Why is it that the people who deny Evolution...

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

And smog (including the deadly "London Fog") arose in direct response to combustion. Does this have any bearing on the morality of combustion itself.

>sigh< Not to the extent that ToE does. Are you really having trouble understanding my position, or just looking for debate? (Hopefully the latter )

I think the moral implications you're trying to draw from ToE can only be drawn from a misunderstanding of the theory (albeit a popular one)... as such, they do not come from the theory of evolution or evolutary science themselves.

The theory of evolution has nothing to say on the morality or ethics of eugenics. Something that people call the theory of evolution may, but that bears only a passing resemblance to the real thing.

 

[Storm]

No, it's not. Eugenics is based on the idea that there can be a superior race.

... and that the way to get that superior race is by selective breeding to guide evolution.

Look, it was just an example, and quite frankly, arguing about whether or not it was a good one misses my point completely. So, I won't defend it again; can we move on?

 

[Smoke]

Anyway, nothing I've said is meant to attack or blame ToE. It just seems to me that the only people who ever want to talk about the moral impact it has are the ones trying to demonize it, a la "Darwin's Deadly Legacy." I think an open, honest, and balanced conversation about the moral issues surrounding it is long overdue.

I agree, and as I said, I do think evolution has moral implications. I just don't think they're the ones Tomspug thinks they are.

 

[lilithu]

... and that the way to get that superior race is by selective breeding to guide evolution.

Look, it was just an example, and quite frankly, arguing about whether or not it was a good one misses my point completely. So, I won't defend it again; can we move on?

We can't move on for as long as you suggest that selective breeding guides evolution. True evolutionary theory says that no one is selecting. That's part of the controversy.

 

[Storm]

And smog (including the deadly "London Fog") arose in direct response to combustion. Does this have any bearing on the morality of combustion itself.

No, and I haven't claimed that any of the moral ramifications of ToE have any bearing on the theory itself, either. In fact, I've said at least twice that ToE, like every other scientific theory is inherently amoral, meaning morally neutral.

I think the moral implications you're trying to draw from ToE can only be drawn from a misunderstanding of the theory (albeit a popular one)... as such, they do not come from the theory of evolution or evolutary science themselves.

In the case of the eugenics example, absolutely. Sadly, popular misunderstandings, and even outright, deliberate perversions are part of the impact the idea has on on our society, morality included.

Let me say again: I am not attacking ToE, here. I am not saying that all its ramifications are bad. I'll state plainly that many are desireable. All I'm saying is that this particular theory has unprecedented ramifications for human morality, and I think they should be acknowledged.

The theory of evolution has nothing to say on the morality or ethics of eugenics. Something that people call the theory of evolution may, but that bears only a passing resemblance to the real thing.

I see miscommunication! You are absolutely correct, the ToE has nothing to say on the morality of eugenics or any other position. Again, TOE is Amoral, not IMmoral. However, ToE has had a radical impact on our culture, and this inevitably leads to moral consequences, both good and bad.

To sum up: it's all about the ripples, man.

 

[Storm]

We can't move on for as long as you suggest that selective breeding guides evolution. True evolutionary theory says that no one is selecting. That's part of the controversy.

I KNOW THAT. However, the idea that selective breeding can guide evolution to the production of a superior race is eugenics in a nutshell. I never said it was true evolutionary theory, I just said it was a result of the popularization, and yes, misunderstanding of the theory. I AM NOT AGREEING WITH IT.

 

[Smoke]

I think a thread about the moral implications of evolution would be a very interesting one, but I think we're getting a little off-topic.

Why is evolution, alone among scientific theories, so strongly rejected by many believers? I have my own ideas about that, and I've already expressed them, but I think it might be instructive to see what the Creationists themselves say about it -- not about their shabby pseudo-scientific excuses for rejecting evolution, but about what they think the implications of evolution are, and why it's so important to oppose it.

I'm headed out to the pool, but I'd like to look into that later. I think the best explanation can probably be had from the Creationists themselves.

 

[Draka]

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.

Well that's about as wrong as one can get. Human beings have grown taller on average, we live longer on average, we even have organs that no longer serve any purpose in our bodies. These are things which have happened over just the past few thousands and hundreds of years. Every generation is taller, stronger, faster, and live longer. Who knows how tall the average human being will be in 5000 more years. Or how long the average human lives? Or what organs will no longer serve a purpose, or even if the brain itself will alter.

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).

And HOW does the fact that we evolve "turn" mankind into any "kind of god"??? And HOW does evolution, itself, give "justification" for cloning and such (not that I happen to find anything morally wrong with the concept of cloning at all, but that is another thread I guess)?

I'm not discounting the EVIDENCE of evolution, I just think that the EVIDENCE might actually point to a more believable conclusion.

Really now? And that conclusion would be what???

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I KNOW THAT. However, the idea that selective breeding can guide evolution to the production of a superior race is eugenics in a nutshell.

As lilithu pointed out, selective, guided breeding is not evolution. Some of the same mechanisms are at play, but evolution as a whole is not.

Comparing eugenics to evolution is like comparing banging a bell with a hammer to clockwork. In the first case, both produce descent with modification, and in the second, both produce a periodic ringing sound, but in either case, the things being compared are not equivalent.

I never said it was true evolutionary theory, I just said it was a result of the popularization, and yes, misunderstanding of the theory. I AM NOT AGREEING WITH IT.

And is the misunderstanding somehow the fault of the theory?

 

[Storm]

As lilithu pointed out, selective, guided breeding is not evolution. Some of the same mechanisms are at play, but evolution as a whole is not.

Comparing eugenics to evolution is like comparing banging a bell with a hammer to clockwork. In the first case, both produce descent with modification, and in the second, both produce a periodic ringing sound, but in either case, the things being compared are not equivalent.

I'm not comparing the two. I'm saying that the one is a consequence of the popularization of the other.

And is the misunderstanding somehow the fault of the theory?

Of course not. It is however, one of many ramifications.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not comparing the two. I'm saying that the one is a consequence of the popularization of the other.

You said that eugenics is "guided evolution". My point was that this it is no more "guided evolution" than banging on a bell with a hammer is "guided clockwork". Both remove from the equation the aspect of the thing that makes it what it is.

Of course not. It is however, one of many ramifications.

No, it's not. It's the ramification of human evil and stupidity, and of a disconnect between evolutionary theory and social policy.

I've been wracking my brain to come up with an analogy, and I finally got one: the Kansas City Hyatt Regency collapse. It's famous as a case study used by many engineering schools. Basically, a misunderstanding by the engineers of changes requested by the contractor resulted in a situation where a walkway could not carry the design load. During the hotel's opening gala while the walkway was filled with people, it collapsed. The root cause of this disaster was a misunderstanding of basic principles of structural design.

Were the collapse and the 200 associated deaths "ramifications" of Mohr's theories of stresses in solid bodies?

 

[Storm]

You said that eugenics is "guided evolution". My point was that this it is no more "guided evolution" than banging on a bell with a hammer is "guided clockwork". Both remove from the equation the aspect of the thing that makes it what it is.

You're missing all the nuance. Eugenics in a nutshell is the belief that evolution can be guided. I'm not saying it's right, because I DON'T BELIEVE IT, I'm just acknowledging what it is.

No, it's not.

Of course it is. Without the ToE, there could be no theory that evolution could be guided. Denying that is just sticking your head in the sand.

It's the ramification of human evil and stupidity, and of a disconnect between evolutionary theory and social policy.

My entire point is that ToE doesn't exist in a moral vacuum. It's ramifications don't either. I think we can agree that Eugenics is based on a misunderstanding of ToE, yes? Well if the theory wasn't there, it couldn't be misunderstood, and Eugenics would never have been a popular notion.

I've been wracking my brain to come up with an analogy, and I finally got one: the Kansas City Hyatt Regency collapse. It's famous as a case study used by many engineering schools. Basically, a misunderstanding by the engineers of changes requested by the contractor resulted in a situation where a walkway could not carry the design load. During the hotel's opening gala while the walkway was filled with people, it collapsed. The root cause of this disaster was a misunderstanding of basic principles of structural design.

Were the collapse and the 200 associated deaths "ramifications" of Mohr's theories of stresses in solid bodies?

Sorry, but that's a bad example. I'm talking about human responses to a theory, you're talking about facts being facts.

Let me try:
Physics, like evolution, is amoral. Physics led to the invention of atomic bombs. The Cold War was a social ramification of that discovery. Was physics somehow to blame for the conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States? Of course not. However, the threat of nuclear annihilation was a ramification of the invention of nuclear weapons.

 

[lilithu]

Let me try:
Physics, like evolution, is amoral. Physics led to the invention of atomic bombs. The Cold War was a social ramification of that discovery. Was physics somehow to blame for the conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States? Of course not.

Neither was the invention of nuclear weapons to blame for the conflict.

Do you mean to suggest that if nukes had not been invented the Soviet Union and the U.S. would be friends?

 

[Storm]

Neither was the invention of nuclear weapons to blame for the conflict.

Do you mean to suggest that if nukes had not been invented the Soviet Union and the U.S. would be friends?

Of course not, on both counts. But without the invention of nuclear weapons, the conflict would not have carried the threat of nuclear winter. That's a ramification.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're missing all the nuance. Eugenics in a nutshell is the belief that evolution can be guided. I'm not saying it's right, because I DON'T BELIEVE IT, I'm just acknowledging what it is.

And my point is that Eugenics could exist without any knowledge of evolution at all. One is not dependent on the other in the slightest.

Of course it is. Without the ToE, there could be no theory that evolution could be guided. Denying that is just sticking your head in the sand.

Selective breeding, even selective breeding of humans, existed long before evolution was known. How can eugenics be the product of evolution when eugenics preceded it?

My entire point is that ToE doesn't exist in a moral vacuum. It's ramifications don't either. I think we can agree that Eugenics is based on a misunderstanding of ToE, yes? Well if the theory wasn't there, it couldn't be misunderstood, and Eugenics would never have been a popular notion.

Before the theory of evolution was known, we had both free and selective breeding. After it was known, we had both free and selective breeding. How can you point to evolution as a cause in any of that, especially when, as I've pointed out, one of the key implications of evolutionary theory is that a high degree of genetic variation (i.e. NOT breeding everyone toward a specific ideal) will improve evolutionary success for a population?

Sorry, but that's a bad example. I'm talking about human responses to a theory, you're talking about facts being facts.

The entire practice of structural engineering is a human response to the theories of Mohr and others.

Let me try:
Physics, like evolution, is amoral. Physics led to the invention of atomic bombs. The Cold War was a social ramification of that discovery. Was physics somehow to blame for the conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States? Of course not. However, the threat of nuclear annihilation was a ramification of the invention of nuclear weapons.

The threat of annihilation came out of a particular application of atomic theory, not a misunderstanding of it. Your example's not quite the same thing, is it?

 

[lilithu]

Of course not, on both counts. But without the invention of nuclear weapons, the conflict would not have carried the threat of nuclear winter. That's a ramification.

I think what you're talking about here is the ethical ramifications of technology. Freeman Dyson talks about it in his book, "Disturbing the Universe." Some scientists may believe that whatever they study and discover is divorced from the social consequences, but Dyson argues that if you invent a weapon of mass destruction then you are partially culpable if it is used. I agree with that.

But I don't think this argument works with tying eugenics to evolution. The idea that some people are genetically superior precedes the concept of Darwinian evolution.

 

[Random]

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.

I agree, well said.

For example today, a friend of mine used evolution to justify sexism. He said;

"I had a woman boss at work once and I didn't like it. I didn't like being bossed around by a chick. I'm a man, and I just felt this primordial urge to dominate, couldn't take being ordered around by a female. That's natural I think, it must be a result of evolution, has to be".

That's word-for-word what he said. Now there are many (most) evolutionists who agree with him (all practically I'm sure) that men evolved dominant traits that females (it is said) don't have, but I personally was embarrassed for him, his opinion and for the consequences of science if this is the sort of tired old rubbish Evol theory is just going to yeild more of in society.

 

[Storm]

OK, you know what? You're both so hung up on my using eugenics as an example that you're completely ignoring the point I'm trying to make. So, I'm just not going to talk about eugenics anymore. It was just one example. Obviously, it turned out to be a debateable one.

 

[Storm]

The threat of annihilation came out of a particular application of atomic theory, not a misunderstanding of it. Your example's not quite the same thing, is it?

There different examples of the same thing: a ramification.

 

[Storm]

I think what you're talking about here is the ethical ramifications of technology. Freeman Dyson talks about it in his book, "Disturbing the Universe." Some scientists may believe that whatever they study and discover is divorced from the social consequences, but Dyson argues that if you invent a weapon of mass destruction then you are partially culpable if it is used. I agree with that.

Technology is merely a ramification of science, specifically the application of theory.