Re: Grounding the "ethics of evolution" debate
- From: "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lflank@xxxxxx>
- Date: 3 Jun 2006 09:04:32 -0700
Tuokku wrote:
Some critics of evolutionary biology are fond of arguing that the
theory of evolution is at least partially responsible for all sorts of
evils like eugenics and racism, probably illegal downloading and rude
supermarket cashiers as well. Lately I've been wondering if this
tendency to moralise evolution somehow reflects the epistemological
position held by the people who make this argument.
One way to make sense of the argument is to presume a universe in which
physics is inextricably tangled with ethics - in other words, a
universe in which every scientific observation is also a moral
revelation. In such a universe the concepts of good and true would be
interchangeable and you wouldn't be able to make a factual claim
without committing yourself to a particular ideology. Thus, if you can
demonstrate a theory to be inherently evil, you've conclusively
falsified it because nothing evil can be true in a moral universe.
Then there's the possibility that the moralists are simply being
cynically pragmatic. Perhaps they think that it doesn't really matter
whether the ToE is correct or not; we should denounce it all the same
in order to stop the proliferation of atheism, devaluing of human life
or whatever it is they think belief in common descent is causing. This
is essentially a form of the ancient notion that there are things
mankind was never meant to know; that sometimes the consequences of
knowing are so dire that it's better to remain ignorant.
A third alternative that occurred to me very recently is that the
argument from ethics is actually an attempt to appeal to the honesty
and conscience of ToE proponents. Many creationists seem to find
evolution a completely ludicrous idea, so maybe they don't think
anybody could seriously believe in it? If you think that those who
promote the ToE do so not out of intellectual honesty but out of
ulterior motives, then you might try to persuade them to give up their
position by making them see that whatever agenda they are pursuing, it
can't possibly outweigh the bad things they're causing to happen.
So, what do you think? Am I rationalising too much? Did I cover all the
options? Which one is closest to the moralist line of reasoning? Your
thoughts, please.
"Evolution" has no more to do with "morals" than does "gravity" or "the
mass of an electron".
The fundies are simply attempting to forceTHEIR moral viewpoints onto
everything around them. Just like they ALWAYS do. And just as they
want to do to YOU.
All the fundie moralizing comes from inside themselves. Nowhere else.
(And that includes their Bible.)
All they want, deep down inside, is to tell everyone else what to do.
Whether everyone else likes it or not.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation email list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/
.
- References:
- Grounding the "ethics of evolution" debate
- From: Tuokku
- Grounding the "ethics of evolution" debate
- Prev by Date: Re: The Permian-Triassic Event - crater discovered?
- Next by Date: Re: What Came Before Monkies?
- Previous by thread: Re: Grounding the "ethics of evolution" debate
- Next by thread: Re: Grounding the "ethics of evolution" debate
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
