[_ Old Earth _] Evolution's Evil Exposed

[evanman]

I think you'll find that Stalin rejected Darwinism, not evilution!

Also darwinism is more that just an explanation of the origin of life it is a complete, all embracing theory that encompasses EVERYTHING scientific, including Sociology, Physics, Chemistry, Economics, History, Linguistics, you name it!

 

[Rogue 9]

I think you'll find that Stalin rejected Darwinism, not evilution!

Also darwinism is more that just an explanation of the origin of life it is a complete, all embracing theory that encompasses EVERYTHING scientific, including Sociology, Physics, Chemistry, Economics, History, Linguistics, you name it!

Err... Darwin was no physicist. What are you babbling about?

 

[Mr Flibble]

I think you'll find that Stalin rejected Darwinism, not evilution!

Also darwinism is more that just an explanation of the origin of life it is a complete, all embracing theory that encompasses EVERYTHING scientific, including Sociology, Physics, Chemistry, Economics, History, Linguistics, you name it!

I think you will find that the theories proposed by Darwin, was entirely evolution and had nothing to do with fields outside of biology. If you are talking about "Social Darwinism" that was an idiotic pseudoscientific theory made to justify racist and other bigoted attitudes.

I know of no single theory that empraces all the fields that you mention.

 

[Rogue 9]

And Darwin did not write the word "evolution" anywhere in The Origin of Species, IIRC. He used the term natural selection.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

I think you'll find that Stalin rejected Darwinism, not evilution!

Also darwinism is more that just an explanation of the origin of life it is a complete, all embracing theory that encompasses EVERYTHING scientific, including Sociology, Physics, Chemistry, Economics, History, Linguistics, you name it!

Stalin believed that certain traits, if encouraged in parents, would be permanent in children. Like a bodybuilder will have stronger children because of his bodybuilding. This is complete and utter nonsense.

 

[CrimsonTide]

I have a question to ask.

If you believe in evolution, in natural selection, in the way the strongest dominate and reproduces more than the weak, to improve a species over time.

Ok then if you really believe this - why not go now and kill every person that has a genetic defect and purify the human species and advance our evolution thousands of years ahead - rather than waiting for those weak gene 'ed people to die off naturally. Isn't this the best thing for the human species? Well apparently Hitler thought so, he tried to create a Super race and he tried to purify the german race by killing the Jews. Evolution and similar ideas are EVIL and Satan uses them as tools to deceive men into doing great evil - taking away all conscience and making it purely scientific, blinding a man to morality and Love.

Evolution has NO morality whatsoever. See it for what it is - Satans tool to deceive men into doing evil.

I cannot help but laugh at this statement.

First of all, evolution is via NATURAL SELECTION. Human interferance, isnt evolution through natural selection, but rather it is artificial selection.

Secondly, evolution is not supposed to have any moral value. It is not a belief system, it is not a religion, it is an explanation of the natural world that just so happens to be supported by the evidence at hand. It has no more bearing on our morals than the theory of gravity.

Thirdly, mrals came about through evolution. You see, humans do not operate or function on the individual level, but rather at the group level. In order to survive, we need to have rules of conduct which govern our behavior, just like any other social mammal. If we dont have them, our group structure collapses, and we die off. This is where evolution comes in. Morals, are those rules of conduct. They are learned behaviors that get passed down via parental care every generation, and are modified to fit the world around them. The groups that have the best rules of conduct that allow their group to function, survives and spreads. This is the reason that basic morals(no murder etc) are common to every culture. Because they work. ny other eccessor ethics(dont touch dead pig) are culture and environment specific.

 

[CrimsonTide]

I think you'll find that Stalin rejected Darwinism, not evilution!

Also darwinism is more that just an explanation of the origin of life it is a complete, all embracing theory that encompasses EVERYTHING scientific, including Sociology, Physics, Chemistry, Economics, History, Linguistics, you name it!

Uncle Joe rejected evolution on philosophical grounds(he mistakenly though that it promoted a class system) He instead was a lamarkian, which is utter nonsense.

Evolution, does not encompas all disiplines. It can be applied to biology, sociology, phsychology and linguistics, but it does not encompass them.

