Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[Monk Of Reason]

Which means you are a social darwinist, making what is good and evil a fact. There is of course no other way to categorically distinguish fact from opinion than creationism. It is immediately clear in creationism that conclusions about good and evil must be chosen. And choosing the conclusion makes it obviously a valid opinion.

Other people can waffle their way to sophistication about it, so that nobody can understand them, and then pretend they don't make good and evil into fact. But creationism with it's simple scheme of dual categories of creator and creation is the only philosophy which clearly and unequivocally categorizes opinions about good and evil separate from facts.

The goodness or evil of a man is properly attributed to their spirit which chooses. Not to their genetics, not to their actions, not to their brainchemistry, not to their environment, not to anything measurable at all.

I would enjoy hearing your definition of social Darwinism and how I fit that description.

I also feel that its kind of funny that you say creationism is the one thing that can separate fact from opinion. But rather it is simply your opinion your trying to pass of for fact. So from the get go your wrong. I find this funny.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Really?

That is all you do all the time, make fiat definitions of terms that do not match the definitions used by the majority of people (or dictionaries) and compound it by refusing to provide the definitions that you are using.

It's just because you hang around with evolutionists all the time that you think evolutionist definitions are common. But common discourse uses creationist logic where freedom is regarded as a reality, and freedom means that it can turn out several different ways. People were all creationist prior to Darwin, creationism was the common definition of terms in science as well.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I would enjoy hearing your definition of social Darwinism and how I fit that description.

I also feel that its kind of funny that you say creationism is the one thing that can separate fact from opinion. But rather it is simply your opinion your trying to pass of for fact. So from the get go your wrong. I find this funny.

Nobody who distinguishes opinion from fact would say it was a matter of opinion how fact and opinion can be distinguished.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Nobody who distinguishes opinion from fact would say it was a matter of opinion how fact and opinion can be distinguished.

Another generalization, lol.
Everyone does this.
Nobody thinks that.

Maybe talking on equal terms would help here.
You're on the offense most of the time, it would be smart to act similar to whom you address.
I'm not saying you have to, I'm just saying look at what you're posting and how it may come across.
Ask yourself, "what will I do if they use my logic against me?"
Because if you don't shape up, my friend, I'm afraid I'm going to have to.

I also know how to generalize, and provide unprovable information, it really isn't difficult.
It sure might be fun though.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Another generalization, lol.
Everyone does this.
Nobody thinks that.

Maybe talking on equal terms would help here.
You're on the offense most of the time, it would be smart to act similar to whom you address.
I'm not saying you have to, I'm just saying look at what you're posting and how it may come across.
Ask yourself, "what will I do if they use my logic against me?"
Because if you don't shape up, my friend, I'm afraid I'm going to have to.

I also know how to generalize, and provide unprovable information, it really isn't difficult.
It sure might be fun though.

You cannot keep motivation going by using tricks and paying attention to what things look like and trying to manipulate.

 

[Deathbydefault]

You cannot keep motivation going by using tricks and paying attention to what things look like and trying to manipulate.

Motivation?
Motivation for those I agree with?

On a side not - I disagree.

I'm sure there are tons of ancient tacticians that used such tricks to motivate their charges.
There were also many leaders and high level business men who did such things to attend moral.

On another side not- I admit that manipulation is probably very easy.

I've said before that humans tend to be very simple creatures with rare exceptions.
Convincing someone into this or that isn't difficult in the slightest (usually).

But why would I bother with manipulation?
I already don't care about people or what they do with themselves, why interfere?
Maybe for entertainment from time to time, but that requires talking to them.
I don't like talking to people, not in real life.

 

[Shad]

That doesn't make sense. You insist that the position of an elctron around an atom is not decided, and then you insist that the deciding of people is electrochemistry in the brain. It can only mean that you regard choosing as sorting out an optimum like a robot, for instance a chesscomputer.

It makes perfect sense since a choice is based on the ability to choose thus sentience. A rock or atom is not sentient. A rock can not choose something different, decide something different. It is completely subject to it's environment and attribute. A rock going down hill can not decide to go up hill instead. The rest of your post is a non-sequitur and incoherent regarding rocks and/or atoms

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It makes perfect sense since a choice is based on the ability to choose thus sentience. A rock or atom is not sentient. A rock can not choose something different, decide something different. It is completely subject to it's environment and attribute. A rock going down hill can not decide to go up hill instead. The rest of your post is a non-sequitur and incoherent regarding rocks and/or atoms

"sentience" and "abiliy to choose" is just your vague way of saying calculating an optimum. An electron cannot calculate the optimal position around an atom, therefore the position of an electron cannot be chosen, is what you are saying.

If X can turn out A or B, and it turns out B, then you would not call it a decision. You would call it randomness, or chance. You simply do not have a particular word for this act where one of many options comes to be the present. Or you would say it is an "event", it 'happens", but the fact that there are several ways in which it can turn out, and one is made the present, does not make it a decision for you.

 

[leibowde84]

I am not using different definitions, social darwinism in any definition of it, it means to derive prescriptive applicability from natural selection theory. I explain exactly how prescriptive applicability is derived from natural selection theory. When the theory is interpreted as saying that organisms love life, then good and evil are derived in respect to this love, and because the love is then held to be fact, then the good and evil are conceived of as fact as well.

You are obviously just another evolutionist trying to distort history, of which there are very many, including many professors. And I have seen much of that, and they lack respect for the history about the holocaust, in the way they talk about it, and the way they argue about it like a debating game. Evolutionists are social darwinists, they define all terms differently. They define choosing as sorting out the best result, with the facts about good and evil acting as sorting criteria.

This is why you don't acknowledge any freedom in the entire universe except inside the skulls of human beings. It is because human beings can sort out optimal results, which is of course what the other stuff in the universe, like the weather, cannot do. You define all terms associated to choosing on this basis of stating as fact what is good and evil, which is against the religion of billions of people, and against common discourse besides. You really will say just about anything to keep on conceiving good and evil as fact. Deny freedom is real for the entire universe? Sure you will. Deny history of social darwinism in regards to Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito? How much can you get away with at this time?

I don't believe that "good and evil are facts". Can you please cite the comment where I claimed this? I actually think that morality is subjective and constantly changing throughout history. I'm interested to see the comment where I made this claim. Or are you just making false assumptions again?

Also, evolution does not consider "love" in any way, so that is just a straw man argument. There is the notion of the "will to survive" in organisms, but that cannot be seen as "love". It is instinct. Organisms without this drive have died out, which is a crucial part of the process of evolution.

You still have not provided your definitions of "the theory of evolution" and "social darwinism". You keep on repeating your explanation of how they are related, but you have yet to provide the definitions you are using for each. Can you please do that, or are you unable to? Is this another situation where you don't know the meaning of the terms you are using?

 

[leibowde84]

Evolutionists either deny free will is real, or they define free will as that there are no alternative courses of action available. As clearly stated in Dennett's piece of junk entitled, "I could not have done otherwise, so what?". It is evolutionists who use different meanings for all words associated to choosing.

And all evolutionists talk about organisms in terms of a struggle for survival. Without any exception.

Why do you think that Dennett represents evolutionists in any way? Most evolutionists are theists, so I fail to see how that makes any sense.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't believe that "good and evil are facts". Can you please cite the comment where I claimed this? I actually think that morality is subjective and constantly changing throughout history. I'm interested to see the comment where I made this claim. Or are you just making false assumptions again?

Also, evolution does not consider "love" in any way, so that is just a straw man argument. There is the notion of the "will to survive" in organisms, but that cannot be seen as "love". It is instinct. Organisms without this drive have died out, which is a crucial part of the process of evolution.

You still have not provided your definitions of "the theory of evolution" and "social darwinism". You keep on repeating your explanation of how they are related, but you have yet to provide the definitions you are using for each. Can you please do that, or are you unable to? Is this another situation where you don't know the meaning of the terms you are using?

It is perfectly normal interpretation to interpret natural selection "struggle for survival", as that organisms like to live. It is wrong, but normal. And actually it is science which is at fault for using emotive terminology.

I provided the definition for social darwinism several times, it is taking prescriptive applicability from natural selection theory. I also provided the definition of creationism 5 times but you just keep on asking it again, and again. That is just your debating tactic.

Evolutionists are saying it is fact that there is a struggle for survival resulting in differential reproductive succes. When somebody identifies as being a player in natural selection saying, I am an organism who struggles for survival which results in differential reproductive succes, then that is ideology. I am a consumer who struggles for the lowest prices, resulting in differential cost of living, that is also an ideology. That is how ideology is phrased.

Your nonsense about a "drive", such a vague terms is of course a starting point for racist discourse about people who don't have this drive and people that do. It is simply logic that you conceive of good and evil as fact by that you conceive of motivation as a matter of fact issue.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why do you think that Dennett represents evolutionists in any way? Most evolutionists are theists, so I fail to see how that makes any sense.

Because Dennett focuses on Darwinian theory in his philosophizing.

 

[leibowde84]

Because Dennett focuses on Darwinian theory in his philosophizing.

Why would this make him represent all evolutionists?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why would this make him represent all evolutionists?

Because all evolutionists use darwinian theory.

And besides it was already shown that you conceive of choosing as sorting out the best result, same as Dennett.

 

[leibowde84]

Because all evolutionists use darwinian theory.

But they don't use it in the way that Dennett does. Many people have used Darwinian theory to bolster their respective ideologies, but that doesn't mean that all evolutionists agree on these ideoligies.

 

[leibowde84]

Because all evolutionists use darwinian theory.

And besides it was already shown that you conceive of choosing as sorting out the best result, same as Dennett.

Citing one persons interpretation and use of darwinian theory as representing the beliefs of all evolutionists is ludicrous. Does the Islamic state represent the beliefs of all muslims?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But they don't use it in the way that Dennett does. Many people have used Darwinian theory to bolster their respective ideologies, but that doesn't mean that all evolutionists agree on these ideoligies.

They do use it the same way as Dennett does. Professional evolutionary biologists talk about organisms sorting out an optimal result to mean choosing. Dennett as investigating Darwinism is representative of darwinism in general.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Citing one persons interpretation and use of darwinian theory as representing the beliefs of all evolutionists is ludicrous. Does the Islamic state represent the beliefs of all muslims?

It is simply the case, that evolutionists generally deny freedom is real in the sense of having alternative courses of action available, and reject subjctivity.

 

[leibowde84]

biologists talk about organisms sorting out an optimal result to mean choosing

When have biologists ever claimed this about any other organism than human beings and our evolutionary ancestors? And, don't you think it is peculiar that you are the only one who defines "choosing" in the way that you do, not requiring any kind of consciousness?

 

[leibowde84]

It is simply the case, that evolutionists generally deny freedom is real in the sense of having alternative courses of action available, and reject subjctivity.

Evolution does not claim this. Evolution is merely a term used to describe a process. It makes no claims about "freedom" or "determinism". This can be easily seen by the fact that evolution recognizes that the strongest don't always survive and beneficial mutations do not always end up advancing procreation for certain organisms.