So? There have been atheists who have killed because someone proclaimed belief in God. Big deal, they were isolated incidents. Individual loonies don't reflect upon the group as a whole, so quit slinging the strawmen. When I see a large, organized group attacking abortion clinics, then you'll have a point. And who, might I ask, doesn't consider bombing abortion clinics terrorism or some other temr along those lines?
Although specific genes were not what was considered, the issue has arose in the past. Basically, if they found suck a gene (IMO, no such thing exists, and anyone who does think it does exist is a poor geneticist and a worse sociologist) they might call for compulsory sterilization, like they did in the past. From www.eugenicsarchive.org
Eugenicists claimed that criminal behavior was a result of defective genes. Most eugenicists adhered to the prevailing social theory of the early decades of the twentieth century that "culture does not make the man, but man makes the culture," meaning that poor people gravitate toward and contribute to a poverty-stricken environment, and thus create their own degenerate conditions. Thus, while not denying that poor social and cultural background might contribute to criminality, eugenicists argued that criminality, like many other social traits, was ultimately biological in origin.
Eugenicists were concerned with the noticeable rise in crime rates, especially in the fast-developing urban areas of the United States. They conducted both family pedigree studies and surveys by ethnic and national origin to show that criminality ran high in certain families and groups. Cyril Burt's pedigree analyses in England (on delinquency) supported eugenicists' views that if a trait ran in families it must be genetic. Similarly, Harry H. Laughlin gathered data on incarceration rates by country of origin to show that immigrants to the U.S. from eastern and southern Europe and the Mediterranean countries were disproportionately represented in prisons than "old stock" Americans or recent immigrants from Germany and other Nordic or Anglo-Saxon countries. Laughlin's data had such serious statistical problems that, according to a critique at the time, totally invalidated the conclusions. However, these data formed a cornerstone of the argument Laughlin made to the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization to curb immigration from Southern and eastern Europe and the Mediterranan. They were also highly influential in eugenicists' lobbying efforts for sterilization laws that would prevent incarcerated criminals from giving birth to "criminal" offspring. If the number of criminals could be reduced through these biological measures eugenicists argued, it would save the state millions of dollars a year. And they did, too, see Bell v Buck. Hey, who knows rights people will piss on 'because of genetics' in the future.
The only thing I think we can do to prevent that sort of junk science from running wild again is to teach the past. For example, when was the last time the American eugenics programs was taught as a part of a high school curriculum? I don't know if its taught anywhere, but it should be taught everywhere. Its a big stain on America's past, but forgetting that it ever happened will let it be a stain on America's future. Of course, passing laws to forbid any sort of genetic discrimination will also help, as will dispelling politically motivated biological determinism 'sciences', like heriditarian IQ theory and sociobiology.
Very rational? So was Jim Jones. Well, according to his followers, anyway. Thing is, anyone can be rational when they're the ones defining the word. Dawkins, by traditional reasoning, not all that rational.
As a self proclaimed "creationist" you are automatically kicked off the island of rational thinkers. "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." -Isaac 'Obviously not a rational thinker' Newton.
Evolution vs Creation: Not necessarily newsworthy, but another great opportunity to troll without actually thinking. *Sigh* It is getting old, isn't it?
You do realize that by that reasoning, no one has any place debating, for example, the origin of life (aka. abiogenesis at one point or another)? We might have evidence that suggests evolution, but there is no evidence supporting the fact that life started. Does that mean the topic should be dropped? When it comes down to it, sometimes educated conjecture and speculation are all we've got, and that's what (scientific) creationists use. It is also what scientists use when forming a hypotheses on the development of the earliest forms of life.
From Genesis 1:14. And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:
1:16. And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. In other words, the Bible says that starlight was made in 1:14, then a little while latter, in 1:16, the actual stars were made. Eh, just something for you to think about.
In other news, Foxnews.com says Bush is good, and Democrats are bad. Jeez, can we get a report from a source that isn't pushing an obvious agenda here? If this is really happening as the this site says it is, then someone else must have a report on it, and hopefully, its longer than the three sentences Dawkin's page has.
For example, I would like to know if there is an inheritable genetic predisposition for obedience to authority. No. Want an example? Generation one: The WWII generation. Bluntly put, they did what they were told. Generation two: Baby boomers, the hippies of the Sixties. They did whatever they wanted, to hell with what they were told. A single generation, and look at the difference. No, rebellion, like everything else, is a product of society, not genetics.
