From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Subject: Re: Origins
Reply-To: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:39:11 GMT

In article <C16nAF.BIE@unix.portal.com>, zerucha@shell.portal.com (Thomas E Zerucha) writes:
    [...I'm going to delete a lot here from time to time.  I'm trying to 
        save bandwith and everybody's time and patience...]
|> Also look up tautology.  The definition of species is a group of organisms
|> that can interbreed.  If something happens, naturally or artifically to
|> prevent a subgroup from interbreeding, the subgroup is, by definition, a
|> new species.  All you said is that because they mutated, they could not
|> interbreed (the definition of new species) therefore they formed a new
|> species.  Because they formed a new species they formed a new species.
|> Your premise and conclusion are the same.  As such it says nothing.
|> 

    OK, there was a suggestion that this would be better carried on in
talk.origins, so I refrained from entering in on this for a while.  But
when I see such an outrageous offense against logic, I can't resist.
Let's see, if it is logically proved, then it's a tautology.  If it
isn't logically proved, then you can deny it.  Or, let's turn the tables
on you.  "You claim to have showed that this is a tautology.  You showed
this by (allegedly) showing that the premise and conclusion are the
same.  But that's the definition of a tautology.  So, you haven't showed
anything."  I find it difficult to believe that anyone is so deficient
in logical skills as to find that a plausible argument. 

     ...
|> No, I do not sense any evil.  I am simply point out that evil is not a
|> meaningful expression in a mechanistic universe.  In a universe that allows
|> for morality, mutation and natural selection (where is this different from
|> the term "survival of the fittest"?) are merely natural forces and therefore
|> neither evil nor good.  However they would have good or evil applications.
     ...
|> My question is on what basis does an evolutionist reject eugenics.  You are
|> the one saying that we exist in a world of natural selection.  Extinction is
|> part of that.  Genocide is extinction.  Natural selection tends to favor the
|> ruthless.
|> 
|> Let me summarize.  You believe that we arose because of evolution.  This has
|> implications for the nature of man, and public policy applied to man, and
|> the expected results of evolution as applied to the human race.  Do you
|> simply reject that evolution applies to humanity, or do you accept it but
|> not follow it to the logical conclusions?

    You seem to be saying that unless a field of inquiry rejects, for
example, eugenics, its conclusions are false.  Once again, I find it
difficult to believe that anyone is so deficient in logic that he
doesn't see the fallacy here.  But let me again show by an example.
"The law of gravity does not reject eugenics.  In a mechanistic
universe ruled by gravity there is no good or evil.  Therefore the
law of gravity is false."

-- 
Tom Scharle                |scharle@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center |scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame  Notre Dame, IN 46556-0539 USA