Evolution & philosophical consequences

Originally posted by dj2becker
So if you feel that human life has no value you can just go and wipe out as much of it as you please?

Basically, Yes.
However, evolution has resulted in most of us having a tendancy to place a high value on anything containing our genes or related genes. (those without the tendancy dont live very long.)
Even mass-murderers usually place a high value on lives (especially thier own) but commit murder due to various psycological reasons.
Political figures (and others) that cause large number of deaths such a genocide, war etc, often do so due to the percieved threat to thier close relatives/tribe/race/countrymen though there is also an element of seeking power/money etc which is also partially driven by a desire protect thier genes.

Not surprising that the likes of Hitler and Stalin embraced the theory of Evolution.
Interesting then that Bush hasn't yet shows a simmilar disregard for life.
Hitler did not embrace the theory of Evolution but rather manipulated it to his own ends. Nevertheless he is a prime example of the continuous balance in evolution between two beneficial yet opposing tendancies, competition and co-operation. He focused on the competition aspect in his propaganda but lost due to the cooperation of others.
I am afraid I have not studied the history of Stalin.


As a Christian why do you not go and wipe out as much human life as you please? Most likely because you also have a desire to protect your own life and it is so strong that you desire to protect it beyond death. Does the concept of God explain this desire? No.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Anyone can value anything for any reason.

So therefore anyone can also de-value anything for any reason?[/b]

"De-value"? I don't know what that means in this context. One can stop valuing something for any number of reasons, sure. However one cannot control the value of something to another person.

"So if you feel that human life has no value you can just go and wipe out as much of it as you please?"

Anyone can do this, no matter how much they value human life, except that others will try to stop you. However those who value human life will find that they don't "please".

"Not surprising that the likes of Hitler and Stalin embraced the theory of Evolution."

Are you telling me Christians never kill people?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Alternatively, one could say that human life has more value than animal life precisely because we are more highly evolved.

A popular yet unfounded concept, again propagated by people with a need to feel more important than animals.
We are almost cirtainly the most intelligent of animals but not the most successfull (in terms of quantity or chance of survival ) nor the most complicated biologically.(depending on your measure of complexity).
Even if we did consider our selves more 'highly evolved' there is no reason other than personal preference to give more value to us because of it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
A popular yet unfounded concept, again propagated by people with a need to feel more important than animals.
We are almost cirtainly the most intelligent of animals but not the most successfull (in terms of quantity or chance of survival ) nor the most complicated biologically.(depending on your measure of complexity).
Even if we did consider our selves ...[text shortened]... ved' there is no reason other than personal preference to give more value to us because of it.

I'm not disagreeing -- merely pointing out that evolutionary theories do not support one value system over another.

We are almost cirtainly the most intelligent of animals but not the most successfull (in terms of quantity or chance of survival )

Actually, I would dispute the "chance of survival" bit. The human ability to manipulate his environment is unequalled in the natural world -- a direct consequence of which is his ability to thrive in a wide variety of (sometimes hostile) climes.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'm not disagreeing -- merely pointing out that evolutionary theories do not support one value system over another.

[b]We are almost cirtainly the most intelligent of animals but not the most successfull (in terms of quantity or chance of survival )

Actually, I would dispute the "chance of survival" bit. The human ability to manipulate his e ...[text shortened]... onsequence of which is his ability to thrive in a wide variety of (sometimes hostile) climes.[/b]

Actually I'd back any one of many species to outlast humans. The species that have survived calamities that wiped out 95% of life on Earth are pretty damn hardy. And being able to manipulate the environment leads to problems that we face that no other species has yet faced.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, I would dispute the "chance of survival" bit. The human ability to manipulate his environment is unequalled in the natural world -- a direct consequence of which is his ability to thrive in a wide variety of (sometimes hostile) climes.

The ability to manipulate the environment is a usefull tool for survival but not the only one. Adaptability is also important (cockroaches, rats).
Symbiosis and parasitism are also clever tools - it is unlikely that we will outlive the bacteria that lives in our stomachs. We are also dependant on plants but not the reverse so that branch of genes has a better long term survival plan.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
"De-value"? I don't know what that means in this context. One can stop valuing something for any number of reasons, sure. However one cannot control the value of something to another person.

"So if you feel that human life has no value you can just go and wipe out as much of it as you please?"

Anyone can do this, no matter how much they value hu ...[text shortened]... embraced the theory of Evolution."

Are you telling me Christians never kill people?

But in Christian theology there is a day of reckoning. One must give an account to God. There is judgement. There is recompense.

In Evolution there is no final accounting and no final judgment. Everyone will simply melt peacefully into dust.


In the New Testament there is both the final judgment of those professing Christ as their Lord and of those denying Him as Lord. I must give an account for what I did as a follower of Jesus to God.

With Evolution there is no universal judgment and no final day of reckoning. Only dissolving back into the earth.

Originally posted by jaywill
But in Christian theology there is a day of reckoning. One must give an account to God. There is judgement. There is recompense.

In Evolution there is no final accounting and no final judgment. Everyone will simply melt peacefully into dust.


In the New Testament there is both the final judgment of those professing Christ as their Lord and of those ...[text shortened]... ere is no universal judgment and no final day of reckoning. Only dissolving back into the earth.

We go back from whence we came hopefully leaving a good account of ourselves for future generations. If there aren't any future generations (i.e. the human race is gone) then I hope we didn't screw up the entire world in the process.
With no reckoning there is no hangman's noose forcing you to do good deeds. You do them because they are the right thing to do. You do them because it's what being human is about.

Originally posted by jaywill
In the New Testament there is both the final judgment of those professing Christ as their Lord and of those denying Him as Lord. I must give an account for what I did as a follower of Jesus to God.

So when you say "I" do you mean your body, your conciousness or your soul will do this accounting? If you mean your soul then please give us more details about what that is as I have found it nearly impossible for anyone on this site to talk about it.

You also dont say whether you have a problem with either point of view or what your views are.

[edit] and what about all the little babies that die without having much life to account for? Surely that is back to meaningless chance?

Originally posted by lucifershammer

Er, no. Evolutionary theories merely deals with the development of species, not the origin of life itself.

Why should one go into length on a development theory if one hasn't even solved the most important question, the question of origin. If one hasn't got an answer to that, why affirm that the development theory is correct at all?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]If one believes in evolution, life itself is just there by chance.

Er, no. Evolutionary theories merely deals with the development of species, not the origin of life itself.

It's impossible to say that human life is of greater value than the life of an animal, as both are simply the product of chance.

Alternatively, one could sa ...[text shortened]... human life has more value than animal life precisely because we are more highly evolved.[/b]

Alternatively, one could say that human life has more value than animal life precisely because we are more highly evolved.[/b]

So you are saying that our life has more value because we are more highly evolved. What about babys and adults? In this case, one would be forced to make difference between them.
By the way, that's exactly what is happening in Belgium, where medical doctors not only have the right to abort babies, but to kill new-born babies, and that even without the parents's permission. Do you see the consequences of your argument?

Originally posted by louisXIV
Alternatively, one could say that human life has more value than animal life precisely because we are more highly evolved.

So you are saying that our life has more value because we are more highly evolved. What about babys and adults? In this case, one would be forced to make difference between them.
By the way, that's exactly what is happen ...[text shortened]... and that even without the parents's permission. Do you see the consequences of your argument?[/b]

This notion that any species is more highly evolved is ridiculous.
What the hell does that mean?
We humans have been through the same process of evolution, spanning the same period of time, as every other species on the planet, so to say we're more highly evolved is nonsensical.

Now, obviously what people mean to say, is that we think we're better in some way than other species. That's natural. I'm sure any other species that has the ability to think about themselves in this way would think they were better than all others.
But so what?

Evolution doesn't make our lives any more or less valuable. Value is something we place on our lives. Evolution is an uncaring, unthinking, unfeeling natural process (yes Freaky - a natural process). It produces the subject matter. We have to make the sense of it.

Originally posted by louisXIV
Alternatively, one could say that human life has more value than animal life precisely because we are more highly evolved.

So you are saying that our life has more value because we are more highly evolved. What about babys and adults? In this case, one would be forced to make difference between them.
By the way, that's exactly what is happen ...[text shortened]... and that even without the parents's permission. Do you see the consequences of your argument?[/b]

Oh, so if an alien came down that was more "highly evolved" (ammanion is corrent, in biology "more highly evolved" has no meaning whatsoever), you'd be fine with it committing genocide on humans then?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Oh, so if an alien came down that was more "highly evolved" (ammanion is corrent, in biology "more highly evolved" has no meaning whatsoever), you'd be fine with it committing genocide on humans then?

Methinks he's confusing more highly evolved with higher on the food chain.

Originally posted by louisXIV
Why should one go into length on a development theory if one hasn't even solved the most important question, the question of origin. If one hasn't got an answer to that, why affirm that the development theory is correct at all?

Why must origin be the most important question? What is so important about it? Can't a doctor not study the developmental aspects of children (and affirm his theorys) without first studying fertilization? Can we not study the growth stages of a tree without knowing where the seed came from? Can we not know that the universe is expanding without first understanding the Big Bang?