1 edit
You are missing the point. Morality issues have nothing to do with the evidence for evolution.
If some people choose to distort scientific fact to use it as propaganda that does not make the evidence for evolution any less convincing.
Also, people have known for thousands of years about selective breading. Cattle have been selectively bread over human history to produce more milk and even crops have been selectively seeded to increase yields.
The difference is Darwin suggested that species evolved and that more then one species could evolve from a common ancestor. He used scientific method to come up with a theory of gradual, ordered development, and was the first person to suggest this.
Darwin was a very open minded man and was forward thinking for his time, as has been mentioned earlier. However, whatever his own personal beliefs about eugenics or anything else are, they have no bearing at all on the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution does not suggest eugenics is a good policy, the knowledge itself is simply knowledge.
Originally posted by MattPWell in the movie 'Expelled", Dawkins said that the introduction of Darwin and evolution led him to reject God. So tell me, how does the rejection of God effect morality if at all? Of course, I am sure some would say that it does not effect my morality in the least, however, Dawkins came to the conclusion that religion was "bad".
[b]You are missing the point. Morality issues have nothing to do with the evidence for evolution.
Again you are missing the point. The knowledge of evolution is simply knowledge if people act on it that does not effect the evidence.
Your argument was that Darwin used evolution to support eugenics and selective breading of humans. Actually he did no such thing. But my point was that if Darwin or anybody else did make such claims, they do not effect the facts of the matter at all. If people choose to use knowledge in a given way, the mode of use does not change the facts. Therefore, your implication that the theory of evolution leads to immoral consequences is not in any way evidence that evolution is incorrect and does not make creationism or ID or any other belief system more likely.
As for the "rejection of God", morality and religion are separate things. Many religions are based on a set of shared moral values, but being religious is not a prerequisite for being moral. In fact, as many different religions and cultures have similar moral values so you could suggest that morals (i.e a code of acceptable behaviour) developed before religion. But that is a different debate.
The bottom line is that there is a massive amount of evidence for evolution and it is unreasonable not to conclude that evolution happened, and is happening.
4 edits
Originally posted by whodeyWhy is it important to figure out what Darwin thought? It isn't relevant in this day and age, 150 years later with all the scientific advancement since then. His governing philosophy was the individual as the basis of evolution and now we know it's the gene so anything he said on the subject of eugenics would not be valid in today's world. Lets discuss the modern view of the subject and get on with life in our century, not mired down in two hundred year old debates based on false premises.
I agree that Darwins morality came from his own brain. I also agree that the scientific data does not make a comment on morality in general. The scientific data is simply what it is, however, as human beings we derive meaning from it as did Darwin. It is evident to me that Darwin derived meaning from scientific data which suggested that eugenics shoud be c ne to show me how Darwin interpreted scientific data to say why we should not harm the weak.
For instance, what about vesigial organs? The Coccyx for instance. It is the vesige of previous versions of mammals with tails and in fact there are more than 100 fully documented cases of humans with tails.
What would creationists or ID'ers say about that? If we did not come from earlier forms with tails, why are there so many examples of them in the literature?
Originally posted by whodeyWhy is whether religion is good or bad a moral question? Isn't it a question of evidence??
Well in the movie 'Expelled", Dawkins said that the introduction of Darwin and evolution led him to reject God. So tell me, how does the rejection of God effect morality if at all? Of course, I am sure some would say that it does not effect my morality in the least, however, Dawkins came to the conclusion that religion was "bad".
I already told you, the morality espouced by religion is simply a carbon (hur hur) copy of the morality we all have genetically hardwired into our brains (be nice to people and they'll be nice to you), with a few modifications. Some of those modifications are good, in my opinion, and some bad.
Originally posted by telerionYes, I thought it was nice in that way, it did have many facets, that is true. It was good, I'm not denying that, and some may consider it great, but not me, alas. Very good, indeed, but no "Spartacus".
Spanish Literature was my other major (besides Econ) in college. I especially enjoyed literature from the period around the Spanish Civil War. Much of it, either written safely from abroad or masked in deep symbolism, is about the struggle of the human creative spirit under dictatorial repression. I think the movie did an excellent job of conveying that theme.
Originally posted by MattPWe appear to be talking passed each other. I don't deny that mere scientific facts have no morality attached to them. They are simply what they are. However, morality comes into play when we give this data meaning via our intepretation. Without our interpretation, such data is useless to us.
[b]Again you are missing the point. The knowledge of evolution is simply knowledge if people act on it that does not effect the evidence.
Having said that, evolution has all kinds of moral implications. For example, what does it mean to be alive? What does it mean to be human? How is humanity different from all other living entities if at all? Should we allow natural selection to weed out the weak or should we intervene on their behalf etc?
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI have to call you out on this one Scotty. I see you post in the spirituality forums constantly attacking those of faith for their beliefs. At best I would have to assume that it is your moral opinion that their faith is misplaced and therefore it is "bad". I think Dawkins is another example. He wrote a whole book about the "God delusion". There is no hiding the fact that he views religion as "bad".
Why is whether religion is good or bad a moral question? Isn't it a question of evidence??
I already told you, the morality espouced by religion is simply a carbon (hur hur) copy of the morality we all have genetically hardwired into our brains (be nice to people and they'll be nice to you), with a few modifications. Some of those modifications are good, in my opinion, and some bad.
Originally posted by sonhouseAs I have said elsewhere, raw scientific data is useless to us without interpretation. As with the case with Darwin, he provided interpretation for his findings that made him famous. Also we must consider the fact that he was famous. Famous people are listened to more than what you or I say and their opinions are often held in high regard as a result. Just look at the long line of Hollywood stars who testify before Congress every year about subjects they are not experts on. Why do we care what they think?
[b]Why is it important to figure out what Darwin thought? It isn't relevant in this day and age, 150 years later with all the scientific advancement since then. His governing philosophy was the individual as the basis of evolution and now we know it's the gene so anything he said on the subject of eugenics would not be valid in today's world. Lets discuss the ...[text shortened]... with life in our century, not mired down in two hundred year old debates based on false premises.
Originally posted by whodeyI don't think it is morally bad though. I think it is actually bad. I think it makes people do bad things, although believing per se isn't bad. It's the effects rather than the activity itself which I think is bad. I believe RD is of the same opinion.
I have to call you out on this one Scotty. I see you post in the spirituality forums constantly attacking those of faith for their beliefs. At best I would have to assume that it is your moral opinion that their faith is misplaced and therefore it is "bad". I think Dawkins is another example. He wrote a whole book about the "God delusion". There is no hiding the fact that he views religion as "bad".
Originally posted by whodeyBecause we're stupid.
As I have said elsewhere, raw scientific data is useless to us without interpretation. As with the case with Darwin, he provided interpretation for his findings that made him famous. Also we must consider the fact that he was famous. Famous people are listened to more than what you or I say and their opinions are often held in high regard as a result. Jus ...[text shortened]... ore Congress every year about subjects they are not experts on. Why do we care what they think?
We should only listen to specialists, talking about what they know and is backed up by evidence. Darwin had clearly got off the evidentially based stuff when he started talking about moral implications.
But, as has been repeatedly said to you, Darwin was wrong in parts because he did not have as full an understanding as we do now. His thoughts on the subject are of no consequence to anyone, except apparently you who creates a controversy based upon a mis-quotation and then attempts to batter us over the head with your manufactured dilemma.
Originally posted by whodeyYou keep confusing the fact that selective breeding would improve the human species and the moral choice to do so. I keep trying to explain it yet you keep repeating your mistake. Are you honestly not understanding me or intentionally misunderstanding me?
I agree that Darwins morality came from his own brain. I also agree that the scientific data does not make a comment on morality in general. The scientific data is simply what it is, however, as human beings we derive meaning from it as did Darwin. It is evident to me that Darwin derived meaning from scientific data which suggested that eugenics shoud be c ...[text shortened]... ne to show me how Darwin interpreted scientific data to say why we should not harm the weak.
Let me break it down again:
1. Darwin noted that selective breeding would result in healthier humans and possibly humans with better characteristics such as greater intelligence, disease resistance etc.
2. Darwin noted that such a goal was morally desirable.
3. Darwin noted that the right of the individual to live and reproduce was morally desirable.
4. Darwin noted that 3 was more morally desirable than 2.
You keep insisting incorrectly that 2. was based on scientific data. It wasn't. Only 1. is based on scientific data and is has nothing to do with morality. Darwin did not use scientific data (as far as we know) for 2,3 or 4 yet you keep insisting that he did for 2 and that you want to know that he did for 3 in particular. Why?
4 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo something that is not morally bad makes people do bad things? I don't get it.
I don't think it is morally bad though. I think it is actually bad. I think it makes people do bad things, although believing per se isn't bad. It's the [b]effects rather than the activity itself which I think is bad. I believe RD is of the same opinion.[/b]
I guess that is where we part in ideologies. I believe that "bad" people will do "bad" things whether religion is involved or not. Now perhaps they use religion to justify their "bad" actions but they could just as easilty, and have, used other vehicles for their "evil".
I think you should be a little honest with yourself and conceed, as RD should, that you are somewhat prejudice against those of faith. I think you should looking at human nature more than religion and my religion says that human nature has "fallen".
However, I suppose I can understand where this animosity comes from within science. After all, science and the church seems to have been at war since the days of Galileo. I simply think this animosity stems from from ignorance about each other and even about their own respecitive fields of study.
Edit: Just so you know, religion NEVER made me do "bad" things.
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo if I could show scientifically that a certain race of people were having diliterious effects on humanity as a whole but then say that it would be "evil" to do them harm, that there is not a mixed message here? I then add that perhaps we can hault their breeding? Is not science being used to show that that race in question is causing "bad" effects on humanity as a whole? You are then free to extrapolate from there which is what Darwin did by saying it would be "evil" to do them harm.
You keep confusing the fact that selective breeding would improve the human species and the moral choice to do so. I keep trying to explain it yet you keep repeating your mistake. Are you honestly not understanding me or intentionally misunderstanding me?
Let me break it down again:
1. Darwin noted that selective breeding would result in healthier hum eep insisting that he did for 2 and that you want to know that he did for 3 in particular. Why?
Of course I may be as dense as you say I am but I think this is indeed a mixed message.
Edit: You can call me dense but just don't call me late for supper!! 😛
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe Church does not have a 'field of study'.
I simply think this animosity stems from from ignorance about each other and even about their own respecitive fields of study.
Edit: Just so you know, religion NEVER made me do "bad" things.
So you never did anything as a result of your religion? Are you sure that not one of those things was 'bad'? I don't believe you.
I know for a fact that you promote your religion. You do that because of your religion. I believe promoting religion to be bad.