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

Comment #171062 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 9:32 am

Comment #170974 by al-rawandi

So in your estimation, ID could well have been magical leprechauns or unicorns as it could have been a "god" in the Abrahamic sense, right? If you want to ponder ID, while being reason based, then if you accept ID, and you weigh evidence, the evidence of an Abrahamic god doing it is the same as a unicorn or leprechaun.

Now suppose you were the leader of a team that farmed life on the planet of a nearby solar system - risking life and limb in the process. Regardless of the reasons or success for your intelligent designs for this planet, how would you feel if the life on that planet talked about you that way?

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

Comment #171057 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 9:26 am

It is not a hybrid. It is the result of hybridization followed by polyploidy. It cannot reproduce with "parent" species.

This is a slippery little devil to be sure. I'm attempting to analyze it through the lens of micro vs. marco evolution as I understand it.

I see the main issue as one of qualification, or lack thereof, for Epigenetics (micro-evolution if you will), from Wiki;

"Epigenetics is a term in biology used today to refer to changes in gene expression that are stable over rounds of cell division, and sometimes between generations, but do not involve changes in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism. The molecular basis of epigenetics involves modifications to DNA and the chromatin proteins that associate with it. Epigenetics is a fundamental part of eukaryotic biology, and is perhaps most elegantly illustrated in the process of cellular differentiation, which allows cells to stably maintain different characteristics despite containing the same genomic material."

From here I waded through; fluorescent in situ hybridization, allotetraploid species, cladistics, and a dozen other new [or fairly new] concepts to me. I see nothing simple about this hybrid grass to throw it out as strong evidence for either camp in an off-handed manner.

Interestingly enough, polyploidy is pervasive in plants and some estimates suggest that 30-80% of living plant species are polyploidy so Spartina x townsendii is nothing unique to this study.

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

Comment #170969 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 7:38 am

Comment #168750 by Quetzalcoatl

So is it your assertion that human eyes did not initially have saccades, but rather that this is something that has happened over time?

Another question is that if humans were Intelligently Designed, then why would they have bodies that are vulnerable to such changes? Surely the designer should have accounted for that?

First off let's get it straight that my position is neither ID or Neo-Darwinian evolution. I am spending more time defining ID as it seems more misunderstood on this site [as ID was presented to me] and I am a proponent of fairness of representation independent of the overall validity of a theory.

ID claims that the design of adaptation responds quickly to environmental challenges and if this were not the case, there would be little life left on earth as we know it. Conversely, waiting for macro-evolutionary mutations to keep up environmental demands would doom most species if the new demands were sudden.

The recent story of the Pod Kopiste lizards are a perfect example of this micro-evolutionary principle in action.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

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

Comment #170956 by seeker_of_truth on April 28, 2008 at 7:23 am

Comment #168688 by Steve Zara

It is not just a hybrid (even though hybridisation is a perfectly good way of generating new species). It also has an increased chromosome number. The hybrid species was Spartina x townsendii.

If you want to classify new species combined with increased information combined with significant structural differences as macromutation, then this is a perfect example.

This is change beyond the limits specified by ID.

One of the best [and simplest] definitions for species is that of the evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr:

A species is an actually or potentially interbreeding population that does not interbreed with other such populations when there is opportunity to do so.

Did we determine that this hybrid can reproduce with both source 'parents?'

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

Comment #168719 by seeker_of_truth on April 25, 2008 at 10:08 am

If off early today so I wish you all good and stimulating interaction in this debate.

If you settle the issue before the sun sets, be sure to send me an email ;)

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

Comment #168709 by seeker_of_truth on April 25, 2008 at 9:58 am

Interesting. Languages have evolved into separate species over time.

I find many analogous sources support both ID and evolution, depending on which parts are considered. More or less like the evidence which each camp relies on to support each respective theory.