Chemistry and physics only expplain the mechanism for evolution.

No branch of science is an island, because all science is merely the study of the natural world, each branch, takes the others into account.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolution has no moral code, any more than plumbing has a moral code. Scientists and plumbers may have morals, but they can't get them from their respective fields.

That has to be found elsewhere.

 

[Free]

Hmm...a whole slew of new posters that all see the same way. From the same place perhaps? How cute. :D

I didn't know that plumbers had morals!? ;)

 

[Rogue 9]

To be fair, I came with them and I don't see the same way. Its just that here the numbers are reversed. :wink:

 

[evanman]

There are many scientists who reject darwinism, yet uphold the idea of Evilution! Darwin was not the first to propound the theory and he isn't the last. "Upon the Origin of Species" is not seen as the definative theory of Evilution!

 

[Barbarian]

There aren't many scientists who aren't convinced Darwin had it right. Here's a sort of whimsical way of testing that:

Project Steve:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articl ... 6_2003.asp

Go here and click on the Steve-o-meter to see how it's going:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articl ... 6_2003.asp

Darwin was wrong about some things; the modern synthesis includes the findings of genetics, and is not in the least Lamarkan. Darwin thought that it was possible to retain aquired characteristics in a population.

 

[M82A1]

I have a question to ask.

If you believe in evolution, in natural selection, in the way the strongest dominate and reproduces more than the weak, to improve a species over time.

Ok then if you really believe this - why not go now and kill every person that has a genetic defect and purify the human species and advance our evolution thousands of years ahead - rather than waiting for those weak gene 'ed people to die off naturally. Isn't this the best thing for the human species? Well apparently Hitler thought so, he tried to create a Super race and he tried to purify the german race by killing the Jews. Evolution and similar ideas are EVIL and Satan uses them as tools to deceive men into doing great evil - taking away all conscience and making it purely scientific, blinding a man to morality and Love.

Evolution has NO morality whatsoever. See it for what it is - Satans tool to deceive men into doing evil.

Woooooooooow! Wait right there, Look back in time about 200 years, back when Christians slaughtered Atheists because they thought they were 'witches.' Look back even further, almost everyone thought the Earth was flat. Look back even further, when people thought the Earth was the center of the Universe. What I'm getting at here is people are wrong. People that deny science are oftentimes the most wrong. :wink:

 

[CrimsonTide]

There are many scientists who reject darwinism, yet uphold the idea of Evilution! Darwin was not the first to propound the theory and he isn't the last. "Upon the Origin of Species" is not seen as the definative theory of Evilution!

The problem is, Darwin didnt know the mechanism of evolution. He knew that it used natural selection, but he didnt know how hereditary characteristics were passed down.

The exact mechanism is still a mater of debate within the scientific community however. Some scientists view it as a slow process strict decent with modification. others view it as a slow process tat occasionally happens in quick bursts(punctuated equilibria)

 

[Soma-Sight]

They imply that the only reason to be moral is because God says you have to. It really is sickening.

Withut God, there is no right and wrong. It is all subjective.

Only the existance of an ideal observer or God makes ethical theories plausible.

 

[Admiral Valdemar]

They imply that the only reason to be moral is because God says you have to. It really is sickening.

Withut God, there is no right and wrong. It is all subjective.

Only the existance of an ideal observer or God makes ethical theories plausible.

You're assuming God's morals are right anyway. Why should I trust a fictional deity in a book written by travelling storytellers thousands of years ago?

Morality is subjective and that is the way it goes with every society bar the essential altruistic moral codes like no murder and help the poor etc.

 

[CrimsonTide]

They imply that the only reason to be moral is because God says you have to. It really is sickening.

Withut God, there is no right and wrong. It is all subjective.

Only the existance of an ideal observer or God makes ethical theories plausible.

Morals are really just codes of conduct that allow a group to survive. All ar essentially derived from simple logic. If you allow your group members to screw each other over(murder, theft, rape etc) then your society simply will not survive. The societies that live, are the ones who develope usable ethics. Which is why a small set are universal, in that any group needs them, while others are environment specific