A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin

05-08-2007, 08:55 PM

At least they let us know...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/us...pagewanted=all

Torrere · 05-17-2007, 12:28 AM

[blockquote]“The intellectual vitality of conservatism in the 21st century will depend on the success of conservatives in appealing to advances in the biology of human nature as confirming conservative thought.”[/blockquote]

Yuck. That sounds like "I want to cherry pick the facts to support my beliefs instead of using the facts to develop my beliefs."

The rest of it sounds good, though. Now we just need for the left to support evolution as well -- it seems like both the loony right (the religious fanatics) and the loony left (the marxists) hate evolution and evolutionary psychology because it undermines some of their pet ideologies. The marxists hate it because it suggests that individual self-interest and conflicts of interest are inherent to the human condition and the theocrats hate it because it doesn't explicitly require the existence of God.

Whatever. If the loony left thinks that evolutionary psychology is a demon from the right and the loony right thinks that evolution is a demon from the left, then it sounds good and moderate to me.

Griff · 05-17-2007, 06:28 AM

I really don't get the anti-evolutionary psych crowd (unless as you suggest ideology trumps science). From what I've read on it, it just makes sense.

Pie · 05-17-2007, 08:45 AM

The Doctor: You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering.
-- Dr. Who, The Face of Evil

Urbane Guerrilla · 05-17-2007, 10:29 AM

I am a conservative.

I am persuaded of the truth of the origin of species by descent with modification -- evolution. This is because unlike some, I took some sciences in high school, and more in college.

Some unfortunates seem to believe that you have to reject knowledge and the science of seeking it in order to be a holy, virtuous person. I am living proof otherwise, but that may be a topic for some other thread, in some other forum like Philosophy.

They get trapped in this pitfall mainly through confining their studies to belief systems. All they know is belief, religious or otherwise. Consequently, they mistake the theory of evolution for yet another belief system. It isn't. What science is, in the words of Stephen Jay Gould, "is a way of knowing." Knowing and believing are two quite different things.

The pitfall of the Young-Earthers (and fundamentalists generally) is in a way more specific: where they fail is in their habit of trying to nail the Omnipotent, the Eternal, into a box designed to human specifications. They're allowing one week for the creation of the Earth in its present form because their favorite book says it happened like that. They don't consider when that book was composed (if not perhaps written down) -- in the Bronze Age, when human knowledge was not what it is now. They don't consider for whom it was written: a Bronze Age people without science. Yet still, it is surprising just how well Genesis agrees with the tale told in the rocks and in the light of the stars and even the lesser light of the voids between them.

What the Young-Earthers don't understand is this: if you're immortal, eternal, literally possessed of all the time in the universe, why shouldn't you take your time and do it right? Why shouldn't you take 13.7 gigayears in the making of the universe as it now is? How often have we heard the phrase "in the fullness of time?" Do you really have to rush perfection -- if you want to call it that?

Ibby · 05-17-2007, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I am a conservative.

Well at least the first step is admitting you have the problem. There may be hope for you yet!

lumberjim · 05-17-2007, 06:32 PM

with this (NSFW) end in sight, i think we can all believe in evolution, or at least we can hope.

Urbane Guerrilla · 05-20-2007, 02:35 AM

Ibram, conservatism is a problem only to the rampantly callow and the wretchedly poor of experience -- those who do not impress, for leftism does not and can not make it. How 'bout you go play well in traffic or something?

Try writing something I can respect next time. It is not, as your thoughtful essay series some months back in Philosophy shows, outside of your powers. The fully mature are the ones that deliver the consistently respectable; they acquire the knack with experience. Remember that until the day I die, I am going to be thirty-three years ahead of you in all things of life.

xoxoxoBruce · 05-20-2007, 02:08 PM

Wow! 33 years is a loooong way, down the wrong road.
But then you said your views were set and haven't changed since you were 10. Remember?

Urbane Guerrilla · 05-21-2007, 02:28 AM

That was not what I said, but it is what you insisted on reading, Bruce.

No, my true, and I think pretty explicit, meaning was that I could see at 10 that there were people twice my age who were less wise than me, and demonstrating that in public. They were the communists' dupes; I wasn't.

If my road is so wrong as all that, Bruce, can you explain why I'm not dead? Perhaps another thread, though -- shouldn't we be back on Darwin, et alia?

Evolutionary theory didn't stop with Charles, as people have gathered a century and a quarter and more of observation, which has borne out some parts of Origin of Species and disproved others. The hard-fundie antievolutionists seem not to stay up on the current state of the art.

They've got the idea that a creation that goes of itself, without God having to sweat out a separate miracle of creation for each species, is an impediment to the idea of the human as a moral being -- by being cousin to the ape.

I can't buy that one: a social organization requires a moral manner of behavior and if it doesn't have one it must devise one. The process, to put it mildly, is less than systematic, which is why we get varieties of societies, and why social mores have their oddities.

Aliantha · 05-21-2007, 02:35 AM

et alia

Was this a typo or was there some deep and hidden meaning there for me?

Urbane Guerrilla · 05-21-2007, 02:42 AM

Non est typo.

Um... Erratum typographicum non est...? No Latin scholar I -- and no hidden meaning either; it's just et al., "and others."

[unctuous] Aaare you Darwinian? Have you been Darwinian recently? [/unctuous]

Aliantha · 05-21-2007, 02:47 AM

I know what et al means UG. I've written a few papers in my time which have been properly referenced and all.

I was just checking. Thought you might have had a hidden agenda...lol...but you're just trying to be smooth.

I think we have a problem with social darwinism though. I think I've mentioned that in other threads before.

bluesdave · 05-21-2007, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

et alia
Was this a typo or was there some deep and hidden meaning there for me?

I think UG meant inter alia.

Aliantha · 05-21-2007, 02:55 AM

I bloody hope not.

05-08-2007, 08:55 PM	#1
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin At least they let us know... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/us...pagewanted=all Last edited by rkzenrage; 05-08-2007 at 09:15 PM.

05-17-2007, 08:45 AM	#4
Pie Gone and done Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 4,808	The Doctor: You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views. Which can be uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that need altering. -- Dr. Who, The Face of Evil __________________ per·son \ˈpər-sən\ (noun) - an ephemeral collection of small, irrational decisions The fun thing about evolution (and science in general) is that it happens whether you believe in it or not.

05-17-2007, 10:29 AM	#5
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	I am a conservative. I am persuaded of the truth of the origin of species by descent with modification -- evolution. This is because unlike some, I took some sciences in high school, and more in college. Some unfortunates seem to believe that you have to reject knowledge and the science of seeking it in order to be a holy, virtuous person. I am living proof otherwise, but that may be a topic for some other thread, in some other forum like Philosophy. They get trapped in this pitfall mainly through confining their studies to belief systems. All they know is belief, religious or otherwise. Consequently, they mistake the theory of evolution for yet another belief system. It isn't. What science is, in the words of Stephen Jay Gould, "is a way of knowing." Knowing and believing are two quite different things. The pitfall of the Young-Earthers (and fundamentalists generally) is in a way more specific: where they fail is in their habit of trying to nail the Omnipotent, the Eternal, into a box designed to human specifications. They're allowing one week for the creation of the Earth in its present form because their favorite book says it happened like that. They don't consider when that book was composed (if not perhaps written down) -- in the Bronze Age, when human knowledge was not what it is now. They don't consider for whom it was written: a Bronze Age people without science. Yet still, it is surprising just how well Genesis agrees with the tale told in the rocks and in the light of the stars and even the lesser light of the voids between them. What the Young-Earthers don't understand is this: if you're immortal, eternal, literally possessed of all the time in the universe, why shouldn't you take your time and do it right? Why shouldn't you take 13.7 gigayears in the making of the universe as it now is? How often have we heard the phrase "in the fullness of time?" Do you really have to rush perfection -- if you want to call it that? __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

