Quote:

---

mushroomhunter10 said:
Origin of Species explains things from the cell, and how the cell became is still up for debate.

---

Quote:

---

deCypher said:

Quote:

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:
My point is that Darwin's theory, if carried to its logical, ethical conclusion, may lead to unacceptable unethical acts.  (by anyone's view)

As I said earlier, if evolution is true, either we treat beasts as men or men as beasts because it makes no difference.

---

Creationism, if carried to its logical, ethical conclusion, has led to plenty of bloodshed and death in the world (see: the Crusades and almost any other religious war founded on theist ideologies).  But of course, this is utterly irrelevant to its validity.

Can you please elaborate on what precisely you mean by treating beasts as men or vice versa?  I believe that evolution is true, but I still treat men as men and beasts as beasts, even if we are just evolved animals. 

---

Quote:

---

Zanthius said:

Quote:

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:
My point is that Darwin's theory, if carried to its logical, ethical conclusion, may lead to unacceptable unethical acts.  (by anyone's view)

---

I suppose that what you mean is that Darwin's theory can lead to eugenics, and you suppose that eugenics is unacceptable and unethical by anyone's view.

I will have to disagree with you here. Certainly eugenics can be looked upon as unethical in a short-term perspective, if you believe that all people should have the same rights.

But what if you look upon what is best for future generations of mankind? Then I think it is possible that eugenics can bring a better future to mankind. We might eliminate genetic diseases with eugenics, and we might breed individuals that are less aggressive and less depressed.

---

Quote:

---

Mr. Mushrooms said:
I should have made an exception for Nazi's and Margaret Sanger.  I'd be careful who I chose as bedfellows.

---

Quote:

---

zouden said:
I'd argue that it's never a good idea to carry things to their "logical conclusion" and in practice it rarely happens. The logical conclusion of personal freedom is: no one pays taxes, or goes to jail. The logical conclusion of the bible is: gang rape is better than gay sex (Genesis 19). But very few people really believe that, because, surprise! people in general are quite reasonable. So there's no reason to assume that people are going to carry Darwin's theory to its logical conclusion either. You know, unless they're Hitler, but thankfully there are very few people like him.

Saying that "Darwin's theory, if carried to its logical, ethical conclusion, may lead to unacceptable unethical acts." is clearly a slippery slope fallacy, MM, and I'm surprised you said it.

---

Quote:

---

Qubit said:
Im not surprised, it follows directly from the talking points hes parroting from the Discovery Institute...

First attack the scientific theory by attacking the institutions and attempting to discredit evolution as unscientific.  Next, appeal to vague mathematical and philosophical arguments about complexity, probability and the necessity of an 'intelligent watch maker'.  Finally, attack the theory by associating it with hitler, communism and all the evils of man and materialism.  His collection of arguments, including this last one, nearly perfectly mimic that of the creationist museum and the evangelicals that support it (he even presents them in the same order, its almost as though he works there or something... its eerie). 

Of course despite his insistence that ID is not religious his arguments are born out of the religious creationist movement, and fall in line with the talking points of religious institutions.  They are desperately trying to rebrand these tired old religious arguments about science, creation and morality as 'secular ID' as a means to wedge their religion into our secular culture; thankfully they are not winning.

---

Quote:

---

mushroomhunter10 said:
I just don't see how it would hurt to have both sides of this debate as curriculum. Not necessarily evolution vs. design, but how life came to be.

If nobody knows the real answer then why wouldn't ALL theories be up for discussion?

Origin of Species explains things from the cell, and how the cell became is still up for debate.

I don't see how prominent scientists don't find the aforementioned statement the most logical pursuit.

---

Quote:

---

The nests are splash cups. When a raindrop hits one at the right angle, the walls are shaped such that the eggs are expelled a good distance from the nest. Some species have a sticky trailing thread, a funicular cord, attached to the peridiole. If that thread encounters a twig on its flight the egg will swing around and wrap itself around the twig. The spores can then germinate there and start the life cycle over again.

---

Quote:

---

zouden said:
But birds' nest fungi don't try and fool animals into thinking that they are birds' nests. So they aren't imitating them, they just resemble them.

Wikipedia sez:

Quote:

---

The nests are splash cups. When a raindrop hits one at the right angle, the walls are shaped such that the eggs are expelled a good distance from the nest. Some species have a sticky trailing thread, a funicular cord, attached to the peridiole. If that thread encounters a twig on its flight the egg will swing around and wrap itself around the twig. The spores can then germinate there and start the life cycle over again.

---

So in fact they are the complete opposite to a birds nest: one tries to keep the eggs safe, the other tries to expel the eggs as far as possible.

---