is it ok to judge evolution by the actions of a minuscule amount of those that believe it to be true, but the same is not reasonable when done with Islam?

I never said that Islam should not be tarnished or judged by the actions of muslim terrorist or brutal Islamic regimes. I simply employ a forgiving judgement in regards to Islam.

It is not a miniscule amount of evolutionists. I have never seen any evolutionist who is not a social darwinist of one kind or another. It is, as far as I know, 100 percent of evolutionists who are social darwinists. Which is of course because subjectivity is a fundamentally creationist concept, and evolution theory is poised against creationism.