Evolution Theory as a Powerful Weapon?

[StopS]

Allah is the Cause who creates what we might call Effects. Dawkins thinks all this is Natural and happens by itself, no God, just silly humans who think Gods exist.

What does the Theory of Evolution have to do with a god?
"Dawkins thinks" NO! Dawkins shows us the proof for the validity of the theory. We can prove evolution happens and does not require any outside assistance. Neither the Koran, nor the Sunnah or anyone in Islam postulates that evolution is a contradiction to a god.
Just like there is gravity and star formation, you need to respect reality.

Microsoft is not repeat not going to "give charity", it is a corporation, it makes profits, when they quote give charity end quote, they publicise it and once again I am telling you it is given conditionally and some of the amounts given are exaggerated for marketing purposes. Why publicise your giving charity? If you as a individual started to promote yourself saying how much charity you give it would raise red flags as to your intentions...a corporate entity only appears to do good and promotes itself because they want to make more profits...it is publicity seeking, public relations and marketing.

Do I disagree with you on this? NO!

I do, however, disagree with your earlier statement:

most of these elites are followers of Thomas Malthus who said there are too many people in the world and we (the rich and powerful people) need to help reduce the human population, some of these people hate human beings and see them as nothing more than 'a virus'. Gates is probably not giving as much as it is claimed he gives, and the donations are never given free with no conditions tied.

That is what I am showing to be wrong.

You said both Microsoft and Apple did not start out as part of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), (maybe not), however they definitely gained dominance as a result of their links to government. The microchip, semi-conductor and computing industries are built on war Research and Development and the MIC...without these we would not have a Microsoft or Apple in existence.

And that's all I want. The truth. If you want to postulate your opinion as a taunt or whatever, go crazy, but don't state it as a fact.
The next step would be to substantiate a claim. You claim that

they definitely gained dominance as a result of their links to government.

they, being Microsoft and Apple specifically. And here, again, you are wrong. They are not definitely connected with the government. The founders of Apple worked for HP and Atari. Are these also government "protected"? They were the first with a colour display and an intuitive GUI. Like I said: it was part of my studies, so you need to bring substantial evidence to the table to make this stick. Just some rumours and your wishful thinking is not enough.

Sociobiology and Social Darwinism are promoted by Scientists like Dawkins. They really do believe there is no God and that we are all genes competing for social dominance and of course this story fits in well with the Microsoft and Apple stories of dominance.

Oh dear, you really are a dreamer without any substance. What do Sociobiology and Social Darwinism have in common? Ah, I forgot: you can't answer questions, you just pile claim upon claim.

This is not "conflating" Science with Economics or Politics, it is describing the real world Scientists have links to corporations and governments they build their reputations and earn a living through Science...it is not a neutral activity that takes place in a vacuum. It looks like it is a mutually self reciprocating relationship...meaning governments and corporations promote scientists who justify the social world that governments and corporations desire, and scientists are happy to do what they want because they get large sums of money and status. Microsoft built through government largesse, promotes Dawkins, the atheist social darwinian, who says the world as built by Microsoft and the US government is naturally as it should be and implicitly those of us who are dominated by them should just accept it and do not try to change or compete against it...because you just do not have the genetic material.

For the MIC and its involvement in the Semi-Conductor Business see:


Laura D'Andrea Tyson, Who's Bashing Whom?

"100 percent of the [semiconductor] industry's output was purchased by the military"

What do Microsoft or Apple have to do with the semiconductor industry?

And yes, wars drive development. BMW used to build aircraft engines for the Nazis. Does that mean it is still protected by the German government???
But what you are doing is taking single words you don't understand and where you don't understand the context and combining them to make them look evil. This reminds me of what Harun Yahya does: no idea, no concept - but bash evolution.
No, the world is not built by the US government or Microsoft. No, Dawkins, to my knowledge, is NOT a social darwinist.
You don't understand the words you are using.

[StopS]

I think the difference is obvious to any sincere student of science. The Newtonian science has set up some rules for scientific procedure and the theory of evolution does not qualify those rules. Lets start with the falsifiability principle. Every scientific theory must be falsifiable to get qualified as a scientific theory and this property of falsifiability must be intrinsic to the theory .Kindly let me know how can i falsify the theory of evolution.

Are you serious?

There are 1000000000000000 of ways. Just one rabbit fossil in the Cambrian. Just one spontaneous creation. Just one non-genetic combination.
I stopped here and simply entered "evolution falsifiability example" into Google and got thousands of hits. Why did you not try this first before embarrassing yourself?

But it gets better. If you take the opposite: "it must be able to make verifiable predictions" it also works out as all facts taken together to predict what would happen if, have all balanced and happened. Try that with creation

[Abu Zakir]

"100 percent of the [semiconductor] industry's output was purchased by the military"

What do Microsoft or Apple have to do with the semiconductor industry?

