Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[ImmortalFlame]

Reality is natural selection theory was taught to the hitler youth in reference to charles darwin, the minutes to the meeting to work out Hitler's order to kill the Jews refers to working people to death as natural selection, Mein Kampf and Hitler's second book is full of reference to selection.

I don't doubt that the Nazis were aware of the concepts involved in evolution theory, and favoured Eugenics, but I do doubt that they actually believed in what the implications of the theory actually were - i.e: not that one race was superior to any other, but that all creatures, humans included, share a common ancestor. Twisting Darwin's views to fit their agenda indicates nothing wrong or inaccurate in Darwins views, just a willingness to manipulate them done by the unscrupulous (much the same as how Guy just quote-mined Richard Dawkins).

This is not some kind of coincedence or irrelevance. Natural selection theory even today clearly leads people to conceive of good and evil as matters of fact, thus sabotaging conscience.

Non sequitur. I have a perfectly clear conscience.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Reality is natural selection theory was taught to the hitler youth in reference to charles darwin, the minutes to the meeting to work out Hitler's order to kill the Jews refers to working people to death as natural selection, Mein Kampf and Hitler's second book is full of reference to selection.

This is not some kind of coincedence or irrelevance. Natural selection theory even today clearly leads people to conceive of good and evil as matters of fact, thus sabotaging conscience.

In much the same vein Islam clearly causes terrorism so its pretty obvious we should wipe it off the face of the Earth right? 9/11 your argument is invalid.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No he wasn't. Go back and read his actual work rather than the dishonest quote mines from creationist websites. You keep saying that you have 'honestly studied" and "used to believe in evolution" but you keep ONLY ever using evidence from creationist sites that have already been debunked.

This case is no different.

It was his quote, his observation, not a creationist site's, you'd have to debate his observation with him

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It was his quote, his observation, not a creationist site's, you'd have to debate his observation with him

I know for a fact you got that off of a creationist website. In fact he has already gone on record to correct people who have misquoted him with this exact quote. If you continue to hold to it its nothing more than dishonesty.

 

[JM2C]

What does this have to do with anything? We have known for years that selective breeding creates more "fit" animals. We knew this well prior to the theory of evolution and practiced it ourselves on animals.

Galton’s theory was put into practice by the Nazi. Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with animals, the real animals, but with man. Just watch the news man and you’ll see man eliminating man for supremacy.

There is no answer in science that supports or rejects this kind of approach as being "wrong". It simply tells us what the facts are. It is now up to us to create a system of ethics in which we determine what it is that we want to do with our lives and our societies. Thankfully the majority of societies have determined that social darwinism isn't the way to go.

You have a beautiful thoughts about humanity, but putting that in practice is impossible because there are people who don’t think like you.

Social Darwinism is not Evolution.

Social Darwinism is the end result of Evolution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I know for a fact you got that off of a creationist website. In fact he has already gone on record to correct people who have misquoted him with this exact quote. If you continue to hold to it its nothing more than dishonesty.

that was his exact quote, again of course he goes on to defend the observation, of course he's not confessing to be a creationist, but this doesn't change the observation does it?

obviously it was intended for effect, the reason it backfired was because it highlighted a problem that arises by direct observation, and can only be explained by conjecture

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Galton’s theory was put into practice by the Nazi. Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with animals, the real animals, but with man. Just watch the news man and you’ll see man eliminating man for supremacy.

Are you saying racism and brutality didn't exist before evolution? People always find ways to justify their brutality and hatred. Religion has been more abused than science historically. So what does that say about religion if you feel the need to stain science with the actions of misguided and evil men?

You have a beautiful thoughts about humanity, but putting that in practice is impossible because there are people who don’t think like you.

Same can be said for religion. No one really agrees. However most first world nations have taken on humanistic versions of moral law. Which is progress. In fact with the ticking of time it seems that this trend continues over and over and seems to get more and more successful with the passing of the vicegrip of religion.

Social Darwinism is the end result of Evolution.

