Moral objection to evolution!

Lillen · Dec 13, 2010

Long time ago when i posted here under my surname Lindstrom, i posted a moral obejection against the evolutionary theory.

Now science causes people to percive the world in the way scientist discribes it, - it doesn't deal with ethics.

But if we assume that evolution is true, you will need a mere heart of stone to trust in it.

The evolutionary theory argues that people surviving oppression and rivalry are more fit then those who don't... the people not surviving it, is less fit, and did not have a chance to carry their genes to the next generation.

I find it somewhat cruel ethically speaking, and i do have moral objections towards the theory. don't you as a scientist have that?

Belk · Dec 13, 2010

Lillen said:
Long time ago when i posted here under my surname Lindstrom, i posted a moral obejection against the evolutionary theory.

Now science causes people to percive the world in the way scientist discribes it, - it doesn't deal with ethics.

But if we assume that evolution is true, you will need a mere heart of stone to trust in it.

The evolutionary theory argues that people surviving oppression and rivalry are more fit then those who don't... the people not surviving it, is less fit, and did not have a chance to carry their genes to the next generation.

I find it somewhat cruel ethically speaking, and i do have moral objections towards the theory. don't you as a scientist have that?

That's like saying you have moral objections against the sun because it gives people cancer. You can rail against it if you wish, but it will still rise everyday regardless.

Nostromo · Dec 13, 2010

Do you have a moral objection to thermodynamics?

LifeToTheFullest! · Dec 13, 2010

Lillen said:
Long time ago when i posted here under my surname Lindstrom, i posted a moral obejection against the evolutionary theory.

Now science causes people to percive the world in the way scientist discribes it, - it doesn't deal with ethics.

But if we assume that evolution is true, you will need a mere heart of stone to trust in it.

The evolutionary theory argues that people surviving oppression and rivalry are more fit then those who don't... the people not surviving it, is less fit, and did not have a chance to carry their genes to the next generation.

I find it somewhat cruel ethically speaking, and i do have moral objections towards the theory. don't you as a scientist have that?

I have a moral objection to this, and an ethical responsibility to say so.

Delphiki · Dec 13, 2010

If you feel the need to object to a natural process, that means you think there is someone who created or controls said natural process. That means you're also blaming whoever that might be. Who, if anyone, guides any and all natural processes?

That's dangerous thinking for a Christian, don't you think?

Cabal · Dec 13, 2010

Lillen said:
Long time ago when i posted here under my surname Lindstrom, i posted a moral obejection against the evolutionary theory.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7519952/
?

Now science causes people to percive the world in the way scientist discribes it, - it doesn't deal with ethics.

Right, exactly. So really, this post should have ended here.

But if we assume that evolution is true, you will need a mere heart of stone to trust in it.

Hang on a sec... "trust in it"? What does "trust in it" mean?

The evolutionary theory argues that people surviving oppression and rivalry are more fit then those who don't... the people not surviving it, is less fit, and did not have a chance to carry their genes to the next generation.

It depends what you are talking about surviving. Nature is cruel, yes - however, just because that is so is no justification for us to behave the same way. The problem with every attempt at eugenics is that it presumes that a certain set of traits (usually associated with an ethnicity) is undesirable. The flaw in this logic is that by reducing human biodiversity you actually make the species LESS survivable as there is less potential to adapt to a change in our environment, which we cannot necessarily predict nor control.

Not to mention that this kind of thinking is fallacious:

Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Organic chemistry and biochemistry indicate that drinking large quantities of ethanol solutions will render a human incapable of driving. The fact that people drink and drive and kill people, and that that is a bad thing, has no bearing on the validity of the description of the chemistry.

I find it somewhat cruel ethically speaking, and i do have moral objections towards the theory. don't you as a scientist have that?

I could, but that isn't going to change anything. However traits end up surviving in a given environment is how they end up surviving in a given environment.

I don't particularly like that atoms release a lot of energy when you split them, but railing at nature isn't going to achieve anything. Nor does it mean that nuclear fission is impossible.

And as somebody pointed out, if you hold that a deity created everything, then these aspects of nature raise some awkward implications.

matthewgar · Dec 13, 2010

This is argumentum ad consequentium, and a stupid argument. How much you like or hate something has no bearing in wether it's true or not. I'm sure you wouldn't accept that argument from a atheist that said he doesn't like your idea of god so can't be real because he's cruel. A bad argument is a bad argument.

Evolution could lead to raised homocide, sex in the streets, the mere hearing of the world causes people to go into homicidal rampages raping children, adults, anything that moves. AND IT STILL BE TRUE OR FALSE BASEDS ON THE FACTS. Evolution is true or false based on wether it's true or not, not wether or not someone thinks they like the idea, there are many things in life we don't like but have no control over. This is just an attempt at emotional manipulation and just paints the one making it in a bad light.

And as for we must dictate our life based on how evolution works if we believe it is ignorance of the highest order, it's funny how the only ones that talk about what atheists *must* believe/do, are the fundementalists. Is does not make ought, just because natural selection and harsh world /IS/ how the world is regardless of wether or not evolution is true the world already is full of cruelty in the animal kindom, so not sure what accepting evolution has to do with having to live that way. But we have grown beyond that, just because it's how the world is, doesn't mean we need to act that way.

