It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I have a question or two about evolutionist ideology

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Several people in this thread would do well to back up and remember that the scientific community still regards evolution as a theory. True, it's different in meaning than the common one we use, but it's not a law.
It has evidence to support it, yes.
For creationists, their is evidence to support their ideas to, some of it is the same used by evolutionary scientists.




posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   


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.
How can you possibly know that animals dont have morals, I would say that in fact animals have a better sense of morality than humans do.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by sacerd
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?
First of all, believing in Evolution does not in any way equate to believing in Darwinism. Believing in evolution has no bearing on moral philosophies. This line of questioning leads me to believe that you have some gross misconceptions about people who believe in evolution. Evolution is simply a theory on how life came about on our planet. It doesn't have any social implications, nor is it an ideology. Some people may use evolution is a platform for their own ideas, but at that point evolution is irrelevant when describing someones political/social/philosophical leanings. But I will indulge you:

1:N/A because I'm not into Darwinism. I am an ATheist AND believer in Evolution.

2
uh, people less fortunate than ourselves by no fault of their own should get some help if possible.

3:No.What kind of maniac would be interested in that kind of crap?

4:Uh...no. Again, what kind of maniac is into this kind of crap?

OK, so as an Atheist and believer in Evolution, where do I fit into your preconceived notions?



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Gigatronix
 


I understand that not everyone who believes in evolution as the origin as man has the exact same beliefs.
What I am asking is how individuals who believe in the theory of evolution feel about the topics asked about.
In addition I am not claiming that people who believe in the theory of evolution have a corrupt moral code either. I think maybe you misunderstand my stance or my motivation for the thread.

[edit on 04/13/2008 by sacerd]

[edit on 04/13/2008 by sacerd]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by sacerd
 
I understand that, but it seems as though you are making a direct correlation between Darwinism,eugenics, and evolution. There is none. WHy not ask if Christians support these views? Or Wiccans? There is about the same relevancy.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I think the OP raises some good questions, but they are very unfair. I think that the OP presumes that people who accept the ToE are doing so at the expense of their humanity, and i presume this from the nature of the questions. Science strives to ask very specific questions, it is specialised and so is a concentrated view of precise systems or features of nature and the universe. Religion/morality/ethics are not, they are a frame work which provide a person with a broad platform on which to perceive, explain and relate to the world, a world which includes science and theory of evolution.

This is why i think your questions are unfair. Biased and provoking, but not in a thoughtful way.




[edit on 3-6-2008 by atlasastro]

[edit on 3-6-2008 by atlasastro]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix
WHy not ask if Christians support these views? Or Wiccans? There is about the same relevancy.


I am Catholic, I believe in evolution and I support eugenics. These are questions made to the people who believe in evolution/darwinism, regardless of their religion. If you feel victimized by this questionnaire, at least it will comfort you to know that they also trouble some of the religious folks.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


This reply is to EVERYONE

I'll keep it simple. ATS is founded on the idea of denying ignorance. That said, even if any of you assume that the questions the OP posted fall somewhere within the realm of ignorance, you should at the very least be able to inform the OP of their "ignorance" in a civil manner. For the ATS community suffers when the focus of the thread turns from effective discussion to juvenile attacks.

True ignorance is when people egotistically launch nonconstructive assaults without (1) giving that person the benefit of the doubt and (2) honestly attempting to understand what that person is really saying - not necessarily focusing on what the words are, but on the idea they are trying to convey.

Maybe the person honestly is trying to clear up misconceptions about something because they have recognized that they are ignorant and have come to this forum to rid themselves of their ignorance? I don't know, call me crazy, but I think these threads would be ridiculously more effective if people would quit being ridiculous.

Leave the cheap shots for the playground and help improve the discussion quality of the thread.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by sacerd

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.

[edit on 04/13/2008 by sacerd]

My immediate response to this was that you are muck raking. Trying to stir up anti evolution passions shrouded in a thin veil of "honest debate"

You are being dishonest. This topic is dishonest, it should be ignored.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Howard the Dolphin
reply to post by atlasastro
 


This reply is to EVERYONE

I'll keep it simple. ATS is founded on the idea of denying ignorance. That said, even if any of you assume that the questions the OP posted fall somewhere within the realm of ignorance, you should at the very least be able to inform the OP of their "ignorance" in a civil manner. For the ATS community suffers when the focus of the thread turns from effective discussion to juvenile attacks.


Why would the OP ask such moral and ethical questions of people who accept a specific scientific model. It is safe to assume from those questions that the OP is questioning the morality and ethics of an individual purely because they accept a scientific theory. The OP obviously assumes that morality and ethics are affected by ToE otherwise he would not pose these questions. This is why it is unfair, as i previously state. Here are some quotes which pretty much express what i say in my first reply. Regarding science and religion. I thought it was fair to point out what the difference is with these especially regarding the OP's questions.

Sagan begins by acknowledging that religion irrevoccably permeates all cultures. In fact, it seems to be a functional social need. (8, p. 272) Its most beneficial function is its emotional power: "There is no question that religion provides a solace and support, a bulwark in times of emotional need, and can serve extremely useful social roles." (3, p. 289)

These "extremely useful social roles" are presumably providing ethics, leading social action, and so on. Science has little influence on this aspect of religion, except possibly to reduce the amount of human need and suffering.

www.detwiler.us...

science does not seek to know beings or their natures, but only the regularities of the changes that they undergo. Science seeks to know only how things work, not what things are and why


our remarkable science of nature has made enormous progress precisely by its decision to ignore the larger perennial questions about being, cause, purpose, inwardness, hierarchy, and the goodness or badness of things—questions that science happily gave over to philosophy, poetry, and religion.

www.manhattan-institute.org...
These quote directly relate to the OP's questions and i hope it is informative, perhaps i should have linked them to my first reply. If you believe that it is unfair to assume that the OP would specifically ask people who accept one scientific theory, these questions, is not loaded with bias or assumptions then so be it.


True ignorance is when people egotistically launch nonconstructive assaults without (1) giving that person the benefit of the doubt and (2) honestly attempting to understand what that person is really saying - not necessarily focusing on what the words are, but on the idea they are trying to convey.
And your reply is to attack replies and offer no input to the thread topic. Label replies infantile and ignoant, fueled only by the ego. And you know this how, you assume them from replies.


Maybe the person honestly is trying to clear up misconceptions about something because they have recognized that they are ignorant and have come to this forum to rid themselves of their ignorance?
Maybe if the OP replies we will find out. But you go on and assume and suppose for us what the OP's intentions/meanings are.


Leave the cheap shots for the playground and help improve the discussion quality of the thread.
Damn straight. The OP's questions are a cheap shot at people who accept ToE. You only assume otherwise.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by atlasastro]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by SlyCM

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



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


Interesting, slowly this thread is getting to the core. That was in essence what the question of the OP was about. What are the morals behind the reasoning of the evolutionist and where do they come from?

(By the way, I question the statement above that there must be a motive to be be empathetic, a cause YES, but that is not always a motive. A simple reason to be empathetic can be self-love. You feel the suffering that you see as something that happens to you.)

A lot of people think that morality, or ethics, the logic/theory or what ever your taste is for the mindframe behind ethics is proof that there must be a higher source that provides us with it and evaluates us with it.

It is everybodies good right to think so.

In western and eastern philosophy there are different ways to approach the subject and I think for most of us on this thread it would be usefull to read up a little. We tend to only formulate our thoughts along ways we are used to guided by our kins/local teachers and church or politicians.

A good divers book on Philosophical Ethics is the book with that title from Tom L. Beachamp. It is an introduction to moral philosophy and it gives great insight in all the different underlying paths of thought and tradition of thougth that we inherently use when we think about "good and evil".

