[X] My Assistant

[Sarge]

NOTE: This topic is link heavy, because I wanted to back up my arguments with evidence. You needn’t visit them, but if you plan on forming a rebuttal, you’d do well to take a look.

I’ve often heard creationists make the argument that “Darwinism,” also known as the practice of “believing” in evolution, makes a person bereft of morality, which apparently can only be attained through the study of the Bible and the teachings of Christ. They site the Holocaust and eugenics as examples of what “Darwinism” ultimately “leads” to; humans selecting other humans for extinction, bias based on genes. This topic is my attempt to refute their arguments about the “morality” of “Darwinism.”

Before I say anything else, let me say this: There is no “Darwinism.” If you must call those of us who *support (not “believe in”) the theory of evolution names, then call us rationalists. Remember, you don’t have to be an atheist or agnostic to understand evolution. Even the Pope says evolution is real, kiddies.



1. If natural selection always removes the weakest genes, then why protect the weak? Yes, natural selection does love killing off the old and feeble, which is why you don’t see three-legged antelopes running around in Africa. Most species will not care for their young if the mother senses their child is defective. Interestingly, for the vast majority of human history, human mothers did this too (they still do in many parts of the world), whether or not they had Jesus looking over their shoulder. Even more interestingly, scientists have discovered that some animal species will look after their sick. Wild dolphins will swim under their sick friends to help them surface for air, wild wolves share meat with injured pack mates, bobonos will aid other bobonos with handicaps or injuries, and even vampire bats will help one another in a tight spot. There are many ideas about why altruism evolved in animals (and in humans), which you can read about here. Here’s the bottom line: Altruism, the practice of helping another of one’s kind at one’s own expense, is a product of natural selection. Selflessness does not require the nagging voice of a deity.

2. Natural selection is just “every double-stranded dioxyribose nucleic acid string for itself!” Wrong. I’ve already shown that natural selection is not about who is strongest**. Lions, wolves, bees, bats, ants, ducks, monkeys, whales, dolphins, fish, coral, rabbits, rats, apes, meerkats, termites, hyenas and kangaroos (and many other animals) all live in communal groups. Insects rely on a dictatorship of chemical signals to govern their colonies. Higher life forms have evolved behaviors to benefit their group rather than a single individual. See this article for more information and links.

3. Hey, wait a minute! When a male lion takes over a pride, he always kills all the cubs of the old male! How is that ethical? Ah, but we’re not lions are we? Good thing, too. Even the Bible knows you can’t trust a lion. Many animals are social, but only a few come close to the complexity of human societies with the development of morality. If God created the universe, He probably would have given lions at least a few rules to follow, right? It would have been nice if he at least asked them not to eat people. For the same reason turtles don’t have wings, most animals didn’t evolve human kind’s strong moral fiber, which brings us to…

4. Natural selection is just random! You mean like how all weather patterns are completely random and not the result of changes in temperature and moisture, which are not determined by complex factors such as the angle of the sun’s rays, ocean currents, volcanic eruptions, solar activity such as sunspots, and the topography of our continents, mountain ranges and valleys? Unlike the weather (by which I mean just like the weather), natural selection is not completely random. Natural selection is not even a little bit random. Natural selection is determined entirely by environmental factors. If natural selection was completely random, why don’t we have pink and yellow poka-dotted penguins in Kenya? For a more eloquent explanation (and because I’m lazy), I highly recommend this video. You can also find hypotheses on how and why humans developed morality in some of the previously mentioned links and, of course, at your local library. Nobody is keeping this information classified, folks.

5. But you still haven’t proven that “Darwinism” doesn’t lead to people like Hitler! All you’ve done is show that ethics and morality have been selected for in some animal species. You’re right, I haven’t proven that. The fact is that Hitler did not invent the Holocaust after picking up a copy of The Origin of Species at his local book store. His anti-Semitic beliefs developed from those of the German Workers Party, later known as the Nazis. Hitler also opposed atheism, praised Christianity, and fostered anti-intellectualism (which encourages distrust of scientists and educators, by the way). I could accuse creationists of doing the same, but I won’t. I know most of you creationists are nice people. You’re good, decent people with families, and the church is probably a big part of your family. I respect that. I respect your right to believe in a God that I cannot possibly hope to perceive with my feeble and limited human mind.



However, when you support the doctrine of creationism, and want it taught in schools, I believe you are doing harm to your children and my children. Some of you may owe your lives to science. Genetics is opening amazing new doors for medicine all because of the theory of evolution. If you do not believe in evolution, then you have chosen not to believe in a cure for genetic disease: autism, cancer, diabetes, asthma, congenital blindness, and many others will continue to spread and become more common in the future unless biology, genetics and evolution are taught in schools. The cost of the human lives that will be lost unless we seek to understand evolution and genetics is why I think it is ridiculous to argue over morality when talking about evolution.

