How's that as an aswer when you say that man is not able to influence biological developments.
Where have I said that? Of course humans can influence biological developments, especially in other animals and plants (or whole environments), but also within our own species.
>>towards more stable states, e.g. for chemical systems, but also for astrophysical systems like our solar system or even entire galaxies."
>Now evolution has a direction?
No, it has not the way you seem to imply. Trending towards or trying to maintain a stable state at every point is not a goal, there is no telos. It is only a direction in a very limited and short-term sense, like you adjusting your leg muscles to maintain an erect position is not the meaning of your life (I hope :). But that is more or less what evolution has in common with physical and chemical processes.
And you can also deduce paths towards less stable states, e.g. decay and dying stars.
Actually, decay and entropy are more stable states than growth and "extropy", and ultimately the whole universe supposedly tends towards that. But of course it is not impossible that there are regions that change towards lower entropy.
If evolution (and natural laws in general) determines everything than evolution is almighty. It developed from a state that didn't obey physical rules, a state that was by definition metaphysical.
I don't think I am able to follow you there. Evolution is not a being, it can't be almighty. (I can barely prevent myself from using the C-word again, as many creationists impute that atheists or materialists must put evolution in the place of a god. Atheism is not a religon, and evolution is even less so).
I did not claim that the abiological processes are identical to evolution, but that there are some analogous principles. Maybe a theory of evolution of matter can be formulated but I am not aware that it has been done yet or called that way. I tend to not make any claims about the state of the early universe because I don't know enough about it. But I challenge the notion that the early universe was metaphysical by definition, it was rather prophysical (as in: before our physical laws applied) or paraphysical (as in: different laws applied) or simply "unknown". "God did it" or "Hocus Pocus", though, do not seem like valid answers to me. You can personify natural forces and the laws of physics as much as you want, that does not really make them godlike entities. BUT, as I have stated in this forum before (not to you, IIRC): I think deism is a valid philosophical position. I don't hold it though.
">>Intrinsic moral evil... Objective disorder. OK, not disease, disorder, my bad. "
>In this very thread a pro-gay person called being gay "technically a disorder".
It does not matter what a particular pro-gay person concedes in a debate. I bet there even are or were many gays who consider(ed) their sexuality a disorder, sinful, morally corrupt or sick themselves, being conditionned by a bigotted society. The fact remains that there is no defendable objective "orderly state" that corresponds to a presumed disorder.
When you consider sex that hasn't the aim of procreation a moral evil, then gay sex is always evil. It's the same with contrceptives.
That is why we as a society have grown beyond the concept of intrinsic moral evilness. At least for now.
Impotent men aren't allowed to be married either, or infertile people.
That really is news to me! And I don't buy it. Are there specific tests whereby a priest tests how potent the applicants are? I bet there are many priests who are yearning to perform such tests...
Just accept that the Church says that the way they see it being married means that you have found a partner you want to father (mother?) kids with. When you take this definition of marriage it is impossible to marry gay men, because they can fuck as much as they want, but the result will never be offspring.
Oh, big misunderstanding. What the churches accept or what they define as marriage I could not care less about. Also, I do not care whether the churches believe gays deserve salvation. Because that concept does not exist to me. What I want though is that the churches and the believers just stfu about what other people can or cannot do with their lives. I also care about the secular recognition of the right of gay couples to form a civil union that is equal to marriage.
As I said: I don't agree with that, but at least it is consequent and propably a moral value that is not based on biological rules.
If infertile couples or older couples really were not allowed to marry, and if marriages would be annuled if one of the partners became infertile or the woman reaches menopause, it would be consistent. But what is the definiton of marriage as a bond for procreation if not a biological rule??? The exclusiveness is solely based on the biological fact that they can produce offspring... Way to shoot yourself in the foot.
Hurting or even eating your own children happens in nature. I would like to hear when it is ok to eat your children?
Like I said at least 2 times before: it does not matter what occurs elsewhere in nature, it only matters for humans what humans have done and do. And there is of course a major psychological (which I'd argue is hardwired, Kindchenschema/small child pattern etc.) inhibition to kill or eat children. There is not so much restraint, though, to hurt children because it can be beneficial to immediately punish bad behavior to prevent fatal future consequences.
But I will paint a scenario wherein I considered it ethical to eat your children: In a major famine, if the children have died and there is a chance that you survive if you eat their bodies and you most certainly die if you don't. I would argue, though, that the inhibition in this case is so strong that not many people would be able to overcome it and rather die/kill themselves. I certainly would do the latter.
I don't really know what to make of the fact that you lost your obsession with just killing and replaced it with eating children.
by
eborujion on
11/27/2009 07:13:13 PM EST
[
Parent ]
