Evolution conflict and division

[o_mlly]

My point would be there is an unreasonable jump from any evidence to a Macro evolution conclusion

Why are the evos so nasty when confronted with questions on the confidence level of their so-called evidence? Methinks they protest too much.

Evolutionary theory influenced the development of eugenics, which aimed to improve human populations through selective breeding based on perceived genetic superiority. Many were unwilling and tragically sterilized as a result. Evolutionary theory also influenced Nazi ideology. They used eugenics to claim Aryan racial superiority justifying the holocaust. Fortunately both eugenics and racial superiority have been since debunked.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why are the evos so nasty when confronted with questions on the confidence level of their so-called evidence? Methinks they protest too much.

Not everyone who is an 'evo', as you call them, protests. Think about those folks at more mainstream science organizations like that of Francis Collins' Biologos group. Then there is the selection of various Catholic voices at the Thomistic Institute who advocate a more philosophically inclined consideration of the theory of evolution as well.

I'm not arguing this. I'm just offering a friendly suggestion, mainly because I don't think this Creation/Evolution tension needs to be one big continuous verbal brawl and overexpenditure of our time as Christians, haggling with one another about it.

Evolutionary theory influenced the development of eugenics, which aimed to improve human populations through selective breeding based on perceived genetic superiority. Many were unwilling and tragically sterilized as a result. Evolutionary theory also influenced Nazi ideology. They used eugenics to claim Aryan racial superiority justifying the holocaust. Fortunately both eugenics and racial superiority have been since debunked.

Actually, looking at this influence you've cited from a historical viewpoint (as in, from within the field of History via Historians), it was the Evolutionary ideology of Social Darwinists like Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner, and others similar to them like Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, which influenced the political and social errors of eugenicists and Nazis. It wasn't simply evolutionists who contributed to this influence in a sweeping, generalizing way.

Eugenics and Scientific Racism

Eugenics is the scientifically erroneous and immoral theory of “racial improvement” and “planned breeding,”

www.genome.gov

Again, I'm not arguing. I'm jut offering some historical info for further consideration. Not that I think you need to change your mind on the Theory of Evolution over and against traditional Creationism.

 

[o_mlly]

Not everyone who is, as you call them, an 'evo' protests. Think about those folks at organizations like Francis Collins and his Biologos group.

I'm not arguing this. I'm just offering a friendly suggestion.

Yes, there are evo supporter that are civil. However, unfortunately they are not posting in this thread. I wasn't making a global claim, only a particular one. Thanks for your suggestion.

Actually, looking at this influence you've cited from a historical viewpoint (as in, from withi In the field of Historians), it was the Evolutionary ideology of Social Darwinists like Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner, and other similar to them, who influenced the political and social errors of eugenicists and Nazis. It wasn't simply evolutionists in a sweeping, generalizing way.

Root cause? The evolution theory gave the fundamental knowledge of heredity and provided eugenicists with "scientific" evidence to support the improvement of humans through selective breeding.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, there are evo supporter that are civil. However, unfortunately they are not posting in this thread. I wasn't making a global claim, only a particular one. Thanks for your suggestion.

You're welcome.

Root cause? The evolution theory gave the fundamental knowledge of heredity and provided eugenicists with "scientific" evidence to support the improvement of humans through selective breeding.

To answer that, I think we have to apply philosophical and historical discernment to see that eugenics was essentially an ideological misappropriation of the Theory of Evolutionary, one that wasn't born out with further biological and genetic evidences.

Eugenics and Scientific Racism

Eugenics is the scientifically erroneous and immoral theory of “racial improvement” and “planned breeding,”

www.genome.gov

 

[o_mlly]

To answer that, I think we have to apply philosophical and historical discernment to see that eugenics was essentially an ideological misappropriation of the Theory of Evolutionary, one that wasn't born out with further biological and genetic evidences.

