Some state that because President Bush is commander-in-chief and duly elected that we should be united behind him. But the fact is that even though he is the president and CIC that doesn’t mean the American people forfeit from the day he takes office to the day he leaves, their right to disagree and dissent with his policy be it foreign or domestic. Nothing in the Constitution states or implies that we are obligated to do so, wartime or not. A president is not above the American people.
Conservatives such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Phil Gramm all opposed President Clinton strongly on the Kosovo and Serbian campaigns. They were not un-American for doing so. They took action on opposition to something they felt was immoral and wrong. That is the height of patriotism. When Clinton was criticized over Kosovo, no Democrat stated that such criticism was un-American, unpatriotic or treasonous. If critics of the war are wrong, then it should be easy to show on the merits why they are wrong.
The simple fact is that Americans are not obligated to support anything the president wants to do, just because he is the president. We do not check our brains at the door during a presidential term. Congress and the American people forfeit their rights and free speech to a President.
Letter in Regards to the issue of Wiretapping:
First of all Wisconsin Sen. Feingold’s opposition to Bush’s wiretapping program doesn’t mean he opposes wiretapping of terrorist suspects but that the President is obligated to get a judicial warrant. The concerns have been about the lack of judicial warrants for these wiretaps.
Are Democrats the only ones concerned? No.
Republican Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated that Attorney General Gonzalez’s belief that the 2001 Resolution authorizing force against those responsible for the 9/11 attack superseded the 1978 FISA requirements was that it “defies logic and plain English.” South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham stated that Gonzalez’s reasoning was “very dangerous” and “II never envisioned that I was giving to the president or any other president the ability to go around the (1978 law) carte blanche.”
The simple fact is that the President does not have any power, implicit or explicit, to be absolute in his powers be it either in peacetime or war. The idea that a President does have such a power, free from any checks or balances ceases to make us a democratic republic and puts us at the whims and discretion of a President, be it Republican or Democrat. That the Bush administration informed Congress about getting around judicial oversite, doesn’t excuse this act.
The law doesn’t allow for exceptions based on informing Congress. One needs to change the very law itself. Some state that we should be united in the war on terror. But, why should we be absolutely united behind President Bush? Has he shown himself free of mistakes? Probably most of the weapons being used against the U.S. military in Iraq were part of the cache of weapons that the Bush Administration failed to safeguard during the invasion in 2003. The Bush Administration ignored the needs, stated by high ranking military officials, to have enough troops on the ground after the initial invasion. Simply, the idea that we should unite behind an imperfect leader and hope that he magically gets it right from now on is the height of folly.
We are a nation of free peoples and the President works for us. We don’t work for him. Many on both sides of the aisle want to win the war on terror, but there are disagreements on how to accomplish that. That is fine, in a democracy the best ideas should win. But to have the best ideas win, debate needs not only to be allowed but encouraged. So, it isn’t necessarily a good thing to be united when the policy we are united upon might be bad or incompetently run
Teddy Roosevelt stated about a century ago, “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” I think we need to remember the Rough Rider’s words once again.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Marriage by God?
Some consider marriage as made by God. But not all do. Marriage came out of early cultures. I hear it is stated that God, usually it is mentioned or implied the Christian God, created marriage. But, most or all of these early cultures had gods or a god while having an institution of marriage.
Unless one wants to argue that all these deities were true then cultures without this true deity created marriage. So, is marriage then a product of mankind or God?
Now, these cultures believed that their deity or deities endorsed marriage, but the West has moved beyond the idea that the government, the culture, the law should be a reflection of whatever religious text states. We now understand that the law is to be made for man, not for a deity which might or might not exist.
If one wants to follow a religious based law in all areas of one's life, fine, that is their right. If a church wants to restrict marriage to only heterosexual couples, fine. That again is their right. But, not all Americans are religious.
Marriage has changed tremendously in the past century. Blacks and whites couldn't marry in much of the country, less then 40 years ago. At one time marriages were arranged with the young husband and wife having no say in the matter. At one time women were denied basic rights in a marriage. She was a second-class citizen in her own marriage.
We have progressed and done away with these injustices. Gay Americans might or might not be religious, just as their fellow citizens might or might not be. but they deserve the same rights under secular marriage laws as all others to marry according to their natural sexual orientation. It is as unjust to deny that right as it would be to deny a man or woman to marry the opposite sex while limiting them to only the same sex.
Gay men and women pay into the system, be it Social Security taxes, income taxes, property taxes, and should not be treated by that same society as second-class citizens.
Unless one wants to argue that all these deities were true then cultures without this true deity created marriage. So, is marriage then a product of mankind or God?
Now, these cultures believed that their deity or deities endorsed marriage, but the West has moved beyond the idea that the government, the culture, the law should be a reflection of whatever religious text states. We now understand that the law is to be made for man, not for a deity which might or might not exist.
If one wants to follow a religious based law in all areas of one's life, fine, that is their right. If a church wants to restrict marriage to only heterosexual couples, fine. That again is their right. But, not all Americans are religious.
Marriage has changed tremendously in the past century. Blacks and whites couldn't marry in much of the country, less then 40 years ago. At one time marriages were arranged with the young husband and wife having no say in the matter. At one time women were denied basic rights in a marriage. She was a second-class citizen in her own marriage.
We have progressed and done away with these injustices. Gay Americans might or might not be religious, just as their fellow citizens might or might not be. but they deserve the same rights under secular marriage laws as all others to marry according to their natural sexual orientation. It is as unjust to deny that right as it would be to deny a man or woman to marry the opposite sex while limiting them to only the same sex.
Gay men and women pay into the system, be it Social Security taxes, income taxes, property taxes, and should not be treated by that same society as second-class citizens.
New Post on evolution
The controversy over the teaching of creationism vs. the scientific theory of evolution shows the lack of understanding by many people about evolution. Evolution isn't an "atheist religion." A majority of Americans believe evolution is true, but only about 10 percent of society considers themselves atheist or agnostic. Evolution doesn't assume God doesn't exist; it is a set of statements based on evidence in the fossil record, on the geological strata, on morphology, rates of genetic mutations over time that are fairly constant along with other evidence.
A common refrain I hear about evolution is that it is "just a theory." The problem is that people confuse a layman's definition of theory with what a scientific theory means. A scientific theory is not a guess or even a hypothesis. The notion that earth orbits around the sun rather than the sun around the earth is a scientific theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure and dynamics of atoms is a scientific theory. Relativity and plate tectonics are also scientific theories.
Virtually no person, let alone a scientist, doubts these things are facts. A scientific theory is a set of principles that describes observed phenomena. If evolution isn't true, why do some species of fish that reside in caves with complete darkness have skin that cover useless eyes? Evolution shows these eyes are vestigial organs that aren't needed for these species but were functional for these fish ancestors.
The creationist response to this questions God did it that way. It begs the question, why did God want to mislead humans into making evolution seem true. Creationism violates Ockham's Razor, where the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.
If we are going to say God is necessary for life, it begs the question that can't be ignored. Where did God come from? If creationists want to be respected scientifically, they have to defend their "theory" too, not just attack evolution.
A common refrain I hear about evolution is that it is "just a theory." The problem is that people confuse a layman's definition of theory with what a scientific theory means. A scientific theory is not a guess or even a hypothesis. The notion that earth orbits around the sun rather than the sun around the earth is a scientific theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure and dynamics of atoms is a scientific theory. Relativity and plate tectonics are also scientific theories.
Virtually no person, let alone a scientist, doubts these things are facts. A scientific theory is a set of principles that describes observed phenomena. If evolution isn't true, why do some species of fish that reside in caves with complete darkness have skin that cover useless eyes? Evolution shows these eyes are vestigial organs that aren't needed for these species but were functional for these fish ancestors.
The creationist response to this questions God did it that way. It begs the question, why did God want to mislead humans into making evolution seem true. Creationism violates Ockham's Razor, where the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.
If we are going to say God is necessary for life, it begs the question that can't be ignored. Where did God come from? If creationists want to be respected scientifically, they have to defend their "theory" too, not just attack evolution.
Romney and same sex marriage
Mitt Romney, presidential hopeful, stated that we needed elected officials, people who are “people of faith.” I don’t know if he meant only the presidency or all elected officials. If all, then I guess he thinks an atheist combat veteran with a degree in government cannot be trusted to be a county clerk. Atheists do not have the religious concept of doctrine that their fellow Americans who are religious possess. To an atheist one must use one’s own reason/problem solving and plain common sense when confronted with a problem be it in life or if one was in the Oval Office.
Now many religious people do this every day, but unfortunately from what I hear of the religious, it is an appeal to religion in support of governmental policies, such as opposing same-sex marriage or a right to die for a person in intense pain because their religion says no to these things. That is fine, but when one leads a nation of 300 million people then appeals to religion in that way don’t do!
We are too diverse and not all Americans would agree with policies being taken simply from the bible or any other religious book. An atheist president might also believe rights don’t come from a God but are the product of evolutionary forces that gave forth a man that
needs/desires and yearns for liberty. In this way the creator of the Declaration of Independence can be a personal God, deist deity or just nature, including evolution. If God is true then it doesn’t require our country to elect a person to keep telling us that God is true.
Another example of hostility to supposed atheist political candidates is that the Texas Republican Party stated in an e-mail newsletter about a nominee for a seat on the 6th Court of Appeals of Texas that the man is an atheist. The gentleman says he isn’t an atheist, that he was just misquoted in a long-ago newspaper column in El Paso. That he is an atheist or not doesn’t matter. What matters is the statement by the state GOP that an atheist won’t uphold the laws and the Constitution of Texas.
To say this is insulting, does a disservice to that word. Yes, atheists will uphold the laws of the state of Texas or any other government they are entrusted to uphold. One doesn’t need a belief in God to do so. They do so based on their own honor. Atheists work as lawyers, doctors, engineers in society every day while upholding their responsibilities and obligations. If an atheist pilot can be responsible for a 100-plus passenger jet and the lives in it or an atheist soldier manning a machine gun in Baghdad, then he can be responsible to be say, a county clerk.
Homosexuality-same sex marriage
Some oppose same sex marriage and domestic partnerships because they state that the ideal for the institution of marriage is heterosexual marriage. Maybe or maybe not, but to believe that gay men and women will not want to marry and express their love through that institution just because one states heterosexual marriage is the ideal is nearsighted.
That heterosexual marriage maybe is the ideal for society doesn't make millions of gay men and women who love each other go away. Getting past the point that both heterosexual and gay couples have the same love for each other and that both groups contribute as law abiding, tax paying and economically productive citizens is heterosexual marriage better for society? No, not if enforcing such an ideal leads to more misery and deprivation of rights by denying same sex couples the same right to marry according to their sexual orientation.
An ideal has to be grounded in the real world. Should we have an ideal that only the best of possible parents should marry? After all, one of the reasons in opposition to same sex marriage is that heterosexual marriage is better for parenting. But, no study has shown that heterosexual parents are on average better then gay parents.
If same sex marriage or even domestic partnerships are are not allowed will there not still be gay couples raising kids every town in America? These parents deserve the same rights as all other parents.
I cannot believe that we as a society cannot give the respect that millions of our fellow citizens deserve to be equal under the law. But cannot they marry other people of the same sex, as heterosexual couples? Why should they? They do not wish to marry people of the same sex any more then a heterosexual wishes to marry someone of the same sex.
Now many religious people do this every day, but unfortunately from what I hear of the religious, it is an appeal to religion in support of governmental policies, such as opposing same-sex marriage or a right to die for a person in intense pain because their religion says no to these things. That is fine, but when one leads a nation of 300 million people then appeals to religion in that way don’t do!
We are too diverse and not all Americans would agree with policies being taken simply from the bible or any other religious book. An atheist president might also believe rights don’t come from a God but are the product of evolutionary forces that gave forth a man that
needs/desires and yearns for liberty. In this way the creator of the Declaration of Independence can be a personal God, deist deity or just nature, including evolution. If God is true then it doesn’t require our country to elect a person to keep telling us that God is true.
Another example of hostility to supposed atheist political candidates is that the Texas Republican Party stated in an e-mail newsletter about a nominee for a seat on the 6th Court of Appeals of Texas that the man is an atheist. The gentleman says he isn’t an atheist, that he was just misquoted in a long-ago newspaper column in El Paso. That he is an atheist or not doesn’t matter. What matters is the statement by the state GOP that an atheist won’t uphold the laws and the Constitution of Texas.
To say this is insulting, does a disservice to that word. Yes, atheists will uphold the laws of the state of Texas or any other government they are entrusted to uphold. One doesn’t need a belief in God to do so. They do so based on their own honor. Atheists work as lawyers, doctors, engineers in society every day while upholding their responsibilities and obligations. If an atheist pilot can be responsible for a 100-plus passenger jet and the lives in it or an atheist soldier manning a machine gun in Baghdad, then he can be responsible to be say, a county clerk.
Homosexuality-same sex marriage
Some oppose same sex marriage and domestic partnerships because they state that the ideal for the institution of marriage is heterosexual marriage. Maybe or maybe not, but to believe that gay men and women will not want to marry and express their love through that institution just because one states heterosexual marriage is the ideal is nearsighted.
That heterosexual marriage maybe is the ideal for society doesn't make millions of gay men and women who love each other go away. Getting past the point that both heterosexual and gay couples have the same love for each other and that both groups contribute as law abiding, tax paying and economically productive citizens is heterosexual marriage better for society? No, not if enforcing such an ideal leads to more misery and deprivation of rights by denying same sex couples the same right to marry according to their sexual orientation.
An ideal has to be grounded in the real world. Should we have an ideal that only the best of possible parents should marry? After all, one of the reasons in opposition to same sex marriage is that heterosexual marriage is better for parenting. But, no study has shown that heterosexual parents are on average better then gay parents.
If same sex marriage or even domestic partnerships are are not allowed will there not still be gay couples raising kids every town in America? These parents deserve the same rights as all other parents.
I cannot believe that we as a society cannot give the respect that millions of our fellow citizens deserve to be equal under the law. But cannot they marry other people of the same sex, as heterosexual couples? Why should they? They do not wish to marry people of the same sex any more then a heterosexual wishes to marry someone of the same sex.
DC/Guns/Gays
There is a plan for a full voting member in the House of Representatives for Washington, D.C. I agree with this idea. Maybe the U.S. Constitution has to be amended to allow for it, maybe not. But the point is people shouldn't be taxed and not given full representation. To calls that they can always move away from D.C., didn't our Founding Fathers also have the option of moving away from America and going to England to be represented in Parliament? They shouldn't have had to and neither should those who have raised families for generations in D.C.! After all we support democracy in Iraq, but we do not state that everyone but those who live in the capital city of Baghdad should be able to vote for legislative members to represent them. Most residents of D.C. aren't wealthy/powerful government officials (most of them live in Maryland or Virginia) but common and average Americans.
Americus, Greensboro
A U.S. Appeals Court reaffirmed the right of Washington, D.C., residents to have handguns in their homes by overturning a ban on handguns. I agree. My concern is that while it is a correct decision, it leaves unanswered the fact that a court decision, though correct, impacts the people of a region that has no U.S. senators who can vote to approve a President’s court nominees. Although D.C. residents can vote for President, they lack the ability of people of Alaska (with less people) to have senators to represent them on these kind of issues.
A common argument is that the people of D.C. can always move. Well, couldn’t that have been an argument used against Thomas Jefferson, John and Sam Adams plus others who decried “taxation without representation?” Should they have just moved back to England?
That a few hundred thousand people, with lower than average social-economic status, can have full voting rights is no danger to 300 million Americans. Remember, the power players in D.C. don’t live in D.C.; they live in Maryland and northern Virginia.
On a separate issue I hear discussions on the importance of religious objections for employees who are Muslim, Christian, etc who do not want to perform various duties as specified by their job. Such as a Muslim clerk not wanting to handle pork at a grocery checkout or a Christian pharmacist not wanting to sell the “morning after pill.” But, is a religious objection more important that a non-religious one? Should it be? Should the Christian pharmacist’s objection be more important in society and the law then an atheist pharmacist who doesn’t want to sell the same pill? What about an animal rights clerk who doesn’t want to ring up pork rinds? Should that receive lesser status then a Muslim clerk? All these are belief systems and all should have equal weight under the law. The law should protect all or not protect all objections of all these employees equally. To not do so is to favor religious beliefs over non-religious beliefs.
Lastly, Sen. Brownback (Kans.) stated that as a Catholic he had to agree with Gen. Peter Pace’s statement that homosexual acts are immoral. First, I believe morality is a product of harm, so I disagree. But, the greater problem with this statement is that Sen. Brownback, because he is following religious doctrine, doesn’t have to defend his position. All he has to say it is his religious belief.
