Originally posted by dave420
Not all ideas are equal. In this discussion we have two sides. One is arguing from a scientific standpoint, with masses of evidence to support their
scientific theory.
Sure but as you may or may not be aware there are great masses of information and 'evidence' that those scientist chose to ignore in arriving at
both the classic theory and the modern , perpetually evolving, result.
The other side is a collection of folks arguing from someone else's standpoint, with absolutely no evidence to support their baseless
theory.
So the fact that they appeal , given it's sometimes mistakenly so, to the evidence and information which the scientific establishments of at least
the western world have chosen to misrepresent or completely exclude in their evaluation of the classical theory of evolution.
The two are not the same, clearly, so why on earth should Creationists be tolerated in a discussion about science? There is no science in
Creationism.
Creationist should be allowed their views, and engaged as often as possible, as long as they stick to raising the very same contradictions and
questions qualified evolutionary biologist are raising amongst themselves. Obviously not many people are in fact aware of these very real and very
troubling questions but just because the average religious person doesn't seem to care much for objective proof we should not slam the door on those
few who do care and ARE employing the scientific method towards their goals.
reply to post by JPhish
And you believe wrong. "Survival of the fittest" doesn't mean what you think it does. Darwin was using the word "fittest" to describe an
organism that was most suited to succeed.
Darwin himself attributed the expression 'survival of the fittest' to H Spencer and while he said that it was a convenient way to express his own
more general claim that those organisms most 'fit' were those that could best adapt to their 'environment'. Since environment covers such a broad
range of things the common idea that organisms were vying with each other ( as in a boxing match ) and not instead more passively trying to adapt to
temperature changes and or 'preservin their DNA against mutations and the like.
It has nothing to do with social Darwinism. And bear in mind that a very large proportion of scientists who have accepted the evidence of
Evolution (read: most scientists) don't accept social Darwinism as viable part of society. They indeed strive to ensure it doesn't happen.
Social darwinism has in fact been a great tool of the empire builders and since Darwin himself held deeply racist views ( all of which now seem
laughably stupid and makes you wonder about the brilliance of the rest of his work ) it's no surprise that his work easily yielded to manipulation by
those who wish to abuse and misrepresent scientific 'achievement' to further their own power and control over resources.
Social Darwinism is alive and well and it's got more support in the scientific establishments of the west ( and elsewhere) than you may think. The
very fact that 5 million people died in the DRC in less than a decade , without you even being aware of it, should tell you something about the deeply
racist nature of the MM and especially of those who fall over themselves to support interventions to 'bring democracy' to a country such as Iraq
where people , and women especially, had more rights than almost anywhere else in the ME and certainly more than anyone in the DRC.
So while you may think are worthy of your deep and abiding respect i can assure you that the majority are doing things non of us would pay them to
do.
Stellar
Social Darwinism is pretty imperialistic, unsympathetic, and evil in my mind. Nazism at its finest . . . 
