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

[UnTheist]

...accept every other well evidenced Scientific Theory? How is the Theory of Evolution any different?

 

[Valjean]

It doesn't produce any consumer products or military ordnance clearly derived from biological modification, (the operative words being "clearly derived)"

 

[Storm]

Other theories aren't in such direct conflict with Biblical Literalism.

 

[Valjean]

I try to be optimistic about it. The church eventually reconciled itself with Copernicus, perhaps time will smooth over its current objections to Darwin.

 

[Draka]

Other theories aren't in such direct conflict with Biblical Literalism.

Yeah, what she said.


They are so brainwashed with the need for their book to be all literally true that anything that proves otherwise becomes something to rebel against. If it said that it was "God's magnetism" that held everything down to the earth they would deny gravity existed.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yeah, it's funny how they have no qualms with using science, such as medicine and technology, in their everyday lives. However they turn a 180 and reject that exact same methodology whenever it conflicts with some ancient superstition. They want to have their cake and eat it too, oblivious to their own blatant hypocrisy.

 

[fantome profane]

I can never remember who it was, but somebody once said that if the dominant religion was sun worship then nuclear fusion would be an extremely controversial theory.

 

[tomspug]

...accept every other well evidenced Scientific Theory? How is the Theory of Evolution any different?

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).

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

 

[Smoke]

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).

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?

 

[Storm]

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?

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.

 

[Smoke]

It has profound moral ramifications.

What would you say they are?

 

[Storm]

What would you say they are?

Well, the easiest example is the philosophy/ theory of eugenics, which is, in my estimation, profoundly immoral. It's based completely on evolution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, the easiest example is the philosophy/ theory of eugenics, which is, in my estimation, profoundly immoral. It's based completely on evolution.

Eugenics is based on a warped, flawed version of evolution.

The theory of evolution only says that inheritibility, random mutation and natural selection will create a situation where successive generations of organisms more adapted to their environment will have better success than those that don't. It doesn't say that adaptation to one's environment is a good thing, or that we should "help the process along".

Eugenics as a consequence of evolutionary science (nature will create adaptation through natural selection, so we should do what we can to create this adaptation ourselves!) makes no more sense than hosing down your lawn as a consequence of meteorology (nature will make the grass wet through rain, so we should do what we can to make the grass wet ourselves!).

And on top of all that, if for whatever reason you consider that higher levels of adaptation are morally better, one of the worst things you can do to reach that pinnacle of your morality is to decrease the genetic variability of your population.

 

[Storm]

Eugenics is based on a warped, flawed version of 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.

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Smoke]

Well, the easiest example is the philosophy/ theory of eugenics, which is, in my estimation, profoundly immoral. It's based completely on evolution.

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.

I think evolution has theological implications, and I wonder if that isn't the real problem.

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.

The question has been raised on another thread how realizing that the Garden of Eden story cannot be literally true affects people's deeply-felt interpretations about that story.

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 suspect the real problems are theological, not moral, 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.

Obviously, you can believe in evolution and in god. You can believe in evolution and be a moral person. 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.

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.

 

[Storm]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Willamena]

I disagree. Eugenics is basically just animal breeding with people...

"I am Spartan!"

 

[lilithu]

Well, the easiest example is the philosophy/ theory of eugenics, which is, in my estimation, profoundly immoral. It's based completely on evolution.

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.

I agree that true evolutionary theory has profound moral ramifications, but eugenics isn't one of them. Evolution tells us that all living creatures are related to each other, and that no species is superior to another. Most religions, otoh, puts humanity at the pinnacle of whatever hierarchy it creates. What to do when you thought that you were created above all other animals and just a little below the angels, and you find out that you are related not only to monkeys but to slugs and roaches as well.

 

[Storm]

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.

It's about guiding evolution, in my understanding.

I think evolution has theological implications, and I wonder if that isn't the real problem.

Uncontested. But the theological ramifications have moral ramifications.

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.

You know, I'm going to abandon the eugenics example and go with a variation on this.

Your grandmother's solution aside, this one theological upset has various moral ramifications. Are souls unique to humans? If not, how does this revelation affect the morality of how we treat animals? Is a soul something you either have or don't, or is it something that evolves gradually? How do we know which species have souls, and what moral consideration should such species be given?

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.

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 suspect the real problems are theological, not moral,

I don't think the theological problems can be separated from the moral.

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.

I think that's a fair assessment of why many religious folks reject ToE. (Don't get me started on LIteralism )

Obviously, you can believe in evolution and in god. You can believe in evolution and be a moral person.

Did I imply otherwise? :sorry1:

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.

Sad but true.

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.

No, it isn't, but I would say it's another ramification.

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.