05-17-2007, 06:32 PM	#7
lumberjim I can hear my ears Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 25,571	with this (NSFW) end in sight, i think we can all believe in evolution, or at least we can hope. __________________ This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality Embrace this moment, remember We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion ~MJKeenan

05-20-2007, 02:35 AM	#8
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	Ibram, conservatism is a problem only to the rampantly callow and the wretchedly poor of experience -- those who do not impress, for leftism does not and can not make it. How 'bout you go play well in traffic or something? Try writing something I can respect next time. It is not, as your thoughtful essay series some months back in Philosophy shows, outside of your powers. The fully mature are the ones that deliver the consistently respectable; they acquire the knack with experience. Remember that until the day I die, I am going to be thirty-three years ahead of you in all things of life. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

05-17-2007, 12:28 AM	#2
Torrere a real smartass Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Kirkland, WA Posts: 1,121	[blockquote]“The intellectual vitality of conservatism in the 21st century will depend on the success of conservatives in appealing to advances in the biology of human nature as confirming conservative thought.”[/blockquote] Yuck. That sounds like "I want to cherry pick the facts to support my beliefs instead of using the facts to develop my beliefs." The rest of it sounds good, though. Now we just need for the left to support evolution as well -- it seems like both the loony right (the religious fanatics) and the loony left (the marxists) hate evolution and evolutionary psychology because it undermines some of their pet ideologies. The marxists hate it because it suggests that individual self-interest and conflicts of interest are inherent to the human condition and the theocrats hate it because it doesn't explicitly require the existence of God. Whatever. If the loony left thinks that evolutionary psychology is a demon from the right and the loony right thinks that evolution is a demon from the left, then it sounds good and moderate to me.

05-17-2007, 06:28 AM	#3
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	I really don't get the anti-evolutionary psych crowd (unless as you suggest ideology trumps science). From what I've read on it, it just makes sense.

05-20-2007, 02:08 PM	#9
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Wow! 33 years is a loooong way, down the wrong road. But then you said your views were set and haven't changed since you were 10. Remember? __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

05-21-2007, 02:28 AM	#10
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	That was not what I said, but it is what you insisted on reading, Bruce. No, my true, and I think pretty explicit, meaning was that I could see at 10 that there were people twice my age who were less wise than me, and demonstrating that in public. They were the communists' dupes; I wasn't. If my road is so wrong as all that, Bruce, can you explain why I'm not dead? Perhaps another thread, though -- shouldn't we be back on Darwin, et alia? Evolutionary theory didn't stop with Charles, as people have gathered a century and a quarter and more of observation, which has borne out some parts of Origin of Species and disproved others. The hard-fundie antievolutionists seem not to stay up on the current state of the art. They've got the idea that a creation that goes of itself, without God having to sweat out a separate miracle of creation for each species, is an impediment to the idea of the human as a moral being -- by being cousin to the ape. I can't buy that one: a social organization requires a moral manner of behavior and if it doesn't have one it must devise one. The process, to put it mildly, is less than systematic, which is why we get varieties of societies, and why social mores have their oddities. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course. Last edited by Urbane Guerrilla; 05-21-2007 at 02:38 AM.

05-21-2007, 02:35 AM	#11
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	et alia Was this a typo or was there some deep and hidden meaning there for me? __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

05-21-2007, 02:42 AM	#12
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	Non est typo. Um... Erratum typographicum non est...? No Latin scholar I -- and no hidden meaning either; it's just et al., "and others." [unctuous] Aaare you Darwinian? Have you been Darwinian recently? [/unctuous] __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

05-21-2007, 02:47 AM	#13
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	I know what et al means UG. I've written a few papers in my time which have been properly referenced and all. I was just checking. Thought you might have had a hidden agenda...lol...but you're just trying to be smooth. I think we have a problem with social darwinism though. I think I've mentioned that in other threads before. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

05-21-2007, 02:55 AM	#15
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	I bloody hope not. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)