Where does disbelief in Darwin lead?

_{February 13, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

A commenter to my article about John McCain supporting the teaching of ID in public schools replies that he won’t vote for McCain because of it. The stated reason is the United States is falling behind other industrialized countries in science literacy.

Piffle! The notion that science literacy in the U.S. is substandard is rooted in the results of science surveys that include questions about evolution. Without doubt a much larger fraction of the US populace doesn’t believe in mud to man evolution than compared to any other industrialized nation. So in those surveys they give the “incorrect” answer to questions about the origin of life. In all other category of science questions Americans score as well as or better than non-Americans. But the weight of the “wrong” answers about evolution pulls down the average and makes it appear a few other countries are doing a better job of science education.

Be that as it may I’m a results oriented guy. Instead of presuming that “poorer” science education leads to poorer scientific output I instead look at what America actually produces in the way of science and engineering. Without question America’s output in science and engineering leads the world. Not just a little but a lot. We don’t steal nuclear technology secrets from China, they steal ours. We don’t use European GPS satellites for navigation, they use ours. The list can go on and on. We put a man on the moon 40 years ago while to this day no one else has. America has almost 3 times the number of Nobel prize winners as the next closest nation. That doesn’t support the notion that disbelief in Darwin is causing any problems. In fact it supports just the opposite. Disbelief in evolution makes a country into a superpower – militarily, economically, and yes even scientifically.

Education in America is working just fine, thank you, judging by the fruits of American science and engineering. Disbelief in Darwinian evolution, if anything, leads to greater technological achievements not lesser. If it isn’t broken, don’t try to fix it.

Comments

larry Another thing I noted about Norway when I was there is that alcohol is taxed so prohibitively that use is not very common despite having the highest per capita income in the world. If I had my way marijuana use would be legal in the United States and alcohol would be prohibited instead, or in the spirit (pun intended) of libertarianism neither would be prohibited. There are a rare few things I find myself agreeing with Bill Maher about and that's one of them. DaveScot_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

Thank you DaveScot for the compliment, even when you disagree with me. I can respect that. As for you point, I agree it is a very important to bring up. I actually wrote an entire article on it a while back: White Pride StephenB, I am glad we both agree that racism is a present problem that can have negative impacts on current educational systems. Anyway, the main beef that prompted my first reply was your mistaken assertion that "black privilege" was the casue of anti-black discrimination. You still have not withdrawn that point, hence why I keep pointing you to the evidence that you're mistaken.Atom_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

Everyone I encountered in Norway speaks english and if I carry a gun you won't see it unless the business end is pointed at you for a damn good reason. Private ownership of guns in Norway is likely more than in the United States. The gun control laws are quite comparable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway#Types_of_civilian_owned_guns
Types of civilian owned guns Norway is a nature loving country, and has a large population of hunters. Shotguns and semi-automatic and bolt action rifles make up the better part of the guns in civilian homes. There is a total ban on automatic weapons for civilians, unless they fall under the collector category. Modification of semi-automatic guns into fully automatic without the consent of the police is a felony crime. Handguns, however, are allowed in all calibers as they are used in sports shooting. Norway has long traditions of high-end sports shooting competitions, specially with rifle shooting. Each caliber must be used in a type of competition to be allowed. Also, there is a restriction on the number of weapons an owner can have for each caliber. For recreational shooters, only one gun is allowed in each caliber. For professional and semi-professional shooters, a spare gun is allowed. A recreational shooter is only allowed to own four different handguns. To obtain more, documentation on extensive sports shooting activities is needed.
The first sentence in the same wiki entry:
While having a large amount of civilian owned guns, Norway has a rather low gun crime rate. The reason for this is disputed, but a consensus leans toward the long hunting and wildlife traditions of Norway which made guns an everyday object.
Gee whiz. What is it you think that makes Norway so different from the U.S. in gun crimes? Hint: It isn't the hunting tradition. You can't swing a dead cat in the states without hitting a hunter. I already gave you the real reason. Let me give you a bit of sage advice at this point. If you've dug yourself into a hole the first thing to do is stop digging. DaveScot_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

DaveScot, I'd pick you out of a crowd of Norwegians any day. You'd be the one speaking English and carrying a gun. :-)larrynormanfan_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

DaveScot, I think "racial, cultural, and ethnic purity inside national borders" is neither good nor bad in itself. Probably bad in the long run for modern states. I also think that such purity is usually exaggerated by so-called pure societies. StephenB, you may be right that I am oversensitive on such issues. I wonder why that is? On your claim that Thomas Sowell "has examined this situation in far more detail than any other scholar," I'll see your Sowell and raise you John Hope Franklin.larrynormanfan_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT}

larry You quote-mined me. I said they all look alike and act alike. Do you consider racial, cultural, and ethnic purity inside national borders to be a good thing, a bad thing, or neither good nor bad? Do you think it has no influence, a little influence, or a lot of influence on how easily people get along with each other? The facts on the ground, while acknowledging that correlation doesn't equal causation, speaks to it having quite a large effect. Just to put this in the proper context I've been to Norway too. I'm of northern European descent myself and Norwegians, to me, all look alike and act alike too. I couldn't pick myself out of a crowd of Norwegians. Interesting factoids about Norway which I encountered just now at wikipedia in search of why I came away from Norway thinking they all look and act alike:
Nearly 83% of Norwegians are members of the state Church of Norway, to which they are registered at birth. Many remain in the state church to be able to use services such as baptism, confirmation, marriage and burial, rites which have strong cultural standing in Norway. As few as 10%, however, regularly attend church.[25] About 17% do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force.[26]
Norway is usually held out as having the highest standard of living in the world today by per capita income. I question whether living somewhere where summer weather where you can go to the go to the beach without warm clothing is 21 days long is a high standard of living but since I'm accepting per capita income as a proxy for living standard it's just my personal opinion. What I want to highlight is Norway has a state Church and it's a Christian church were everyone is born into it. A 17% disbelief in the supernatural is probably less than those with disbelief in the United States or at least comparable in any case. Interesting that Norway has a state Christian Church and also the highest standard of living the world, eh? Or maybe you don't find that interesting at all. Probably not since it doesn't support your belief about Christianity and high standards of living. DaveScot_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

134 was written for larrynormanfan.StephenB_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

----"I also don’t say “racism was once a horrific problem” when I mean that racism is still a horrific problem. I kind of think it’s good to be sensitive to that kind of language." Well, I suppose that if you wanted to dissect every word and phrase that I wrote in an attempt to summarize a complex point in two or three paragraphs, you could probably find expressions that could have been more judiciously formulated. That way you can always avoid confronting the main points, which you have a real talent for doing. In fact, racism is not nearly as bad as it was fifty years ago. In those days, a black man dating a black women was the kiss of death for both, if you will excuse the insensitive language. Today, very few people even notice it when races mix in marriages. Now, why don't you completely ignore that point and obssess over my phrase, "kiss of death."StephenB_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

----Atom: "Number one, you have to show that blacks are really arriving at the university “unprepared”. I’d like to see documentation of this." This one statement alone convinces me that you are the one in denial here. Begin googling, "The Poverty in Black Education is Not Due to Racial Discrimination or Lack of Money in D.C." by Walter Williams. While you are at it, just google Walter Williams and black education in general. By the way, both Williams and Sowell are black.StephenB_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

StephenB, I'll admit to being politically correct enough that I don't say things like "they all look alike" even in a hamhanded attempt to make some other point. I also don't say "racism was once a horrific problem" when I mean that racism is still a horrific problem. I kind of think it's good to be sensitive to that kind of language.larrynormanfan_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

