The moral implications of evolution, and their discontents.

thank you for proving my (our?) point that prior ideology is the cause behind people finding something in the ToE that is moral, social, or philosophical.

Is your God not intelligent enough to create a universe with the intent and design that biological evolution would happen in it?If so, couldn't this be an example of a man making up a God in his own image, rather than the other way around?

While I agree with you that the theory of evolution, like other scientific theories, does not tell us how to behave morally or promote a particular philosophy, the fact of evolution and other factual knowledge about biology might influence philosophy (and some moral and social behaviour).

spider lover, have you actually read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind? Or are you using other peoples' opinions of Jaynes? Sure, there are plenty of people who don't like his theory. They all have their own theories to peddle. Nobody really knows for sure what human consciousness really is. For me, Jaynes' model of human consciousness is the only one that actually works. That's because he uses metaphorical and analogical aspects of symbolic language to show how consciousness grew out of a bicameral state of mind”when hallucinations and hysteria gave way to self-referential decisionmaking. But I'm way OT. Bye.”HM

So substitute "Philosophical Positions" for "Morality" and the question remains?

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

I can't answer for Arachnophilia, but I have read this book and must agree, it is Bullshit, not only for the reasons which were pointed out in Message 26 but for several reasons from history and literary criticism.In fact I left it out of the bookcase once and one of my cats felt so insulted by Jaynes' insinuation that it had a non-functional corpus callosum, she took a dump on it. I agree and I am as well. Start a thread. You have my personal guarantee that I will contribute.Edited by anglagard, : gramar

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

anglagard, maybe you're the one who can talk me out of Julian Jaynes. I've read his book three times and I can't find any good reason to dispute the whole of his theory, even though parts of it are weak. Should I make a proposal the admin gods?”HM

Please go ahead.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

I'll bump you over to Message 1.

I think it's fair to say that your position (yet again) declares you a moron.I'm happy to follow you with occluded insults, Ray; but if you could keep it civil it would be nice.

Your last response criticizes me for insulting you despite the fact that I did no such thing. Then, hypocritically, you insult me in the same breath. You also misrepresent by saying I was not civil when no such characterization applies.Logically, we can only conclude that the hypocrisy and misrepresentations were triggered by the inability to engage and/or refute.Again, it is not a matter of opinion: modern evolutionary theory has objective claims and the most basic 101 claim is that species were never the product of vertical or Divine causation. Evading this fact reveals your ignorance and refusal to learn, OR it reveals deliberate distortion of the issue via changing the subject to First Cause. Again, the official objective position of modern evolutionary theory says although First Cause is unknown it nonetheless had to be material in origin since the same produced everything else thereafter.Assuming you knew this, changing the subject to First Cause was an attempt to draw attention away from the brutal fact that evolution says causation is always linear or material. Insinuating that a Divine First Cause satisfies the needs of a Christian is a subjective and sourceless claim. Neither the Bible or Evolution allow your man-made scenario.Now we can see why you angrily misrepresented my original comments. My guess is that you will dig in your heels and corroborate my observation - again.Atheists, and the degree to which they support evolutionary theory, should tell any objective minded person that evolution has not a thing in the world to do with supporting any role for God - but just the opposite. This makes Christian evolutionists the biggest buffoons and fools on Earth. Of course you understand all this. That is why you replied the way you did, attempting evade the ugly truth through cheap equivocation.Since you are an evolutionist, we are not surprised, what else is new?Ray

The implied insult is easy to see: So I'm a patsy to 'more smarter'(sic) people because I disagree with you?So either everyone who disagrees with you is a simliar patsy or I'm being singled out for specific treatment.What's it going to be?I think you will find that 'evolution' makes no claims about where life came from, just how it changes.Take a nice long look at the OP and the 8 initial points; I think you will be pleasently suprised.It's been pointed out upthread be people 'more smarter' than I that only funfies hold your view of mutual exclusivity.

Yeah. I'm one of those smarter evolutionists, and I'm totally manipulating you.(CFO will probably recommend a tin foil hat to help you.)

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Then why did you say evolution can accomodate both 'presuppositions'?Do I need to post the link?You are intentionally evading and misrepresenting (= inability to refute or admit mistake).Ray

Lol, because it make no claims about such issues and contradicts neither.Think harder, Ray.Edited by Larni, : Documentory commentary.