I'd wager competition plays a part too. A while ago music was competing mostly against other albums. Now there's DVD box sets, video games, ect. Say, for example, a $15 CD gets about an hour's worth of music. Now say a $20 golden hit game gets 100 hours of playtime. Sales are down because there are other things to buy that can net more bang for your buck. And, of course, there's the fact that not all songs on the disk are necessarily of the same quality (maybe only one or two are worth listening to, in some cases) so it stands to reason that some people just opt to download the ones they want.
1. intelligent design...deserves to be mocked Why? Disagreeing and mocking are two different things. A fundamentalist does the latter.
2. if you are a fundamentalist, that is, you hew to what is written in a dusty book more than you do to your own sense of humanity In some instances, yes. In others, what that 'dusty old book' says and what you should do are one and the same. I'd wager that the book you're referring to is one of those cases.
for creating suffering, poverty, death, and evil in this world, as all fundamentalists do, directly or indirectly Do you have evidence to back that up?
fundamentalism, whether abrahamic, dharmic, or even atheist (stalinism, for example), is the very definition of evil on this planet I'd have to say that pointing fingers and making accusations of evil (and deeming a category of people worth mocking) is a pretty good source of evil. Oh, and if by fundamentalist, you mean anyone who strictly adheres to a belief, than Ghandi was a fundamentalist. What evil did he do? Of course, so was a 'certain German radical whose name shall not be invoked.' Yeah, if you believe something bad in a fundamentalist manner, thats not good, but I'd say some of that evil comes from a willingness to compromise one's beliefs if they are good. Fundamentalism can be applied to a wide variety of beliefs. You really can't lump them all together.
Who the hell comes back and mods overrated nearly two weeks after posted? And overrated too, yeah, way to not submit yourself to metamod, jackass, because that would definitely be rated unfair by anyone with a brain and a functioning sense of humor, which you obviously do not have. I know no one will ever read this, I just felt like saying, if whoever modded this ever comes back, you're a total loser. Seriously, save your points for something that matters.
Additionally, in the bible, the blue we see when we look up is water, kept out by a dome over the earth. It then says the dome fell. Since Genesis was written by Moses, who lived after the flood that was partially a result of the dome (called the firmament) falling, that part of the Bible was written by someone who had never seen it. Therefore, the Bible couldn't have been calling the blue sky water. Also, the bible makes a comment about the east and west being infinitely far away, indicating a round planet.
First, I'm not impressed by my own intellect, mostly because intelligence doesn't exist. I said I was knowledgeable, not intelligent. Second, where do you get 80% at? There's no way to scientifically arrive at that, so where does it came from? I'd wager that someone made it up, probably using fabricated information, which is not unheard of in the field of intelligence determination. Third, let me bring a quote by Stanley Garn, an anthropologist of some renown, to your attention. "If the Aborigine drafted an I.Q. test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it." Think about that. Fourth, the difference between a state university and the 'upper crust' you speak of is a simple matter of money. Bush went to Yale because daddy bought his way in, just like all those other legacies and people who get in through nonacademic means. Think about that, too. Fifth, I do realize that some people are born with various brain ailments, ect, but they are the exception to the rule. I do not make my conclusions based on idealism, but it seems like you, as well as most proponents of IQ, g, divine right ect., make yours out of a need to claim innate superiority. I, for one, am comfortable with the fact that I am an equal to anyone who is willing to make an effort to learn.
try asking them what they think about crystal lattices- complex, beautiful geometrical structures which will form naturally, and ask if there was an intelligent designer forming the covalent bonds in your ice tray this morning. Question: How does that advance your argument? You're saying that you have a complex clockwork that acts with no outside intervention, therefore no intelligence went into its ability to form such patterns autonomously. Eh, just wondering, because that seems to be counterproductive to the point you're trying to make.
Amen. I haven't the faintest idea what my genealogy is beyond the grandparent level, but I do know that I'm a descendant of inbred hillbillies. I am now in the honors program of a well respected university and consider myself very knowledgeable in a good many fields of study. Obviously, I don't have much respect for genetic determinism (and the rest of that elitist BS), because, among other reasons, according to it I should be about as smart as the average jar of mayonnaise.