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

Comment #168705 by seeker_of_truth on April 25, 2008 at 9:52 am

Seeker - how much do you know about the philosophy of science?

I prefer to begin with these three;

1. Scientific discoveries are often considered in their adulthood when in fact, at later dates of additional discovery, it is revealed that those same earlier discoveries were in their infancy.

2. All theories begin with a predisposition as to the final results/proofs and the default position of man is to substantiate his ideas, not to refute them.

3. When it comes to the predispositions of this debate, religious ideology is a strong influence, therefore making bias a substantial obstacle.

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

Comment #168681 by seeker_of_truth on April 25, 2008 at 9:31 am

And if one concedes that an accumulation of changes will occur with each new generation...

One must concede that at some point, a later generation will be sufficiently different from an earlier generation, such that it might not interbreed with it.

If someone denies that final conclusion, they must explain the mechanism that stops the accumulation of small changes from adding up to a large change.

The best analogy I have heard is language. For instance, English has 26 letters and [for our purpose here we will limit each word to] 15 letters. If we multiply the combinations available without any other rules, we come up with a very large amount of available 'words.' If we consider functionality (i.e. logical expression within the combinations) our word pool is then cut to a fraction of its previous size. Almost all known mutations within genes are not functional in the sense of 'improved fitness' - what ID might compare to functionality within language. From my research the vast amount of mutations lead to disease, deformity, and reduced capacity to both survive and/or breed.

So ID concedes change but with defined limits.

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

Comment #168659 by seeker_of_truth on April 25, 2008 at 9:12 am

what about my question in 1233?

Patience, my friend. I'm working and was on break for 10 min. Nice day in So. California today, too.

it's interesting that the subject of the eye has come up. Did you know that your eyes do not actually remain still, but "jiggle" very slightly from side to side. These are called "saccades", and they can sometimes have strange effects on our perception. Here is an excellent example:

There are limits to ID's representation of original design flexibility. Even if the human race were universally blind at this point in history, it might not represent the original state at the point of design. Say an unstoppable plague took away our eyesight tomorrow; does this make our eyes of poor design today?

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

Comment #168628 by seeker_of_truth on April 25, 2008 at 8:41 am

Let me try and spell this out for you. Science has certain ground rules. People on this board have gone over them in some detail multiple times over. All that ID consists of is trying to poke holes in evolution and assuming that if they can successfully do that, ID becomes true. Sorry but science does not work that way.

From Wiki, Scientific method;

"Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

In the twentieth century, a hypothetico-deductive model for scientific method was formulated (for a more formal discussion, see below):

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent."

Would you then limit this scrutiny/opposite consequence search to those who hold and support the same theory alone?

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

Comment #168574 by seeker_of_truth on April 25, 2008 at 8:05 am

1. Junk DNA - exists, therefore prediction incorrect
2. The eye - we have a blind spot, therefore prediction incorrect
3. vestigial organs? - Check. Therefore prediction incorrect
4. viruses and dangerous bacteria? - Ebola, lassa, E. coli, influenza, etc. Therefore prediction incorrect
5. Wasps - definitely exist, therefore prediction incorrect

Here is what my research of ID might respond with.

1. Junk DNA represents the remnants of less preferred adaptive character traits rendered ineffective through generational dominant-recessive dynamics as allowed within the limits of original design flexibility (e.g. micro-evolution).

2. Technically, the human eye has a blind spot. This only affects human function if using one eye only. Otherwise, the combination of two eyes eliminates any impairment to this 'effect.' ID might argue that the human leg also has an imbalance. Two legs compensate and design function appears to be two, not one, in both cases.

3. Vestigial 'organs,' more appropriately called structures, could have arrived at their degenerate/atrophied/rudimentary state through the mechanisms of micro-evolution and most likely do not represent the original state, just design.

4. Theological in nature?

5. From Wiki - Wasps are critically important in natural biocontrol. Almost every pest insect species has a wasp species that is a predator or parasite upon it. Parasitic wasps are also increasingly used in agricultural pest control as they have little impact on crops. Wasps also constitute an important part of the food chain.