False. You can try to match the two but I doubt you'll be able to. A lot of tried. Go ahead. give it your best go.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

that was his exact quote, again of course he goes on to defend the observation, of course he's not confessing to be a creationist, but this doesn't change the observation does it?

obviously it was intended for effect, the reason it backfired was because it highlighted a problem that arises by direct observation, and can only be explained by conjecture

It highlighted a problem that doesn't exist. He highlighted the issue that is brought forth by the opposition and then crushed it. There was no backfire. It did exactly as he intended.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I know for a fact you got that off of a creationist website. In fact he has already gone on record to correct people who have misquoted him with this exact quote. If you continue to hold to it its nothing more than dishonesty.

Don't bother. Me and several posters have pointed out this exact same quote-mine before, and he still doesn't seem to understand what exactly is wrong with it. He doesn't even seem to understand what a quote-mine really is.

 

[outhouse]

a very personal desire to make God redundant

He had a passion for the truth.

Evolution is fact and it is not up for debate because of religious fanaticism known to factually close minds.


We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[viole]

Social Darwinism is the end result of Evolution.

Yes, and Hiroshima was the end result of e = mc^2 and atomic theory. Which, of course, does not make atomic theory any falser because it allows bombs of mass destruction, does it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

Dishonesty is poison to good debate.

What is sad is there is no good debate.

Its fundamentalist going NO NO NO NO NO!!! and that is all we get

 

[outhouse]

Go back and read his actual work rather than the dishonest quote mines from creationist websites.

Exactly.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What is sad is there is no good debate.

Its fundamentalist going NO NO NO NO NO!!! and that is all we get

This is true. A huge problem is that people think that there is a significant debate because we have a lot of non-scientists on the internet attempting to debate this rather than actually looking at the scientific field. There are no debates about the validity of evolution anymore. Most of these were hammered out in the late 1800's an early 1900's. Debate on evolution now involves the specifics of evolution. Both sides agree it happened but now we get to squabble over exactly how it happened and in what order.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It highlighted a problem that doesn't exist. He highlighted the issue that is brought forth by the opposition and then crushed it. There was no backfire. It did exactly as he intended.

you'd have to read the whole chapter in context, he wasn't debating evolution v creation at all, but Punctuationists v Gradualists - pointing out that they both agreed on the observation

"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record,[]. One good reason might be....."

and again goes on to air his speculations about the missing evidence, which is fine, but it doesn't replace the evidence. one good reason might also be that they never existed.

if you have evidence to the contrary to 'crush' this problem i'm sure he'd be very interested!

Even if you can prove your dog ate your homework, this does not earn a passing grade in science, in academia, book sales, TV appearances, awards etc it obviously does

 

[Monk Of Reason]

you'd have to read the whole chapter in context, he wasn't debating evolution v creation at all, but Punctuationists v Gradualists - pointing out that they both agreed on the observation

"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record,[]. One good reason might be....."

and again goes on to air his speculations about the missing evidence, which is fine, but it doesn't replace the evidence. one good reason might also be that they never existed.

if you have evidence to the contrary to 'crush' this problem i'm sure he'd be very interested!

The "crush" that is issued is that the gaps themselves don't mean much. I liked the example of if you see someone walking on the other side of the street and then a bus goes across the road and suddenly you can't see the man for a few seconds and when you see him again he is in a different spot. Is this gap a significant gap? Is this conclusive evidence that walking is bull****?

Even if you can prove your dog ate your homework, this does not earn a passing grade in science, in academia, book sales, TV appearances, awards etc it obviously does

I am not able to even begin to see how this can be formulated into a relevant analogy for what you were talking about before. If you witness your dog eating your homework, then you find evidence of your homework in your dog's ****, just because we didn't scope out the stomach doesn't mean that the dog didn't eat your homework.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The "crush" that is issued is that the gaps themselves don't mean much. I liked the example of if you see someone walking on the other side of the street and then a bus goes across the road and suddenly you can't see the man for a few seconds and when you see him again he is in a different spot. Is this gap a significant gap? Is this conclusive evidence that walking is bull****?

