Originally posted by RatX
Let me rephrase my argument so that I can get something solid from you guys - not a bubble of hot gas as before...
On what grounds can an evolutionist condemn the eugenics program? It is "controlled evolution" in its essence.
As a Christian, I can condemn the racist and murderous actions of the mob who killed those unfortunate Jews (although Bosse stil ...[text shortened]... still need to find the grounds by which evolutionists can condemn the program. Please answer...
you do not have an argument, Rat. you have merely a gathering in your head of misguided notions. Bosse and others have already explained it to you, so i am not sure why you still don't get it:
the theory of evolution imparts only descriptive "is" claims and makes no prescritpive or normative "ought" claims. you are saying that many people have used the TOE as sole grounds for morally justifying their deeds. however, if those people did that, then they committed the Is-Ought Fallacy, in as much as it is a fallacy to think that sufficient conditions for moral rightness or wrongness can be comprised solely of descriptive claims. in other words, those people committed the fallacy of arguing solely from "is" claims to an "ought" conclusion. therefore, even if you are right, dear Rat, you have succeeded only in showing that fallacious reasoning can at times be harmful, which is not much of a surprise. what certainly DOES NOT follow from anything you have said is that the TOE is false or invalid.
of course, what is also likely is that these evil people you speak of did not commit the fallacy mentioned above, and in going from "is" to an "ought" conclusion, they inserted their OWN INDEPENDENT "ought" premises, many of which are morally repugnant to many people, evolutionists included. then your beef is with the normative claims of these morally repugnant people and not with the TOE.
therefore, it follows that, collectively, your posts are truly and completely ineffectual as an "argument" against the validity of the descriptive claims comprising the TOE. rather, your discontent lies EITHER with the fallacious reasoning associated with the Is-Ought Fallacy OR with individual normative claims that you (and I also) find morally repugnant but which are completely separate from the TOE.