[_ Old Earth _] Evolution and morality

[Grazer]

Following a point raised by AthoAtheist, I'd like to take a look at this further. If I'm understanding their point correctly (and I apologise in advance if I'm not, I'm not deliberately mis-interpreting them) we have morality because it is beneficial to the species for its survival.

I can certainly see the logic but this is it supported by science?

Evolution generally does keep the good parts but what about traits like helping others even at the expense of yourself i.e. self sacrifice? I keep thinking about what Richard Dawkins wrote:

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference..........DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music"

It seems very hard to get any kind of morality out of that unless you assume morality is purely genetic and therefore DNA is in itself moral. A view it seems Richard Dawkins does not take.

 

[lordkalvan]

You may find this paper discussing Darwin's treatment of the evolution of morality interesting:

http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/D.onM.html

There is a great deal of recent work into social behaviour in primates which also discusses altruistic behaviour as a sort of precursor to what we call morality, for example:

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093625

 

[Barbarian]

Altruism is built into our genes, because we are a social species, and there is a survival value to sacrificing yourself so that your relatives can live on.

But that doesn't explain why people will sacrifice to save others who are not in any way related to them.

Jesus taught that we should extend the concept of "brother" to every person, even if we bitterly opposed what they believe. That is the point of the Good Samaritan.

And that is not from nature. It is one of those "invisible things clearly seen" that Paul wrote about.

Natural law, that which all men know, even if they don't know who God is.

 

[cupid dave]

Following a point raised by AthoAtheist, I'd like to take a look at this further. If I'm understanding their point correctly (and I apologise in advance if I'm not, I'm not deliberately mis-interpreting them) we have morality because it is beneficial to the species for its survival.

I can certainly see the logic but this is it supported by science?

Evolution generally does keep the good parts but what about traits like helping others even at the expense of yourself i.e. self sacrifice? I keep thinking about what Richard Dawkins wrote:

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference..........DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music"

It seems very hard to get any kind of morality out of that unless you assume morality is purely genetic and therefore DNA is in itself moral. A view it seems Richard Dawkins does not take.

The most recent thinking on this issue omes from the emminent scientist Leonard Mlodino, who explains the matter very well in his new book, Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior

Random House, Inc.
Book Description
Publication Date: April 24, 2012

Leonard Mlodinow, the best-selling author of The Drunkard’sWalk and coauthor of The Grand Design (with Stephen Hawking), gives us astartling and eye-opening examination of how the unconscious mind shapes ourexperience of the world and how, for instance, we often misperceive ourrelationships with family, friends, and business associates, misunderstand thereasons for our investment decisions, and misremember important events.

What he says is that being nice to one another, i.e.; Love thy neighbor, is the team work theory that makes man able to survive by contributing to the general welfare.

Whereas that seems rather obvious, the meaning is the immorality is a wedge between us that counters such a survival skill as communitarianism.


The Bible also complements history by observing that a long battle between the sexes has been raging in regard to Patriarchy Vs Matriarchy.
Scripture distinguishes these two sociological entities as Gentile Vs Monotheism.

The over view of the present current events ought draw attention to the very moment when the whole Western World clearly is that cultural Matriarchy by comparison whithe those self evident Patriarhies like Islam, N. Korea, China, etc.

 

[cupid dave]

I can certainly see the logic but this is it supported by science?.

Social Science statistically supports the idea in regard to Sexual Morality.

Americans ought see that the growth of Single Mothers since the feminist sexual revolution of 1960 has brought with it the very seeds of self destruction from within, or the vulnerablity to foreign attacks as the bleedinghearts of the feminized Left has defanged the Military slowly but surely, and the Police Authorities as much as could be accomplished to date.

The mercenaries who we now pay to defend the nation are villified and often intentionally disrespected and criticized openly as seen during the Veitnam campaign, the media blitz against prisoner tratment in Iraq, and water boarding objections, the prison in Cube, etc.