All you have to do is look at the common dog to see first hand that eugenics works. Of course it does also show why we wouldn't want to trust human to perform it. By call eugenics bullshit, you basically discredit your argument. Is that why mutts are smarter than purebreds, and why purebreds tend to carry genetic diseases?
Eugenics works fine in the short term, provided you ignore sociological influence, of course, but its suicide in the long run. I'm not much of a dog person, but I can give you a great botanical example. Take the banana of commerce.
Sure, its yummy and all, but due to the commercial cultivar's breeding of desirable traits, and its widespread propagation, this particular strain has such a high level of genetic similarity that its only a matter of time before a single disease ravages the worldwide population. Granted, most are actually asexually propagated, therefore genetically identical, but the same general thing will happen in cases where the breeding is done only by certain individuals. This can be seen in colonies of endangered animals, like the cheetah, a species that, like the commercial banana, could potentially be destroyed by a single disease due to genetic similarity, which is caused by having a low amount of new blood. A select group of humans bred for a specific quality, say intelligence (which is sociological anyway)would, in a few generations, face the same problems the banana and the cheetah have. And there's also the possible inbreeding problems that may arise when the specially bred group doesn't want to breed with 'lower' humans anymore, but that' just speculation, although if you look at history, royal families have turned to imbreeding or that reason.
Studies have shown a correlation between education level and IQ. Duh. Is not IQ tested via a test that measures what you have learned? Riddle me this: If two genetically identical people are given entirely different walks of life, say one is sent to Yale, the other drops out of high school, then they are given the same test, do you think their IQs will be the same, reflecting identical genetics? Or will the one with education score higher? Come on.
Furthermore, what is intelligence? Can you give me a single quality that signifies intelligence? Salvador Dali was an artistic genius. Fyodor Dostoyevsky was a literary genius. Andrew Carnegie was a business genius. Robert Oppenheimer, Marie Curie, and George Washington Carver were scientific geniuses in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, respectively. I've neglected countless people and fields, but the point is, not one of those people would be able to come close to the other three in that person's field. This is because intelligence can mean a myriad of entirely different things, therefore, it can hardly be defined, let alone quantified as a single number. If this were true, people like Stephen Hawking, and even Bill Gates, would be polymaths, able to do anything, and by birth, no less. Obviously not true, otherwise (for example) Einstein, as a young child, would have been talking early, not late, compared to other babies. In light of this, the concept of an all meaning intelligence quotient is quite unsound.
Intelligence not innate? What capacity for intelligence does a dog have? Can it learn algebra? Is this difference between humans and dogs not innate? Why, then, can there not be innate differences in intelligence among humans? Differences between species and differences between individual members of a species are entirely different things. I believe your argument is a straw man.
Why, then, can there not be innate differences in intelligence among humans? For starters, there's little solid scientific evidence. Most of it, like the bell curve, is thinly veiled racism and elitism, not actual science. Even if, and that's a big if, there are innate differences, they would be insignificant next to sociological influences.
is it just a matter of "effort" or "culture"? Damn strait it is. Go read The Mismeasure of Man. Lessen your ignorance on the subject. And please note that you are merely misinformed, not stupid.
Less educated does not, by any means, mean dumber. It means that an effort should be made to get more people to educate themselves. We are in no trouble unless people start saying that intelligence is innate and the poor and their children are & always will be stupid, which would propagate a belief of fatalistic futility amongst such individuals, and be extremely counterproductive (not to mention rather elitist).
I agree. Isn't it funny that people would prefer to attribute the characteristics of the lower class to Lamarckian evolution/intentional reluctance to better themselves rather than the sociological and economic influences they were born into? Especially so when you consider that the belief that being poor is an innate genetic trait or that its intentional doesn't help things any.
Slashdot Mirror
So? There have been atheists who have killed because someone proclaimed belief in God. Big deal, they were isolated incidents. Individual loonies don't reflect upon the group as a whole, so quit slinging the strawmen. When I see a large, organized group attacking abortion clinics, then you'll have a point.
And who, might I ask, doesn't consider bombing abortion clinics terrorism or some other temr along those lines?
