Bass Ackwards Darwinism

_{May 6, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

There are people who believe that because Darwin provided a theoretical basis that humans and animals have a common ancestor it becomes a rationale for treating humans more like animals. Thus we get things like Nazi Germany and the holocaust.

I suppose that’s one way of looking at it.

Another equally valid way of looking at it is that common ancestry becomes a rationale for treating animals more like humans. Thus we get things like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

It’s all a matter of how you choose to look at it. It’s really more a reflection on your own soul which way you choose to see it.

Good people do good things. Evil people do evil things. Knowledge (like Darwinian evolution and the recipe for dynamite) is inanimate and can be employed by good people for good things and evil people for evil things.

Comments

Vladmir, please give me some quotations, because I don't have that book on hand. I do know that many darwinists say that evolution supports their versions of morality, including altruism. At the same time, you have people who highlight the "competition" part of evolution to support the idea that, say, capitalism is justified by nature. So you have two views of the same thing, and I wanted to point out that you can have those same two views of Design. Are you willing to go out on a limb and admit that Design does not automatically mean there is absolute morality? It only means that if you assume the designer was an omnibenevolent deity, but that is religion. ID is science.EJ Klone_{May 7, 2008
May
05
May
7
07
2008
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PST}

[DaveScot] This is the definition of ID that has been on this site unchanged for at least 2 years. It says "ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory". According to you, Darwinism is legitimate science. Therefore, if we were to adopt your view, then ID is in "scientific disagreement" with legitimate science. Perhaps you could change that definition of ID, though, to avoid such ridiculous contradictions with your views about Darwinism. If what you say is true, that Darwinism is a legitimate science analogous to Newtonian mechanics, and that ID seeks to complete Darwinism, then the mission statement of Uncommon Descent is quite misleading. For it speaks ID as an alternative to Darwinism. Perhaps you can ask Mr Dembski to change that, so that it more correctly reflects your point of view. Or maybe I will ask him to do so.Vladimir Krondan_{May 7, 2008
May
05
May
7
07
2008
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PST}

Vladimir https://uncommondescent.com/id-defined/ This is the definition of ID that has been on this site unchanged for at least 2 years. Note the first sentence say design is the best explanation for CERTAIN features. Maybe you should go pick up a copy of Behe's new book "The Edge of Evolution" to see the latest thinking in where Darwinian evolution stops and Intelligent Design starts. DaveScot_{May 7, 2008
May
05
May
7
07
2008
12:28 AM
12
12
28
AM
PST}

[DaveScott] Because Darwinism is not a complete theory of evolution just like Newtonian mechanics is not a complete theory of physics That's an interesting statement. It seems, at least prima face to be incompatible with the mission statement of Uncommon Descent, which speaks of replacing Darwinism, not completing it. Perhaps you can explain how a theory which posits man to be a meat byproduct of natural selection is to be respected as legitimate science? How is this view of Darwinism as legitimate science (comparable to Newtonian mechanics, you say) compatible with the preamble Uncommon Descent holds that..."? But maybe something odd has happened here during my prolonged absence.Vladimir Krondan_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PST}

Jason So is PETA pretty close to rounding people up and putting them in concentration camps in your ~~asinine~~ ~~inane~~ considered opinion? Here are the PETA Storm Troopers at the Norfolk Virginia Head Quarters. Pretty scary. Don't let the smiles fool you. Here they are ready to destroy this Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet. They're concealing a V2 rocket launcher behind those innocent looking placards. That KFC is going down in flames. DaveScot_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PST}

Vladimir If Darwinism is a legitimate science, then why does Uncommon Descent exist? Because Darwinism is not a complete theory of evolution just like Newtonian mechanics is not a complete theory of physics.DaveScot_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PST}

[DaveScot] Knowledge (like Darwinian evolution and the recipe for dynamite) is inanimate and can be employed by good people for good things and evil people for evil things. If Darwinism is a legitimate science, then why does Uncommon Descent exist?Vladimir Krondan_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PST}

[KJ Klone] that Darwinism means the end of morality, or that it means that there cannot be absolute morals. Darwinism as a scientific hypothesis doesn’t say anything about these things Of course it does. Haven't you read chapter 5 of Descent of Man? Or some of the countless other expositions about morality written by Darwinians?Vladimir Krondan_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PST}

"Are you really going to try to compare PETA to Nazis?" It depends on what you mean. They are both a bunch of fanatics with an ideological agenda and a profound hatred of anybody that disagrees with them. Also, PETA has never come out and strongly condemmed the actions of groups like ALF and others. PETA is full of crazies and their agenda for "animal rights" is dangerous.Jason Rennie_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PST}

