It never ceases to amaze me that Darwin can continue to ruffle feathers in 2008.
Shouldn't we be moving on and evolving and refining the theory of Evolution and Natural Selection (as are many?)

I am no biologist, but I am a sociologist, and it seems to me the article is more about social theory and history than biological/scientific theory.

The fact that social engineers and theorists have hijacked Darwin's theories to promulgate their own social agendas seems to be the only point of the article.

I think few would believe in the "ever upwards" movement of human society, promulgated by misguided social Darwinism, these days. Nowhere does biological evolutionary theory propose development from a "king butterfly to a king " Quite ludicrous.

The biology & science of natural selection makes no value judgements.
Evolution can go, or not go, any which way including loose. Including "backwards," (sorry for the value laden word) side ways, or hardly at all

We do Darwin a disservice when we apply his research and concepts to other than the biological world.

david f, You say – “I have no reason to respect leaps of faith. A leap of faith shows lack of respect for reason. ………… Yes, I think evidence is the only way to go. It is an assumption. I know of no better assumption.”

Well, my assumption is that God exists. I call it a leap of faith.

Here’s a difference. My leap of faith towards God leads to a life that is directly linked to that leap. I admit my assumption and live its ramifications.

You do the opposite. You begin with an assumption – with no empirical basis to support it – and you spend the rest of your life being an empiricist who bags assumptions and leaps of faith.

This is not an argument for God’s existence. It’s a reason to suggest that your claim to monopolise reason has no merit. “More logical than thou” is the empiricist’s conceit.

bushbasher, For a start, I realise that many decent people (say, people who bother being moral at all) are likely to come to many similar conclusions. At risk of causing general irritation, I believe God whispers to people who don’t believe in Him.

While I regard empathy as [very] highly desirable, I also think it’s just phenomenal. I don’t regard my feelings, even nice ones, as having the power to justify the actions they lead to. To me, that would be at least as conceited as some of the conceits theists are accused of. But, I regard God’s views, utterances, preferences, feelings etc as inherently authoritative. I believe God alone gives value, and that everything else is just circumstances.

Killing in cold blood is wrong because God says so – not because humans are especially worth saving (on their evolutionary pedigree alone) and not because I have a moral “feeling” that I shouldn’t kill in cold blood. If I had a feeling that killing in cold blood is right, it would still be wrong. Different people might feel differently about it, but it’s wrong. Moral feelings have limited relevance.

Pax,

bennie, “All religions, goodthief, I regard as mild hysteria.” I’m sure you do. Why “mild”, though? The strongest hysteria I’ve come across in recent times is “The God Delusion”, the bible of neo-atheism.

csteele,

I agree with Michael2, when he says, “The biology & science of natural selection makes no value judgements”. Its realm is facts. What you have is a [partial and probable] factual explanation of the way things are, not a guide to determining how they should be.

This is my point. You and I might, in fact, have some very similar moral views – coincidentally – but that’s not what I’m on about. It’s not about “better morals”, but about a basis for any morality at all. I’m saying that God (given how God is understood by people who believe He exists) is an authoritative source of value. Evolution is not, and its adherents and advocates shouldn’t claim that it is.

You don’t like it when people of my ilk “decry the [belief] systems of others”. That’s understandable. But, I too feel like I’m playing defence. It was the torrid abuse of Dawkins’ book and what is said to me by Dawkins’ disciples that have put me on the defensive.

I would say that the love required by what Christians call the Love Commandment (“love God and your neighbour”) probably incorporates empathy, but it doesn’t wait for it

I hope the bumper sticker was a joke. Anyhow, I empathise poorly with heavy-duty evangelistic Christians who are so into marketing.

“Imagine”, Yes but I thought your position would be one must imagine that there IS a heaven! :)

Pax,

o.k. goodthief. i meant no offense. i wasn't trying to put beliefs into your mouth.

but now i honestly don't know what to make of your beliefs. you say it very clearly, that your morality is (a)-type. for me, as i've said, this does not seem like morality to me. i can see your actions may consequently be "good", from my moral standpoint. but, i can't see that your actions have a moral basis.

maybe this is just semantics. honestly not sure. i know csteele and davidf are much better at this stuff, if they're still around.

Goodthief wrote:

"david f, You say – “I have no reason to respect leaps of faith. A leap of faith shows lack of respect for reason. ………… Yes, I think evidence is the only way to go. It is an assumption. I know of no better assumption.”

Well, my assumption is that God exists. I call it a leap of faith.

Here’s a difference. My leap of faith towards God leads to a life that is directly linked to that leap. I admit my assumption and live its ramifications.

You do the opposite. You begin with an assumption – with no empirical basis to support it – and you spend the rest of your life being an empiricist who bags assumptions and leaps of faith."

The above is amazing. You tell me how I started when you don't know me, and you don't know how I started. It seems a tad arrogant to claim such knowledge. However. I will tell you about myself.

As a young boy I either heard or read the story of God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son. Being willing to murder because one thinks God has told one to do it is reasonable cause for commitment to an institution for the criminally insane. I asked my father what he would do if he heard a voice from God telling him to murder me. He said he would see a psychiatrist. I felt secure with my father but knew I could not accept the God of the Bible. However, most of my life I thought there might be a God even though the monster called God in the Bible was not an entity I could accept. After examining the question off and on during my life I decided in my sixties that it was extremely unlikely that any God existed. I am now 82 but certainly did not start with that assumption. It was a conclusion I reached after much deliberation.

There is no empirical evidence to support either the existence or non-existence of God. Kant, the German philosopher, examined the proofs.

Goodthief wrote:

"I would say that the love required by what Christians call the Love Commandment (“love God and your neighbour”) probably incorporates empathy, but it doesn’t wait for it."

It really isn't a Christian commandment. When Jesus gave the advice to love one's neighbour he was speaking from his Jewish religious training. Jesus was not a Christian.

The Jewish Bible commands one to love God and one's neighbour.

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Deuteronomy 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

To remind people that Jesus was not a Christian and got his best lines from the Jewish Bible I wrote and sang the following on the radio:

The Imitation of Christ

Six feet two, eyes of blue
Jesus Christ, he was a Jew
Has anybody seen my lord?

Big hooked nose, There he goes
Preaching so that everyone knows
Has anybody seen my lord?

Speared by a Roman
In the abdomen
Blood gushing out

Rose from the dead
So it is said
People believe without a doubt

Jesus died, still a Jew
He's a Jew so why aren't you?
Has anybody seen my lord?