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

Comment #168422 by seeker_of_truth on April 25, 2008 at 6:18 am

Comment #168297 by Quine

Here is a moving piece by Paul Abrams that, contrary to Expelled, salutes the memory of teachers in Norway who stood up against the Nazis to teach truth to their students.

Good article. I just had one problem with this concept;

Would he want our high school students, already 29th in the world in high school science proficiency, to suffer further economic disadvantage by learning non-science propaganda, and thus not even understanding the difference between science and theology?

All four of my children were presented both evolutionary theory and ID theory as part of their overall science curriculum. Three of them score average to slightly above average in science but my 16 yr. old daughter has garnered the attention of the science department at her high-school. They tell me she is gifted beyond any student they have had in many years.

Antidotal, yes, but personally I know better than to ignore the dozens of factors pointing to low science scores and zero in on one just because it fits my personal bias. I'm not saying my kids score better as a result of being taught ID, but it did not seem to put them at a disadvantage.

What about electives and sports? Should we cancel these programs so our children can get more time in the sciences? The bigger question in my mind is what are the limits of science and how can we prevent our version from becoming a potential catalyst for the degradation of humankind.

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

Comment #168069 by seeker_of_truth on April 24, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Any two species able to interbreed in a natural setting typically are considered similar enough to qualify for micro-evolution. If the genomes of each are already structured close enough for reproduction, the selective breeding outcome should not [by theory] produce a new species.

Speciation is a slippery slope which may never be completely set in stone. We have nearly uncountable gene sequences in a single specimen and constantly forming alternate sequences each generation. Add to this the volume of specimens - 350,000 beetles alone! So even IF it were ever mastered, it would require continual updating.

edit - missed a zero on the beelte number.

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

Comment #168036 by seeker_of_truth on April 24, 2008 at 1:31 pm

annabannana

Thanks for the clarification.

The grass mentioned can reproduce, though it's evolutionary history is known.

I believe we're still waiting for more information to place it in the micro or macro category. I love the tenacity of grass. Look to the ant and the grass as models and you will never do without. Of course ants on grass may be the exception.

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

Comment #167939 by seeker_of_truth on April 24, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Comment #167907 by al-rawandi

Yes in the 19th Century... A new species of marsh grass came into being through speciation. Spartina Anglica. Steve loves this grass, because it absolutely dashes the "now speciation" argument upon the rocks.

Do you have some more information on this? Wiki makes it seem to be a common hybrid;

"... derived from the hybrid Spartina × townsendii, which arose when the European native cordgrass Spartina maritima (Small Cordgrass) hybridised with the introduced American Spartina alterniflora (Smooth Cordgrass)."

And this grass would not cross polinate, so it was certainly a new species.

Would this be something like the liger or mule?

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

Comment #167921 by seeker_of_truth on April 24, 2008 at 12:25 pm

The term micro popped up when cummulative evidence of small changes easily documentable, offering clear adaptive benefits began piling up. From medicine, from field bio, from everywhere. "Micro-evolution" even though it is no where hinted at in judeo-christian myth (god simply created kinds right?) was an attempt to spin the discovery away into unimportance.

Could it be that the term arose when it was needed but the principle itself [through simple observation] was understood by men of antiquity?

I remember one theist arguing genetic science from the bible with Jacob? [feel free to correct] breeding selectively for coat-color and hardiness with the sheep in his care.

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

Comment #167881 by seeker_of_truth on April 24, 2008 at 11:58 am

Comment #167872 by Steve Zara

No. If you are willing to accept the formation of a new species, with members which only breed within their own group, and which are structurally different from other organisms, as "macro" evolution, then it can, and does, happen in a single generation in both plants and animals.

If this occurs in single generations, do we have modern-day examples of this 'new species' event?

