Re: [asa] Altruism and ID

From: PvM <>
Date: Thu Jun 07 2007 - 16:45:44 EDT

On 6/7/07, Gregory Arago <> wrote:
> Even in the message where I asked you just to state anything positive you
> could suggest about ID, you started with ID is negative... - This I call
> ranting! Everybody's here has heard your position as anti-anti-ID.

Why is it ranting to point out that there is nothing much positive which can
be said about ID?

rant (rănt) [image: pronunciation]

*v.*, rant·ed, rant·ing, rants. *v.intr.*

To speak or write in an angry or violent manner; rave.

To utter or express with violence or extravagance: *a dictator who ranted
his vitriol onto a captive audience.*

   1. Violent or extravagant speech or writing.
   2. A speech or piece of writing that incites anger or violence: *"The
   vast majority [of teenagers logged onto the Internet] did not
   encounter recipes for pipe bombs or deranged rants about white supremacy"
   * (Daniel Okrent).
   3. *Chiefly British.* Wild or uproarious merriment.


No, concepts do not evolve into existence. That is non-sensical!! Please
> give me some evidence that a concept is a biological entity. I will rest
> my point if you admit that concepts are not reducible to outgrowths
> biological existence.

Ah, it seems you are confusing the biological concept of evolution with
concepts 'evolving'.

When you support your beliefs about altruism with arguments made by
> naturalists and physical scientists (e.g. Wilson, Trivers, Dawkins) who
> don't actually study the relationships between human beings (a.k.a. human
> agents), you are likely to get wrong conlusions.

Of course, there is so much wrong with your claims here. Such as you
presumption about these scientists, and furthermore you have provided no
evidence that they would get it wrong, let alone that they got it wrong.

I suggest you aquaint yourself with the social scientific uses of
> 'evolutionary theory,' which are rarely discussed in natural science
> classrooms and literature (please someone correct me with counter-examples
> if they exist). Why not get outside of the Third Culture paradigm and put
> forth Christian meanings of altruism on this ASA site?

I have no idea what you are talking about here.
Is it so hard to discuss the topic of altruism in a scientific manner?

> p.s. this message DID NOT evolve into existence!!
> *PvM <>* wrote:
> On 6/6/07, Gregory Arago wrote:
> > Let's get the obvious off the table first: concepts do not 'evolve' into
> > existence!! Just the fact that the sentence reads "A. Comte COINED the
> > word..." is an indication that evolutionary theory is unsuitable to
> discuss
> > its origins. We can speak of human intervention, invention, discovery,
> > creativity, articulation, signification, etc. but we simply CANNOT use
> the
> > word 'evolution.' It simply doesn't make sense!
> Concepts indeed evolve into existence. Is evolutionary theory
> unsuitable to discuss its origins? I have no idea what you are trying
> to argue here. What origin?
> The closest thing I said which seems to have any relevance to your
> comments seems to be
> Contrary to early expectations, concepts like altruism and
> reciprocal altruism may very well have evolved.
> > Even if you say, as I understand your argument, that the concept/percept
> of
> > 'altruism' has changed-over-time, this does not change the FACT of its
> > origins.
> Your point being? What I am simply arguing is that evolutionary theory
> is quite capable of addressing concepts like altruism.
> > Can this be agreed before any rant about how ID is or isn't applied Pim?
> Rant? Hard to refute I assume?
> ------------------------------
> Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the
> boot with the *All-new Yahoo! Mail *<*>

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jun 7 16:45:55 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jun 07 2007 - 16:45:55 EDT