what scientists do and creationists don't

[Gill]

No.  ??

[pianodwarf]

No.  ??

Mmm.  I definitely recommend it.

Anyway.  The flu vaccine has to be reformulated and readministered every year because the flu virus evolves.  Creating an effective flu vaccine requires an understanding of how evolution works.  That was my point.

[One Above All]

Yeah, but there must be some implication in the theory which mitigates responsibility, otherwise, I don't see why anyone would ever think to refer to it.

Do you get a flu shot each year?

Do you get any shots whatsoever more than once in a lifetime?

[Gill]

I don't deny evolutions usefulness, especially if one is studying virus.

But, there's a big leap from a virus to human, so, just saying things can start to get more complicated.

People can criticize creationism,  but I do have to give that theory credit for at least allowing in the idea of responsibility of actions, since it says that god gave people free-will, which is a beneficial philosophy for a civil society.

Whereas, if evolution was the basis for law, it would be anarchy.

[One Above All]

People can criticize creationism,  but I do have to give that theory credit for at least allowing in the idea of responsibility of actions, since it says that god gave people free-will, which is a beneficial philosophy for a civil society.

Whereas, if evolution was the basis for law, it would be anarchy.

Evolution: proven fact that species evolve over time, eventually turning into different species altogether. Speaks nothing of free will or responsibility.
Creationism: A deity created everyone exactly as they are to do exactly what it wants, meaning that free will is virtually non-existent.

I'm sorry, which one would create anarchy?
Also, read about evolution. Learn what you're talking about.

[Gill]

Eh, no, most religions believe in free-will, it's most scientists who deny it. 

[One Above All]

Eh, no, most religions believe in free-will,

Which contradicts every other belief they have.

it's most scientists who deny it. 

Evidence?

[Azdgari]

Gill, your argument re: personal responsibility is not so much against evolution as it is against the idea that our genetic material codes for phenotypic traits.

So, knowledge of any modern biology needs to be kept from the masses, lest they think that it militates against the idea of personal responsibility.  According to your position, anyway.

[Azdgari]

There is a broader philosophical divide here, an elephant in the room, so to speak.  Most of the folks here look at truth as something that is inherently worthy of belief.  If X is true about reality, then we should acknowledge that fact, and to deny that X is true about reality - while possessing the knowledge that it's true - is dishonest.  We view dishonesty as a bad thing.

Gill holds to a different philosophy, apparently.  Honesty about reality isn't especially important.  If lying about reality promotes people taking responsibility for their actions, then we should lie about reality.

It's a matter of priorities.  The truth just isn't particularly important to some people.

[Gill]

No, I don't care how much people read about evolution.  I'm just pointing out how things can get interpreted in ways which can lead to problems such as personal responsibility.

Also, to say that natural selection is true, fine.  But then to also imply that genetic determinism is true because of natural selection, as some seem to imply (like using a genetic defense in court for an action), I would say has nothing to do with truth but a philosophical interpretation of how much genetics effect choices, and that is something open to debate, not a hard fact.

[One Above All]

Also, to say that natural selection is true, fine.  But then to also imply that genetic determinism is true because of natural selection, as some seem to imply (like using a genetic defense in court for an action), I would say has nothing to do with truth but a philosophical interpretation of how much genetics effect choices, and that is something open to debate, not a hard fact.

Evidence for this "genetic defense"? I've never heard something like this before. And, assuming that you've got evidence, did it actually work?

DO NOT IGNORE THE QUESTION BEFORE THE "AND". I hate it when people do that.

[Gill]

It was mentioned earlier in this thread.  I just assumed this would happen eventually, and apparently as some have pointed out, it already has....

[Azdgari]

No, I don't care how much people read about evolution.  I'm just pointing out how things can get interpreted in ways which can lead to problems such as personal responsibility.

Then the problem lies with the people who make that interpretation, such as you.

Also, to say that natural selection is true, fine.

This stops short of acknowledging the physical truth of it, but w/e.  Like I said, acknowledging truth isn't a priority you've shown much care for.

But then to also imply that genetic determinism is true because of natural selection, as some seem to imply (like using a genetic defense in court for an action), I would say has nothing to do with truth but a philosophical interpretation of how much genetics effect choices, and that is something open to debate, not a hard fact.

Agreed, and it has nothing factual to do with evolution whatsoever.  Which means that evolution isn't "sketchy" because of it.  But you knew that already when you decided to lie about it, didn't you? 

[Azdgari]

And lest you think that my accusation is unjustified:

The part about all physical life descending from a common ancestor, yes, I would agree that's true.   It's just when one get's into other aspects of it, things can get sketchy....

Supposedly, when some of evolution's aspects are "gotten into", things really can "get sketchy".  Note that Gill doesn't say "when evolution is misinterpreted, things can get sketchy".  No, no.

[Gill]

Nope, didn't lie at all.   Natural selection attributes causality of actions to genetics... mentions nothing of free-will.   So,  I don't see any lying in my interpretation,  seems like an interpretation that many will reasonably come to, as in the court cases which already have....

The future, the utopian dream for evolutionists being that all religions finally end and evolution is accepted, doesn't seem like a utopia at all.  Seems like a society that has a convenient way to mitigate any responsibility for their choices,  and so will end the civil society, unless modifications are made, to the theory, the theory of evolution....

[Brakeman]

bm

[Azdgari]

Nope, didn't lie at all.   Natural selection attributes causality of actions to genetics...

This is a very, very blatant lie.  It is difficult to engage with someone with this little respect for honesty.

... mentions nothing of free-will.

Neither does the theory of gravity.  So what?  Why should it?  If a field of science was going to mention free-will, it would be neurology, not descent by natural selection or gravity or germ theory or any of the rest of them.

So,  I don't see any lying in my interpretation,

Either you're not thinking very well, or this is yet another lie.

... seems like an interpretation that many will reasonably come to, as in the court cases which already have....

The court cases came to the conclusion that evolution takes away free will?  Really?  Can you cite that?  Because otherwise, I'm going to have to call you on this further lie.

Not that you'll care much, of course.  Only someone who cared about honesty would care deeply about being called on a lie.

The future, the utopian dream for evolutionists being that all religions finally end and evolution is accepted, doesn't seem like a utopia at all.  Seems like a society that has a convenient way to mitigate any responsibility for their choices,  and so will end the civil society, unless modifications are made, to the theory, the theory of evolution....

Seems like you've got some prejudice problems.  If only you were open to re-assessing those prejudices...like an honest person.

[Azdgari]

It is possible, on reflection, that you are not all that dishonest, and are just grossly misinformed about the subjects you're trying to discuss.

But if so, then there is a problem of properly educating you on those topics...which can only be done if you have a certain basic level of honesty.  So far, you havn't shown that.

[Gill]

... seems like an interpretation that many will reasonably come to, as in the court cases which already have....

The court cases came to the conclusion that evolution takes away free will?  Really?  Can you cite that?  Because otherwise, I'm going to have to call you on this further lie.

??? No, not a conclusion.  A case was just linked to in this thread, skim back up.   The genetics of a man is used to try to mitigate his responsibility in his crimes.

In that case, that defense was not enough to mitigate, but I don't see why after many years of people more and more looking to genetics to understand their actions, it won't be more accepting.  And, that could lead to problems.

[Gill]

And I'm sure you'll probably say again, that these people are just misinterpreting evolution and genetics.   Well, then wouldn't it be reasonable to update evolution, to add clarity and more definition to it so these misinterpretations aren't happening,  since clearly it is not unheard of?

[Azdgari]

??? No, not a conclusion.  A case was just linked to in this thread, skim back up.   The genetics of a man is used to try to mitigate his responsibility in his crimes.

THAT'S.  NOT.  EVOLUTION.  That's genetics.  Humans have genetics whether or not we evolved.

Were you seriously unaware of this?  Seriously?

In that case, that defense was not enough to mitigate, but I don't see why after many years of people more and more looking to genetics to understand their actions, it won't be more accepting.  And, that could lead to problems.

It could.  But it also has nothing to do with the theory of evoloution by natural selection as an explanation for the origin of species.

[Gill]

??? No, not a conclusion.  A case was just linked to in this thread, skim back up.   The genetics of a man is used to try to mitigate his responsibility in his crimes.

THAT'S.  NOT.  EVOLUTION.  That's genetics.  Humans have genetics whether or not we evolved.

Were you seriously unaware of this?  Seriously?

Oh, ok, so natural selection, which is part of evolution, has nothing to do with genetics?  Ok.

[Azdgari]

Natural selection is the study of which genes produce traits that are more likely to be passed down to one's children.

That has something to do with genetics.  But it has absolutely nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Genetics, on the other hand, are (in part) the study of how our genes actually affect us.  For example, we have genes that code for blonde hair - a fact you will no doubt rail against, since it militates against a blonde's free will to choose to have naturally brown hair.

Your objection - if it was valid - would apply to the latter idea, the idea that our genes code for traits at all.  Natural selection is off-topic to your objection.

