Smiler
December 30th 05, 02:04 AM
"StarDragonNight" ]> wrote in message
news:f61e0e1e0512290611s18eee8buf1d8d6a4cf228984@m ail.gmail.com...
R. Pierce Butler wrote:
> StarDragonNight ]> wrote in
> news:f61e0e1e0512290541k45ac68b1ueb5697fa0baa663c@ mail.gmail.com:
>
> > Scientists' theories often seem to rely on premises that require their
> > own kind of faith. For example, when it comes to the origin of life,
> > most evolutionists adhere to ideas that require faith in certain
> > "doctrines." Facts are mixed with theories. And when scientists use
> > the weight of their authority to impose blind belief in evolution,
> > they are in reality implying: 'You are not responsible for your
> > morality because you are merely the product of biology, chemistry, and
> > physics.' Biologist Richard Dawkins says that in the universe 'there
> > is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless
> > indifference.'
> >
>
> And your point is what?
A good Attorney can Justify rape and other crimes indicating it is a
biological necessity.
A scientific theory is an explanation of the known facts.
When a new fact is discovered it either fits the theory and therefore boosts
it's credibility or it doesn't fit the theory, so that the original theory has
to be amended or a new theory that fits all the (now) know facts is proposed.
Yes, facts are mixed with theories because theories are intimately linked to
facts.
Yes, I am the product of biology, physics and chemistry (and also my upbringing)
but that doesn't mean that I'm not responsible for my morality. I could equally
say that 'You believers are not responsible for your own morality' because you
believe that your diety is ultimately responsible.
If you are suggesting that it is a biological necessity for a man to *have sex*,
then there are many alternative, legitimate ways of achieving this (a
prostitute, a willing partner or wife, masturbation, etc.). If you're saying
that it is a biological necessity for a man to *procreate* there are, again,
other legitimate ways of acheiving this (a willing partner or wife, a sperm
bank, etc.). Procreation through rape is probably the least efficient method of
achieving this, especially here in the UK, where a rape victim will
automatically be offered a termination if she is made pregnant by the rapist.
So no, even the best lawyer in the land cannot justify rape as a legitimate
method of procreation.
Just as a starving man cannot claim that it's a biological necessity for him to
eat to get off a charge of stealing a loaf of bread. There's always the
alternative of State benefits or charitable hand-outs. If he could claim that,
we would be heading towards anarchy.
Smiler
news:f61e0e1e0512290611s18eee8buf1d8d6a4cf228984@m ail.gmail.com...
R. Pierce Butler wrote:
> StarDragonNight ]> wrote in
> news:f61e0e1e0512290541k45ac68b1ueb5697fa0baa663c@ mail.gmail.com:
>
> > Scientists' theories often seem to rely on premises that require their
> > own kind of faith. For example, when it comes to the origin of life,
> > most evolutionists adhere to ideas that require faith in certain
> > "doctrines." Facts are mixed with theories. And when scientists use
> > the weight of their authority to impose blind belief in evolution,
> > they are in reality implying: 'You are not responsible for your
> > morality because you are merely the product of biology, chemistry, and
> > physics.' Biologist Richard Dawkins says that in the universe 'there
> > is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless
> > indifference.'
> >
>
> And your point is what?
A good Attorney can Justify rape and other crimes indicating it is a
biological necessity.
A scientific theory is an explanation of the known facts.
When a new fact is discovered it either fits the theory and therefore boosts
it's credibility or it doesn't fit the theory, so that the original theory has
to be amended or a new theory that fits all the (now) know facts is proposed.
Yes, facts are mixed with theories because theories are intimately linked to
facts.
Yes, I am the product of biology, physics and chemistry (and also my upbringing)
but that doesn't mean that I'm not responsible for my morality. I could equally
say that 'You believers are not responsible for your own morality' because you
believe that your diety is ultimately responsible.
If you are suggesting that it is a biological necessity for a man to *have sex*,
then there are many alternative, legitimate ways of achieving this (a
prostitute, a willing partner or wife, masturbation, etc.). If you're saying
that it is a biological necessity for a man to *procreate* there are, again,
other legitimate ways of acheiving this (a willing partner or wife, a sperm
bank, etc.). Procreation through rape is probably the least efficient method of
achieving this, especially here in the UK, where a rape victim will
automatically be offered a termination if she is made pregnant by the rapist.
So no, even the best lawyer in the land cannot justify rape as a legitimate
method of procreation.
Just as a starving man cannot claim that it's a biological necessity for him to
eat to get off a charge of stealing a loaf of bread. There's always the
alternative of State benefits or charitable hand-outs. If he could claim that,
we would be heading towards anarchy.
Smiler