Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The moral implications of evolution, and their discontents.
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 61 of 124 (439142)
12-07-2007 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by LucyTheApe
12-07-2007 1:15 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-07-2007 1:15 PM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-07-2007 2:56 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 62 of 124 (439159)
12-07-2007 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by kuresu
12-07-2007 11:56 AM


Re: Way OT...Thanks...and now we're done...maybe...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by kuresu, posted 12-07-2007 11:56 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by bluegenes, posted 12-07-2007 2:43 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 63 of 124 (439161)
12-07-2007 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by FliesOnly
12-07-2007 2:32 PM


Hush.....
Shhh...those cloning experiments were meant to be secret, and not to be discussed even when on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by FliesOnly, posted 12-07-2007 2:32 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 124 (439166)
12-07-2007 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by bluegenes
12-07-2007 1:36 PM


In a few million years
In a few million years, your descendants might start understanding the process.
Uh uh were heading back to the trees.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by bluegenes, posted 12-07-2007 1:36 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by JB1740, posted 12-07-2007 3:50 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
JB1740
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 132
From: Washington, DC, US
Joined: 11-20-2007


Message 65 of 124 (439179)
12-07-2007 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by LucyTheApe
12-07-2007 2:56 PM


Re: In a few million years
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-07-2007 2:56 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 66 of 124 (439321)
12-08-2007 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Chiroptera
12-07-2007 10:23 AM


Re: I guess maybe I don't know the quality of a South African education.
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 I
get a chance and I have no doubt I've reached reasonable conclusions even though they obviously make no sense to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Chiroptera, posted 12-07-2007 10:23 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by bluegenes, posted 12-08-2007 10:38 AM Beretta has replied

  
Beretta
Member (Idle past 5597 days)
Posts: 422
From: South Africa
Joined: 10-29-2007


Message 67 of 124 (439325)
12-08-2007 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Chiroptera
12-07-2007 10:23 AM


Re: I guess maybe I don't know the quality of a South African education.
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 I
get a chance and I have no doubt I've reached reasonable conclusions even though they obviously make no sense to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Chiroptera, posted 12-07-2007 10:23 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Chiroptera, posted 12-08-2007 11:02 AM Beretta has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 68 of 124 (439336)
12-08-2007 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Beretta
12-08-2007 9:53 AM


Re: I guess maybe I don't know the quality of a South African education.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Beretta, posted 12-08-2007 9:53 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Beretta, posted 12-09-2007 5:37 AM bluegenes has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 124 (439345)
12-08-2007 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Beretta
12-08-2007 10:09 AM


Trying to provide some direction.
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:
The ToE is a philosophy with racist connotations....
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:
The theory of evolution simply states the following:
(1) The individuals in a population vary in the physical characteristics.
(2) These differences in physical characteristics are hereditary.
(3) Some individuals in the population will produce many offspring, some will produce few offspring, and some will produce none at all.
(4) This difference in reproductive success is often determined by the inheritable physical characteristics.
(5) Therefore, as a conclusion, the next generation will have more individuals with the characteristics associated with reproductive success, and few individuals with the characteristics associated with fewer individuals.
(6) Eventually, provided there is no source of the less productive characteristics, the entire population will consist of individuals having only the successful characteristics, and none of the others.
This phenomenon is called natural selection. As far as I know, with few exceptions, no one really disputes the existence of natural selection.
The theory of evolution postulates another statement:
(7) New variations of physical characteristics will appear in a population, and these new variations will often be hereditary.
This, too, is an observation. This, too, is a fact. Under our current understanding in the heredity of physical characteristics, we call these new variations genetic mutations.
Finally, the theory of evolution makes one more statement:
(8) All known species are the result of the modification of populations of organisms by processes (1) through (7) over a long period of time, starting with a single ancestral population.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Beretta, posted 12-08-2007 10:09 AM Beretta has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 70 of 124 (439358)
12-08-2007 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Beretta
12-05-2007 9:38 AM


redirected reply
"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.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Beretta, posted 12-05-2007 9:38 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 124 (439374)
12-08-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Chiroptera
12-04-2007 2:03 PM


The inescapable conclusion of strict naturalism
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Chiroptera, posted 12-04-2007 2:03 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 12-08-2007 2:59 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 77 by Chiroptera, posted 12-08-2007 4:37 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2007 3:39 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 72 of 124 (439375)
12-08-2007 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Hyroglyphx
12-08-2007 2:53 PM


Re: The inescapable conclusion of strict naturalism
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-08-2007 2:53 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-08-2007 3:17 PM jar has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 124 (439378)
12-08-2007 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by jar
12-08-2007 2:59 PM


Re: The inescapable conclusion of strict naturalism
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 12-08-2007 2:59 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 12-08-2007 3:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 74 of 124 (439382)
12-08-2007 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Hyroglyphx
12-08-2007 3:17 PM


Re: The inescapable conclusion of strict naturalism
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-08-2007 3:17 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-08-2007 3:52 PM jar has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 124 (439387)
12-08-2007 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by jar
12-08-2007 3:33 PM


Re: The inescapable conclusion of strict naturalism
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 12-08-2007 3:33 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 12-08-2007 4:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024