Re: Grounding the "ethics of evolution" debate


Richard Forrest wrote:
NITRO wrote:
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.
I dont really understand what you mean by epistemological position, but
I can say that my tendency to moralise macro-evolution would definitely
be because of my Christianity.

No, it's because of your ignorance of science in general and
evolutionary theory in particular. There is no moral aspect if any
scientific theory. Any moral aspect is determined by how we apply that
theory.

Semantics. So the moral aspect is because of how I apply that theory,
it makes no difference.

Furthermore, it is downright disingenuous, if not utterly dishonest to
refer to "macro-evolution" if it were in some way a different theory
from that of "microevolution". There is no theory of either. There are
theories of evolution. There is no distinction at the level of process
between micro- and macroevolution, and nobody has ever been able to
demonstrate that there are any discontinuities in the genetic and
fossil record of the sort which would be needed to justify a meaningful
distinction between the levels at which we study evolution.

Well however you want to phrase things. I disagree with macro-evolution
and I agree with micro-evolution. They are not the same things at all.
Your own t.o. FAQ makes the distinction also. Do you usually diverge
from the point to delve into semantical exersizes?

There is plenty of distinction "at the level of process" between the
two ideas, you have a microbe with a set of genes and a gene pool, you
have a man with a set of genes and a gene pool. How did one transform
into the other? The truth is that you dont see a difference because you
yourself dont know the difference.

If you are thinking that Christians are
biased you are right, I admit my bias, even if God is proven to be
false, I would still believe in Him. However Im sure I dont understand
what you mean.

This ignores the fact that the official position of the Churches
representing the majority of the world's christian has made it quite
clear as a matter of doctrine that there is no problem in reconciling
the findings of science regarding evolution and matters of faith. Your
position is not that of Christians in general, it is the position of
your particular minority sect.
I dont care what the official position of any church is. God siad in
the first chapter of Genesis "In the begining God created the heavens
and earth" Thats enough for anyone to understand. Unless they savor
changing words around and thereby distiorting the truth. How do you
read that verse any different? How does the Pope read that verse any
different. How does anyone read that verse any different?

Besides, I am no sheep. I dont believe the majority for its own sake. I
look at things for myself.


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.
I dont think its really just all the scientific questions, but rather
the questions which talk about cosmology, abiogenesis, and
macro-evolution.

Those are scientific matters.
How can you claim that it is not a scientific question if you limit its
scope to matters of science?

Are you on drugs? If not you have the most distorted sense of reasoning
I have ever encountered. I havent limited anything, I dont know what
your talking about.

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.
I suppose, yet I persoanlly dont see where matter could have
spontaneously occured in the universe,

Well take that up with the quantum physicists. Not only do they
theorise that this happens, their theory yields testable predictions
which verify that it does. More than that, these events are essential
to the workings of the universe at a macroscopic scale.
I have taken it up with physicists, I will contnue to do so.

I can't see life emerging from
non-life,

You see life emerging from non-life every time you see a plant grow.
Thats true I suppose, but it is far from my point, its a strawman on
top of a distortion.

and I cant see mutations being responsible for the human
circulatory system.

Which, as you have no knowledge of evolutionary theory or the
biological underpinings of that theory is pretty well irrelevant.
I have more knowledge than you think.

The fact is that the scientists who have studied the evolutionary
history of living organisms have concluded that the only sound
interpretation of a very large amount of evidence is that the human
circualatory system has evolved along with the rest of the human body.


If you want your opinions to hold any weight you need to understand the
evidence and provided an alternative interpretation which is supported
equally well by that evidence. Good luck. Scientistis have been trying
to do so for two centuries, and the more evidence we find, the better
evolutionary theory is supported.

"we"? So your a scientist?
Has it occured to you that I might not care if my opinions carry weight
among science.? I only care if my opinions carry weight with God.


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.
Most people that follow modern evolutionary theory generally dont care
what bad things they are causing to happen, because they dont
understand what the absence of God could mean.

What on earth do you mean by that? Nobody "follows" evolutionary
theory. It is not a religion. Furthermore, many scientist in the field
are Christians, or adherents of other faiths. Investigating the
workings of the universe using the tools of science is not a denial of
the existence of God.

They cant be adherents of the Bible, because the Bible says God created
the heavens and earth, and the Bible says that creatures, including
plants, including man, were all created.


Investigating the workings of the universe is using the tools of
science is all great. Trying to ascertain "how" or "why" the universe
came into exsitence is beyond scienc' domain.

Its a religion if your actions are dictated by it, if you accept it as
final authority.

They have never had God
in their lives, so they would never know what its like to be without
Him.

You are making presumptions about the beliefs of people you don't know.

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.
I only think your rationalizing too much if you try to tell this
thinking to your rude supermarket clerk. You are also rationalizing too
much if your talking to me on most days also. Usually Im too busy
studying and working to care what my Christianity is doing to the
world, or to care what ToE is doing to the world.

No theory in science does anything to the world. It seeks to explain
how the world works.
If it just tried to figure out how the world worked it would be fine.
But when science trys to understand why the world works, thats when it
reaches it's limitation.

Let the world burn as far as Im concerned, and all self-serving false
religion and evolutionary rhetoric can burn along with it.
-Tuokku

You have no understanding of the nature of science.
I do have an understanding of it. Your incorrect.
RF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: science vs religon
    ... dont try to push it in schools, dont try to portray it as ... science and everytning will be fine. ... Darwinian evolution being taught in science class, ... the nice thing about religion is its infinite plasticity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Grounding the "ethics of evolution" debate
    ... tendency to moralise evolution somehow reflects the epistemological ... However Im sure I dont understand ... falsified it because nothing evil can be true in a moral universe. ... and conscience of ToE proponents. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Grounding the "ethics of evolution" debate
    ... tendency to moralise evolution somehow reflects the epistemological ... The science is neutral. ... yourself dont know the difference. ... scientific evidence I and other evolutionary scientists have missed? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Theory of beliefs, belief fields
    ... I dont know what happened inside McDonalds while I was waiting, ... of body capilarity and erect walking from the effect of a fish diet. ... evolutionary step, which for evolution scales is very recent. ... metabolic byproducts of unsaturated fats. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • [Full-disclosure] gnome evolution mail client inline text file DoS issue
    ... i dont really care.. ... here:) (for evolution users anyway) ... so the issue is with text based file attachments with the ... it might almost be worth having an option to disable the auto display of ...
    (Full-Disclosure)