Will Evolution Weekend Sermons Discuss Alleged Murderer Amy Bishop?

_{Salvador Cordova

February 14, 2010

Culture, Darwinism, Religion}

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

Today is the closing day of “Evolution Weekend”. The weekend is promoted by The clergy letter project. This is a weekend dedicated to glorifying Darwinism in churches.

Curiously one of the scientists on call to help clergy and parishioners promote the glories of Darwinism was Amy Bishop, she is listed here:

Name: Amy Bishop, Ph.D.
Title: Associate Professor
Address: Department of Biological Sciences
University of Alabama in Huntsville
Huntsville, AL 35899
Areas of Expertise: neuroscience, molecular biology, genetics, evolution of the human brain
Email: ——-@uah.edu

Amy Bishop was charged in the murder of several people recently. Now, there are some very fine Darwinists like Francis Collins, and I don’t mean to say Amy Bishop is representative of all Darwinists. But I’d recommend that if the Clergy Letter Project wishes to put on a good face for Darwinism, they might consider disassociating themselves from Amy Bishop.

They may not want to promote “survival of the fittest” in their sermons today. That would be kind of poor taste in light of the fact a presumed societal degenerate (Bishop) is the “fittest” survivor while 3 (possibly 4) innocent victims are the “unfit” dead. Think I’m overstating the case against Darwinism? Consider what Evolutionary Psychologist David Buss argues in his book The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind Is Designed to Kill

murder is the product of evolutionary forces and that the homicidal act, in evolutionary terms, conveys advantages to the killer.

NOTES:
Here is the Fox10’s report on Amy Bishop Biology professor charged with murder

A biology professor at the University of Alabama’s Huntsville campus was charged with murder late Friday in the shooting deaths of three fellow biology professors at the campus….
Amanda Tucker, a junior nursing major from Alabaster, Ala., had Amy Bishop for anatomy about a year ago. Tucker said a group of students went to a dean complaining about Bishop’s performance in the classroom, and Tucker signed a petition complaining about Bishop.

“When it came down to tests, and people asked her what was the best way to study, she’d just tell you, ‘Read the book.’ When the test came, there were just ridiculous questions. No one even knew what she was asking,'” said Tucker.

Andrea Bennett, a sophomore majoring in nursing, was in one of Bishop’s classes Friday morning.

Bennett said nothing seemed unusual, but she described Bishop as being “very weird” and “a really big nerd.”

“She’s well-known on campus, but I wouldn’t say she’s a good teacher. I’ve heard a lot of complaints,” Bennett said

There are also now questions about why liberal congressmen Delahunt (then a District Attorney for Braintree Massachusetts) had her released from police custody after shooting her brother in 1986. See: Professor Amy Bishop Shot & Killed Her Brother in 1986 Dem Rep. Delahunt Made Call to Release Bishop

A Massachusetts police chief is now saying that UAH shooting suspect Amy Bishop shot and killed her brother during an argument, and the case may have been mishandled by the police department more than two decades ago when the fatal shooting occurred.

The Boston Globe reported that Amy Bishop, a biology professor at UAH who is accused of shooting and killing three colleagues yesterday, accidentally shot her 18-year-old brother, Seth M. Bishop, in the abdomen with a 12-gauge shotgun in December 1986.

The report said Bishop was asking her mother, Judith, how to properly unload the gun when it when off and a shot struck Seth.

Braintree Police Chief Paul Frazier is now offering a different account of the shooting to The Globe: “Bishop had shot her brother during an argument and was being booked by police when the police chief at the time ordered the booking process stopped and Bishop released to her mother,” the paper reports on its Web site. Records from the case have been missing since 1987.
…
Braintree officers who remember the 1986 shooting said that former police Chief John Polio dismissed detectives from the case and ordered the department to release Amy Bishop after a telephone conversation with former district attorney William Delahunt.

Delahunt is currently a U.S. congressman from Massachusetts.

HT: my good friend Mike Gene for uncovering the book by David Buss and Amy Bishop’s entry in the Clergy Letter Project

Comments

edit: "map of the US" --> World Map "16,500" --> 167,000Upright BiPed_{February 15, 2010
February
02
Feb
15
15
2010
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT}

hrun,
Who cares who posited the theory. You asked the question here. I am explaining to you why I think the question does not make any sense.
Your explanation does not seem to square (make sense) with modern evolutionary psychology. I find it odd that you see one behavior as being completely explicable by evolutionary theories, but not another. You've propsed this idea twice now. Can you tell us the distinction between the two?
Maybe you should look again: For example, behavior that strongly deviates from the norm of a species does not necessarily have to have to be explicable by evolution. It is the absence of that behavior in the majority of the population that is explicable by evolution.
Really, thats just brilliant. So not committing some act is explicable by evolution, yet commiting that same act is not explicable. Astounding! (And hey, what a great insulator from having to address any potentially awkward questions). Can I have a citation so that I too can research this phenomena - where not commmitting an act is explicable by evolution, but comitting it falls outside what evolution can explain? You DO have a citations for this thesis, correct?
For example, a rare brain defect might explain why some people turn into murders while the majority does not. Let’s say, it might be caused by a random blood clot in the brain.
So you're suggesting that evolutionary phsychologist such as Mr Buss should stop wasting time with evolutionary theories about about murder and start looking for brain clots and such instead? And if we find an errant spouse dead in neighbor's bed in the middle of the night, look for brain clots! And if we come upon a desceased individual with a bag of fake cocaine in an ally, we should look for brain clots again. Oh, this will create quite a stir. Human beings acting upon impulses such as envy, greed, lust, power, hubris, racism...those are all second-rate explanations now.
Evolution can explain the normative behavior of the species. Going around murdering people appears to be a behavior that is not conducive to the overall survival of human beings.
Get a map of the United States and start sticking thumbtacks into it. In the first day put about 4600 in it. Do the same number on the second day. Follow that pattern for 365 days. Now do it every year you are alive, growing a little each year to account for population growth. Now, is murder a normative behavior for humans? The only reason I am asking is because you failed so miserably at the question above, I thought I'd throw you a bone and you can tell us how many people that 16,500 murders each year represents by population and argue that its not "normative" at all. Your welcome.Upright BiPed_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT}

Perhaps you forgot; I did not posit the theory of murder being discussed. The evolutionary psychologist David Buss did.
Who cares who posited the theory. You asked the question here. I am explaining to you why I think the question does not make any sense.
It was then asked if one might agree with his assessment. An answer given was in the negative. I then asked if it was not the “materially explicable forces of evolution” that lead to such impulses, then where do they come from?
And here again I ask you, why would you believe they have to be explicable by evolution?
We are told that mechanics of biological evolution are at the heart of all things that exists biologically. To my knowledge there isn’t a list of things that are off the list.
Maybe you should look again: For example, behavior that strongly deviates from the norm of a species does not necessarily have to have to be explicable by evolution. It is the absence of that behavior in the majority of the population that is explicable by evolution.
I see now that you would perhaps like to suggest otherwise. Can you please illuminate the other biological things (both physical phenomena and species behaviors) that are excluded from evolutionary theories. That is, of course, if you have the time.
For example, a rare brain defect might explain why some people turn into murders while the majority does not. Let's say, it might be caused by a random blood clot in the brain. Evolution can explain the normative behavior of the species. Going around murdering people appears to be a behavior that is not conducive to the overall survival of human beings. Heh, and I did find the time.hrun0815_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

Have you considered that the answer might be that it has a ‘material’ cause but that it was not the ‘forces of evolution’? Again, I think the question is simply non-sense.
Perhaps you forgot; I did not posit the theory of murder being discussed. The evolutionary psychologist David Buss did. It was then asked if one might agree with his assessment. An answer given was in the negative. I then asked if it was not the "materially explicable forces of evolution" that lead to such impulses, then where do they come from? We are told that mechanics of biological evolution are at the heart of all things that exists biologically. To my knowledge there isn't a list of things that are off the list. I also have it on good authority that there are entire throngs of leading evolutionary thinkers that agree wholeheartedly with the very concise premise that "nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution". And I have seen for myself entire selections of books written about biological entities (both their physical being as well as their behavior) that suggest that this is exactly the reigning belief. I see now that you would perhaps like to suggest otherwise. Can you please illuminate the other biological things (both physical phenomena and species behaviors) that are excluded from evolutionary theories. That is, of course, if you have the time.Upright BiPed_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT}

Just to point out, most of those who think that materialism and free will are compatible, do so by redefining free will. A case in point is Nancey Murphy, who is probably at the forefront of this line of inquiry. She defines free will not in terms of freedom (which is naturally what one assumes when speaking of free will), but rather in terms of whether or not the reasons we do things are the same as the reasons we think we do them for. So, yes, there have been scores of books written on the subject (Murphy has written at least three of them), but they do not reconcile materialism and free will -- instead they redefine free will to mean something else, and then reconcile that to materialism. A few others do so by fudging on materialism - by using the "materialism" terminology but, when you look at what they are saying, they are usually invoking a non-material component or a pantheistic component. In this case, neither of these options are truly materialistic.johnnyb_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT}

lol @ ShawnBoy # 28. I think the wig did the trick.JPCollado_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

hrun0815: "Looking around in the human world and the rest of the animal kingdom I see murder being a quite rare occurrence." Only humans are capable of committing murder as we are the only beings imbued with and possessed of a moral constitution. The rest of the animal kingdom is bound by instinctive forces beyond the control of reasoned judgment and so the subject has no relavancy to them.JPCollado_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

Now if (after being asked for a clarification) you have decided that you simply don’t care to answer the question, then just say so. But don’t then tell me that you’re not trying to “weasle out”. That is very obviously and demonstrably not the case. "If the drive to commit the murder is not the result of the materially explicable forces of evolution, from where did it come? " Have you considered that the answer might be that it has a 'material' cause but that it was not the 'forces of evolution'? Again, I think the question is simply non-sense.
You say that you (”unfortunately”) don’t have the time to “invest” in the answer to the question. Yet, I notice you are still here making comments on this and other threads.
That's not what I said. I said that I did not have the time to discuss 'materialism' and 'free will'.
By all means, make yourself at home. Feel free to comment on anything you wish. Pick and choose what responses to your comments you’ll ignore and those which you’ll engage.
That's exactly what I will do. Thank you for approving.hrun0815_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

hrun, In your fist reply at #42 you blatantly tried to change the subject instead of answering the question. Now in your second reply, you've simply (and quite desperately) repeated the same avoidance. What do running animals have to do with the question you took a pot shot at?! The question is:
If the drive to commit the murder is not the result of the materially explicable forces of evolution, from where did it come? Was the drive to commit the murder immaterial? Was it free will?
Now if (after being asked for a clarification) you have decided that you simply don't care to answer the question, then just say so. But don't then tell me that you're not trying to "weasle out". That is very obviously and demonstrably not the case. You say that you ("unfortunately") don't have the time to "invest" in the answer to the question. Yet, I notice you are still here making comments on this and other threads. Well, okay... By all means, make yourself at home. Feel free to comment on anything you wish. Pick and choose what responses to your comments you'll ignore and those which you'll engage. I, for one, want you to feel completely at ease.Upright BiPed_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

P.S. Not all evolutionary biologists are "leftists", nor do most of us practice our science in the pursuit of power, nor do we generally murder our colleagues by shooting them during faculty meetings (even after being denied tenure). But don't let that stop any of you from constructing vicious "just so stories" like Sal's. After all, there is no such thing as "reality" if it contradicts your prejudices, right?Allen_MacNeill_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

Sal, what precisely is the point of this post? It seems to me you are making the following assertions: A1) Amy Bishop is a member of the consultant group for the Clergy Letter Project A2) Amy Bishop is alleged to have murdered three of her colleagues and seriously injured three others by shooting them A3) Charles Darwin indicated that he enjoyed shooting (target unspecified) There appears to be considerable evidence in support of these assertions. However, it is also clear that your intention in making these assertions is the following: I1) Amy Bishop is an evolutionary biologist I2) Evolutionary biologists enjoy shooting I3) Some evolutionary biologists enjoy shooting their colleagues to death And from this you appear to be strongly suggesting the following conclusion: C1) The practice of the science of evolutionary biology predisposes people to commit murder by shooting their colleagues to death. It is a matter of simple historical record that many of the regular commentators at this website agree with something very similar to C1. Indeed, they waste no opportunity to state it as an incontrovertible fact, and cite this "fact" as a reason to reject the methodology, conclusions, and (by implication) the character of the practitioners of evolutionary biology, and especially Charles Darwin. Let me therefore construct an exactly equivalent line of "reasoning": A4) Andrea Yates was a member of a Christian worship group led by the itinerant Christian preacher, Michael Peter Woroniecki A5) Andrea Yates was convicted of murdering her five children by drowning them in a bathtub A6) John the Baptist indicated that he enjoyed submerging sinners in water Again, there appears to be considerable evidence in support of these assertions. Using the line of reasoning you seem to be promoting here, it would be equally "reasonable" to make the following inferences: I3) Andrea Yates is a Christian I4) Christians enjoy submerging people in water I5) Some Christians enjoy murdering their children by drowning them You should therefore be very willing to accept the following conclusion: C2) Christianity predisposes people to murder their children by drowning them. Please correct me if I have somehow misconstrued your intentions here. Also, please explain how your training in science and scientific reasoning leads you to make arguments of this form. And,while you're at it, please let me know how you can look at your own reflection in the mirror after making arguments like this.Allen_MacNeill_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

Mike@45, Agreed. That is the beauty of the freedom of speech and press etc- which is to express one's own experiences through their own anecdotal points and arguments- and being from the right we like a world where there is an open market for ideas and opinions so they can be heard and rejected by the people at the same time. There is a story about Thomas Jefferson when he was in power and a French political leader of some note brought to him an American newspaper with all kind of slanderous things being said about him and people in his party- and when the Frenchman asked why this as allowed and why Jefferson did not have these people arrested for treason- or at least for slander or sedition? and Jefferson replied "take this paper home with you and save it- and if anyone should ever question the liberty and freedoms of this country, you may pull this out in rebuke. There is a certain imeasureable weight to a example like that. You could not exactly do that in Stalinist Russia though- nor could you do that if the far left Democrats in congress had their ideal way- which would be to try and usurp the constitution and limit the free exercise of speech in places like talk radio by mandating so called balance. A synthetic "balance" which they would authoritatively define though - of course. There would of course be nothing fair about the fairness doctrine though. In the US freedom and liberty act as a quint essential built on balancing mechanism that keeps the oppressive nature of the slim majority at bay- while finding the sensible middle ground needed to get the most necessary things done.Frost122585_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

So my question for you: do you feel at all ashamed to quote-mine so egregiously?
Is his answer to the question even relevant. Simply look at past behavior and judge for yourself.hrun0815_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

What's with the Darwin "shooting" quote, Sal? It's seems like a very slimy quote-mine. Was Darwin talking about target shooting or hunting, or was he talking about shooting people? Somehow I think it was the former. How many Christians do you think enjoy target shooting or hunting, do you think? So my question for you: do you feel at all ashamed to quote-mine so egregiously?Retroman_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

Was the drive immaterial? Was it free will?
Unfortunately, I am not able to invest the time to discuss free will and whether or not it is compatible with materialism. Scores of books have been written on the subject.
I’m sorry, but I missed your answer to the question in #41.
I am not weaseling out, I simply have trouble understanding the underlying facts: Let's say we have a population of animals that runs away when faced with predators. Now, every now and then we observe and individual that fails to run away. Is it reasonable to assert that 'failure to run away in the face of a predator must be the product of evolutionary forces and convey and advantage to the individual'?hrun0815_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

hrun #42 I'm sorry, but I missed your answer to the question in #41. What I see seems to be an attempted punt of the question, as oppossed to an answer to it. Surely you are not suggesting the murder was uncaused. A theory of murder was given (and disputed):
murder is the product of evolutionary forces and that the homicidal act, in evolutionary terms, conveys advantages to the killer.
So again, if the drive to commit this murder is not the result of the materially explicable forces of evolution, from where did it come? Was the drive immaterial? Was it free will?Upright BiPed_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

Frost122585:
Mike, I made the case that these tendencies are usual among teachers of the left wing persuasion. I did not say that right wing or independent types would not have any of these characteristics. But the relationship that I have personally experienced in college- and a life time of school- supports by view. My post is indeed partly anecdotal- and achedemic- actions of left wing teachers seem to correlate with the nature of their philosophies- which are more about the search for power than for truth.
While my experience, from some of the same sources, suggests that the ability to instruct effectively is generally independent of political views, and that the philosophies of the right are more about power than truth. Such is the joy of anecdotal evidence.mikev6_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

Seversky, You wrote:
"There is no conflict between the theory of evolution and sentiments of love and charity."
The message of Christ was not simply about love and charity- in fact he says in Matthew 10:34 - "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword." Christ's message- to believe in him true man and true God- is to try and live a certain way which is "impossible" for man- unless he has absolute faith. Not just charity and love- but at levels of impossible expectation- and also to live a virtuous life of grace and avoidance of sin. Avoidance of sins which in secular ways may seem to have many benefits in the materistic world- but at the cost of the salvation of the soul. There is a supernatural goal to Christianity that transcends any materialistically supportable ideal. First, what we need to understand is that we are not talking about morality in a secular philosophical context here- we are talking about "Christianity"- and the essence of Christianity goes BEYOND what is beneficial to the progress of the individual- that is, Christianity asks us to operate in a certain altruistic way of grace. The point that is being made is that if Darwinism is to be the locus of truth for the nature of the world then there is truly no benefit to living in this self denying way. In fact one is forced to accept that either their religion is a myth- because the miracles in the Bible do not square with a secular reality of Darwinism and thus recent their faith in the name of reality- or that they are choosing to blindly believe in something that does not square with REALITY and hence must choose knowingly to live a LIE. This is why Romans makes the point that for those willing to see that there is the work of a God apparent in the creation- hence squaring the faith with the reality. To expect people to do things which are not in their interest- or not relevant to reality- undercuts the legitimacy of the faith, plain and simple. And talking around this point is does not suffice for obvious reality of the relationship between Darwinism and true faith. ID will strengthen most people's faith- and DE will corrode it. It is no coincidence that Darwin hopelessly muddled- and that Bill Dembski and Stephen Meyer are self proclaimed men of apparently strong faith. On a side not of the supposed men of faith and Darwinism like Francis Collins- I saw that he has a book out called "The Language of "Life"." I thought it was interesting that after his first book faced the controversy of rejecting ID but at the same time seeming to make an ID argument- that his new book is almost like a step away from the faith- trading the religiously stronger word God for the more secular word Life. I personally believe that Collins is just an opportunist who used the title of his first book to kind of CASH IN on the ID and apologetics movement afoot doing well in book sales. He can claim he is a man of faith and still reject ID or whatever- but to be he is a wishy washy man of little faith- based on the quotes I have read from him in the past on this subject. And this is what you would expect from a man claiming to hold essentially both Darwinism and a Christian faith. To me reality is one domain- and it is not entirely sane to live in two separate realities at once. It is contradictory. It is also not entirely sane to live in a false single reality where miracles can happen either if it does not reflect truth. This is why as Christians people feel the weight of carrying their cross. The humility and difficulty of maintaining the light of faith in a world full of temptation and ridicule surrounded in spiritual darkness. That is, at just one level, what it means to be a Christian. And this is also why the Bible makes it clear that it is talking about one reality- and not an imaginary or make believe reality along side that of the real world. Not a parable about what an ideal morality should be- but a historical account of a supernatural change in the history of man. Nowhere does it say that it is a work of fiction. Christ's resurrection was an act of both spirituality as well as a physical mystery and miracle. Anyone who claims to be a Christian and does not believe in the absolute truth of the real resurrection is not a Christian to me and historically would not be one by the ancient Church standards of thousands of years- not by almost any standards accept very recent modern and post modern secular ones. So defining "being Christian" is absolutely essential- because depending on what constitutes a Christian terminologically, is decides the result of the discussion. You can tell me you are a Saint - but if you live a life full of sin without repentance- your claim is frivolous. It is conceivable that one could be "partially" in the faith- but by classical standards there is no partial Christian- you either believe in the truth of the faith or do not. If someone was in between true faith and not believing then that is what that person is- "a partial believer". Let him call himself what he is. Let us call them what they are.. SO when Collins or someone claims to be a Christian and essentially a Darwinists at the same time he is either lying or mistaken by classical standards- or modern standards of fundamentalists. Simple as that. There is a clear conflict between the domain of materialism and especially miracles of the prophetically fulfilled nature. This also separates the Darwinians from the Christians. I should add though that obviously you need not be a Christian to believe in a God- but even if you are a general Theist you will be hard pressed to find any way of reasonably conciliating the derivation of a Theistic faith from a Darwinian reality.Frost122585_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

Darwinists like Dawkins can’t seem to get it, that “survival of the fittest” is a misleading term.
Yet another funny statement. Wasn't it YOU who used survival of the fittest in the OP, while you were trying to make a point. And you used it knowing full well how misleading the term is.hrun0815_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

If the drive to commit the murder is not the result of the materially explicable forces of evolution, from where did it come?
What drive to commit murder? Looking around in the human world and the rest of the animal kingdom I see murder being a quite rare occurrence. So the appropriate question would be: If the drive NOT to commit murder is not the result of materially explicable forces of evolution, from where did it come?hrun0815_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

If the drive to commit the murder is not the result of the materially explicable forces of evolution, from where did it come? Was the drive to commit the murder immaterial? Was it free will?Upright BiPed_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

I followed the link to where Ms Bishop is listed as a science adviser to help clergy. I found this to be a bit lopsided (putting it lightly), implying perhaps that clergy need help to come around to or to be more fully indoctrinated into Darwinist evolution, while Darwinist evolutionists need no help from clergy...on anything. I believe recent events suggest otherwise. There is an email address on that page for a certain Michael Zimmerman, presumably to submit application for being a "scientist on call" to help clergy. I emailed Mr. Zimmerman with the following. "Dear Mr Zimmerman I happened to run across the Clergy Letter Project website page advertising "Scientists On Call for Clergy". My forthcoming suggestion is highly politically incorrect, yet in light of recent current events, necessary. Please, in the interest of good science, and our safety from scientists with the moral constitution of one of your listees, Amy Bishop, create a web page on your site entitled... "Clergy On Call For Darwinists" Thank you." To this day, I have not received a reply.Bantay_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

Given what you know about Darwinism, do you disagree with Buss’s inference from evolutionary theory?
murder is the product of evolutionary forces and that the homicidal act, in evolutionary terms, conveys advantages to the killer.
Yes.Seversky_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

scordova @ 29
However, advocating Darwinism has no place in Sunday sermons. Dawkins position is more philosophically consistent with Darwinism than is a world view of love and charity.
I am not aware of anyone, from the Clergy Letter project or elsewhere, who is advocating that the theory of evolution be taught from the pulpit. I certainly do not. There is no conflict between the theory of evolution and sentiments of love and charity. We are social animals. We have a better chance of surviving as individuals if we co-operate in social groups than we would as solitary individuals. Whatever their other value, at a functional level love and charity promote social adhesion and cohesion. As for Dawkins's views, as you may know, in 2005 he answered an Austrian journalist's question as follows:
No self-respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state."
Dawkins is clearly aware, as I am sure you are, of the is/ought fallacy
I took the opportunity to cite how the behaviors of one of the members of the clergy project would be interpreted through the eyes of Darwinism, nameley, that according to Buss, murdererous tendencies can lead to Darwinian advantage. I asked if this is a wrong inference given the supposed immutability of Darwinism. Is not the phenomenon of murder completely consistent with evolutionary theory as Buss (and others) argue?
Buss found that most of us would be prepared to kill in certain circumstances, such as in self-defense or the defense of family and friends and it is arguable that there is an evolutionary advantage in that willingness. He also commented that many of us are alive today because many of those who contemplated murder calculated that the personal cost was too high. In other words, committing murder could be harmful from the evolutionary perspective of the murderer if it resulted in their incarceration and/or death. As we all know, however, murderers are not always restrained by such considerations. But then neither are they by faith. The "BTK" killer Dennis L Rader, for example, was a Lutheran of some 30 years standing who had been elected to high office in his local church. Are we to assume that Lutheranism is irredeemably tainted by the perverted crimes of one man?
If the Clergy Project declares Amy Bishop’s behavior a tragedy, how can they justify that inference based on Buss’s work and the natural implications of Darwinism?
If by "the natural implications of Darwinism" you mean the moral implications then I refer you again to the is/ought fallacy. There is no valid way to derive moral prescriptions from the theory of evolution.
In a world view where love, life, and charity are special, “survival of the fittest” might be something to lament, not celebrate.
Unless valuing love, life and charity in the context of society promoted your survival and that of your fellows, in which case that world view would actually be the fittest and one that you could justifiably celebrate.Seversky_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

Sal Thank you for clarifying that you were not sincere when you claimed not to be associating evolutionary theory and degenerate character. Would killing a rival potentially give me some reproductive/survival advantage? Sure. I can also gain survival/reproductive advantage by working cooperatively with my community to ensure adequate food supplies and protection from danger. Are you actually suggesting that Ms. Bishop (allegedly) killed in order to obtain some benefit from an evolutionary standpoint?Muramasa_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

Mike, I made the case that these tendencies are usual among teachers of the left wing persuasion. I did not say that right wing or independent types would not have any of these characteristics. But the relationship that I have personally experienced in college- and a life time of school- supports by view. My post is indeed partly anecdotal- and achedemic- actions of left wing teachers seem to correlate with the nature of their philosophies- which are more about the search for power than for truth. And it is more than interesting that Amy Bishop lost it after being denied the atrocious benefit of tenure- which in its current form is the most abused privilege among bureaucrats. In my view lifetime appointmens should only be considered when you are talking about extremely thorough back ground investigations such as those associated with the Supreme Court- and even there the results are sometimes highly regrettable. I take the position of great limits on authoritative power among people. I do not think that ANY politician, in fact, should serve for more than 8 years. This certainly would go a long way to fixing the current political system for the better. The best authorities are principles (for myself based in theology, for others based in philosophical theory)- such as limited governmental power- an inherently anti-left wing notion- instead of positions of high power held only by a few indefinitely. And it has been my observation that when I have had the rare libertarian/conservative teacher, their open-mindedness, emotional disposition, and overall understanding, is much easier to take than the typical left wingers which form up the vast majority- and their curriculum is usually more objective- while at the same time "more appreciative and accepting" of opposing points of view- even on tests. I could name teacher and experiences to support my claim but this is not the forum to bring up irrelevant personalities. I was just putting forth my opinion and perspective on all of this which is based on years of personal experience. It is just a generality which I find true- supported by some specifics (connection of political philosophy with position of authority).Frost122585_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

Scordova, I would disagree with that inference and I assume you do too. Hard to see what advantages this homicidal act will convey to Amy Bishop. I don't really get this. You don't accept Darwinian evolution so how can this act of murder be somehow a product of it? (If that is what you are saying).zeroseven_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

Muramasa, Seversy, hrun, other evoltuionists: Thank you for your participation. Given what you know about Darwinism, do you disagree with Buss's inference from evolutionary theory?
murder is the product of evolutionary forces and that the homicidal act, in evolutionary terms, conveys advantages to the killer.
scordova_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Frost122585:
is so typical of SO MANY left wing teachers all throughout the country. Their curriculum is usually as debased and deluded as they are: Quote from article: “When it came down to tests, and people asked her what was the best way to study, she’d just tell you, ‘Read the book.’ When the test came, there were just ridiculous questions. No one even knew what she was asking,’” said Tucker.
Even if these comments are an accurate reflection of her teaching (which isn't entirely clear) how can you say this is unique to "left wing teachers"? I would call this "bad teaching" regardless of political stripe - unless you think conservative teachers have some innate ability to be better instructors. I could turn around and say, based on the Freshwater case, that conservative teachers are more likely to burn crosses on their student's arms.mikev6_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

What I read here regarding the rate my professor.com comment http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/93802/ is so typical of SO MANY left wing teachers all throughout the country. Their curriculum is usually as debased and deluded as they are: Quote from article:
"When it came down to tests, and people asked her what was the best way to study, she'd just tell you, 'Read the book.' When the test came, there were just ridiculous questions. No one even knew what she was asking,'" said Tucker.
Furthermore, these very common types usually do not care to enlighten or teach students hardly at all- and what they teach is often absurd opinions bordering on absurdities and lies presented as facts which must be regurgitated back to them in order to get a passing grade- and for those who sell their souls to play along with the least criticism and the most displayed positive agreement to the bias of the curriculum are the ones who usually get the best grades. So much for critical thinking and the free exchange of ideas. What about those inalienable rights to freedom of speech, religion etc. But then again they usually don't like the preamble either- especially that invocation of creationism. In effect the only religion that is being protected- or perhaps even authoritatively enforced- in a majority of the classrooms across the country is that of the teachers union's orthodox clergy. Seize the power- get the tenure- control the culture. Sound familiar? No wonder scientific progress has been experiencing a recent moderate stagflation compared to the progress of the enlightenment, industrial revolution through the tech boom as of recent. And all this is in some direct correlation with the take over of power in state schools by the 1950s 60s and 70s opportunist leftists. And this is of course despite the billions of dollars in federal and state education and research grants. They call themselves progressives. Alas, these types make it clear that their world view of nature leaves very little room for the value and potential of free thinking "critical" discussions- and they deny the obvious innate prowess and role that novel intelligence plays in the order and products of nature. Is it any wonder that the left wing politics shared by Stalin, Mao, Trotsky and the like(all followers of the doctrine designed by Karl Marx who dedicated his work "Das Kapital" to the man Charles Darwin himself) are the politics of infiltration, superstatism, enforced authoritarianism, anti-libertarianism- and most notably VIOLENT revolution? It's indeed an interesting and important line here from the article that s probably worth thinking about...
"Bennett, an athlete at UAH, said her coach told her team Bishop had been denied tenure and that may have led to the shooting."
Also worth reading http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/02/boston_report_links_uah_shooti.htmlFrost122585_{February 14, 2010
February
02
Feb
14
14
2010
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply