Why do so many proponents of creation or ID believe evolution is a “dangerous” theory?

[Laughing Man]

Why is it dangerous? First of all it justify the animalistic practices of some, I don’t understand why some people act like animal do and call it natural, after all we a just animal.
Second it diminishes human responsibilities to the Moral Law that all humans have and animals don’t.
Third it put humans at the level of animal that are governed by instinct and have no concept of morality.

Could you please explain what you mean by animalistic practices? And as for animals not having a concept of morality I supposed that depends on your definition of morality, in social animals societies there are almost always rules and limits set by the group and when those rules are broken there is almost always some form of punishment. For example in wolf packs there are punishments for not eating in the correct order “the punishment normally comes as a quick snap on the neck”. Another example of animal morality is when an elephant herd comes across a dead elephant the will almost always take the time to “bury” the body with branches and rocks. There are also instances of dogs and horses with no training and without being told to, risking their own lives to save a person that was drowning. These actions seem to me at least, to show some level of morality in animals.

[tomspug]

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I am referring to creationist and ID proponents in general (honestly its pretty much the same thing I don’t know why I state them separately) and their assertion that evolution is a dangerous theory, and that somehow this assertion makes evolution any less a valid theory. Atomic theory – now that is dangerous and has actually killed scores of people but that does not make it any less valid, so why is “evolution is dangerous” supposed to be a compelling argument about why evolution is untrue? Moreover where do creationists get the idea that evolution is a dangerous theory from?:conf used:

I believe that "realism" is a dangerous philosophy. The theory of evolution is a tool that is commonly used to support the philosophy of realism. This is the only real danger I see in it. It leads people to the conclusions that:

1) Emotions (such as love) are irrational and hinder 'progress'.
2) Morality is merely a construct of humanity, not something innate, and is of no use except for the maintaining of peace.
3) The value of a person is determined not by their individuality but by their genetic perfection (strength, intelligence, giftedness, etc.)
4) War is justified completely for a cause that preserves 'valuable' resources and peoples.
5) Justifies the hording of resources (on a national and individual level) for personal gain
6) Considers ideas such as humility, sympathy, honor, and compassion unnecessary and products of social evolution.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by tomspug

I believe that naturalism is a dangerous belief. The theory of evolution is a tool that is commonly used to support the philosophy of naturalism. This is the only real danger I see in it. It leads people to the conclusions that:

1) Emotions (such as love) are irrational and hinder 'progress'.
2) Morality is merely a construct of humanity, not something innate, and is of no use except for the maintaining of peace.
3) The value of a person is determined not by their individuality but by their genetic perfection (strength, intelligence, giftedness, etc.)
4) War is justified completely for a cause that preserves 'valuable' resources and peoples.
5) Justifies the hording of resources (on a national and individual level) for personal gain
6) Considers ideas such as humility, sympathy, honor, and compassion unnecessary and products of social evolution.

Tom, are you saying the theory of evolution supports those things, or that the philosophy of naturalism supports those things?

[tomspug]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Tom, are you saying the theory of evolution supports those things, or that the philosophy of naturalism supports those things?

Naturalism, yes. I don't really view evolution as dangerous, because it is simply a science. Science is completely observational. What is dangerous is how evolution is APPLIED. That is what I meant by bringing up naturalism.

Naturalism requires that one take the stance of a "realist", which devalues such constructs as morality and guilt. This, I believe, is a dangerous place for a world power to be, because it puts them in a position of justification for policies that, for many of us, are intolerable.

Edit: I really should have said "realism" and not "naturalism", but the two are in a few ways related, but I'll edit my previous post.

[Father Heathen]

Originally Posted by tomspug

I believe that "realism" is a dangerous philosophy. The theory of evolution is a tool that is commonly used to support the philosophy of realism. This is the only real danger I see in it. It leads people to the conclusions that:

1) Emotions (such as love) are irrational and hinder 'progress'.
2) Morality is merely a construct of humanity, not something innate, and is of no use except for the maintaining of peace.
3) The value of a person is determined not by their individuality but by their genetic perfection (strength, intelligence, giftedness, etc.)
4) War is justified completely for a cause that preserves 'valuable' resources and peoples.
5) Justifies the hording of resources (on a national and individual level) for personal gain
6) Considers ideas such as humility, sympathy, honor, and compassion unnecessary and products of social evolution.

Oh, really? That's new to me. I believe in evolution and yet I think most of those assertions are ridiculous. Who has been lead to these conclusions? I suspect a straw man.

[Seyorni]

Originally Posted by tomspug

I believe that "realism" is a dangerous philosophy. The theory of evolution is a tool that is commonly used to support the philosophy of realism. This is the only real danger I see in it. It leads people to the conclusions that:

1) Emotions (such as love) are irrational and hinder 'progress'.
2) Morality is merely a construct of humanity, not something innate, and is of no use except for the maintaining of peace.
3) The value of a person is determined not by their individuality but by their genetic perfection (strength, intelligence, giftedness, etc.)
4) War is justified completely for a cause that preserves 'valuable' resources and peoples.
5) Justifies the hording of resources (on a national and individual level) for personal gain
6) Considers ideas such as humility, sympathy, honor, and compassion unnecessary and products of social evolution.

The above doesn't describe any evolution-believers I've ever met.

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

Oh, really? That's new to me. I believe in evolution and yet I think most of those assertions are ridiculous. Who has been lead to these conclusions? I suspect a straw man.

There are some who view evolution as the basis for justifying some of the points Tomspug makes: Link

[Father Heathen]

Originally Posted by rocketman

There are some who view evolution as the basis for justifying some of the points Tomspug makes: Link

I've read the post you've linked, and I fail to see how that quote suggests the points Tom tried to make. I fully agree with the quote, yet totally disagree with all of the claims Tom suggested evolution led to (accept maybe #2 to an extent). I know of no one who , due to accepting the evolutionary theory, believes any of those assertions.

I still call straw man.