Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

People who doubt “evolution” are more likely to be racist?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

So academic elite types claim in a recent study:

A disbelief in human evolution was associated with higher levels of prejudice, racist attitudes and support of discriminatory behavior against Blacks, immigrants and the LGBTQ community in the U.S., according to University of Massachusetts Amherst research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Similarly, across the globe — in 19 Eastern European countries, 25 Muslim countries and in Israel — low belief in evolution was linked to higher biases within a person’s group, prejudicial attitudes toward people in different groups and less support for conflict resolution…

“People who perceive themselves as more similar to animals are also people who tend to have more pro-social or positive attitudes toward outgroup members or people from stigmatized and marginalized backgrounds,” Syropoulos explains. “In this investigation, we were interested in examining whether belief in evolution would also act in a similar way, because it would reinforce this belief that we are more similar to animals.”

University of Massachusetts Amherst, “Disbelief in human evolution linked to greater prejudice and racism” at ScienceDaily (April 4, 2022)

The paper requires a fee or subscription.

A friend who has read the paper kindly writes to say,

I think this study is a prime example of the temptation to make the correlation equals causation fallacy. What this paper is measuring has nothing to do with evolution or belief in it. It is measuring parochial attitudes among people in insulated groups who don’t have much contact with the outside world. These people tend to be prejudiced against other races and also have little contact with evolution so they are skeptical. It just shows that isolation breeds prejudice against the other.

The principle that isolation breeds prejudice against the “other” is a truism. And you could find evidence supporting this truism from very different groups. If you surveyed attitudes of ivory tower types you’d find similar prejudice against conservative religious groups, you’d find similar discriminatory attitudes. Why? Because those evolutionary secular academic types who accept human evolution have very little contact with conservative religious people.

So what’s interesting isn’t the finding of this paper. What’s interesting is why they chose to study isolated people who happen to be religious and defined prejudice as attitudes towards certain privileged groups in society (eg LGBTQ). Why not study prejudice of secular types who accept human evolution towards religious consevatives? You’d find analogous prejudices. But the researchers weren’t interested in studying that…because they are evolutionary secularists with an agenda to make religious conservatives look bad.

Come to think of it, if you are here anyway, you may also wish to read: E. O. Wilson and racism: The smoking gun is found. Some have dismissed the findings but others say they fit a pattern. From Schulson’s story: “I don’t really care that Wilson had racist ideas, because I know pretty much all of the people that I dealt with, when I was coming up through the science system, had racist ideas,” said [evolutionary biologist Joseph] Graves, who in 1988 became the first Black American to receive a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. “Wilson was just one of many.” Oh.

And remember, Wilson was supposed to be the second Darwin. Funny no one talks about that now.

