Secularism the political motivation for evolutionism

[AirPo]

People who do not understand evolution like very much to use the implication of evolution for all other purposes. Evolution is a very convenient theoretical base for their misconduct.

QED

For example, I hate you and like to kill you. My theoretical base for that action is: I need to survive.

 

[AirPo]

http://www.allaboutworldview.org/secular-worldview.htm

I find in this description of secularism all that I need to understand why evolutionism is still there, in spite of its lack of consistency with scientific data:

Secular Science – Neo-Darwinian Evolution
The theory of Neo-Darwinism purports that natural selection acts on genetic variations within individuals in populations and that mutations (especially random copying errors in DNA) provide the main source of these variations. Because positive mutations seem to be rare, Neo-Darwinism contends that evolution will be a slow, gradual process. Without naturalistic evolution, there is no Secular Worldview. Anything else would demand a Creator, which would mean that man is not the source of all things. Secular Humanists believe that science has proven the theory of evolution to the extent that it is no longer a theory but a scientific fact. According to this “fact,” man is the most highly evolved of all creatures, and is now responsible for directing and aiding the evolutionary process.​

Of particular interest to me in this description is of course the phrase: "Without naturalistic evolution, there is no Secular Worldview. Anything else would demand a Creator, which would mean that man is not the source of all things."

So, the idea of evolutionism is growing, because anything else would mean that there is a God, and that people would have to investigate the major world religions for an answer to who God is.

Best regards, Peter

Is this a SCIgen?

 

[DogmaHunter]

People who do not understand evolution like very much to use the implication of evolution for all other purposes. Evolution is a very convenient theoretical base for their misconduct.

For example, I hate you and like to kill you. My theoretical base for that action is: I need to survive.

That makes no sense at all.

In fact, it seems like a mega-pathetic passive aggressive attempt at making "evolutionst" look like baby-eating devil worshippers.

 

[juvenissun]

That makes no sense at all.

In fact, it seems like a mega-pathetic passive aggressive attempt at making "evolutionst" look like baby-eating devil worshippers.

Male lions do kill their cubs. Is that included as a behavior of evolution?

 

[Jimmy D]

Male lions do kill their cubs. Is that included as a behavior of evolution?

A nonsensical question that only deserves a nonsensical response.....

Male lions do kill their cubs. Is it included as part of God's plan?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Male lions do kill their cubs. Is that included as a behavior of evolution?

Avalanches do bury and kill people. Is that included as a behavior of gravity?

Just because something *is* so, does not mean that it is desirable or moral. Evolution and gravity can help explain these things that do, in fact, happen, whether we have an explanation for them or not.

(male lions typically kill cubs sired by *other* male lions, not their own.)

 

[juvenissun]

A nonsensical question that only deserves a nonsensical response.....

Male lions do kill their cubs. Is it included as part of God's plan?

I can say no to your question. And you do not know how to argue about it.
But I can defend my question with good argument.

That is a big difference.

 

[juvenissun]

Avalanches do bury and kill people. Is that included as a behavior of gravity?

Just because something *is* so, does not mean that it is desirable or moral. Evolution and gravity can help explain these things that do, in fact, happen, whether we have an explanation for them or not.

(male lions typically kill cubs sired by *other* male lions, not their own.)

Yes. That is an action based on the principle of evolution.
Gravity is not comparable to evolution. Your analogy is not good.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes. That is an action based on the principle of evolution.
Gravity is not comparable to evolution. Your analogy is not good.

Actually, it's a great analogy. But so be it. Clearly lions are not aware of the principle of evolution. Therefore, if their actions are based on evolution, this must be because evolution is true.

 

[juvenissun]

Actually, it's a great analogy. But so be it. Clearly lions are not aware of the principle of evolution. Therefore, if their actions are based on evolution, this must be because evolution is true.

No individual who acted along a way of evolution is aware of following the principle of evolution. Lion is. We are too.

True or not is another issue. Any principle can be applied on something. This thread is about the applicability of evolution. I say: they are all pretty BAD applications. Love, as defined in the I Cor. 13, is anti-evolutional, for example.

 

[: D]

ok I thought this was a serious forum.
Thanks for all your answers
best regards, Peter

yeah,I made that wrong assumption as well.
serious adult debate can be found elsewhere luckily.

: )

 

[DogmaHunter]

No individual who acted along a way of evolution is aware of following the principle of evolution. Lion is. We are too.

True or not is another issue. Any principle can be applied on something. This thread is about the applicability of evolution. I say: they are all pretty BAD applications. Love, as defined in the I Cor. 13, is anti-evolutional, for example.

Love promotes the protection of loved ones and thus increases survival chances of those loved ones.

In any case, nothing you said is an actual argument against the science of evolutionary biology.

 

[juvenissun]

Love promotes the protection of loved ones and thus increases survival chances of those loved ones.

In any case, nothing you said is an actual argument against the science of evolutionary biology.

No one is talking about science in this thread.

 

[ecco]

PeterDona said: ↑
ok I thought this was a serious forum.
Thanks for all your answers
best regards, Peter

yeah,I made that wrong assumption as well.
serious adult debate can be found elsewhere luckily.

Awww.

 

[ecco]

No one is talking about science in this thread.

Perhaps because the OP started with a quote about evolution from a fundamentalist religious site that does not believe in the science of evolution.

http://www.allaboutworldview.org/secular-worldview.htm

 

[juvenissun]

Perhaps because the OP started with a quote about evolution from a fundamentalist religious site that does not believe in the science of evolution.

http://www.allaboutworldview.org/secular-worldview.htm

Your mind is not clear.

Science is science. Everyone will appreciate methods used in science (logic) and will recognize data of science.
Interpretation of scientific data is up to individual preference. When do interpretation, non-scientific idea is very commonly made.

In this thread, we try to apply science. That would make anything go.
My argument: Any application of evolution can only be BAD!

 

[lesliedellow]

The political motivation for "evolutionism" is not to have a population which is scientifically ignorant.

 

[Armoured]

My argument: Any application of evolution can only be BAD!

So, like, vaccines, pandemic control, selective breeding?

 

[VirOptimus]

Your mind is not clear.

Science is science. Everyone will appreciate methods used in science (logic) and will recognize data of science.
Interpretation of scientific data is up to individual preference. When do interpretation, non-scientific idea is very commonly made.

In this thread, we try to apply science. That would make anything go.
My argument: Any application of evolution can only be BAD!

What exactly is "an application of evolution"?

 

[ecco]

Your mind is not clear.

On what did you base that comment?

Science is science.

I agree. What's your point?

Everyone will appreciate methods used in science (logic) and will recognize data of science.

Not everyone. Certainly not you.

Interpretation of scientific data is up to individual preference. When do interpretation, non-scientific idea is very commonly made.

I have no idea what that means.

In this thread, we try to apply science. That would make anything go.
My argument: Any application of evolution can only be BAD!

Your argument "Any application of evolution can only be BAD!", clearly shows that you do not believe what you wrote "Everyone will appreciate methods used in science (logic) and will recognize data of science."