There is lots to be said about all the different theories, be them normative, deontological, communitarian, virtue or utilitarian. I will not address them all here, but keep it a bit personal.

I could say i tend to be last, a utilitarianist, but then I also have or say that are different kinds of utilitarianists. The commonality between them is that the "rightness or the wrongness and practices is determined solely by their consequences; what makes an action morally right or wrong is the total good or evil it produces. This contention distinguishes utilitarianism from ethical theories maintaining that the act itself has moral value apart from the good or evil it produces."(p130). For instance the "good" of a war is determined by the endresult, not by the fact that making war (and all the victims it takes) is good or evil.

Now, I tend to disagree with the last example, because I see the deathtoll and suffering as a consequence itself and the act of killing. In this case the action IS the consequence. This means that using this or that theory does not automatically mean that you for or against a certain topic or action, it only says something about which theory you use to analyse our human behaviour. This you CAN reflect upon the subject matter of the OP. Believing in creation or evolution has no direct consequences for your thoughts or behaviour regarding the treatment of live and good or bad.
In the same way you can say that embodying a certain religion does not make all your actions good, as we know and feel at this day and age.

Personally I believe that most of our ethics are derived from practical lessons we got along the generations. As simple as keep yourself clean, only kill/rape and steal people that our not a member of our tribe. Only have sex with one designated partner etc. I (and some philosophers) think these rules of hand resulted in a ethical frame we now still use in the name of god or ideology. The practicality it once had to for instance only kill the neighbours is often lost during the passing of time and change of social structures.

Utilitarianism is often described as the Greatest Happiness Principle, because it tends to promote actions that make us happy, and denounce actions that reverse happiness or create pain. Epicurus "livestyle" (that was the first recorded embodyment of this philosophy) has been seen and attacked at that time in Greece as a degraded way of living ("like pigs"), only focussing on pleasurable things, that does not mean it is only for hedonists.
I for instance think it is important to maintain physical health and so I adjust my eating and drinking to it and do not go for immediate pleasure but for the result of a healthy physical body. In the the same manner I read and learn and try to grow in spirit, because I recognize the effects of meditation and energetical exercises. This means discipline, not for the higher good, but for the endresult, endriching my experience and completing my journey as a human being in this universe.

To answer the OP:
Although I support a lot of the result of Darwins research and the scientifically supporting facts that came up later, I do not regard myself as a "Darwinist" or creationalist. The matter is in the end undecided. Both could be partially true ore the whole matter could excede our mental abilities. Believing this or that is inconsequential.

I would answer your question in the manner that supports live and happiness.



[edit on 3-6-2008 by Pjotr]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by RuneSpider
 


i understand what you're saying Spider- we're kind of looking at it from 2 different perspectives though. I'm by no means saying that people who are handicapped are useless or don't "contribute" to society. . . I'm looking at it from a more morally warped position. I would not encourage them to have kids because i know it would be hard for their kids to deal with society; not the other way around.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Pjotr
 



Personally I believe that most of our ethics are derived from practical lessons we got along the generations. As simple as keep yourself clean, only kill/rape and steal people that our not a member of our tribe. Only have sex with one designated partner etc. I (and some philosophers) think these rules of hand resulted in a ethical frame we now still use in the name of god or ideology. The practicality it once had to for instance only kill the neighbours is often lost during the passing of time and change of social structures.


Hi Pjotr!

Darwinian thought completely fails to explain morality.

Sure we discover morality through utilitarian means but we do not create the morals. Right and wrong - Good and evil - just exist in our consciences. Again we only discover morality we do not create it. Darwinian systems do not explain why people will act against self interest because the feel they "ought" to do something.

Morality supersedes human opinion and it provable by sheer logic. By the doctrine of humanism there is no difference between Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa. Hitlers opinion - Mother Theresa's opinion - no good & evil - preference- chocolate & vanilla- just choose what suits you.

The Moral Law is an absolute objective standard of morality. You can not explain that in Darwinian terms. Here's an illustration:

1 ~~~~~~~~ 2 /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ which line is straighter?

The first (1) because it is closer to the absolute standard of a straight line which you know is this : _____________

Now if there was no absolute objective standard for straightness then the question would be meaningless.

This is exactly the same thing you do when you compare the behavior of Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler. You must appeal to an absolute moral standard: The Moral Law. How can one be better than another if you are not comparing both to a third item? The moment you say one set of moral ideas is better than another it is because you are comparing both to a standard. Just like the straight line.

If the moral law does not exist then there is no difference between the behavior of Hitler and Mother Theresa. It's just ones preference. Thank God we all know better! Because there is an objective standard, that standard is written on our hearts.

Thus, I have demonstrated by pure reason there has to be an oblective Moral Law.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Pjotr
 

I don't think morality is learned. Moral precepts are, but morality itself is instinctive, the result of millions of years of evolution as social animals. As I said in an earlier post on this thread, altruism, exchanges of favours and adherence to the golden rule are all evolved traits -- traits we share with other social animals, as a matter of fact.

Empathy, too, is instinctive, indeed hardwired -- we have 'mirror neurons' in our brains which mimic the firing of neurons in the brains of those we see performing a particular action.

Being nice to other members of our own species (but differentially, with those most closely related being treated best, and the most distantly related being treated worse) is entirely natural to us.

Moral precepts adjust instinctive morality to the needs of a given culture. That is why such precepts differ from place to place and from time to time. As humanity has become more numerous and more interdependent, human contacts, especially between very distantly-related individuals, have multiplied. This means that, in order to avoid incessant conflict and preserve society, the kind of behaviour we once reserved for close relatives must now be applied to strangers. Morality must become more inclusive in order for the human race to survive.

And there are signs that it is -- though perhaps not on this thread.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Howard the Dolphin
 


Very, very well said, Howard. Starred. The OP simply mixed up evolution as a scientific view (held by both religious and nonreligious people) when what he was interested in finding out is how individuals who adhere to a strictly naturalistic Darwinian philosophy [not only as a science but as their materialistic world view] would answer the original questions. I pointed this out to him on the first page so the attacks he is still facing are much ado about nothing. He has already been corrected and we should be able to move on now that it has been clarified. It was an honest mistake and he acknowledged it as such.

reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Aw, thanks Con. The term cweationist/cweationism really doesn't bother me at all considering the source. However, hopefully the point I was trying to make was understood.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   

First of all, believing in Evolution does not in any way equate to believing in Darwinism. Believing in evolution has no bearing on moral philosophies. This line of questioning leads me to believe that you have some gross misconceptions about people who believe in evolution. Evolution is simply a theory on how life came about on our planet. It doesn't have any social implications, nor is it an ideology. Some people may use evolution is a platform for their own ideas, but at that point evolution is irrelevant when describing someones political/social/philosophical leanings. But I will indulge you:

1:N/A because I'm not into Darwinism. I am an ATheist AND believer in Evolution.

2
uh, people less fortunate than ourselves by no fault of their own should get some help if possible.

3:No.What kind of maniac would be interested in that kind of crap?

4:Uh...no. Again, what kind of maniac is into this kind of crap?

OK, so as an Atheist and believer in Evolution, where do I fit into your preconceived notions?


To answer your questions three and four,
Darwins Cousin Sir Francis Galton
Alexander Graham Bell
Woodrow Wilson
Charles B Davenport
Henry H Goddard
Madison Grant
The US Supreme Court of 1927
William Graham Summer founder of the American Sociological Society (now called the American Sociological Association)
Margret Sanger (Founder of Planned Parenthood)
Winston Churchhill
H.G. Wells
Plato

From 1934 to until 1975, Sweden sterilized more than 62,000 people
In Canada, the eugenics movement took place early in the 20th century, particularly in Alberta. The Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta was enacted in 1928, focusing the movement on the sterilization of mentally deficient individuals, as determined by the Alberta Eugenics Board.

Basic a bunch of maniacs, who for some reason or another people look to for inspiration.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by sacerd
 


Is that supposed to mean something? Lunatics have always existed. Trying to equate what they did with Darwin or the Origin of Species is about as tenuous as tenuous can get.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


I believe it's called questions and an answer.

Questions:


3:No.What kind of maniac would be interested in that kind of crap?
4:Uh...no. Again, what kind of maniac is into this kind of crap?


Answer:



To answer your questions three and four,
Darwins Cousin Sir Francis Galton
Alexander Graham Bell
Woodrow Wilson
Charles B Davenport
Henry H Goddard
Madison Grant
The US Supreme Court of 1927
William Graham Summer founder of the American Sociological Society (now called the American Sociological Association)
Margret Sanger (Founder of Planned Parenthood)
Winston Churchhill
H.G. Wells
Plato

From 1934 to until 1975, Sweden sterilized more than 62,000 people
In Canada, the eugenics movement took place early in the 20th century, particularly in Alberta. The Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta was enacted in 1928, focusing the movement on the sterilization of mentally deficient individuals, as determined by the Alberta Eugenics Board.

Basic a bunch of maniacs, who for some reason or another people look to for inspiration.


I think it means those are the "kinds of maniacs that would be in that kind of crap".
Over thinking this one a bit?



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Pjotr
 

..................
Now if there was no absolute objective standard for straightness then the question would be meaningless.

This is exactly the same thing you do when you compare the behavior of Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler. You must appeal to an absolute moral standard: The Moral Law. How can one be better than another if you are not comparing both to a third item? The moment you say one set of moral ideas is better than another it is because you are comparing both to a standard. Just like the straight line.

If the moral law does not exist then there is no difference between the behavior of Hitler and Mother Theresa. It's just ones preference. Thank God we all know better! Because there is an objective standard, that standard is written on our hearts.

Thus, I have demonstrated by pure reason there has to be an oblective Moral Law.


Hi Bigwhammy,

Thank you for responding, but I don't think your demonstration is proof of anything. The fact that you recognize "some thing" as "some thing", be it a straight line or good or bad, does not make it "absolute". It only shows that it is impossible for you to trace it back or reduce it to another origin.

Some people think that they are able to reason their way to absolutes, and you are not in bad company, Kant did it to, when he thought he found "pure reason" in a priori features of our thought. I personally think that is not true and I lean more towards David Hume who concluded in his Treatis of Human Nature that there are only two certainties in this world, and that is that we have "impressions" (of our senses) and "realtions of ideas", and the rest is a combimation of the two. So no sure absolutes for him.

Mother Theresa and Hitler are good and bad in history and as such examples. For me they are one:a person who builds something positive (although I do not agree with her methods) and as such someone who tunes her energy in something beautiful (M.T), and on the other hand someone (Hitler) who destroys to build and does that so drastically that he creates a very dark energy around him which spreads around like a wildfire because people recognize something in it (you see, they thought they recognized soemthing good). The point is that also Hitler saw himself as an idealist striving for something good, he was an idealist with very wrong ideas about race and human nature. He lived very simple and was a vegatarian.

You see, there is a difference between the two indeed. Mother Theresa gave room to the needy and supported any live. Hitler just took room took live. I personally choose for the one that supports growth. And yes, it is opinion who you support, that is is the brave part of our existence, we may choose, but we have to suffer the consequences on a human and on an energetic level. So for me good and bad is the choice between UP and DOWN, I choose UP. As any polarity in our mind those are the abolutes of human thought. Plus/minus, up/down, good/bad.

But there is a difference in absolutes of human thought and that what is out there.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join