The Antichristian Phenomenon

It’s Tuesday again, time for the next little installment in the Great Amazon Smackdown debate!

This will be much shorter than the Prelude since we no longer have to catch up.

For those who want to read ahead or look at it in its “native environment”, this section starts on page 30 of Cleric’s review.

Before I get a chance to reply to some of his silliness, Cleric jumps in to point out how silly his mention to survival of the fittest in reference to euthanasia and abortion is. I don’t reappear until we move the debate to Aelnathan’s review.

Cleric Said:
>>Abortion and euthanasia ARE related to this topic. They both are related to the “survival of the fittest mentality”. These items require further questioning—-where does this selective deduction of life end? The unborn are killed “for the health of the mother”, or because it will be a burden to its parents, etc. The old and terminally ill are killed so that medical funds will not be “wasted” on them. Remember, slavery was an accepted institution for thousands of years (and still is in some regions), and that does not mean it was ethical. Just because abortion and euthanasia are accepted by many today does not mean it is right. Perhaps someday more will come to see its evil.

But, as I’ve already pointed out the “survival of the fittest” concept is specifically in relation to a world that is not meddled in, where nature is in control. Mankinds use of murder, abortion, euthanasia or whatever is meddling in nature’s whims and thus the whole notion of “survival of the fittest” doesn’t hold in context of the evolutionary theory. Now you’re just discussing a philosophical aspect. You are taking it out of science and putting it into philosophy, which is why it’s not relevant to the Theory of Evolution. You are just talking about the philosophical concept of “survival of the fittest” as it is removed from the evolutionary system.

>>P.S.—Evolution (Macroevolution) is NOT FACT. It is a theory. Why are people so afraid to say that? We have mathematical theorems that we follow, and nobody is scared to call them theorems. Why not just call Evolution the “Theory of Evolution”?

I’m not afraid to call it the theory of evolution, that is it’s definition when you look it up in a dictionary. However microevolution IS a fact. Just like we accept gravity as a fact. Right you are about the mathematical theorms, but the premise of a lot of those are that they are true and some are unprovable, such as the commutative property of mathematics. We assume this property holds for all numbers at all times. You can’t fully prove it in a testable fashion, because you can’t test all numbers. So we base the assumption that it’s true on the logical fact that some of the tested series work. Same goes for evolution, basically. Microevolution exists and works, therefore it is extrapolated that evolution is the process that dictates the system. If you want to pick and choose what scientific observations you want to believe, that is your prerogative, but that doesn’t mean ignoring it makes it not true.

Aelnathan said:
When has mankind ceased being a part of nature? If a lion kills a gazelle or another lion, it is regarded as a process of nature. If a human kills an animal or another human, is that not part of nature as a whole also? It really is not such an extreme extrapolation to apply the “survival of the fittest” mentality to society. If you hold that man evolved from apes or what have you, than man is basically a very intelligent animal. As such, the strongest of the “herd” of humankind can make decisions concerning the fate of said “herd”. Like the stallion culling the weak and sickly foals from his drove, so would a dictator have the right to control and cleanse the population he governs by means of abortion, eugenics, and genocide. Of course these things are atrocious, but they are not unrelated to the subject at hand. No one is saying that Darwin set out to create such re-gimes (those distinctions fall to Marx, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin), but to ignore their correlations to one another is to choose ignorance.

Do remember that I said “Evolution (Macroevolution) is NOT FACT.” I never said microevolution is not fact. To do so would make me little different than a believer in a flat Earth. Yet that still does not mean that evolution can be applied to the whole without some great errors. It is akin to observing the society of ants, and then believing all animal life to observe the same pattern. It is like unto the expectation that since plants use photosynthesis to produce food, then animals must also do so. It is very much similar to studying geology with the belief that everything has always moved at the same rates, without accounting for the changes that happen over time. Maybe microevolution is but a small facet of biology, that does not explain the existence of life itself. I do not ignore microevolution; rather I do not wish to jump to conclusions in its proper application.

That’s right, “microevolution” exists but “macroevolution” does not with an AMAZINGLY inaccurate analogy, and conveniently forgets the fact that it is ABIOGENESIS that attempts to explain the existence of life, NOT evolution–”macro” or “micro”.

Cleric said:
>>When has mankind ceased being a part of nature? If a lion kills a gazelle or another lion, it is regarded as a process of nature. If a human kills an animal or another human, is that not part of nature as a whole also? It really is not such an extreme extrapolation to apply the “survival of the fittest” mentality to society. If you hold that man evolved from apes or what have you, than man is basically a very intelligent animal. As such, the strongest of the “herd” of humankind can make decisions concerning the fate of said “herd”. Like the stallion culling the weak and sickly foals from his drove, so would a dictator have the right to control and cleanse the population he governs by means of abortion, eugenics, and genocide. Of course these things are atrocious, but they are not unrelated to the subject at hand. No one is saying that Darwin set out to create such re-gimes (those distinctions fall to Marx, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin), but to ignore their correlations to one another is to choose ignorance.

I’m talking about this specifically on how Darwin saw things. Furthermore, animals don’t fall prey to the ridiculous irrational things humans do. Hitler killed off Jews based on their religion and race. This had nothing to do with them being weak by natures standards, but by Hitler’s irrational standards. Stalin and others were despots that wanted absolute control over their territories and populations. That’s not how survival of the fittest works in nature and you should know that. Furthermore a lot of the beliefs in Eugenics were unfounded and proven to do little to improve anything. Thus it is NOT working in conjunction with a concept of survival of the fittest. So, in my opinion, to think there is a correlation is ignorant. You have to learn to differentiate between the excuses people use for these things and the reality of it. You are trying to imply an argument Darwin specifically said didn’t apply in his theory. I think he was pretty on point. He even acknowledged it, why can’t you?

>>Do remember that I said “Evolution (Macroevolution) is NOT FACT.” I never said microevolution is not fact. To do so would make me little different than a believer in a flat Earth. Yet that still does not mean that evolution can be applied to the whole without some great errors. It is akin to observing the society of ants, and then believing all animal life to observe the same pattern. It is like unto the expectation that since plants use photosynthesis to produce food, then animals must also do so. It is very much similar to studying geology with the belief that everything has always moved at the same rates, without accounting for the changes that happen over time. Maybe microevolution is but a small facet of biology, that does not explain the existence of life itself. I do not ignore microevolution; rather I do not wish to jump to conclusions in its proper application.

Do remember I said microevolution is the catalyst for macroevolution. If one is fact then the other is highly likely to be. The case of transitional fossils being found is further proving that fact. Maybe you’re worried about jumping to conclusions, but that doesn’t change the evidence that continues to be found. Though, I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply with the analogies. No one’s asking you to do that, least of all evolution. And no, microevolution will never explain the existence of life, microevolution is a mechanism that allows for small changes over time. Maybe the first things in life used a microevolutionary process…

Aelnathan said:
If you are merely talking about Darwin’s theories, and if he had already excluded humanity from his equation, then my comments do not apply. He was very smart to leave people’s actions out of his theory. Yet the “Theory of Evolution” is not limited to “Darwinism”. I understand your point on dictators misusing Darwin’s theories to further their own agendas. Still, from a purely rhetorical view, can you not see my point about man’s hypothetical state as a “very intelligent animal”? Does sentience thus thrust a species from the bounds of Nature? If man’s actions cannot be accommodated in the natural process of “Evolution”, then where do we fit in? Let us assume that, oh, five million years in the future, sentient, talking horses come to be. Are they therefore no longer part of Nature? What is this quality that separates man from beast? I would think that this very exception to the tenets of “Evolution” would draw into question its feasibility. Is there a limit on how far evolution can progress? If all species become sentient, does “Nature” become an obsolete word? Does evolution halt? Or perhaps, is sentience a gift from our Creator, who planned out the universe’s workings from the beginning? Could He have decided which species are sentient, and which are irrational, and where these creatures stand in existence? These questions are certainly worth consideration.

Now about microevolution—-how do my analogies not correlate with the material at hand? I was pointing out that studying one facet of a certain branch of science, and then applying it to the entire branch can lead to erroneous conclusions. I do not see humans (or much of anything else, for that matter) reproducing by binary fission. But sea anemones do. Let us say for a moment that I were an alien visitor, coming from a world where all creatures are hermaphrodite, and landed on Earth. Sea anemones were first species I studied intently. I might proceed to the conclusion that ALL of the creatures on Earth reproduce in this manner. E.T. just made a big mistake. “Oww-ie.” Anyway, I do not see how I can make my point any clearer. Microevolution could just be a crucial yet limited component of biology.

