The morality of science.

Originally posted by whodey
So none of you wish to touch the topic of morality with a 10 foot pole, who could blame you.

What? Where did you get that idea?
On the contrary, it is you that is dodging questions in this thread.

... would everyone here assume that evolution of the race of mankind has stopped or is it still continuing?
And at the present moment, Darwin had it wrong. It is the least civilized people that have the most children. Generally high birth rates go with high child mortality which goes with poor health and conflict.
But aside from differences in overall racial profiles, evolution takes place every time there is a birth or death. Natural selection, genetic drift, and other evolutionary effects are taking place all the time. Some such effects may be significant and obvious, others may be far less obvious, but nevertheless there.
To deny that evolution is happening is to not understand what it is.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
It's continuing for sure. Why would we stop evolving?

There is a common flawed theory going around that it has because medicine and welfare etc are preventing the weak and sick from dieing. But this is a false inference and shows a misunderstanding of how evolution works because it isn't directly survival of the individual that is the driving force of evolution but rather which ones with which genes successively reproduce and, in addition, if you are weak or sick, that isn't necessarily because you have something wrong with your genes because it is far more commonly caused by poverty or simply bad luck. If you have a gene that favors reproductive success, you would be more likely to reproduce regardless of whether everyone gets any necessarily health care or not thus evolution is still going on regardless.

Originally posted by whodey
First of all, what is your definition of life? Does it require a brain? Do you think that plants are not living because they don't have a brain?

In addition, what of a cow? It has a brain. Is killing it to eat it murder?

That leads me to another moral question in science. What separates humans from the animals? Should animals have the same rights as we?

First of all, what is your definition of life?

Not relevant here because not all life is conscious i.e. with mind.

Does it require a brain?

Not to be alive; just to be conscious and have moral rights.

In addition, what of a cow? It has a brain. Is killing it to eat it murder?

Only the killing of something with a mind is true murder. The distinction between a brain with a mind and a brain without a mind is not properly defined because what is mind is poorly defined so I am unsure whether a cow would generally have a mind. However, I believe we can all agree that, with a few exceptions, a human with a normal well-developed brain is usually one with a mind. But an early embryo that hasn't yet developed a brain cannot possibly have a mind and thus killing such a brainless embryo is not murder by any reasonable definition of murder but is merely just killing.

What separates humans from the animals?

This isn't defined. "separates" in exactly what sense? physically? Biologically? morally? psychologically? socially? evolutionary?

Should animals have the same rights as we?

which ones? A fly? i would think surely not. A whale? I would think quite possibly but depending on exactly what is really going on in its brain which is something we don't yet really know.

Originally posted by whodey
So none of you wish to touch the topic of morality with a 10 foot pole, who could blame you.

Moving on then. So what of this quote by Darwin?

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world."

As we all know, Darwin view ...[text shortened]... veryone here assume that evolution of the race of mankind has stopped or is it still continuing?

So what of this quote by Darwin?

Are you assuming we would agree with literally everything Darwin says without any exceptions just because we, like he was, are scientists and/or evolutionists?
If so, and I am getting the impression you do, you are wrong because we both don't and shouldn't.
We don't use Darwin for some kind of "bible for morality" as you keep making out. In fact, we usually ignore anything he said about morality -why would we take special notice?
Scientists very often DO disagree with each other you know!
We are allowed to disagree after all and scientists disagreeing doesn't go against any kind of scientific principle.
Just because we agree with him that we evolved doesn't mean we agree with him or should agree with him on all other matters including all his assumptions and moral beliefs without exception nor question. In fact, we know know he was even wrong about at least one of his assumptions about evolution itself; that it happens continuously at the same rate for each species. We now know that this is false although that evolution happens is more certain than ever. And, if he can be wrong about one thing about evolution, he can be wrong about one thing about something else and we know it.

Originally posted by humy

So what of this quote by Darwin?

Are you assuming we would agree with literally everything Darwin says without any exceptions just because we, like he was, are scientists and/or evolutionists?
If so, and I am getting the impression you do, you are wrong because we both don't and shouldn't.
We don't use Darwin for some kind of "bible fo ...[text shortened]... one thing about evolution, he can be wrong about one thing about something else and we know it.

It is possible that since whodey lets others do his thinking for him, he assumes that the same holds for other people.

Originally posted by whodey
... most abortions are chosen due to financial reasons.

That's a pretty wild statement - evidence?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
That's a pretty wild statement - evidence?

Indeed. Based on such logic, one would expect the poor to generally have fewer children than the rich, but if anything the opposite is true.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Indeed. Based on such logic, one would expect the poor to generally have fewer children than the rich, but if anything the opposite is true.

http://www.womenscenter.com/abortion_reasons.html

The poor do have more children, but most women who seek abortion live below the poverty line. According to the article I provided, about 60% live below the poverty line.

Margaret Sanger started Planned Parenthood in the hopes that blacks would seek abortions because she viewed them as a genetic drag on society. As we all know, most of the poor are minorities, therefore most of the women must be minorities who seek abortions. Margaret wished to rid society of blacks and other minorities, so in a way her goal was successful.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
That's a pretty wild statement - evidence?

http://www.womenscenter.com/abortion_reasons.html

According to this woman's center in Orlando, about 40% of women have abortions due to money concerns, and about 38% have them because of fear they cannot complete their educations, which also has to do with making money in the future.

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.womenscenter.com/abortion_reasons.html

According to this woman's center in Orlando, about 40% of women have abortions due to money concerns, and about 38% have them because of fear they cannot complete their educations, which also has to do with making money in the future.

...which also has to do with making money in the future.

Actually its generally for avoiding financial crisis and avoiding a wrecked education either of which can ruin a woman’s life and which can be perfectly reasonable and, I would say, moral motives for abortion at least if we are taking here about the early embryo stage (before the embryo brain forms and there is a moral gray area after the brain forms ) although, of course, avoiding pregnancy by using contraceptives is still generally much more preferable.

Originally posted by humy

...which also has to do with making money in the future.

Actually its generally for avoiding financial crisis and avoiding a wrecked education either of which can ruin a woman’s life and which can be perfectly reasonable and, I would say, moral motives for abortion at least if we are taking here about the early embryo stage (before the em ...[text shortened]... , of course, avoiding pregnancy by using contraceptives is still generally much more preferable.

So now there is a moral "gray" area?

Who cares if the brain is formed or not? It's almost as if it's OK snuffing out life if that life cannot feel pain when you do. You can do that to people as well.

The root of all evil is the love of money. There is no truer saying.

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.womenscenter.com/abortion_reasons.html

According to this woman's center in Orlando, about 40% of women have abortions due to money concerns, ..

most abortions are chosen due to financial reasons


Yep ... 40% is most.

Originally posted by whodey
So now there is a moral "gray" area?

Who cares if the brain is formed or not? It's almost as if it's OK snuffing out life if that life cannot feel pain when you do. You can do that to people as well.

The root of all evil is the love of money. There is no truer saying.

So now there is a moral "gray" area?

Very Obviously, yes, and there always was from the dawn of mind else there wouldn't be such thing as a moral dilemma so what is it with this “now”?

Who cares if the brain is formed or not?

I guess just about everyone but a small eccentric minority. When it comes to morality, it is normal to care whether something has a brain because, although there being a brain doesn't equate with it having a mind, no brain simply means no mind and thus no moral rights.

It's almost as if it's OK snuffing out life if that life cannot feel pain when you do.

that depends -are you talking here about mindless life or life with mind? -Big difference when it comes to morality so we must discriminate between the two.

You can do that to people as well.

excluding embryos, people generally have a mind -big difference.

The root of all evil is the love of money.

women don't generally have abortions for the “love” of money even if they sometimes do so to avoid financial disaster so this is quite irrelevant.
Need for money doesn't equate with “love” of money. Whether you 'love' money or 'hate' money, it would be stupid to ignore any of your need for it. Lack of money causes much poverty and suffering and poverty is injustice so how can want of money equate with evil? Is it evil to want money to avoid starvation?

Anyway, the saying “The root of all evil is the love of money” is clearly false since you can have and there often is evil without involving money. Example; the motivation behind most rapes. Example 2; the motivation behind most murders done out of pure hatred. Example 3; 9/11 -that was done over religion. What financial gain did those religious nuts get from this by killing themselves?
And what about the money spend on good? example: money spent on finding a cure for malaria -is this evil?

Who is to say that Darwin was not weak himself? And what if the skillful surgeon has a heart attack during surgery? What if the many so-called "strong" suddenly or soon become weak due to mental illness, biological illness, nuclear related illnesses, simple criminal acts, life affecting accidents, and whatever else there is?

Humans are easily and quickly damaged. They are frail. The one typing the original post and Darwin are subject to the ravages of life existence. They are no more stronger than what they are given. Then they become weak. Furthermore, the strong die just the same as the so-called, "weak."

Lastly, God created us. He will judge as He sees fit. We are weak before Him. We will never force Him to do anything He doesn't want to do.

Originally posted by KingOnPoint
Who is to say that Darwin was not weak himself? And what if the skillful surgeon has a heart attack during surgery? What if the many so-called "strong" suddenly or soon become weak due to mental illness, biological illness, nuclear related illnesses, simple criminal acts, life affecting accidents, and whatever else there is?

Humans are easily and qu ...[text shortened]... ees fit. We are weak before Him. We will never force Him to do anything He doesn't want to do.

Who is to say that Darwin was not weak himself? And what if the skillful surgeon has a heart attack during surgery? What if the many so-called "strong" suddenly or soon become weak due to mental illness, biological illness, nuclear related illnesses, simple criminal acts, life affecting accidents, and whatever else there is?

Humans are easily and quickly damaged. They are frail. The one typing the original post and Darwin are subject to the ravages of life existence. They are no more stronger than what they are given. Then they become weak. Furthermore, the strong die just the same as the so-called, "weak."

You might not realize this but what you are arguing against here is social Darwinism which I and virtually all modern scientists and atheists are totally against. This is because social Darwinism, not to be confused with biological Darwinism which is a totally different concept based on and proven by the scientific evidence, is unscientific because it was invented by the Christian Nazis and is based on a warped 'interpretation' of the Bible combined with an even more warped 'interpretation' (more like lies ) of what Darwin had said. Contrary to common belief, Darwin never actually said “the survival of the fittest” nor that the weak morally should die in our society nor would he ever agreed to such things nor is that what biological Darwinism, which is a proven scientific fact, in any way implies.

All the leading Nazis in WW2 without a single exception (including Hitler himself who was a Catholic ) where theists and Christian (I can show links showing this on request ) . Not one was an atheist and, because Nazism says evolution is guided by a god, Nazism is a strictly theist doctrine which all atheists are against else they wouldn't be atheist! It is strictly the theists, not atheists, that are to blame for the atrocities committed by the Nazis.

God created us

The Nazis also believed that God 'created' us but created us indirectly by guiding evolution to create us (even though there isn't a shred of scientific evidence that a god intervened with anything let alone evolution! )
I take it you believe that you believe God created us without involvement of evolution? If so, both you and the Nazis are wrong. It is a proven scientific fact that we evolved and there is no evidence for the existence of a God or gods and there is even evidence directly contradicting intelligent design (again, I can show links showing this on request ) .