I have a question or two about evolutionist ideology

I have a question about evolutionist ideology, and this is NOT an attack or any such thing.
To those who espouse the theory of evolution and or natural selection could you please answer a few questions?

1.) Do the Darwinist on this site, tend to also favor the ideas of social Darwinism as well? If not why?

2.) Do the Darwinists or evolutionist on this site tend to favor charity of the physically or mentally disabled? If so why?

3.) Do the Darwinist or evolutionist on this site tend to favor eugenics? if not why?

4.) Do the Darwinist or evolutionist on this site tend to favor forced sterilization or euthanasia, of the less fit specimens of the human race either mentally or physically? If not why?

I respectfully recomend that you read a good informative book about the theory of evolution, I recommend 'Climbing Mount Improbable' by Richard Dawkins.
Evolution is not a social theory, not a way of life or a moral philosophy, it is an explanation of the way life has diversified. That's what it is.That's all it is.
It is a 'sceintific theory' this means that it is a detailed, logical constuct that describes the known proven facts. Oh yes and there's probably more proof of this theory than any other, there's certainly more known about evolution than gravity.
You would be on safer ground questioning the present theory of gravitation.
Have you got any questions for the 'social gravitists'....do the 'social gravitists' favour charity towards the physically or mentally disabled?
What's so immoral about the truth? What's so immoral about the way that life perpetuates itself?...They are not rhetorical questions...think and answer them, I challenge you to deny ignorance on this matter.

If anyone has told you that the theory of evolution means anything other than this they are probably lying to you for their own ends.

I understand that evolution is not a way of life or moral philosophy, but I am asking evolutionist to answer questions about philosophy.

I really could not speak as to its evolutions validity in comparison to other scientific disciplines. (I would imagine it is comparing apples to oranges.)

No, I don't have any questions for those who are "gravitist" simply because the ideas behind gravity is not a theory that that claims that things without morals (animals) turn into things with morals.

When did I claim that the "truth" is immoral?

I would challenge you to answer the questions LOL.



[edit on 04/13/2008 by sacerd]

Why do you want such specific questions answered by this percieved group of people, be more open yourself, answer your own questions first, where do YOU stand on these things, state why, state what you think it has has to do with evolutionary theory and maybe you would get more responses to your thread.
you state that the theory of evolution claims to give rise to something with morals where there where none? Why do you think that this even a logical question? Why is it relevant? Are you prepared to state an 'ideal moral doctrine'...so perfect that it cannot be challenged? Do yoou think evolution has given rise (evolved) a moral doctrine? If so state how a mechanism of cause and effect that evolution is can give rise to a philosophical position. I ask once more...what have morals got to do with the mechanisms life has to perpetuate? Why do you think evolution has anthing at all to do with morals?..any more than gravity?

Do you mean survival of the fittest then? ToE has evolved quite alot since Darwin's time.. and we don't all share the same ideologies. Many christians and other religions accept ToE as well.

Yes.. why wouldn't we? I know you said you're not attacking but there's alot of negative presumption about us in your questions. Accepting ToE as fact does not make us heartless monsters willing to force the severly disabled fend for themselves..

Only for serious or life threatening genetic abnormalities that will cause them great suffering. If it aint broke don't fix it.

The question is extreamily offensive to me. You are basically asking "Do you approve of maiming or killing people just because they aren't as fit?"

No.

So.. before starting this thread did you assume all "darwinists" hated the disabled, the weak and the sick so much so that we'd want them killed or rendered sterile so they didn't hold back the species? Thats not an attack at all btw..

[edit on 1-6-2008 by riley]

"So.. before starting this thread did you assume all "darwinists" hated the disabled, the weak and the sick so much so that we'd want them killed or rendered sterile so they didn't hold back the species? Thats not an attack at all btw.. "

Absolutely not as a matter of fact I expected quite the opposite. I assumed two things when I made this thread,

1.) People would answer questions honestly and in accordance to what would be best for the species based on their world view on how things are. Apparently I was wrong.

2.) That people would feel that we should help the needy and the disabled to the best of our ability.

Its really too bad that people are so defensive. I really did not think that a few questions would be so hard to answer I guess I was wrong. So much for honest debate.

As far as how I view things. (As if anyone cares.)
Yes I think we should help the disabled.
No I don't like the idea of euthanasia or forced sterilization.
I am not a social Darwinist.

