Well that's pretty obvious, isn't it? Not even a geologist can talk about biology without venturing into a different discipline of authority. Life and the universe arising out of chance combinations etc etc ... You aren't trying to tell me that you have heard of dawkins yet you haven't heard of these ideas, are you? He is talking about natural consequences of the scientific outlook ... much like his peers of yesteryear talked .... that is the relevance of it , hence : The prestige of both is a great part of the problem, and in the modern period the credibility of anything called science is enormous. As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it. On the contrary it was arguably the most dominant discipline of science (and definitely the most prominent in fields such as anthropology) until around WW2. To say that eugenics has no scientific parallel or calling is simply unscientific :shrug: No more than Dawkins et al's blathering about a godless universe .. yet it doesn't appear to stop him, does it? ... wonder why ... could it be because ".... science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it." the scientific principles of eugenics in the 19th and 20th centuries (it wasn't just isolated to nazi germany) were just as scientific as about 75% of whatever dawkins has published What utter nonsense!! Even advertising borrows from the prestige of science to lend credibility to its products .... what to speak of less noble causes Sure ... however as far as the topics of eugenics or god and the universe is concerned the only difference is chronology dictated by cultural prejudice ... unless you can actually empirically establish a godless universe in any more authoritative manner than early 20th century notions of race. :shrug:
Actually, I've heard one view in a WWII documentary according to which Hitler didn't take much issue with Jews until Stalin took issue with them in Russia, and that at that time, as Hitler and Stalin were still allies, out of solidarity with Stalin, Hitler focused on the Jews as well.
Wow. I don't even know what else to say to that, except perhaps that you should be ashamed of yourself for being that ignorant of history.
Because history is, like, a totally precise science and all that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Which means that absurd theories such as "Hitler didn't really have a problem with the Jews until Stalin did, and the Holocaust was just him being a good friend," are totally valid. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Spread your propaganda elsewhere.
Possibly so, but we could put it this way: In modern wars if/when the technological more advanced won, that also means that the population in that country sooner or later has access to that technology, thus its survival is better than the losing country. Sure, but the point here was that even the mightiest can and will eventually fall, and even so called barbarians can win against them... Not familiar with that, but I am not sure it effects the bottomline...
You might be into something, we probably can treat them here as the same. Anyhow, people disagreeing with me wouldn't acknowledge or like that wording either. How can genocide be survival of the fittest?? How can anyone say such a thing, oh the horrors!!!
You just did the kind of thing the Nazis did: Looking for a scapegoat, you pick someone who seems feasible, make wild claims about them, add some emotion - and voila, you "have" an "enemy" you must exterminate and feel justified to do so ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nor do they venture and make claims in fields they're not an authority in. Doesn't seem to stop you, though. I've never heard such referred to as "non-ID design"... since design implies a designer. Hence seeking clarity... And while abiogenesis is a science that looks at possibilities for the origins of life, the origin of the universe mostly is outside science. What else he talks about is irrelevant to this specific issue. :shrug: But feel free to continue with the straw man... just don't expect people to respond. There is much science behind eugenics - good and bad. There is also much that is unscientific behind certain brands of eugenics. Dawkins didn't refer to the whole realm of eugenics as unscientific, but those theories used by the nazis. But for some reason you continue to see a criticism of one aspect as a criticism against the whole. Why do you do that? Irrelevant. Please stop with the straw men. Or is your entire argument now "Well, Dawkins does it so you can't criticise others for doing it!"? Some of the principles, sure. But so are the scientific principles behind brick-laying. But not all brick-layers need follow the science to put one brick on top of another, and their approach can thus be deemed unscientific. And where have I said that Dawkins is being scientific, or that his strong brand of atheism is scientific? More straw men, LG. You say its nonsense and then more or less rephrase what I said. :shrug: Straw men, LG. Who is saying that Dawkins is being scientific in such claims, or that they are even backed by science? Your argument now seems to be "Yeah, well, Dawkins isn't being scientific either!" :shrug:
Hmmm. Now you're going to make me have to actually think, after I was having a such a swell time in a numb euphoria imagining the destruction of creationism via some sort of ideological genocide. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I would have to point out that anyone who's so worried about other people's personal business probably is already behaving unnaturally and ought to be eliminated from the count of people whose ideas matter. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yeah I would definitely argue against marriage as being natural, particularly where ritual is involved. Choosing a mate and bonding are obviously natural, although that varies from species to species so there's no golden ruler to measure it by. Whether the partner is same sex or not is a function of higher order thinking, in which a rational reason has led to the choice of partner. To me it's no different than choosing brown eyes over blue or simply choosing to fly solo. The perception about marriage being something sacred seems to me to be coming from people with some kind of hang-up. They're way to serious to begin with. Add to that a visceral homophobia and you're talking mental disorders on the verge of general hysteria. I would classify this in the same category as xenophobic responses against minorities, even though many a Klansman is probably a closet homosexual. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Shouting and waving fists over the presence of dark eyed people in Arizona - formerly New Spain and home to indigenous folks - probably correlates on a PET scan to ideation that same sex couples threaten the sanctity of marriage. As far as I can tell the only question worthy of public scrutiny is: what's wrong with the haters, and why are they even allowed to vote? What gives any person the power over anyone else's life? How is such a result guaranteed by the right to a voter registration card? I favor full equality among all groups for the very reason that the same rationale that strikes out at same sex marriage may be visited upon me for some other arbitrary hangup. Besides, it's just psycho to worry about what other people are doing. It's, um...voyeurism. Yeah, that's what it is. How natural is that?
Totemism would fit under a general banner of religion since it arises from superstition. Eugenics would fall under religion, as an extension, since its adherents believed they were divinely chosen. The pseudo science they trotted out is no more science than the ID pseudo science of the modern era. Same same: holier than thou.
Hitler was in prison piecing together his rant against Jews in Mein Kampf just as Stalin was rising from military to political power. Lenin was declining at that time. Considering all the upheaval and intrigue in connection with Stalin's power plays, and from trying to gag Lenin's disparagement of Stalin, it would seem unlikely that cross-fertilization had yet occurred. And considering the widespread purges Stalin conducted years later as Hitler was himself rising to power, it would take a narrow filter to distinguish Stalin as characteristically anti-Semitic, since he demonstrated he was an equal opportunity murderer, as seen in the 700,000 people he arbitrarily executed under pretext that they were a threat to the state.
Oh yes, I'm just like the Nazis. Because really all the Nazis were about was historical accuracy, and the Jews were notoriously loose with that sort of thing. Keep on trolling, Wynn.
Unlike you, I don't insist on undermining the authority by reinventing premises when I engage in a critique ... Glad to hear that you agree that Dawkins is mostly outside of science I would have thought the quote was quite clear in that ... "As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it." Please don't gloss over key aspects of a critique Let me put it in italics again for you once again since you seem to have not read it - "science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it."" IOW what Dawkins is doing (in the name of science) is precisely what teh forbears of eugenics did in the previously century, namely support a cultural prejudice under the banner of science Not sure how brick laying fits into the discussion since its quite a "doable" procedure that certainly doesn't rely on a cerebral head trip to awe an audience I think its plainly obvious what you vouch for in lieu of your critique of ID You weren't clear in your phrasing. I am not sure what you are imagining to be the driving force behind things like abiogenesis/ origins of the universe if not science ... since there have been numerous models, discussions and experiments (all of which have failed btw) since the synthesis of urea. Dawkins represents but a current popular figurehead. :shrug: Its about calamities as a consequence of bad ideas ... which, ironically (as I mentioned in my first contribution to this thread) science is the clear winner in comparison to religion.
My point is that you can't say abiogenesis is a science and discussions about the origins of the universe are not without sounding whimsical ... unless of course you can actually show how life is engineered from lifeless matter (Heads down and bums up now ... seems you better get those pop tarts into action with some natural processes ....) :shrug: Edit : BTW, he does actually say it ... if you bothered to read further ..."And where have I said that Dawkins is being scientific, or that his strong brand of atheism is scientific?"
Eh, I leave that to Sarkus. Maybe I don't know enough about Dawkins. As I understand it, Dawkins is pretty scientific.