"Is that how God works now? We don’t have the ability to tell right from wrong until we read the proper book and make the proper ritual motions?" No Dave. You can tell right from wrong, that is a thing called Natural Law, but Natural Law is incompatible with the sort of materialism that is pushed by Darwinists.Jason Rennie_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PST}

Borne Do no murder Do not steal Do not rape Do not act unjustly Do no adultery etc. I don't believe that religion has a monopoly on these. They are simple, reasonable, logical rules for peaceful coexistence that are not difficult to come up with. Heck, lots of species of birds and mammals follow those rules by instinct alone at least when dealing with others of their own kind. Religion has a monopoly on stuff like worship no other idols before me, keep the sabbath holy, and stuff like that. Everyone seems to forget about peaceful coexistence when their own version of the sacred cow is gored.DaveScot_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PST}

jp Perhaps if you'd followed the link I left to the ethic of reciprocity you'd have been led to some of those other books.DaveScot_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PST}

I applaud DaveScot for talking candidly and openly about a topic that is often assumed amongst fellow IDists - that Darwinism means the end of morality, or that it means that there cannot be absolute morals. Darwinism as a scientific hypothesis doesn't say anything about these things, and in some cases, darwinists try to uphold their own views of morality with talk of altruism and evolution. Yet, many IDists, borrowing from creationists, espouse the idea that accepting common descent turns the world into a beat-up-on-the-little-guy free-for-all blood-bath. The implication is that Intelligent Design provides an alternative. How? How does recognizing the design in nature translate into establishing an absolute morality in nature as well? Sure you could talk about implications, such as, well, if this flagellum was made with a purpose (function), then my person was made with a purpose (life calling), which is an equivocation - two different kinds of purposes. Or if the Designer(s) made life on this planet, they must have had control over the moral fabric of space-time? Life was designed, I'm quuite sure of it. But given that I'm not religious (as is DaveScot), I don't automatically assume that the Designer(s) are an omnibenevolent deity with us in mind - those are religious and not scientific beliefs. The same goes for statements of the absence of purpose if Darwinism is true, or the presence of purpose if ID is true. What if we were to discover, say, that the Designers intentionally made us as a reality-TV show (like in South Park) to kill each other for their entertainment? That would be a wicked purpose, and I don't think anyone here would subscribe to it after finding it to be true. Indeed, there is no evidence one way or the other, going from the design induction, to the existence of an omnibenevolent deity, nor an absolute morality that we would recognize as being moral. Indeed, I could envision a version of ID that could lead to horrible atrocities - for example, given that selective breeding is a form of human design, what's to keep people from deciding that others are "less well designed" than others? This assumption that our morality proceeds from whether or not life was designed is absurd. Michael Behe has come a few steps down the path to realizing this, IMHO. He accepts common ancestry, although considers it to be guided. But more so, he recognizes that many pathogenic organisms on this planet were intentionally designed. Designed to make people suffer or get sick. Can we not find more cases or malicious design in the world?EJ Klone_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PST}

steveb "The point of the argument was to establish the logical necessity of a transendent standard. Are you saying that you accept this?" A logical necessity? Possibly! Where does it come from and how do we know if it's really transcendent or just stuff we made up? I will however agree there appears to be a practical necessity for a transcendent moral standand such that if such a thing doesn't exist we end up inventing them and agreeing for a while that it's the proverbial final answer. DaveScot_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PST}

Not so fast. The point of the argument was to establish the logical necessity of a transendent standard. Are you saying that you accept this? If not, any attempt to find some kind of consensus just comes down to "I like chocolate but you like strawberry" preferences talking past each other.SteveB_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PST}

DaveScot: "It seems a bunch of you are saying the only way a person can have an acceptable standard of ethics is to get it out of a book written by men thousands of years ago." But Dave, I haven't found one ancient book yet that has outrageous admonitions like loving your enemy or giving him/her your coat when they ask for your sweater (OK, so I'm changing it a bit to suit our modern customs) and wishing them well in your prayers, even as they hurl insults and pernicious atrocities. Eliticist These almost senseless, out-of-this-world pronouncements are ideals that no animal coming from a dark, cold evolutionary abyss of selfishness and wantonness will ever be capable of conceiving, let alone putting into action. Even in our most civilized and progressive societies such morals are frowned upon and viewed as disingenuous superlatives. It is no easy thing, I must admit, to wish someone good who at the same time intends nothing but evil on you. And yet, it is from these incredible injunctions that followers of the religion have drawn their energy to build hospitals and schools and similar such systems and other works of charity all for the betterment of the fellow man, in the midst of hardships and persecutions. There are countless real life stories of self-sacrifice to fill dozens of libraries to prove the point. For one, read the exhilarating biography of Bruce Olson just to glean an example of one person’s love and dedication to a certain group of people in spite of the costs and maltreatments. This is the legacy of Christianity to the western culture, nay the rest of the world. No darwisciple can claim an equivalent.JPCollado_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PST}

