Intelligent Design?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Except its not.
You see the Nazi party did have some people that supported evolution. On the opposing side in France, England and America they also accepted evolution. Evolution was not the cause of Nazi ideology. However I find it interesting that you, as a Muslim, would be ignorant to the fact that the vast majority of the Islamic world during WWII supported Hitler. In fact he was known in some parts as "Muhammad Haidar". It seemed that Islam was far more suited for Nazi ideology than evolution. Especially since evolution has proven time and time again that racism isn't based in science, its based in ignorance.

The people who regard the worth of people as fact are guilty, therefore evolutionists are guilty. And we can see rampant rejection of subjectivity coming from evolutionists in 2015. It was no different in 1940.

 

[Ponder This]

Given all the mistakes in human design, how can the doctrine of “Intelligent Design” have merit?

Just because you think these are mistakes, doesn't mean that I think you are not intelligent.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The people who regard the worth of people as fact are guilty, therefore evolutionists are guilty. And we can see rampant rejection of subjectivity coming from evolutionists in 2015. It was no different in 1940.

Except more Muslims than Evolutionists supported the Holocaust. How do you explain that?

 

[Sapiens]

I make no apologies for my faith in the Bible as God's Word and the truth. Your personal attacks do you no credit.

Your decision to make no apologies does you no credit. You make no apologies, and thus provide no rational basis ... it is all just faith on your part, nothing more, no fact, no reality, no evidence. When you start confusing statements of fact with personal attacks it is past time to rethink your position.

 

[rusra02]

Your decision to make no apologies does you no credit. You make no apologies, and thus provide no rational basis ... it is all just faith on your part, nothing more, no fact, no reality, no evidence. When you start confusing statements of fact with personal attacks it is past time to rethink your position.

I think the evidence has been clearly stated numerous times in this forum. Your view of what the evidence proves and my view differ, as does our view of what the facts are. So be it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Except more Muslims than Evolutionists supported the Holocaust. How do you explain that?

The holocaust was in europe 20th century.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The holocaust was in europe 20th century.

Yes? And it was overwhelmingly supported in the Islamic world during the time. They even helped block Jews trying to escape through Turkey.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes? And it was overwhelmingly supported in the Islamic world during the time. They even helped block Jews trying to escape through Turkey.

A lot of rubbish. The Jews died at the hands of often highly educated Westerners, who were into social darwinism, which ideology sabotages conscience by rejecting subjectivity altogether.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

A lot of rubbish. The Jews died at the hands of often highly educated Westerners, who were into social darwinism, which ideology sabotages conscience by rejecting subjectivity altogether.

Actually the ones that did most of the killing were soldiers with less than a high school education. The conductors of the genocide did so for highly political reasons. And the Muslims of the era thought it was great to kill the Jews. And yes they did block many from trying to escape through Turkey especially.

America, England the majority of the western world that all accept evolution as fact are against the Nazi philosophy and have been since day one. So I don't see how you can say that all evolutionists are social darwinist when its objectively false.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Actually the ones that did most of the killing were soldiers with less than a high school education. The conductors of the genocide did so for highly political reasons. And the Muslims of the era thought it was great to kill the Jews. And yes they did block many from trying to escape through Turkey especially.

America, England the majority of the western world that all accept evolution as fact are against the Nazi philosophy and have been since day one. So I don't see how you can say that all evolutionists are social darwinist when its objectively false.

The USA banned evolution theory by law in many states untill the sixties. There is no way you can get those famous American soldiers with deep calm in their eyes, when they don't have an abiding sense dedicated towards the spirit in which things are decided in the world and the universe.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The USA banned evolution theory by law in many states untill the sixties. There is no way you can get those famous American soldiers with deep calm in their eyes, when they don't have an abiding sense dedicated towards the spirit in which things are decided in the world and the universe.

The academics of the time knew evolution to be true. They just didn't teach it to children. I would recon that the majority of soldiers we have today accept evolution. Are they terrible people?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The academics of the time knew evolution to be true. They just didn't teach it to children. I would recon that the majority of soldiers we have today accept evolution. Are they terrible people?

All subjectivity is rooted in regarding the agency of decisions as a matter of opinion.

Yes evolution theory can easily turn somebody into a terrible person, but also preclude them from being a great person. There is a lot of acceptance of subjectivity in common discourse which mitigates the disastrous effects of evolution theory destroying subjectivity and all knowledge about how things are chosen on an intellectual level.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

All subjectivity is rooted in regarding the agency of decisions as a matter of opinion.

Yes evolution theory can easily turn somebody into a terrible person, but also preclude them from being a great person. There is a lot of acceptance of subjectivity in common discourse which mitigates the disastrous effects of evolution theory destroying subjectivity and all knowledge about how things are chosen on an intellectual level.

On the contrary. Evolution helps us understand who we are and how we came to be. This allows us to act better and have a greater understanding of how to deal with individuals. It tells us nothing about what is "right or wrong". That isn't even part of the discussion. You keep acting as if it is. Ethics and Evolution are not intertwined in the way you seem to assume.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

On the contrary. Evolution helps us understand who we are and how we came to be. This allows us to act better and have a greater understanding of how to deal with individuals. It tells us nothing about what is "right or wrong". That isn't even part of the discussion. You keep acting as if it is. Ethics and Evolution are not intertwined in the way you seem to assume.

You reject subjectivity. And you use evolution theory for that rejection.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You reject subjectivity. And you use evolution theory for that rejection.

I don't reject subjectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't reject subjectivity.

You define subjectivity without freedom in the sense that there are several ways a decision can turn out.

You define subjectivity like a function of the physical uniqueness of people. That also provides variety in opinions, yet the variety is not chosen, but forced by chaotically distributed factors forcing the result.

That is just more insidious and creepy rejection of subjectivity.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You define subjectivity without freedom in the sense that there are several ways a decision can turn out.

You define subjectivity like a function of the physical uniqueness of people. That also provides variety in opinions, yet the variety is not chosen, but forced by chaotically distributed factors forcing the result.

That is just more insidious and creepy rejection of subjectivity.

I reject your assumptions about subjectivity and believe my the more common form of subjectivity. I believe that your beliefs are wrong.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I reject your assumptions about subjectivity and believe my the more common form of subjectivity. I believe that your beliefs are wrong.

You despise common discourse, and you favor the intellectual babbling of evolution scientists about the origins of morality.

In common discourse freedom is regarded as a reality.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You despise common discourse, and you favor the intellectual babbling of evolution scientists about the origins of morality.

In common discourse freedom is regarded as a reality.

Nope. You are simply wrong. You stamp your feet and keep talking like a broken record till people get tired of listening to your nonsense and block you. Find a way to actually substanciate your claims or I'm not responding. You don't get to decide what is true. You can only best attempt to explain what you believe to be true.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Nope. You are simply wrong. You stamp your feet and keep talking like a broken record till people get tired of listening to your nonsense and block you. Find a way to actually substanciate your claims or I'm not responding. You don't get to decide what is true. You can only best attempt to explain what you believe to be true.

You just substantiated that you reject subjectivity.

Your idea that in common discourse freedom is not related to forming an opinion is just a lie, as well that you have any respect for the knowledge engrained in the structure of common discourse is a lie, just as well is your history about the holocaust a bunch of lies.