|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The moral implications of evolution, and their discontents. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
LucyTheApe writes: Perfect products of evolution. We're all products of evolution, LucyTheApe, although it sounds as though you're a bit of a throwback. In a few million years, your descendants might start understanding the process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4144 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Kuresu:
I can assure you that you have a twin . And oddly, if it means anything (and there's no reason it should)...he's a really nice guy and now, when I read your posts, I find myself "hearing" them in his voice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Shhh...those cloning experiments were meant to be secret, and not to be discussed even when on topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
In a few million years, your descendants might start understanding the process. Uh uh were heading back to the trees.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JB1740 Member (Idle past 5944 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
Uh uh were heading back to the trees. I'd recommend defending those trees. At the rate humans are building all over everything, before long you might have to search long and hard to find a suitable one...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
I started this thread because I thought evolution and racism was something you wanted to talk about Evolution and its moral implications, not really racism though I must say if I were black I'd find evolution a bit tough to swallow.Evolutionary thought really justified apartheid to some. Others just pointed to Cain who got cursed and became the local slave and said that's why black people must follow not lead. So in a sense, both evolution and a form of cultic Christianity (take what you like out of the Bible, leave out anything that points in another direction) justified it in other people's minds. What do you want to talk about? Actually, since you asked -heard about the new movie coming out in Feb 2008 called 'Expelled' -see 'expelled.com' I think. Sounds great to me -should cause a few waves in the ongoing battle of discrimination against opposing viewpoints.Not great for evolutionists though.Can't find any thread discussing it but it takes me so long to check things out that I may be wrong.
you haven't really given enough thought to any of these subjects to reach a reasonable conclusion? Actually I think about it and read about it day and night whenever Iget a chance and I have no doubt I've reached reasonable conclusions even though they obviously make no sense to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5597 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
I started this thread because I thought evolution and racism was something you wanted to talk about Evolution and its moral implications, not really racism though I must say if I were black I'd find evolution a bit tough to swallow.Evolutionary thought really justified apartheid to some. Others just pointed to Cain who got cursed and became the local slave and said that's why black people must follow not lead. So in a sense, both evolution and a form of cultic Christianity (take what you like out of the Bible, leave out anything that points in another direction) justified it in other people's minds. What do you want to talk about? Actually, since you asked -heard about the new movie coming out in Feb 2008 called 'Expelled' -see 'expelledthemovie.com' I think. Sounds great to me - should cause a few waves in the ongoing battle against viewpoint discrimination. Not great for evolutionists though. Can't find any thread discussing it but it takes me so long to check things out that I may be wrong.Also see article http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/oct/07100505.html you haven't really given enough thought to any of these subjects to reach a reasonable conclusion? Actually I think about it and read about it day and night whenever Iget a chance and I have no doubt I've reached reasonable conclusions even though they obviously make no sense to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2477 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Beretta writes: Evolution and its moral implications, not really racism though I must say if I were black I'd find evolution a bit tough to swallow. Why? Are black people, in your view, particularly unhealthy genetically? Or would they, in your view, for some reason, dislike the idea of being related to the other groups of the world? Perhaps you, for some reason, think that there's something wrong with having evolved to have a dark complexion, but if you were black, you wouldn't, would you? So why should someone black have any more problems stomaching the idea of evolution than anyone else? {ABE} As an afterthought, you obviously find evolution tough to swallow with your present skin colour, which seems to make your comment a statement of the obvious. Edited by bluegenes, : Afterthought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, Beretta.