Eugenicists were concerned with the noticeable rise in crime rates, especially in the fast-developing urban areas of the United States. They conducted both family pedigree studies and surveys by ethnic and national origin to show that criminality ran high in certain families and groups. Cyril Burt's pedigree analyses in England (on delinquency) supported eugenicists' views that if a trait ran in families it must be genetic. Similarly, Harry H. Laughlin gathered data on incarceration rates by country of origin to show that immigrants to the U.S. from eastern and southern Europe and the Mediterranean countries were disproportionately represented in prisons than "old stock" Americans or recent immigrants from Germany and other Nordic or Anglo-Saxon countries. Laughlin's data had such serious statistical problems that, according to a critique at the time, totally invalidated the conclusions. However, these data formed a cornerstone of the argument Laughlin made to the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization to curb immigration from Southern and eastern Europe and the Mediterranan. They were also highly influential in eugenicists' lobbying efforts for sterilization laws that would prevent incarcerated criminals from giving birth to "criminal" offspring. If the number of criminals could be reduced through these biological measures eugenicists argued, it would save the state millions of dollars a year. And they did, too, see Bell v Buck. Hey, who knows rights people will piss on 'because of genetics' in the future.
The only thing I think we can do to prevent that sort of junk science from running wild again is to teach the past. For example, when was the last time the American eugenics programs was taught as a part of a high school curriculum? I don't know if its taught anywhere, but it should be taught everywhere. Its a big stain on America's past, but forgetting that it ever happened will let it be a stain on America's future. Of course, passing laws to forbid any sort of genetic discrimination will also help, as will dispelling politically motivated biological determinism 'sciences', like heriditarian IQ theory and sociobiology.
As a side note, if whoever gave me the overrated mod is reading this, there's no -1 Disagree for a reason.
Very rational? So was Jim Jones. Well, according to his followers, anyway. Thing is, anyone can be rational when they're the ones defining the word. Dawkins, by traditional reasoning, not all that rational.
-Isaac 'Obviously not a rational thinker' Newton.
Evolution vs Creation: Not necessarily newsworthy, but another great opportunity to troll without actually thinking.
*Sigh* It is getting old, isn't it?
That was my point. You're using logic (life exist, so it must have started), not actual evidence (this is fossil contains evidence of life starting).
You do realize that by that reasoning, no one has any place debating, for example, the origin of life (aka. abiogenesis at one point or another)? We might have evidence that suggests evolution, but there is no evidence supporting the fact that life started. Does that mean the topic should be dropped? When it comes down to it, sometimes educated conjecture and speculation are all we've got, and that's what (scientific) creationists use. It is also what scientists use when forming a hypotheses on the development of the earliest forms of life.
1:14. And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years:
1:16. And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. In other words, the Bible says that starlight was made in 1:14, then a little while latter, in 1:16, the actual stars were made.
Eh, just something for you to think about.
In other news, Foxnews.com says Bush is good, and Democrats are bad. Jeez, can we get a report from a source that isn't pushing an obvious agenda here? If this is really happening as the this site says it is, then someone else must have a report on it, and hopefully, its longer than the three sentences Dawkin's page has.
I believe that's a Neon Genesis Evangelion reference.
Generation one: The WWII generation. Bluntly put, they did what they were told.
Generation two: Baby boomers, the hippies of the Sixties. They did whatever they wanted, to hell with what they were told.
A single generation, and look at the difference. No, rebellion, like everything else, is a product of society, not genetics.
to subscribers only.
I'd wager competition plays a part too. A while ago music was competing mostly against other albums. Now there's DVD box sets, video games, ect. Say, for example, a $15 CD gets about an hour's worth of music. Now say a $20 golden hit game gets 100 hours of playtime. Sales are down because there are other things to buy that can net more bang for your buck. And, of course, there's the fact that not all songs on the disk are necessarily of the same quality (maybe only one or two are worth listening to, in some cases) so it stands to reason that some people just opt to download the ones they want.
Fundamentalism can be applied to a wide variety of beliefs. You really can't lump them all together.
Who the hell comes back and mods overrated nearly two weeks after posted? And overrated too, yeah, way to not submit yourself to metamod, jackass, because that would definitely be rated unfair by anyone with a brain and a functioning sense of humor, which you obviously do not have. I know no one will ever read this, I just felt like saying, if whoever modded this ever comes back, you're a total loser. Seriously, save your points for something that matters.
First, I'm not impressed by my own intellect, mostly because intelligence doesn't exist. I said I was knowledgeable, not intelligent.
Second, where do you get 80% at? There's no way to scientifically arrive at that, so where does it came from? I'd wager that someone made it up, probably using fabricated information, which is not unheard of in the field of intelligence determination.
Third, let me bring a quote by Stanley Garn, an anthropologist of some renown, to your attention. "If the Aborigine drafted an I.Q. test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it." Think about that.
Fourth, the difference between a state university and the 'upper crust' you speak of is a simple matter of money. Bush went to Yale because daddy bought his way in, just like all those other legacies and people who get in through nonacademic means. Think about that, too.
Fifth, I do realize that some people are born with various brain ailments, ect, but they are the exception to the rule. I do not make my conclusions based on idealism, but it seems like you, as well as most proponents of IQ, g, divine right ect., make yours out of a need to claim innate superiority. I, for one, am comfortable with the fact that I am an equal to anyone who is willing to make an effort to learn.
Eh, just wondering, because that seems to be counterproductive to the point you're trying to make.
Amen. I haven't the faintest idea what my genealogy is beyond the grandparent level, but I do know that I'm a descendant of inbred hillbillies. I am now in the honors program of a well respected university and consider myself very knowledgeable in a good many fields of study. Obviously, I don't have much respect for genetic determinism (and the rest of that elitist BS), because, among other reasons, according to it I should be about as smart as the average jar of mayonnaise.
Eugenics works fine in the short term, provided you ignore sociological influence, of course, but its suicide in the long run. I'm not much of a dog person, but I can give you a great botanical example. Take the banana of commerce. Sure, its yummy and all, but due to the commercial cultivar's breeding of desirable traits, and its widespread propagation, this particular strain has such a high level of genetic similarity that its only a matter of time before a single disease ravages the worldwide population. Granted, most are actually asexually propagated, therefore genetically identical, but the same general thing will happen in cases where the breeding is done only by certain individuals. This can be seen in colonies of endangered animals, like the cheetah, a species that, like the commercial banana, could potentially be destroyed by a single disease due to genetic similarity, which is caused by having a low amount of new blood. A select group of humans bred for a specific quality, say intelligence (which is sociological anyway)would, in a few generations, face the same problems the banana and the cheetah have. And there's also the possible inbreeding problems that may arise when the specially bred group doesn't want to breed with 'lower' humans anymore, but that' just speculation, although if you look at history, royal families have turned to imbreeding or that reason.
Furthermore, what is intelligence? Can you give me a single quality that signifies intelligence? Salvador Dali was an artistic genius. Fyodor Dostoyevsky was a literary genius. Andrew Carnegie was a business genius. Robert Oppenheimer, Marie Curie, and George Washington Carver were scientific geniuses in the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, respectively. I've neglected countless people and fields, but the point is, not one of those people would be able to come close to the other three in that person's field. This is because intelligence can mean a myriad of entirely different things, therefore, it can hardly be defined, let alone quantified as a single number. If this were true, people like Stephen Hawking, and even Bill Gates, would be polymaths, able to do anything, and by birth, no less. Obviously not true, otherwise (for example) Einstein, as a young child, would have been talking early, not late, compared to other babies. In light of this, the concept of an all meaning intelligence quotient is quite unsound. Intelligence not innate? What capacity for intelligence does a dog have? Can it learn algebra? Is this difference between humans and dogs not innate? Why, then, can there not be innate differences in intelligence among humans? Differences between species and differences between individual members of a species are entirely different things. I believe your argument is a straw man. Why, then, can there not be innate differences in intelligence among humans? For starters, there's little solid scientific evidence. Most of it, like the bell curve, is thinly veiled racism and elitism, not actual science. Even if, and that's a big if, there are innate differences, they would be insignificant next to sociological influences. is it just a matter of "effort" or "culture"? Damn strait it is. Go read The Mismeasure of Man. Lessen your ignorance on the subject. And please note that you are merely misinformed, not stupid.
Less educated does not, by any means, mean dumber. It means that an effort should be made to get more people to educate themselves. We are in no trouble unless people start saying that intelligence is innate and the poor and their children are & always will be stupid, which would propagate a belief of fatalistic futility amongst such individuals, and be extremely counterproductive (not to mention rather elitist).
I agree. Isn't it funny that people would prefer to attribute the characteristics of the lower class to Lamarckian evolution/intentional reluctance to better themselves rather than the sociological and economic influences they were born into? Especially so when you consider that the belief that being poor is an innate genetic trait or that its intentional doesn't help things any.