|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The moral implications of evolution, and their discontents. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
The currently active thread, "Teacher Fired for Disagreeing With Literal Interpretation of Bible", has had some trouble in staying on its intended topic. It has been suggested that some of the side topics be spun off into their own threads.
One of the topics that was being discussed was the issue of whether the theory of evolution is inherently racist. There were several posts generated by this: here is a link to the last post before the admin off-topic warning. This OP isn't intended to be a direct response to that post per se. What I propose is to discuss the moral, social, and philosophical implications of the theory of evolution, and whether there are any such implications. 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. 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. This is the part that is under dispute by creationists. Now whether (8) is an accurate description of reality or not is not the subject of this thread. The point made here is that, like the others, (8) is simply a description of a phenomenon, called common descent; it is simply a proposed description of history, and is a simple, objective fact that is either true or not true. None of the statements (1) through (8), either individually or together, imply any moral, social, or philosophical positions. 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. It is also true that any individual may use the theory of evolution to develop a philosophical framework, but there is nothing in evolution that will produce any particular direction in philosophy -- that will be the result of the idiosyncracies of that particular person's beliefs. Futhermore, the theory of evolution doesn't even force a person to use it as part of her philosophical framework; whatever the person's philosophy or religion, the theory of evolution may simply be regarded as a true fact without any further implications for that person's philosophical outlook. I think this sums up my view of the matter. If this thread is promoted, I think "Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution" would be the best place for it, although "Social Issues and Creation/Evolution" would be appropriate as well. Edited by Chiroptera, : minor typos If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminWounded Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
I was all worried until I read this part:
Chiroptera writes: 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. I agree completely. I think that any moral, social and philosophical tendancies we have as humans are a result from our intelligence and being able to conceptualize such ideas. That intelligence may be from evolution, but where the intelligence comes from is irrelevant when discussing what we can do with that intelligence. It is trivial to show that we can use our intelligence to override instincts or primitive "natural behaviour" we may still carry around. That is, if I wanted to, I could decide not to eat, and die. Or, simpler, I can teach myself not to flee in terror when scared or startled. Many people even use their intelligence to decide not to have babies. Therefore, since our intellect can override our basic instincts, any ideas created from that intellect can be kept separate from our own natural origination.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4212 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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. I totally agree. I can't see where one would come up with such nonsense as moral, social or philosophica1 implications having any thing at all to do with evolution. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 434 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: I can't see where one would come up with such nonsense as moral, social or philosophica1 implications having any thing at all to do with evolution. Evolution has been illegal and immoral. Next, I suppose it will be fattening. Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2535 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
Please tell me it's not trans-fat! I've been feeding it to my girlfriend and I for many months now.
Well, I suppose this means we'll be tasty for that witch from Hansel & Gretel (sp?). All joking aside, I believe that the statements that evolution makes (as postulated by Chiro) do have some inherent meanings in them. The problem, it seems to me, is that people come to the theory with preconcieved notions and then use it to support those notions, instead of letting the theory take you somewhere. That would be how you can get people using evolution as a racist ideology or an egalitarian ideology (or any other ideologies).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beretta Member (Idle past 5619 days) Posts: 422 From: South Africa Joined: |
Most of this post is off topic. Please pick what you respond to carefully. 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. I agree with most of this only what is the limit of these inherited characteristics caused by mutation?Any one kind of creature can only vary within a range.Between 5 and 10 thousands of years of written history indicates that all dog kinds produce dog kinds. Mutation has only ever proved to result in loss of information or no noticeable change. Addition of say new organs in a stepwise progression has never been observed.Will dog hair ever change to say scales or wings or will it only potentially change to no hair or messed up hair or some other variation of dog hair? All the assembly instructions are in the DNA and natural selection selects, there is no proof that it invents anything new. Small mistakes in a perfect set of instructions may produce morphological variations that may survive or may not (given enough mistakes) but can mutation produce instructions for something new? There is no evidence for that only the conviction that that can happen given lots of time.Time is the magical factor that turns observable science into supposition. 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? All that we can actually say about a fossil is that it was alive and it died (and was covered quickly or it would have rotted and there would be no evidence of it having existed.)We cannot link one kind of fossil creature to any other kind categorically because we do not know whether it produced any live offspring much less something completely different to itself. All visible breeding only shows kind breeding same kind with limits to its variability so why would we imagine that long ago and far away, one kind gradually (or suddenly-punctuated equilibrium) produced a completely different kind, for example ape-like creature to man say.
common descent; it is simply a proposed description of history, and is a simple, objective fact that is either true or not true. Precisely, either true or untrue and that is where the disagreement comes in.But there are further implications -if all kinds of creatures are, in fact, linked to a single ancestral population then mutation creates completely new structures and evidently an increase in genetic information and that cannot be proven. That also means that that original ancestral population had to have come from non-living chemicals that came to life.The ToE stipulates random undirected processes which by implication limits God totally by excluding Him COMPLETELY as originator of the substance and constituents of the universe. There is no version of currently accepted evolutionary theory which involves God as a causative process in any way. An incognito creator is as good as no creator.So evolution makes a statement that is atheistic in philosophy. None of the statements (1) through (8), either individually or together, imply any moral, social, or philosophical positions. Except that God is implicitly out of a job and only appears to hover in the background for theistic evolutionists as a placebo of kinds despite his non-function.
But the theory of evolution doesn't promote any particular ethics or philosophy. Either God exists or he does not -that completely changes the picture and the results in people's lives.If we live, die and get buried and rot and there is no God, then there are no consequences to ignoring our consciences. We are free to make our own laws of life that we live by and relative morality results from that. Losing God causes lower moral standards because we become our own boss and the only consequence that matters is if we get caught doing what men say we shouldn't.If there is a God who created us then we know -{Imperfect Bible quote in proverbs or psalms somewhere -can't check now}."shall He that created the eye, not see?" "shall He that created the ear not hear?" If God created us to see and to hear it is because He can see us and hear us (our thoughtsincluded since He created our brains as well.) If God exists and knows and watches every move we make, that's powerful incentive to keep up some standards in every situation apart from human law. For those that do not believe he exists, we may have some standards taught to us - but saying to your child "do it because I said so" is not nearly so powerful as God said so. Abortion -it's fine because of public consensus. If God says it's not? Then what do you choose?Without God, society inevitably has declining standards until complete rot sets in. For once, I may be on topic -I really hope so. Edited by AdminNosy, : topic warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2192 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Really? I am a more moral person now that I am not a believer than when I was one.
quote: Sure there are. The consequences are felt here and now, though, during this lifetime.
quote: Every single person, including you, practices moral relativity. There is no such thing as absolute morality.
quote: Maybe that's wht you would do if you didn't believe in the thread of eternal damnation, but that is hardly true of most normal people. Can you explain how understanding that changes in allele frequencies in populations over time causes someone to behave in a socialy unacceptable manner?
quote: Funny, I do the right thing simply becasue I wouldn't want to be treated that way myself, and because the kind of world I want to live in is one in which we are kind and courteous toward one another. You, it seems, only do the right thing because you are afraid of punishment from God, not becasue you see any inherent value in treating other people with respect. I guess that means that you are a sociopath, and the only thing holding back your demented and sick urge to rape and murder everyone you meet is your belief in God. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5522 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
bluescat48 writes:
I also agree, so far as biological evolution goes. But if the evolution of human consciousness is at all biological we'd have to say that morality is an atavism of the primitive bicaremal state of mind (per Julian Jaynes). Simply put, science became the necessary tool for humans to evolve beyond bicamerality in order to gain our advanced form of consciousness. I totally agree. I can't see where one would come up with such nonsense as moral, social or philosophica1 implications having any thing at all to do with evolution. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4167 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: Uh? Morality is a throwback to believing in God...is that what you're trying to say?
But if the evolution of human consciousness is at all biological we'd have to say that morality is an atavism of the primitive bicaremal state of mind (per Julian Jaynes). Hoot Mon writes: We used science to eliminate our need for God? Simply put, science became the necessary tool for humans to evolve beyond bicamerality in order to gain our advanced form of consciousness. Honestly, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5522 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FO writes:
Yes, I am saying exactly that. Morality is a very ambiguous and arbitrary concept. What is there about "morality" that applies to a fully consciousness person. Morality is an artifact of a belief system, not as fact of life or reality. That poor teacher in Sudan was almost executed for naming a stuffed animal "Mohammed." She was highly "immoral" in their eyes. Is that the kind of morality you respect? Uh? Morality is a throwback to believing in God...is that what you're trying to say? If I regard myself as "amoral" would you then regard me as "immoral"?
We used science to eliminate our need for God?
Oh, yes, and it's such a painfil process! ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4167 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hey, I was just trying to figure out if I was reading your post correctly.
Hoot Mon writes: So evolutionary theory has no bearing on morality. On this we agree?
Morality is an artifact of a belief system, not as fact of life or reality. Hoot Mon writes: I would regard you as amoral.
If I regard myself as "amoral" would you then regard me as "immoral"? Hoot Mon writes: Well, actually science doesn't necessarily lead to the elimination God.
FliesOnly writes: We used science to eliminate our need for God? Oh, yes, and it's such a painfil process!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3070 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
None of the statements (1) through (8), either individually or together, imply any moral, social, or philosophical positions. False to a deluded degree. Evolution presupposes Materialism to be true and Creationism-Design to be false. This is the philosophical foundation that natural selection is built upon. In other words, natural selection or perpetual material causation from living and non-living realities is postulated because Divine causation is assumed to be untrue. Evolution IS BUILT on a philosophical assumption that causation is linear and never vertical. Once the assumption is made no evidence can ever contradict because the decision has already been made that causation is linear and material and never vertical and Divine. Creationism-Design is just the opposite: we assume causation is vertical because the appearance of design says the same is the work of an invisible Designer. The point is: starting philosophical assumptions determine the interpretation and explanation of evidence. Evolution interpretation and explanation of evidence makes no sense and is false on its face, sustained by the needs of the Atheist worldview and hatred of God and Genesis. Nothing refutes the Cambrian explosion, it corroboates Genesis special creation (vertical) to be absolutely true. This proves natural selection interpretation and explanations to be exactly what they are: a list of facts (#1 thru #6), in and by themselves, and collectively, that do not and could not achieve the claim: the main mechanism that allegedly produced the wonder of nature that we see. The nature that we see is obviously Divinely designed; therefore, causation is vertical. Natural selection defies observation and is but a conglomeration of facts that in no way, shape or form, could have created the organized complexity of nature as a whole or any individual organism. Natural selection is akin to a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, the individual facts in tandem cannot create anything, but the same is classic rhetoric asserting that it can and has. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JB1740 Member (Idle past 5967 days) Posts: 132 From: Washington, DC, US Joined: |
Ray, pretty much nothing in that comment was true or accurate except that nothing refutes the Cambrian explosion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Evolution presupposes Materialism to be true and Creationism-Design to be false. This is the philosophical foundation that natural selection is built upon. In other words, natural selection or perpetual material causation from living and non-living realities is postulated because Divine causation is assumed to be untrue. What does that have to do with morality?
Evolution IS BUILT on a philosophical assumption that causation is linear and never vertical. Once the assumption is made no evidence can ever contradict because the decision has already been made that causation is linear and material and never vertical and Divine. What does that have to do with morality?
Creationism-Design is just the opposite: we assume causation is vertical because the appearance of design says the same is the work of an invisible Designer. What does that have to do with morality?
The point is: starting philosophical assumptions determine the interpretation and explanation of evidence. Evolution interpretation and explanation of evidence makes no sense and is false on its face, sustained by the needs of the Atheist worldview and hatred of God and Genesis. What does that have to do with morality?
Nothing refutes the Cambrian explosion, it corroboates Genesis special creation (vertical) to be absolutely true. This proves natural selection interpretation and explanations to be exactly what they are: a list of facts (#1 thru #6), in and by themselves, and collectively, that do not and could not achieve the claim: the main mechanism that allegedly produced the wonder of nature that we see. The nature that we see is obviously Divinely designed; therefore, causation is vertical. Natural selection defies observation and is but a conglomeration of facts that in no way, shape or form, could have created the organized complexity of nature as a whole or any individual organism. What does that have to do with morality?
Natural selection is akin to a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat, the individual facts in tandem cannot create anything, but the same is classic rhetoric asserting that it can and has. What does that have to do with morality? Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024