Comments
JVL
When two people both claiming to be using an objective moral standard disagree about a particular issue how is the disagreement resolved?
The object moral standard is universal and are general norms. They're the root of the moral system. It's a foundation. They promote virtues and forbid vices. Something like "murder of an innocent person for no reason is a moral crime" -- is a basic, universal, objective moral norm, known by all humanity. When it comes to specific instances, then we have to look at the case and match it with the norm. Someone kills a person. Was it deliberate murder? Was there no reason? If there was a reason, does it meet the virtue of justice (another moral norm)? There is always room for disagreement in the specifics on various actions. But the norms themselves are not up for debate. Something debatable like abortion is an example where both sides try to defend the moral rightness of their view by pointing out that it is either unjust murder of a child or it is not. The debate never proceeds to say "yes, it is murder of a baby but that is always a good thing". That's the objective moral law guiding the debate.Silver Asiatic
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Adolph Hitler had his subjective ideas. You have yours. Neither is better than the other. The fact that subjective morality does not exist like that and human beings know that murdering innocent people for no reason is objectively wrong (otherwise there would be no way to condemn it), then morals point to an objective quality, inherent in rational human nature. So, if there is an objective moral standard and two individuals who both claim to be following that objective moral standard disagree then how can the disagreement be resolved?JVL
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
JVL I used the example of mathematics to indicate what subjectivism is. I'm showing you what it means to say "morality is subjective". When I propose "Math is subjective" (or anything is subjective - history, art, science) - it means, "Every answer has equal value". 2+2 can equal 5, 500, one million - anything the person feels or wants. Once again: I propose: "The value of art is subjective". That means "there is no right or wrong, good or bad. One person likes it, another does not. Nobody can say "there's a universal quality of goodness or badness in that art work". Whether you agree that art is subjective or not, is not the point. Whether you agree that math is subjective is not the point. It just means IF math was subjective, then 2+2 can equal anything. There is no objective correct answer. A million people can say it is 4. But anybody who says its 500 is just as correct. It's a subjective, personal opinion. One person likes chocolate, another likes vanilla. It's subjectve. We say that math is objective however. There is a correct answer. When morality is subjective - "all moral norms are equal" - there is no right or wrong. It's an amoral system. There's no good or bad. Adolph Hitler had his subjective ideas. You have yours. Neither is better than the other. The fact that subjective morality does not exist like that and human beings know that murdering innocent people for no reason is objectively wrong (otherwise there would be no way to condemn it), then morals point to an objective quality, inherent in rational human nature. For subjectveSilver Asiatic
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus: JVL, did you see that I answered your questions about ID in 269 ff? I did see those responses. But now I am asking some different questions about objective moral systems. When two people both claiming to be using an objective moral standard disagree about a particular issue how is the disagreement resolved?JVL
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
JVL, did you see that I answered your questions about ID in 269 ff? KFkairosfocus
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Proposed: Answers to math problems are subjective. People can choose any answer they want. Therefore, the answer 5 to the question what is 2+2 is permitted. It’s a subjective answer, not better or worse than any other. That doesn't really work though does it? Mathematics is demonstrably NOT subjective and everyone agrees on most of what is taught in mathematics courses because it can be demonstrated to follow from some basic axioms/assumptions. When you change those axioms you can get different results. Some people think math should be taught differently or that certain topics should be emphasised or left out. It is pretty clear that there are a lot of different moral standards, even amongst some faith-groups like Christians. If I ask you about a particular issue and what is the correct objective moral response I might get a completely different answer from someone else. You might both have well-thought out and supported reasons for your different views. Given that that is clearly the case . . . when there are clear and divisive differences between people who both claim to be operating from an objective moral standard how does one pick which view is 'correct'? Who decides what is and is not part of your objective standard?JVL
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
I think I asked VL what made her position about morality superior to anyone else's. Unless there is something objective to compare it to, the answer is nothing. Andrewasauber
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
Classical thought speaks of virtues and vices - and that there is a purpose for human life, for each person to work for virtues and overcome vices with the goal of being a good person. To say that everyone can choose their own morals (their own definition of good and bad) just destroys all of that. Nobody could even say if "that is a good person" or not. There's no basis for it. One person chooses to murder innocent people, another chooses to help the needy and sick. They both made equal choices for their own reasons - neither is better than the other.Silver Asiatic