Atom You're one of the smartest members of this blog so I'm sure you'll appreciate the following. Several years ago the Austin American Statesman (largest circulating local newspaper) promoted a big public gathering of black business owners where the public was invited to attend. The stated purpose of it was so that black people could be made aware of and patronize black-owned businesses. No one batted an eye in protest. Now imagine the reaction from blacks and whites alike if you replaced the word "black" with "white" in that public announcement. A gathering of white business owners promoting patronage of white owned businesses by white people. Imagine the hue and cry that would arise throughout the land if something like that appeared in the newspaper. Racism goes both ways my friend but it sure isn't treated the same in both directions. I'm a proponent of color blindness. That's how it is in the Marine Corps (Marines are all the color of their uniforms not the color of their skin) and that's how it should be everywhere. Skin color should never be a factor anywhere at any time. We should all be treated by the color of our flag not the color of our skin. We are bound in brotherhood by being citizens of the United States, no more and no less. I realize that's idealistic and difficult to make true but nonetheless I think any law which mentions skin color, including affirmative action quotas, only serve to undermine approaching that ideal. I refuse to make any prejudicial judgement by skin color but reserve the right judge anyone based upon their merits, actions, and willingness to embrace the common bond of being Americans. In this regard I find it distasteful that Obama doesn't protest being considered a black American. He's exactly half white for crying out loud so it isn't even true. I'm reminded of a favorite comic, Chris Rock, saying "I'll run for president and I'm sure as hell black enough". Funny but sadly true. DaveScot_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Atom: I am not going to keep belaboring the same points over and over again. The article you cite is simply not comprehensive enough or informative enough to address the point I am making. Nor do you, I must say, still acknowledge or even seem to understand the point I am making. You continue to emphasize that racism exists as if that point has not already been dramatically agreed to by both of us. You are simply looking at only one side of a two side argument, and until you understand the other side, you will just keep repeating yourself and you will have no idea of how to help resolve the situation. You can begin by doing a Wikipedia search on Thomas Sowell. I provides a quick overview of his philosophy. He has examined this situation in far more detail than any other scholar.StephenB_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Another point. You wrote:
Then when urban blacks arrived at the university unprepared, these same race baiters told them that racist white educators were giving them low grades because of the color of their skin
Number one, you have to show that blacks are really arriving at the university "unprepared". I'd like to see documentation of this. Secondly, you imply that it is a lie that "racist white educators were giving them low grades because of the color of their skin." If there was documented evidence (multiple studies done on this issue, for example) that a student could recieve lower grades or be treated as "less able" simply due to skin color and teacher pre-conceived notions, wouldn't you agree that the "race baiters" (as you call them) were correct in that situation? I am all for peace among races and groups; I am just not willing to get it by turning a blind eye to the documented oppression and discrimination happening in my own country. Again, "black privilege" is not the reason for white discrimination and anger; it never was and to imply that it was or is is simply closing your eyes to the reality of the situation. And blacks don't have any privilege I know of, other than being passed up for jobs and opportunities based on people's pre-judgments.Atom_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

-----larrynormanfan writes to Dave Scot: "Ahem. I’ll grant that Japanese people all look alike to you. Chinese too. But that says more about you than about the Japanese or Chinese. “They all look alike” is not a winning line." Oh, come on. That was a statement about homogeneousness of the culture and the obvious demographics of the situation. Your politically correct sensibilities are mind boggling.StephenB_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

