Natural Order and Science

[I_am_not_mafia]

Are you gone nuts? 100 million plus people have lost their lives and you are saying them “Bunch of People.”

Those insane butchers had used most modern and sophisticated scientific technologies of the time in a precise and systematic manner to slaughter everyone who believed in the existence of God.

Every single person who favoured the use of eugenics to produce super human breed, who favoured social structure without religion, or who favoured both was equally responsible for that butchery.

Who the fuck are you talking about?

[Alex K]

Are you gone nuts? 100 million plus people have lost their lives and you are saying them “Bunch of People.”

Those insane butchers had used most modern and sophisticated scientific technologies of the time in a precise and systematic manner to slaughter everyone who believed in the existence of God.

Every single person who favoured the use of eugenics to produce super human breed, who favoured social structure without religion, or who favoured both was equally responsible for that butchery.

Who the fuck are you talking about?

My guess is, IBM computers and the Railroad??? Who the fuck knows!

[robvalue]

Ah, I missed that. He is blaming science for technology too. Technology kills people. He actually is blaming the gun for the murder.

He thinks we should all live in mud huts. But ones made by faith, and not any systematic approach.

No sane person would claim science is only ever used for good. But no sane person would accuse it of things, as if it's an intelligent entity.

I've been thinking of doing a video about what science actually is, because people like this seem to have no clue.

[Alex K]

I've been thinking of doing a video about what science actually is, because people like this seem to have no clue.

Can you make one about what the theory of evolution actually is and isn't, says and doesn't say, because that seems to be a very important example.

[robvalue]

That's a good idea!

Yeah sure. I'll give that some thought

[I_am_not_mafia]

No we're not. Science has a good understanding of how order arises out of chaos. We can explain the formation of galaxies, solar systems, planets, chemistry, biology, evolution, intelligence, societies and technology to a greater or lesser degree. There is no room for god. The gap for your god is so small as to make it irrelevant if all it did was to create the Big Bang.

By the help of chaos, you are trying to convince yourself that universe emerged out of nothing. That is exactly what I am saying about you. But, what is the origin of chaos if your theory is true?

Chaos depends over already existing paraphernalia which is not “Nothing”. In order to explain chaos, you first need to explain that paraphernalia.

Who cares what the origin of chaos is? I said " Science has a good understanding of how order arises out of chaos"

I can demonstrate this on a computer. A chaotic system in which order and complexity arises locally if you make it thermodynamically plausible.

Read and understand what I said rather than try to answer a completely different point. What you are doing is making a strawman argument.

If that was so you would be able to produce observable and reproducible evidence for this. You can't because you're talking bollocks. If what you were saying were true science would have figured out these rules before you were even born. But because you'll just ignore what I have said, show us a natural coding system that "regulates all actions in the universe to such a precision that minuscule change in universal constants can restructure the universe to such an extent that it will be beyond recognition" I shall continue asking you this question until you answer it.

As being a Ph.D. you should know what is “Fine Tuning.”

This does not answer my question. Or if it does then you haven't explained how.

Show us a natural coding system that "regulates all actions in the universe to such a precision that minuscule change in universal constants can restructure the universe to such an extent that it will be beyond recognition"

[I_am_not_mafia]

I am not a fan of Irreducible Complexity Argument but I do support the idea that if a part is taken away from an organism and it stops functioning then that organism is irreducible.

This is completely irrelevant, you are also equivocating with the word 'irreducible'. Take away banks and the economy collapses, that doesn't mean to say that the economy was created in a single instance. The role of banks grew as economies and societies developed over time.

[I_am_not_mafia]

“Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism... neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world’s greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy.”

Richard Weikart,
From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany

Source:
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/eugenics

Well, what can I say, he is wrong...

Harris should read The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O Paxton for the process that led to the holocaust.

To summarise, the Nazis were trying to export the Jews and weren't able to. They wanted to export them to Russia. The more countries they conquered the more Jews they had to deal with. Nazis who were in charge of conquered countries also did not want Jews sent to them. Different regions developed their own ways to deal with the Jews including mass murder. There was a cycle of radicalisation between Nazi members and Nazi leaders. Eventually the decision was taken to exterminate them in an organised way.

Harris is trying to paint the Nazi movement as some form of Atheistic ideology when they were largely Catholic.

[Alex K]

@Mathilda,

I think a maybe more relevant point is why they wanted to get rid of the Jews in the first place - because Darwin's theory of evolution says so? Of course not. Maybe somehow because of some scientific conclusion derived from Darwin's theory of evolution? Not even that.

Last point: even if they had hated and killed the Jews because they were somehow "inspired" by Darwin's theory of evolution to do so, would that make the science wrong? No. The theory of nuclear fission is no less true because it was used to killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. And the theory of nuclear fission was even directly instrumental in building the atomic bombs, as opposed to the ToE, which does not apply to nor is the basis for the Holocaust in any comparable sense.

[I_am_not_mafia]

1. Quran is the only literature (scripture) in the world that is not yet corrupted in about 1,500 years. I count it no less than a miracle.

So what?

If it's ignorant crap written by bronze age goat herders then why is it supposed to be a good thing that it hasn't been updated as our understanding has developed? The whole point of the scientific method is that allows our understanding of the real world to be refined and corrected as new evidence is obtained.

2. Quran does not have:

a.   Historical errors
b.   Scientific errors
c.   Mathematical errors
d.   Contradictory texts
e.   Discrepancies &
f.    Evidences that may confirm human writings

Neither do other fairy tales. This is because they do not talk about anything resembling reality.

In fact your criteria could apply to a telephone book as well. Or a dictionary, or a thesaurus. Perhaps not the complete works of Shakespeare though, I am sure that contains some historical errors.