Any ideas on why some people lend so much meaning to the Theory of Evolution?

[jeager106]

Where did you get that from? Can you provide a citation?

Can't recall thus no source.

I think this one maybe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
Give this one a shot also.
http://www.biology-online.org/articles/modern-evolutionary-synthesis.html

 

[atanu]

Some go so far as to assume that Evolution is an actual ideology. One that not only somehow "demands atheism" or "denies God" but also one that it extends not only to the origin of life but also to the origin of existence itself.

I see the opposite of what you are implying too. Probably Darwin himself did not agree with Huxley. The following makes an interesting read, particularly the part dealing with Huxley.

http://www.informationphilosopher.c...ural_selection_and_the_emergence_of_mind.html

 

[Acim]

In reality, Evolution is simply a biological mechanism, and one that has been not only well understood and documented, but also applied to widespread and lucrative purposes.

Please elaborate on what you are saying with the part I bolded.

 

[LuisDantas]

Please elaborate on what you are saying with the part I bolded.

Biotechnology is a well-established field.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So during apartheid when they taught that blacks were inferior and not fit for survival,
this (according to you) had no moral consequence?

Firstly you can't accurately say artificial selection represents a moral outcome for natural selection. The two aren't even similar let alone the same processes.

Secondly, ToE is a descriptive theory describing a natural process. It no more could encourage eugenics than anatomy education encourages rape.

Third, eugenics supporters attempting to say it coincides with ToE (apart from the non-starter that artificial selection does not equal natural selection) are incorrect that evolution encourages homogeneous directions in gene flow. Quite the opposite. The more varied genetic pool within a species often means the higher likelihood of adaptation to various environmental changes.

So, no, eugenics in no way represents a moral outcome of ToE.

 

[Acim]

Biotechnology is a well-established field.

"lucrative purposes" means "well-established fields?"

I'm asking because I think it helps explain what you are getting at in OP.

If the field is so well established, and (somehow) benefits from TOE, then such things are why it a) has superlative meaning and b) is hard to put to rest such notions to rest. IOW, TOE can be adapted to ideologies that are lucrative/well-established. This 'marriage' may then be used to perpetuate myths around TOE when in reality it isn't doing that, but is believed to.

 

[LuisDantas]

"lucrative purposes" means "well-established fields?"

I'm asking because I think it helps explain what you are getting at in OP.

If the field is so well established, and (somehow) benefits from TOE, then such things are why it a) has superlative meaning and b) is hard to put to rest such notions to rest. IOW, TOE can be adapted to ideologies that are lucrative/well-established. This 'marriage' may then be used to perpetuate myths around TOE when in reality it isn't doing that, but is believed to.

Surely if something works to the extent of having applications that are widely lucrative there is some truth to it?

I am not following what you mean to say.

 

[Acim]

Surely if something works to the extent of having applications that are widely lucrative there is some truth to it?

I am not following what you mean to say.

Perhaps I'm not following what you mean to say in OP.

I know I disagree with points along lines of "TOE is simply....." (whatever). Seemed to me that point was trying to have it both ways. That it is simply something basic and is all things to all well established fields.

 

[Demonslayer]

Surely if something works to the extent of having applications that are widely lucrative there is some truth to it?

I don't know, the Catholic Church makes a boat load of money off the God idea and there is no truth to that.

 

[leibowde84]

Can't recall thus no source.

I think this one maybe?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
Give this one a shot also.
http://www.biology-online.org/articles/modern-evolutionary-synthesis.html

Nope. None of those. I ask because I doubt that it has any validity. If you can provide your source, that would be a different story. But, without a source, it is nothing but an empty claim.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Firstly you can't accurately say artificial selection represents a moral outcome for natural selection. The two aren't even similar let alone the same processes.

Secondly, ToE is a descriptive theory describing a natural process. It no more could encourage eugenics than anatomy education encourages rape.

Third, eugenics supporters attempting to say it coincides with ToE (apart from the non-starter that artificial selection does not equal natural selection) are incorrect that evolution encourages homogeneous directions in gene flow. Quite the opposite. The more varied genetic pool within a species often means the higher likelihood of adaptation to various environmental changes.

So, no, eugenics in no way represents a moral outcome of ToE.

So when the biology teacher / apartheid nazi major was telling me to kill blacks because they were inferior
this was not actually happening? What WAS actually happening in this real world example?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So when the biology teacher / apartheid nazi major was telling me to kill blacks because they were inferior
this was not actually happening? What WAS actually happening in this real world example?

Didn't say it wasn't happening. Said it has nothing to do with evolution, and explained why.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Didn't say it wasn't happening. Said it has nothing to do with evolution, and explained why.

He was teaching that killing blacks was evolution because they were militarily inferior.
This was an immoral outcome to his teaching the theory of evolution.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

He was teaching that killing blacks was evolution because they were militarily inferior.
This was an immoral outcome to his teaching the theory of evolution.

I've already explained why it's not. Maybe go back and read the original post? Here I'll even put it here again:

So during apartheid when they taught that blacks were inferior and not fit for survival,
this (according to you) had no moral consequence?

Firstly you can't accurately say artificial selection represents a moral outcome for natural selection. The two aren't even similar let alone the same processes.

Secondly, ToE is a descriptive theory describing a natural process. It no more could encourage eugenics than anatomy education encourages rape.

Third, eugenics supporters attempting to say it coincides with ToE (apart from the non-starter that artificial selection does not equal natural selection) are incorrect that evolution encourages homogeneous directions in gene flow. Quite the opposite. The more varied genetic pool within a species often means the higher likelihood of adaptation to various environmental changes.

So, no, eugenics in no way represents a moral outcome of ToE.

 

[Demonslayer]

He was teaching that killing blacks was evolution

Huh? Killing blacks is evolution? Evolution is a natural process, much larger in scope than any psychotic effort to utilize genetics to wipe out a race.

 

[Demonslayer]

He was teaching that killing blacks was evolution because they were militarily inferior.
This was an immoral outcome to his teaching the theory of evolution.

This is like blaming someone killing themselves by jumping off a tall building on "teaching the theory of gravity"

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I've already explained why it's not. Maybe go back and read the original post? Here I'll even put it here again:


Firstly you can't accurately say artificial selection represents a moral outcome for natural selection. The two aren't even similar let alone the same processes.

Secondly, ToE is a descriptive theory describing a natural process. It no more could encourage eugenics than anatomy education encourages rape.

Third, eugenics supporters attempting to say it coincides with ToE (apart from the non-starter that artificial selection does not equal natural selection) are incorrect that evolution encourages homogeneous directions in gene flow. Quite the opposite. The more varied genetic pool within a species often means the higher likelihood of adaptation to various environmental changes.

So, no, eugenics in no way represents a moral outcome of ToE.

Why was Major Lategan NOT natural?
Is he not part of nature?
He certainly was a biological organism.
Define why you decide he is not natural.

Huh? Killing blacks is evolution? Evolution is a natural process, much larger in scope than any psychotic effort to utilize genetics to wipe out a race.

Your definition of psychotic is haphazard.
Is a Lion psychotic when it tries to wipe out all leopards?
No?
What is the difference between the Lion and Major Lategan.

You both totally fail to see the obvious.
The teaching of evolution WAS used for an immoral outcome.
You fail to see it because you have the same blind adherence to your ideology that he did.
Just repetition of dogma regardless of the lack of logic between in its premises.

Major Lategan taught that blacks should be wiped out because they were an inferior species.
Is it because you also think blacks are inferior and not deserving of moral protection?
So you think that killing blacks is not immoral?

Answer THIS question please:
Is it morally wrong to kill blacks?

Then this:
If the justification to killing blacks is the theory of evolution,
then complete the syllogism:

 

[McBell]

Why was Major Lategan NOT natural?
Is he not part of nature?
He certainly was a biological organism.
Define why you decide he is not natural.



Your definition of psychotic is haphazard.
Is a Lion psychotic when it tries to wipe out all leopards?
No?
What is the difference between the Lion and Major Lategan.

You both totally fail to see the obvious.
The teaching of evolution WAS used for an immoral outcome.
You fail to see it because you have the same blind adherence to your ideology that he did.
Just repetition of dogma regardless of the lack of logic between in its premises.

Major Lategan taught that blacks should be wiped out because they were an inferior species.
Is it because you also think blacks are inferior and not deserving of moral protection?
So you think that killing blacks is not immoral?

Answer THIS question please:
Is it morally wrong to kill blacks?

Then this:
If the justification to killing blacks is the theory of evolution,
then complete the syllogism:

That you do not understand the difference between evolution and the teaching of evolution....

At this point I am going to assume that you are just being argumentative.
The alternative is that you are just far to ignorant to have an intelligent honest discussion on this particular topic with.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

That you do not understand the difference between evolution and the teaching of evolution....

Its seems to me that evolution should not be taught then.
Because 'teaching evolution' clearly leads to an immoral outcome.
Whereas evolution in its 'pure' sense can only be an inevitable truth (according to you).
So then you are saying that 'teaching evolution' is not actually subject to evolutionary principles??

 

[McBell]

Its seems to me that evolution should not be taught then.
Because 'teaching evolution' clearly leads to an immoral outcome.
Whereas evolution in its 'pure' sense can only be an inevitable truth (according to you).
So then you are saying that 'teaching evolution' is not actually subject to evolutionary principles??

please check the edit on the post you quoted.

And I would recommend you stop reinforcing the latter....