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
VL
So yes, people can choose, in theory, whatever morals they want.
We're talking about the universal or global effect of morality. The subjective view is one thing, the objective moral view another. The subjective view is as you say: People can choose whatever morals they want. This is what is meant by "amoral". It's not a system of moral codes. Any behaviors, within the system may be freely chosen. There is no standard within the system, by which one can say a certain act is universally good, and must be chosen by everyone. None can be said to be universally or objectively evil. Each person creates their own morality. So, that's the definition of a subjective, amoral system. Now, as you say, you can choose your morals and stand by them. Other people choose their own morals and stand by them. You can try to convince people to agree with your views. But what cannot happen is that you could say that your moral views are correct. You cannot know that. The other person thinks their morals are correct for other reasons. If each person can choose their own morals, then none are universally correct. To attempt to convince someone that your morals are correct and their opposing morals are wrong, therefore, is proposing that there are, indeed, correct, universal moral norms. That's the illogical nature of it. Subjectivity says that everyone can choose their own morals because there are no correct, true, universally binding morals. If there is no universally correct answer to the question: What is the morally correct thing to do?, then it is illogical to insist that people accept your views as if they are universally correct. In an amoral system, there is no right or wrong. Everyone is free to choose for themselves. Claiming that someone else's moral code is wrong and yours is right is a contradiction. By the nature of a system that says "there are no universal, objective moral norms", it would be illogical to argue against someone who created their own subjective moral norms just as you created your own. There is no logical basis by which to disagree with them. You cannot say "you have chosen unwisely" because that assumes that there is a correct (wise) moral choice that is universally binding on people. But by the nature of subjectivity, there can be no such universal norm. We can apply it to any other topic and that's how it works. For math: Proposed: Answers to math problems are subjective. People can choose any answer they want. Therefore, the answer 5 to the question what is 2+2 is permitted. It's a subjective answer, not better or worse than any other. If, however, the person says "no, 5 is wrong" - then that person is pointing to an objective standard - a "right versus wrong". But the objective standard logically contradicts the claim that "everyone can choose their own subjective answer - math answers are subjective, just like whether they like chocolate or vanilla ice cream better". Subjectivity is what it is. Any answer comes from the equally authoritative source - the individual. By its nature, there can be no universally correct moral answer. From that, there is no moral standard by which to judge any one else's moral choices. The fact that you made your own choices applies only to yourself. Other people make other choices. Subjectivity does not even demand that people need good reasons for their choice. Whatever they choose is "what is good or evil for them". To say that someone's moral choice upsets you or you don't like it or it makes you feel bad - all of that is fine but those responses are confined to yourself. They say nothing about the validity of whatever choice the other person made. If there were correct reasons to choose one moral norm or another, then that is something "outside of the individual" - that's objective.Silver Asiatic
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
VL, I addressed this fallacy assertion, the fallacy claim is unreliable especially when there is a real ratchet or slope leading or credibly leading over a cliff. Prudence guides us to avoid such marches of folly, as Plato's Ship of state advises. Are you prepared to say his warning about incompetent, ambitious and looter pols was a fallacious appeal to bad consequences? That tells us something is very off with the way the claim is being made. See here https://uncommondescent.com/logic-and-first-principles-of-right-reason/logic-first-principles-what-about-appeal-to-consequences-vs-reductio-ad-absurdum/ . KFkairosfocus
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
ViolaLee argumentum ad consequentiam is a logical fallacy: the fact that you don’t like what you see as the consequences of my position is not a logical argument against my position or for your position.
Also Viola Lee:
ViolaLee Yes, Hitler was a very bad, evil person (as is Putin, FWIW).
So ViolaLee what did you said about argumentum ad consequentiam ? Is not fallacy when you do it but "certainly" is a fallacy when somebody else do it?Sandy
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
