Darwin
Friends of Darwin
MisfitBloggers

He loves and she loves

Just Causes

Password required

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« Temptation in the garden | Main | Cool cats »

August 06, 2005

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Daryl,
It wasn't just you who has said "magic," and I should have clarified it. You were the one who did here, so I addressed you.
That said, the objection I have (I'm not speaking for others, of course) isn't that I call other religions "magic;" I don't. In all honesty, I think of magic as HOAX or tricks, not as in the "magick" of Wicca, etc.
So basically, when I see anti-IDers say "magic" in reference to God, it looks like mocking God as a hoax. Just sayin'.

FWIW, I'm probably THE MOST difficult person to truly offend and about as far from politically correct as you can get, but that one really pushes my buttons. I can only imagine how it raises the ire of the "fundies" (another word I personally cannot stand).

Perhaps I am oversensitive about it; I don't appreciate anyone using name-calling against religious beliefs as something to buttress their argument--it shuts off all dialogue.

(HUGE exception!: I haven't pulled any punches with Islamic ideology since the late 1970s, but that's another whole subject altogether.)

Mr. Farris:

So in other words, an evolutionist is not a racist when he (1) treats clear variations in humans beings--clearly and empirically visible to any child--as a subjective, made-up social construct, and (2) gives philosophical deference to the "wild card" of human consciousness, which cannot be materially explained, let alone biologically explained.

I'll repeat my point again: You cannot be an honest evolutionist without being a racist.

"treats clear variations in humans beings--clearly and empirically visible to any child--as a subjective, made-up social construct"

Clearly visible differences are not the same thing as a biologically valid distinction. Clearly visible differences in appearances might lead one to assume that chihuahuas and great danes are separate species (or that male and female gorillas are).

"gives philosophical deference to the "wild card" of human consciousness"

it's not just philosophical, it's consciousness that has allowed humans to _culturally_ rather than biologically adapt to certain environments that might seem less than promising (see desert nomads, eskimos, etc), other living things do not do this (so far as we know).

"which cannot be materially explained, let alone biologically explained."

not yet at any rate.

Jeff Hull wrote:
"Contrast with "the theory of Intelligent Design." (Note the convention I have observed: that writers capitalize the words Intelligent Design, I believe for the same reasons they capitalize His name when writing about God."

Are the concepts called the Theory of Relativity, or Boyle's Law, or Right Hand Rule capitalized because of their theistic aspects?

:rolleyes:

You never get any place you want to go by overstating your case, or by protesting too much.

Yours, TDP,
molon labe
motani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

Protagonist wrote"

"I'll repeat my point again: You cannot be an honest evolutionist without being a racist."

And I state my points re. the above, which are;

a) You don't have a point.

b) Treating an individual person as if they are the statistical average of the eunmerated marginal charateristics of their "race" is racist. You also seem to equate that with Darwinism. It has nothing to do with evolution or Darwinism, unless by harming their own efforts to survive--respectful cooperation helps, racism doesn't--a racist is buying a few extra tickets towards a Darwin Award for themselves.

Yours, Tom Perkins, ml, msl, & pfpp

The comments to this entry are closed.

The Cold Turkey Cookbook

Look to the animals

  • looktotheanimals

Kudos

Blog powered by Typepad