StephenB, Glad you read the article. Take what it says to heart
When they [blacks] arrive unprepared and fail to compete, secularists lie to them and tell them that they are failing because their white racists teachers are giving them lower grades than they deserve.
Please provide some sort of study or documentation that this is actually occurring in significant numbers. It sounds like just anecdotal generalization. On the other hand, Racism in both the judicial and eductaion systems has been DOCUMENTED and continues to be a real problem. Are blacks and other harassed groups supposed to keep quiet about it and just chug along? Should IDers just shut up about the discrimination they face? Maybe they're just not trying hard enough to get peer-reviewed, as the Darwinists claim? (The victim can always be blamed...)
This causes blacks to resent whites and reopens old wounds of the past.
Believe me, the wounds are not just from the past. They continue to be added and made worse when people tell blacks to just shut up and not speak up over the thoroughly documented discrimination they face currently.
Further, to aggravate the problem, these same secularists try to compensate for the failures by offering blacks special privileges. This causes whites to resent blacks. Thus, secularists are setting up an artificial environment in which blacks resent whites and whites resent blacks.
Again, you echo the point mentioned before, that somehow the blacks are responsible for the discrimination they face and white hatred of them. Let me quote both you and the article together, and you can see how your point is exaclty what is being written about: StephenB:
First, they created the conditions for violence through race baiting. They cheated blacks out of a decent education even as they provide in them a false sense of self esteem. Then when urban blacks arrived at the university unprepared, these same race baiters told them that racist white educators were giving them low grades because of the color of their skin. But it didn’t stop there. They aggravated the problem by offering special privileges to blacks, enraging whites and causing unnecessary resentment, unnatural rage that would not have been there without the meddling. That doesn’t come from religion; that comes from secularism.
Article:
But the fundamental flaw in Taranto’s argument is its suggestion–implicit though it may be–that prior to the creation of affirmative action, white folks were mostly on board the racial justice and equal opportunity train, and were open to hearing about claims of racism from persons of color. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. White denial is not a form of backlash to the past forty years of civil rights legislation, and white indifference to claims of racism did not only recently emerge, as if from a previous place where whites and blacks had once seen the world similarly. Simply put: whites in every generation have thought there was no real problem with racism, irrespective of the evidence, and in every generation we have been wrong.
This kind of thing is why the race problem is still such an open wound for people of color. It is one thing to be discriminated against; it is another thing entirely for people to deny your situation, even when study after study confirms it. Just look at how angry IDers get over their discrimination and how Darwinists always do what you do and blame the victim: "Gonzalez didn't bring in enough money, didn't mentor PhD candidates...", "Sternberg broke protocol...", "ID articles can't pass scientific muster to get peer-reviewed...". You think you would be aware of the game and not play it yourself.Atom_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT}

larry Private communications that cross international borders has never been interpreted as a constitutionally guaranteed right. The wiretaps of which you speak only apply to international channels but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Moreover, the constitution guarantees the rights thereunder to U.S. citizens not to foreign nationals although reasonable effort to extend these rights as a courteousy to foreign nationals legally within our borders is the rule rather than exception.
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It's probably tempting to you to interpret the equal protection clause as applying to non-citizens but that's clearly not the case. Foreign nationals can be non-judiciously deported which is a law that doesn't apply to citizens. Foreign nationals cannot vote in our elections, another law that is different for citizens and non-citizens. They are indeed granted equal protection under the law but the law can be different for citizens than they are for foreign nationals as laws regulating voting rights and freedom to leave and enter the country demonstrate. Citizens can serve in the U.S. armed forces, voluntarily or involutarily, while non-citizens cannot. Another aspect of the military, just as an aside, is that upon enrollment or conscription one gives up one's rights under the constitution and becomes subject instead to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. What you might expect wouldn't fly under the 14th amendment is treating some foreign nationals differently than other foreign nationals but that's not the case either. An example is someone wanting to visit the United States who is a citizen of Canada is treated much differently than a visitor who is a citizen of Syria. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. We have a right to control our borders and that extends to international communications, international import and export, and international travel. No country that is not the US exhibits all the qualities of the US. Right. Your challenge is to choose which things about the U.S. that makes it unique in the world you are willing to change in order to raise standard of living and/or reduce crime. Another great thing about the U.S. is that if you can get enough ~~people~~ citizens to agree with you there is a process by which the constitution of the United States can be changed to accomodate your desires. For instance, maybe you'd like to see Hillary-care (mandatory enrollment in health insurance) become the law of the land. Fine, but in my generally libertarian point of view that's a rather egregious violation of personal liberty in not being allowed to choose whether or not you want to participate in the health insurance ~~racket~~ industry. Or perhaps you want to see private gun ownership outlawed. Again, in my generally libertarian POV this deprives me of the right of protecting my home and property against invaders. I think it's an overall good thing that the police can expect to be greeted by a rain of bullets should they bust down my door without first identifying themselves and their intent and it's a good thing that any other unlawful offense against the sanctity of my home and property can be defended against with personal use of deadly force. I'm of the opinion that prevents more crime than it causes and since ~~people~~ citizens with a different opinion can't muster a sufficient majority to change the constitution or even get a majority of supreme court justices to interpret the 2nd amendment differently then it remains the law of the land. DaveScot_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

-----Atom: "Again, you should read the article." Atom: I did read it. I don't understand what you think that I don't understand. I know racism is always an issue to some extent. What we are talking about here, a least what I was talking about until everyone distorted it, is the fact that secularists USE racism and, to some extent, cause it. Racism in the 1990's was not as bad as racism in the 1950's. To some extent, the laws made it happen and to some extent the culture allowed it to happen. However, racism is on the rise again because it is being artificially escalated by those whose fortunes are helped by it. Many young blacks in urban areas are not being educated for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that secularists allow bad teachers to teach. That means that the young blacks under that bad teachers care cannot compete in higher education. Even so, politically correct meddlers insist that they be given a chance to compete at places where they have no chance, sometimes at Ivy League schools. When they arrive unprepared and fail to compete, secularists lie to them and tell them that they are failing because their white racists teachers are giving them lower grades than they deserve. This causes blacks to resent whites and reopens old wounds of the past. Further, to aggravate the problem, these same secularists try to compensate for the failures by offering blacks special privileges. This causes whites to resent blacks. Thus, secularists are setting up an artificial environment in which blacks resent whites and whites resent blacks. The larger point is, (I guess I will have to make it again) if blacks BELIEVE that racism is the reason for their academic failures, they have no chance. If, for example, a university professor returns a badly written paper to a student explaining to him that his nouns and verbs do not agree, and the student refuses to accept that assessment on the grounds that his professor is racist, the black student will end up talking gibberish for the rest of his life. Further, he will help sustain a black culture that buys in to the same idea. That fact that SOME racism really does exist will make the thing even more plausible. None of this has anything to do with the fact that yes, 1) white denial still exists, 2) police frisk blacks more often than whites, or 3) that employers are sometimes racist in their hiring practices. I grant all of these things. It is also true that a black man has about a 40% chance of becoming the next president of the United States and you can be sure that if he could not match his nouns with his verbs, he would not be in the running.StephenB_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT}

DaveScot, you're right. No country that is not the US exhibits all the qualities of the US. My bad. :-) However, [3] doesn't exist even for the US: see Guantanamo for suspension of rights and warrantless wiretaps for sanctioned invasions of privacy.larrynormanfan_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

larry Of course they're not all clones but compared to any random crowd in the states they do all look quite alike - dark brown eyes and straight jet black hair. If you haven't been there after living in the states all your life you have no idea of what it's like. Singapore? You think a small notorious nanny state where the goverment dictates everything is comparable to the United States? I understand that Singapore recently softened the laws against chewing gum. George Bush made it a condition of a trade agreement, which Singapore wanted more than it wanted no gum chewing, at the behest of Bush supporter W.M. Wrigley Company. Singapore still however publically canes teenagers for minor offenses and it seems to work pretty well. Maybe we should be more like Singapore. Good point. :lol: If you want to convince me I'm wrong, which is difficult but not impossible (see Timaeous convincing me above that I was wrong about Buddhism's compatibility with Darwinism), then give me an example comparable to the United States in several critical aspects: 1) It must be large and have people of all races, cultures, ethnicities, and religious belief living elbow to elbow and have strict laws against discrimination in housing and employment based upon any of those. 2) It must have constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and private ownership of guns. 3) It must have a judicial system where one is innocent until proven guilty, one has a right to trial by a jury of peers, and where private property and effects cannot be searched or seized without documented probable cause. 4) Travel within the nation's borders is unrestricted in any way. If you can find such a nation and then show me that it has a higher per capita income (a proxy for standard of living) and a lower rate of both violent and property crime then I'll admit the U.S. isn't the best example of a shining city on a hill that I believe it is. DaveScot_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

