|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6374 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is eugenics the logical result of Darwinism? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't claim it's all representing the ToE fairly (though the early social/genetic engineering ideas may have represented the ToE versions of the time pretty well), but I do claim that you can get humane principles from the Bible and no way can you get them drectly from the ToE.
The comparison is between their different views of the origin and nature of life and of human beings. Biblical philosophy revolutionized the West and eventually the world once Christians were set free from persecution under the Roman Caesars, bringing compassionate care to the abandoned, the sick and the weak, because of its teaching that human beings are made in the image of God and are all descended from Adam. Racist and persecutory misuses came much later and are pretty easily shown to be misuses based on the Bible itself. The best anyone can say for the ToE is that it is neutral. But I believe in fact it isn't, because just as humanitarian compassion is the direct fruit of the Bible's view of humanity, the ToE's view of humanity -- that we are descended from chemicals and previous forms of life -- offers no reason to put us above animals or count us as anything special at all, and the logical conclusions from that view of humanity IN ITSELF are what this thread is about. I believe it's been proven on this thread myself, but I understand everybody has to keep hoping it's not, even though the best they can come up with is that compassion is derived from our having evolved with compassion (actually we didn't to any great extent) or that evolution doesn't produce an ethics, and that ethics has a different source, which is similar to what I already said anyway -- compassion can't come from it, it comes from outside it. This message has been edited by Faith, 06-03-2005 06:43 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hrun Inactive Member |
Faith writes: The best anyone can say for the ToE is that it is neutral. I think you got it here, Faith. The ToE is completely neutral on this topic... and I don't think anybody can really claim it to be otherwise. The ToE is not a philosophy or a religion. It does not make rules about how we are to treat fellow human beings. It describes the process of how living things are related and change over time. That's it. Just like Chemisitry or Nuclear Physics is completely neutral on the good and evil of warfare, the ToE is neutral on Eugenics.
Faith writes: But I believe in fact it isn't, because just as humanitarian compassion is the direct fruit of the Bible's view of humanity, the ToE's view of humanity -- that we are descended from chemicals and previous forms of life -- offers no reason to put us above animals or count us as anything special at all, and the logical conclusions from that view of humanity IN ITSELF are what this thread is about. Also here you are correct. ToE gives us no reason to put us above animals or makes us special. But neither do hundreds of other theories in Biology, Physics or Chemistry. They don't claim that they do. They don't need to. Who said that the ToE would, should or could tell us anything about 'humanity'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
YOu are simply repeating arguments from early in the thread that I've answered many times over.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hrun Inactive Member |
If that is the case, my apologies. I entered this thread late and do not care to wade through 150 other messages. Since I can not impose on you to answer these questions again, please disregard my post and we consider this exchange closed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thank you very very much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3726 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
You said
The best anyone can say for the ToE is that it is neutral. and that's exactly it!!! It's totally different from religion which tells us how we should lead our lives. It doesn't have instructions in it. All it does is describe what science thinks happened, not what should happen. Yes, some people will use it to try to promote their pet ideas about what society should do, but that's true of anything. I'm really pleased that you said what you did. That's really all I was trying to get at - the neutrality of the TOE. I'm not out to rubbish the Bible or Christianity - remember I'm a Christian too!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, it's nice to be in agreement for a change, but I'm afraid I don't think the ToE is neutral. That's just the main argument that has been made here against my view. I think it generates exactly the genetic engineering ideas and ethics the first few generations thought it did, which is simply covered over by subsequent emphases on a compassionate ethic. This ethic and the ToE are in perpetual tension because they are inherently mutually contradictory. That's been my view all along. Ideas about human origins and nature can't possibly be neutral.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hrun Inactive Member |
Trixie, unfortunately, you have to follow the rest of the quote where Faith says:
quote: Edit: Oops, I just saw your post 187, Faith. I just wanted to make sure that your views are properly characterized. This message has been edited by Hrun, 06-04-2005 03:44 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
YOu are simply repeating arguments from early in the thread that I've answered many times over. Unfortunately, that's a lie. While the argument that the ToE is neutral in regards to ethics, and is just as capable of supporting a compassionate ethics system as callow nihilism, has been presented to you a number of times, you have yet to respond substantively to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hrun Inactive Member |
Faith writes: Well, it's nice to be in agreement for a change, but I'm afraid I don't think the ToE is neutral. That's just the main argument that has been made here against my view. I think it generates exactly the genetic engineering ideas and ethics the first few generations thought it did, which is simply covered over by subsequent emphases on a compassionate ethic. This ethic and the ToE are in perpetual tension because they are inherently mutually contradictory. That's been my view all along. Ideas about human origins and nature can't possibly be neutral. Faith, I know you said that you answered a number of questions I raised previously, so I won't repeat them here, even though they may be applicable. But I just can let this statement stand unchallenged:
quote: Do you have any way to support this statement?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3726 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
It was worth a try, unfortunately you don't really see the point and it's one that you've brought up again.
It doesn't matter what some misguided unfortunates think it means, it's just a statement on how we ended up with the life forms we have now. The use the TOE is put to has nothing to do with the TOE itself. Once again you're raising judgement rules which, when applied to the Bible, make the Bible appear worse than a "Beginner's Guide to Genocide". So Faith, shall we judge the Bible and the TOE on an equal, but erroneous footing or shall we agree that judging things on erroneous footings is just so much marsh gas? Until you can justify why the TOE should be judged by different standards than the Bible is judged, you have no credible defence for the standards you are using, other than personal bias.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3726 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
I know, Hrun, but debating with Faith is like trying to push jelly uphill! You have to take it in small steps, one at a time, otherwise bits get left behind. I had seen the rest of it, but decided to concentrate on the part we could possibly agree on. Sadly even that hasn't worked.
Faith, I do understand where you're coming from, but I think you're allowing your personal bias against the TOE to stop you seeing just what the TOE is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith, I do understand where you're coming from, but I think you're allowing your personal bias against the TOE to stop you seeing just what the TOE is. I guess I can answer back then that I think YOU are allowing YOUR personal bias FOR the ToE to stop you from seeing just what the ToE is, and the completely logical derivation of the ideas the eugenics people got from it. What happens here is that my opponents deal with my arguments with nothing but denial and jelly and call it rebuttal. It can be amusing up to a point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I guess I can answer back then that I think YOU are allowing YOUR personal bias FOR the ToE to stop you from seeing just what the ToE is, and the completely logical derivation of the ideas the eugenics people got from it. I've shown you a positive ethics equally "logically" derived from the ToE. When are you going to reply to that rebuttal?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I've answered all the "positive ethics" rebuttals far as I know. Perhaps you missed the answers.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024