EDIT:  Just as your entire objection is off-topic to this thread, which doesn't seem to bother you, despite the fact that you have another thread on the go that is specifically dedicated to your topic.

[Gill]

Ok.

But I could still say in court that,  natural selection produced a genetic trait in me to cause me to be less able to control my violent actions. 

Therefore, I should not be wholly responsible for my violent act since I'm subject to this genetic trait.

I've mitigated my responsibility to natural selection, off of myself.

You may say this is not a valid mitigation in court, and so would I, but I wouldn't be surprised if people started using such logic, maybe even with some success eventually, since there's nothing specifically in evolution which would contradict such logic.

So, just saying, some evolution in my view could use some updating...

[Azdgari]

But I could still say in court that,  natural selection produced a genetic trait in me to cause me to be less able to control my violent actions.

You could equally say that gravity produced a genetic trait in you that caused you to be less able to control your violent actions.  After all, I hear it's really hard to make babies in zero-G, especially on a planet that's lost its atmosphere to space due to the lack of gravity.

In either case, the justification has to be that the genes actually cause you to have that tendency.  And the science behind that justification does not reside in the realm of natural selection, nor does it reside in the realm of gravitational physics.  It resides strictly with the study of human genetics and how particular gene combinations code for particular behaviours.

The other theories are just window dressing.  Genetics are (supposedly) your enemy here, not other scientific theories, such as germ theory, evolutionary theory, gravitational theory, etc.

Therefore, I should not be wholly responsible for my violent act since I'm subject to this genetic trait.

I've mitigated my responsibility to natural selection, off of myself.

No, you've shifted it to your parents.  Not that they could predict your exact genetics anyway.  So really, you've just shifted the responsibility to the genes that happened to be passed down in your particular case.  Natural selection is a red herring.

You may say this is not a valid mitigation in court, and so would I, but I wouldn't be surprised if people started using such logic, maybe even with some success eventually, since there's nothing specifically in evolution which would contradict such logic.

So, just saying, some evolution in my view could use some updating...

Evolution is off-topic, and unnecessary to such an attempted defense, whether it's valid or not.  The key point is whether genes strongly code for the actions in question.

I realize that evolution is a more attractive target for you than genetics are.  After all, there are lots of really crazy creationist organizations that are on your side, organizations that are willing to lie about pretty much every field of science in order to promote the idea that the world is 6000 years old and we're all descended from Adam and Eve.  In attacking evolution, you gain allies that you wouldn't gain by attackin genetics.

But genetics are really your target here.

[Gill]

......I realize that evolution is a more attractive target for you than genetics are.  After all, there are lots of really crazy creationist organizations that are on your side, organizations that are willing to lie about pretty much every field of science in order to promote the idea that the world is 6000 years old and we're all descended from Adam and Eve.  In attacking evolution, you gain allies that you wouldn't gain by attackin genetics.

But genetics are really your target here.

Alright, I see your points, maybe genetics alone is more on target.    And it's not that I'm targeting evolution because I adhere to creationism more, just pointing out how evolution can lead to it's own issues, so not a perfect theory.  Since, I seem to be the only one here willing to do so,  I thought I'd do it.

But anyways,  I think that's just about the end of the discussion then.....

[Azdgari]

Except that the issue isn't with evolution, so you really didn't raise any problems with it at all.

And further, if something is true, then its implications for human behaviours are irrelevant to that truth.  Those implications are not a part of the theory.  If humans mis-behave due to something that's true, then the fault lies with human behaviour, not with the truth.

[Gnu Ordure]

There is a broader philosophical divide here, an elephant in the room, so to speak.  Most of the folks here look at truth as something that is inherently worthy of belief.  If X is true about reality, then we should acknowledge that fact, and to deny that X is true about reality - while possessing the knowledge that it's true - is dishonest.  We view dishonesty as a bad thing.

But honesty isn't always the best policy, Azd. Sometimes it's better to lie. You remember BibleStudent insisting that he would give up the Jews hiding in his house to the Nazis because 'lying is always wrong'? Nobody here agreed with him. Consequences are important.

If lying about reality promotes people taking responsibility for their actions, then we should lie about reality.

Maybe we should; because consequences are important.

It's a matter of priorities.  The truth just isn't particularly important to some people.

It's not that truth isn't important; but it's not the only factor in the equation.

[Azdgari]

Different sort of circumstances, Gnu.  Lying to someone in order to mislead their actions, because their intentions conflict with ours...or lying to ourselves, because we can't handle the truth.