The efforts to make the USA disarm, unilaterally, as if that is a useful effort to assure world peace, rather than an open invitation for invasions, that is another example of woman's intuition gone off track.

Internally, the nation's families are 50% Single Mother households.
This is growing larger, dispite statistical evidence that fatherless kids are responsible for 70% of all internal social problems, including violent crime.

 

[Barbarian]

Minors are doing a lot less violent crime lately, and the percent of violent crime by minors has dropped considerably.

 

[cupid dave]

Minors are doing a lot less violent crime lately, and the percent of violent crime by minors has dropped considerably.

1) This is true since violent crime in general has decreased since the high of 1990.
But it is still almost triple the rates prior to the Feminist sexual Revolution of 1960.
Abortions are thought to be the factor on reducing crime.

2) The facts remain that 70% of all present ofenders including those people incarcerated, on bail, paroled, awaiting trial, etc have been raised in a single mother family.


3)

As shown in the charts above, reported violent crime nationwide nearly quadrupled between 1960 and its peak in 1991.
Since 1993, crime has declined steeply.

4) But violent crime still is double the 1960 rate.

 

[Barbarian]

But notice that even though single-parent families are on the increase, violent crime is declining, and declining for the 12-17 age group.

So something else is afoot here.

 

[cupid dave]

But notice that even though single-parent families are on the increase, violent crime is declining, and declining for the 12-17 age group.

So something else is afoot here.

Yep..
Abortion.

Notice that since Roe Vs Wade in 1972, Abortions jumoed to @ 1.2 million every year thereafter.

This eliminated haldf of the illegitimate babies which even now are 1/2 of all births.

From the charts you can see that the kids born before the abortions started, before 1970, reached adulthood during the 20 years between 1970-1990, the peak of the criminal activity.

Then, as abortion eliminate half the number of illegitimate babies, after 1990, crime tappered off.

FACT:
Since Roe Vs Wade 1/3 of pregnancies are aborted every year (1.2 million).
Then 1/3 of the pregnancies every year are illegitimate (1.5 million).
And 1/3 of the pregnancies are to two married people, (1.7 million).

William Bennet, the radio guy, almost got fired for the uproar when he said that aborting the other 1/3 illegitimate babies would reduce crime to zero.

 

[lordkalvan]

Yep..
Abortion.

Notice that since Roe Vs Wade in 1972, Abortions jumoed to @ 1.2 million every year thereafter.

This eliminated haldf of the illegitimate babies which even now are 1/2 of all births.

From the charts you can see that the kids born before the abortions started, before 1970, reached adulthood during the 20 years between 1970-1990, the peak of the criminal activity.

Then, as abortion eliminate half the number of illegitimate babies, after 1990, crime tappered off.

FACT:
Since Roe Vs Wade 1/3 of pregnancies are aborted every year (1.2 million).
Then 1/3 of the pregnancies every year are illegitimate (1.5 million).
And 1/3 of the pregnancies are to two married people, (1.7 million).

William Bennet, the radio guy, almost got fired for the uproar when he said that aborting the other 1/3 illegitimate babies would reduce crime to zero.

Can you tell us how you have determined that you are not committing at least one logical fallacy here, the post hoc fallacy (false cause)?

 

[Barbarian]

William Bennet, the radio guy, almost got fired for the uproar when he said that aborting the other 1/3 illegitimate babies would reduce crime to zero.

Your own data say that abortions are declining. But so is violent crime, and it has been for decades. Over that time, the number of single-parent households has increased. I don't doubt that unwanted kids are more likely to be abused or neglected, and that this affects crime rates. But something else is at work here.

 

[cupid dave]

Your own data say that abortions are declining. But so is violent crime, and it has been for decades. Over that time, the number of single-parent households has increased. I don't doubt that unwanted kids are more likely to be abused or neglected, and that this affects crime rates. But something else is at work here.

The change in the number of abortions today is small.
The 1.6 million abortions at the peak is now @ 1.2 million.
But those little babies have not yet reached the age of crime.

The criminal population of older teens through the early twenties would have been reduced in number starting in 1970 through 1990.
The effect of aborting those babies back then has lowered the number of 18-25 year olds today.

The lower abortion numbers since 1995 should predict a slight rise in crime 20 years hence, or around 2015.


To correlate the number of abortions with the criminal element you must compare the crime rates 20 year later on average.

 

[lordkalvan]

The change in the number of abortions today is small.
The 1.6 million abortions at the peak is now @ 1.2 million.
But those little babies have not yet reached the age of crime.

The criminal population of older teens through the early twenties would have been reduced in number starting in 1970 through 1990.
The effect of aborting those babies back then has lowered the number of 18-25 year olds today.

The lower abortion numbers since 1995 should predict a slight rise in crime 20 years hence, or around 2015.


To correlate the number of abortions with the criminal element you must compare the crime rates 20 year later on average.

You have not yet established that your correlation is valid. How does your hypothesis hold with other countries, for example? If you look at, say, Sweden or other Scandinavian countries, what conclusions are you led to by looking at the same data sets?

 

[Barbarian]

But that doesn't explain the decades-long decrease in crime, or the same decrease in violent crime of 12-19 year-olds.

 

[cupid dave]

But that doesn't explain the decades-long decrease in crime, or the same decrease in violent crime of 12-19 year-olds.

Yes it does.

Check again.

During the 20 years when crime was rising, abortion became legal.


The abortions rose to more than double during those twenty year of crime by young adults of the previous generation, before abortion was legalized.
So it was the next generation that we saw crime go down by half.

See?

Abortions, up for the generation of 1970-1990, saw the kids in that generation reach young adulthood around 2000.

Then we see crime with a corresponding decrease from 2000 thru 2010.

 

[lordkalvan]

Yes it does.

Check again.

During the 20 years when crime was rising, abortion became legal.


The abortions rose to more than double during those twenty year of crime by young adults of the previous generation, before abortion was legalized.
So it was the next generation that we saw crime go down by half.

See?

Abortions, up for the generation of 1970-1990, saw the kids in that generation reach young adulthood around 2000.

Then we see crime with a corresponding decrease from 2000 thru 2010.

Again, simply asserting a correlation exists does not demonstrate that the asserted correlation actually exists. What other variables might affect the data you are looking at?

 

[cupid dave]

There are plenty of other studies that correlate with this Again, simply asserting a correlation exists does not demonstrate that the asserted correlation actually exists. What other variables might affect the data you are looking at?

There are plenty of other studies to support the fact that Single Mothers raise kids destined for some social problems of some kind.
The Abortion phenomenon that reduced those problems by eliminating half the illegitimate babies has plenty of extraneous support from other studies:

More Statistics on Fatherlessness​

CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS



It’s a Fact

Here’s why:



63% of youth suicides are fromfatherless homes. (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census).



90% of all homeless and runawaychildren are from fatherless homes.



85% of all children that exhibitbehavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.

(Source: Center for DiseaseControl).



80% of rapist motivated bydisplaced anger come from fatherless homes. (Source:

Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol.14, pp. 403-26).



71% of all high school dropoutscome from fatherless homes. (Source: National Principals Assoc. Report on theState of High Schools).



85% of all youths sitting in prisonsgrew up in a fatherless home. (Source: Fulton County Georgia jail populations,Texas Dept. Of Corrections, 1992).



These statistics translate to meanthat children from fatherless homes are:



5 times more likely to commitsuicide

32 times more likely to run away

20 times more likely to havebehavioral disorders

14 times more likely to commit rape

9 times more likely to drop out ofhigh school

20 times more likely to end up inprison





Childrenfrom fatherless homes are*:



Childrenfrom "fatherless families of single mother" homesare*:



• 15.3 times more likely to have behavioraldisorders

• 4.6 times more likely to commit suicide

• 6.6 times more likely to become teenaged mothers

• 24.3 times more likely to run away

• 15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders

• 6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions

• 10.8 times more likely to commit rape

• 6.6 times more likely to drop out of school

• 15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenage

• 73% of adolescent murderers come from mother only homes

• 6.3 times more likely to be instate operated institutions

​

Daughters who live in mother only homes are​

92% more likely to divorce**​

​

 

[lordkalvan]

There are plenty of other studies to support the fact that Single Mothers raise kids destined for some social problems of some kind.
The Abortion phenomenon that reduced those problems by eliminating half the illegitimate babies has plenty of extraneous support from other studies:

More Statistics on Fatherlessness​

CHILDREN NEED BOTH PARENTS



It’s a Fact

Here’s why:



63% of youth suicides are fromfatherless homes. (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census).



90% of all homeless and runawaychildren are from fatherless homes.



85% of all children that exhibitbehavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.

(Source: Center for DiseaseControl).



80% of rapist motivated bydisplaced anger come from fatherless homes. (Source:

Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol.14, pp. 403-26).



71% of all high school dropoutscome from fatherless homes. (Source: National Principals Assoc. Report on theState of High Schools).



85% of all youths sitting in prisonsgrew up in a fatherless home. (Source: Fulton County Georgia jail populations,Texas Dept. Of Corrections, 1992).



These statistics translate to meanthat children from fatherless homes are:



5 times more likely to commitsuicide

32 times more likely to run away

20 times more likely to havebehavioral disorders

14 times more likely to commit rape

9 times more likely to drop out ofhigh school

20 times more likely to end up inprison





Childrenfrom fatherless homes are*:



Childrenfrom "fatherless families of single mother" homesare*:



• 15.3 times more likely to have behavioraldisorders

• 4.6 times more likely to commit suicide

• 6.6 times more likely to become teenaged mothers

• 24.3 times more likely to run away

• 15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorders

• 6.3 times more likely to be in a state-operated institutions

• 10.8 times more likely to commit rape

• 6.6 times more likely to drop out of school

• 15.3 times more likely to end up in prison while a teenage

• 73% of adolescent murderers come from mother only homes

• 6.3 times more likely to be instate operated institutions

​

Daughters who live in mother only homes are​

92% more likely to divorce**​

​

So now show me that these statistics are supported by similar studies in other countries and that the only cause is the lack of a father in the familial home. What do the statistics show for children in single-parent homes where the single parent is the mother? What about family units where the two parents are same-sex? What about family homes where there is a step-father? If you look at socio-economic groups for the types of behaviour you have cited above, what does this tell you about causal relationships?

 

[cupid dave]

So now show me that these statistics are supported by similar studies in other countries and that the only cause is the lack of a father in the familial home.

What do the statistics show for children in single-parent homes where the single parent is the mother?

What about family units where the two parents are same-sex?

What about family homes where there is a step-father?

If you look at socio-economic groups for the types of behaviour you have cited above, what does this tell you about causal relationships?

You would make a great researcher into this matter because your obvious emotional enthusiasm and the questions that occur to you are essential in establishing the true causes of this very very important matter of child abuse on the grand scale of millions of single mother kids.

One strange and troubling thing we find immediately is that divorced and re-married women make the situation worse.
Step-father INCREASE the general abuse.

Whereas Single Mothers, as a category double the problems over the convenional two parent family, all other sitution are even worse.

Step fathers are the worst, while single father, no parents in the home, foster homes, living with grand parents is even more detrimental than a Single Mother home.

 

[lordkalvan]

Do you have comparative figures over several years? How do these statistics match up with other countries' experiences? And what about other socio-economic factors? For example, if stepfather families, mother custody families and all others are disproportionately represented in economically disadvantaged groups, then this becomes a variable requiring factoring into the conclusions drawn from the data and influences decisions on how best to deal with the attendant problems. And to what extent do the figures vary across different socio-economic groups experiencing the same family situations?