must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.
It is little wonder that fifteen years later Nietzsche proclaimed that “The invalids are the great danger to humanity, not the evil men.” The rest, as they say, is history. Let’s hope it stays that way.
Religion drives science, and it matters.

Wow CH, you don't have a single scruple left in your whole body. Why don't you just make up some quotes whole cloth, save you the trouble of doing all the dishonest manipulative quote mining?
ReplyDeleteHere is the whole Darwin quote
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage"
So Darwin is not advocating eugenics as you not so subtly imply He is actually explaining the opposite - that humans are noble and should care for their sick and weak.
Shame on your dishonest quote-mining CH. Shame.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCornelius, you seem to have forgotten the vast majority of that quote:
ReplyDelete"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."
I'm sure that was entirely unintentional though, given your sterling record of honesty.
Ninja'd by Thorton.
ReplyDeleteCH :
ReplyDeleteIf Darwin were President he certainly wouldn’t be mandating vaccines as did Perry
Maybe if Darwin's former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck as well as the head of Darwin's Superpac.
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteSo Darwin is not advocating eugenics as you not so subtly imply He is actually explaining the opposite - that humans are noble and should care for their sick and weak.
Of course he was advocating for eugenics:
the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound
And the entire passage is fraught with undertones, according to his junk science. But I agree that the larger quote should be included.
But I agree that the larger quote should be included.
ReplyDeleteCH has in the past shown a willingness to edit his posts to include new information. Usually (but not always, much to his credit) because the new information reinforces his argument.
Since the full quote actually undermines his argument I suspect that he will not edit the post to include it, even though he has himself acknowledged that he should.
Distasteful as we may find it, the point Cornelius makes is at least true. Humans ARE very compassionate creatures. We do care for the weak, the sick and infirm, and by doing so, allow them to survive, and shield our race as a whole against the worst rigours of natural selection.
ReplyDeleteCornelius' problem is that he is deriving an OUGHT from an IS. Just because we humans DO shield the weaker of our species, doesn't say anything at all about whether we SHOULD. I, for one, am glad we do. I would hate to live in a society which prizes only the survival of the fittest - that is, those unable to fend for themselves are left to die.
But that says nothing about whether ToE is TRUE. I am only saying we should not adopt it as a basis for morality. Which is fine, because no-one is advocating that.
It is a scientific theory, not a code of conduct.
Cornelius Hunter:
ReplyDelete"The rest, as they say, is history. Let’s hope it stays that way."
====
To be honest, mankind's history stinks and continuing along the same failed dirt road with all it's potholes, washboards and boulder slides will only lead humans to a "Soylent Green" outcome. The run down reststops, disappointing Novelty Stands and dilapidated filling stations along the way have only offered a mirrage of relief. Let's pray for divine intervention sooner than later.
Cornelius Hunter said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "So Darwin is not advocating eugenics as you not so subtly imply He is actually explaining the opposite - that humans are noble and should care for their sick and weak."
Of course he was advocating for eugenics:
the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound
LOL! You just can't stop yourself from quote-mining, can you? Darwin wasn't proposing any state-mandated laws or regulations to keep people from marrying. He said just the opposite. Read the context again:
"Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage"
He only suggested, not demanded, that weak or infirm people voluntarily not marry.
Most people consider quote-mining a form of lying CH. Why do you resort to quote-mining so often?
Cornelius, I say this again: You've really gone of the rails recently - and I mean this compared to you your usual posts.
ReplyDeleteThorton: "Shame on your dishonest quote-mining CH. Shame."
ReplyDeleteI second that. And even if Darwin were advocating eugenics, what difference would that have on the theory of evolution?
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteUnlike the "savages", we do not eliminate those that are weak in body and mind.
The check he is referring to is not imposed externally, but an observation that those that are weak are not "free" to marry as often as the sound as they are themselves weak. This is an observation, not a prescription.
Finally, we see that it is the weak themselves who he speaks of refraining from marriage going forward, not others imposing this upon them.
However, even if Darwin tortured puppies and worshiped Satan, this would be irrelevant to the merit of the theory itself. Nor do we even need to appeal to the "survival of the fittest", as we better understand Darwins on theory than he did. Genes are biological replicators, which can replicate themselves even at the expense of making their organism significantly less fit.
Darwin was writing in the 1860s when he saw many people suffer through these ailments without the benefit of health care. It is clear from the bulk of Darwin's writings that he had great compassion for people of all shapes and sizes.
ReplyDeleteGodwin's law is lurking around in the background of this discussion, somewhere.
ReplyDeleteScott,
ReplyDelete"However, even if Darwin tortured puppies and worshiped Satan, this would be irrelevant to the merit of the theory itself."
The hypocrisy is palpable! If a catholic priest was to torture puppies and worship Satan all of Christianity and Christ himself would be held accountable. The double standard you display is deplorable.
As for others here who say the whole quote indicates Darwin did not support eugenics, I would would suggest you take a basic course on reading comprehension.
Gerry, why did you so carefully misread Scott? He is saying that the theory exists as objective theory irrespective of Darwin, himself. That is true of all kinds of theories and discoveries. We have Francis Crick to thank for the uncovering of DNA, even though some of Crick's ideas on eugenics are whackadoodle. Science is full of those kinds of things.
ReplyDeleteeocene said: "Let's pray for divine intervention sooner than later."
ReplyDeleteThat's really funny, especially coming from someone who believes that "divine intervention" is what created mankind, and therefor all the problems you complain about, in the first place.
It's important to draw a distinction between eugenics, which usually refers to coercive laws such as sterilization of the "unfit," and genetic counseling, which provides people the scientific knowledge and tools to make sensible reproductive choices. For instance, it is certainly reasonable for a couple, each with a recessive gene for sickle cell, to consider adoption rather than natural children.
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: Darwin erroneously worried that vaccines preserved the lives of those who otherwise would have succumbed.
ReplyDeleteNot sure if worry can be error, but natural immunity to smallpox is not an advantage in the modern world.
Ritchie: "But that says nothing about whether ToE is TRUE. I am only saying we should not adopt it as a basis for morality"
ReplyDeleteAgree, but then what should we adopt as basis of morality? And if ToE is TRUE is there room to see charity actions as good for the mankind?
Not Even Close:
ReplyDelete"That's really funny, especially coming from someone who believes that "divine intervention" is what created mankind, and therefor all the problems you complain about, in the first place."
====
No, that had more to do with your Father.
Cornelius Hunter stoops to a new low to lie for Jesus.
ReplyDeleteBlas -
ReplyDelete"Agree, but then what should we adopt as basis of morality?"
I could argue the case for many things - humanitarianism, for instance. The law. Simple compassion.
But I wouldn't argue we should make any particular scientific theory the basis for morality, and I'm not aware of anyone else making that claim either. So quite what Cornleius is getting at is hard to see.
"And if ToE is TRUE is there room to see charity actions as good for the mankind?"
Well yes. Though the law of the wild might boil down to 'the survival of the fittest', co-operation is a common and efficient survival strategy. A team, working in collaboration, may achieve more than the individuals who make it up could achieve alone. The classic example is a pack of lions working together to bring down an animal none of them could ever kill alone. Even though they must share the food, they may well end up with more than if they hunted seperately.
Ritchie:"I could argue the case for many things - humanitarianism, for instance. The law. Simple compassion."
ReplyDeleteBut if ToE is TRUE, humanitarism or compassion are only adaptative forms of the Natural selection, then again you have to start with ToE to base morality if it exists.
"Well yes. Though the law of the wild might boil down to 'the survival of the fittest', co-operation is a common and efficient survival strategy. A team, working in collaboration, may achieve more than the individuals who make it up could achieve alone. The classic example is a pack of lions working together to bring down an animal none of them could ever kill alone. Even though they must share the food, they may well end up with more than if they hunted seperately."
What you describe is not charity, it is just team working, win-win situation, I am talking about a winner wasting time keeping alive a looser.
Blas -
ReplyDelete"But if ToE is TRUE, humanitarism or compassion are only adaptative forms of the Natural selection, then again you have to start with ToE to base morality if it exists."
Not really sure what you're saying here, tbh. Humanitarianism and compassion are not forms of natural selection...
"What you describe is not charity, it is just team working, win-win situation, I am talking about a winner wasting time keeping alive a looser."
But if you live in a communal society, the expectation of reciprocity remains, though more abstractly. If everyone pulls together and helps out the sick and weak as and when needed, then you too will be looked after when you are sick and weak.
Jimpithecus,
ReplyDelete"Why did you so carefully misread Scott?"
I didn't misread him at all. I agree with his statement that Darwin's personal actions should be kept separate from his science. What I object to is the double standard which is applied. Do you disagree with the fact that if a Catholic priest tortured puppies all of Christianity would be ridiculed and maligned as a result? This would occur even thought it's obvious that Christianity in no way condones such actions. If you do disagree, read many of the comments on this blog which make references to Christianity, or any religion for that matter, and you will see my comment is correct.
Evolutionists are quick to separate Darwin and the the Theory from any abuses carried out by those claiming to be acting in concert with Darwinian evolution. However, these same people will vehemently attack an entire religious philosophy if a single member of that religion missteps in any way.
Ritchie:"Not really sure what you're saying here, tbh. Humanitarianism and compassion are not forms of natural selection..."
ReplyDeleteNo? Where then men get them? are you abbandoning empiricism?
"But if you live in a communal society, the expectation of reciprocity remains, though more abstractly. If everyone pulls together and helps out the sick and weak as and when needed, then you too will be looked after when you are sick and weak."
Ok, then charity is a survival strategy, but as we know that, shouldn´t aplly it more wise manner according to natural selection.
Blas -
ReplyDelete"No? Where then men get them? are you abbandoning empiricism?"
I think you misunderstand. Humanitarianism is a philosophy. And compassion is an emotion. That's all.
It's true that I believe our brains (and, perhaps indirectly, our emotions and thoughts) have been shaped by evolution. But they have been shaped by other things as well. Gravity has played its part. Should we look for morality in the theory of gravity? The laws of motion have helped to shape everything too. Should we look for morality in them? Brains are essentially chemical. Is morality to be found in chemistry?
"Ok, then charity is a survival strategy, but as we know that, shouldn´t aplly it more wise manner according to natural selection."
I don't see why. It's not as if the human race is suffering because 'inferior genes' are causing us to lose out in some competition for survival. How would it benefit us genetically to be more Spartan with our charity?
Ritchie:"It's true that I believe our brains (and, perhaps indirectly, our emotions and thoughts) have been shaped by evolution. But they have been shaped by other things as well. Gravity has played its part. Should we look for morality in the theory of gravity? The laws of motion have helped to shape everything too. Should we look for morality in them? Brains are essentially chemical. Is morality to be found in chemistry?"
ReplyDeleteThen on what we are going to base our morality?
"I don't see why. It's not as if the human race is suffering because 'inferior genes' are causing us to lose out in some competition for survival. How would it benefit us genetically to be more Spartan with our charity?"
And why not? Maybe we can significantly improve the wealth of minkind in shorter times using NS.
Is there any inmorality on try that?
Thorton:
ReplyDeleteDarwin wasn't proposing any state-mandated laws or regulations to keep people from marrying. He said just the opposite.
False and irrelevant, otherwise perfect.
Blas -
ReplyDelete"Then on what we are going to base our morality?"
Again, humanitarianism. Compassion. I'm not seeing the problem with this.
"And why not? Maybe we can significantly improve the wealth of minkind in shorter times using NS.
Is there any inmorality on try that?"
I would say so. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a world where we leave the sick and weak to die simply because we might hypothetically benefit the human gene pool in some unspecified way.
Blas: What you describe is not charity, it is just team working, win-win situation, I am talking about a winner wasting time keeping alive a looser.
ReplyDeleteGame theory can show that altruism can be a competitive advantage even if there is only a marginal chance of ever meeting the person again. Do someone a favor today, and they may save your life tomorrow.
Humans help one another because it is in their natures. It is in their nature because it provides an overall evolutionary advantage.
Ritchie:"Again, humanitarianism. Compassion. I'm not seeing the problem with this."
ReplyDeleteHumanitarism and compassion are product of RM and NS, so you are basing morality in natural selection or I´m missing something?
"I would say so. I certainly wouldn't want to live in a world where we leave the sick and weak to die simply because we might hypothetically benefit the human gene pool in some unspecified way."
Maybe it is because you have poor genes, who has better genes than you maybe wants to leave in a better world without you. Is there any reason he shouldn´t try?
Zach:"Humans help one another because it is in their natures. It is in their nature because it provides an overall evolutionary advantage."
ReplyDeleteMay be it provided an overall evolutionary advantage. Will be it provide an advantage again? Shouldn´t be try without it? Why not?
Blas -
ReplyDelete"Humanitarism and compassion are product of RM and NS, so you are basing morality in natural selection or I´m missing something?"
I think that's an extremely tenuous connection. The brain is indeed the product of RM and NS, but that doesn't mean that every idea, every emotion, every thought and every feeling is based on ToE being morally sound.
If a person is being mugged, basic compassion tells me that's wrong. I can empathise with the mugged person and feel an urge to help. That isn't borne out of logic which takes evolution as a moral ideal.
"Maybe it is because you have poor genes, who has better genes than you maybe wants to leave in a better world without you. Is there any reason he shouldn´t try?"
Yes. Killing another person is illegal and immorral.
Cornelius Hunter said...
ReplyDeleteThorton: "Darwin wasn't proposing any state-mandated laws or regulations to keep people from marrying. He said just the opposite."
False and irrelevant, otherwise perfect.
LOL! Look at Darwin's actual words again
"Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind;"
Tell us CH, how exactly you take the words bear without complaining and twist them into "pass state-mandated laws or regulations to keep people from marrying".
Sometimes the dishonesty the DI pays you for makes me embarrassed for you CH, it really does.
Blas: May be it provided an overall evolutionary advantage. Will be it provide an advantage again? Shouldn´t be try without it? Why not?
ReplyDeleteIt has nothing to do with try. It's in human nature. If you don't feel compassion, then you don't. But if you do, for whatever reason, you will act on that impulse, even to your own detriment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGerry said...
ReplyDeleteWhat I object to is the double standard which is applied. Do you disagree with the fact that if a Catholic priest tortured puppies all of Christianity would be ridiculed and maligned as a result?
I disagree Gerry. I think you're pulling that right out of your butt.
Give us some real world examples of organized attempts to discredit all of Christianity because of the immoral actions of individual priests. There have been any number of Catholic priest child molesters in the news. Pick a few cases and show us the public outcry to reject Christianity and toss all of its teachings as a direct result.
Cornelius Hunter: "False and irrelevant, otherwise perfect."
ReplyDeleteIt's astounding that you could post an article accusing a 19th century naturalist of endorsing eugenics as if that had any bearing whatsoever on a modern aspect of biology, and then make such a statement to someone who points out the fact that you misunderstood what the 19th century naturalist was even saying.
The lack of self-awareness required to type out those five words is staggering.
Derick Childress said...
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter: "False and irrelevant, otherwise perfect."
It's astounding that you could post an article accusing a 19th century naturalist of endorsing eugenics as if that had any bearing whatsoever on a modern aspect of biology, and then make such a statement to someone who points out the fact that you misunderstood what the 19th century naturalist was even saying.
The lack of self-awareness required to type out those five words is staggering
To paraphrase Upton Sinclair:
"It is difficult to get a Creationist to understand something, when his salary from the Discovery Institute depends upon his not understanding it!"
Gerry,
ReplyDeleteThis would occur even thought it's obvious that Christianity in no way condones such actions.
Well, evolutionary theory doesn't mandate our morals. Catholicism supposedly does. Shouldn't clergy be expected to be more moral than mere scientists? Reading comments from people such as Blas, you would certainly think so.
But more importantly, the catholic church HAS condoned such actions (e.g. pedophilia) by the simple act of covering them up and letting offenders keep on doing their dirty deeds.
Blas: But if ToE is TRUE, humanitarism or compassion are only adaptative forms of the Natural selection, then again you have to start with ToE to base morality if it exists.
ReplyDeleteThat's quite a non-sequitur you have there, Blas.
You're assuming that God being a foundation for morality is mutually exclusive with God creating the universe in just the right way that life would eventually form. Why might this be the case?
Furthermore, you seem to be assuming that since God is the foundation of morality in your world view, this somehow means that anything that you view as taking God's place must also play the same role. Not to mention that there are other forms of epistemology that are not based on foundationalism, such as critical rationalism.
I'd also point you to Sam Harris' TED talk on the moral landscape.
Gerry,
ReplyDeleteYou're attempting to conflate a scientific theory of how knowledge is created in the genome with men who are supposed to act as emissaries for God.
Derick Childress:
ReplyDeleteIt's astounding that you could post an article accusing a 19th century naturalist of endorsing eugenics
Even though he did?
then make such a statement to someone who points out the fact that you misunderstood what the 19th century naturalist was even saying
Derick, Thorton is as usual quote-mining and misrepresenting (what he constantly accuses others of). Here is what he wrote:
Darwin wasn't proposing any state-mandated laws or regulations to keep people from marrying. He said just the opposite.
Darwin did not say “just the opposite.” Darwin proposed “the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound.” How that would be implemented Darwin simply does not address. He does not say “just the opposite.”
But to get the answer he wants Thorton quote-mines Darwin:
"Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind;"
Tell us CH, how exactly you take the words bear without complaining and twist them into "pass state-mandated laws or regulations to keep people from marrying".
Darwin’s statement that we must “bear without complaining” is in reference to his discussion of withheld care, not marriage. This is a quote-mine.
Darwin says we should “bear without complaining” this burden, in spite of “hard reason” and the benefit withholding care would provide. So Darwin’s position is that caring for the weak would be “highly injurious to the race of man,” one would never be “so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed,” and feelings that we ought to care for the sick are merely “instincts” acquired via evolution. Nonetheless, we ought to “bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.”
Next Darwin moves on to another wonderful notion, the idea of marriage restrictions. He previously disussed the idea of withholding care, and though he is sure that the science and logic argue for it, he concluded against it. No such conclusion for marriage restrictions. In fact, Darwin presents this eugenics solution as more acceptable, albeit perhaps not as effective. So Thorton quote-mines Darwin to make his point.
Secondly, after quote-mining Darwin, Thorton next misrepresents me. He writes:
Tell us CH, how exactly you take the words bear without complaining and twist them into "pass state-mandated laws or regulations to keep people from marrying".
But of course I never wrote that. Thorton creates whatever phrase he feels like imputing to the evolution skeptic. Then the rest in the crowd, such as yourself, chime in with your self-righteous indignation.
The lack of self-awareness required to type out those five words is staggering.
I listen to quite a bit of criticism. Sure I make mistakes, but “lack of self-awareness”? I probably process more criticism in a day that most people do in a long, long time.
Take this interchange for example. You guys are quote-mining and false quoting, and then criticizing me for how “staggering” is my “lack of self-awareness.”
Ritchie:"but that doesn't mean that every idea, every emotion, every thought and every feeling is based on ToE being morally sound."
ReplyDeleteBut if the thoughts and feelings are a product of our brain, then are product of RM+NS, if not where they came from?
" That isn't borne out of logic which takes evolution as a moral ideal."
Then where is that logic born? You are reasoning is circles, the question is in what you base the morality if not ToE?
"Yes. Killing another person is illegal and immorral."
Also if make me survive? also if the mankind life will be better? Also if the fittest survive? What about self defense?
Zach:"It has nothing to do with try. It's in human nature. If you don't feel compassion, then you don't. But if you do, for whatever reason, you will act on that impulse, even to your own detriment."
ReplyDeleteOk Zachriel, now I understand your point, but then compassion it is not a moral or amoral behavior and I do not understand where your comment fits in my discussion with Ritchie.
Scott, could you show me when I mentioned God?
ReplyDeleteCornelius Hunter said...
ReplyDeleteI probably process more criticism in a day that most people do in a long, long time.
You also post more disingenuous and dishonest misrepresentation of the sciences that support ToE than most people do in a long, long time.
Do you think it's just a coincidence that those two things correlate so closely?
Blas -
ReplyDeleteI think the problem you have is in some odd idea that the source of all things is the font of morality too. If God, so far so good, and if something else created life, then that other thing must ultimately create morality too. This is simply not the case.
Morality is an entirely human concept. Before human beings there was no morality because there were no moral agents - ie, people who were bound to act morally by virtue of being able to understand the concept. In a childishly simplified form, morality is about people being nice to each other and doing the right thing, that's about it.
Perhaps an example will help: using my expert knowledge of electronics, I build several robots, and program them to be independent agents capable of free thought. Before too long, they have established a mode of behaving to each other and a way of treating each other - a sense of morality, however rudimentary. Now, are we to assume that such morality must be rooted in electronics, since that is how their computer brains came into being?
Of course not. And such is likewise the case with human brains and evolution.
Now, if you're asking me where we should turn to for morality, try philosophy. That's always busied itself with questions like that. But scientific theory, such as the theory of gravity, atomic theory and the theory of evolution are about what is, not what SHOULD be.
Ritchie:"Perhaps an example will help: using my expert knowledge of electronics, I build several robots, and program them to be independent agents capable of free thought. Before too long, they have established a mode of behaving to each other and a way of treating each other - a sense of morality, however rudimentary. Now, are we to assume that such morality must be rooted in electronics, since that is how their computer brains came into being? "
ReplyDeleteIf it not in electronics in what you are going to think is root the morality of a robot that is only electronics?
If a man is an evolved bacteria from where can morality come from if it is not from his biochemistry? What other thing exist in a human?
Blas -
ReplyDelete"If it not in electronics in what you are going to think is root the morality of a robot that is only electronics?"
That they think of it themselves. They create morality for themselves, as we do.
"If a man is an evolved bacteria from where can morality come from if it is not from his biochemistry? What other thing exist in a human?"
The fallacy, I think, is in asking where it comes from. We humans create it. It is an original concept springing from us.
Morality is not objective, nor is it absolute. Being 'moral' or 'immorral' are not objective qualities. They are subjective ones. We decide what is right and wrong. That is why there are so many disagreements over moral matters - because people have slightly different concepts of what is right and wrong.
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete"Morality is not objective, nor is it absolute. Being 'moral' or 'immorral' are not objective qualities. They are subjective ones. We decide what is right and wrong. That is why there are so many disagreements over moral matters - because people have slightly different concepts of what is right and wrong."
=====
Yes that is the perfect description of the present failed situation that exists on Earth today, but it's hardly a recent revelation or enlightenment given us as some generous gift from modern day Higher Learning. In fact this has been made known from the beginning.
Genesis 3
Amplified Bible (AMP)
(1) "NOW THE serpent(Satan) was more subtle and crafty than any living creature of the field which the Lord God had made. And he [Satan] said to the woman, Can it really be that God has said, You shall not eat from every tree of the garden?"
(2) "And the woman said to the serpent (Satan), We may eat the fruit from the trees of the garden,
(3) "Except the fruit from the tree which is in the middle of the garden. God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.
(4) "But the serpent (Satan) said to the woman, you surely shall not die,
(5) "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing the difference between good and evil and blessing and calamity."
(6) "And when the woman saw that the tree was good (suitable, pleasant) for food and that it was delightful to look at, and a tree to be desired in order to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she gave some also to her husband, and he ate."
----
Ultimately this act has brought mankind down to where we are addressing the discussion of a failed belief system and worldview today.
Romans 1:25
Common English Bible (CEB)
(25) " They traded God's truth for the Lie, and they worshipped and served the creation, instead of the Creator, . . ."
----
The world we presently live in is the result of people ignoring Absolutes when it comes to morality. There is nothing wrong with absolutes in morality as a gauge or compass to point in the right direction. This would allow for far greater freedoms than presently exist as humankind would be united as opposed to the multiple ideological messes which run things at the moment.
Blas:
ReplyDelete"Humanitarism and compassion are product of RM and NS, so you are basing morality in natural selection or I´m missing something?"
Yes, you're missing a good deal. Let's say we base morality on our love for other people. If love is just a chemical reaction in the brain, does that mean we're basing our morality on chemistry or neurology? Of course not. A thing is not its products. There's a distinction here that you're overlooking. Humanitarianism and compassion are products of RM and NS. If we base our morality on them, we base it on them, not on RM and NS. You're taking an unwarranted step back in the chain and then going down a different chain entirely when you talk about humanitarianism conflicting with an individual's interest in self-preservation... and you're ignoring the distinction between philosophy based on facts and the facts themselves.
Cornelius Hunter:
'Darwin proposed “the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound.” How that would be implemented Darwin simply does not address. He does not say “just the opposite.”'
Actually, he OBSERVED it, not proposed it, and then went on to speak of the nobility of humanity in our attempt to CIRCUMVENT the apparent natural order by SUPPORTING the weaker and inferior members of society. So yes, it says JUST THE OPPOSITE of what you claim it does. Read for comprehension, not for talking points.
MikeTheInfidel:
ReplyDeleteWas it wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement?
Cornelius Hunter said...
ReplyDeleteMikeTheInfidel:
Was it wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement?
Cornelius, is it wrong for Creationists to quote-mine, distort facts, and outright lie every chance they get in order to push their anti-science religious agenda?
Cornelius Hunter:
ReplyDelete"MikeTheInfidel:
Was it wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement?"
====
Not according to the evolutionary science used to justify it. Throw in the infinite number of kooky reasonings of there existing no absolutes or relative truths and any number of conscience numbing justifications can ooze their way to the surface. Ultimately, the evolutionary dogma must be justified and protected at all costs, even if making oneself a fool on an internet debate site. That's where the beauty of annonymity comes in.
-----
Mimi Bobeck the IDiot:
"Cornelius, is it wrong for Creationists to quote-mine, distort facts, and outright lie every chance they get in order to push their anti-science religious agenda?"
====
Massive amounts of the usual double standards and Pot-Kettle-Blackings.
Eocene -
ReplyDelete"Ultimately this act has brought mankind down to where we are addressing the discussion of a failed belief system and worldview today."
You mention the incident in the Garden of Eden as if it was a given fact. In reality it is far, far from it.
"The world we presently live in is the result of people ignoring Absolutes when it comes to morality."
Ignoring? How exactly are we to determine these moral absolutes?
Traditionally, the religious answer is something like "By reading XYZ holy book" but this is massively insufficient too. Practically all religions have infighting and splits over how to interpret said holy books. If the faithful believers of a religion can't even agree on what a holy book says, why should the rest of us take note?
Ultimately, "By reading my holy book" translates as "By doing what I think is right" and we're right back to everyone arguing their own case again.
CH -
ReplyDelete"Was it wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement?"
1) Yes it is wrong.
2) Why are you singling out 'evolutionists' as if it's something everyone who accepts evolution does or approves of, or that ToE leads inevitable to this act? It doesn't.
If anything, ToE highlights the virtue of genetic diversification and the relatedness of all living things. Eugenics has far more to do with notions of racial purity, racial superiority and plain xenophobia, ideas which seem pretty silly to most people with even a rudimentary understanding of evolution.
Ritchie:"The fallacy, I think, is in asking where it comes from. We humans create it. It is an original concept springing from us."
ReplyDeleteAccording to ToE, RM+NS selected mans with brains, selected mans with consciusnees, then selected mans with compassion(Zacriel explained that is natural process some human has as advantage) an then selected mans with moral and the ilusion of free will because societies with that traits are best fitted.
If this is not true explain how a chemical reaction can create morality.
"Morality is not objective, nor is it absolute. Being 'moral' or 'immorral' are not objective qualities."
Then why all the darwinists get outraged when CH says Darwin was pro eugenetics, it is bad? it is right? is CH better than Darwin because of that.
All the morality if ToE is TRUE as you said is subjective. I do not understand darwinist are proud to be naturalist, ateist but not amoralist.
Mike the infidel:"Yes, you're missing a good deal. Let's say we base morality on our love for other people. If love is just a chemical reaction in the brain, does that mean we're basing our morality on chemistry or neurology? Of course not."
ReplyDeleteWell I know darwinist logic is different but try to explain me:
Love=chemical reaction
Moral based in Love
Moral not based in chemical reaction?!
Why darwinists hides behind words?
Blas -
ReplyDelete"According to ToE, RM+NS selected mans with brains, selected mans with consciusnees, then selected mans with compassion(Zacriel explained that is natural process some human has as advantage) an then selected mans with moral and the ilusion of free will because societies with that traits are best fitted."
Broadly. Ignoring the bit about consciousness (all sentient creatures are conscious) but yes, for our ancestors, intelligence and co-operation were survival advantages.
But you are deconstructing too far. The laws of motion also played their part in the formation of our brains. They played their part. But would you try to derive morality from the laws of motion? Surely not. Such an exercise would be futile.
Morality is a human construct, and that's as far back as we need go. To try to trace morality back futher leads to nonsensical logic.
"Then why all the darwinists get outraged when CH says Darwin was pro eugenetics"
1) Because it is incorrect.
2) Because it is a deliberate slur to try to brand all evolutionists as eugenecists. The implication bubbling just below the surface is 'Evolutionists want to commit genocide.' Which is both outrageously offensive and wildly inaccurate.
"All the morality if ToE is TRUE as you said is subjective."
No, I think morality is subjective, whether or not ToE is true. The two are not connected. Please disassociate all connections in your mind between ToE and morality. There are none. ToE is merely a scientific theory. It is as relevant to morality as the theory of gravity is.
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteTo quote Darwin…
"Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage"
First, whatever Darwin is referring to here has already been in place as he describes it as a "check in steady action". And we also know he's referring to human beings, as animals do not get married. Had eugenics already even remotely been in "steady action"? in Darwin's time?
Second, If someone has some sort of debilitating disease or handicap, there are many things they are not as "free" to take part in, such as running races, scuba diving, etc. While this has changed significantly as we've become more technology driven, this can also mean that someone is not "free" to work and support a family.
free
adjective
2 [ often as complement ] not physically restrained, obstructed, or fixed; unimpeded: she lifted the cat free.
Third, Darwin clearly states that this check could be increased by "by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage"
refrain
verb [ no obj. ]
stop oneself from doing something: she refrained from comment.
Zachriel has already pointed out at least one case where just this has occurred in the case of a a recessive gene for sickle cell anemia.
Apparently,Cornelius thinks this is the obvious "empirical" interpretation of what Darwin wrote. However, this appears to be yet another example of how one cannot extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework.
Ritchie:"Morality is a human construct, and that's as far back as we need go. To try to trace morality back futher leads to nonsensical logic."
ReplyDeleteRitchie you are hiding behind words, what is a human construct? How can a human construct be something different of a chemical reaction product of our genetic code? Not going further back shows you do not want to know the real basis of your morality.
"1) Because it is incorrect.
2) Because it is a deliberate slur to try to brand all evolutionists as eugenecists. The implication bubbling just below the surface is 'Evolutionists want to commit genocide.' Which is both outrageously offensive and wildly inaccurate."
1) Is debatable. A matter of interpretation of texts always subjective.
2) Also debatable I think CH is tryng to show that ToE makes eugenetics a valid alternative and I do not see any rebuttal explaining why eugenetics is not an alternative in the lieght of ToE.
"
No, I think morality is subjective, whether or not ToE is true. The two are not connected. Please disassociate all connections in your mind between ToE and morality. There are none. ToE is merely a scientific theory. It is as relevant to morality as the theory of gravity is."
Ok, then ACCORDING TO YOU there is no conection between morality and ToE, but if you do not explains why other different morality based on ToE is possible. And that morality has no problem with eugenetics.
Blas: Scott, could you show me when I mentioned God?
ReplyDeleteAre you denying that you think God is the foundation of morality? Are you denying that you're a foundationalist?
Scott said...
ReplyDeleteBlas: Scott, could you show me when I mentioned God?
Are you denying that you think God is the foundation of morality? Are you denying that you're a foundationalist?
I am saying I never mentioned God in my arguments, why are you bringing it?
Ritchie:
ReplyDelete"You mention the incident in the Garden of Eden as if it was a given fact. In reality it is far, far from it."
====
Actually I mentioned it because it agreed with what you wrote. Though what you wrote has been shown to not be all that new or enlightened in the first place. Sorry if it stole your great Thunder.
----
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf a presidential candidate were to say as Darwin did, "the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage", would everyone would just rally around them with big votes?
ReplyDeleteHitler's ethics was derived from Darwinism. He justified himself because his actions were improving the "race". Darwin was passive and suggestive of it, where Hitler was proactive to the extreme.
But its defend Darwin at all costs! We see where his dark and negative fatalism can lead. It sees life as dumb and inefficient and purposeless. People are looked at as problems and would be better off being extinct (per Whole Truth). It's the mind sucking Darwinian vortex in action.
The opposite side is that life is elegant and has purpose. People are not problems, but people have problems that can often be solved.
While Darwin was in a funk thinking how much better off the world would be without the weak in body and mind, the Creationist, Louis Pasteur, was actually doing practical science that improved the life of millions.
Darwinian "morality" is a slippery and ever changing ugly joke.
Tedford the idiot said...
ReplyDeleteHitler's ethics was derived from Darwinism. He justified himself because his actions were improving the "race". Darwin was passive and suggestive of it, where Hitler was proactive to the extreme.
Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile began the Spanish Inquisition. In the name of Christianity they had over 150,000 people brutally tortured and killed. They justified their actions by saying they were bringing people to the Lord.
Shouldn't you give up such a hateful, violent religion there Tedford?
You idiots continue to think if you somehow link evolution with any sort of historical misuse, whether eugenics on the Nazis, it somehow negates the scientific validity of the theory. You have no idea both how ignorant and desperate you clowns sound.
Blas -
ReplyDelete"Ritchie you are hiding behind words, what is a human construct? How can a human construct be something different of a chemical reaction product of our genetic code? Not going further back shows you do not want to know the real basis of your morality."
I am simply trying to show you your extrapolation is futile.
Let's just take it as read that ToE is true. Does that mean every human thought, every human feeling, every idea, every sentence thought or uttered, is rooted, ultimately, in evolution itself being moral?
Compare morality to mathematics. Both are human constructs - they are both born from human minds. But that doesn't mean evolution, which created the human mind, is moral, any more than it is mathematical. The idea is simply a nonsense. If you want to find the root of mathematics, you need only go as far back as the human mind. The same is true of morality too.
"1) Is debatable. A matter of interpretation of texts always subjective."
Okay, if you like.
"2) Also debatable"
You think it's debatable that acceptance of evolution entails approval of eugenics? There are several hundred million people who would argue in the negative...
"I think CH is tryng to show that ToE makes eugenetics a valid alternative and I do not see any rebuttal explaining why eugenetics is not an alternative in the lieght of ToE."
How about this: ToE shows we are all related. No race is inherently superior to any other - 80,000 years ago we were the same African people. We are merely cousins who have been seperated by time and drifted apart (though not very far).
Also, the ideas of racial purity are nonsense. If any white man traces their family line back far enough, we will find black ancestors. I, and every black person on the planet share a common ancestor, even if that ancestor lived as far back as 200,000 years ago. There are no 'pure' bloodlines. The concept is flawed.
Moreover, it is undesirable too. The key to evolutionary success is genetic diversity. If you keep a gene pool uniform, then it will not evolve.
Now let us, just for the sake of argument, compare this with a religious outlook. Imagine we deny common ancestry, and that different species, perhaps even different races, have their own origins and lineages. The idea of 'racial purity' suddenly make a lot more sense. Add to this a belief that your particular race is special, that you are part of a 'chosen people', and you have racial superiority. And concerns of mixing your special lingeage with people of 'lesser' races makes more sense too. Convert or exterminate the infidel, but do not create hybrid children with them. Just saying...
Neal -
ReplyDelete"Hitler's ethics was derived from Darwinism."
Thornton's got a point. Eugenics may have ToE at it's base, but that does not mean ToE leads to eugenics any more than Christian belief leads to inquisitions. You are simply taking the worst outcome and declaring this to be an inevitable one. Which it most certainly is not.
"It sees life as dumb and inefficient and purposeless."
You are equating evolution with atheism. This is a false connection. The two are perfectly compatible, true, but they are not the same.
In any case, atheism is not necessarily nihilistic. On the contrary, life is all the more precious for being temporary. Why bother to make the most of every day if you have an eternity before you to accomplish everything you want? You have to make the most of life, because this is all you get! Beauty is all the more beautiful for being fleeting.
"The opposite side is that life is elegant and has purpose."
The purpose being to forever serve as canned applause to an eternal deity? What kind of purpose is that? If your idea of purpose is spending eternity (and really, take a moment to consider ETERNITY) singing hymns to a being who, being perfect, shouldn't really need telling how marvellous He is, then I worry for you.
A life dedicating to raising intelligent and well-rounded children is a life lived with purpose. A life dedicated to creating a wonderful work of art is a life lived with purpose. A life dedicated to discovering truths about our world is a life lived with purpose. A life dedicated to, in any of millions of possible ways, leaving the world a slighter nicer/better place than when you arrived in it is a life lived with purpose. An atheist can have a perfectly purpose-driven life.
What you really mean is, a life with YOUR purpose.
It was, of course, inevitable and predictable.
ReplyDeleteNeal:
Hitler's ethics was derived from Darwinism. He justified himself because his actions were improving the "race". Darwin was passive and suggestive of it, where Hitler was proactive to the extreme
Do you really want to argue Hilter was evil because he was so convinced that Darwin was correct? Did Darwin single out the Jews as being inferior,needing to be eliminated? Would't Darwin's common descent theory be appalling to genocidal manic? If only there had been someone in German history who argued that elimination of the Jews was a " holy" thing.
It is difficult to understand the behavior of most German Protestants in the first Nazi years unless one is aware of two things: their history and the influence of Martin Luther. The great founder of Protestantism was both a passionate anti-Semite and a ferocious believer in absolute obedience to political authority. He wanted Germany rid of the Jews. Luther's advice was literally followed four centuries later by Hitler, Goering and Himmler.
Darwin and science is no more responsible for Hilter than is Martin Luther and Christianity . Or to chemistry which allowed Hitler to kill more efficiently.
Blas: Scott, could you show me when I mentioned God?
ReplyDeleteScott: Are you denying that you think God is the foundation of morality? Are you denying that you're a foundationalist?
Blas: I am saying I never mentioned God in my arguments, why are you bringing it?
Because you're either presenting a non-sequitur or you have some underlying reason which connects the two premises when you wrote…
Blas: But if ToE is TRUE, humanitarism or compassion are only adaptative forms of the Natural selection, then again you have to start with ToE to base morality if it exists.
Humanitarianism might initially be adaptive forms of natural selection, but this doesn't mean that we must base morality on the ToE. This does not follow.
What explanation other than, whatever plays the role you ascribe to God must be the foundation for morality, were you referring to? Of course, I'm open to any alternative you might want to present.
Ritchie:"Let's just take it as read that ToE is true. Does that mean every human thought, every human feeling, every idea, every sentence thought or uttered, is rooted, ultimately, in evolution itself being moral?
ReplyDeleteCompare morality to mathematics. Both are human constructs - they are both born from human minds. But that doesn't mean evolution, which created the human mind, is moral, any more than it is mathematical. The idea is simply a nonsense. If you want to find the root of mathematics, you need only go as far back as the human mind. The same is true of morality too."
The human brain the only thing that can do is physicochemical reactions. Agree?
Then mathematics and morality are the result of physicochemical reaction Agree? If not are the result of what?
Physicochemical reactions are DETERMINED by physical laws. Agree?
As maths are for everybody the same, should have every men the same physicochemical reactions for mats.
As moral is subjective each men has his physicochemical reactions. Different physicochemical implies differnt chemical composition and different enviroments for that reactions. What determine our brain chemical composition and enviroment? Our genes. What determine our genes Evolution.
What other words besides “huaman construct” “creation of the human mind” are going to include to hide this logic?
“There are several hundred million people who would argue in the negative... “
May be there are hundred millions that thinks the positive, How that matters?
“How about this: ...”
Evolution is the natural selection of the fittest, it take million of years. Humans could improve animal races by artificial selection, why do not improve the humankind speeding up natural selection as we did with animals? Why we spend money keeping alive people that is not going to reproduce anymore?
And yes there are religion that are racists, that do not make better or worst a moral based on ToE. Agree?
Neal: "[Evolution] sees life as dumb and inefficient and purposeless."
ReplyDeleteNo, it sees live as amazing and intelligent for discovering how the knowledge to build our diverse biosphere was created. Furthermore, your interpretation requires making a great number of other assumptions about how we create and justify knowledge. This is a non-sequitur.
Neal: "The opposite side is that life is elegant and has purpose."
Go back and watch Kahn's video, in which he describes evolution as simple elegant solution.
So the argument I’m making here is that in order to give credit to the all-powerful, at least to my mind, a system that comes from very simple, elegant and basic ideas—like natural selection and variations; in our DNA we call those mutations, but the laws of physics and chemistry, from those simple and elegant and basic ideas, for complexity to emerge. …
If you think that knowledge is not created, then we cannot find purpose in creating knowledge. Furthermore, you seem to imply that purpose can only be obtained through foundationalism, with special pleading in the case of God.
It's as if you think this is a direct and obvious interpretation of the facts. However, this appears to be yet another example of how one cannot extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework.
Scott:"What explanation other than, whatever plays the role you ascribe to God must be the foundation for morality, were you referring to? Of course, I'm open to any alternative you might want to present."
ReplyDeleteScott please read again the discussion I am not looking or presenting any other explanation. My point is:
1) on the contrary as Ritchie said if ToE is TRUE the only base for moral is the evolution
itself.
2) If evolution is the only base for moral, eugenetics is a valid alternative.
3)I do not understand why darwinist commenting in this blog are so outraged for saying moral based on ToE and Darwin allows eugenetics.
Blas:
ReplyDelete"1) on the contrary as Ritchie said if ToE is TRUE the only base for moral is the evolution
itself.
====
Correct and TOE of course would also be responsible for not only the survival adaptation of good morals as they've defined it here before, but also the crud of the opposite which in reality today out weighs any lucky good.
----
2) If evolution is the only base for moral, eugenetics is a valid alternative.
====
Of course. It's patterned after "Survival of the fittest". The fact that it was used in the beginning to justify Colonialism and later other totalitarian regimes for decades is the stuff modern history rewriting is made of.
----
3)I do not understand why darwinist commenting in this blog are so outraged for saying moral based on ToE and Darwin allows eugenetics.
====
They're merely defending their Church and dogma as would any other religious believer defending the attrocities done in the name of their god.
Blas: Ok Zachriel, now I understand your point, but then compassion it is not a moral or amoral behavior and I do not understand where your comment fits in my discussion with Ritchie.
ReplyDeleteMoral has two related meanings. It can refer to certain feelings people have, like "delicious" or "moral outrage," or it can refer to what humans think about those feelings and their effect on human interactions.
Blas: But if ToE is TRUE, humanitarism or compassion are only adaptative forms of the Natural selection, then again you have to start with ToE to base morality if it exists.
Nope. Morality begins with what people think and feel about events and actions. If you are morally outraged by the death of an innocent, that is your reaction whether or not it is explained by the Theory of Evolution.
Blas: 2) If evolution is the only base for moral, eugenetics is a valid alternative.
Coercive eugenics does not follow as you say it does. However, it is reasonable in some cases for families to consider genetics when planning a family.
Zachriel:"Nope. Morality begins with what people think and feel about events and actions. If you are morally outraged by the death of an innocent, that is your reaction whether or not it is explained by the Theory of Evolution."
ReplyDeleteZachriel I will quote myself:
"The human brain the only thing that can do is physicochemical reactions. Agree?
Then mathematics and morality are the result of physicochemical reaction Agree? If not are the result of what?
Physicochemical reactions are DETERMINED by physical laws. Agree?
As maths are for everybody the same, should have every men the same physicochemical reactions for mats.
As moral is subjective each men has his physicochemical reactions. Different physicochemical implies differnt chemical composition and different enviroments for that reactions. What determine our brain chemical composition and enviroment? Our genes. What determine our genes Evolution."
Add that thought are also only physicochemical reactions.
Blas -
ReplyDelete"The human brain the only thing that can do is physicochemical reactions. Agree?"
Yes.
"Then mathematics and morality are the result of physicochemical reaction Agree?"
Yes.
"Physicochemical reactions are DETERMINED by physical laws. Agree?"
Yes.
"As maths are for everybody the same, should have every men the same physicochemical reactions for mats. As moral is subjective each men has his physicochemical reactions. Different physicochemical implies differnt chemical composition and different enviroments for that reactions. What determine our brain chemical composition and enviroment? Our genes. What determine our genes Evolution."
This is where it gets very weird. Maths and morality are not physical things. They are not tangible. A calculator can work out a sum, but that doesn't mean the sum itself is hiding physically somewhere inside the calculator's wires. Electronics built the calculator. But the sum the calculator solves is not at all dependent on any theories of electronics.
This is not a dodge, it is just the way it is. Evolution may have shaped our brains, but that does not mean we therefore use the theory of evolution as a basis for our morality. That is nonsensical.
"May be there are hundred millions that thinks the positive, How that matters?"
Because if there are hundreds of millions of people who accept ToE and who do not believe in eugenics, then you are clearly wrong to claim otherwise, as well as plain offensive and arrogant to think you can speak for all those people. Cornelius would do well to take note of this point.
"Evolution is the natural selection of the fittest, it take million of years. Humans could improve animal races by artificial selection, why do not improve the humankind speeding up natural selection as we did with animals? Why we spend money keeping alive people that is not going to reproduce anymore?"
The concept of 'improving' a gene pool is absurd. What defines fitness is the ability to survive and reproduce. The only test of that is to see if the creatures do survive and reproduce.
Artificial selection is not natural selection SPED UP. It is natural selection subverted. We made, say, domestic cows bigger and able to produce more milk because we wanted more meat and more milk from them. But being bigger and able to produce more milk is not necessarily a survival advantage. Being bigger means you must eat more to feed your body, and converting precious nutrients into more milk than you need to produce is a waste.
Similarly, how exactly are we to 'improve' the human gene pool? Most of us are perfectly capable of surviving and reproducing ourselves. But imagine for a moment my next-door neighbour is, due to a genetic condition, infertile and bed-ridden. What good could it possibly do me to kill him? He might not be able to reproduce, in which case his substandard genes die with him. It's not as if he takes up scarce and precious resources - we humans produce far more than we actually need. It's not as if looking after him is time spent where I am looking after my own evolutionary interests - we employ careers. People make their living from looking after such people. From an evolutionary point of view, killing him serves no benefit, even before we bring morals into the picture.
Eocene -
ReplyDelete"Correct and TOE of course would also be responsible for not only the survival adaptation of good morals as they've defined it here before, but also the crud of the opposite which in reality today out weighs any lucky good."
What nonsense. Morality is no more based on Toe than it is based on the theory of gravity or germ theory. ToE is just a scientific theory, nothing more.
"The fact that it was used in the beginning to justify Colonialism and later other totalitarian regimes for decades is the stuff modern history rewriting is made of."
You think there wasn't any colonialism or totalitarian regimes before the 1850's? Man do you need to read a history book!
"They're merely defending their Church and dogma as would any other religious believer defending the attrocities done in the name of their god."
Blah blah blah blah.
Ritchie:"Maths and morality are not physical things. They are not tangible."
ReplyDeleteYou are admitting that there exist things outside the natural world?
"Because if there are hundreds of millions of people who accept ToE and who do not believe in eugenics, then you are clearly wrong to claim otherwise, as well as plain offensive and arrogant to think you can speak for all those people. Cornelius would do well to take note of this point."
I am not saying nothing about if one or one million of ToE believers agree or not with eugenics, I am talking about a moral based on ToE, and also I am not saying that a moral based on evolution mandates eugenics. I only say hta a moral based on ToE allows eugenics.
" What good could it possibly do me to kill him? He might not be able to reproduce, in which case his substandard genes die with him. It's not as if he takes up scarce and precious resources - we humans produce far more than we actually need. It's not as if looking after him is time spent where I am looking after my own evolutionary interests - we employ careers. People make their living from looking after such people. From an evolutionary point of view, killing him serves no benefit, even before we bring morals into the picture."
Ritchie, you know that since Malthus, author quoted by Darwin himself, many teorist were looking to charity as waste of precious resources. I will postulate one eugenics derived from ToE: Mankind and planet earth are threatened by the increasing levels of CO2. By far the biggest producers of CO2 per person are northamerican people. A drastic reduction in northamerican population will save the planet and mankind. We need a 9-11 a week to survive.
Blas said, "I will postulate one eugenics derived from ToE: Mankind and planet earth are threatened by the increasing levels of CO2. By far the biggest producers of CO2 per person are northamerican people. A drastic reduction in northamerican population will save the planet and mankind. We need a 9-11 a week to survive."
ReplyDeleteA 9-11 a week? Why does bad science always lead some people to consider extinction as an alternative? May cool heads prevail (no pun intended)... The earth's climate has never been unchanging. The earth has been warming and cooling since it's origin, much more extreme than the slight changes we see since the industrial age. There are many factors that effect the climate and the fixation on C02 by Warmers is not sensible, not to mention the thought of exterminating people as a cure. Warmers cherry pick evidence just like evolutionists do.
Blas: The human brain the only thing that can do is physicochemical reactions. Agree?
ReplyDeleteThere is no scientific evidence of woo.
Blas: As maths are for everybody the same, should have every men the same physicochemical reactions for mats.
Maths is a broad subject. Most people share many of the same experiences, including the experience of distinct objects. It's a facet of living in a terrestrial environment. Hence, people tend to think in terms of counting numbers. Thinking clouds may not think in terms of discrete objects.
Blas: As moral is subjective each men has his physicochemical reactions.
Yes, but there is commonality among most people.
The rest of your comment didn't make sense to us. Was there a conclusion or point to be made?
Blas -
ReplyDelete"You are admitting that there exist things outside the natural world?"
There is nothing un-/sub-/super- natural about intangible concepts such as morality, logic and mathematics.
"I am not saying nothing about if one or one million of ToE believers agree or not with eugenics, I am talking about a moral based on ToE, and also I am not saying that a moral based on evolution mandates eugenics. I only say hta a moral based on ToE allows eugenics."
Then yes. You CAN base an argument for eugenics on evolution if you wished to.
"Ritchie, you know that since Malthus, author quoted by Darwin himself, many teorist were looking to charity as waste of precious resources. I will postulate one eugenics derived from ToE: Mankind and planet earth are threatened by the increasing levels of CO2. By far the biggest producers of CO2 per person are northamerican people. A drastic reduction in northamerican population will save the planet and mankind. We need a 9-11 a week to survive."
That is not a case for killing my neighbour based on evolution. It is a case for killing my neighbour based on ecology - more precisely, theories of man-made climate change.
"The human brain the only thing that can do is physicochemical reactions. Agree?
ReplyDeleteZachriel: "There is no scientific evidence of woo."
That is a scientific nonsense. You will never have a scientific evidence that there is nothing else. If you agree with naturalism you have to admit the brain is only capable of physicochemical reactions or demostrate the existance of other capabilities.
"Maths is a broad subject. Most people share many of the same experiences, including the experience of distinct objects. It's a facet of living in a terrestrial environment. Hence, people tend to think in terms of counting numbers. Thinking clouds may not think in terms of discrete objects. "
In naturalism "thinking" is a physicochemical reaction in our brain that is the point.
Neal said:
ReplyDelete"The earth's climate has never been unchanging. The earth has been warming and cooling since it's origin, much more extreme than the slight changes we see since the industrial age."
How exactly do you know that?
"There is nothing un-/sub-/super- natural about intangible concepts such as morality, logic and mathematics."
ReplyDeleteThen you can show me a scientific prove, using the strict experimental- deductive method that exist something like logic, morality, numbers and any other intangible concept. Remember keep the concept of God outside that demostration.
"Then yes. You CAN base an argument for eugenics on evolution if you wished to."
Then why all this fuss if Darwin could be pro eugenic?
Blas -
ReplyDelete"Then you can show me a scientific prove, using the strict experimental- deductive method that exist something like logic, morality, numbers and any other intangible concept."
You want me to prove, scientifically, that logic exists? That morality, or some such incorporeal concept exists? No, I really don't think I can. You're wandering away from science and into philosophy here. Can you prove that anything at all exists?
"Then why all this fuss if Darwin could be pro eugenic?"
Imagine if I wrote a blog calling all Catholic priests peadophiles. Or all Muslims zealous terrorists. Or all Americans fat, self-obsessed rednecks. You could, with justification, call these offensive caricatures. It's not that they are absolutely incorrect - some Catholic priests are peadophiles. Some Muslims are zealous terrorists. Some Americans are fat, self-obsessed rednecks. The offense comes from equating a group as a whole to the very worst of its members. Pointing to the worst examples of the group you want to demonise and say 'Look! They're all like THAT!'
eocene said:
ReplyDelete"No, that had more to do with your Father."
What exactly is that supposed to mean?
Ritchie, it is true that you can't single out the worst examples of a group as representative of the whole.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is important to look at the where their ideas come from. Ideas have consequences and shouldn't be ignored. Ideas are associated with Christianity and Islam the US Constitution and Darwinism.
Christianity teaches very strongly and plainly to love even your enemies and to do violence to no man. It even teaches strongly against even hating someone. So, to do otherwise is a direct violation of core doctrine.
For the US government to outlaw freedom of the press would be a direct violation of the US constitution.
But, eugenics is not a violation of anything that Darwin or early evolutionists wrote. Why the talk of the weak in body and mind? Why even go there? Why did they hold out such a thing as something good? Why even go there?
Darwin had a thing for stero-typing a lot of groups as inferior to himself (blacks, women, those weak in mind). Darwin certainly had his share of mental issues and depression and anxiety... perhaps some could think him to weak minded in that regard. Should we suggest that those that have mental depression shouldn't marry?
But, there is a direct link between Darwins ideas and eugenics. It is not an indirect link. Eugenics was based on directly applying the ideas that Darwin wrote about to evolve a stronger and healthier human population.
The inventors of the Atomic bomb came out with dire warnings to humanity. Far from issuing warnings about applying selection on humans, Darwin was passively suggestive of benefits of it. Well those ideas had consequences.
What is troublesome is the trend in the new wacko thinking of global warmers that is spawning all these ideas of human depopulation as some kind of utopian cure for mother earth.
Ritchie:"You want me to prove, scientifically, that logic exists? That morality, or some such incorporeal concept exists? No, I really don't think I can. You're wandering away from science and into philosophy here. Can you prove that anything at all exists?"
ReplyDeleteEvolution is a fact?
"Imagine if I wrote a blog calling all Catholic priests peadophiles. Or all Muslims zealous terrorists. Or all Americans fat, self-obsessed rednecks. You could, with justification, call these offensive caricatures. It's not that they are absolutely incorrect - some Catholic priests are peadophiles. Some Muslims are zealous terrorists. Some Americans are fat, self-obsessed rednecks. The offense comes from equating a group as a whole to the very worst of its members. Pointing to the worst examples of the group you want to demonise and say 'Look! They're all like THAT!'"
I do not see CH saying all darwinist are pro eugenics, what I understand he is saying Darwin was pro eugenics and Evolution support eugenics.
And you can say catholicism can support pedophiles.
Darwin did write in "The Descent of Man" that he expected the more evolved European races to exterminate the less evolved non-Europeans. It didn't seem to be advocating a policy, ust saying that it was inevitable.
ReplyDeleteNeal -
ReplyDelete"Christianity teaches very strongly and plainly to love even your enemies..."
That's debatable!
"...and to do violence to no man."
Tell that to the Canaanites.
"But, eugenics is not a violation of anything that Darwin or early evolutionists wrote. Why the talk of the weak in body and mind? Why even go there? Why did they hold out such a thing as something good? Why even go there?"
On the topic of 'Why go there', why do you think Cornelius is making this blog post? Why go THERE?
Let's call a spade a spade for a moment and be honest. It's because, on his quest to undermine ToE at every turn, he has now resorted to implicitly (but still none-too-subtly) equating it to eugenics. An underhand and tasteless move of propaganda.
"But, there is a direct link between Darwins ideas and eugenics. It is not an indirect link."
ToE does not lead logically to eugenics. Not by a long shot. Eugenics is achieved when ToE is glimpsed at through the blood-splattered lenses of a psychopath.
Evolution teaches we are all related, making a nonsense of racial purity and superiority. It explicitly teaches that genetic diversification is a good thing. It also teaches that ideas of 'fitness' and 'improving a gene pool' are totally relative. All in all, this undermines the key notions behind eugenics. The logic between evolution is not, as you seem to suggest, broad and clear, it is twisted and tangental.
"What is troublesome is the trend in the new wacko thinking of global warmers that is spawning all these ideas of human depopulation as some kind of utopian cure for mother earth."
I have yet to hear anyone seriously espouse killing of some description as a solution to climate change.
Blas -
ReplyDelete"Evolution is a fact?"
It is.
"I do not see CH saying all darwinist are pro eugenics"
Not explicitly, no, but on a blogsite who sole purpose is to rubbish ToE at any opportunity and on any conceivable level, the implications are rather clear. Do you get, from the OP, any sense other than Darwin, and by extension 'evolutionists', being a malignant force who want to commit genocide? Honestly?
"What I understand he is saying Darwin was pro eugenics and Evolution support eugenics."
Even if the first point was accurate, what is it's relevance? Darwin could have been the most despicable man who ever drew breath, but that wouldn't cast doubt on whether his theory was true. Was Cornelius simply dabbling in a little dispassionate character assassination against a man who - completely coincidentally - happened to be the father of the theory his entire blog/career is Hell-bent on rubbishing? I wonder what his motive for picking on Darwin could possibly be...
And the second point isn't true. You CAN build an argument for eugenics based on evolution, but you can also build a case just as good, if not better AGAINST eugenics based on evolution too. So to conclude that 'evolution supports eugenics' is misleading at best.
It's like saying 'Germ theory opposes vaccines'. If such is your want, you CAN build an argument against vaccines based on germ theory, but you can also build a case FOR vaccines based on it too. Meanwhile, the theory itself remains entirely morally neutral. So saying 'Germ theory opposes vaccines' is inaccurate and provocative.
Zachriel: There is no scientific evidence of woo.
ReplyDeleteBlas: That is a scientific nonsense. You will never have a scientific evidence that there is nothing else.
An important part of the scientific method is ignoring extraneous entities that have no empirical implications.
Blas: If you agree with naturalism you have to admit the brain is only capable of physicochemical reactions or demostrate the existance of other capabilities.
Not a philosophical naturalist.
Blas: As maths are for everybody the same, should have every men the same physicochemical reactions for mats.
No. There is more than likely wide variations in the way people think about maths.
Blas: Scott please read again the discussion I am not looking or presenting any other explanation.
ReplyDeleteThat's just it - having read the discussion, I cannot follow your logic.
Why not found morality on Gravity? After all, Hawkins said in his latest book that gravity played a important role in creating stars. And without stars, there would't be any heavy elements or planets from which life would form. And, if gravity if the foundation of morality, why not claim it would be immoral to save people who are about to fall off a cliff, trapped under heavy objects, etc.?
Or why not base morality on the second law of thermal dynamics? If people get cold, then claim it would be immoral to provide them warmth, or immoral to reduce entropy, etc.
This is how arbitrary your claim appears to me.
So, again, I'd ask, if the ToE is true, then why must the ToE be a foundation for morality? If this isn't merely arbitrary, then what reason other than the ToE plays the role of God in your world view? Why must we assume that the fittest should survive, which we've already pointed out is a misrepresentation anyway?
This simply does not follow.
Neal Tedford said:
ReplyDelete"Christianity teaches very strongly and plainly to love even your enemies and to do violence to no man. It even teaches strongly against even hating someone. So, to do otherwise is a direct violation of core doctrine."
You obviously haven't read the bible.
Nat :
ReplyDeleteDarwin did write in "The Descent of Man" that he expected the more evolved European races to exterminate the less evolved non-Europeans. It didn't seem to be advocating a policy, ust saying that it was inevitable.
We did a good job here in North America. And don't forget about Australia. The problem is which definition of "evolve" you are using. Because a group is less technologically advanced does not mean they are less evolved in a scientific sense. That would seem to assume a teleological aspect to evolution. Humans could not survive in many environments that bacteria thrive,are we less evolved?
Blas:
ReplyDelete"Love=chemical reaction
Moral based in Love
Moral not based in chemical reaction?!
Why darwinists hides behind words?"
It's not hiding behind words; it's called 'thinking'. The fact that love is a chemical reaction does not mean that we should derive our morals from the LAWS OF CHEMISTRY. Gravity also affects our brains, but we don't base our morality on the LAW OF GRAVITY.
"3)I do not understand why darwinist commenting in this blog are so outraged for saying moral based on ToE and Darwin allows eugenetics."
Because moral precepts cannot be directly derived from facts without first assuming as et of values. This is Hume's old "is-ought" problem. Eugenics is derived from a value set that places population control and 'good breeding' over the betterment of the whole species. Cooperative and altruistic worldviews can also be derived from the fact of evolution if you begin from a different value set. When you assert that eugenics is the NATURAL result of evolution - the ONLY POSSIBLE result - you are ignoring the influence of a person's values on their reaction to the facts. This is incredibly frustrating and shows you to be small-minded.
"2) If evolution is the only base for moral, eugenetics is a valid alternative."
Morality is not BASED on evolution. Our moral instinct EVOLVED, and we can derive new views on morality from our presuppositions as WELL as the facts we observe. If someone claims to be basing their morality directly on evolution, the truth is that they begin from the assumption that we shouldn't resist the "natural order." The quote which Cornelius is attempting to use to attack Darwin actually shows that Darwin thought we SHOULD resist the "natural order" and help those of us least able to help themselves.
And thus, in response to Cornelius:
"Was it wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement?"
I believe it was, yes, because I disagree with the values of eugenicists. I don't agree that the fact that natural selection tends to cull the weak means that we should embrace a culling of the weak. Yes, eugenicists do derive their morality from evolution, but only inasmuch as they see this culling as good because it is natural. Nature, as we all well know, doesn't always work out in our best interest, so I believe that to enforce 'natural order' is short-sighted and dangerous.
Eocene:
"Ultimately, the evolutionary dogma must be justified and protected at all costs, even if making oneself a fool on an internet debate site. That's where the beauty of annonymity comes in. "
Allow me to make an analogy.
The position of the person who says "evolution leads to eugenics" is like the position of a person who says "gravity leads to suicide," because gravity is all about falling, and so we should all spend our lives falling off of things like tall buildings.
It is not "defending the gravitational dogma" to say that we SHOULDN'T actually be falling off of buildings just because the theory of gravitation leads to falling. To make this claim is to actually make a fool of yourself.
(And I typed all this before seeing that Scott said much the same thing.)
As for anonymity... tu quoque.
Neal:
ReplyDelete"Hitler's ethics was derived from Darwinism. He justified himself because his actions were improving the "race". Darwin was passive and suggestive of it, where Hitler was proactive to the extreme."
I hate to tell you this, but Hitler rejected the concept of evolution. He did not believe in the creation of new species, or that mankind was derived from animals ("The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.") He believed that species were created separately by God. He did, however, believe in a eugenicist refinement of the species, making analogies to the way dogs are bred into more 'perfect' forms. He justified this by claiming to be doing the will of a personified Nature, which he viewed as progressively working to improve the species ("If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile").
This has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is simply about change, not 'progress' toward some goal. Nature did not work "throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being". What we see is just what happened, not some goal fixed at the beginning of everything.
Blas again:
"I do not see CH saying all darwinist are pro eugenics, what I understand he is saying Darwin was pro eugenics and Evolution support eugenics."
Which is utterly irrelevant to the fact that evolution is a reality. Darwin could have been a misogynist, racist, murderous, incestuous, thieving bastard, and it would have no effect on whether or not his idea was true. This is called the "genetic fallacy." The origin of an idea is irrelevant to its merits.
MikeTheInfidel:
ReplyDeleteI believe it was, yes, because I disagree with the values of eugenicists.
OK, sure, but that wasn’t my question. I asked if it was wrong, period. Just because you disagree doesn’t necessarily make it wrong, does it? So I still ask: Was it wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement?
Cornelius Hunter said...
ReplyDeleteMikeTheInfidel:
I believe it was, yes, because I disagree with the values of eugenicists.
OK, sure, but that wasn’t my question. I asked if it was wrong, period. Just because you disagree doesn’t necessarily make it wrong, does it? So I still ask: Was it wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement?
Oh goodie! CH has taken a temporary break from quote mining and has now moved on to the loaded question.
Cornelius, have you stopped stealing money from the collection plate yet?
CH -
ReplyDelete"OK, sure, but that wasn’t my question. I asked if it was wrong, period. Just because you disagree doesn’t necessarily make it wrong, does it? So I still ask: Was it wrong for evolutionists to sterilize and institutionalize people in the eugenics movement?"
Cornelius, 'I believe it was/I believe it wasn't' is all you're ever going to get. You asked Mike to make a personal moral judgement. And now you're objecting because he's made one?
Or are you trying to imply morality is objective? That actions have an innate moral value, no matter what anyone says about them? If you are, then good luck with that. Morality is not objective.
Ritchie:"You want me to prove, scientifically, that logic exists? That morality, or some such incorporeal concept exists? No, I really don't think I can. You're wandering away from science and into philosophy here. Can you prove that anything at all exists?"
"Evolution is a fact?"
Ritchie.
It is.
So Ritchie cannot prove that anything at all exist, but still confirms evolution is a fact!
"I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." Lc 7:9
MikeTheInfidel said...
Blas:
"Love=chemical reaction
Moral based in Love
Moral not based in chemical reaction?!
The fact that love is a chemical reaction does not mean that we should derive our morals from the LAWS OF CHEMISTRY. Gravity also affects our brains, but we don't base our morality on the LAW OF GRAVITY.
No? If moral comes from a chemical reaction you have to found moral in that chemical reaction and his products then you have to apply chemistry to studie moral.
Add gravity if you want, I understand that chemistry laws includes the effect of gravity in chemical reactions, and I ta