Moral objection to evolution!

[Assyrian]

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

Rabbi, who sinned, this antelope or his parents, that the lion removed him form the gene pool?

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

Fine. TELLING the truth is moral, lying is immoral, same argument.

 

[Psudopod]

Fine. TELLING the truth is moral, lying is immoral, same argument.

It's not the same argument, no. And besides, the truth is all evidence points to evolution.

 

[Cabal]

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

Uh, no.

Not all things that are immoral are lies, so your logic fails. But it would have failed anyway to begin with, as your premise is wrong. Evolution is not immoral - as descriptions of the facts of nature cannot be immoral.

 

[Hans Talhoffer]

Uh, no.

Not all things that are immoral are lies, so your logic fails. But it would have failed anyway to begin with, as your premise is wrong. Evolution is not immoral - as descriptions of the facts of nature cannot be immoral.

What? How can telling the truth be immoral???

 

[Cabal]

What? How can telling the truth be immoral???

Not what I claimed. Read my post more carefully.

I said that not all that is immoral is a lie. Being immoral does not necessarily involve lying. You can say that lying is immoral, but you can't just reverse the statement and infer that something immoral MUST be a lie.

But evolution, while being true, is little more than a description of reality. So as Psudopod stated, it is amoral rather than inherently moral or immoral. The same goes for any scientific theory, like gravity.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Darwinism is rejected based on the evidence.

Such as?

 

[Belk]

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

The OP does not prove evolution immoral.

 

[Paulos23]

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

When has facts become immoral?

 

[Nathan Poe]

What? How can telling the truth be immoral???

Depends on who you're telling it to.

Consider: Maryland, 1860: Your farmhouse is one of the stops on the Underground Railroad. When the Confederate soldiers come along and ask you if you've got any runaway slaves on your propery, would it be moral or immoral to tell the truth -- that at this very moment there's a family of six hiding in your basement?

 

[Nathan Poe]

The OP does not prove evolution immoral.

amoral perhaps, but not immoral.

Of course, just about everything that occurs in nature is amoral, so nature is a lie?

 

[sfs]

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

As Cabal has already pointed out, your logic is faulty. The technical term for your argument is "Affirming the consequent", and it is one of the classic formal logical fallacies. Example: "Cheating on your taxes is immoral. Murder is immoral. Therefore, murder is cheating on your taxes."

 

[matthewgar]

The OP does not prove evolution immoral.

And even if it was as we've said, being moral, immoral has nothing to do with truth.

So diseases, earthquakes are immoral by the same argument, therefore they don't exist, good to know for all those hurt by quake in Haiti.

 

[Delphiki]

What? How can telling the truth be immoral???

Would you tell a crazed gunman with hostages that you're going to kill him as soon as the police sniper has a clean shot?

 

[Doveaman]

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.

So fitness can be weak and smart instead of strong and dumb. Evolution falsified.

 

[Gracchus]

So fitness can be weak and smart instead of strong and dumb. Evolution falsified.

Only your flawed understanding of evolution is falsified. But I doubt that you will notice.

 

[Cabal]

So fitness can be weak and smart instead of strong and dumb. Evolution falsified.

No, this statement merely proves that you don't have a clue what you're talking about - as usual.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, this statement merely proves that you don't have a clue what you're talking about - as usual.

I was going to say "as always," but I'll let "usual" stand.

 

[sandwiches]

Fine. TELLING the truth is moral, lying is immoral, same argument.

So, you're trying to tell us you're being immoral?

 

[MorkandMindy]

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.

Put simply, someone with an American Republican allegiance believes in cut-throat competition in economics, taking the very worst in evolution and then forcing people to do it. An American Republican is being hypocritical to claim evolution is morally objectionable.