Doveaman · Dec 13, 2010

Lillen said:
The evolutionary theory argues that people surviving oppression and rivalry are more fit then those who don't

That way God doesn't get any credit for defending the weak. Fitness did it.

... the people not surviving it, is less fit

That way sin doesn't get any credit for destroying the weak. Unfitness did it.

Cabal · Dec 13, 2010

Doveaman said:
That way God doesn't get any credit for defending the weak. Fitness did it.
That way sin doesn't get any credit for destroying the weak. Unfitness did it.

Well done, Pigeonaboy, any more self-refuting statements you'd like to make?

Bushido216 · Dec 13, 2010

Describing reality is hardly a moral position.

SithDoughnut · Dec 13, 2010

The universe doesn't care about morality.

Biologist · Dec 13, 2010

I have a moral objection to death, did you know a natural process will eventually kill 100% of all our loved ones?

Cute Tink · Dec 13, 2010

Just a thought: Fitness to survive doesn't mean the strongest, it means the best adapted to the environment in some advantageous way. I remember seeing a video where two strong male beetles were fighting and didn't notice the sneaky little weaker beetle wander in and take the female they were fighting over. His genes will pass on while the strong ones lose out. Different traits give different advantages.

As people posted before, it's not about morality. Nature is cold.

MorkandMindy · Dec 14, 2010

Lillen said:
Long time ago when i posted here under my surname Lindstrom, i posted a moral obejection against the evolutionary theory.

Now science causes people to percive the world in the way scientist discribes it, - it doesn't deal with ethics.

But if we assume that evolution is true, you will need a mere heart of stone to trust in it.

The evolutionary theory argues that people surviving oppression and rivalry are more fit then those who don't... the people not surviving it, is less fit, and did not have a chance to carry their genes to the next generation.

I find it somewhat cruel ethically speaking, and i do have moral objections towards the theory. don't you as a scientist have that?

Here's the ironic thing; atheists who understand evolution and evolution in the context of animals that function in groups as humans do, are well equipped to make evaluate ethics, and at the very least can choose between selfish and socially responsible behaviour.

Christian fundamentalists generally back the elephant and actually believe economic behaviour should be on the basis of free competition. That is, they favour bringing the law of the jungle into human society.

The Christian Fundamentalists are far more 'Darwinian' than true evolutionists are.

Nathan Poe · Dec 14, 2010

Creationist narcissism in a nutshell -- "I don't like it, so it must be false."

matthewgar · Dec 15, 2010

Nathan Poe said:
Creationist narcissism in a nuyshell -- "I don't like it, so it must be false."

heh well in their defense all huamsn do it, how many atheists and such seem to base their non belief because they dislike god and such rather then probability of him existing. To me a flawed argument is a flawed argument no matter wether it's true or not heh. Someone can be right, but have flawed beliefs in it. If evolution is false, then their arguments here such are that one are just as bad and flawed. I don't see evolution being false, but still have to face palm every time I hear argumentum ad consequentium. Like you said the egotism that we create reality based on what we like or dislike, then again they also think the universe was made soley for us, so egotism isn't unusual with their arguments.

3sigma · Dec 15, 2010

matthewgar said:
…how many atheists and such seem to base their non belief because they dislike god and such rather then probability of him existing.

In my experience, none. I’ve never met any atheists who said they don’t believe in gods because they don’t like them. The reasons for not believing I’ve heard from atheists are all along the lines of, “it doesn’t make sense”, “it’s childish”, “there are no persuasive arguments” or “there is no sound evidence to support it”.

However, I have heard plenty of religious believers say they believe in God because without their belief their life would have no meaning or purpose; they couldn’t be good without their God; they would be no better than animals; their children would never go to heaven and other such arguments from consequences. Now that I think about it, many of the arguments they make for believing in their God are arguments from consequences driven by insecurity. Perhaps your assumption above is yet another case of projection.

Greg1234 · Dec 15, 2010

Lillen said:
Long time ago when i posted here under my surname Lindstrom, i posted a moral obejection against the evolutionary theory.

Now science causes people to percive the world in the way scientist discribes it, - it doesn't deal with ethics.

But if we assume that evolution is true, you will need a mere heart of stone to trust in it.

The evolutionary theory argues that people surviving oppression and rivalry are more fit then those who don't... the people not surviving it, is less fit, and did not have a chance to carry their genes to the next generation.

I find it somewhat cruel ethically speaking, and i do have moral objections towards the theory. don't you as a scientist have that?

Darwinism is rejected based on the evidence. Moral implications are a secondary indication, not what Creationists primarily acknowledge.

Hans Talhoffer · Dec 15, 2010

Bushido216 said:
Describing reality is hardly a moral position.

Lying is immoral. Truth is moral. Since as the OP proves, evolution is immoral, evolution is therefore a lie, QED.

Psudopod · Dec 15, 2010

Lying is immoral. Truth is moral. Since as the OP proves, evolution is immoral, evolution is therefore a lie, QED.

Lying is immoral, truth is amoral. Actions are moral or immoral, truth is not an action.

Pushing people off a cliff is immoral; gravity is amoral.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Moral objection to evolution!

Lillen

Guest

Senior Member

Brian Blessed can take a hike

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist

Regular Member

Blah

Andrew Yang's Forward Party

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

In the beginning was El

Active Member

Godspeed, Spacebat

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency