Is eugenics the logical result of Darwinism?

The idea that we came up out of primitive life simply devalues everything about us as human beings. It devalues life itself. It makes a mechanical empty meaningless thing out of it. It makes us one big nothing. It makes us a product of a blind process that is subject to any kind of engineering or manipulation we might dream up because it is a process utterly devoid of meaning. We are just bits and pieces of chemicals. Why bother about something that was simply concocted in a giant chem lab? You can only arrive at that idea by observing that compassion exists and making it fit with your belief in evolutionism. It is not something the theory itself would ever predict, not an idea that flows organically from the theory, which is devoid of any of the moral and ethical assumptions we all live by -- or used to. The kind of compassion that you can derive from the theory is purely an instrumental "function," an "adaptation," a mere accidental artifact of the great overarching evolutionistic value Survival. Which is a sad irony, since why should anybody CARE about survival given such a demoralizing bleak view of our nature?Have a heart? Evolution HAS no heart. That's the point. And wherever it dominates people's thinking in a social context it has the effect of deadening hearts.

No, it's not. The Theory of Evolution can't tell you how to live your life or run a society. It's a description of organisms, not a perscription for how they should behave.It's not a worldview. That's incontrovertable. It's no more a worldview than relativity or germ theory are worldviews.

Really? Because I find the idea that "without God, we are nothing" the single most human-devaluing idea I've ever heard. Funny - everybody I know is an evolutionist, and absolutely none of them hold this position about human beings. Why do you suppose that is?Could it be that, perhaps, the person least likely to truly understand how someone could be an evolutionist is the person who's convinced that understanding a scientific theory is the first step in losing your mortal soul?Well, whatever. Guess I'll go back to killing myself because, apparently, my life has no value. Funny - always seemed pretty important to me at least. Yes. Which is why it's not a worldview.

Well, the problem I'm having is that I'm not trying to derive a social or ethical system from the ToE and as far as I understand neither was Darwin. It's a scientific theory to explain biological systems not an ethical or moral philosophy. There is no logical tendency of evolutionism. I see the problem. You are generalizing your personal response to the theory. If you hadn't such a tendency to all or nothing, either or, absolute statements you might be able make an analysis of problems you see in modern society. But you have gone off half cocked on this. The issues of compassion, valuation, or depreciation of life are very complex and I'm not sure that we are worse off than we were in the past. The world's population is much larger and the scale of things in the last hundred years has increased. There were atrocities in the past, there are atrocities now. We also have animal rights movements and many compassionate activities such Physicians without Borders, etc. some of which, but not all, are conducted or inspired by Christians.lfen

Sure. Why not. Darwinism says human beings were evolved by purely chemical and biological (mechanical and physical) means from early forms of life. This results in a mechanical and physical understanding of human nature without any intrinsic value or meaning except that we exist, we got here. A basic cynicism about our existence and the value of life, our own, human life in general. Devaluation of life in a nutshell. We got here, but for what?Please be careful not to confuse your own morals and values with what can be logically derived ONLY from the ToE.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-29-2005 10:30 PM

Which tribes were these? And what does the Bible say Joshua and the Israelis were doing when they conquered the promised land? Or what were the Christian slavers doing in Africa and the American south? Or the crusades doing in the holy land? Do you know any history?And what is your definition of civilization anyway? All the history I read has civilization meaning the foundation of cities and agriculture with such pre Christian examples as Sumer, Egypt, China etc. I really suggest you take time to either read some history or take some classes.lfen

Missing logical step - implication that that which can be explained lacks value. Is a rainbow any less beautiful when you know it's the refraction of sunlight by moisture? Please be careful not to conclude that, because ToE is not a moral worldview, that it is an immoral worldview.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-29-2005 10:36 PM

I am pointing out the actual historical social views OTHERS have drawn from the theory. These were all the rage in the late 19th and early 20th century, and although these views have been suppressed and certainly their origin in the ToE has been suppressed, nevertheless the ToE generates a certain mindset which is still with us. I am explaining as well as I can what seems to be the REASON these tendencies take a certain direction, which is toward the callous devaluation of life.

You are evading the point. The point is that only certain social views result from the understanding of life we get from the ToE and these ARE immoral.I'm waiting for somebody to prove they aren't.

Okay, I'll grant you that premise. No. Altruism has benefits for the species. Most of the Ten Commandments can be traced back to survival of the species. Darwinism predicts morality. No. That does not follow from your premises. Neither does "basic cynicism" logically lead to eugenics.So, (at least) one of your premises is false and your premises do not support your conclusion. Right back at you.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

All the European groups. The Vandals and Visigoths, the Goths, the early Anglo Saxons, the Celts etc etc etc. They were supposed to conquer and supplant the idolatrous tribes which were due for God's judgment. They weren't Christian except in name. The Africans themselves sold each other into slavery. A TRUE Christian who was a slaver, when he had an actual conversion (you are not a Christian unless you are born again)-- when he was born again he denounced slavery. That was John Newton who wrote "Amazing Grace." Christianity is ANTI-slavery. Yeah, they were trying to take it back from the vicious Muslim conquerers who had murdered and enslaved all the Christians and Jews in the area. They were DEFENDING the West. Hey, if you prefer Shariah law I think you're going to get your chance to experience it. Sure, true history, not the revisionist propaganda they call history these days. I specifically referred only to EUROPEAN civilization. Message 70 Got it? Do learn to read.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-29-2005 10:55 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-29-2005 10:56 PM

Faith,Okay, I'll call this the existential dilemma. And I do think the varied responses to this are perhaps the issues that stands between fundamentalists and others on this board.I as yet don't have a good grasp on the psychology of this. In the case of some "illogical" or non scientific fundamentalist here I think religion is pretty much the best they can do. There are some fundamentalist who are of a scientific bent and quite bright but who seem for family reasons unable to get past the existential question.Religions do give explicit answers and some of us can swallow the improbabilities of that with no problem and others find the story of the garden of Eden and the primitive fantastic absurdities of the Bible far more dismal and unsatisfactory than we do scientific theories. I can't account for the diffences though.I see you projecting your feelings of meaninglessness and looking for an external answer. Your religion gives you an answer that meets your needs. For some reason your response to your conclusions about the ToE are very distressing to you. Your response to that percieved threat is to invalidate the theory in order to reduce your stress level, not out of understanding but out of emotion.This existential vulnerability seems to be a key factor in yours and several other fundamentalists here. I think I shared this in my adolescence and young adulthood but it's hard for me now to recapture just what it was I was feeling I'm so different now.lfen

So much for reasoned discourse. You turn it into a disgusting ad hominem. So why should I expect any better of anybody here? Well, truth be told, I don't.

So you say, but since I've given an example of a moral social view stemming directly from the understanding of life we get from the ToE, I considered that point effectively rebutted about 20 posts ago. Did you have a response, or what?

Sorry I guess I missed it. I haven't seen one moral position derived from the ToE except the selection of the fit over the unfit for the good of the species.