I am not able to even begin to see how this can be formulated into a relevant analogy for what you were talking about before. If you witness your dog eating your homework, then you find evidence of your homework in your dog's ****, just because we didn't scope out the stomach doesn't mean that the dog didn't eat your homework.

right, the point being that the best excuse for missing evidence does not replace the missing evidence. The 'very large gap' doesn't mean that fossils did not exist, it just means we can't prove they did or know what they looked like, we can only speculate. Which is fine, as long as we recognize our beliefs for what they are.

He goes on to say

"Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms -- that is, viable, functioning organisms -- between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions?"

again his words verbatim, they speak for themselves and creationists agree entirely, there is no direct evidence for smooth transitions (which evolution utterly depends on) and yes of course we can and do invent them

 

[ImmortalFlame]

right, the point being that the best excuse for missing evidence does not replace the missing evidence. The 'very large gap' doesn't mean that fossils did not exist, it just means we can't prove they did or know what they looked like, we can only speculate. Which is fine, as long as we recognize our beliefs for what they are.

Except, in this case, the dog only ate SOME of our homework. To use your analogy, the fact that the dog ate some of our homework doesn't mean ALL of our homework has been eaten. The teacher can't refuse to mark the homework we brought them, just because we were unable to bring the rest of our homework.

In other words: you're using the gaps in the fossil record to ignore the fossils we actually have. The existence of gaps does not negate the existence of the record we already have.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

right, the point being that the best excuse for missing evidence does not replace the missing evidence. The 'very large gap' doesn't mean that fossils did not exist, it just means we can't prove they did or know what they looked like, we can only speculate. Which is fine, as long as we recognize our beliefs for what they are.

He goes on to say

"Even though we have no direct evidence for smooth transitions, can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms -- that is, viable, functioning organisms -- between ancestors and descendants in major structural transitions?"

again his words verbatim, they speak for themselves and creationists agree entirely, there is no direct evidence for smooth transitions (which evolution utterly depends on) and yes of course we can and do invent them

And what exactly is wrong with his statements? I don't see anything contradictory to science or reason.

And what do you mean by "beliefs for what they are"? Supported by science and in some cases based off inferences. It is a long leap to say that science is just making stuff up. The only reason why we can devise potential tracks of evolution between two different forms in the record is based off of the larger picture that we have.

Have you ever watched a snapshop security footage? Its where it takes a frame or picture every few seconds. If we see someone doing something in these photos we only have a few instances every few seconds to see what they were doing rather than a smooth HD video. It doesn't mean that they are incorrect. If we see a man walking down the street in this kind of footage then we can very reasonably assume that in the times where he was not being photographed he was still walking.

 

[JM2C]

I don't doubt that the Nazis were aware of the concepts involved in evolution theory, and favoured Eugenics, but I do doubt that they actually believed in what the implications of the theory actually were - i.e: not that one race was superior to any other, but that all creatures, humans included, share a common ancestor.

Were past that argument already, about the common ancestor. What we are arguing now is the end result of this delusional theory of evolution. Darwin was suggesting in the Descent of Man that some races of men were more highly evolved than others based on Galton’s theory about EUGENICS.

You should read this until you are blue in the face.

“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.”

Does this sound like eliminating the “LESS FIT” by the “MORE FIT” to you? Yes! According to Darwin’s Descent of Man “Although he thought that all races were of the same species, it was natural that the more advanced races would soon eliminate their uncivilized competitors” Why? “society would be awash with inferiors.” –Galton

Who are the inferiors in the society today? Should they be eliminated according to Darwin’s and Galton’s theory?

“In Galton's view, social institutions such aswelfareandinsane asylums were 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 Man to discussion of Galton's theories.

Now you tell me if Darwin’s and Galton's theory of evolution is not about racial supremacy.

Twisting Darwin's views to fit their agenda indicates nothing wrong or inaccurate in Darwins views, just a willingness to manipulate them done by the unscrupulous (much the same as how Guy just quote-mined Richard Dawkins).

No one is twisting Darwin’s views, it was twisted already since the beginning of his theory.