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

Comment #167875 by seeker_of_truth on April 24, 2008 at 11:52 am

Seeker of Truth,

... thus will start with the name calling and personal attacks to take attention away from their ignorance. They do not know how to discuss things in a respectful and rational manner.

From my experience, I will give ID'ers only a slight advantage here. In no way does this lend credence to the ID position though. I see reason sacrificed for emotion on both sides all too often.

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

Comment #167862 by seeker_of_truth on April 24, 2008 at 11:41 am

As I understand it, micro vs. macro evolution is a false dichotomy. Evolution is a process of small changes (micro-evolution) that may add up to big changes over time (macro-evolution). Distinguishing between the two is like saying you believe in an individual step, but not a whole flight of stairs.

Layman disclaimer again.

We can see the theory of micro-evolution in practice with animal breeding. An example might be domestic dogs. Assuming two specimens can breed successfully, we can see a dramatic change [compared to either parent] in the just one generation. These might include size, color, temperament, etc.

One reason macro-evolution requires such large amounts of time is for the random influx of genetic information to form functional sequences to produce changes which lend themselves to improved fitness. The upside to this is that new information can produce substantially greater changes that would not be allowed within the theory of micro-evolution. This provides the resources for what some call 'molecules to man.'

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

Comment #167842 by seeker_of_truth on April 24, 2008 at 11:23 am

I am not sure what this has to do with any of the ID 'predictions' that you listed - which is what I was responding to in my last post. My point was to show that each and every single one of the 'predictions' that you listed are not predictions in the scientific sense of the word. They are little more than theological attempts to guess God's intentions and as such, they shouldn't be taught in science class. I have no problem with their being taught as a specific religious belief - but that is not what the ID people want.

So ID predicts to find a continual loss of genetic information within the [approximate] same speciation tree that naturalists predict will show an increase of information and one is a prediction and the other is not?

Does that only sound silly to me?

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

Comment #167778 by seeker_of_truth on April 24, 2008 at 10:24 am

Macro evolution? Explain this term and how it is different from micro-evolution.

Beware of layman error on my part - you have been warned.

My understanding of micro-evolution is that all genetic information is included in a given species from its initial design and within that design is the flexibility of adaptation to environmental demands. This functions by eliminating options within the genes [such as leg length] by causing the undesirable length genes to become recessive, dormant, 'junk,' even lost through successive generational dynamics of the above.

My understanding of macro-evolution is that new genetic material is made available so that any given species can transition, not only to various leg lengths, but from legs to wings, and back again if the environment demands it.

I have heard excellent arguments from both camps.

First of all, there is no such thing as "micro" or "macro" evolution

Even considering they both still fall into the theory category?

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

Comment #167763 by seeker_of_truth on April 24, 2008 at 10:06 am

I am afraid you have no understanding of what 'prediction' means in science. If theory A makes prediction P and P turns out to be false, then it should imply that theory A is false. Prediction and falsifiability are two sides of the same coin. Let us apply that standard to your prediction - what if there was a slow appearance of complexity in the fossil record - why would that disprove a designer? The designer could have just as easily chosen to go slow.

I believe the debate on this is whether a given species in question is gaining or losing genetic information as it evolves. Micro vs. Macro evolution if you will. Now that genome testing is possible on fossil material, it may be possible to resolve this once and for all. However, in the meantime [20 plus years?], I see no reason why it can not be debated in places where some believe it should not be allowed.

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

Comment #167710 by seeker_of_truth on April 24, 2008 at 9:26 am

I think what you are saying here is that since public education didn't exist in the late eighteenth century, the Founding Fathers cannot be said to have had a view on it. That's fundamentally true, although it destroys Chuck Norris' argument.

My research shows that the federal government funded private education before the states stepped in. I suppose this might be compared to today's 'school voucher' proposition?

Since the government can neither promote nor prohibit religious expression, perhaps if we left it up to the parents to decide for their own children, having the state schools competing for funds/enrollment, this would resolve the evolution vs. ID in schools dilemma?

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

Comment #167658 by seeker_of_truth on April 24, 2008 at 8:42 am

For the record, I am not defending ID or Neo-Darwinism.

I am rather impressed with bias from both sides on the lay level though. If major sites like TalkOrigins and AiG cover debates on this issue with force and reason, instead of quips and disrespect, we certainly ought to look to 'our' [if it applies] educated and experienced representative for a cue, no? Have a look-see for yourselves.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-debates.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/?q=DEBATES&site=default_collection#q=DEBATES&site=default_collection

I especially enjoy the parallel debates with notes from each debater.

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

Comment #167617 by seeker_of_truth on April 24, 2008 at 8:03 am

Could I ask what kind, and your views on Intelligent Design?

I see enough naturalists in their respective fields stretched when debating ID'ers to say it is junk science.

If you are a supporter of Intelligent Design, can I ask what you believe are the scientifically testable predictions of ID?

I am a supporter of freedom within limits. Can a five year old discern religiosity from reality? Perhaps not. Can a high-schooler? Most certainly.

I believe the short list for the predictive aspects of ID are;

1) That it will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. Design is tested by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core."

Sub list also includes;
2) Rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record.
3) Re-usage of similar parts in different organisms.
4) Function for biological structures.

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

Comment #167598 by seeker_of_truth on April 24, 2008 at 7:45 am

Whereas, I would rather consult my cat, on these issues.

Careful now, Norris is old but he may have a chop or two left in him.

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

Comment #167596 by seeker_of_truth on April 24, 2008 at 7:32 am

Can you show me where one of the Founding Fathers said he was open to creationism and bible being taught in schools?

As per the Tenth Amendment, all powers which are not assigned to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution are reserved to the people or individual states. Since the federal Constitution does not mention education, and the U.S. Supreme Court has held conclusively there is no federal Constitutional right to an education, public education has always been under the general control of the individual states. It appears that public education as we know it today started with Michigan in the 1840's so we will need better cloning technology before asking any of the founding father's opinions.

And would they feel the same if today's science were available then.

If the apparent premise for one's view of the scientific evidence is what I see today, I would guess that the theist/deists would see it one way and the agnostics/atheists another.

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

Comment #167569 by seeker_of_truth on April 24, 2008 at 7:06 am

It does beg the question, but not in the way he thinks.

Feel free to expound on that if you wish epeeist.

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

Comment #167556 by seeker_of_truth on April 24, 2008 at 6:58 am

Comment #166918 by clodhopper

Is the principle of the seperation of church and state:

a) Extremely Important
b) Quite Important
c) Not Very Important
d) Of No Importance

I understand the current court definition of the 'separation of church and state' but I question any large swing in interpretation from America's founding philosophies, this perhaps being one. These founding principles were a weave of great wisdom that can not be denied as a huge success. I wonder just how many individual threads can be pulled from the fabric before it unravels completely. Yes, I'm a patriot.

Anyway, of all people, I find the arguments of Chuck Norris interesting in this regard as he reviews the movie, Expelled

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/ChuckNorris/2008/04/22/win_ben_steins_monkey

Excerpt

If America's Founding Fathers espoused openness to religion, creationism and the Bible being taught in schools, then it beckons the question, Why don't we? To leave out of educative curricula the most influential text in Western civilization -- including in American history, law and literature -- is a blatant and biased withholding of proper public instruction.

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

Comment #166866 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Comment #166763 by MPhil

That's not what I meant - I was offering that as a proof...

Since we're being specific, I believe that should be 'evidence?'

That's why I gave the math example. The internal censor doesn't matter - it is objectively, logically verifiable if something follows from the original position or not.

The very same reasons it does not compare well to the human mind.

Your objections are thus almost like stating math is impossible because everyone has an internal censor and a certain bias might be there without you knowing it. This is irrelevant for logical deduction

Even math gets distorted with predispositions of the subconscious, statistics being one example.

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

Comment #166831 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Comment #166708 by MPhil

nothing making ethically normative statements is science. Social sciences don't do that - they maximally describe what ethically normative statements are made by people in what situations with what consequences.

Under the social sciences falls both political science and social work. Ethical decisions are an integral part of the inter-related sciences of Darwin and Galton, as both commented on each other's works. Then again, we might have covered all the logic allowable between us on this topic?

The opinion of Darwin or someone else is beside the point. Ethically normative statements -> not science.

Our science-ethics dispute aside, what do you think of Darwin's statement of Galton's Social Darwinism?

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

Comment #166743 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Comment #166639 by MPhil

Have you read the Stanford-entry yet?

No, I'm busy chatting with you.

The self-censoring etc don't matter either.

Consider these facts:

1. One can have concepts of persons radically different from oneself, extrapolate what they would do in certain situations, and how they would judge something

By conceptualizing another's predisposed influences we can arrive at an influence-free frame of mind? I like the know-thyself-offset concept better.

This is not really different. The censor doesn't come into it at all, as you are rationally constructing a hypothetical modal

The censor bypasses, even supersedes, the rational mind, often giving the unconscious a priori status.

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

Comment #166709 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 11:46 am

Comment #166693 by MPhil

If I may interrupt since this is on-topic?

Most people on this world don't believe that the ethical commands you think are universal in fact are. So all you have is a vacuous claim, whereas philosophical ethics can have a basis in rationality and the general facts about life.

I will say this much for mainstream religious morals [Protestant/Catholic bibles], they are in black and white, include much detail, and some even have a stated explanation behind them [within the text]. For me, I have a starting point to evaluate them. I'm still searching for as much from the social implications which stem from naturalism.

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

Comment #166687 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 11:33 am

Comment #166597 by MPhil

Depends on what you mean by "justified". If you mean whether I think that Darwinism justifies Social Darwinism - absolutely not. Darwinism is science, science per definition does not and can not make ethically normative statements - if anything does, it isn't science anymore.

Are we saying the social sciences do not fall under equal treatment as other science(s), even using the scientific method for the strictest definition?

I guess a bigger question about Galton's use of Darwin theories is Darwin's opinion of it himself. As we have seen with Dawkins and others who felt they were misrepresented in the film, "Expelled" speaking out against their role was a natural expression. From my own research, it appears as though Darwin did have reservations about accomplishing Galton's Utopia, but not reservations about the goal itself.

http://www.galton.org/letters/darwin/correspondence.htm

Letter from Darwin to Galton.

Your proposed Society would have awfully laborious work, and I doubt whether you could ever get efficient workers. As it is, there is much concealment of insanity and wickedness in families; and there would be more if there was a register. But the greatest difficulty, I think, would be in deciding who deserved to be on the register. How few are above mediocrity in health, strength, morals and intellect; and how difficult to judge on these latter heads. As far as I see, within the same large superior family, only a few of the children would deserve to be on the register; and these would naturally stick to their own families, so that the superior children of distinct families would have no good chance of associating much and forming a caste. Though I see so much difficulty, the object seems a grand one; and you have pointed out the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race. I should be inclined to trust more (and this is part of your plan) to disseminating and insisting on the importance of the all-important principle of inheritance.

Maybe I am reading this wrong?

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

Comment #166628 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 10:53 am

Comment #166597 by MPhil

I really don't see why you think there's a problem with that. Sociologists construct models independent of their own preferences all the time. Actually, it's no more of a problem than any model. That what it's about is something that is relevant to oneself doesn't matter when analyzing the model.

I'll accept that if an individual knows his own predisposed influences and how they have come to form his normal thought processes, he can then attempt to offset them for this ideal.

