Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[sparow]

Is the theory of evolution really a theory; there are rules governing scientific theories and I wonder if scientists have bent the rules to accommodate the theory of evolution.

The most important part of the Theory of Evolution is the word theory. Evolution before Darwin was observations made in real time like caterpillars changing into butterflies rose buds changing into roses and tadpoles changing into frogs. Darwin’s theory is different because it is not observation but speculation about what happened billions of years ago.


The theory of evolution is used by the opponents of Christianity to ridicule the concept of creation so in the first place Christians are defensive. When the Pope say it looks like evolution may be true it is difficult to work out what he is talking about or why he would want to talk about it in the first place.


The theory of evolution is in the same category as the theory of homosex and both are outside of God’s ball park. The main feature of homosex that I can see is that they are born that way. I think there is a saying of Christ, ”Some men are born without testicles, other men castrate themselves for the kingdom of God sake.” Always men and women are required to be chased regardless of how they are born.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The Theory of Evolution is, like the Theory of Relativity, an amoral thing.

 

[lupusFati]

It doesn't seem like you understand what Science means when it says "theory".

Also, we're homosexuals, and we're people. So I'd advise you to treat us as such.

 

[lisah]

"Homosex, ball park, chased?"

Full Definition of CHASTE
1 : innocent of unlawful sexual intercourse
2 : celibate
3 : pure in thought and act : modest
4 a : severely simple in design or execution : austere <chaste classicism>
b : clean, spotless


Are you chaste?

 

[nebulaJP]

It doesn't seem like you understand what Science means when it says "theory".

Agreed. The Theory of Evolution is a not a "theory", it's a "scientific theory". Here is a little video that may help to clear up the confusion.

 

[lupusFati]

Agreed. The Theory of Evolution is a not a "theory", it's a "scientific theory". Here is a little video that may help to clear up the confusion.

Thanks. I only brought it up because I completely understand the mentality of thinking of it the way the OP seems to. I used to be like the OP.

But then I became informed. Not a dig at the OP, just saying I used to not know things. I guess it's a matter of semantics? I dunno.

 

[Received]

Is the theory of evolution really a theory; there are rules governing scientific theories and I wonder if scientists have bent the rules to accommodate the theory of evolution.

The most important part of the Theory of Evolution is the word theory. Evolution before Darwin was observations made in real time like caterpillars changing into butterflies rose buds changing into roses and tadpoles changing into frogs. Darwin’s theory is different because it is not observation but speculation about what happened billions of years ago.


The theory of evolution is used by the opponents of Christianity to ridicule the concept of creation so in the first place Christians are defensive. When the Pope say it looks like evolution may be true it is difficult to work out what he is talking about or why he would want to talk about it in the first place.


The theory of evolution is in the same category as the theory of homosex and both are outside of God’s ball park. The main feature of homosex that I can see is that they are born that way. I think there is a saying of Christ, ”Some men are born without testicles, other men castrate themselves for the kingdom of God sake.” Always men and women are required to be chased regardless of how they are born.

No reasonable person uses evolution to bash Christianity, but people do (with some justification) critique fundamentalism with evolution. Very reasonable theists and atheists would say it's actually ethically problematic for God to give the impression of fossils being much older than they are when they really aren't. Otherwise, unlike homosexuality (which fits within the category of ethics), evolution isn't an ethical matter; it's a question of truth.

 

[Skaloop]

The fact of evolution, as well as the scientific theory explaining the process of evolution, is neither moral or immoral, ethical or unethical. It just is.

And considering that most Christians accept the theory of evolution, and most people who accept the theory of evolution are Christians, it isn't used to bash Christianity.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Is the theory of evolution really a theory; there are rules governing scientific theories and I wonder if scientists have bent the rules to accommodate the theory of evolution.

The most important part of the Theory of Evolution is the word theory. Evolution before Darwin was observations made in real time like caterpillars changing into butterflies rose buds changing into roses and tadpoles changing into frogs. Darwin’s theory is different because it is not observation but speculation about what happened billions of years ago.


The theory of evolution is used by the opponents of Christianity to ridicule the concept of creation so in the first place Christians are defensive. When the Pope say it looks like evolution may be true it is difficult to work out what he is talking about or why he would want to talk about it in the first place.


The theory of evolution is in the same category as the theory of homosex and both are outside of God’s ball park. The main feature of homosex that I can see is that they are born that way. I think there is a saying of Christ, ”Some men are born without testicles, other men castrate themselves for the kingdom of God sake.” Always men and women are required to be chased regardless of how they are born.

Does this "theory of evolution" that you refer to really exist in scientific literature?

I think that outside of rigorous academic work a lot of problems, concepts, theories, traditions, etc. are distorted for commercial and ideological purposes. When people discuss "evolution", "cultural relativism", "postmodernism", etc. the way that you invite us to discuss "evolution" often what they discuss does not correspond to any actual formal academic work that anybody has produced. People frequently like to cry "straw man!", but I think that that is intellectual laziness. I do not think that what I am talking about has anything to do with "straw man" or any other informal or formal fallacy in logic. What I am talking about is more like hyperreality--topics like "evolution" have been distanced so much from their appropriate contexts that what people talk about when they talk about "evolution" does not correspond to any external reality and has taken on a life of its own.

Give us an actual experiment, paper, conference, etc. and its content and ask us about it.

