Re: Richard Dawkins Question

"Antony Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> I would have thought science and secular ethics would be a more
> appropriate model for the 21st century.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4373988,00.html
>
We've got a real problem here. A man who is basically a good headmaster and
runs a good well-disciplined, hard-working, school with plenty of
extraxcurricular activities, but who is a creationist. You can't separate
the good features of the school from its Christian ethos, but unfortunately
their model of Christianity is incompatible with evolution.

[moderator's note: Let's lose the discussion about Christianity; 
it's not compatible with the mission of this newsgroup either.
I've only allowed it so far so long as it's tied closely to 
discussion about Dawkins, who is after all a major figure in 
evolutionary biology. Let's keep it on topic, or take it to some
other group. - JAH]

>
> Are you suggesting trade is *not* a cultural adaptation? That there are
> genes for trade?
>
Why not? Trade has been going on long enough for the genotype to adapt to
it.
>
> If you're not sure where you stand I suggest you take the test:
> http://www.politicalcompass.org/
>
An American would probably regard Dawkins as far-left. In Britain he's
moderate left.
>
> "Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born
> selfish."
> If we must teach altruism, how can it be a "fact of nature"?
>
You're right about this one. Dawkins advocates rebellion against the
replicators.
> JE:
> > Dawkins is on record in opposing Thatcher's
> > free market economic reforms, which today
> > can be proven to have provided the prosperity
> > that the UK now enjoys via market globalisation.
>
> AQ:
> Perhaps you could offer some proof?
> There are many reasons for the UK's prosperity, but I can be sure that
> monetarism isn't one of them.
[ snip ]
To get this back on topic, the capitalist idea that successful companies
grow larger whilst unsuccessful ones must be allowed to collapse is the
evolutionary algorithm applied to economics.
As for monetarism, I wouldn't like to comment.
>
> ... and replaced this, at least in America, with economic demand
> management and "pump priming" via massive spending on the defence
> budget (cf. the military-industrial complex):
>
Most inventions in the twentieth century were made by governments.
>
> I would suggest that language, art and technology are what sets humans >
apart from animals. Trade is a consequence of these attributes.
>
Language and trade feed off each other. Beyond a very simple level,
technology also depends on groups of people co-operating, and there's
evidence for trade in flints from a very early period.
>
> > he has poured scorn on the intellectual capacity of George Bush
>
> ... as many others have done, both within the US and in the rest of the
> world.
>
This is the nasty side of Oxford. A man doesn't have to be clever to be a
great president, nor for his ideas to have validity.
>
> "I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how
> things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to
> behave."
>
There is a slight inconsistency here, since Dawkins doesn't believe in
anything outside of science. His moral views are in fact just a bastardised
version of Christian ethics.
Evolution naturally lends itself to right-wing political vews. However just
as you get theist evolutionary biologists you also get lefties.