NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/origins/16003

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-01 | 10.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw
From: [e-mail] (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Throop/Nietzsche problems
Summary: Ted's basic point remains invalid and unjustified
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 01 Jan 93 22:54:16 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 223

: From: (Ted Holden)
: Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
::: And if you accept evolution, then all of
::: this [..essentially, competition, selfishness, and dominance..]
::: is quite natural and even possibly desirable.
: Basically,  I was trying to point out the fact that evolutionism, as
: presently taught, offers man precisely nothing, as well as the far
: lesser known fact that new studies are revealing that the spiritual
: realm which most normal people believe in and can sense, once existed at
: least in part on this earth.

Well, I pointed out that Ted is wrong.  "Evolutionism" offers humanity
insignt into the interaction between inheritance and environment, and
hence in turn into human behavior.  This is certainly relevant insight,
since even Ted himself says

+ From: [e-mail] (news) (Ted Holden)
+ Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
+ I believe that a LOT of evolution has taken place, [...] I do not
+ believe that our complex lifeforms are traceable back to dust via
+ evolution, [...]

Therefore, even in Ted's framework, evolutionary theory provides
insight into human behavior (and even "spirituality, as I'll
point out below), since these insights do not depend on tracing
lifeforms back to dust.

I also pointed out that "evolutionism" does NOT offer any insight into
how humans OUGHT to behave.  Only insight into how they DO behave.
Further, Ted is factually incorrect in claiming that "evolutionism"
only views competition, selfishness and dominance as "natural".

None of Ted's reply addressed these issues.  He merely repeated his
incorrect claims about evolution.

As to what Ted's "new studies" are showing... well if the examples
Ted has pointed to by Ginnenthal, Talbot, himself, and Rose are any
indication, the "studies" are full of sound and fury perhaps, but
precious little insight.

: What gets the Throops of the world so riled at this sort of talk is the
: following consideration.

What gets the Throops of the world so riled at this sort of talk,
is that it is inaccurate.  The notion of evolution by natural selection
does not imply what Ted claims it implies, and further:

: Suppose evolutionists are right, that man is
: simply a freak accident, the final end product of a long chain of events
: governed by random and chance processes,

it does not now, and never did, claim that the events that led from the
species of the past to those of the present day are "governed by random
and chance processes".  They are governed by SELECTIVE processes, hence
the term "natural SELECTION".  (Yes, Colby et al, "genetic drift", "gene
flow", etc, etc.  Allow me this slight simplification.)

: originating with single-celled
: creatures somehow self-generating from inert/inorganic materials which
: somehow simply got lucky.

It also doesn't claim they "simply got lucky", nor that the origins of
life were single-celled and its immediate precursors were inert nor
inorganic.  In fact, about the only accurate thing that can be drawn
from this paragraph of Ted's is "originating [...] somehow".  That is,
the origins of life are (essentially) currently unknown to science.
This, of course, has nothing much to do with evolution, which is why
this whole field has a separate name: "abiogenesis".

: Then basically, you're saying to the common
: man, "Abandon hope!  You're going to die in thirty or forty years, and
: like as not, nobody will give a damn about anything you ever did 30
: years later, and that's every bit of it.  Even the greatest man of the
: age will be forgotton 5000 years from now, and that's just a grain of
: sand on the beach in the framework of the oceans of time we're talking
: about."

"Evolutionism" doesn't say this.  No more than "Astronomyism" says to
the common man "Abandon hope! You're going to die in thirty or forty
years, and like as not, and any effects you, your paltry life, or
everything you ever did will never affect any more than an insignificant
particle of the smallest fragment of the universe."

The point is, evolution doesn't imply not-god, doesn't imply not-spritual-life,
and doesn't even imply you're going to die in thirty or forty years.

If somebody is uncomfortable with the perspective evolutionary
time-scales provides for humanity, that's their problem, not that of
evolutionary theory.  Just as if somebody is uncomfortable with the
perspective astronomical distances and sizes provides for humanity,
that's their problem, not that of astronomical theory.

: Is it any wonder that the common man does not buy any of this?  Is it
: any wonder that the masses do not beat a path to Throop's door?

And here we are, back to "what riles the Throops of this world".
No, it's no wonder that the "common man" does not buy any of "this".
Because the "this" is a straw man, and has nothing at all to do
with the actuality of evolutionary theory.  Ted has bought the Big Lie,
right along with so many "common men", and thinks that evolutionary
theory is something that it is not.

As to "masses beating a path" to my door, I'm just as happy that they do
not.  Yet I'd just as soon not have people misrepresent evolutionary
theory and spread disinformation as Ted has just been doing.

