| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and uploads. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Halting Evolution; if we evolved, why not social darwinism? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 3 2008, 11:00 PM (179 Views) | |
| jesusfreak574 | May 3 2008, 11:00 PM Post #1 |
|
Evolution claims that the fittest organisms survive, procreate, and continue the species, thereby passing their strongest traits to the future members of the species. Weak organisms die, their genetic traits aren't passed along, and the species becomes stronger through the whole process. If we evolved, why is this mentality not echoed in our view of people? Why do we insist on helping the weak to survive, in providing for the ill/disabled, genetically or otherwise, and the elderly? It's a drain of resources on people who arguably are only holding back the species. We have effectively halted evolution. Why? Because of morals? Assuming evolution, morals evolved as well. Did evolution create the entity of its undoing? I know that Hitler did not draw his ideas from Darwin, but if we evolved, didn't he have the right idea? One of his goals was to create a super race by removing those he considered weaker. Furthering the species, evolution style. I don't understand this inconsistency in the world. What do you guys think? Why aren't evolutionary principles carried into the social sphere? |
![]() |
|
| d0nk3y | May 4 2008, 02:50 AM Post #2 |
|
current status: lurking more
|
First, please don't think I have forgotten or shamed out of posting in the other topics.. I've just been playing CoD4 instead Give me time ![]() I'd also like to say: I don't think evolution is really an argument for social Darwinism (and Darwin had nothing to do with the term (but I honestly believe you know that, it's hard not to sound sarcastic sometimes..)). I'll explain a little better at the end.. Rather, I think it's a separate philosophical question altogether. Now is a good time to clarify "my philosophy", which I have deliberately eluded in the other topics. Whenever someone "attacks" a belief or theory, they ought to have a counterargument that you should listen to. So here goes, in a nutshell (but it is about as simple): I believe in all things temporary in our universe. I don't believe in "divine" morals, as you may. I believe that while a solipsist argument is valid, it is not useful because it is not falsifiable or provable. Therefore, I believe we exist, in a temporary sense. And I believe in emotions and feelings. But I believe they are an evolutionary byproduct and not "divine" feelings. I believe in happiness, contentness, and pain. On a side note, I believe pain is more powerful than happiness because painful memories tend to outlast or out-intensify the happy. But this isn't really important (I don't think.) So I believe pain is bad in the sense that when I hit you, it feels bad. When I eat dog food, it tastes bad. (But when you hit a tree, it doesn't feel bad. When you feed it dirty water, it doesn't feel bad.) I do not believe the badness of pain is any more transcendent than the things morals tell you not to do. I have killed 0 people. I have stolen nothing I can remember. I have broken 3 or 4 of your commandments and I believe it caused no pain. And from here comes my perception of right and wrong. In the long run, I have none. But for the couple generations I may have an effect on people, I hope that it is not one of pain. The only good or bad I believe in is a shallow one. It is a temporary one. For now, I hope I'm clear enough. To the question of social darwinism, I echo; why not? In an extremely temporary sense, it causes pain. In a longer temporariness, I only see it as bringing contentness. And in the long-run, it is all negligible, it is neither good nor bad. So my only answer is to point to the pain it causes immediately. Chances are, you'd lose a friend or two, maybe some family members. In case you may wonder why these relationships should mean anything to us, I'll point again to our evolutionary history. We did not "grow up" running around in the jungle, killing whoever we saw. We banded together to cooperate; we developed a sense of emotional pain so that we "had" to. We did not evolve killing eachother, we evolved by developing physically and mentally to conquer the harsh world, to become better suited for (temporary) survival. This is only my personal view on the situation. But in the long run, it doesn't matter. |
![]() |
|
| Goda | May 4 2008, 03:57 AM Post #3 |
|
Topic Starter
|
i think the most basic reason for us helping the "weak" is because we all actually have strengths, so we cooperate to get strength in everything |
![]() |
|
| d0nk3y | May 4 2008, 04:49 AM Post #4 |
|
current status: lurking more
|
except babies, who have no strengths.. >:( babies |
![]() |
|
| Goda | May 4 2008, 10:35 PM Post #5 |
|
Topic Starter
|
once a baby, always a baby. graham you were once a baby! down with graham! now of course i was formed from a pile of sludge |
![]() |
|
| jesusfreak574 | May 13 2008, 12:50 AM Post #6 |
|
Whenever someone "attacks" a belief or theory, they ought to have a counterargument that you should listen to. Very good! I agree entirely. I would imagine that most of you know that I don't believe in evolution. We were created; we did not evolve. We were created in the image of our Creator. I would attribute creativity, intelligence, compassion, and other things like that to being mere images of His nature. If our Creator is valuable, then our lives are also valuable. This is why I think life is important and should be preserved. Life is a gift from our Creator, and it is valuable because it mirrors, in some distorted and weakened form, the brilliance of His own life. And I guess here's another difference worth mentioning. If I'm right, it does matter. And another side note in response to a side note: I don't have painful memories. For me, the happiness and joy are stronger. |
![]() |
|
| d0nk3y | May 17 2008, 04:46 AM Post #7 |
|
current status: lurking more
|
I actually did not know you don't believe in evolution and it comes as a small surprise... I'd like to ask you why, specifically, scientifically. I'll simplify it, and please, tell me where your belief breaks down. -Cells contain DNA, which can be observed through microscopes (recall the double helix, TCAG, phosphates, etc.) -DNA serves as a sort of blueprint for how things in the cells run. -DNA is passed on to children (why you look so much like your parents/brothers+sisters). -This passing on happens because of processes during cell division.. transcription, etc. -Some genes are dominant, some recessive. You share some traits with your grandparents which neither of your parents have. -Occasionally, a mutation arises. Take Down's Syndrome or Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease. -These mutations may be negative and the organism may (more often than usual) die. -These mutations may be positive, and the organism may have a higher "success" rate, passing on its genes. An example of a positive mutation are the antibiotic resistant bacteria. Does your denial (I mean that in a respectful way) stretch solely from your religious belief? Do you believe in "neanderthal" like men? Do you have an explanation for the differences we have with people a few centuries ago (height comes to mind)? Do you have an explanation for the differences in skin color of various races? They can't all be in His image, can they? Where do you think the widespread support (particularly by scientists) for evolution comes from? Are they all controlled by the devil or what?? I know a bandwagon approach has flaws, but do you have some sort of explanation for the bandwagon's existence? Pascal's wager was not what I was going for. If I locked 10 million red-heads up in cages then, didn't let them breed, kept them alive on bread and water... but I did not kill them... IE, survival of the fittest, is that wrong? (I have no plans to). I spared their precious lives.. |
![]() |
|
| jesusfreak574 | May 19 2008, 03:13 AM Post #8 |
|
Whoops! I didn't communicate very effectively. I do not believe that evolution can create different species. Evolution on a small scale, micro-evolution, Darwin's finches, whatever, happens all the time. But they can still breed with each other and are still the same species. I do agree with your bulleted statements (all of them, actually), but i'd like to mention that positive mutations do not occur nearly as frequently as negative ones. Also, I think the skin color point is fairly interesting. Clearly, I'm not a biologist or a scientist of any type, but according to one I spoke with, it is possible for a person with a skin tone very similar to an Arab to selectively breed and produce white, black, Asian, African colorations. As far as why I believe what I do, part of it is religious. I do not need evolution to explain what I see around me if I am willing to believe that God created it all. I think that could provide an ulterior motive for many scientists to confirm evolution. They don't want to need a God, so they find evidence that there isn't one. Confirmation bias and all that psychology. Also, again from that scientist mentioned before, it is very difficult to remain "reputable" and deny evolution. I'm not big into conspiracy theories, but I don't think evolution has quite the widespread support that the media and similar sources report sometimes. Oh, the other part of why I believe what I do has to do with the evidence presented for evolution. Some of it has merits, of course. But other stuff that I read in Widner's biology textbook was quite poor. For example, Miller didn't prove anything with his zapping the atmosphere to produce amino acids experiment. He used the wrong gases, for one. Second, he only got two of twenty something acids needed for life. Third, they were floating in formaldehyde and cyanide, if I remember correctly. A little difficult for life to form in that. (And I realize this isn't strictly against evolution, but it was in the evolution chapter of the textbook) |
![]() |
|
| Goda | May 19 2008, 10:47 PM Post #9 |
|
Topic Starter
|
These scientists may be wrong about no God, and they may be wrong to use evolution to attack God. But I don't think evolution has to be wrong because of those things. I don't think evolution and God creating things have to clash even. |
![]() |
|
| jesusfreak574 | May 22 2008, 09:57 PM Post #10 |
|
Regardless of the possibility of these things coexisting, where is the evidence for evolution? I see no reason to put faith in something that there is not evidence for... |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Philosophy & Debate · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2






Give me time 

8:55 AM Jul 11