Robert got stuck in moderation land again…. I don’t know why.

Perhaps the label of “Natural” Selection was misplaced, my apologies. I was referring to Darwin’s point that, as opposed to animals, man tends to allow the propagation of ‘lesser’ individuals. In the animal kingdom, the runts and weaker individuals are left to die, females select only the strongest to mate with, etc..

Robert, your use of the word ‘will’ and mine are not the same. The instinct that drives an animal to pursue it’s food is not the same as the purposeful (and seemingly illogical) decision to surrender one’s life to a God which you can neither see nor feel… or any other decision that directly contradicts one’s natural instincts (such as compassion, love and grace).

What we call the human will is not necessarily unique to humans.

A lioness stalking a gazelle on the Serengeti can be said to be exercising a form of will…admittedly primitive as it is. What makes us different is our capacity for conscious thought. I accept that our consciousness is a function of our cerebral cortex.

My understanding is our will is an improved…(well maybe improved is not a good word… maybe be more nuanced is better) version over more primitive forms of a will.

Because we humans have so much power over our environments we are not as subject to natural selection as those without this will we possess. There may not seem to be an evolutionary advantage in protecting members of our species that are handicapped in some way or another. It is a function of our compassion and love for our fellows. Compassion for others is a function of that cerebral cortex I mentioned before. Compassion can and does convey benefits.

I don’t know if this makes any sense….

I’m really beginning to believe these conversations would best be had face to face!

R.

Were you using the Artificial/Natural selection argument as a distinction between what you would call ‘evolution’ and the things mentioned

That seems to be an artificial distinction. If “will” is an evolutionary accretion, which I completely do not accept, then how do you justify restricting the use of that evolutionary accretion to non-evolutionary results?

If we receive a will from ‘evolution’, which is your only option, then how do you delimit the use of that evolutionary accretion to only non-evolutionary processes?

In fact, how do you justify excluding anything humans do from what you propose as the evolutionary process?

And how could the use of an amoral accretion be determined to be moral?

But you are right; those facts don’t in the least discredit Darwin or Evolution no more than we can blame Hiroshima on Einstein or the threat of Mutual Assured Destruction on Robert Goddard. Science is science and how it is used remains to be the ultimate responsibility of the politicians, who at least in our case, we elect.

It’s such a lovely warmhearted group of misanthropes!

incidentally…

You seem to be confused by the differences between NATURAL selection and ARTIFICIAL selection (I prefer UNNATURAL selection, it is more to the point.

Natural selection is what nature does. For example when a bird has a mutation that causes it to grow a longer beak which allows it to reach the nectar of a deep blossom flowers, that bird is preferentially selected for by nature in that it has a mutation that gives it an advantage.

ARTIFICIAL selection is the result of a WILL. Examples of artificial selection are all around us. Almost every animal humans have domesticated are the result of humans preferentially either encouraging or suppressing traits we deem desirable or NOT desirable by breeding accordingly.

As you have correctly pointed out it is HUMAN will that’s the problem here.

Evolutionary theory provides the means by which great good or evil can be done.

Because SOME have advocated using evolutionary principles as a way to ‘purify’ our race doesn’t make the theory wrong or evil. The theory is amoral. It takes a will to do good or evil. Much the same as a hammer is amoral… I could use it to build a home for my family OR I could use to cave in a competitors skull. If I chose the latter does that mean we should forbid the use of hammers?

R.

While racism and eugenics aren’t necessary progressions of Darwinian theory (after all we are all endowed with free will ) the progression does follow both deductive and inductive logical reasoning.

How do you explain Mans rebellion against Natural Selection through compassionate works? Will this have dire consequence? Should we limit the procreation rights of the mentally and physically handicapped?

See, I guess you have “The Problem of Evil” with regards to theism and I have “The Problem of the Handicapped” in regards to Natural Selection as applied to Humanity.

What I am trying to convey is that even IF Mr Darwin was trying to say he advocated the euthanasia of the handicapped… it wouldn’t have detracted from the insight afforded by his evolutionary theory.

What you and Mr. Stein are implying is that racism and eugenics NECESSARILY follow from an acceptance of evolutionary theory. That is indeed WEAK!

While some have erroneously made come to such conclusions it does not make those conclusions true….

…anymore than my saying the Aryan Brotherhood is a logical conclusion of Christianity.

R.

Did you see the movie? I didn’t get that Stein was trying to prove or disprove anything except that discussion of Intelligent Design is forbidden with an unprecedented passion…. Even though Dawkins himself admitted on camera at the end of the movie that ID is a viable option… He was making the point that the freedom of ideas and the desire to think outside the box is completely absent in the current scientific environment… and honestly I agree.

Now about Darwin. Really no pot-shots at Darwin personally, it’s just that the application of Natural Selection to human beings inevitably lead down the path of Eugenics. In the same way the “Climate Change” advocates make the charge that humans have altered the natural order of the climate to disastrous effect, the same philosophy must be applied to Darwinian theory. In other words, humans have fouled around with the natural selection process with medical care, care for the elderly, welfare, etc… this could only end up with similarly disastrous consequences…. right?

Obviously Darwin made some very astute observations about the natural world, I won’t question that. I have a problem with some of the interpretation of his observations. Way too much extrapolation and dithering for my taste to consider the totality of his theory as undeniable fact. As Ben Stein points out, specific paths of analysis have never been properly explored because the necessary axioms are taboo.

Whether or not Mr. Darwin advocated the elimination of any ‘defective human beings’ (incidentally I am NOT convinced of this anyway!) in an effort to purify our species is irrelevant to me

I don’t believe you… from what I’ve been able to tell you have a great deal of compassion for people. I don’t believe you would be that cold.

Oh yeah… comparing an interest with Alchemy with the promotion of Racism and Eugenics is … uh… a bit weak…

Whether or not you LIKE Darwin as a person is irrelevant as to whether or not the mechanisms that underlie the evolutionary theory are accurate or not.

What makes MODERN evolutionary theory so compelling is its explanatory power!

For some reason you have this image of all naturalists bending their knees to Darwin as replacement God for the one we ‘killed’. While there are those that love to celebrate February 12th as some kind of twisted quasi-materialistic holiday, I can assure you that I and many others do not.

Darwin had a world-changing insight into the mechanisms that underlie biological complexity. The scientific/naturalistic world is STILL trying to that particulars.

Now, to dredge up some obscure little paragraph or two written by Darwin in attempt to cast some sort of nefarious and dark doubt onto the Evolutionary theory is laughable.

Why is it that Darwin seems to be the only target of this type of attack?

Isaac Newton widely believed to be the one of the greatest minds ever to have occupied a human skull. His insights into optics, classical physics and mathematics are LEGENDARY. However, he himself considered those pursuits to be mere side roads in his true love: alchemy! Alchemy, which modern science dismisses as ridiculous pseudo scientific babble. But still Mr. Newtons other work is held up for the genius it is.

Whether or not Mr. Darwin advocated the elimination of any ‘defective human beings’ (incidentally I am NOT convinced of this anyway!) in an effort to purify our species is irrelevant to me and to most modern biologists, in much the same way Newton’s views on alchemy are irrelevant to most chemists and physicists.

We all have this neat thing in our heads called a brain and oddly enough, I can use it to THINK FOR MYSELF! Additionally, I am afforded a sense of compassion for my fellow man, courtesy of my cerebral cortex, that allows me to leap beyond the aggression and territoriality of my lower brain (the same brain that most less evolved vertebrates still have).

You can take pot-shots at Darwin from now to judgment day if you want, it will do little to tear down the mountain of evidence in support of his insight.

Evolutionary theory is as secure as any other scientific theory, Ben Stein saying ‘uh-uh’ in a third rate documentary that tries to link evolution to holocausts through bastardized correlations will not do anything but show how ridiculous those thoughts are.

R.

I think you make a good point. Human beings are not supposed to act like animals. Even secular humanists seem to understand this (for some reason).