1. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164943 by BillG on April 20, 2008 at 9:46 pm

Hello All and thank you for your responses,

I’ll just post this one reply here and let it go. These “stacked” forums are difficult for maintaining conversations.

To Diancanu:

>>
So, how did you "pick and choose", how to "delineate between the proper and improper applications of Darwin's theory".
<<

As a Roman Catholic I believe I could give an adequate answer to your question…but I doubt you would like it. But it would be entirely theoretical, as I have thus far made no such delineation. But Mr. Dawkins did so.

Also, if “all is nature” then it would make no more sense to speak of one’s “defying” the law of gravity or of thwarting the “designed purpose” of sex any more than it would to speak of the mis-application of Darwin’s theory.

To Ohnhai:

Thank you for the helpful distinction between NS and AS. But I wonder, if all is nature and nature is all, is that a distinction without a difference '" at least in the context of my question? So, natural selection in the field simply moves on without purpose while mankind strives, with intention, develop better crops and livestock. What bearing does that have on the question of correct intentions (biological only, according to Mr. Dawkins) verses improper intentions (political)?

>>
The good Dr Dawkins makes the point that now we understand (ish) evolutionary principles and are beginning to grasp their power over behaviour as well as form we can strive against that to wean out the more undesirable/anti-social tenancies, to tame the tooth and claw.
<<

But why? Understanding their power over behaviour as well as form what, within nature, would compel us toward a proper application to nature '" which is everything including our social tendencies?

To Count von Count:
>>
Here's a quick answer. Apply Darwin's theories if you want to explain biology (or similar hereditary processes). Essentially everything else is an improper application.
<<

Thanks, but that’s more of a quick directive, not an answer.

>>
Darwin's theories show us how things are. They are not to be taken as recommendations for behavior. (This is often referred to as the is/ought fallacy.)
<<

But if all that “is” is nature, then even in reference to behaviour, Darwin’s theories of how things “are” would encompass how we behave.

To all: Isn’t there some super- or extra-natural rationale by which we delineate between proper or improper applications of Darwin’s theories? If not, then isn’t any application within nature simply part of nature and, therefore, not improper?

Thanks again for your responses,

Bill G

2. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164800 by BillG on April 20, 2008 at 5:39 pm

Hello Mr. Dawkins,

I just wwanted to post a quick question to this point of yours:

>>
Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave. I have many times written ...that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave.
<<

One wonders upon what basis do you delineate between the proper and improper applications of Darwin's theory? If all is "nature" (i. e. there is no "super-nature" or "supernatural") would that not also include our behaviour? Why then, would a theory of the development of biological organisms, including their (presumabely) biologically determined behaviours, not apply as well to that behaviour?

Bill