: I have tried to point out, that if you have to rebel against
: Christianity, the logical starting point is Nietzsche and not Darwin.

And I've pointed out that it doesn't help to make your point to misrepresent
what Darwin and his successors actually claim about evolutionary theory.

: That has to be what gets to the Throops of the world.  How much money
: did you make preaching evolution this year, Throop?  How many people
: built temples and cathedrals in honor of Darwin this year?

I don't preach.  I nit-pick to the glory of God.

Hence, since I didn't preach evolution, it seems quite reasonable to
me that I made no money for doing so.

As to building temples and cathedrals in honor of Darwin, I could be
petty and ask about how many "Our Scholar of Perpetual Confusion"
shrines were erected to Velikovsky.  But I won't do that, I'll merely
point out that I very much doubt Darwin *wanted* any cathedrals erected
in his name.  (Of course, it's likely that Christ didn't either, but
then, we can't ALL get what we want...)

: See what I mean?  Throop just doesn't get it.  The fact that man's
: entire existence becomes utterly meaningless under this system does not
: even strike him as a problem.

IF "man's entire existance" became "utterly meaningless under this
system", I WOULD regard it as a problem.  Lucky for me that Ted is
simply incorrect about the implications of evolutionary theory.

See what I mean?  Ted just doesn't get it.

: >    God: a mythical being created by a recent primate species
: >         on earth to account for origins, because they just couldn't
: >         imagine all this stuff lying around without an alpha male
: >         in charge of it.
: I'll sell fertility pills in China before you ever sell that.

I don't sell for a living any more than I preach.  I tend to doubt I
have the personality for either.

On another hand, in response to
= From: [e-mail] (James G. Acker)
= Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
= Throop does offend me a bit [..with the above paraphrase..],
= but I can handle it

I'll point out that the above quote certainly isn't meant (at least
not by me) to say anything about the nature of God.  It is meant to
say something about the nature of human worship of God.  Certainly,
there is no implication by me that the person coining the definition
is *correct* about the nature of God, or even about the nature
of *proper* worship of God.

In fact, even in the context of a devout believer, who thinks that the
primate worldview does not color most human activities, one can read
this as a cautionary note of a possible stumbling block faced by humans
in their relationship to God.

So, even if an initial glance at this offends, I think that it, along
with the evolutionary framework from which it is drawn, provides
significant insight into spiritual matters.  Insight which I don't find
in Ted's fantasies of telepathy and perfection in the "antediluvian"
world.

: From: [e-mail] (news) (Ted Holden)
: Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
: The general statement that we are derived from inert materials via a long
: sequence of essentially chance events covering many millions of years does
: not allow for a continuing spiritual existence for man (beyond this life)
: UNLESS you wish to make the claim that man has evolved from inert materials
: SPIRITUALLY at the same time that he has physically.

Well, no.  The "at the same time" makes it seem unlikely, but the
relationship of a dualistic spirituality to this world might be
timeless, or it may be that it pre-existed and merely awaited the advent
of a sufficiently adapted creature.  Or there may be other causal links
between physicality and a dualistic spirituality.  Or non-dualistic
spirituality might be an investigation of an eternal spiritual world by
purely temporal creatures.  Ted simply isn't considering all the
possibilities in drawing his conclusions.

( and of course, he's again spreading by implication the misinformation
  that evolutionary events are "essentially chance" )

: From: [e-mail] (news) (Ted Holden)
: Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
: As I have demonstrated, the sauropod dinosaurs thought to have lived tens of
: millions of years in our past, could not live in our world with our effective
: gravity.

Remember kiddies, Ted's demonstration contains several flaws which
render it essentially meaningless.  Namely, he scales from an
inappropriate benchmark creature, he scales from an inappropriate
benchmark act, and he uses an inappropriate scaling method.

: The schemes which scientists are having to use to maintain all these fictions
: are getting whackier by the day.  One degree pitch difference due to the
: precessions turning the Liakhovs into an area habitable (food availability)
: to vast herds of large mammals;  the 0% of solar energy arriving at Venus'
: surface causing the 900 F temperatures there...

Nope.  That's 2% of solar energy.  Ted likes to pretend that none
arrives there, but he has to ignore most studies, and misinterpret one
or two in order to try to support this position.

And that's 40 watts per square meter turning the Liakhovs into an
area with enough vegitation to feed mammoths.

Only Ted's misinterpretation of these is "whacky".

If you really want "wackier by the day", consider Ted's "elecromag
forces" which apparently stabilize orbits, levitate sauropods,
provide telepathy, and in general patch up anything that goes
wrong with Talbot's Saturn scenario.
--
Wayne Throop  ...!mcnc!dg-rtp!sheol!throopw