Wakefield "Church is not a panacea" Of course it isn't. But it's better than no indicator at all.DaveScot_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

StephenB, Again, you should read the article.
But the fundamental flaw in Taranto's argument is its suggestion--implicit though it may be--that prior to the creation of affirmative action, white folks were mostly on board the racial justice and equal opportunity train, and were open to hearing about claims of racism from persons of color. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. White denial is not a form of backlash to the past forty years of civil rights legislation, and white indifference to claims of racism did not only recently emerge, as if from a previous place where whites and blacks had once seen the world similarly. Simply put: whites in every generation have thought there was no real problem with racism, irrespective of the evidence, and in every generation we have been wrong.
Atom_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

DaveScot,
Japan is nothing like that. I’ve been there. All you see is a sea of people who look alike and act alike. China? Been there too. Samo samo.
Ahem. I'll grant that Japanese people all look alike to you. Chinese too. But that says more about you than about the Japanese or Chinese. "They all look alike" is not a winning line. But as long as we're talking Asia, how about Singapore? Really low crime rate, really high population density, a mixture of Chinese, Malaysian, Indonesian, European, Japanese, Indian ethnicities. Religiously a mix of secular, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and secularist. Extraordinarily diverse society. Of course there are a lot of reasons for its low crime rate. But it's not like ethnic and racial diversity always leads to conflict.larrynormanfan_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Where does disbelief in Darwin lead? To a rational and logical view of reality.Joseph_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

Well Dave I actually agree. Like I told StephenB above that post of mine was a draw out--to see what the gang here knew. I'd heard of the Paul study. It's all over the Web. Everywhere. Presumably Paul's supporters in the "God belief" makes you mean and nasty prefer to cling more to this than Paul's apparent detractors. I was curious here. And AYE--I can attest to hybrid vigor, though I never heard that term applied to cultural mixes but rather genetic mixes in animals that actually make them even more powerful, those who breed crocodilians or have caimans as pets generally end up with something even bigger and healthier than the mommy and daddy crocs. (I have a pet caiman named Alexandra, a mix of yacare and spectacled caiman. Not a maneater by reputation but nasty if you turn your back. She doesn't mess with me, but for other people......well...) As to church, well, the leader of the abstinence movement in my nephew's home town is...well....about 6 months pregnant. Church is not a panaceaS Wakefield Tolbert_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

When I evaluate how a new friend is going to influence my daughter there are three questions I ask in order of decreasing priority. 1) Does she get good grades in school? This relates to good sense in setting priorities in life and being able to acheive them. 2) Does she participate in any sports? This occupies kids in a way where they don't get into much trouble and is indicative of habits which promote health, fitness, and working well with others. 3) Does she go to church? This is indicative of good grounding in moral behavior. More often than not these three things travel together in the same individual and when they do it's a reliably good influence in my opinion. That's not to say that any deviations are automatically a bad influence it's just a red flag that warrants closer scrutiny in what they get up to together.DaveScot_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT}

Wakefield "faith makes people turn inward to the point that they neglect higher social responsibilities" Whoever said that never attended any of the Christian churches I've been to. They're always deeply involved in a plethora of programs to help the poor, the sick, the old, the young, and the distressed. They turn outward in number and in force. "Japan is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world" It's also one of the most racially and ethnically pure countries in the world. Try correlating cultural, ethnic, and racial purity in the population with violence. The United States is called "The Great Melting Pot". It's nation of immigrants from all over the world - all races, cultures, and ethnicities. Of course there's going to be friction generated when those clash in close proximity. Japan is nothing like that. I've been there. All you see is a sea of people who look alike and act alike. China? Been there too. Samo samo. Anyone without jet black hair stands out like a streetlight in a dark forest and is almost certainly a foreigner. Yet the bottom line remains that the U.S. is the single most successful nation in the world by the metrics of economic and military superiority and it arrived there in an eyeblink compared to how long other industrialized nations have been in existence. How is that explained? My theory has to do with what's called hybrid vigor in biology and botany. Inbreeding within restricted gene pools brings out the worst while cross breeding in a large gene pool brings out the best. I reckon' that hybrid vigor applies to nations as it does to species. DaveScot_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT}

Timaeus Thank you for explaining how Darwin does and doesn't fit in with Buddhism. You seem very objective about it and certainly far more knowledgable than I. I defer to your expertise and concede the point. Say hi to Jed and Granny for me and give Ellie May a pinch on the rear. DaveScot_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
12:46 AM
12
12
46
AM
PDT}

aaron You produced no study linking teaching ID with any reduction of science literacy. You ignore the definition of ID posted on our sideboard which makes no reference to anything supernatural. Your trolling days here are over. Troll elsewhere.DaveScot_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT}

-----“StephenB, I see we’re getting nowhere. I’m a Christian, yes, and I’m an evolutionist, but I’m not a “Darwinist,” because I don’t think that term is really meaningful. Nobody is a “Darwinist” today in the sense Darwin was. I’m not even a “neo-Darwinist,” in the sense of adhering to a strict version of the Modern Synthesis. I’m probably more of a Gould/Lewontin type — multiple mechanisms, of which natural selection is one.” The modern synthesis is neo-Darwinism insofar as it relies primarily, but not exclusively, on RM+NS to explain biodiversity. The purpose of the word Darwinism is to highlight the fact that it is a non-directed process. No word can completely capture every nuance of what every person believes. If you believe in a non-directed evolutionary process, then you are a Darwinist. If you believe that the design in nature is illusory, then you are a Darwinist or neo-Darwinist if you like. The theistic position is that God directed evolution and that design is real. Thus, if you are a Darwinist, you must reject the Christian teaching that God reveals himself in nature. -----"Thanks for telling me what information I’m allowed to read. I’ll keep that in mind while you continue to question my faith. I hope you’ll be comforted to know that I’ve read a fair amount of ID literature too, including two books of Dembski, Wells’s Icons of Evolution, and Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box. I’ve even read Of Pandas and People. So I’ve been trying to come to terms with ID for a long time." I am not questioning your faith so much as your synthesis of a purposeful, mindful God (Christianity) who uses a purposeless, mindless process (Darwinian non-Directed evolution). Inasmuch as you have read some of the ID literature, I will try to be less critical. Also, I promise not to criticize you for using anti ID websites for support. But I can’t promise to take time out to read them all. Fair enough? -----“Ending sympathy demonstrates our nobility, not our stupidity. So Curtsinger is being inelegant by focusing on West’s willful distortion of Darwin’s text. But his basic point is correct, and West is wrong. West is the one who distorts the plain sense of the text.” Curtsinger is being either naïve or disingenuous. Have you read much Darwin? Darwin always couches his controversial statements in the language of empathy. He speaks most loudly of our noble nature only when he is about to blur the distinction between man and animal. You have ignored all my points about the history of eugenics and the sensibilities of those who originated it. They were all Darwinists. Do you think they were misreading the text? Do you think Haeckel misunderstood? Do you think Galton misunderstood? Do you think Sanger misunderstood?StephenB_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

We should all be fully cognizant of the fact that the enemy is vicious and has no moral backbone.
I love you too, Mapou.larrynormanfan_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply