Re: [asa] Quoting Darwin out of context

*What nearly all citations of this sentence
omit to put was the very next sentence, which is ...
*
  .... but I can find out no such case.
Quote mining is certainly a problem in the evolution/creation wars, but I
don't see the big deal with this one. The IC / ID folks who quote that
passage don't claim Darwin ever found such a case. They claim that we have
now found such a case based on our vastly superior knowledge of
biochemistry. Whether that claims is true or not, I don't see the problem
with quoting Darwin's own falsification criterion when presenting new
evidence that arguably meets it.

*In fact his view is quite moral - our brains have evolved to an extent that
we have become intelligent enough to realise what is going on, so we can
oppose it, and choose not to be the puppets of our selfish genes.*

It's "moral" in the sense that he lacks the intellectual honesty to do what
his views require, which is to abandon any concept of "morality." The
reality is that his insistence that we can transcend our selfish genes is
utterly incoherent if his beliefs are otherwise true. If Dawkins is
basically right, we might *think* we've become so smart and self-aware that
we can transcend our selfish genes, but that would be just another
self-delusion, another games our genes are playing with us to ensure their
survival. Any other belief is just soft-minded wish-fullfillment
religiosity. Our delusions of morality are, as Wayne said, nothing more
than power games. Mao was right: morality begins at the point of a gun.

On 8/12/06, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Wayne
>
>
> You wrote:
>
> If this is only blind electrons and pitiless genes, then
> why should justice matter. If we have the power, we should
> use it, in fact, it would be wrong not to. And if we can
> cheat and steal and spray our genes everywhere, why not?
>
>
> Actually, if I recall what I read in "The Selfish Gene", Dawkins actually
advocates that we should "rebel against our selfish genes". In fact his
view is quite moral - our brains have evolved to an extent that we have
become intelligent enough to realise what is going on, so we can oppose it,
and choose not to be the puppets of our selfish genes.
>
> Not that I'd want to defend Dawkins, but perhaps (unlikely though it may
seem) Dawkins is quite close to Vernon who said that evolution is "the
antithesis of the Christian gospel". In many ways, this is right, and
Dawkins would agree - I seem to recall an article where Dawkins says "If I
were God, I wouldn't have done it (creation) by evolution".
>
> But I think Dawkins is missing quite a subtle point here. Maybe we are
placed in an evolving creation, where a ruthless struggle for survival is
going on, so that we can see the difference when God reveals himself - with
a gospel that is the antithesis of evolution - how directly opposite of
evolution to sacrifice your life, not to ensure the survival of the fittest,
but of the weak (ie imperfect sinners like you and me)? Maybe the reason
the creation is evolving is to show us that we can CHOOSE to do the right
thing. If everything was nice and kind ... if Dawkins were God and chose a
method of creation that was a recipe for happiness for all creatures, then
we wouldn't know right from wrong. In order to love God and know what it
means, we have to choose between loving Him and not loving Him.
>
>
> Iain
>
>
>
> On 8/12/06, Dawsonzhu@aol.com <Dawsonzhu@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Iain wrote:
> >
> >
> > So from the context, Paul, I don't think Dawkins is contradicting
himself. WE can care, be horrified by the amount of suffering in the world
that goes beyond all decent contemplation. But what's really going on all
the time is the passing on of DNA, which is a blind, pitiless, and
indifferent process.
> >
> >
> >
> > You're main point about quotation is fine, and Dawkins is
> > clear on his views. But I would echo Paul's observation.
> > If this is only blind electrons and pitiless genes, then
> > why should justice matter. If we have the power, we should
> > use it, in fact, it would be wrong not to. And if we can
> > cheat and steal and spray our genes everywhere, why not?
> > Submit to God...., what an utterly asinine idea!
> >
> > errrr NOT
> >
> > by Grace we proceed,
> > Wayne
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
>
> - Italian Proverb
> -----------

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Aug 13 13:42:42 2006