steveb If someone else has different instinctive (ie, idiosyncratic, personal and subjective) convictions, who or what arbitrates between them? Well now. We reach the crux of the problem. Unless some obviously god-like being descends from on high to dictate the rules we are left having to come to some kind of consensus on what those objective rules really are. While we might agree on some or all just based on the golden rule we're definitely not going to agree on them all. What then? DaveScot_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PST}

DaveScot said:
What is the measure you use for determining which action is right vs wrong? Glad you asked. The golden rule. It’s common in quite a few philosophies and religious traditions. See here: Ethic of Reciprocity
So, “a book written by men...” (#10) is unacceptable as a standard of ethics. But a web page written by men is acceptable as a standard of ethics. Add to this the double irony that the web page you cite quotes extensively from many of same books “written by men thousands of years ago” that you rejected earlier, and that it is hosted by the same “zealots” you recently criticized for their distortion and censorship. (https://uncommondescent.com/off-topic/wikipedias-zealots/) You’ll have to forgive me for not being impressed with this line of reasoning.SteveB_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PST}

"If I’m told that I’m nothing but the result of mindless forces, and that my conception of right and wrong has been found useful by natural selection [...], then why the heck should I not murder?" I find it hard to believe that you have the constant powerful urge to kill everyone just because. Is the only thing stopping you from committing murder the idea that a god doesn't want you to? That's a truly bleak view of morality.dreamwalker007_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PST}

DaveScot says:
It seems a bunch of you are saying the only way a person can have an acceptable standard of ethics is to get it out of a book written by men thousands of years ago.
No. The key point is that absent a transcendent standard that defines what “good,” “ethical,” or “moral” means, who’s to say that PETA’s perspective on animal welfare is better than Michael Vick’s? It’s all just subjectively held opinion. Your earlier argument comes down to just that—personal opinion:
Near as I can tell I was born with the so-called golden rule as an instinctive behavior. The rule extends to all life not just my own species or my own personal survival.
If someone else has different instinctive (ie, idiosyncratic, personal and subjective) convictions, who or what arbitrates between them?SteveB_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PST}

-----Dave: "No matter where it came from we have the ability to reason and put ourselves in the place of others. Darwin called that “sympathy” and described it as the noblest part our nature. This is what other animals cannot do, or it’s at least not obvious they can, is to put themselves in the place of others, imagine we feel what another feels, and govern our actions as if the shoe was on the other foot. This is the basis for the golden rule. Unfortunately it seems a large number of humans cannot or will not rise above animal instincts even when they have the choice. In my opinion that makes them worse than animals. It’s also pretty darn convincing evidence that humans are not just descended from animals but many still ARE animals. I can’t blame a tiger for acting like a tiger. The tiger doesn’t know better. I can blame a human for acting like a tiger. The human knows better. Or at least I think they should know better. Maybe I’m giving more credit to humanity for the capacity to rise above animal behavior than humanity deserves." Every word you have written here is true. We really do have the innate capacity to reason, place ourselves in others’ shoes, and formulate some semblance of the golden rule. It is also true that humans possess free choice, which provides them with the opportunity to accept or reject these promptings. It is most definitely true that only humans can pervert their nature and act like animals and even act worse than animals. There is no such thing, after all, as a sadistic dog. Even “mean” dogs are so inclined only because sadistic humans forced them to be that way. You are not giving “too much credit to humanity for the capacity to rise above animal behavior.” They most certainly can do that if, as you have pointed out on other occasions, they are given the right training. You are, however, giving too much credit to an impersonal, materialistic process for producing that capacity. That “noble instinct” that you allude to is the human “conscience” or the “natural moral law” planted in the human psychic by the creator. It is not simply a “feeling” but rather a subjective faculty which allows humans to perceive or detect the objective moral law which the creator also “designed” in nature. In other words, the creator designed [A] the human capacity to apprehend the natural moral law and [B] the natural moral law itself. You seem to want [A] without [B], but that is not the way things work. Unless the natural moral law is real (objective component), then our sentiments about (subjective component) it are just that---sentiments. Someone has to set things up so that [A] corresponds to [B]. If [B] isn't real, then [A] can't be real either.StephenB_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PST}