It is probably safe to say that when people debate the "theory of evolution" they say almost nothing about any actual scientific work. It would not surprise me if a sociological investigation found that 90% of discussions of "evolution" are entirely about politics, cultural issues, legal issues, etc. and barely consider any actual scientific work.

 

[lupusFati]

*gets the popcorn*

Sorry but this is lookin' to turn a bit confrontational. Thinkin' I'll be bowin' out now.

 

[Poster0]

And considering that most Christians accept the theory of evolution, and most people who accept the theory of evolution are Christians, it isn't used to bash Christianity.

No. I don't think that is correct.

Also, I think evolution theory is unproven, and much of it is based on ridiculous speculation. I don't believe that God created man and gave him the brain of a stupid ape like beast, and then allowed him to slowly evolve into a man over the course of 200,000 years. I also don't think most Christians believe that either.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is the theory of evolution really a theory; there are rules governing scientific theories and I wonder if scientists have bent the rules to accommodate the theory of evolution.

They haven't bent any rules. The theory of evolution makes predictions about what we observe in real time including fossils, genomes, and the physical characteristics of living species and those predictions have turned out to be exceedingly accurate.

The theory of evolution is used by the opponents of Christianity to ridicule the concept of creation so in the first place Christians are defensive. When the Pope say it looks like evolution may be true it is difficult to work out what he is talking about or why he would want to talk about it in the first place.

That isn't true at all. Some of the staunchest defenders of evolution are christians, such as Ken Miller. Dr. Francis Collins, a devout christian, lead scientist of the Human Genome Project, and current head of the National Institutes of Health wrote a wonderful essay that discusses the interplay between christianity and evolution. It is written by a christian for christians. You should give it a read:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

The theory of evolution is in the same category as the theory of homosex and both are outside of God’s ball park. The main feature of homosex that I can see is that they are born that way. I think there is a saying of Christ, ”Some men are born without testicles, other men castrate themselves for the kingdom of God sake.” Always men and women are required to be chased regardless of how they are born.

The theory of evolution only tries to explain how species got the genomes they have, why we see the fossils we see, and why physical characteristics are distributed in different species in a specific pattern. That's it. It doesn't tell us what we should or shouldn't do. Like the rest of science, it only tells us how nature has operated. As Hume once pointed out, we can't determine what is moral by how nature operates.

It might help if we looked at another theory, the germ theory of disease. That theory proposes that infectious diseases like anthrax and smallpox are caused by microorganisms. From that theory, can we derive a moral code where we can't interfere with the process of infection and death due to these microorganisms since that is how nature operates? Can we go even further and say that we need to actively infect people? Of course not. We see it as our moral imperative to act against natural processes in many areas of life if it means reducing the suffering that people experience.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. I don't think that is correct.

Also, I think evolution theory is unproven, and much of it is based on ridiculous speculation. I don't believe that God created man and gave him the brain of a stupid ape like beast, and then allowed him to slowly evolve into a man over the course of 200,000 years. I also don't think most Christians believe that either.

This is something that I have always found curious. I have heard many creationists say how wonderful the Creation is, yet they do a complete 180 when it comes to evolution. Suddenly, apes are these awful, nasty creatures that we could never be part of. Suddenly, the Creation is this terrible thing that God would never want us to be a part of. Strange.

 

[Winken]

Did God create Mosquitos?

 

[sparow]

"Homosex, ball park, chased?"

Full Definition of CHASTE
1 : innocent of unlawful sexual intercourse
2 : celibate
3 : pure in thought and act : modest
4 a : severely simple in design or execution : austere <chaste classicism>
b : clean, spotless


Are you chaste?

If I were perfect I would be the only but it would mean it is possible for all to be perfect and there would be no need for the Lamb of God.


I comply with the Biblical standard which uses the word Chaste in 1Peter 3:2 but I fail in many parts of the Law from time to time.

 

[Poster0]

This is something that I have always found curious. I have heard many creationists say how wonderful the Creation is, yet they do a complete 180 when it comes to evolution. Suddenly, apes are these awful, nasty creatures that we could never be part of. Suddenly, the Creation is this terrible thing that God would never want us to be a part of. Strange.

No, apes are apes. They are not nasty, they are just what God created them to be. They are animals but we are men, created in Gods image. We are separate from animals, and always have been. God set us apart. We were never like apes.

I believe most likely that humans and animals were both created from the earth, but we were never stupid ape like beasts, but instead we were always intelligent and set apart from animals.

 

[Skaloop]

No. I don't think that is correct.

OK. But it is.

Also, I think evolution theory is unproven,

Every theory is unproven. Theories are never proven.

and much of it is based on ridiculous speculation.

Examples?

I don't believe that God created man and gave him the brain of a stupid ape like beast, and then allowed him to slowly evolve into a man over the course of 200,000 years.

Neither do I.

I also don't think most Christians believe that either.

Probably not, because it's a ridiculous strawman. But still, most Christians accept the actual process of evolution.

 

[Strathos]

It is neither moral or immoral, it is morally neutral, simply a description of processes that occur in nature. It also does not deny or exclude God, any more than saying that the earth revolves around the sun.

 

[Poster0]

Probably not, because it's a ridiculous strawman. But still, most Christians accept the actual process of evolution.

Actually its your own response that is the strawman.

Your assertion is also misleading.

Please don't bother to respond further, thank you, have a pleasant day.

 

[Strathos]

Your assertion is also misleading.

Only if you don't accept Catholics as Christians.