As a humanist I cannot do the same. I cannot say “as a humanist I believe X is wrong.” No, I have to defend my position based on arguments/reasons. This is especially important because the good senator wants to be the President.
“Our principles are founded on the immovable basis of equal rights and reason,” said Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Sullivan in 1797. Another Jefferson quote: “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” Jefferson wasn’t an atheist (a deist though), but he stated and lived the importance of reason over that of faith. He would not be a man who would defend a belief of his by just appealing to faith but utilize the tool of reason. Why cannot we have politicians who do the same today?
Americus, Greensboro
A U.S. Appeals Court reaffirmed the right of Washington, D.C., residents to have handguns in their homes by overturning a ban on handguns. I agree. My concern is that while it is a correct decision, it leaves unanswered the fact that a court decision, though correct, impacts the people of a region that has no U.S. senators who can vote to approve a President’s court nominees. Although D.C. residents can vote for President, they lack the ability of people of Alaska (with less people) to have senators to represent them on these kind of issues.
A common argument is that the people of D.C. can always move. Well, couldn’t that have been an argument used against Thomas Jefferson, John and Sam Adams plus others who decried “taxation without representation?” Should they have just moved back to England?
That a few hundred thousand people, with lower than average social-economic status, can have full voting rights is no danger to 300 million Americans. Remember, the power players in D.C. don’t live in D.C.; they live in Maryland and northern Virginia.
On a separate issue I hear discussions on the importance of religious objections for employees who are Muslim, Christian, etc who do not want to perform various duties as specified by their job. Such as a Muslim clerk not wanting to handle pork at a grocery checkout or a Christian pharmacist not wanting to sell the “morning after pill.” But, is a religious objection more important that a non-religious one? Should it be? Should the Christian pharmacist’s objection be more important in society and the law then an atheist pharmacist who doesn’t want to sell the same pill? What about an animal rights clerk who doesn’t want to ring up pork rinds? Should that receive lesser status then a Muslim clerk? All these are belief systems and all should have equal weight under the law. The law should protect all or not protect all objections of all these employees equally. To not do so is to favor religious beliefs over non-religious beliefs.
Lastly, Sen. Brownback (Kans.) stated that as a Catholic he had to agree with Gen. Peter Pace’s statement that homosexual acts are immoral. First, I believe morality is a product of harm, so I disagree. But, the greater problem with this statement is that Sen. Brownback, because he is following religious doctrine, doesn’t have to defend his position. All he has to say it is his religious belief.
As a humanist I cannot do the same. I cannot say “as a humanist I believe X is wrong.” No, I have to defend my position based on arguments/reasons. This is especially important because the good senator wants to be the President.
“Our principles are founded on the immovable basis of equal rights and reason,” said Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Sullivan in 1797. Another Jefferson quote: “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” Jefferson wasn’t an atheist (a deist though), but he stated and lived the importance of reason over that of faith. He would not be a man who would defend a belief of his by just appealing to faith but utilize the tool of reason. Why cannot we have politicians who do the same today?
Killings at VA Tech/Morality
After the horrible killings at Virginia Tech University there are once again calls for religion to be taught in schools. But, no religious instruction would have stopped this deranged individual. Teaching morality is fine, but not all individuals in schools are Christians or even religious. To force the children of the non-religious or non-Christians to undergo a Christian religious education fundamentally violates their free exercise of religion. Moral rules can be taught without appealing to a specific deity in support. Not harming one's fellow man is a universal rule throughout the world and doing so would honor those in schools who aren't of the majority religious belief.
On another issue in the state of Wisconsin, a "Body Worlds" exhibit (where organs are displayed on a human skeleton doing everyday actions) a woman speaking for the Catholic church in that region stated that theologians should be consulted on how the specimens are presented. Should secular humanists and atheists be consulted on this or should only those consulted be of a religious belief? These individuals donated their bodies, and not all the individuals who did so are religious. A religious body shouldn't have the veto authority on how their bodies are displayed. That a purely secular museum exhibit needs the approval of religious authorities disappoints me greatly.
Lastly there is a plan for a full voting member in the House of Representatives for Washington, D.C. I agree with this idea. Maybe the U.S. Constitution has to be amended to allow for it, maybe not. But the point is people shouldn't be taxed and not given full representation. To calls that they can always move away from D.C., didn't our Founding Fathers also have the option of moving away from America and going to England to be represented in Parliament? They shouldn't have had to and neither should those who have raised families for generations in D.C.! After all we support democracy in Iraq, but we do not state that everyone but those who live in the capital city of Baghdad should be able to vote for legislative members to represent them. Most residents of D.C. aren't wealthy/powerful government officials (most of them live in Maryland or Virginia) but common and average Americans.
On another issue in the state of Wisconsin, a "Body Worlds" exhibit (where organs are displayed on a human skeleton doing everyday actions) a woman speaking for the Catholic church in that region stated that theologians should be consulted on how the specimens are presented. Should secular humanists and atheists be consulted on this or should only those consulted be of a religious belief? These individuals donated their bodies, and not all the individuals who did so are religious. A religious body shouldn't have the veto authority on how their bodies are displayed. That a purely secular museum exhibit needs the approval of religious authorities disappoints me greatly.
Lastly there is a plan for a full voting member in the House of Representatives for Washington, D.C. I agree with this idea. Maybe the U.S. Constitution has to be amended to allow for it, maybe not. But the point is people shouldn't be taxed and not given full representation. To calls that they can always move away from D.C., didn't our Founding Fathers also have the option of moving away from America and going to England to be represented in Parliament? They shouldn't have had to and neither should those who have raised families for generations in D.C.! After all we support democracy in Iraq, but we do not state that everyone but those who live in the capital city of Baghdad should be able to vote for legislative members to represent them. Most residents of D.C. aren't wealthy/powerful government officials (most of them live in Maryland or Virginia) but common and average Americans.
On evolution
I wish to refute a few myths that exist about biological evolution. One is that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disapproves evolution because we (the earth) are a closed system without external energy and so that disorder will increase over time disallowing the complexity of evolution, But, the earth isn’t an isolated system or closed system. It receives energy through the sun. For example, if it was a closed system then plants wouldn’t grow but they do so because of energy from the sun. Then there are arguments that there are no intermediate” fossils between species. Well, there is Haasiophis terrasanctus, which is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Australopithecus afarensis, a very early homind and transitional form/intermediate species. This species has a humerofemoral ratio, or length of humerus divided by length of femur, of 84.6 compared to 71.8 for humans, and 97.8 and 101.6 for two species of chimpanzee. Indeed, since that the ratio is about halfway between that of chimps and humans is evidence (among other evidence) of it being much closer evolution wise to us then chimps are and that it is an early transitional form among hominds. Other transititional forms are Pelycodus frugivorus, an early lemur type primate. Then there are the supposed human footprints in the middle of dinosaur footprints or the so called Paluxy man tracks. Analyses of these tracks indicate that the alleged human tracks are elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks--made by dinosaurs that, at least at times, impressed their soles and heels as they walked. When the digit marks of such tracks (which are common in the Paluxy Riverbed) are subdued by one or more factors (erosion, sediment infilling, or mud-collapse), they often resemble giant human prints. On another point, not all mutations are harmful as some allege as a problem with evolution, indeed most mutations don’t get noticed since they have no noticed effect on survivability. Negative mutations usually don’t survive that long and have limited impact on the genetic pool. Lastly, to examine the common argument that evolution is dangerous. Well, that evolution is dangerous or not has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do if it is true or not. This is logic 101. Even if you believe that evolution is absolutely horrible for society, for our survival etc then that isn’t an argument that it is true or not. At best it is an argument should people or society should not believe it is true. Was evolution used as an excuse by the Nazis to promote their cause? Yes, but so was belief in God. Unfortunately many Nazis also justified their actions by saying they were fulfilling the will of God. Al Qaida commits violence in the name of God, does that committing violence prove God isn’t true? Frankly, the Nazis knowledge of evolution was limited at best Although the products of evolution, cheetah kills zebra, can be very violent that is though not the whole story. Indeed, in evolution cooperation is often rewarded. Members of a tribe cooperate and thereby increases the odds of members of the group to survive along with the group as a whole. This is the roots of primitive morality. Evolution is not prescriptive but it is descriptive. It describes facts. It does not say why something should be true or happen but explains/states how it happens. It describes processes. It is fine to argue against evolution based on science but to argue against it based on not wanting to believe it so it must not be true is a misunderstanding of science and logic 101
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)