However, what of Freud's 'censor,' a well established dynamic in psychotherapy which prohibits an individual from seeing many of his own unconscious motivators?

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

Comment #166593 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 10:23 am

Comment #166539 by MPhil

Naturalism is not about ethics, and as such what you ask is impossible... however, there are ethical theories consistent with naturalism, such as utilitarianism, or contractualism etc.

Important distinction to make indeed. Do you believe that Galston, Darwin's half-cousin, was justified in his use of Darwin's theory in what would eventually be termed, 'Social Darwinism?'

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

Comment #166583 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 10:14 am

Comment #166535 by MPhil

We can construct a model of what that will be and derive the conclusions of persons in such a situation

I must say this sounds like a huge stretch. For starters, a given mind with all of the limitations of its own social place, race, religion, education, sexual and political preferences, etc. must think outside and free of these limitations.

This sounds a bit like creationist's describing their god's origins. Namely, that standing outside of the natural limitations found in our universe, he needs no creator [prime mover] himself. The 'transcendence' argument. Can man transcend his own environmental influences which begin at birth?

Even the animal kingdom, be it raw instincts, appears to possess similar predisposed preferences.

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

Comment #166531 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 9:38 am

Comment #166477 by Steve Zara

Then you discuss this with other people, and see how they feel, and see if this changes your mind.

What else would you do?

That is the dilemma I am trying to solve. Are there any ethical definitions in naturalism which can govern the decisions of mankind that can be called 'good' on any reliable and consistent basis other than what appears to be the shifting sands of consensus, sub-group benefits, emotional responses, etc? Can a 'good' idea or action of today be 'bad' tomorrow?

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

Comment #166501 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 9:24 am

MPhil, thank you for your response. I will take a good look toward purchasing the book you recommend.

All that is needed for ethics are shared goals... Now if such a thing is agreed upon, we can rationally deduce what actions and policies advance, hinder and which are neutral towards that shared goal - and since the value-function is transitive, we then can derive other moral values and imperatives.

As over-simplified as this might sound, is 'shared goals' a majority-rule type of principle?

Basically, if all cinstituents (persons) of a society came together beyond a veil of ignorance, meaning knowing nothing about their social place, race, religion, education, sexual and political preferences etc - what rules would they decide upon?

But this can't be accomplished, can it? Wouldn't it be much like saying to the creationist, "If you can produce your deity and this deity confirms your basis for your morals, then, and only then, will I accept those morals?" Both appear to be impossibility, no?

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

Comment #166428 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 8:40 am

How does Mr. X's suggestion make you feel?

Are not one individual's feelings rather arbitrary for deciding this question? However, for argument's sake, suppose I felt good about Mr. X's proposition. What then?

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

Comment #166396 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 8:06 am

I don't understand your point. Why should "conversation and consciences" act contrary to the accepted (?) definition of "goodness"?

If Mr. X was to say that eliminating all professionally diagnosed borderlines off the face of the earth was a 'good' thing for [remaining] mankind and the basis for Mr. X's opinion of 'goodness to our fellow man' were these non-communicative, natural/elemental reactions making conscience and conversation possible - how is Mr. X 'wrong' in his thinking?

If you believe there is something more than chemistry and electricity going on in our heads...

No such claim here, just lots of curiosity.

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

Comment #166359 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 7:37 am

I understand your point about naturalism not being a philosophy, if someone really believes we evolved from inert chemicals, what is the basis for goodness to our fellow man.

Conscience and conversation. We have the ability to empathise with others. We have always done things this way, and clearly without any supernatural guidance, as no-one has been able to agree on what that guidance says.

Are not conscience and communication the outcome of chemical and/or electrical movements within nature yet nature itself lacks a mind of its own to communicate as we ourselves do on this issue? If so, what sets these two multi-faceted, elemental dynamics apart from conversation and consciences which act contrary to the accepted definition of 'goodness to our fellow man'?