Moral objection to evolution!

[laconicstudent]

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

No.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes, you did say murder. However since "Murder" is an entirely man made concept and has no direct paralels in nature that I am aware of so I went with the closest thing I could think of. Why would making laws against murder be right or wrong simply because of nature? Laws against murder would be right or wrong because humans, as moral agents, have logical (or illogical) reasons to make it so.

Fair enough. But this is part of what intrigues me. Maybe I need a corollary question to go with this. What is unnatural?

I try to use very precise language in the science forum. It is much to easy to use words with variable and slippery meanings to come to an incorrect conclusion. Some of the posters here are famous for it.

Then I guess we've both learned to be careful about that.

 

[Targ]

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.

Welcome to the real world, Lillen. Nature is a cruel place. It is not all bunnies and squirrels having afternoon tea on the lawn. Animals kill each other all the time. Nature is "red in tooth and claw" and no amount of objections are going to change that fact. This is not something which can be disputed, because we see it all around us.

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

No, science is cold and states that something is true regardless of whether we like it. I have no moral objection to the theory of evolution, as it is not something that can be objected to on moral grounds. What can be objected to is when some decide to take principles from the theory and apply it to their lives and to society, such as in the form of social Darwinism and eugenics. That is something we can object to because it is a subjective sociological issue, not a scientific issue with a yes/no answer.

 

[Tiberius]

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?

And i suppose that having moral objections to the theory of gravity on the grounds that it can pull people from great heights to their deaths means that gravity isn't true either?

 

[Targ]

And to add to my previous post, another example could be something like abortion. The fact is that we understand the science behind aborting a foetus. Whether we like abortion or not has no bearing on whether it is possible to abort a foetus and about the methods that can be employed to carry out the abortion. This is science and no amount of moral objections are going to change the fact that foetuses can be aborted and that there are various means of doing it.

The issue only becomes subjective when we start to ask questions like "should we abort?" rather than just "is it possible to abort?"

 

[Bushido216]

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

I think evolution falls under the hypothetical.

 

[Tiberius]

There's a ton of evidence that says it is real.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

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'll use Richard Dawkins' answer: I'm very much in favor of evolutionary theory as the best explanation of biodiveristy, but I'm very much against it as a guide to ethical behavior.

 

[matthewgar]

Question, if one can have a moral objection to Evolution due to missuses of say hitler and many others *lets say hitler did for this argument* and that disproves evolution and means it shouldn't be taught.

Can we also have moral objections to the bible and Christianity due to hitler missusing it, and Jesus to stoke hatred of the jews? Is that evidence that it's false and must be ignored? *what ever hitler actually belieed, it can't be ignored that many of the germans that followed him did so because he claimed to be doing gods will*

 

[3sigma]

Question, if one can have a moral objection to Evolution due to missuses of say hitler and many others *lets say hitler did for this argument* and that disproves evolution and means it shouldn't be taught.

That makes as little sense as having a moral objection to kitchen knives because people misuse them to harm others. The theory of evolution doesn’t teach people to be intolerant towards others because they are different. If anything, it shows us how alike we all are. Even if people did misuse the theory of evolution, that wouldn’t disprove it. It is still supported by sound evidence and sound reasoning.

Can we also have moral objections to the bible and Christianity due to hitler missusing it, and Jesus to stoke hatred of the jews? Is that evidence that it's false and must be ignored? *what ever hitler actually belieed, it can't be ignored that many of the germans that followed him did so because he claimed to be doing gods will*

On the other hand, the Bible actually does teach people to be intolerant towards others because they are different, which means it would be justified to have a moral objection to it. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not what is written in the Bible is true. Some stories in the Bible are not true because they are contradicted by the facts. Others shouldn’t be believed because there is no sound reason to think they are true.

 

[Ayersy]

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?

It doesn't matter whether I object to it or not.

Gravity is amoral, as well. Do you object to gravity on the same grounds?

Our personal feelings towards something don't change whether or not it is true.

 

[LswaN]

Exactly. I personally am a young-earth creationist, but if macro-evolution is true, no amount of moral objection will change that.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Exactly. I personally am a young-earth creationist, but if macro-evolution is true, no amount of moral objection will change that.

Hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as "macro-evolution."
There's only evolution.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as "macro-evolution."
There's only evolution.

Actually, macroevolution does exist. However, it's not what creationists think it is. It's merely a scale upon which to measure evolution, but creationists like to pretend it's some kind of process.

 

[Ar Cosc]

Exactly. I personally am a young-earth creationist, but if macro-evolution is true, no amount of moral objection will change that.

Firstly, welcome to CF

Secondly, thanks for your clarity and willingness to consider other peoples' arguments sincerely and honestly. In spite of this, I'm sure you'll fit in fine around here!

 

[lucaspa]

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?

NO scientific theory deals with ethics. Ethics is outside of science.

One problem you have is how you perceive natural selection to work -- that is what you are talking about when you say "less fit". Is oppression ethical? NO!

How about "rivalry"? You are assuming cut-throat direct competition. Darwin's "struggle for existence" was metaphorical. He made that very clear. Very often the way to do well in the struggle for existence is cooperation and other behaviors that we consider "ethical". For instance, in surviving slavery in the South, many times the slaves would cover for one another to avoid whippings by the owner. They protected each other. You would consider that "ethical", wouldn't you?

You can't read ethics into evolution or any other scientific theory:

"We should give the last word to Vernon Kellogg, the great teacher who understood the principle of strength in limits, and who listened with horror to the ugliest misuses of Darwinism. Kellogg properly taught in his textbook (with David Starr Jordan) that Darwinism cannot provide moral answers:
"Some men who call themselves pessimists because they cannot read good into the operations of nature forget that they cannot read evil. In morals the law of competition no more justifies personal, official, or national selfishness or brutality than the law of gravitation justifies the shooting of a bird." Stephen Jay Gould in the essay "William Jennings Bryan's last campaign" in Bully for Brontosaurus, 1991, pp. 429-430.

 

[lucaspa]

Exactly. I personally am a young-earth creationist, but if macro-evolution is true, no amount of moral objection will change that.

Very good. The "moral objection" comes from a misunderstanding of trying to use what happens in nature as a guide to what ought to happen in human society. That is known as the Naturalistic Fallacy.

 

[lucaspa]

Hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as "macro-evolution."
There's only evolution.

Sorry, but macroevolution is talked about by evolutionary biologists. They do not used the way creationists use it, but it is there in all the evolutionary biology textbooks.

Microevolution is "changes within populations and species".
Macroevolution is "the origin and diversification of higher taxa".
"Many biologists consider the study of species and speciation to constitute the bridge between microevolution and macroevolution." Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg 447, 1998

Basically, speciation is macroevolution.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Sorry, but macroevolution is talked about by evolutionary biologists. They do not used the way creationists use it, but it is there in all the evolutionary biology textbooks.

Microevolution is "changes within populations and species".
Macroevolution is "the origin and diversification of higher taxa".
"Many biologists consider the study of species and speciation to constitute the bridge between microevolution and macroevolution." Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg 447, 1998

Basically, speciation is macroevolution.

Yes, in the context of creationism.

 

[lucaspa]

Yes, in the context of creationism.

Your post is unclear. What is in the context of creationism? That macroevolution is speciation?

If that is what you are saying, then creationism is refuted. Macroevolution is as documented as "microevolution". We've seen speciation both in the lab and in the wild in real time. What's more, once you have speciation, you're done. All "higher taxa" are just collections of species. Species are the only biological reality.

So, once you have speciation, then all the higher taxa automatically follow as multiple speciation events spread thru time. Look at the diagram in Origin of Species (there is only one).