If evolution is true, than survival of the fittest is a basic law of nature.
If this is true, than why is rape and murder illegal? Aren't those activities just the fittest making the odds of their genes being passed on the highest?
Why do we have laws protecting people from stupidity? If you are dumb enough to hurl down the freeway at 110 without a seat-belt, aren't you too dumb for your genes to be passed on anyway?
Why do we try to cure disease, protect people from danger, and prolong life? Aren't all those things violations of "survival of the fittest" and thus evolution itself?
If the planet is really overpopulated with humans, why do we have hospitals? Why not just let people die? And there are those safety rules again. Illogical if you really believe there are too many humans.
Of course, we all know in our hearts that evolution is not true, it's really survival of the luckiest, and the God wants us to take care of the weakest among us. That is really the only explanation for our behavior.
If this is true, than why is rape and murder illegal? Aren't those activities just the fittest making the odds of their genes being passed on the highest?
Why do we have laws protecting people from stupidity? If you are dumb enough to hurl down the freeway at 110 without a seat-belt, aren't you too dumb for your genes to be passed on anyway?
Why do we try to cure disease, protect people from danger, and prolong life? Aren't all those things violations of "survival of the fittest" and thus evolution itself?
If the planet is really overpopulated with humans, why do we have hospitals? Why not just let people die? And there are those safety rules again. Illogical if you really believe there are too many humans.
Of course, we all know in our hearts that evolution is not true, it's really survival of the luckiest, and the God wants us to take care of the weakest among us. That is really the only explanation for our behavior.
Evolution and social Darwinism are not the same, just like the Bible and the Qur'an are not the same. Do you usually examine something in the Bible by reading the Qur'an? If not, then you probably understand why your post made little to no sense to me (and to people who understand the difference between social Darwinism and evolution).
ReplyDeleteOne thing though, our desire to protect our own IS a part of evolution.
Can you show me an example of any other species that does "protect their own." I don't mean parents protecting their offspring, but one individual doing what is best for the community as a whole instead of what is best for himself. We pass laws punishing total strangers for raping total strangers. Show me an equivalent in the animal worl
ReplyDeleteOf course. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8943567/Rats-display-human-like-empathy-and-will-help-rodents-in-distress.html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/enlightened-living/200808/self-awareness-empathy-and-evolution
http://bit.ly/MHW7In
ReplyDeleteAltruism in animals. The more you know.
K, read the articles. Very interesting, though I'm not sure choosing to rescue a healthy companion over diabetes/tooth-decay inducing chocolate chips is self-sacrifice, lol.
ReplyDeleteThese studies watched the rescue of HEALTHY animals. do rats rescue the equivalent of a downs syndrome rat? One on the point of death? Humans do.
and as one article pointed out, human's can turn this empathy off. Where did that ability come from? And why, in the first place, do we think this is moral behavior? where did that idea- that sacrificing one's self for another is a good thing- come from?
Your analogy of the Bible vs the Koran shows a decided lack of knowledge of religion. a more appropriate comparison would be using a commentary on the Bible written by a liberal to explain the beliefs of a conservative. Both SDists and you believe evolution to be true, you are just interpreting the evidence differently. I do NOT believe the Koran to be true, but do interpret the Bible differently than a Liberal does.
I read wikipedia's entry of social Darwinism. I looked at the arguments in the article claiming a difference between SD and evolutionary theory. I just plain don't see how you could come to the conclusion that survival of the fittest could in any way condemn rape. The one just logically leads to the other. the arguments came across to me as "We know SD is evil so we won't believe it, but we don't really have a viable way around it."
And there is a good deal of circular reasoning among those who support evolution "but not SD." "We know evolution is true, so our belief that rape, murder and stealing are evil must, somehow be a result of evolution.
SD can't be true because we know that rape, murder and stealing are evil." Which is it? Does evolution cause moral behavior or does moral behavior cause evolution?
And how could it possible be good for society (if there is no God) for healthy people to sacrafice for the elderly, sick and dying? for resources that could advance the survival of healthy people to be spent on the terminally ill, retarded, retired, etc? It is simply not logical within the framwork of evolution.
"And how could it possible be good for society (if there is no God*) for healthy people to sacrifice for the elderly, sick and dying?" Well, when the weakest among us are able to survive, the strongest thrive. We have a desire to protect our own.
ReplyDelete(*I believed in evolution as a Christian. I don't know why you have to leave God out of the equation. There is no reason why God could not have created all living beings by making them evolve from one another. )
"These studies watched the rescue of HEALTHY animals. do rats rescue the equivalent of a downs syndrome rat? One on the point of death? Humans do." Interesting questions! Natural science is not my subject, but I will try to answer as best as I can. I don't know of any such studies done on rats. You can see both protective and helpful behavior in almost all mammals. Other animals have saved human beings. Dolphins have saved human beings. Maybe we are some kind of equivalent of a down's syndrome dolphin to dolphins for example? (Okay, that was a very highfaluting idea. As I said, natural science is not my subject...) Anyway, here's another example: when my little sister was a child she argued with my mum about something. At one point my little started crying. Our dog Smulan who has always cared for the smallest children (the weakest of the lot), instinctively bit my mum. She thought my little sister was in danger so she wanted to protect her. By some reason she had a desire to protect her. Dog specialists say dogs view their human family as members of their pack.
