1. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202434 by Misael on July 1, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Ok gregg :-)
Seemed a bit of a non-claim to me, that's all -- asin, Consciousness is there by the age of 3 but i can't pin point it more accurately than that. Which is probably true, but uninformative.
Avoid making a contentious claim just by having a large enough ball-park.
No-one really knows how or when it appears. Well, clearly "appears" is not the right word, but...

2. Can't Darwin and God get along?

Comment #202381 by Misael on July 1, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Gregg Townsend--
I don't understand what it is you don't understand.
to summarise:
with a developing embryo, previously there was no consciousness there, but at some point, (though we don't know when) it comes to be.

Why would "a study" be needed to verify that?

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

Comment #199751 by Misael on June 26, 2008 at 10:13 am

,Corylus:

sigh, technology is not my strongpoint!

You mean like that??
I have only just found your reply. Still don't quite know why it wasn't underneath the other one...

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

Comment #197658 by Misael on June 22, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Thanks Corylus :-)
I have been trying to reply, but can't always get it to let me!!
don't know why.
Thanks for that.
"vicarious aggression" ok, I understand, and you put it well.
I think it's true, but I also think that the party RD is coming to the defence of is less the Jewish victim than his own constituency. He's extremely concerned not to allow any link whatsoever between Darwinism and Nazism. Fair enough, but still over-zealous, because nobody would argue that Darwin himself, or "Darwinists", or atheists, are automatically and ipso facto capable of genocide. The problem here is not with individuals, but ideas. All which throws us back on assessing the interpretation of historical data. I didn't want to go there because a) the subject is huge and b) it seemed unlikely it hadn't been gone into, -- for all I know exhaustively -- already.
But I will just say that although it's true anti-semitism has always and everywhere been around, even Luther (in the work RD refers to) is crystal clear on one point. He says:

[let them] be on their guard against the Jews and avoid them so far as possible. They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. .

The idea of actually exterminating the Jews, as a realistic practical project, could never have been conceived without the "cultural preparation" of the widespread, and widely accepted eugenics movement, which in turn owed its being to Darwin's thinking -- if you credit evolutionism in its entirety to him, that is. I wouldn't, really, because it had plainly been around a lot longer in one form or other, and all he did was kick-start its perceived scientific legitimacy. So that lets him personally off the hook you could say,even if he was otherwise on it. (I have often been surprised by how extremely protective people can be of Darwin's personal reputation for probity and decency -- is that really what's at stake?)
TeraBrat --

no, I'm afraid none of us who aren't Jewish can POSSIBLY understand. Though that doesn't let us off trying

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

Comment #197261 by Misael on June 21, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Darn it -- I'll never know what time anything is

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

Comment #197258 by Misael on June 21, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Thanks epeeist --
yes, I'd already seen that Ncse thing, but the point was a) the letter wasn't addressing Stein or Premise and b) that's not the right language for an Oxford scholar to express what WAS basically a scholarly disagreement, a question of the interpretation of facts. Misdirected aggression was how it came across! To reiterate the slightly distinct point, it's also hard to see how the film, even if it misled "David J", could be said to have "cruelly" injured or harmed him.
Incidentally, (if you don't mind me using you as a handy reference source) what's with the AM time on the post? Isn't RD in the UK? and to my knowledge it's night there!

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

Comment #197205 by Misael on June 21, 2008 at 11:01 am

Thanks epeeist, mate, I must have done it wrong somehow.
This is what I said, roughly:
I think Professor Dawkins' terminology is over the top in his "open letter".
"unscrupulous", "wicked", "evil", "deliberate and calculated deception..."
I felt that in plain English , what he was saying was that he disagreed with Stein on the interpretation of certain historical data.
More worthy of an Oxford academic to express it like that, then.
Secondly, I was unsure what actual HARM had been done to the guy, even assuming he had been misled. He was already in a vulnerable state, which I reckon could only be compounded by having his letter publicly described as "revolting" and "truly horrible".
Is that troll-speak? I hope not, having NO intention to offend -- it's simply what I felt when I read the letter.

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

Comment #197181 by Misael on June 21, 2008 at 9:47 am

just wondering what became of my comment.
Here was i trying to stick around in case anyone wanted to argue...but I can't see it anywhere.
How does this work? I'm new to internet forums. It wasn't rude or anything