Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Poster0]

Only if you don't accept Catholics as Christians.

Isnt it Evolution theory which says that man was created like a dumb ape like animal who needed to evolve into a man over thousands of years? DO you actually think that Catholics believe that nonsense?

 

[Strathos]

Isnt it Evolution theory which says that man was created like a dumb ape like animal who needed to evolve into a man over thousands of years? DO you actually think that Catholics believe that nonsense?

First of all, strawman claim. Second of all:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is the theory of evolution really a theory

Yes, it certainly is. It takes a straw man of scientific method to conclude otherwise.

The theory of evolution is neither moral nor immoral, nor does it strive to be either; it is just fact.

The theory of evolution is in the same category as the theory of homosex and both are outside of God’s ball park.

Homosex? Is that a Newspeak word, like doublethink and doubleplusungood? Google doesn't show any meaningful hits on this word.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Poster0]

First of all, strawman claim. Second of all:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/vaticanview.html

NO, its not a strawman, its a question, so please stop building your own strawman and answer the question.

 

[Strathos]

NO, its not a strawman, so please stop building your own strawman and answer the question.

It is, as you have obviously demonstrated that you have no real understanding of the ToE. The link I gave you shows quotes on the Vatican's official position on the issue.

 

[Poster0]

It is, as you have obviously demonstrated that you have no real understanding of the ToE. The link I gave you shows quotes on the Vatican's official position on the issue.

I don't care what your link said. Just answer the question. IS it, or is it not evolution theory which says that man was created like a dumb ape like animal who needed to evolve into a man over tens of thousands of years? Also, is that what the Vatican believes as well?

 

[Poster0]

I'm assuming that TOE stands for theory of evolution. Correct? If I have no understanding of TOE, then please enlighten me. What does TOE teach about mans origin?

 

[Poster0]

Back up your assertion with facts, instead of accusing people of using strawman. Please explain TOE teaching on mans origin.

 

[quatona]

I don't care what your link said. Just answer the question. IS it, or is it not evolution theory which says that man was created like a dumb ape like animal who needed to evolve into a man over tens of thousands of years?

It is not.

 

[Poster0]

It is not.

What is not? I asked two questions, please be specific. Let me assume that you are answering the question concerning mans origin according to ToE. If TOE doesn't say that, what then does it say? Seriously, please stop being evasive and answer the question. You all seem so sure, and you like to tell others how wrong they are. PLease, don't tell me, show me.

 

[Poster0]

Better yet, i'll let you off the hook, I don't find foolish debates useful anyway. Never mind.

 

[quatona]

What is not? I asked two questions, please be specific.

You asked the question "Is it or is it not...?".
I responded "It is not."
I think I couldn´t be any clearer: No, this is not what evolution theory says.
As for the second question:
Firstly, it doesn´t apply, due to the "as well".
Secondly, if you want to know what the Vatican believes, you may want to ask them.

Let me assume that you are answering the question concerning mans origin according to ToE. If TOE doesn't say that, what then does it say?

Hey, how about reading a book about it? Or at least the Wikipedia article, for starters?

Seriously, please stop being evasive and answer the question.

I have answered it. I am not going to do your homework for you, though.

You all seem so sure, and you like to tell others how wrong they are.

Please don´t address me as "you all".

 

[quatona]

Better yet, i'll let you off the hook, I don't find foolish debates useful anyway.

Then better not start them.

 

[Poster0]

You asked the question "Is it or is it not...?".
I responded "It is not."
I think I couldn´t be any clearer: No, this is not what evolution theory says.
As for the second question:
Firstly, it doesn´t apply, due to the "as well".
Secondly, if you want to know what the Vatican believes, you may want to ask them.

Hey, how about reading a book about it? Or at least the Wikipedia article, for starters?

I have answered it. I am not going to do your homework for you, though.

Please don´t address me as "you all".

This is a debate forum, if you are going to make assertions then you will be asked to back it up with evidence. That's how it works. If you don't understand what you are talking about, or if you don't have any evidence, then its wise not to make assertions in the first place, or to agree with unsupported assertions.

If you don't want me to refer to you as "you all", then perhaps you shouldn't answer questions that were directed toward other people.

 

[Poster0]

Then better not start them.

I didn't start it, but I'm ending my part in it. Please don't respond further because it will not serve logic or reason. IM done, I have no more questions and there are obviously no answers anyway.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Evolution was a proponent of the madness of the Holocaust. There's about as much morals with evolution as there are corners in perfect circles.
You've done a good job of letting evolutionists tell you something that isn't true- there is nothing closer to the truth then the moral absence within evolution.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

IMO you cant use evolution in a foundationalist sense (ie as a basic belief) to derive ethical theory from, but it can serve a role in a holistic, coherentist outlook on ethics.

An analogy would be in aesthetics, you cant derive "shes attractive" from ToE, but you can make a case for certain types of looks and their admiration (and likewise certian trends in ethics, like the pro-life trend, dont murder, dont be cruel etc) to be the result of evolution in action.


Coherentism is a theory of epistemic justification. It implies that for a belief to be justified it must belong to a coherent system of beliefs. For a system of beliefs to be coherent, the beliefs that make up that system must "cohere" with one another. link

 

[Larniavc]

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.

Nothing you have posted is accurate. ToE is as ethical as germ theory, game theory and the theory of relativity.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[sparow]

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.

There is an argument that most Christians accept evolution; I don’t know what this means, maybe they think they are decedents of monkeys. I believe evolution has evolved. I cannot think of a single science that would be different had Darwin not been born; except the science of evolution theory. Most Christians have abrogated Gods Law; they use His name but do not wear His garments, as prophesied by Isaiah, technically they do not follow Christ or the Bible.


How can anyone experiment what happened two billion years ago. Up until twenty years ago every intermediate stage skull found was proved to be a fraud or at least there were strong claims to that effect. I have found the collective responses helpful but I haven’t changed my mind about anything; the theory of evolution is not helpful to man or God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No. I don't think that is correct.

Christians make up ~1/3 of the human population. I have no idea if the majority of the 7 billion people on the planet that accept evolution are Christian, it is true that the majority of Christians accept evolution.

The popularity of Young Earth Creationism among Christians is predominantly an American thing. This shouldn't be surprising since Young Earth Creationism as a modern phenomenon is due to a book written in the 1960's known as The Genesis Flood, published and popular in the United States which was where the the vast majority of the world's Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians lived. Whitcomb and Morris, the authors of the book, were Fundamentalists. Prior to The Genesis Flood most Fundamentalists, while skeptical or hostile toward evolution, weren't Young Earth Creationists, they were Old Earth Creationists, such as William Jennings Bryan, most famous for his role in the Scope's Trial in 1925, as the prosecuting attorney for the State of Tennessee.

Since the majority of the world's Christians do not live in the United States, and aren't Fundamentalists, and aren't Young Earth Creationists; in addition to the fact that mainstream churches such as the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant bodies the world over are perfectly fine with evolution then, well, it's really not a stretch to point out that the majority of Christians simply don't have an issue with evolution. This is, while not exclusively, most chiefly an American thing. And outside of the United States it's only really a thing because of the influence spread by Evangelical and Fundamentalist preachers and teachers in other countries.

-CryptoLutheran