I’m pretty sure I shouldn’t do this, but I am going to respond to SA: I’ll take responsibility for my decision. I will try to be short and succinct. If you respond to my points, I’ll continue. SA, you write, She didn’t respond to the logical problems that subjective morality generates. Atheism is amoral. With that, nothing can be “immoral” except in the mind of the individual person and anyone else that agrees with that person. There’s no need to even have tolerance for anyone, since tolerance is a moral value that people could choose or not. There is no “logical problem” to my position. First, I and others have repeatedly pointed out that argumentum ad consequentiam is a logical fallacy: the fact that you don’t like what you see as the consequences of my position is not a logical argument against my position or for your position. That I think is a logical fallacy that is often commi ted by people here. Second, I have to repeat, I am an atheist but not a materialist. My position is not “amoral”. I believe that people, besides being rational and free-willed, have a moral nature: the capacity and need to make moral judgments that in part tap into deep commonalities in our nature about the importance of caring for the welfare of others as well as ourselves. So, yes, although we see disagreements among people about morals we see a lot of agreement. I, and several others here, have repeatedly given arguments based on observing human beings about the utility of moral behavior both for the individual and for society. No “objective values” are necessary to explain that utility. All of this–our moral nature and our rationality–is antithetical to both amorality and nihilism. So yes, people can choose, in theory, whatever morals they want. In practice, they don’t, for reasons such as I have sketched above. The second issue that is commonly brought up is that if morals are chosen by the individual without regard to any objective standard, then that person must consider all positions equally valid, and thus can not judge anyone else because they too are just acting on their standards. I have repeatedly addressed this. When I choose a moral value or principle, as a free-willed agent, I take responsibility for that choice. I judge that some things are good, and some not, and I live by those choices. If you choose differently then we will disagree, but I am going to stand by what I believe. As Gandhi said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world”. The moral world becomes what we choose it to be, so if I care about the world as I wish it to be, then I will act on my moral principles. This is the total opposite of thinking that are moral perspectives are equal. Putting these two points together, we see that the world is full of messy conflict about morals. Each of us in various ways, from just modeling what we see as good in our daily life to fighting hard about some issues, manifests our moral choices. I don’t expect you guys to agree with me about this, but there isn’t any “logical fallacy”. My position is based on what I consider valid and justified conclusions based both on my internal experience of myself as a human being and on my, and many others, observational evidence about the psychological and sociological nature of human beings. This is a summary of things I have said many times before. Often (usually) I have felt that my points are just glossed over: that is one reason why I don’t want to keep doing this. Unless I can participate in a genuine conversation, as opposed to a continual battle of assertions, I have no interest in continuing.Viola Lee
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
Prudence is the intellectual virtue that enables us to choose the best option between extremes. Virtue is in the middle between too much and too little. Prudence guides the mind to that difficult choice. Generosity is a virtue. Too much - would be wasteful giving away of things and money to impoverish self Too little -- is stinginess The virtue is between those two - giving the right amountSilver Asiatic
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Apparently, VL has left the conversation ... not sure but that's what it seems like. She didn't respond to the logical problems that subjective morality generates. Atheism is amoral. With that, nothing can be "immoral" except in the mind of the individual person and anyone else that agrees with that person. There's no need to even have tolerance for anyone, since tolerance is a moral value that people could choose or not.Silver Asiatic
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
PS, that micro-macro pattern is also seen in economics and other social phenomena. Y = c + i + g + (x-m) is effectively an accounting equatio9n but its elements are rooted in the mirco structure of the economy and the associated non linearites become pivotal.kairosfocus
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
F/N: An interesting case is the ideal gas law PV = nRT, with extensions and modifications, as the behaviour of gases was explored. Note, we now recognise that the deterministic form recognises a stochastic micro structure giving rise to macro phenomena based on averages and net tiny fluctuations. This is where we recognise that oner sense o9f randomness emerges from molecular interactions, so Temp is a measure of average random KE per molecule etc, per degree of freedom at micro level. KFkairosfocus
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
KF - thank you. I think in the past the comment number was the live-link but now it's the date/time stamp. Here's the comment: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/has-anyone-else-noticed-the-blatant-political-flavor-of-many-sciencey-mags-these-days/#comment-750009Silver Asiatic
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
PPPS, I suggest, the type of system, entity and process is dynamic-stochastic, so for example we talk about natural causes as embracing blind chance [stochastic] and/or mechanical necessity [more or less dynamics with deterministic form laws such as F = ma or V = IZ -- extended Ohm's law -- or E = hf or F = GMm/r^2, etc. -- and yes, embracing sensitive dependence on initial conditions aka butterfly effect and aka chaos]. This is as opposed to intelligently directed configuration where intelligence implies a degree of more or less responsible, rational freedom of a self-moved entity or agent, though it embraces things like beaver made dams.kairosfocus
