70 replies to this topic

[gilbo12345]

When evolution portrays life as natural processes and that life is "survival of the fittest", what should occur to the "weaker" portions of life.

I am not asking for what Darwin thought or wrote, (or what you thought he wrote ).

I am asking if evolution, at it's central core implications, devalues life.

[jason777]

I am asking if evolution, at it's central core implications, devalues life.

I am asking if evolution, at it's central core implications, devalues common sense.


There; I fixed your quote LOL.


Honestly, without the Holy Spirit there is nothing good in me or anything. Life is already devalued, it doesn't need evolution to do it, just the absence of Christ.



Enjoy.

[gilbo12345]

I am asking if evolution, at it's central core implications, devalues life.

I am asking if evolution, at it's central core implications, devalues common sense.
There; I fixed your quote LOL.
Honestly, without the Holy Spirit there is nothing good in me or anything. Life is already devalued, it doesn't need evolution to do it, just the absence of Christ.
Enjoy.

Lol thanks for fixing it jason

[gilbo12345]

I know that alot of people will just say that evolution doesn't need to explain ethics... But the way I see it is that there must be a foundation for ethics and social behaviors... What is this foundation?

If a person's worldview is a religious one then God, (or Gods) is attributed as this foundation.

However in an Atheistic / evolutionary worldview, there is no tangible foundation for the ethics and behaviours that occur in the world today.. In fact such behaviours as sharing, helping others etc goes against the model of evolution, whereby life is a "competition" and only the fittest survive. Such a model of living, (if strictly adhered to), will only breed hostility to others as they are your competitors in life and you "must" be the best to survive....

However not many people will admit to this... In evo class last year we were taught how altruism may have evolved.. Despite its anti-evolutionary conotations.

[Spectre]

Gilbo, are you an intelligent design advocate? You make very pro-creation posts for someone who is an agnostic. Just wondering.

[gilbo12345]

Gilbo, are you an intelligent design advocate? You make very pro-creation posts for someone who is an agnostic. Just wondering.

I am theistic agnostic. I believe in a creator, (the cell and its micro machinery are my evidence)... however from this I cannot say WHO it is

I used to be a Christian, but I have since moved away from it... I was having problems with the church I was at. I do realise I am probably using this as an excuse but at least I realise that



Altruism was only explained to me, in the context of helping your cousins... Apparantly since your cousins are related to you... Killing yourself for them means that a small amount of your genetics is passed on through them.... It is a stretch to imagine this, more so since we were not told of the research for this...
(I am assuming that a chimp doesn't realise that part of its own DNA makeup can be found in its cousin... perhaps evolutionists believe all chimps to have studied Biology? )

Another example given was how bats can share food and how a bat will be more likely to share with ones that shared with it, (I'd like to see the research for this, as no links to papers were given for this)..

Yet these, at their core, defie the core evolutionary principles...
Selection and the will to live amongst competed resources.

[ashleyhunt60]

Not a rule. Admittedly, anyone can postulate anything they want, including that evolutions tells us we should kill the weak. But most people we believe in evolution don't advocate that. I see it this way; there are aspects of nature that we can change, and other we can't. Naturally, the weak and sickly die. We don't have to make it so though. Even if you see any rational as illogical, evolutionists aren't as a rule bad people. Most of them are fine people, with no de-valuing of human life.

[gilbo12345]

Not a rule. Admittedly, anyone can postulate anything they want, including that evolutions tells us we should kill the weak. But most people we believe in evolution don't advocate that. I see it this way; there are aspects of nature that we can change, and other we can't. Naturally, the weak and sickly die. We don't have to make it so though. Even if you see any rational as illogical, evolutionists aren't as a rule bad people. Most of them are fine people, with no de-valuing of human life.

Never said or implied that any people were bad people... Just attempting to coax out the reasons for ethics according to evolution... Since any form of ethics defies the core of evolutionary principles... and when life and death are just natural processes, and when it is claimed that the deaths of the weak are a good thing, then this will lead to a de-valuing of life... Rather than be an individual, everything has a number on an imaginary survival scale.

(I do admit I am just postulating here, but I feel that this is a logical line of thought considering the core proponents of evolution, and how altruism and ethics defy these.)

[ashleyhunt60]

Never said or implied that any people were bad people... Just attempting to coax out the reasons for ethics according to evolution... Since any form of ethics defies the core of evolutionary principles... and when life and death are just natural processes, and when it is claimed that the deaths of the weak are a good thing, then this will lead to a de-valuing of life... Rather than be an individual, everything has a number on an imaginary survival scale.

(I do admit I am just postulating here, but I feel that this is a logical line of thought considering the core proponents of evolution, and how altruism and ethics defy these.)

Never meant to imply that I thought you were insinuating that evolutionists were bad people. Point is they don't follow that line of logic, for whatever reason. As for the evolution of morals and ethics, it comes down communities. A fit community makes survival easier for all members. The evolution of morality has a good starting point there. But as to why evolutionists reject the idea eugenics probably has more to do with the fact that we don't feel like we have to follow the natural order. Yes, evolution says the weak die, but we've so far removed ourselves from the natural world, do our weak still have to die? I personally don't feel like evolution should dictate our day to day lives. It tells us how we got here, not where we are going.

[gilbo12345]

Never meant to imply that I thought you were insinuating that evolutionists were bad people. Point is they don't follow that line of logic, for whatever reason. As for the evolution of morals and ethics, it comes down communities. A fit community makes survival easier for all members. The evolution of morality has a good starting point there. But as to why evolutionists reject the idea eugenics probably has more to do with the fact that we don't feel like we have to follow the natural order. Yes, evolution says the weak die, but we've so far removed ourselves from the natural world, do our weak still have to die? I personally don't feel like evolution should dictate our day to day lives. It tells us how we got here, not where we are going.

Good point. So you say that human behaviour defies evolutionary predictions?

What was the foundation for ethics in an evolutionary sense, you did state communities, but that too goes against the evolutionary model.

[ashleyhunt60]

Good point. So you say that human behaviour defies evolutionary predictions?

More or less. I think that evolutionary have been slowed if not to a stand-still, then to a trickle for the human spices. The threat of disease and predators have been so far reduced/eliminated that the concept of survival of the fittest hardly applies to humans anymore.

What was the foundation for ethics in an evolutionary sense, you did state communities, but that too goes against the evolutionary model.

Evolution latches onto whatever solution/betterment comes first. If a species finds itself empowered by being in a community(and there is often power in numbers), then it will become evolutionary favorable. And if communities become favorable, then it becomes a game of the survival of the fittest group.

I'm enjoying this discussion so far.

[gilbo12345]

More or less. I think that evolutionary have been slowed if not to a stand-still, then to a trickle for the human spices. The threat of disease and predators have been so far reduced/eliminated that the concept of survival of the fittest hardly applies to humans anymore.
Evolution latches onto whatever solution/betterment comes first. If a species finds itself empowered by being in a community(and there is often power in numbers), then it will become evolutionary favorable. And if communities become favorable, then it becomes a game of the survival of the fittest group.

I'm enjoying this discussion so far.

I'm glad you agree that the concept of ethics does defy evolutionary prediction, this is the main thrust of my thread, the rest here is semantics

Yet I would disagree that the concept has been eradicated, since there is competition for many things these days... Competition for jobs, competition for a member of the opposite s@x, competition for the bargains at shops etc.

There is still competition amongst individuals, just that it has less to do with survival.

Yet what is good for the group may not be good for the individual... For example some of the "slower" ones will have an impact on the faster ones output, in this regard it doesn't fit evolution.

[ashleyhunt60]

I'm glad you agree that the concept of ethics does defy evolutionary prediction, this is the main thrust of my thread, the rest here is semantics

Yet I would disagree that the concept has been eradicated, since there is competition for many things these days... Competition for jobs, competition for a member of the opposite s@x, competition for the bargains at shops etc.

There is still competition amongst individuals, just that it has less to do with survival.

Yet what is good for the group may not be good for the individual... For example some of the "slower" ones will have an impact on the faster ones output, in this regard it doesn't fit evolution.

Yes, there's competition, but how does the competition affect the offspring rate? A better a job and more money doesn't necessarily mean more children. And you can complete for the girl/boy of your dreams, but many people settle for less and still have children. In our modern world, many times children come about even when we don't want them to. So while there is still competition, it doesn't have a large effect on the offspring rate, which is the driving force for evolution.

Back to the wild, some individuals may excel in many places while others in the same group could be much worse, being part of a community as a whole does aid in survival. Many social creates have watch guards, who raise the alarm at the sight a predator. There's grooming, building nests, scouting, and fighting. All of these aspects of life are made easier with numbers, regardless of how efficient some members are. And for those who are truly detrimental(such as in cases of extreme mental/physical deformities), they often are weeded out of the group by disease/predation, as sad as it may be.

[gilbo12345]

Yes, there's competition, but how does the competition affect the offspring rate? A better a job and more money doesn't necessarily mean more children. And you can complete for the girl/boy of your dreams, but many people settle for less and still have children. In our modern world, many times children come about even when we don't want them to. So while there is still competition, it doesn't have a large effect on the offspring rate, which is the driving force for evolution.

Back to the wild, some individuals may excel in many places while others in the same group could be much worse, being part of a community as a whole does aid in survival. Many social creates have watch guards, who raise the alarm at the sight a predator. There's grooming, building nests, scouting, and fighting. All of these aspects of life are made easier with numbers, regardless of how efficient some members are. And for those who are truly detrimental(such as in cases of extreme mental/physical deformities), they often are weeded out of the group by disease/predation, as sad as it may be.

As I said

"There is still competition amongst individuals, just that it has less to do with survival."

In terms of the wild. Yes I agree it is more useful to live in a community when faced with such tasks.. However in this regard an individuals performance will have less impact on its own survival, thus a benefitial mutation in an individual will have less impact.

[ashleyhunt60]

As I said

"There is still competition amongst individuals, just that it has less to do with survival."

Right, there's competition, but it doesn't contribute to evolution.

In terms of the wild. Yes I agree it is more useful to live in a community when faced with such tasks.. However in this regard an individuals performance will have less impact on its own survival, thus a benefitial mutation in an individual will have less impact.

Most communities have a dominance hierarchy, with the best resources/mating privileges going to higher up members. Many communities, meerkats and wolves for example, heavily suppress breeding within the lower ranks, thus allowing only the strongest and best get to pass on the genes, while the lower ranks just get to live. And in other communities where/when mating within the lower ranks are allowed, they are usually alloted less resources to rear their young, meaning they get to raise less offspring.

[Ron]

evolutionists aren't as a rule bad people.

This seems to be a subjective opinion attempting to be objective. So, coming from an atheistic standpoint, what does it really matter if an evolutionist is good or bad as long as the stronger traits are passed on, and the weaker stifled?

Most of them are fine people, with no de-valuing of human life.

Again, what does it matter to the materialist atheist? As long as the strongest weeds out the weakest, what does it matter if a weaker human life devalued?

[gilbo12345]

Most communities have a dominance hierarchy, with the best resources/mating privileges going to higher up members. Many communities, meerkats and wolves for example, heavily suppress breeding within the lower ranks, thus allowing only the strongest and best get to pass on the genes, while the lower ranks just get to live. And in other communities where/when mating within the lower ranks are allowed, they are usually alloted less resources to rear their young, meaning they get to raise less offspring.

I learn something new everyday Thanks for the info

[ashleyhunt60]

I learn something new everyday Thanks for the info

I enjoyed the discussion too, thanks for your time.

This seems to be a subjective opinion attempting to be objective. So, coming from an atheistic standpoint, what does it really matter if an evolutionist is good or bad as long as the stronger traits are passed on, and the weaker stifled?
Again, what does it matter to the materialist atheist? As long as the strongest weeds out the weakest, what does it matter if a weaker human life devalued?

I don't use the ToE as a base for my morality.

[gilbo12345]

I enjoyed the discussion too, thanks for your time.
I don't use the ToE as a base for my morality.

No probs, I am curious to hear what you do use for your morality? (If I may be so bold to ask lol )