And yes, wars drive development. BMW used to build aircraft engines for the Nazis. Does that mean it is still protected by the German government???
But what you are doing is taking single words you don't understand and where you don't understand the context and combining them to make them look evil. This reminds me of what Harun Yahya does: no idea, no concept - but bash evolution.
No, the world is not built by the US government or Microsoft. No, Dawkins, to my knowledge, is NOT a social darwinist.
You don't understand the words you are using.

Obviously if the government is buying up computer components at premium prices they are subsidising the industry and allowing certain companies to benefit and industries to form and conglomerate. A specific economic geography forms, and If you want to know how governments use regulations to capture and control markets for their friends in corporations you just need to do the research. Government regulations may create barriers to entry for particular firms, or put up so many regulations that new companies would have to abide by making it too expensive to form and compete.

The Capitalist MIC is driven by the US Government, it has a corporatist or even fascist relationship with its 'private' defence companies like Microsoft..who get favourable contracts enabling them to grow and profit. War is profitable for the MIC. Dawkins so called scientific theories support the Capitalist MIC implicitly by giving us a vision of the world which justifies the socio-economic system.

http://arn.org/docs/williams/pw_athe...childabuse.htm

An example of Social Darwinism advocated by Dawkins:

However, in Dawkins’ universe ‘purpose’ is nothing but a euphemism for the contingent outworkings of chance and necessity. Dawkins may try to compartmentalise ‘personal meaning’ from ‘cosmic meaning’, but he smashes through this artificial dichotomy with the giant iceberg of naturalistic evolution, reducing the personal to the impersonal, the free to the determined, and so sinking his supposedly unsinkable ship of ‘personal meaning’ in the icy depths of meaninglessness. Dawkins is quite right when he says that:

I can show that from a Darwinian point of view there is more Darwinian advantage to a male in being promiscuous and a female being faithful, without saying that I therefore think human males are justified in being promiscuous and cheating on their wives. There is no logical connection between what is and what ought. . . . [18]

However, the crucial point is that Dawkins' naturalistic philosophy gives him no grounds for saying that someone who takes the opposite point of view is in any sense wrong to do so – ‘There is no logical connection between what is and what ought’; its all just a matter of choice:

If somebody used my views to justify a completely self-centred lifestyle, which involved trampling all over other people in any way they chose. . . I think I would be fairly hard put to it to argue on purely intellectual grounds. . . I couldn’t, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious. I think I could finally only say, “Well, in this society you can’t get away with it” and call the police. [19]

In other words, in the final analysis ‘might makes right’ and the Darwinian ‘law of the jungle’ rules. Dawkins' atheistic worldview doesn’t justify ‘a completely self-centred lifestyle’, but then it doesn’t justify any lifestyle. The choice between lifestyles, including the choice between a life that includes abusing children and a life trying to prevent that abuse, is nothing but a non-rational manifestation of a Neitzchian ‘will to power’. As the agnostic philosopher Anthony O’Hear says of Dawkins, ‘this particular Darwinian is quite unable to explain why we have an obligation to act against our ‘selfish’ genes.’ [20]

Even Dawkins admits: ‘I realise this is very weak. . . But I still think it’s a separate issue from beliefs in cosmic truths.’ [21] It is a separate issue in that truths about an amoral reality can never discredit Dawkins' moral choice not to condone child abuse (of the physical or mental variety); but it is far from being a separate issue in that truths about an amoral reality can never condemn child abuse either.

The doctrine of Hell is the flip side of the doctrine of Heaven [22] , and both doctrines testify that life is not only meaningful, it’s serious. Christians should give some serious thought to how (and what) they teach about Hell, especially to children; but atheists should give some serious thought to the fact that without Heaven and Hell, their worldview offers neither justice nor hope, in a Godless universe that fails to provide any moral grounds for the condemnation of child-abuse. [23]

[dr.ati]

Are you serious?

There are 1000000000000000 of ways. Just one rabbit fossil in the Cambrian. Just one spontaneous creation. Just one non-genetic combination.
I stopped here and simply entered "evolution falsifiability example" into Google and got thousands of hits. Why did you not try this first before embarrassing yourself?

But it gets better. If you take the opposite: "it must be able to make verifiable predictions" it also works out as all facts taken together to predict what would happen if, have all balanced and happened. Try that with creation

So this is the state of your affairs and yet you are trolling around making silly claims. I did not enter it into Google because unlike you i biology has been my major and i do know the amount of extrapolation which is needed to "prove" the theory of evolution. Now lets analyze the silly babbling that of yours which is not only deprived of the slightest sense but also depicts your expertise in sciences.

"There are 1000000000000000 of ways. Just one rabbit fossil in the Cambrian. Just one spontaneous creation. Just one non-genetic combination"
So among those 100000000000000 you came up with these three pathetic cliches?

"Just one rabbit fossil in the cambrian"> It is like committing the composition fallacy. The absence of rabbit's fossil in the Cambrian explosion does not necessitate that it was not present before the Cambrian explosion. Secondly , the falsification rule must be intrinsically present in the theory and you should not be coming up with far fetched extrinsic hypothesis to show them as falsifications. So come up with something better than rabbits or i will conclude that the theory of evolution is a tautology at the end of the day.

"Just one spontaneous creation"> The whole set of animal fossils which appeared in the Cambrian explosion depict spontaneous creation and if you disagree then give me a solid proof of Precambrian evolution of the species which appeared in the cambrian explosion.

"Just one non-genetic combination"> What? I have never heard of this phrase in my life. Even Google is silent over it. Apparently it seems to be an oxymoron and deep down i think its your babbling at work.

By the way, tell me one thing. How does every tom and harry become expert on all the sciences the day they become pseudo atheists without going through any "evolution"?

[malone]

"Just one rabbit fossil in the cambrian"> dr wilfred splenebyrst a paleontologist from the London school of ergonomics has recently discovered a 520 millions year old rabbit fossil known as Paleohyrax reprobae. So this is a check mate.

"Just one spontaneous creation"> The whole set of animal fossils which appeared in the Cambrian explosion depict spontaneous creation and if you disagree then give me a solid proof of Precambrian evolution of the species which appeared in the cambrian explosion.

"Just one non-genetic combination"> What? I have never heard of this phrase in my life. Even Google is silent over it. Apparently it seems to be an oxymoron and deep down i think its your babbling at work.

This rabbit you mention. Try googling it. It may interest you to know that on the WHOLE internet there are only FOURTEEN HITS for such a big piece of scientific news, and they are all from religion/christian sites, there is not even one scientific paper mentioning it, so where do you - who are in the field... get your news from?

And the cambrian explotion exists because the fossil records we have are incomplete,,, so at the moment all it means is we are waiting for the evidence to be found. And the wonderful thing about science is that it goes where the evidence takes you. If there is no record ever discovered then scientists will modify the evidence to cover the facts, where as religion states teh facts without evidence then looks for the evidence to back it up.

[malone]

It took me 2 minutes of searching to realise that Dr spleynebyrst is a hoax, that no such person exists (the name was a clue, spleen/burst) and the london school of ergonomics does not exists either. did you do no research on this before making your claims?

this goes to show that when 'evidence' says something we already agree with we do not criticise or question the evidence too much to support our won beliefs!!!

[NNoor]

It took me 2 minutes of searching to realise that Dr spleynebyrst is a hoax, that no such person exists (the name was a clue, spleen/burst) and the london school of ergonomics does not exists either. did you do no research on this before making your claims?

this goes to show that when 'evidence' says something we already agree with we do not criticise or question the evidence too much to support our won beliefs!!!

Hilarious.

[faizol]

If there is no record ever discovered then scientists will modify the evidence to cover the facts, where as religion states teh facts without evidence then looks for the evidence to back it up.

Not really. Science is only one of the disciplines that can be used to study the truth. Science by itself however is incapable to present the absolute truth since the framework keeps on changing and limited in its scopes. Some might argue that the framework keeps on refining, but there's no guarantee that there'll be no drastic changes too it, hence changing is probably a better term. Religion by contrast claims to be the absolute truth. So the test to ascertain the truth of the claim wouldn't and shouldn't be limited by science only.

Allah Knows Best.

[dr.ati]

It took me 2 minutes of searching to realise that Dr spleynebyrst is a hoax, that no such person exists (the name was a clue, spleen/burst) and the london school of ergonomics does not exists either. did you do no research on this before making your claims?

this goes to show that when 'evidence' says something we already agree with we do not criticise or question the evidence too much to support our won beliefs!!!

That was a mistake on my part as i just searched it thoroughly.

[malone]

Not really. Science is only one of the disciplines that can be used to study the truth. Science by itself however is incapable to present the absolute truth since the framework keeps on changing and limited in its scopes. Some might argue that the framework keeps on refining, but there's no guarantee that there'll be no drastic changes too it, hence changing is probably a better term. Religion by contrast claims to be the absolute truth. So the test to ascertain the truth of the claim wouldn't and shouldn't be limited by science only.

Allah Knows Best.

But it is because the frame work keeps changing that it is more likely to get to absolute truth eventually (if you believe in absolute truth). It is limited in its scope, but then so is religion. An example here is when people give 'scientific' proofs of the quran and comment on things like the Big bang is mentioned in the quran, development of the embryo, science only found these things out recently etc etc. But then you ask - what about evolution? SILENCE. Religion manages to grab on to the parts of science that agrees with the religion, but then tries to change/ignore the parts it doesn't like.

I agree that science should be the only way to verify only naturalistic claims about the world. The rest of human experience is more complicated. The problem with many scientists is that they feel only their method that is good for understanding EVERYTHING when human experience is more than just a hypothesis, data, answer.