I didn't say I disagree with social Darwinism. I just said I noticed that you confused S.D. with T.O.E.
"I looked at the arguments in the article claiming a difference between SD and evolutionary theory." There's a big difference. S.D = focus on social aspects, E.T. = focus on biological aspects.
We all want to do what's best for our society and avoid things that might corrupt us. No species would survive by being selfish. Therefore I would say that moral behaviour is a product of evolution. One thing we can all agree on is that being moral is good for society.
Do you believe that all morals come from God? The fact that society rejects slavery as inherently wrong speaks well of humankind’s use of our interpretation of the Bible. If our morals came from God (and the Bible), then why would we reject parts of the Bible as immoral?
I think you should find someone who can explain evolution in a better way for you (or in a way which makes more sense). It's not an easy subject for me, and therefore it makes it hard for me to explain it in English (which is my third language). I insist that you find someone who can answer your questions, preferably someone who agrees with evolution and believe in God. I do appreciate your questions and thoughts though. It has been nice talking/discussing with you. I realize I came off as quite harsh from the start, so I want to apologize for that. I didn't mean to.
I’ve read this through quite a few times and I still can’t quite comprehend where you’re coming from, forgive me if I don’t fully address you’re meaning because I’m not really sure I’ve got it so I’ll just take my best guess at what you’re asking.
ReplyDeleteAs other people have said Evolution and Social Darwinism (which I THINK is what your post was about) and not the same thing, forgive me for being blunt but really extremely not the same thing, they’re not even comparable, there’s a way to talk about them in the same sentence for instance “how did the proponents of social Darwinism use evolution to justify their cause” but you can’t directly compare them in the same way that you can’t say which is better honey or vacuum cleaners? Or really vacuum cleaners and the process of making honey. (I’m endeavouring to be clear, bear with me) In the same way that you can’t “compare” photosynthesis and landscaping, I mean they’re both to do with plants, a gardener could when laying out the plan for a garden consider photosynthesis in that they’d decide where to put certain plants so they get the right amount of sun, but you can’t draw a conclusion about one and then nessiarily apply it to the other. For instance if a certain plants chloroplasts are honeycombed shaped (I must have honey on the brain) therefore garden beds should be honeycombed shapes, they’re simply different things. Forgive me if I’m labouring the point, I’m just finding it difficult to understand in what way you’re applying one to the other.
I THINK the main issue here is the false assigning of a motivation or agenda to evolution, evolution doesn’t have a motivation any more than gravity has a motivation, gravity doesn’t “want” objects to fall to the ground, there’s no “will” involved its simply a process. Say a disease comes through a population and some individuals are vulnerable and some aren’t 90% of the vulnerable animals will die and 10% of the resistant animals, therefore when the next generation are born there will be more resistant individuals, there’s nothing “wanting” it to happen per se. I drop a cup, it breaks, it’s not that the ground “wanted” to break it; the ground’s hard, so it breaks.
Social Darwinism is an idea that’s been taken up by various people at various times to try and “improve” the population, using amongst other things evolution as a justification, similarly people have used divining, shooting stars and misinterpretations of all sorts of things as a motivation. Unfortunately religion and the bible have frequently been used by people reading and interpreting it and concluding that God wanted them to carry out some action often with tragic events. I’m sorry if I’ve gone on a bit (and off a bit) I’m just trying to get to the crux of your post.
Well, after out of town visitors, camping, and emergency surgery for my mom, I am finally back here:-P
ReplyDeleteI have spent this whole time off mulling over your answer in the back of my mind and I simply don't get it. Evolution functions on the assumption that those better suited to survival in a particular environment are the ones who will survive. Period.
This is supposed to be the ruling law of the universe (much like gravity in its own area). If this is true, than I can see no possible way for social Darwinism to not also be true. The stronger male rooster will fight off the other roosters and force is way onto any hen who can't out run him. This is "survival of the fittest." (And I say this after having owned roosters for more than a year and watching their behavior). Why wouldn't the same rules apply to human's? Why isn't it ok for a big man to kill all the other men and force himself on any woman he can catch? Isn't this the basic law of the universe according to evolution? I am not saying evolution chooses, but that the laws of the universe I was taught in school say that this is ok (no, no teacher ever said rape and murder were ok. The logic IS there though)
I keep hearing evolutionists saying "obviously it helps the strong to survive when the weak are cared for." Nature does not support that conclusion. The evolution I was taught does not support that conclusion. In fact it sounds very circular to me; "We KNOW evolution is true. We see the weak being cared for. So we KNOW it must help the strong to care for the weak."
How about that there is a different explanation; God told us to care for the weak and when we listen to the compassion He places in our hearts, He rewards us.
The problem with evolutionists is that they will travel in a multitude of circles to avoid seeing proof of God. The evidence is there for God. You just have to not be too close minded to see it.
As for "Christians" who say they believe in both God and Evolution, see my post today.