So that people know (although it contaminates my study so this thread has basically lost its purpose.) I have a theory that I wanted tested. Too bad the results would have been interesting.

[edit on 04/13/2008 by sacerd]

I did answer honesty in accordence with my world view.. you are the one that presumed 'darwinists' would answer based on 'whats best for the species'. [btw. what is best for the species would not be killing anyone who's not perfect.]

Yeah right.. if that were true you would not have asked us whether we believed they should be sterilised or killed for being unfit. Nice bit of backtracking there..

..or that you were so offensive. Causality.

I answered them honestly.

A social darwinist would not have ex. stephen hawkings euthanised anyway. Your argument is illogical.

You said:

I accepted your challenge and you got results.. just because you didn't like my answers doesn't mean your "study" is contaminated.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by riley]

reply to post by riley

---

You presume to much,

Issue 1.
"I did answer honesty in accordence with my world view.. you are the one that presumed 'darwinists' would answer based on 'whats best for the species'. [btw. what is best for the species would not be killing anyone who's not perfect.]"

When did I say Darwinist would answer on whats best for the species?

Issue 2
"Yeah right.. if that were true you would not have asked us whether we believed they should be sterilised or killed for being unfit. Nice bit of backtracking there.. "

Again when did I say that?

Issue 3
"..or that you were so offensive. Causality."

That is just silly.

Issue 4
"I answered them and was honest."

Never said that you were not. You are the only one who even attempted to answer the questions. Again dont assume I am out to get one over on you. Jeesh I know its a conspiracy site but really...

Issue 5
"A social darwinist would not have stephen hawing euthanised anyway. You argument is illogical."

When did I mention Stephen Hawking? And as too what a social Darwinist would or would not do is a matter of debate unless you speak for all Social Darwinist.
Of course you don't that is why I was asking for multiple answers so that I can do a little statistical work.

Issue 6
I accepted your challenge and you got results.. just because you didn't like my answers that doesn't make your "study" contaminated.

That was in response to TonyJ who said...
"Why do you want such specific questions answered by this percieved group of people..."

By answering the question that was posed to me I let people in on the fact that their response will be "calculated" and as such people tend to tread more carefully when they proceed to answer the questions posed. This has been the bane of consumer surveys for years.
Do not ever presume to know me or my motivations. It would serve you well not to presume to dictate to me what answers I do or do not want to hear. Without knowing me or my methods you make yourself a fool when you presume things which you have no evidence to support.




[edit on 04/13/2008 by sacerd]

Hey, Sacred. Interesting thread. You ask a lot of good questions. Starred and flagged. Let's see how this turns out.

From what I've read there is a difference between evolution (a scientific view held by both many religious and non-religious people) and Darwinism (materialistic philosophical view that incorporates evolution). Not sure how many full fledged Darwinists or Neo-Darwinists we have on this site but the answers should be interesting.

And don't worry about the accusations of offending anyone. Religious beliefs and various world views are questioned all the time on ATS so questioning Darwinist philosophy is perfectly acceptable. We won't learn if we don't ask, right?

I'm interested in learning more about what they believe concerning these matters. Thanks for posting.

[edit on 6/1/2008 by AshleyD]

Thanks ashley

You see what I am trying to do here is assume the best in people because that is how I want to view them.
Granted, I am a creationist but I do not think that a belief in evolution makes Darwinist or Evolutionist "Bad People."
My theory was that Darwinist and Evolutionist would indeed approve of the idea of Charity and the preservation of life as a general rule, even if it is not in the best interest of the species. (on the genetic level anyway).
In my opinion this is because God has given people the ability of compassion, reason, love and self sacrifice. I am sorry that it is assumed that I think the worst of people.
Of course I had no intention of releasing my theory on this, in this thread in attempt to avoid all the nastiness and accusations that unfortunately occurred in this thread.
I suppose I presumed to much.

[edit on 04/13/2008 by sacerd]

It's HIS thread guy, he can make it the way he wants with the provisions he wants. My question to you is who are YOU to tell him how he should make his thread and what questions he should ask. Who are YOU to ask what his motives are for asking are. Who arer YOU to make such demands and end your post not answering a single one of his questions while asking your own and expecting an answer.

- Con

Jeez this is so full of disclaimers and pre- rehearsed answers to anticipated questions it is hilarious. I especially like the part about more data to substantiate it as fact than any other theory even gravity!

That's because Atheists can't manufacture that kind of evidence but more than that is the reason they don't have to for gravity is because

EVERYONE BELIEVES IN GRAVITY

Evolution is for Atheists

not realists

- Con


[edit on 1-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

I'll answer these unbiased by not reading the others.


No. Social Darwinism ideology is ignorant of human genetics and an abuse of the science for political gains. The genetic difference between human "races" is so small as to not, in the eyes of a biologist, render them separate biological races.


Yes, because empathy drives my values/morality, not perceived supervision and fear of punishment from a god. As far as mental abilities go, I would very much like to see similar charity of those on the opposite of the spectrum: those so intelligent or otherwise endowed that they are similarly detached from the average human. People are so quick to sympathize with mentally disabled people, but those on the other side of the spectrum recieve none.

As far a physical disabilities, of course they should be given charity. Inborn disabilities for the same reason as above, and aquired disabilities (eg., getting hit by a truck) don't represent genetic "inferiority" anyways.


No. Again, emapthy. Also because the human race would be miserably dull if they were "bred" towards some "ideal".


No. for the third time now, empathy drives my values and morality.

reply to post by SlyCM

---

Thanks for the response.
This is exactly what I was looking for.


[edit on 04/13/2008 by sacerd]

No, I don't think that covers it guy. Empathy is something you do to identify with a persons plight or vicariously attempt to experience what they do so the question you answer splicing empathy in between your morality and your motivation is incomplete as their must also be a motive for you to be empathetic in the first place so what would make you want to do that?

- Con

ok, I`ll play...

1) No. The "Darwin" in Social Darwinisim is a metaphor - it has very little, if anything to do with evolutionary theory. The two aren't really related.

2) I tend to favour charity in general, but I place no particular emphasis on physical or mental disability.

3) I'm fairly opposed to Eugenics in general, mainly because the reasons for carrying out eugenics programs tend to be political. In application, they represent xenophobia, while denying the rights of the individual. I don't see the value.

4) Is this not simply a re-iteration of question 3? Most official Eugenics programs - Canada's springs to mind - certainly fits this description. See answer #3.



[edit on 2-6-2008 by vox2442]

Empathy drives my morality because I can imagine and vicariously feel, say, how much pain a man or woman would be in knowing that society deemed them "unfit" to bear children. I wouldn't want to experience this myself, so I do not endorse the process. No god is needed for this behaviour. It's the golden rule, my friend.

Also, one can imagine an evolutionary reason for behaving empathetically: to avoid revenge. As to why I apply similar behaviour in all circumstances, that's easy: my human intelligence can cognate and rationalize this behaviour.

Lastly, why are you questioning my reason to... be nice to living things? The strangeness and hypocracy of that I cannot summarize.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by SlyCM]

Richard Dawkins, the zoo keeper high priest proselytizer for atheistic materialism, supports human breeding programs. This is what Dawkins wrote in "Eugenics May Not Be Bad" in Scotland's Sunday Herald.

www.sundayherald.com...

So let's breed a super race of Darwinists while we're at it. We can mix Dawkins' DNA with Christopher Hitchen's and birth an alcoholic monkey cage cleaner. The answer to such poisonous ideas is every human being has equal moral value because they are alive. "Inalienable rights endowed by our creator" is the philosophy of the USA. The way people justify eugenics is to dehumanize the subjects. Christianity does not allow for this. Darwinism does. Without a God the default atheist position is that rights are defined by the opinions of men. Hence men can take them.





[edit on 6/2/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Yeah if that were true, we wouldnt need infomercials showing starving kids to motivate us to send money to the hungry. For the most part even that doesn't get many to do the right thing but I guess they haven't heard about your evolutionary reason for doing it.

I wasn't questioning anything I was suggesting your last answer was incomplete as it is still.

- Con

Bigwhammy -

I'm not going to bother quoting your post, because at this point it looks like you've changed it substantially at least 4 times now - every time I think about it, and come back to reply, you've edited it again. A little less knee jerk, perhaps?

I'll just point out that the USA was pretty much THE leader in the Eugenics movement in the 1920s, when it emerged, and that forced - or coerced - sterilizations continued well into the 1960s. Eugenics as an official government policy was not born in Hitler's Germany - it's rooted in the USA.