Bass Ackwards Darwinism

_{May 6, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

There are people who believe that because Darwin provided a theoretical basis that humans and animals have a common ancestor it becomes a rationale for treating humans more like animals. Thus we get things like Nazi Germany and the holocaust.

I suppose that’s one way of looking at it.

Another equally valid way of looking at it is that common ancestry becomes a rationale for treating animals more like humans. Thus we get things like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

It’s all a matter of how you choose to look at it. It’s really more a reflection on your own soul which way you choose to see it.

Good people do good things. Evil people do evil things. Knowledge (like Darwinian evolution and the recipe for dynamite) is inanimate and can be employed by good people for good things and evil people for evil things.

Comments

geoff There is a problem only when you think being descended from animals means you should act like an animal. No matter where it came from we have the ability to reason and put ourselves in the place of others. Darwin called that "sympathy" and described it as the noblest part our nature. This is what other animals cannot do, or it's at least not obvious they can, is to put themselves in the place of others, imagine we feel what another feels, and govern our actions as if the shoe was on the other foot. This is the basis for the golden rule. Unfortunately it seems a large number of humans cannot or will not rise above animal instincts even when they have the choice. In my opinion that makes them worse than animals. It's also pretty darn convincing evidence that humans are not just descended from animals but many still ARE animals. I can't blame a tiger for acting like a tiger. The tiger doesn't know better. I can blame a human for acting like a tiger. The human knows better. Or at least I think they should know better. Maybe I'm giving more credit to humanity for the capacity to rise above animal behavior than humanity deserves. DaveScot_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT}

The problem is not common descent as it is the underlying naturalism which removes any basis for objective morality. It removes the brakes making anything ok. Treat people well...fine. Treat them like cattle, that's fine too. But the overall point that good people do good things, etc. is taken and is true.geoffrobinson_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

DaveScot Great posts! All this stuff about Darwinism and (im)morality is so weak. And, more particularly, I think it really hurts ID. As I read on another post, ‘the Nazis used the theory of gravity to drop bombs, which was bad, so hey, the theory of gravity must be false! (‘intelligent downwardness’, anybody?)’. It’s really a rod for our own back.duncan_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

jjcassidy BTW, I was watching Maneaters on Animal Planet the other night, it told one story of a group of suburban dogs that formed an impromptu pack, got caught up in the latent thrill of chasing a kid, and ate the poor kid’s arm and ear off. They instinctively knew he was food. You say that as if you're unaware of gangs of humans doing random acts of violence. Try googling "drive by shooting" to get an idea of the violence that packs of humans get into. At least dogs don't tend to prey on other dogs. Humans seem to be rather unique in nature in that they inflict willful violence on their own species and, sadly, they're masters at it, having advanced far beyond mere tooth and claw to weapons of mass indiscriminate death and destruction. The thing of it is that people can choose to be ethically better or worse than animals and it seems to have little to do with religious beliefs and lots to do with sympathy (or compassion or empathy or whatever you want to call that which makes *some* of us follow the golden rule). Darwin called this sympathy that which is the most noble part of our nature. I guess some people are just more noble than others, huh?DaveScot_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

Jason Are you really going to try to compare PETA to Nazis? That should be stupid to the point of slapstick comedy. Please proceed.DaveScot_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

It seems a bunch of you are saying the only way a person can have an acceptable standard of ethics is to get it out of a book written by men thousands of years ago. Ignore the fact that there are many books which claim divine inspiration. Ignore the fact that there are more interpretations of the one true book of God than Carter has little liver pills. Is that how God works now? We don't have the ability to tell right from wrong until we read the proper book and make the proper ritual motions? Spare me.DaveScot_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

If Darwin is true, should our only concern for other species be "what do they taste like?"the wonderer_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

Umm ... Dave, the people at PETA are frickin crazy. Have you seen the sorts of ideas they endorse ? They are not good people at all, they are anti-human zealots.Jason Rennie_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

Dave, The real question is not whether Darwinism will lead to the Nazis or Stalin but whether it has. Historically, over a roughly one hundred year period it has. Over a two thousand year period Christian culture hasn't. Have there been exceptions? Yes. Are those exceptions the norm? No. So based on experience (dare I say repeatability?) I'll take Christianity, thank you very much. As to your assertion that your sense of the golden rule is inborn... I'm afraid I would have to consider that naive at best. Dave, you live in the long shadow of the resurrection. Even though many in our culture refuse to acknowledge Jesus as lord, they still benefit enormously from the influence of his teachings. Cultures which have tried to institute Darwinian principles have, however, not fared so well. There you find not just the state committing wholesale murder but individuals turning others over to the state for various motives.Jon Jackson_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

I sometimes think the key is to not rush to engage - not that things don't need judgement, without question they do - but the rush itself sometimes adds its own mark. It certainly has with Expelled. I can understand why the producers of the movie added the Darwin/Eugenics/Hitler thing to their movie - they are all pieces of a clear error in worldview. When Darwin removed the Supreme reason from humanity, he gave the credence of modern Science to a rather old activity - men killing each other for their own reasons. In Hitler and the Nazis, the error and the activity found fertile ground. At the same time, the argument being attacked by Expelled isn't Nazism, its the stifling of debate over Intelligent Design. One might wonder. Moving the debate to the big screen was certainly a strategic flank (a move into uncontested territory), but the message of the movie was (just as clearly) a frontal attack. If I remember strategic axioms, one of the keys to a frontal attack is to not broaden your forces. The idea being that to be successful is to be aware of the defended position, attack on a narrow front, and stack your resources against the weakness in strength. Expelled was certainly successful at these, yet I think that a great deal of energy has been spent on the Nazism angle - as correct as it may be - but off the narrow front. Perhaps the key now is to refocus on the weakness in strength (the unequivocal evidence of Design) and make the side debate useful in some other way.Upright BiPed_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT}

Actually, I'm sticking pretty close to the implications of Darwin's theory, without much elaboration--leaving plenty of room for each man to do what seems "highest and best to him" . Altruism and live animal testing are just different avenues of survival. If survival by saving puppies and survival by live animal testing are roughly equivalent in success then there is little discernible difference, and they are roughly equivalent as survival strategies. Both will sustain those that choose to adopt them. Darwinism doesn't say a lot about treatment of anything. There is the advantage of societal attachment and its reciprocal nature. Darwin shares some notions that it will all turn out all right. (But each of us can chose what is "highest and best" for ourselves.) BTW, I was watching Maneaters on Animal Planet the other night, it told one story of a group of suburban dogs that formed an impromptu pack, got caught up in the latent thrill of chasing a kid, and ate the poor kid's arm and ear off. They instinctively knew he was food.jjcassidy_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT}

Dave, as much as you are obviously an intelligent guy, it is impossible not to come to the conclusion that you are living in conflict with your own stated beliefs as you continue to attempt to defend the morality question for Darwinism. What one believes will determine how he behaves. If you are honest about an inward golden-rule, bravo. Others, however, are either not honest about it or (and most often I think) need considerable nudging to find it. Darwinism would only serve to nudge in the wrong direction, however. The problem as I see it is that, “None are righteous …”, and to the degree that one wishes to live unrighteously he justifies and rationalizes his actions by whatever ideas would seem most likely to free him of responsibility for his actions. You may be right that Darwinism and/or the idea of common ancestry doesn't drive immoral actions, but you've broken through the ice to try to say that they don't facilitate them. They clearly do.Brent_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT}

You choose how to interpret Darwinism according to your own prejudices. My sense of ethics flows from within, not without. I consider religions to be little more than sometimes productive and sometimes counter-productive mythologies. Near as I can tell I was born with the so-called golden rule as an instinctive behavior. The rule extends to all life not just my own species or my own personal survival. I believe this is what separates me from the rest of the animal kingdom. If I see an animal that's hurt and could use some compassionate aid I'll give it under the assumption that kindness given often results in kindness returned. I saved an abandoned puppy once. That puppy grew up and saved my daughter's life. God works in mysterious ways. Or maybe evolution did. Who knows. All I know is that good people do good things, evil people do evil things, I instinctively know the difference, and choose to do good instead of evil.DaveScot_{May 5, 2008
May
05
May
5
05
2008
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT}

Actually, I think it's that Darwin got rid of any meaningful morality if he was right. Also, knowledge (or pseudo-knowledge) can animate others. If I'm told that I'm nothing but the result of mindless forces, and that my conception of right and wrong has been found useful by natural selection (hard not to bring in teleology with a name like natural selection), then why the heck should I not murder? Especially if I can get away with it because I have a bigger stick than everyone else. So, my question is, how does a neo-Darwinist get so far as to say "A is good, and B is evil." It has been a source of unending amusement to see avid neo-Darwinists such as Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens condemning things as wrong. Especially since Dawkins has said he's a determinist (yet he blames people for what they do, and he blames the ideas that drive their actions).SeanSean_{May 5, 2008
May
05
May
5
05
2008
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

I don't buy it. I don't see how Darwinism suggests anything but that you treat either animal or human based on your--or your group's--survival. It also doesn't matter how you treat anything that doesn't impact your survival. I can imagine that there is more reason for live animal testing under Darwinism, then without it. To give one example: was it better to be a cow in India with the Hindi, or in Russia with the Bolsheviks?jjcassidy_{May 5, 2008
May
05
May
5
05
2008
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply