So Evolutionists, you will let me say whatever I like in the name of mutation?

[PsychoSarah]

Morality is a social construct. Social constructs don't usually evolve by true evolutionary means.

 

[[serious]]

Oh, Hi gott, I see you are posting about evolution. Before we continue, a few reminders about what evolution is and isn't. These should all look familiar, because you've been told them before. Many, many times.

1. Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time.
2. We don't choose to, or not to, evolve
3. Populations evolve, individuals don't.
4. Evolution is a description of real world events, not a theory of morality.
5. There is no such thing as "completely evolved." Evolution is a process, not an end point.
6. All modern day creatures have been evolving for the same amount of time and are thus equally evolved.
7. Non living things don't evolve
8. "Belief" is not a genetic trait. Belief does not evolve in the biological sense.
9. We do not expect all populations to solve all problems in the exact same way. (ex. The fact that birds evolved wings does not mean we expect all creatures to evolve wings)


Now that we've got that out of the way, let me read your post. I have not read your post prior to this point, but at this point, we are all used to the same strawmen you always go back to. Things that are wrong will be marked in red:

Hi there,

So as you will probably be aware, there is a serious problem with the moral disconnect between what people accept as science and what they think it means. There is no sense in which you are expected to behave a certain way, because of the idea that we all become green monkeys once the sun turns purple because that is what selection favours. In fact, selection could favour anything and people would say, "well, that's Evolution, so what?" It's a big moral problem.

The place this moral problem is clearest is perhaps in what you say. It stands to reason that if mutation is how we progress, then theoretically someone can say anything they like (don't try, this board has rules) and it will be deemed ok, since they are probably closer to an adaptation that will help them, even everybody. This is the thinking. The problem is that you obviously can't say everything you like, and if you try you will undoubtedly exhaust yourself well and truly before you ever get anywhere.

There was actually some work done that proved this actually. Reported on Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, a scientist actually described how, if you try to create a chessboard randomly, it would take literally gazillions of attempts before you got it right. That was until you actually created a heuristic that simplified the process somewhat and so arrived at the chessboard by compromise. What this demonstrates is that even a simple person can see that the premise of just saying anything is wrong, yet the problem remains how to convince an Evolutionist that they therefore have to address their theory morally.

The situation is actually that you have a reason to believe some restraint is necessary and a theory that says no restraint matters and a moral imperative to work out what the difference is and how to negotiate it. That is essentially the problem I am putting to you. The reason you will find it difficult is that no one can control their tongue as a man, even at the best of times and that necessarily means relying on what someone else has said, in order to make your point.

So the question is this: if mutation requires free reign and successful Evolution requires restraint, how do you reconcile the two?

And what does this mean for free speech?

4. Evolution is a description of real world events, not a theory of morality.

The only part that is in black is Morgan Freeman chessboards which has nothing to do with anything else you've posted.

 

[Gottservant]

Morality is a social construct. Social constructs don't usually evolve by true evolutionary means.

I assume you want me to respond to this (you do realize one can't respond to everything, correct?)

Morality is not limited by subject.

As such evolution applies.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What I am asking is, given that morality is a given, how do you proceed on the basis of what you know about Evolution?

I don't.

I proceed based on what I know of human nature and human needs. Perhaps evolution can shed some light on how we became what we are, but it does not have anything in itself to say on how we as human beings ought to act. Natural selection is non-teleological, and therefore can't replace God as a source of purpose.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tenebrae]

So as you will probably be aware, there is a serious problem with the moral disconnect between what people accept as science and what they think it means. There is no sense in which you are expected to behave a certain way, because of the idea that we all become green monkeys once the sun turns purple because that is what selection favours. In fact, selection could favour anything and people would say, "well, that's Evolution, so what?" It's a big moral problem.

You know you'd do much better if you stopped trying to tell us all what we believe

 

[Tenebrae]

The fact that you can say what you like is more due to our grandparents and great grand parents who fought to protect our way of life. It has nothing to do with science

 

[Gottservant]

You know you'd do much better if you stopped trying to tell us all what we believe

Actually, speaking in other people's place is a tool of philosophical argument.

Your problem is you don't have the self-confidence to realize, that just because I make an argument, doesn't mean I am presuming the right to change your mind.

Perhaps when you agree with God, about what you were as a human being before you entered into this conversation, you would have the strength to defend those whose opinions are really lost in this conversation, those of the people whose voice is lost simply because they don't go around telling people the emporer's clothes are awesome, or evolution or some such thing.

 

[[serious]]

I assume you want me to respond to this (you do realize one can't respond to everything, correct?)

Morality is not limited by subject.

As such evolution applies.

And gravity!

 

[Eudaimonist]

And gravity!

We need a theory of ethical falling.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hi there,

So as you will probably be aware, there is a serious problem with the moral disconnect between what people accept as science and what they think it means. There is no sense in which you are expected to behave a certain way, because of the idea that we all become green monkeys once the sun turns purple because that is what selection favours. In fact, selection could favour anything and people would say, "well, that's Evolution, so what?" It's a big moral problem.

Evolution is a fact of life and has nothing to do with morality.
Evolution explains the process life is subject to - wheter we like that reality or not.
Evolution does NOT prescribe how one should live.

That's as nonsensical as saying that "jumping of a building is moral cuz gravity". It makes no sense at all.

The place this moral problem is clearest is perhaps in what you say. It stands to reason that if mutation is how we progress, then theoretically someone can say anything they like (don't try, this board has rules) and it will be deemed ok, since they are probably closer to an adaptation that will help them, even everybody. This is the thinking

No. It's merely what you think is the thinking.

There was actually some work done that proved this actually. Reported on Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman, a scientist actually described how, if you try to create a chessboard randomly, it would take literally gazillions of attempts before you got it right. That was until you actually created a heuristic that simplified the process somewhat and so arrived at the chessboard by compromise. What this demonstrates is that even a simple person can see that the premise of just saying anything is wrong, yet the problem remains how to convince an Evolutionist that they therefore have to address their theory morally.

No clue what the point is here.
I'll just reiterate...
Evolution is a theory in biology and it explains a process all living things are subject to. It's not a philosophy that puts down a worldview or prescribes how one should live his life. I can only repeat this until you finally get it into your thick skull.

My moral compass is not modeled after Darwinian evolution in any way.

The situation is actually that you have a reason to believe some restraint is necessary and a theory that says no restraint matters and a moral imperative to work out what the difference is and how to negotiate it

And again...
Evolution is a theory in biology and it explains a process all living things are subject to. It's not a philosophy that puts down a worldview or prescribes how one should live his life.

That is essentially the problem I am putting to you.

And this problem only exists in your twisted view.
It's as ridiculous as stating that it's moral to jump of buildings "because gravity".

So the question is this: if mutation requires free reign and successful Evolution requires restraint, how do you reconcile the two?

I don't have to.
Because (yes, again): Evolution is a theory in biology and it explains a process all living things are subject to. It's not a philosophy that puts down a worldview or prescribes how one should live his life.

And what does this mean for free speech?

Nothing, because (yes, again): Evolution is a theory in biology and it explains a process all living things are subject to. It's not a philosophy that puts down a worldview or prescribes how one should live his life.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So Evolutionists, you will let me say whatever I like in the name of mutation?

I'll let you say whatever you like in the name of amusement.