What is the measure you use for determining which action is right vs wrong? Glad you asked. The golden rule. It's common in quite a few philosophies and religious traditions. See here: Ethic of Reciprocity I try to extend it towards all living things and if I may be so bold I'm pretty sure Christ would approve of that. DaveScot_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PST}

DaveScot @ 19:
Actually I grew up on a native American indian reservation and that probably influenced my view of how to live a good life as much as anything else.
And yet, as reprehensibly as America has treated the native Indian, had that reservation been in China or North Korea, do you believe the amoral values of those surrounding cultures would not have negatively affected your childhood "view of how to live a good life"? Conversely, how much of your childhood views as taught on the reservation were reinforced by the Judeo-Christian ethics of honoring parents, not murdering, stealing or lying, faithful stewardship of what has been entrusted, charity, foregiveness, etc.? That's not to say, sadly, that those ethics were in fact applied to native Americans by America but, by way of illustration, that in contrast to the ethics that would have been applied by China or N. Korea, can you not see/acknowledge a significant difference between the influences of atheistic culture and theistic culture?Charles_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PST}

"Is that how God works now? We don’t have the ability to tell right from wrong until we read the proper book and make the proper ritual motions?" Indeed the moral sense is inner. Put it this way,
"For one man is not different from another before God. All those who have done wrong without the law will get destruction without the law: and those who have done wrong under the law will have their punishment by the law; For it is not the hearers of the law who will be judged as having righteousness before God, but only the doers: For when the Gentiles, without the law, have a natural desire to do the things in the law, they are a law to themselves; Because the work of the law is seen in their hearts, their sense of right and wrong giving witness to it, while their minds are at one time judging them and at another giving them approval" Rom 2:11
The mistake you make Dave, is that without a written law, there is only conscience. However, some have seared their conscience or damaged it by persistently refusing to follow it. Others have their conscience seared by their belief systems which allow them to view the world through amoral eyes. Atheism is one such system. Most atheists, in spite of their claimed beliefs, still use the inner law while denying the outer w/o which the inner could never exist. Nor atheism nor Darwinism can account for the existence of such an inner law or conscience. If naturalism were true all thoughts whatever, including moral, would be the result of non rational causes. Non rational causes cannot account for the existence of the rational moral sense let alone reason. That's also seen in the fact that atheism cannot account for the existence of logical absolutes - only theism can. You have to agree with selectedpete. Any rule of action requires a measure. What is the measure you use for determining which action is right vs wrong? If it is only personal and unexplainable natural conscience then each mans conscience may well lead him in opposite ways. And then who is to say which way is right? A man like Stalin or Hitler would never think what they were doing was wrong! Indeed Hitler thought he was redeeming the race from bad genes and inferior species! All real moral law also demands sanctions. This is inescapable. No sanctions = no law. No external, objective rule means no objective rule of measurement is possible whatsoever. You cannot have law without a measure of rightness and wrongness to determine it by. Collective conscience is totally insufficient. The collective may be wrong. How do you know? A reference to the external law is always necessary. This has been said time and again on this site. I'm rather surprised you're still going back to morality step one! As Lewis said,
"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
And indeed we do see this over and over again. And you yourself are almost doing it here! As far as written rules goes, virtually all of the major religions has always agreed upon the basics. Do as you would be done by Do no murder Do not steal Do not rape Do not act unjustly Do no adultery etc. I can give you as many refs. as you wish. The only religions that have ignored or twisted the basic rules are those who have been polytheistic or demon worshiping. Atheism has no grounds for any rules whatsoever because it is system of mere denial of reality. As Paul stated, the whole of the Moral Law is summed up in one word, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" That is, love as seeking the highest good as best as one can understand it. Iow, all of us will be judged according to the light we have - the inner rule. The more light the more scrupulous the judging process. And Christ is the light of the world. That's where the book comes in - helping to see the highest good when the light of conscience and reason alone are insufficient. The book also aids in shaping conscience into maturity and forming habits of proper moral thinking. Therein the inner rules joins the outer rule and forms a unit of complete moral light. Ever seeking more light is also part of the rule! Willful ignorance is unacceptable.Borne_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PST}

Charles Actually I grew up on a native American indian reservation and that probably influenced my view of how to live a good life as much as anything else. Say, did you hear the one about the zen buddhist who ordered a hot dog from a street vendor in Manhattan? He said, "Make me one with everything, please".DaveScot_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PST}

correction to my own post: "Darwinism is inherently immoral" should have been "Darwinism is inherently amoral...."Charles_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PST}

DaveScot @ 15:
Maybe I’m giving more credit to humanity for the capacity to rise above animal behavior than humanity deserves.
In fact, you are. Absent any moral authority which is recognized by everyone, there is only what each individual deems to be moral on their own authority, which ultimately always comes down to a 'might makes right' argument. As was noted above, you benefit (and adopt your morality) from living in the long shadow of Christian morality, an authority that is rejected by many (atheists) but a morality nonetheless that originated in Judeo-Christian biblical precepts. Don't conflate your rejection of the authority with your adoption of the morality. Secular moral laws (e.g. legal abortions) are merely man's definition of what is moral enforced by might-makes-right and, as we all know, what is secularly "moral" today will change with expediency tomorrow (e.g. euthansia). Conversely, a divinely imbued morality backed by divine authority and judgement transcends mortal group-thought and might-makes-right, and it is that same transcendant authority that deserves the credit, not only for true morality (an absolute definition and basis for distinguishing good from evil beyond what any one individual relatively, self-servingly decides) but for having created creatures with moral awareness (us) in the first place. Darwinism is inherently immoral as it denies the absolute basis for morality. Darwinism per se isn't sufficient to account for Nazism or the holocaust but, as Demski noted, it is a necessary prerequisite. And Darwinism per se need not have been policy of the Nazi's, but the Nazi's in fact made Darwinism a part of (if not the basis for) their policy. The Nazi's were able to hijack Darwin's theories, in spite of Darwin's arguments for man's nobility, because Darwin's arguments for such nobility have no basis in any recognized aboslute morality (the carry no weight beyond Darwin himself), because the underlying absolute authority (God) is rejected, leaving only an animalistic might-makes-right basis. Which basis the Nazis' hijacked with cherry picked "just so" stories. The lesson from Expelled is not that Darwin's theories always lead to the holocaust, rather the lesson is that "just so" propaganda and suppression of dissenting opinion, coupled with military force and atheistic amorality, always leads to genocide (for the utopian "greater good" imagined by the despot du jour). The lesson from Expelled is that if you don't want to repeat pitting one human race against another (as exemplified by Nazi genocide) then don't suppress scientific opinion that dissents against "just so" stories.Charles_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PST}

selectedpete(16) Who to believe, Hitler or DaveScot? A dilemma for us all (lol) ! But seriously, exactly the same concern can be levelled at God – why can we presume that God is making the right moral judgements?duncan_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PST}

DaveScot at 15 is (at the risk of sounding sycophantic!) right again, in my opinion. Geoff, the Darwinists would argue that it is precisely the naturalism that allows for morality. Humans have evolved reason, memory and imagination, and the combination of these produces critical thinking from which stem ethics and morality. It’s why Dawkins called his book ‘The Selfish Gene’, not ‘The Selfish Organism’. You can’t commit suicide by holding your breath. If you don’t eat you’ll get hungry. These things are involuntary. It doesn’t mean that you can only make self-serving decisions.duncan_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PST}

Dave - Great issues, and refreshing to see you bring these things up against a scientific theory (I guess it's not illegal after all to discuss morals and Darwin) I have to agree that the issue of common descent is quite secondary to the issue of removing a creator (really the crux of the whole issue). This quote is telling: "My sense of ethics flows from within, not without." Dave, absent a god with moral absolutes, that "sense of ethics" which flows from within evil people like Hitler is no less valid. If God is absent, then who gets to say which one of these "senses" is the more noble? Darwin? You? I hope for my sake it is you, by the way ;0) Then this: "All I know is that good people do good things, evil people do evil things, I instinctively know the difference, and choose to do good instead of evil." Again - by whose measuring stick? That's the rub - when you take that logic, it is the same logic employed by the moral relativist who claims all points of view are valid on one hand, but who proceeds to join like-minded men and women protesting [insert favorite social injustice here]. I don't mean to be pejorative here, but I don't think you can honestly espouse both. Intellectually honest atheists like Provine realize this - many others do not. Is it not possible that we instinctively know good and evil because we feel guilt over some things and not others? Where might this guilt "thing" come from? Golden rule does not work here absent a god because without "a god" all you have is a social construct, and Hitler has his, Mr Provine his, and so on. Then it becomes a cage match of the constructs where might makes right. The next logical point of dicussion is: well, if morals come from "a god" then which one? That is a whole 'nother barrel of monkeys, and I'd relish talking with you on that some day ;0)selectedpete_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PST}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply