I have a question or two about evolutionist ideology

I don't know anything about it, so can't give you an answer.

Neither.

Yes.

No. I don't see why anyone shouldn't be allowed to have children.. I do favor it for sexual criminals though.

Derogatory?

Slanderous?

You were also balking at someone else on another thread for referring to evolutionists as evos for short.

So tell me who coined the term cweationist?

Just curious. My memory is foggy.

reply to post by AshleyD

---

I did. Once. *Edit to add: twice, actually*

That is to say, I used that spelling in a post written largely in baby-talk. *Edit to add: two posts, actually.*

Now that we've got that out of the way, can we return to the original thread topic? I'm interested in it.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by sacerd

---

1. Darwin himself didn't approve of social darwinism, and you'd be very hard pushed to find a scientist who understands the evidence in support of evolution (ie a supporter of evolution) who approves of social darwinism. Social darwinism is not evolution.

2. Of course. Because the strengths of humanity are not determined by the health of an individual. Look at Stephen Hawking - one of the most intelligent people on the planet, but by the logic you're suggesting, we'd have to throw him off a cliff. Obviously we'd miss out on a lot of insight and reasoning.

3. Nope. Eugenics is not evolution. I don't want anyone to be killed or neutered because they don't fit in to some arbitrary category. Heck, I don't want anyone killed at all.

4. No. Why should we?

You seem to misunderstand what "fit" means when Darwin talked about it. It doesn't mean physical or mental strength, but suitability to their environment. Modern civilisation is indeed very well suited towards disabled people, containing many mechanisms (both medical and social) for the rehabilitation of many, so killing them is the antithesis of evolution.

The problem I have with the evolution theory is that there is no proof of species evolving into other species. All we have is the slight evolution and adaptations of within specific species and not the evolution from one species to another. If everything supposedly evolved from walking fish, where are all the fossils supporting this theory?

reply to post by sacerd

---

Well, first off, let's get something straight: evolution is NOT an ideology. Using such terms in your title is simply an attempt to irritate people on the board. If you really want people to give you honest answers to your questions, you might want to start by not insulting their intelligence...

J.

reply to post by WhatTheory

---

They're everywhere!! Museums are stuffed to the roofs with fossils that prove evolution. What you don't seem to comprehend is the VAST amounts of time that have passed on this planet since those 'walking fish'. In fact, there are LIVING walking fish on this planet right now - living fossils that prove evolution is correct.

J.

I wouldn't sweat it Ash, I have seen them call us "Fundie" and "xian" in just the way "asty" is explaining in his post.

-Con

Ya know what they call the species today that evolved from the walking fish millions of years ago?

Walking Fish thats what.

jeeez

- Con

mmm too bad.

Yeah,, I know, it used to bother me too when I was troubled by it but after my nice kind sweet Caring Christian efforts were rebuffed by "them" long enough and hard enough, was enlightened to the fact that it is just like that. Us vs Them.




Can't argue that but their is a distinct difference in our basis for morality and theirs is subjectivism where ours is not.




Yes it says that but that isn't what it means unless you read the entire passage but Ill spare you the Bible thumping and just over look the attempt to manipulate me with scripture as a means to back off my examination of this subject.




Another words you are going to see it that way whether I was or not.
All I said was that I was not surprised by it, that isn't judgemental, that is my experience with people. I may or may not agree with him but I like his style.www.abovetopsecret.com...



First let me make this clear, I AM Important and if no one else thinks so I may as well, if that troubles you than you ought to try thinking of yourself as more important and not seek the approval of those who might impose their toxic shame on you for doing so.

Secondly, adding a lot or pretentiousness and sugar coated ad-hom is not my kind of style as it gives me sugar diabetes when ever I see that kind of disengenuous style of post. I see right through it just as I have seen through those Ashley has exploited in Astyanax's posts.

If I look like I am discriminating to you it is because I am a discriminating kind of guy.



Sounds like the same argument I use when telling "them" they don't have a monopoly on Science.

- Con

No, they are not everywhere. Show me the fossil of the previous species from which the horse evolved or from which the cow evolved? In fact, it is a theory for good reason and that is because there are HUGE holes.


Sorry, but that proves just the opposite. If it evolved then why is it still in the same form as it was millions of years ago. It should not exist if evolution were true right?

[edit on 2-6-2008 by WhatTheory]

You may wish to read this thread to see my opinion on these threads. In fact, posting here, I think I might actually contradict my own opinion but noone's read it so I'm spreading the word...

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

No. "Social darwinism" has used theories and facts from Evolution as a catalyst to put forward a definition of how evolution might work in human society. However, because we reconstruct our environment to keep us safe/warm/protected/healthy we have literally ended the possiblilty of any major advances/mutations ourselves as our social structures almost remove completely the need for "survival of the fittest".

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

No, I favour no particular charities. I donate to charities for the homeless, the blind and third world aid charities. When I choose a charity thoughts of "evolution" never enter my mind!!

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

Personally, I find eugenics abhorrent. For example, I believe that genetic alteration to human embryos "to increase their chances of success" is the modern form of eugenics. The source of my disgust is that it will ultimately seperated humans into two or more groups. What will drive the seperation? Wealth. This means that the already priviledged have practiced a form of eugenics before they've even touched a single embryo. Perhaps wealth and poverty is eugenics.

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?

Again, these practices have no direct link to the theory of evolution. They are ideas perhaps inspired by its concepts but they were certainly not encouraged by it. If anything euthanasia is a bid to end someones suffering with their consent. They are only suffering because modern medicine can keep them in their state of suffering. A hundred years ago they would have died much more quickly and with a lot less pain.
Sterilization is pretty nasty. I sometimes consider that some parents are not fit to bring up children (perhaps they are drug addicts, violent, habitual criminals, anti-social, or just aren't good rolemodels in general) and wonder (in a flash of anger) if they should have been sterilised!!, but again, people can change and overcome their shortcomings, feel remorse for their crimes and therefore their mutilation would be morally wrong.

Finally, I'd like to make this clear: I don't "believe" in evolution. I accept it as a reasonable and credible arguement as to how the natural world became so beautiful and near-infinitely varied. It is not an ideology, it is just what people percieved with their own eyes and in 100+ years someone has yet to put forward a better explaination or disprove it.

Social Darwinism and eugenics is totally flawed. For one thing "wealth" has a lot to do with luck rather than some sort of natural selection. Also a person in no way has the right or the knowledge to carry out eugenics. One cannot say how a person would live by certain traits that some authority decides are important because again someones life is greatly determined by the lottery of birth (luck). Much of eugenics was about getting rid of the "ignorant" and this was a classist thing because these ignorant people were also poor, people who couldn't afford an education.

People who think evolution and social darwnisim are related are ignorant. Social darwinism is a flawed idea and simply an excuse for people who are better off to ignore any responsibility they may have for others.

Charity is important. Human society is based on social networks and helping each other, helping people is the way we build connections; it's an investment and ensures that those helping will one day be helped back.

First off lets get this straight.
Do not presume to tell me what my intentions were when making this thread. Show me one time where I have insulted someone for stating their opinion. If you have followed this thread you will have noticed why I started this thread. A deliberate attempt to create hard feelings would not likely produce the desired result of the honest answers that I seek from people who choose to adopt the theory evolution as the origin of man.

It is too bad that you have chosen the avenue of attacking me for using a term that I did not knowingly think people would find offensive, and thereby assume the worst, when most of your peers in this subject took the high road and informed me that they took offense to the term without accusing me of attempting deliberate insult.
Perhaps you should follow their example.

Well, now that the thread has sunk to namecalling, I'd like to apologize to the OP. Most Cristians and most evolutionists are not stuck on words like this. The people you see here arguing are part of the reason we have as many problem in the world today. Can't aggree, can't aggree to disagree. Can't help but make sure to shove their point as far as they can.
Frankly it's embarrasing to the rest of the people who are good about getting along.
I'm not an athiest, but I aggree with evelution so far, though I'm willing to bet it'll be fine tuned, maybe even changed as time goes on. Creationists have as much of a right to believe their point of view and prove it as I do. It's not unheard of for Creationist and Evolutionist scientists working together or as proffesional (read friendly) rivals. It happens. The problems are the "Fundies" and "Darwinists" who KNOW for a FACT they are right and the rest are idiots.
Anyway, that's my spare change in two pennies, I'll hand the loud ones back their soapbox.

There is no such thing as a "Darwinist" or "Evolutionist". Evolution is not an ideology like creationism. Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY based on TONS UPON TONS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. It is not something that is even up for debate in the scientific community. Calling it an ideology is insulting to the men and women who dedicate their lives to science and the scientific method.

Asking somebody who accepts evolution for the fact that it is about morals is just as relevant as asking construction workers about their favorite color and if they think rape is ok. Who are you trying to fool?

Greetings.

Scientists use the word 'theory' differently than how it's used in English. In English, it is close to the word 'hypothesis', whereas in scientific use, it means a working model.

Also, please understand that 'Darwinist' and 'evolutionist' implies a belief system, like communist or Methodist (my flavor). This is quite different from 'scientist' and scientific use, so you'll hear creationists use these words more often than scientists.

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

It's apples and oranges. Some of the rules MAY apply, but it would have to be scientifically evaluated within an entirely different discipline. Sociology is a 'soft' science, which has different ways of studying and dealing with ambiguities.

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

Of course. Why wouldn't they? Science has introduced aids to help the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the lame to walk. While still in its infancy, medical scientists are seeking ways to help the mentally handicapped and distressed.

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

You're not suggesting euthanizing creationists, are you? No, scientists do not advocate anything like a nightmarish socio-political agenda. In fact, a number of scientists, writers, and organizations have spoken out against these racist ideas. Why not, you ask? Because it's inhuman and inhumane.

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?

Same reason as above. The purpose of science is to bring knowledge and benefit to mankind.

I expect you're questioning the information that appeared in the movie Expelled, which blamed science for communism, Nazism, and Paris Hilton. Frankly, I was shocked how dishonest Expelled was. In one part, there's a few sentences by Charles Darwin picked out of a larger statement. If you read the entire quotation, you realize that Darwin was saying the opposite of what the movie tried to imply. Darwin was advocating care of the ill-favored.

Here's an article along with comments you might appreciate:
criminalbrief.com...

If evolution is true than it stands to reason why Dawkins speaks about it as if it too has been a part of our evolutionary development so, yes it has a LOT to do with it.

As for your "TONS and TONS" of evidence,,, This is the same chant we hear all the time. "Mountain of evidence" "Tons and Tons" yet you couldn't show me an ounce of proof for macro evolution without it being as large a part of speculation and subjective opinion as if I tried showing you evidence of God and BOTH require faith but I doubt you'd admit that.


- Con

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

IST:
The suffix -ist is a suffix which is added at the end of a noun which corresponds to those verbs which end in the suffix -ise (which is spelt in American English as the suffix -ize) or those nouns which end in the suffix -ism. The suffix -ist is used to denote a person who either practices something or a person who is concerned with something or a person who holds certain principles, doctrines, etc.

For example, a person who apologizes is known as an apologist, a person who writes plays is known as a dramatist, a person who works on a machine is known as a machinist, a person who believes in realism is known as a realist, a person who believes in socialism is known as a socialist, a person who believes in capitalism is known as a capitalist and a person who believes in communism is known as a communist.

Hence Darwinist or Creationist.

Ideology:
1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
3. Philosophy.
a. the study of the nature andorigin of ideas.
b. a system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.
4. theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.

Hence ideology.

Now can we stop accusing me?