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
PPS: FSCO/I is functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information. By now we need a way to say it, I propose, Fun-skee. It is the functional form of CSI. Most readily recognised in alphanumeric text but note organisation such as the exploded view of the ABU 6500 CT fishing reel. I did say "fun" didn't I?kairosfocus
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
PS: The specific remark by JVL is:
I would not consider myself a materialist in the normal sense; I think there is a lot of slop at the quantum level that stops every thing from being completely deterministic. Also, I would not characterise myself as being an atheist, I think of myself as being an agnostic, someone who has not yet been convinced of the existence of a deity but who is, I hope, open to persuasion. I’m trying to be anyway!! Personally I do find the arguments for unguided evolution to be compelling (I did not say evidence since we’re all looking at the same evidence) but I can see how one might come to a different conclusion. In fact, in all honesty, years ago when I first start frequenting this site, I spent a lot of time really questioning and considering the mainstream view. Which meant I read more from both sides. I still accept and acknowledge that all scientific views (and my own) are provisional, i.e. they could change based on new data and evidence. The very last thing I want to be is closed minded. I admit, I don’t think it’s likely that the general paradigm of unguided evolution will be overturned but I do admit it’s possible. I do find it confusing as to what ID is saying in the bigger picture; meaning past just that design was implemented. Sometime. Somewhere. Somehow. But that is not out of disrespect to any one person. It’s just that I don’t understand how it is that there isn’t some research or at least a research agenda in place to deal with those questions. But, hey, it’s not for me to direct that is it?
A live case of how a reasonably serious minded objector to ID -- as opposed to one just playing the troll -- thinks. My comment is of course that first we must mark out a matter of inductive reasoning and epistemology. Observed tested, reliable signs such as FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits point to design as cause for cases we have not observed. This is the design INFERENCE. Note, inference, not movement, not theory. Following the UD Weak Argument Correctives under the Resources tab, we can identify ID Theory as a [small] research programme that explores whether there are such observable, testable, reliable signs, whether they appear in the world of life and in the cosmos, whether we may responsibly -- notice, how duties of reason pop up naturally -- use them to infer that cell based life, body plans, the cosmos etc are credibly the result of intelligently directed configuration . . . and that's a definition of design. This, in a context where the proposed "scientific" alternative, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity has not been observed to actually produce things exhibiting FSCO/I etc. Logically, this is an application of inductive reasoning, modern sense, abduction. Which is common in science and is commonly held to ground scientific, weak philosophical sense, knowledge. Weak, it is open ended and can be defeated by further analysis and evidence, warranted, credibly true [and so reliable] belief. Going beyond, where we have further information, evidence and argument we may explore whodunit, howtweredun, etc. Such is after all commonplace in technical forensics, medical research, archaeology, engineering [esp. reverse engineering], code cracking etc. I guess, these can be taken as design-oriented sciences. Going back to 4th form I remember doing natural science explorations of springs. Manufactured entities. So are lenses, mirrors, glas blocks, radio systems, lasers etc. Beyond the theory, there is a movement, comprising supporters and friendly critics as well as practitioners consciously researching design theory or extending thinking on it and applying same to society or civilisation, including history of ideas. The first major design inference on record in our civilisation is by Plato, in The Laws, Bk X:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos -- the natural order], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity, contrasted to "the action of mind" i.e. intelligently directed configuration] . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them . . . . Then, by Heaven, we have discovered the source of this vain opinion of all those physical investigators . . . . they affirm that which is the first cause of the generation and destruction of all things, to be not first, but last, and that which is last to be first, and hence they have fallen into error about the true nature of the Gods. Cle. Still I do not understand you. Ath. Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [[ = psuche], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? Cle. Certainly. Ath. Then thought and attention and mind and art and law will be prior to that which is hard and soft and heavy and light; and the great and primitive works and actions will be works of art; they will be the first, and after them will come nature and works of nature, which however is a wrong term for men to apply to them; these will follow, and will be under the government of art and mind. Cle. But why is the word "nature" wrong? Ath. Because those who use the term mean to say that nature is the first creative power; but if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise. [[ . . . .] Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [--> notice, the self-moved, initiating, reflexively acting causal agent, which defines freedom as essential to our nature, and this is root of discussion on agents as first causes.] [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.