Evolution is a scientific theory. Science enhances our ability to do good when it is used properly, but it does not teach us morality.





*I’m actually not sure I should even be using the word “support” here. The theory of evolution supports itself with an enormous body of evidence (fossils, genetics, observed natural selection YES REALLY) and doesn’t magically vanish because nobody clapped their hands and exclaimed, “I believe in transitional fossils!”
**Evolution is actually about what individuals or groups are best adapted to their environment at any given time. If the environment changes, so does the definition of “fitness.”

[Atom]

Well done. I agree with all of this. I'd also like to add that it should be plainly obvious that people can be moral without Christianity or any other religion, simply by example. 70-80% of the U.S. identifies itself as religious, yet the U.S. is one of the most crime-riddled countries in the world. Obviously, religion isn't instilling very good moral values.

[Kaname Madoka]

Thanks to you both; you've expressed everything I feel way better than I would be able to.

[Sarge]

Well done. I agree with all of this. I'd also like to add that it should be plainly obvious that people can be moral without Christianity or any other religion, simply by example. 70-80% of the U.S. identifies itself as religious, yet the U.S. is one of the most crime-riddled countries in the world. Obviously, religion isn't instilling very good moral values.

I think people should look in other places for morality. If you look at evolution as a source of morality (which is about as silly as trying to learn morality from the theory of gravity) all you see is that the things human beings think of as moral are reletive, but some aspects of morality do arise naturally in social animals, like wolves. But morality is also reletive in religion, especially Christanity! It's like the classic question: If I steal to feed my family, is it still a sin?

[Blur]

Let us not forget the fact that religious folk aren't exactly moral all the time. What topic is the majority of war based around? That's right, religion.

[King Calamity]

Let us not forget the fact that religious folk aren't exactly moral all the time. What topic is the majority of war based around? That's right, religion.

dang
u just kinda delivered a swift kick 2 the nuts of religion
i like that lolz

any way, i agree w crunch
im agnostic, but i try and live my life everyday choosing wut i think is right and fair in the world
im not saying im perfect, humans all make mistakes, PERIOD
but atleast i acknowledge my mistakes and imperfections
not like most people who are way too into their own religion and think theyre perfect
theres a word for that, i think its called PRIDE

as for evolution
one part of me being agnostic is that i dont claim to know how we got to the point in our lives were at now
evolution could be real, theres a crap load of evidence for and against it
but unless i was there to witness what happened or i saw a video or sumthin, i cant say i believe in it

This post has been edited by The Enigmatic Trainer: Apr 29 2009, 07:43 PM

[Sarge]

evolution could be real, theres a crap load of evidence for and against it

I don't know of any evidence that could disprove the ENTIRE theory of evolution, however, the theory is still changing in some ways. Evolution does not occur as Darwin envisioned it. We know that now because we've been able to gather a "crap load" more evidence since Darwin's time and the picture is much, much clearer, especially with the aid of genetics.

but unless i was there to witness what happened or i saw a video or sumthin, i cant say i believe in it

Wow... good luck with that.

If you want to witness evoultion, take a look at the fossil record. You can look at groups of fossils (for example, the fossils that lead up to the modern horse) and clearly see changes taking place over time.

Now, if you want a video... here's a classic. You might have seen this one in science class, and it's a bit old. For something a bit more high tech, check out this video from the discovery channel.

I'm agnostic too, and the thing about being agnostic is that you only say you believe something is true if can find proof of it, which is why I posted those links. It's good that you've found a way to live a good life without needing religion. ^__^

[King Calamity]

evolution could be real, theres a crap load of evidence for and against it

I don't know of any evidence that could disprove the ENTIRE theory of evolution, however, the theory is still changing in some ways. Evolution does not occur as Darwin envisioned it. We know that now because we've been able to gather a "crap load" more evidence since Darwin's time and the picture is much, much clearer, especially with the aid of genetics.

but unless i was there to witness what happened or i saw a video or sumthin, i cant say i believe in it

Wow... good luck with that.

If you want to witness evoultion, take a look at the fossil record. You can look at groups of fossils (for example, the fossils that lead up to the modern horse) and clearly see changes taking place over time.

Now, if you want a video... here's a classic. You might have seen this one in science class, and it's a bit old. For something a bit more high tech, check out this video from the discovery channel.

I'm agnostic too, and the thing about being agnostic is that you only say you believe something is true if can find proof of it, which is why I posted those links. It's good that you've found a way to live a good life without needing religion. ^__^

look im not disagreeing with you at all, infact i believe that evolution is definately what most likely happened
but its like my belief in religion, i just cant believe anything unless ive just got absolute full physical proof
its just me
and your probably right
theres probably not as much evidence againt it as I would have thought, but i definately have heard some convincing evidence against it
for example, my old chemistry teacher had once told us of a footprint in some US state (cant remember which) that theres a fossile with a dinosaur foot print in it, and right next to it, put there at the same time as the other footprint, is a human footprint
needless to say, that kinda blew my mind when i heard that, but like i said, it could be disproved
theres a million different possible explanations for everything that hasnt been accepted as proven

This post has been edited by The Enigmatic Trainer: Apr 30 2009, 10:01 AM

[Zoreta]

evolution could be real, theres a crap load of evidence for and against it

I don't know of any evidence that could disprove the ENTIRE theory of evolution, however, the theory is still changing in some ways. Evolution does not occur as Darwin envisioned it. We know that now because we've been able to gather a "crap load" more evidence since Darwin's time and the picture is much, much clearer, especially with the aid of genetics.

but unless i was there to witness what happened or i saw a video or sumthin, i cant say i believe in it

Wow... good luck with that.

If you want to witness evoultion, take a look at the fossil record. You can look at groups of fossils (for example, the fossils that lead up to the modern horse) and clearly see changes taking place over time.

Now, if you want a video... here's a classic. You might have seen this one in science class, and it's a bit old. For something a bit more high tech, check out this video from the discovery channel.

I'm agnostic too, and the thing about being agnostic is that you only say you believe something is true if can find proof of it, which is why I posted those links. It's good that you've found a way to live a good life without needing religion. ^__^

look im not disagreeing with you at all, infact i believe that evolution is definately what most likely happened
but its like my belief in religion, i just cant believe anything unless ive just got absolute full physical proof
its just me
and your probably right
theres probably not as much evidence againt it as I would have thought, but i definately have heard some convincing evidence against it
for example, my old chemistry teacher had once told us of a footprint in some US state (cant remember which) that theres a fossile with a dinosaur foot print in it, and right next to it, put there at the same time as the other footprint, is a human footprint
needless to say, that kinda blew my mind when i heard that, but like i said, it could be disproved
theres a million different possible explanations for everything that hasnt been accepted as proven

Your chem teacher lied, because you can't carbon date footprints. To carbon date an artifact, you have to have it, whereas a foot print is the lack of something; the lack of dirt/mud/what have you in a certain shape. If a foot print was made in a substrate that only existed as a powder for a very short amount of time (such as volcanic ash,) then you can date the footprint with the ash, but that can only happen if the time the substrate was exposed was short, and if the substrate was not later corroded (such as burnt in a fire).

Scientifically speaking, you can't prove anything, you can only support it with evidence. There is no way to prove something because there's always that tiny, tiny chance it's wrong. Since the chance exists that one day we could find out that Newton was wrong and that gravity occurs from a force other than attraction between particles, then we have to allow for it. It is considered the law of gravity because there is so much evidence to support it.

I hold evolution over intelligent design because there is much more evidence for evolution than the seven-days-of-creation story. On the other hand, there is no irrefutable proof to show evolution as false, whereas there is irrefutable proof that the world didn't *poof* in to existence 6,000 years ago in seven days time.

[TQQ]

Just a quick question to all these religon nuts in here:


why do you play pokemon? it is obviously created based on darwinistic beliefs.

i want to see proof that i am not, in fact, an ass fucking monkey please. and don't link me to some religon freaks blog this time.

by the way, im an atheist.

[King Calamity]

Just a quick question to all these religon nuts in here:


why do you play pokemon? it is obviously created based on darwinistic beliefs.

i want to see proof that i am not, in fact, an ass fucking monkey please. and don't link me to some religon freaks blog this time.

by the way, im an atheist.

hey, hey, hey, slow your roll kid, theres no need to get angry when none of us are
and none of us who have commented beleive in creationism, im agnostic and i think most of us are

but i guess i didnt say it earlier, but the footprints are in some fossilized mud found under ground
im not saying i believe its real, im just sayin its there and its interesting

[Zoreta]

Yeah, mud can't be carbon dated unless it's rare mud from a specific time. Volcanic ash mud? Sure- if you know when the eruption happened and which eruption the foot print is from. Mud that was from the side of a river or ocean? Not so much, because a coastline can exist for thousands of years, millions if it isn't near a fault line. The plates may move, but if it isn't on a fault, mud with the same general chemical make up can form for millenia.

[PeachyMomo]

Good job. These are some silly ideas some Creationists have that I strongly disagree with. Sadly, even if you showed them this, they would still insist they were right. No matter how much science you present them with = /

[King Calamity]

Yeah, mud can't be carbon dated unless it's rare mud from a specific time. Volcanic ash mud? Sure- if you know when the eruption happened and which eruption the foot print is from. Mud that was from the side of a river or ocean? Not so much, because a coastline can exist for thousands of years, millions if it isn't near a fault line. The plates may move, but if it isn't on a fault, mud with the same general chemical make up can form for millenia.

your most likely right, i probably is fake
i think its worth looking up before comepletly disproving though since i dont know much about it myself

[Sarge]

why do you play pokemon? it is obviously created based on darwinistic beliefs.

FYI, in real life evoultion does not work at all like it does in Poke'mon, so I seriously hope you're only joking. If you asked a fundimentalist I'm sure they'd find tons of other hilarious reasons to oppose Poke'mon.

Peachy: I'm not really attempting to disprove anything except that "Darwinsim" is an "immoral belief system." It's not, it never was and it never will be: because it's a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. You couldn't draw any more morality lessons from a lecture on evolution than you could a lecture on atomic structure. I've heard several creationists bring up the arguement that supporting evolution harms a person morally, when in reality, not only is there evidence that morality evolved, they shouldn't be looking at evolution from a moral or immoral standpoint. It's just silly. That's what I've been trying to show.

[iScourge]

Amen to this.

(XD)

It's sort of like saying the 'Big Bang Theory' was totally the opposite of what it was.
Kind of...
I don't know- does anyone else see what I'm saying, or am I just speaking crazily?

What I mean is it's a THEORY for a reason. Like the THEORY of CREATION. Like when lightning struck molecules and MAY HAVE created the first life.
No one knows- thus, THEORY.

[Ebonycrow]

This reply is no one one in specific.

I'll be simple and frank. First, I didn't read the whole topic--I rarely do. But, I'm an evolutionist and I have morals. Simply because the world behaves as it does does not always mean that an entity must throw away their organizational beliefs. The morals of a human being and the morals of a lion are totally different. A humans morals reflect the world in its entirety--we interfere.

A lion's morals are a reflection of their family. Because a male lion SOMETIMES may kill the offspring of another lion does not mean it doesn't have morals. Again, their morals are different than ours, death is constant in their world, death is needed to survive. A lion kills another lion's cubs for several reasons, some of which may be that the cubs were weak or sick, that he didn't trust the genetic line, that they were rivals, that they would have posed any other sort of threat to the pride or himself. Males will often kill other male cubs, but leave the females, even if they are of rival decent. Most cats do this, as it ensures the survival of the strongest cat.

It isn't murder, and it isn't immoral, it is survival of the strongest cat.

A lion's morals are very different that your own, and my own.

I suggest this topic if you are interested in seeing where I'm coming from.


Murder in the human world can also be seen in several different ways. What is moral murder? The killing of an ill, helpless, vegetable? Maybe there is no moral way to kill someone? It is in my opinion that it is better to put a vegetable out of their misery, but is it considered murder, seeing as they have no consent in this? What about a brutal homicide--where the victims were secretly housing and beating slaves, some of which were not fortunate enough to survive the torture? Is lethal injection murder? Is it immoral?

It ultimately depends on your culture and your beliefs as to what your morals are. All humans do not share the same morals, regardless of the fact we are the same specie. We live in different societies, those societies require different behaviors. Is sacrifice murder, is it immoral? If you lived in this society, would you still have the same thoughts on the matter?

Either way, it is all an individual's opinion, based on how you were raised and your culture's beliefs. It is my belief that evolution does not promote demoralization. I could say the same thing about Christianity and some of the events depicted in the Bible (some of which is so violent and horrendous I can't even make slight mention of them on this forum). And do you know what is worse? Is that these events are completely and utterly random and hold absolutely no meaning for the religion whatsoever. So, perhaps I could say that aspects of Christianity are immoral to me.

Edit: Evolution isn't a theory, it is a fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

This post has been edited by Ebonycrow: May 26 2009, 12:34 PM

[Eric Smith]

It doesn't mean no morality, it means bad morality.

Teach someone they are an ape and they will act like one.

[Ebonycrow]

It doesn't mean no morality, it means bad morality.

Teach someone they are an ape and they will act like one.

I don't act like a wild animal, I act like I have been raised to act.

A person acts as they have been taught--evolution does not teach bad behavior.


Just a couple of the Bible stories I want to reference:

http://listverse.com/bizarre/top-10-bizarre-biblical-tales/ All ten of them apply to the moral issue here, and all of them are in fact in the Bible. Bizarre, and interesting as they are to read, would they not be considered immoral? (Note that many of them promote senseless murder, and no remorse in doing so.)

This post has been edited by Ebonycrow: May 26 2009, 12:59 PM

[Eric Smith]

The bible has a God that punishes Sin.

Does Evolution have something similar to that? No?