tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5335698192340049653.post7407768220910685513..comments2024-03-11T02:01:34.920-07:00Comments on Everything Equals Everything: Morality: Part 1Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5335698192340049653.post-88521009509641376902012-01-21T19:40:56.338-08:002012-01-21T19:40:56.338-08:00Thank you for the comment! :)
My answer to your...Thank you for the comment! :) <br /><br />My answer to your first question is that this particular incompatibility (between religion and evolution) is different than a simple fact like the Earth is a sphere, when you carry it out, because the theory of evolution is simply so devastatingly robust.<br /><br />Second -- the semantic issue, I agree that fit/weak would not be as good as fit/unfit, because "weak" often just means lacking physical strength which may or may not be a disadvantage. <br /><br />But though he didn't coin it, Darwin did use "Survival of the Fittest," attributing it to Spencer (with complete approval), in the sixth edition of Origins and maybe earlier ones. Darwin used Natural Selection and Sexual Selection most of the time. <br /><br />Thanks again for commenting.Erick Howenstinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17623471996256446298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5335698192340049653.post-1145882309000868592012-01-19T20:42:47.411-08:002012-01-19T20:42:47.411-08:00EH, good first post. Are we Americans really that ...EH, good first post. Are we Americans really that dumb? Its depressing. I have never believed that the two had to be incompatible, but Americans do seem to put the two issues on one coin and say: Either or, it can't be both. You know Science proved the earth wasn't flat, and nobody, even religious folks, seem to have an issue with that (well, it took them a while). How is this different?<br /><br />Also, for clarification, isn't the quote "Evolution means survival of the fittest (and death to the weak)" slightly ambiguous? I mean because of your use of "weak", the word "fittest" would indicate "strong" when I think Darwin meant "fittest" as "better adapted" or my understanding, more responsive to change. I think the way I have remembered it was this: "its not the strongest, not the most intelligent that will survive, but those most responsive to change". Perhaps I am splitting hairs with that. Actually, Darwin never used the phrase so often attributed to him; it was Herbert Spencer, an Economist who was drawing parallels to the theory of evolution and economics. I think that whole concept has lead people to think of evolution as "eat or be eaten" "Be strong or DIE" when in fact most adaptation is environmental which includes things other than just competition as food and for food. I have my own theory that if people thought of evolution as "un-tapped potential" it would make more sense. Anyway, enough rambling for now. :)martykchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13416307554750019260noreply@blogger.com