It has everything to do with causality. Do racists simply distort evolution
to support their beliefs, or is the theory of evolution directly responsible
for the origin of those beliefs? You and others claim the latter, and the
evidence clearly contradicts you.
>It's a question of justification (as you
>should have noted from Rich's wording, "which he justified..."). Just to
>clarify the question starkly, try this: Please justify your characterization
>of Hitler as a "murderous tyrant," without any appeal to a transcendent moral
>system.
Define "transcendent moral system". If you mean without appealing to a
supernatural
one, that's easy: Murder and genocide are wrong because individual humans all
have feelings and consciousness, and therefore they should all have the right
to live their lives out fully. You can call that a transcendent moral system if
you want, but I don't see what you would prove with such word games.
>The main point remains: evolutionism can be a powerful, and logically
>compelling, justification for racism and genocide.
And so can Christianity. But I have the intelligence and the equanimity to
recognize that such justification is a perversion of what Christianity really
stands for.
>It is not subject to moral
>correction,
Neither is physics. So what?
>as, e.g., Christianity is. It can only borrow moral capital. It
>should acknowledge the debt.
To whom should I "acknowledge the debt" for my completely materialist,
100% atheist, Humanist moral capital?
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.