It seems as if this debate has gone on as far as it can go, with both parties making little or no headway. If you wish to continue, then I will soldier on, yet if you wish to retire, I will second the motion. I am growing weary of constantly speaking in an ambiguous tone for the sake of argument. I know where you stand, and I believe you know where I stand. I am a Christian and a Creationist, and constantly stating my views in the form of a question is quite grating. Neither of us seem to be getting anywhere. I hope my posts have given you some matter for contemplation, in an unoffensive manner (something I have striven with great care to accomplish). Thank you for not resorting to name-calling and insults. If you agree, this here is farewell, and as I have said several times before, may we all find the Truth.

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life.”
—–John 14:6

Cleric said:
>>If you are merely talking about Darwin’s theories, and if he had already excluded humanity from his equation, then my comments do not apply. He was very smart to leave people’s actions out of his theory. Yet the “Theory of Evolution” is not limited to “Darwinism”. I understand your point on dictators misusing Darwin’s theories to further their own agendas. Still, from a purely rhetorical view, can you not see my point about man’s hypothetical state as a “very intelligent animal”? Does sentience thus thrust a species from the bounds of Nature? If man’s actions cannot be accommodated in the natural process of “Evolution”, then where do we fit in? Let us assume that, oh, five million years in the future, sentient, talking horses come to be. Are they therefore no longer part of Nature? What is this quality that separates man from beast? I would think that this very exception to the tenets of “Evolution” would draw into question its feasibility. Is there a limit on how far evolution can progress? If all species become sentient, does “Nature” become an obsolete word? Does evolution halt? Or perhaps, is sentience a gift from our Creator, who planned out the universe’s workings from the beginning? Could He have decided which species are sentient, and which are irrational, and where these creatures stand in existence? These questions are certainly worth consideration.

To be perfectly honest, I’m not qualified to give this a supremely detailed answer. However, I think the whole point of somewhat omitting mankind IS our ability to meddle in a vastly different way than nature does. For all we know sentience could be an anomaly of nature, an exception to the rule. I lean on the side that it is an abnormal state, since we’re the only species that seems to be able to meddle like we do. If you know what I mean?

>>Now about microevolution—-how do my analogies not correlate with the material at hand? I was pointing out that studying one facet of a certain branch of science, and then applying it to the entire branch can lead to erroneous conclusions. I do not see humans (or much of anything else, for that matter) reproducing by binary fission. But sea anemones do. Let us say for a moment that I were an alien visitor, coming from a world where all creatures are hermaphrodite, and landed on Earth. Sea anemones were first species I studied intently. I might proceed to the conclusion that ALL of the creatures on Earth reproduce in this manner. E.T. just made a big mistake. “Oww-ie.” Anyway, I do not see how I can make my point any clearer. Microevolution could just be a crucial yet limited component of biology.

I would agree if microevolution wasn’t found in everything. I do understand your point, but I think you are attacking it from the wrong angle.

>>It seems as if this debate has gone on as far as it can go, with both parties making little or no headway. If you wish to continue, then I will soldier on, yet if you wish to retire, I will second the motion. I am growing weary of constantly speaking in an ambiguous tone for the sake of argument. I know where you stand, and I believe you know where I stand. I am a Christian and a Creationist, and constantly stating my views in the form of a question is quite grating. Neither of us seem to be getting anywhere. I hope my posts have given you some matter for contemplation, in an unoffensive manner (something I have striven with great care to accomplish). Thank you for not resorting to name-calling and insults. If you agree, this here is farewell, and as I have said several times before, may we all find the Truth.

I agree. And maybe we should call it quits here. I also must thank you for not getting all “hell and damnation” on me. Instead we had quite the civil conversation on this matter.

Aelnathan said:
Thanks for the debate. Farewell.

–Author of the Aelnathan

P.S.—-This post is the same one as the one deleted above. I had a little trouble with it. Sorry. After I had posted it, I remembered that I had already said goodbye in my previous post. Wanting to avoid redundancy, I deleted it. I forgot that such an action would leave an empty space with the bracketed words “Deleted by author on____”. Oh, well.

And this is Aelnathan’s first retreat. In the next episode, I confront him on his own territory.

And I’m not nice like Cleric.

Continue the debate:
Part 2

Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 9th, 2009 at 12:53 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.