quote:

I understood. That's a good summary of how anyone feels really, irrespective of what they believe. It really highlights why any discussion such as this is rather pointless in the end. You believe that what you believe is fact not fiction, so, anything that challenges it must be fiction. In that sense, you are no different to an atheist, for example, who also believes that what he or she believes is fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, except I used to be an agnostic and a skeptic; so obviously there is hope for change.

quote:

And I used to be a bible-believing Christian, so you are right. I guess we do have free will after all.

But back to the OP: do you contend that evolution promotes racism, or disproves racism?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, as I said, I think what happens is that evolution has, and still can, provide a scientific veneer for racism.

quote:

There is certainly nothing in evolution itself from that would keep one from from asserting racial differences

quote:

though I think genetically that is increasingly difficult to justify.

quote:

In spite of what genetics has showed us about human genomes throughout the world?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

In spite of what genetics has showed us about human genomes throughout the world?

Well, as I pointed out, genetics (not evolution) makes it more difficult – though interestingly evolutionists still try to find links.

quote:

Well, since evolution is about the distribution patterns of genetic similarities and differences, it is pretty difficult not to link them.

AS for Watson, I think the quote in the article from Steven Rose sums it up:

Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: "This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I mean, what if the latest literature supported ideas like eugenics or intrinsic racial differences? Why are these people slaves to the latest scientific findings?

quote:

Of course, to free themselves from this they would first have to admit humans have a moral nature, which would of course create problems for evolution itself.

quote:

If the most up-to-date studies supported ideas like eugenics or intrensic racial differences, then those ideas would be supported by science. Since they don't, the ideas are unsupported. It's not a difficult concept.

I don't know how to respond to the second question. Are you suggesting that we should not consider the most up-to-date research?

quote:

I'll admit humans have morals, what problems do you imagine this causes for evolution?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, yes, you are verifying exactly what I suggested; someone whose view on these things is tied to the latest research on them is a slave to the latest findings.

Whether an evolutionist is a racist or eugenicist or atheist has nothing to do with a moral perception of the wrongness of these things, but whether they believe science supports them.

So in this view Watkins is not a bad person for thinking blacks inferior, but an uninformed person - if the findings changed, his racism would be in this view wholly justified. I would think that minorities and the genetically disabled people would fear and distrust scientific research under this paradigm of science.

Because, as you have acknowledged, evolutionists are only as 'moral' as the latest scientific findings permit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

If the most up-to-date studies supported ideas like eugenics or intrensic racial differences, then those ideas would be supported by science. Since they don't, the ideas are unsupported. It's not a difficult concept.

I don't know how to respond to the second question. Are you suggesting that we should not consider the most up-to-date research?

Well, yes, you are verifying exactly what I suggested; someone whose view on these things is tied to the latest research on them is a slave to the latest findings.

Whether an evolutionist is a racist or eugenicist or atheist has nothing to do with a moral perception of the wrongness of these things, but whether they believe science supports them.

So in this view Watkins is not a bad person for thinking blacks inferior, but an uninformed person - if the findings changed, his racism would be in this view wholly justified. I would think that minorities and the genetically disabled people would fear and distrust scientific research under this paradigm of science.

quote:

quote:

I'll admit humans have morals, what problems do you imagine this causes for evolution?

Because, as you have acknowledged, evolutionists are only as 'moral' as the latest scientific findings permit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I have often thought evolutionists would be much better off, if rather than always making excuses for why certain evolutionists insist evolution can justify the likes of eugenics, or racism, or atheism, they simply admitted it was because evolutionary theory has the potential to bring out the worst in human nature. I mean, what if the latest literature supported ideas like eugenics or intrinsic racial differences? Why are these people slaves to the latest scientific findings?

quote:

Of course, to free themselves from this they would first have to admit humans have a moral nature, which would of course create problems for evolution itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I have often thought evolutionists would be much better off, if rather than always making excuses for why certain evolutionists insist evolution can justify the likes of eugenics, or racism, or atheism, they simply admitted it was because evolutionary theory has the potential to bring out the worst in human nature.

quote:

I mean, what if the latest literature supported ideas like eugenics or intrinsic racial differences?

quote:

Of course, to free themselves from this they would first have to admit humans have a moral nature, which would of course create problems for evolution itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Whether an evolutionist is a racist or eugenicist or atheist has nothing to do with a moral perception of the wrongness of these things, but whether they believe science supports them.

So in this view Watkins is not a bad person for thinking blacks inferior, but an uninformed person - if the findings changed, his racism would be in this view wholly justified.

quote:

I would think that minorities and the genetically disabled people would fear and distrust scientific research under this paradigm of science.

quote:

AS for Watson, I think the quote in the article from Steven Rose sums it up:


Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: "This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."

Emphasis added

quote:

To those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologise unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief...

The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity....

To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, as I pointed out, genetics (not evolution) makes it more difficult – though interestingly evolutionists still try[/link] to find links.

quote:

Of course, you are obviously ignoring the fact that this one man was basing his comments on intelligence test scores, and not on the theory of evolution.

quote:

Bullocks. Science will always confront us with ethical dilemmas... that doesn't make the information immoral. I dont know of many people who learn morality by reading evolution books or big bang books or alter their morals in accordance with the latest peer reviewed papers. As anyone with a modicum of common sense will tell you... if human morality and society were a true imitation of nature, most of us wouldnt find it a very pleasant world.

quote:

Heres a pickle: What if we found a gene in a minority of people that makes them less susceptible to religious belief? How would the religious treat them? I don't think the aftermath of a discovery like that would be pretty for the carriers..

quote:

Why? It may be a touchy subject, but fear of the results should not disuade research.

quote:

I have acknowledged no such thing! (Is it that difficult for you to understand what I'm saying?)

Scientific research does not dictate our morals, nor should it.

quote:

How can the theory of evolution tell us the worth of a person? It can't. We must decide for ourselves the worth of each person using empathy and morals.

quote:

If we killed off every person with a specific allele would that allele disappear from the population? Of course it would. We only needed Mendel to tell us that, not Darwin. The question is whether we should do it or not, and the theory of evolution is not equipped to answer that for us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
No, he was basing it on genetics.

quote:

One could just as well say "I have often thought Christians would be much better off, if rather than always making excuses for why certain Christians insist Christianity (or the bible) can justify the likes of eugenics, or racism, or atheism, they simply admitted it was because Christian faith has the potential to bring out the worst in human nature."

quote:

The blame when such ideas are attached to a perfectly legitimate faith or science must rest with the individual misapplying it, not with the faith or theory at issue. The fact that these individuals appear to be the exception to the rule is an indicator that their conclusions do not actually derive from whatever it is they are appealing to for support.

quote:

Then we would still have the question of the ethical application of this information. Do we have to do anything differently because of racial differences? Do racial differences justify inhumane treatment? Or do they call for relevant assistance? It is not as if racial differences were the only relevant differences among human beings. Consider how you might answer these questions if we were referring to differences in abilities e.g. what does our ethical judgment say about the treatment of the blind, the deaf, the paraplegic?

quote:

No, moral issues do not create a problem for evolution any more than for any other area of science. It is true that scientific discoveries can raise moral issues, but it does not prescribe answers for them.

quote:

No, he based it on "testing." He predicted that we would find a genetic link "within a decade," not that one was already found.

Good thing one of us actually read the article . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I have acknowledged no such thing! (Is it that difficult for you to understand what I'm saying?)

Scientific research does not dictate our morals, nor should it.

If one considers racism to be a moral concern, and one considers that our views of racial differences should be determined by research, then obviously one’s moral belief about racism is subject to the latest research.

quote:

I consider racism to be a moral concern; I do not consider that our views of racial differences should be determined by research. We may have found the source of your confusion. For some reason, you don't believe me when I said, "Scinetific research does not dictate or morals, nor should it." I'm sure you don't believe science should dictate our morals, why do you think I believe it should? If I did, your conclusion would follow. Since I do not consider that our views of racial differences should be determined by science, your conclusion about one's moral beliefs obviously does not follow. It's simple logic.

I hope that helps clear up your misunderstanding of my position. Do you now realize that you were mistaken when you said, "Because, as you have acknowledged, evolutionists are only as 'moral' as the latest scientific findings permit."?