Fortunately, that is the case now. However, many thousands were sterilized in the 1930's and 1940's when that was not the case in the US and millions more sterilized or murdered in Europe. And even today, many bioethicists worry that both genomic screening and genetic counseling as an extension of eugenics will be used to justify infanticide.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Fortunately, that is the case now. However, many thousands were sterilized in the 1930's and 1940's when that was not the case in the US and millions more sterilized or murdered in Europe. And even today, many bioethicists worry that both genomic screening and genetic counseling as an extension of eugenics will be used to justify infanticide.

Yes, as a philosopher, I understand your point of concern in regard to genomic screening and other related mis-applications. But I tend to think that the Theory of Evolution on the whole does not in and of itself offer any ethical directives by which to tell secularists to "go ahead and mess around with human genetics according to our whims." If anything, such mis-appropriation by corporations for the sake of cafeteria style customization of human selection in the future isn't mainstream science but rather a form of Transhumanism. It's a technological and ideological choice, and from a Christian point of view, one that constitutes an ethical error that the Theory of Evolution doesn't prescribe.

One point from the past regarding the misappropriation of social ideology wedded to the Theory of Evolution can be seen in the fact that Darwin's "bulldog" spokesman, T.H. Huxley, didn't think we can or should derive ethics from the Theory of Evolution, but Herbert Spencer did think we could (as cited by Malcolm A. Jeeves and R.J. Berry, 1998, p. 25). So, we see two philosophical operative sets of method at play, which as you've already pointed too is why some of today's Bio-ethicists are also concerned about the more transhumanist application of genetics to everyday life and corporate business.

Reference

Jeeves, Malcolm A., and Robert James Berry. Science, life and Christian belief: a survey and assessment. (1998).

 

[River Jordan]

Why are the evos so nasty when confronted with questions on the confidence level of their so-called evidence? Methinks they protest too much.

My question though is why are you asking? Do you not already know? If not, why go to a religious forum to get educated in a field of science?

My suggestion is to go to a library, get/read some books on evolutionary biology, and then if you're still interested start reading some journal articles. Or if it's an option for you take a course at a nearby university.

Or if you don't want to do any of that, Yale actually has a site where you can watch a series of lectures on evolutionary biology for free: Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior | Open Yale Courses

 

[River Jordan]

Yes, as a philosopher, I understand your point of concern in regard to genomic screening and other related mis-applications. But I tend to think that the Theory of Evolution on the whole does not in and of itself offer any ethical directives by which to tell secularists to "go ahead and mess around with human genetics according to our whims." If anything, such mis-appropriation by corporations for the sake of cafeteria style customization of human selection in the future isn't mainstream science but rather a form of Transhumanism. It's a technological and ideological choice, and from a Christian point of view, one that constitutes an ethical error that the Theory of Evolution doesn't prescribe.

One point from the past regarding the misappropriation of social ideology wedded to the Theory of Evolution can be seen in the fact that Darwin's "bulldog" spokesman, T.H. Huxley, didn't think we can or should derive ethics from the Theory of Evolution, but Herbert Spencer did think we could (as cited by Malcolm A. Jeeves and R.J. Berry, 1998, p. 25). So, we see two philosophical operative sets of method at play, which as you've already pointed too is why some of today's Bio-ethicists are also concerned about the more transhumanist application of genetics to everyday life and corporate business.

Reference

Jeeves, Malcolm A., and Robert James Berry. Science, life and Christian belief: a survey and assessment. (1998).

It's also the logical fallacy of appeal to consequences. It's no different than someone saying they don't believe Christianity because some Southern Baptists were behind Jim Crow in the old south.

 

[o_mlly]

But I tend to think that the Theory of Evolution on the whole does not in and of itself offer any ethical directives by which to tell secularists to "go ahead and mess around with human genetics according to our whims."

In and of itself, the TOE does not direct the horrible actions taken in the USA or in Germany. My point is that the TOE gave the patina of science to these evil undertakings.

My question though is why are you asking?

Because I can read and think critically. I suggest you try it.