Because most philosophies that frown on reproduction don't survive.

Sunday, October 09, 2005

Wow...

This has got to be one of the lamest arguments that I've ever read. It takes talent to write an entire article predicting the triumph of a theory without ever providing any evidence that it might be true...

HT to SpectulativeCatholic.

7 comments:

Will said...

I thoroughly enjoyed the article. Something I learned:

You can't go wrong stating your thesis this way:

1) The people who like my theory are the same people who have other theories that are doing ok.

2) People who don't agree with me are losers.

And the love continued after that...so much love.

Anyways, I was going to launch into my many profound insights on Darwinism and the whole ID phenomenon (something about efficient and final causality and the union between the two) but I'm just not up to it right now. Maybe it's better left to people who know more than me. Or at least to people who have spent more than five minutes thinking about it.

Anonymous said...

What is rather fascinating is that the argument is that ID will survive and thrive not because of any relation to underlying truth but because it is better equipped to survive. In an odd sort of way, Richard Dawkins' meta-darwinism (his meme theory) may prove itself correct by disappearing.

Darwin said...

Zippy! I didn't know you were a reader... Welcome.

In fairness, it occurred to me after my initial annoyed reaction that my objection to the article that some of my socially liberal friends had voiced just such an objection to my general blog theme: that Catholic sexual and family morality will stick around and grow because, in addition to be persuasive/true it also stimulates greater fertility, while secularism often represses is.

I think the key difference is that ID is a question of rational inquiry, in which one would hope that most reasonable answer would eventually triumph, while the question of some schemes of family/sexual morality being more fecund than others does (at least from a certain point of view) tie in to the accuracy of the arguments.

More on that later perhaps...

Anonymous said...

I think the key difference is that ID is a question of rational inquiry,...

Ah, but then Catholic sexual morality is also (as a part of natural law) a matter of rational inquiry :-). I suppose the distinction - the "certain point of view" - depends on the details of what one thinks of the relation between truth and teleology.

Darwin said...

Just so.

If one takes is that God both created us as biological organisms and also gave us, as moral creatures built in His image certain laws in regards to sexual morality, it seems to follow that obeying Catholic sexual morality would result in increased reproductive success. Use something the way you are meant to, and it works better than if you use it in ways other than it was intended to work.

Anonymous said...

Bingo. But the same could apply to the pursuit of truth in general: know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. Presumably extinction is not equivalent to being set free.

But I admit this line of thought is a bit whimsical or poetic.

Anonymous said...

Wonderful and informative web site.I used information from that site its great.
cobra 9110 radar laser detector detectors