Earlier in the same Bk X, he had noted just how old and how philosophically loaded evolutionary materialism and its appeal to chance and/or necessity are, drawing out consequences for law, government and community:
Ath[enian Stranger, in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos -- the natural order], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity; observe, too, the trichotomy: "nature" (here, mechanical, blind necessity), "chance" (similar to a tossed fair die), ART (the action of a mind, i.e. intelligently directed configuration)] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made . . .
We see the wider setting and the more specific themes.kairosfocus
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
"Personally I do find the arguments for unguided evolution to be compelling" Well... this surely needs to be unpacked. All of the arguments are compelling? Some are stronger than others? Which one is the strongest? Which is weak? The pages of UD are and have been strewn with the demolition of unguided evolution arguments. Are we not paying attention? Andrewasauber
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
SA, which comment number, please? I see 610, where if you click on the date time stamp you will see a link to the specific comment: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/has-anyone-else-noticed-the-blatant-political-flavor-of-many-sciencey-mags-these-days/#comment-750009 After the pound sign is a comment number, where too lb-xxx is an in page anchor. KFkairosfocus
April 14, 2022
April
04
Apr
14
14
2022
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
Post #610 here is one place where JVL gave his worldview and motivations: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/has-anyone-else-noticed-the-blatant-political-flavor-of-many-sciencey-mags-these-days/Silver Asiatic
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
You’re an atheist on a mostly pro-theist site so there’s going to be that conflict.
I should say that ID is neutral about philosophy or theology. There are pro-ID atheists and deists so that shouldn't be a problem either. ... there are anti-ID theists also.Silver Asiatic
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
Andrew I asked him to present his worldview and he did it - I think last month one time. He gave a sincere answer. I'll try to find it and repost.Silver Asiatic
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
it is an antagonistic intolerance of anyone who holds a philosophical perspective different from the mainstream one on this site.
Is this true? There is a range of perspectives on this site. I doubt anyone who is pro ID will differ too much on what is known and not known about the science. The people here pride themselves on having a good grasp of the science and what can be believed because of the evidence. We don't believe those that do not espouse ID can justify their beliefs about science. On other issues that do not require knowledge of the specifics of science, such as discussions of logic, what is truth, what exists and what is moral, there can be wide differences within those that support ID. Nearly all of us that support ID believe there is a creator of the universe and that this has implications. One of the problems is that nearly all who support ID on this site espouse some form of Christianity and many then let those beliefs into their justifications for their beliefs. So sometime it is hard to separate out why someone believes something. Is it religious or just the logic of ID? This will make it hard to have a discussion with someone who is not a Christian. Stay if you believe you are getting something out of it. Present your POV as best you can and if the responses are antagonistic, say so. But do not expect anyone to automatically agree if your opinions are not justified. Also one strategy is to not respond if you believe the person is unreasonable or just provoking.jerry
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
JVL, Forgive me, but would you point me to where you declared these things? I think I remember that you have, but the specifics are lost to my memory in the commentwash. Andrewasauber
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
Asauber: I would like to see some honesty from these commenters as to why they are here, which would save a lot of comment space. I've declared why I comment here, many times. That hasn't seemed to have gained me any respect or understanding from some.JVL
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
VL Maybe look for the small wins - the little positive movements that you can detect. Maybe somebody understood your point of view a little better. Maybe you gained new perspectives yourself. That can make the time worthwhile. You're an atheist on a mostly pro-theist site so there's going to be that conflict. I appreciate your willingness to discuss.Silver Asiatic
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
"intolerance of anyone who holds a philosophical perspective different from the mainstream one on this site" VL, Actually, as far as I know, people can comment freely here, so I don't know what else you could ask for. If you want some people's attitudes to be different, I'm sure they want your attitude to be different, too, so welcome to the big time world. Andrewasauber
April 13, 2022
April
04
Apr
13
13
2022
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 13

Leave a Reply