Evolution, as many percieve it, is wrong Part 2 (moral, beliefs)

[Fluffy]

Does anyone else come across many people who hold beliefs or say things about evolution that are clearly contrary or falicious with evolutionary theory yet are strong advocates of evolution?

Typically I come across them when I am called on to justify my vegetarianism and so I will give a couple of examples below:

1) Moral fallacies
This is the one I hear the most often. A person will advocate evolution but then use it as a basis for their morality. So for example, they will note that humans have evolved to eat meat and vegetables then come out with things like "It is unnatural to be vegetarian", "Humans are designed to eat meat", "Humans are not supposed to survive on just vegetables". These clearly contradict the theory of evolution. I can only theorise that the people who say things like this either don't understand the processes involved in evolution such as natural selection or that they simultaneously regard humans as being the result of evolution as well as apart from it.

2) Evolution has a purpose/direction or is working towards a final result
Again very common. This evidences itself in sayings like "Humans are better than animals because they are more highly evolved" or "Humans are the end product of evolution". Again I think this must be due to a feeling that humans are both part and apart from evolution.

I hear this sort of thing from a lot of people. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of people I have met who claim to believe in evolution have at some point demonstrated that they do not actually understand it. They get the basic concept of one animal turning into another but they do not seem to understand or even see the need to understand why this happens.

[MaddLlama]

I'm not sure I understand how humans evolved into being vegetarians...?

[Phil Lawton]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

I'm not sure I understand how humans evolved into being vegetarians...?

That's because they didn't, Mads.

[MaddLlama]

I got the impression from the OP that Fluffy was trying to say that evolutionary theory contradicts the idea that humans are omnivores or opportunistic eaters.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

[michel]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

I got the impression from the OP that Fluffy was trying to say that evolutionary theory contradicts the idea that humans are omnivores or opportunistic eaters.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

I wouldn't worry; I read it three times, and I still can't understand past the first line..........

[Random]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I hear this sort of thing from a lot of people. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of people I have met who claim to believe in evolution have at some point demonstrated that they do not actually understand it. They get the basic concept of one animal turning into another but they do not seem to understand or even see the need to understand why this happens.

And every proponent of Evolution I've met insists that anyone who questions its validity is failing to understand it (Evolution), which is more often that not untrue. The only thing that matters, and it matters not what the intellectually barren scientists say about this, is that Ontological Evolution explains almost everything you could want to know about Spirit and matter and the relationship thereof.

Biology is part of but not the be-all and end-all of Evolutionary theory, no. Realize!

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

1) Moral fallacies
This is the one I hear the most often. A person will advocate evolution but then use it as a basis for their morality. So for example, they will note that humans have evolved to eat meat and vegetables then come out with things like "It is unnatural to be vegetarian", "Humans are designed to eat meat", "Humans are not supposed to survive on just vegetables". These clearly contradict the theory of evolution. I can only theorize that the people who say things like this either don't understand the processes involved in evolution such as natural selection or that they simultaneously regard humans as being the result of evolution as well as apart from it.

I was under the impression that humans evolved in such a manner that enabled (as opposed to required)them to eat (meaning digest) meat.
However they also evolved in such a manner as to allow them to eat (meaning digest) plants as well.

People can get protein from vegetables, like beans, where as dogs can't.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

2) Evolution has a purpose/direction or is working towards a final result
Again very common. This evidences itself in sayings like "Humans are better than animals because they are more highly evolved" or "Humans are the end product of evolution". Again I think this must be due to a feeling that humans are both part and apart from evolution.

I hear this sort of thing from a lot of people. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of people I have met who claim to believe in evolution have at some point demonstrated that they do not actually understand it. They get the basic concept of one animal turning into another but they do not seem to understand or even see the need to understand why this happens.

It is not surprising that many people who support evolution do not understand it.
What with all the misinformation being spread as though it were fact.
Not to mention that there are differing opinions amongst the experts as well.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Does anyone else come across many people who hold beliefs or say things about evolution that are clearly contrary or falicious with evolutionary theory yet are strong advocates of evolution?

Sometimes, yes. There are uninformed adherents to lots of positions, including evolution.

I think in your first example, it'd be more correct to say, "human physiology makes it difficult to stay healthy as a vegetarian," or possibly, "because of how your ancestors evolved, it was unlikely that you would have turned out to be a vegetarian," which is a meaningless statement to say to a vegetarian, since the probability of something that's already occurred is exactly 1.

Terms like "higher", "better", or "more evolved" are also meaningless. All evolutionary theory says is that organisms will become better adapted to their immediate environment over time. The idea that we're the epitome of creation or the pinnacle of evolution is, IMO, hubris.