Evolution and its moral implications... Which you haven't really demonstrated, even though that is the subject of this thread. This thread is about the moral implications of the theory of evolution, and you claim that evolution has moral implications. So why are you avoiding discussing this? -
...not really racism... Huh? Wait, what? You made the comment: quote: You can't even keep track of what you are saying. So I have severe doubts when you say that
...I have no doubt I've reached reasonable conclusions.... -
...I must say if I were black I'd find evolution a bit tough to swallow. Why? Let me repeat from the OP:
quote: That is the theory of evolution right there. I don't see anything there that would be exceptionally objectionable to black people. Maybe you can explain this? -
...heard about the new movie coming out in Feb 2008 called 'Expelled' -see 'expelledthemovie.com' I think. Sounds great to me.... Great! Why don't you open a thread about it? If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
"The fossil record shows variations of all sorts of things but will time turn a dog kind into something that we would say is clearly not a dog? " Reply to you is new Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
It is my position that there are no moral, social, or philosophical implications to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is simply a description of observable phenomena, and the use of those phenomena to explain other observable phenomena. Perhaps it should be, but there is no question that an entire philosophy of science spawned from it.
Now, it is true that one may use the theory of evolution to inform one's moral or social beliefs. For example, if one's ethics is heavily based on Genesis being literal history, and if the theory of evolution is the correct description of reality, then one is obliged to rethink one's moral positions. But the theory of evolution doesn't promote any particular ethics or philosophy. Sure it does. It promotes its own ethics and its own philosophy. Everything sociological in nature must, out of necessity, be ultimately explained by evolution. Think about it. Its a secular catch-all, and if improperly explained, any postulate could be as simple as evolution did it, which, ironically, is no different than saying Goddidit. Think about the question seriously: Why do humans possess bigger brains: Evolution. Why do humans have ethical standards: Evolution. Why do people tend to be religious: Evolution. Why do we have DNA: Evolution. Any question you ask regarding the natural world ultimately has to boil down to some evolutionary process, be it a cosmological evolution, a chemical evolution, or a biological evolution. I see no difference from that from assuming, ultimately, an intelligence. The sole difference seems to be one is supposedly intentional while the other is capricious. “This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Sure it does. It promotes its own ethics and its own philosophy. Everything sociological in nature must, out of necessity, be ultimately explained by evolution. Think about it. Nonsense. There is nature and there is nurture. Morality is a social construct and while moral sensibilities might be said to evolve in a social nature, that is not biological evolution. Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Nonsense. There is nature and there is nurture. Ah, but nurture makes no sense without nature driving it. The very question of why animals nurture can only be explained through naturalistic mechanisms if one ascribes to a strict version of naturalism.
Morality is a social construct and while moral sensibilities might be said to evolve in a social nature, that is not biological evolution. If one comes from the other, why not? If certain chemicals dictate feelings as a pretense, then why wouldn't it be? For instance, we've had debates at EvC on morality. The singular answer I receive back from those of an atheistic persuasion is that we evolved feelings of altruism, empathy, etc for a survival-of-the-fittest reason. It all goes back to survival -- mindless and droll. The only goal is to survive in naturalism. And the ToE is there to explain the process, or so it is said. “This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
For instance, we've had debates at EvC on morality. The singular answer I receive back from those of an atheistic persuasion is that we evolved feelings of altruism, empathy, etc for a survival-of-the-fittest reason. But that is unrelated to morality and also a misrepresentation. It is not survival of the fittest, but rather survival. In addition morality often runs counter to altruism or empathy. Look at the morality laid out in the Bible and you can see example after example of "morality contradicting empathy or altruism". Morality is just a social construct, nothing more. Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
It is not survival of the fittest, but rather survival. Either way its still because of naturalism, so it seems immaterial to the point I was making.
In addition morality often runs counter to altruism or empathy. Look at the morality laid out in the Bible and you can see example after example of "morality contradicting empathy or altruism". Only if morals are absolute and you know what that absolute moral is absolutely. Secondly, altruism and empathy are morals, so they can't in any sense run counter. You simply may disagree on what is or isn't moral.
Morality is just a social construct, nothing more. Even if that is so, it all ultimately comes back to nature, does it not? You can't escape that part unless you start attributing intent to God. That seems more than self-evident. “This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024