Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Other theories aren't in such direct conflict with Biblical Literalism.
Because the theory of evolution itself evolved into far more than a simple scientific theory. It hemorrhaged into an entire mindset for the course of humanity. It itself became a sort of religion that viewed mankind as having a sort of Manifest Destiny....accept every other well evidenced Scientific Theory? How is the Theory of Evolution any different?
Evolution doesn't justify anything. Evolution also doesn't promise that we are getting better and better, or even suggest that we should. Evolution is just a process; it doesn't have anything at all to say about moral decisions, about cloning, about splicing genes, or anything like that.Because the theory of evolution itself evolved into far more than a simple scientific theory. It hemorrhaged into an entire mindset for the course of humanity. It itself became a sort of religion that viewed mankind as having a sort of Manifest Destiny.
Evolution is not simply contrary to biblical literalism. It "imagines" a world where humans can 'evolve' into something more than they already are, even though there is no evidence that civilized society has grown more intelligent, peaceful, understanding, wise, healthy, or strong than it was thousands and thousands of years ago.
THIS is the problem that Christians have with evolution. It turns mankind into a kind of god. It's not that we simply cling to our bibles (which have done MUCH more to help us along in life than SCIENCE ever has ) but evolution literally scares the bejeezus out of people like me, because it gives these crackpot geneticists who want to clone babies and splice genes justification for their 'Frankensteins' (perfect book to read, btw).
While the theory itself is amoral, it doesn't exist in a moral vacuum (few things do, after all). It has profound moral ramifications. I can understand being concerned about them.Evolution doesn't justify anything. Evolution also doesn't promise that we are getting better and better, or even suggest that we should. Evolution is just a process; it doesn't have anything at all to say about moral decisions, about cloning, about splicing genes, or anything like that.
I'm puzzled: why do you -- and, presumably, lots of other Christians -- think evolution has all these philosophical implications that it simply doesn't have? Why do you read so much into it? Why do you read that into it?
What would you say they are?It has profound moral ramifications.
Well, the easiest example is the philosophy/ theory of eugenics, which is, in my estimation, profoundly immoral. It's based completely on evolution.What would you say they are?
Eugenics is based on a warped, flawed version of evolution.Well, the easiest example is the philosophy/ theory of eugenics, which is, in my estimation, profoundly immoral. It's based completely on evolution.
There's a strong case to be made (which you did rather nicely), and I don't contest it. However, if the ToE weren't there, eugenics wouldn't be either.Eugenics is based on a warped, flawed version of evolution.
I disagree. Eugenics is basically just animal breeding with people: pick the traits you want and let people breed or not (or in the stronger version, live or not) depending on how closely they fit the end result you have in mind. This was done for thousands of years before Darwin was even born.There's a strong case to be made (which you did rather nicely), and I don't contest it. However, if the ToE weren't there, eugenics wouldn't be either.
Many weapons would not work without gravity. The Electric Chair would not have been possible without the theories of Coloumb and Ohm. Economic theory can be used to effectively enslave whole populations. Every scientific theory influences the sphere of morality... the theory of evolution is no different.Now please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that ToE is immoral. It is, like every other scientific theory, thoroughly Amoral. I'm ONLY saying that unlike, say, gravitation theory, ToE influences the sphere of morality.
Well, it's based on genetics, or the proponents think it is. Usually, they don't understand genetics as well as they think they do. But I don't see how it relates to the evolution of species.Well, the easiest example is the philosophy/ theory of eugenics, which is, in my estimation, profoundly immoral. It's based completely on evolution.
Maybe, but eugenics as a popular philosophy arose in direct response to the popularization of ToE. It only fell out of favor after it helped spawn the Holocaust.I disagree. Eugenics is basically just animal breeding with people: pick the traits you want and let people breed or not (or in the stronger version, live or not) depending on how closely they fit the end result you have in mind. This was done for thousands of years before Darwin was even born.
>sigh< Not to the extent that ToE does. Are you really having trouble understanding my position, or just looking for debate? (Hopefully the latter )Many weapons would not work without gravity. The Electric Chair would not have been possible without the theories of Coloumb and Ohm. Economic theory can be used to effectively enslave whole populations. Every scientific theory influences the sphere of morality... the theory of evolution is no different.
"I am Spartan!"I disagree. Eugenics is basically just animal breeding with people...
No, it's not. Eugenics is based on the idea that there can be a superior race. Evolution makes no judgment as to what is "superior" or "inferior." In fact, it says the very opposite, that all are equal. Some species are more successful, but that doesn't make them superior. The environment could change drastically overnight, and then what was an advantage could become a disadvantage.Well, the easiest example is the philosophy/ theory of eugenics, which is, in my estimation, profoundly immoral. It's based completely on evolution.
It's about guiding evolution, in my understanding.Well, it's based on genetics, or the proponents think it is. Usually, they don't understand genetics as well as they think they do. But I don't see how it relates to the evolution of species.
Uncontested. But the theological ramifications have moral ramifications.I think evolution has theological implications, and I wonder if that isn't the real problem.
You know, I'm going to abandon the eugenics example and go with a variation on this.For instance, if we have evolved from earlier species, and are closely related to chimpanzees and bonobos, the idea that a human soul is completely different in nature from the soul of a chimpanzee -- or that a human has a soul and a chimpanzee doesn't -- is hard to explain. My grandmother's solution to that problem was a theological deus ex machina; she believed that at some point in our evolution God selected some promising hominids and endowed them with souls. But I find that very unconvincing, myself.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the moral implications are solely, or even mostly bad. My only point is that they exist.I do think there are moral implications to evolution, but for me those are mostly positive implications having to do with realizing that we are literally related to every living thing on the planet. The idea that we ought to trample the weakest among us is certainly not a logical conclusion from understanding biological evolution.
I don't think the theological problems can be separated from the moral.I suspect the real problems are theological, not moral,
I think that's a fair assessment of why many religious folks reject ToE. (Don't get me started on LIteralism )and I think for some people even the theological problems are blown out of proportion. Many people, when they think "evolution" don't just think of the process of evolution. I think they see evolution as a challenge to the existence of their god, to their sense of right and wrong (since they believe that morality derives from god), to their most fundamental ways of looking at life and the world. And I think in many cases, they're right, but the problem isn't that Christianity or Judaism or Islam is inherently opposed to science. The problem is that the hold certain beliefs that don't stand up well in the face of advanced knowledge, and they're unable to separate those particular beliefs from their religious beliefs as a whole.
Did I imply otherwise? :sorry1:Obviously, you can believe in evolution and in god. You can believe in evolution and be a moral person.
Sad but true.But for many people, I think it's easier simply to reject evolution than to re-think their ideas about god and the world or to allow those ideas to mature into something that makes more sense.
No, it isn't, but I would say it's another ramification.Of course, there's also the problem of that "Social Darwinism" has rightly left a bad taste in people's mouths, and there are a lot of people who don't know that Social Darwinism isn't really Darwinism at all.