Moral objection to evolution!

[mzungu]

So long as there are people who still believe on a flat earth and or a geocentric system; Then so will there be those that deny the irrefutable reality of Evolution.

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." Heraclitus

 

[jonmichael818]

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.

If 1)there is no god, and 2)evolution is true: then evolution is not so cold as you may think. Evolution in this sense has given rise to morality. Evolution gives rise to consciousness and intelligence, the less conscious/intelligent creatures have less of an ability to take into account a great multitude of factors. This inability allows them only the ability to think about their personal survival or the survival of their species. We as humans on the other hand have a higher degree of consciousness and intelligence that allows us to take into account a much larger spectrum of factors. Having this ability allows us to understand that it may not be to our benefit to view other species or the less fortunate humans as something to oppose or eliminate, but rather help them because we may need them in order for us to survive in a more plentiful environment.
Take economics for example: the most fit corporations need the lowly consumer because without the consumer the corporation would not exist. This is a very basic and crude example,but I think you get the point.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If 1)there is no god, and 2)evolution is true: then evolution is not so cold as you may think.

Also, if 1) There is a God, and 2) evolution is true, then obviously God had no problem with it.

Why do His followers? Assuming they really are His followers and not just fans of the book.

 

[mzungu]

The previous two posts have finally returned some sanity to this thread

Evolution is here to stay and no amount of quackery and superstition will sway science away from the most peer reviewed and scrutinised theory of all the scientific theories.

Now EVERYONE HAVE A HAPPY NEW YEAR

 

[Gankutsuou]

I am sorry for skipping 5 pages of replies but I felt replying to the OP was first and foremost in his original context.

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?

If you are a Reaganist as most Republicans are (correct me if I am wrong) you are bound to trust in trickle down economic theory.

The theory is basically that the rich will eventually pass their money to the poor in the form of jobs. Factually and historically speaking, this form of capitalism in favor of the poor never came to pass in the Reagan OR the Bush era.

I can say without a doubt many poor and homeless died because of this theory of Reaganomics. These people died and starved literally to death while people of capitalistic nature feasted upon those who could afford their products.

If you are to say Evolution is the killing force of morality based on those less fortunate, perhaps you are on the wrong side of the playing field.

Point out any one person who understands Natural Evolution who is also on the side of Social Darwinism. Hint: you won't.

We (scientists) understand nature and how it picks only the strongest of it's offspring. That does not mean we want to "off" autistic kids. Maybe it is you (the people) who need to prioritize a little bit more on the humanistic side. Just sayin.

-Gankutsuou

 

[Alencon]

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

Murder is also immoral. That doesn't mean that murders are lies that didn't happen.

Look folks, here's the bottom line. Nothing in Biology makes sense other than in the framework of Evolution. Evolution is both an observable fact (look at yourself and your parents) and a Theory explaining the diversity of life on planet earth.

It is the prevailing scientific explanation for the facts as we currently understand them. There is no question of morality involved just as there is no question of morality involved with gravity, relativity or quantum mechanics.

As to the implications of evolution, that is another matter all together.

 

[Alencon]

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

I don't know what "Darwinism" is so you might want to define what you mean by that term.

However, if you are using that term to refer to the modern synthesis of evolution and genetics, popularly know as The Theory of Evolution (ToE), then your statement is so ludicrous that it can't even be awarded the prestige of being wrong.

The ToE is the foundation of modern biology. understanding it provides you with clean water, safe foods and medicines against the diseases that would otherwise devastate civilization. If you want something to thank your god for it should be that modern science can apply evolutionary theory as effectively as it does.

How do we know evolution is right? The same way that we know Quantum Theory is right, it works.

 

[Lillen]

And what make you all think Evolution has been observed..? The evidence for evolution can be intpreted as leading to the decay of the spicies.
It cant be observed that survival of the fittest is true since it cannot be confirmed who breeds most offspring... the black widow, or my first love...

 

[Ar Cosc]

And what make you all think Evolution has been observed..?

Wolves being selectively bred to produce two things as different as chihuahuas and Great Danes:

Bacteria that can break down nylon

Influenza

The evidence for evolution can be intpreted as leading to the decay of the spicies.

That only depends on how you define "decay". How do you believe that species are "decaying"?

It cant be observed that survival of the fittest is true since it cannot be confirmed who breeds most offspring... the black widow, or my first love...

Sure it can. You come back in 60 years time, and see which one has more children. If you want to be properly scientific, you take a massive sample size, and see which group averages more children.

 

[Targ]

And what make you all think Evolution has been observed..? The evidence for evolution can be intpreted as leading to the decay of the spicies.
It cant be observed that survival of the fittest is true since it cannot be confirmed who breeds most offspring... the black widow, or my first love...

I think that evolution has been observed because evolution has been observed. There are numerous examples of speciation events that have been observed:

Observed Instances of Speciation (skip to 5.0)

 

[Jro]

We can and have observed beneficial mutations leading to greater success in an individual and its descendants in both the laboratory and in nature. That is evolution by means of natural selection. What sort of organism would you like to hear about?

 

[Lillen]

To look at it the other way... You could argue that genes were repressed and suppressed to a supposingly or imaginary "previous" state.

 

[Ar Cosc]

To look at it the other way... You could argue that genes were repressed and suppressed to a supposingly or imaginary "previous" state.

Sorry, could you phrase that again please? I think something got lost in translation there

 

[Lillen]

We only have a recorded history of 4000-6000 years, whats earlier then that is not documented at the mentioned time.

So in other words, the stage of evolution could be reversed - from humans, to monkies to reptiles to fish to a single cell. Instead of the other way around?

 

[Nathan Poe]

We only have a recorded history of 4000-6000 years, whats earlier then that is not documented at the mentioned time.

So in other words, the stage of evolution could be reversed - from humans, to monkies to reptiles to fish to a single cell. Instead of the other way around?

What would have to happen to the environment for that to occur?

 

[Jro]

We can see evidence of evolution far beyond our written record. For example, we have genes that tell our developing embryo to develop gill slits, which are only turned off by another set of genes. We have a fossil record that allows for a relatively good examination of evolution. Why do you think that evolution could be reversed? If you can imagine a less advanced person doing well in our society and reproducing with an evolutionary advantage, well...

 

[Ar Cosc]

We only have a recorded history of 4000-6000 years, whats earlier then that is not documented at the mentioned time.

So in other words, the stage of evolution could be reversed - from humans, to monkies to reptiles to fish to a single cell. Instead of the other way around?

I think recorded history goes back further than that, if you count cave paintings and the like.

And there's no reason why evolution has to make things faster, stronger, or more intelligent. If resources become scarce,for example, it could well pay to be a less complex organism.

 

[Tiberius]

And there's no reason why evolution has to make things faster, stronger, or more intelligent. If resources become scarce,for example, it could well pay to be a less complex organism.

This is true. look at the Australian koala, for example. it lives on a nutrient poor diet of eucalypt leaves, so it has adapted to use very little energy.

 

[mzungu]

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

Ah yes, imagine the following scenario:

Some terrorists come to your house and demand to know the whereabouts of your children so that they can take them hostage; Will you lie to them, and if yes will it be immoral to do so?

Evolution is a natural process and cannot be "immoral". Also it is the most scrutinised and peer reviewed theory of all time and has passed unscathed and with flying colours, so no one has yet to prove it wrong!

 

[mzungu]

This is true. look at the Australian koala, for example. it lives on a nutrient poor diet of eucalypt leaves, so it has adapted to use very little energy.

Also the sloth uses an incredibly little amount of energy. But I suspect you are knocking on a deaf man's door!

Some people just refuse to accept reality. If it makes them feel secure then so be it. Personally when I am sick I go to a doctor and not a priest.