0
   

Evolution and Ethics

 
 
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 05:46 pm
An evolutionite has no logical basis for morality. Jeffrey Dahmer noted that

Quote:

‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then"then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’

Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.


The theory of evolution clearly is dangerous and clearly has pathological consequences. It was the major philosophical corner stone of naziism, communism, and the eugenics programs of the 20'th century and you might could overlook some or all of that if there was any truth to the theory, but there isn't. Evolution is junk science and, as junk science goes, a spectacularly dangerous and harmful variety. The best discussion of the relationship between evolutionism and ethics is probably still that of Sir Arthur Keith:


From Sir Srthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics:


Chapter 3

The Behavior of Germany Considered from an Evolutionary Point of View in 1942

VISITORS TO GERMANY IN 1934 FOUND AN emotional storm sweeping through masses of the people, particularly the more educated. The movement had much in common with a religious revival. The preacher in this case was Adolf Hitler; his doctrine was, and is, tribalism; he had stirred in the emotional depths of the German people those long-dormant tribal feelings which find release and relief in mutual service; men and women who had been leading selfish lives or were drifting aimlessly were given a new purpose in life: service to their country the Third Reich. It is worth noting that Hitler uses a double designation for his tribal doctrine National Socialism: Socialism standing for the good side of the tribal spirit (that which works within the Reich); aud Nationalism for the ethically vicious part, which dominates policy at and outside the German frontiers.

The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front"; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people. He has brought into

10.

modern life the tribal and evolutionary mentality of prehistoric times. Hitler has confronted the statesmen of the world with an evolutionary problem of an unprecedented magnitude. What is the world to do with a united aggressive tribe numbering eighty millions!

We must not lose sight of the purpose of our visit to Germany; it was to see how far modern evolutionary practice can provide us with a scientific basis for ethical or moral behavior. As a source of information concerning Hitler's evolutionary and ethical doctrines I have before me Mein Kampf, extracts from The Times covering German affairs during the last twenty years, and the monthly journal R.F.C. (Racio Political Foreign Correspondenee), published by the German Bureau for Human Betterment and Eugenics and circulated by that bureau for the enlightenment of anthropologists living abroad. In the number of that journal for July 1937, there appears in English the text of a speech given by the German Fuhrer on January 30, 1937, in reply to a statement made by Mr. Anthony Eden that "the German race theory" stood in the way of a common discussion of European problems. Hitler maintained his theory would have an opposite effect; "it will bring about a real understanding for the first time." "It is not for men," said the Fuhrer, "to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation." I may remark incidentally that in this passage, as in many others, the German Fuhrer, like Bishop Barnes and many of our more intellectual clergy, regards evolution as God's mode of creation. God having created races, it is therefore "the noblest and most sacred duty for each racial species of mankind to preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it." Here we have expounded the perfectly sound doctrine of evolutionary isolation; even as an ethical doctrine it should not be condemned. No German must be guilty of the "greatest racial sin" that of bringing the fruits of hybridity into the world. The reproductive "genes" which circulate within the frontiers of Germany must be kept uncontaminated, so that they may work out the racial destiny of the German people without impediment. Hitler is also a eugenist. Germans who suffer from

11.

hereditable imperfections of mind or of body must be rendered infertile, so that "the strong may not be plagued by the weak." Sir Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, taught a somewhat similar evolutionary doctrine namely, that if our nation was to prosper we must give encouragement to the strong rather than to the weak; a saving which may be justified by evolution, but not by ethics as recognized and practiced by civilized peoples. The liberties of German women are to be sacrificed; they must devote their activities to their households, especially to the sacred duty of raising succeeding generations. The birth rate was stimulated by bounties and subsidies so that the German tribe might grow in numbers and in strength. In all these matters the Nazi doctrine is evolutionist.

Hitler has sought on every occasion and in every way to heighten the national consciousness of the German people or, what is the same thing, to make them racially conscious; to give them unity of spirit and unity of purpose. Neighborly approaches of adjacent nations are and were repelled; the German people were deliberately isolated. Cosmopolitanism, liberality of opinion, affectation of foreign manners and dress were unsparingly condemned. The old tribal bonds (love of the Fatherland, feeling of mutual kinship), the bonds of "soil and blood," became "the main plank in the National Social program." "Germany was for the Germans" was another plank. Foreign policy was "good or bad according to its beneficial or harmful effects on the German folk now or hereafter." "Charity and humility are only for home consumption" a statement in which Hitler gives an exact expression of the law which limits sympathy to its tribe. "Humanitarianism is an evil . . . a creeping poison." "The most cruel methods are humane if they give a speedy victory" is Hitler's echo of a maxim attributed to Moltke. Such are the ways of evolution when applied to human affairs.

I have said nothing about the methods employed by the Nazi leaders to secure tribal unity in Germany methods of brutal compulsion, bloody force, and the concentration camp. Such methods cannot be brought within even a Machiavellian system of ethics, and yet may be justified by their evolutionary result.

12.

Even in that result we may harbor a doubt: can unity obtained by such methods be relied on to endure?

There are other aspects of Nazi policy which raise points which may be legitimate subjects of ethical debate. In recent years British men of science have debated this ethical problem: an important discovery having been made a new poison gas, for example is it not the duty of the discoverer to suppress it if there is a possibility of its being used for an evil purpose? My personal conviction is that science is concerned wholly with truth, not with ethics. A man of science is responsible for the accuracy of his observations and of his inferences, not for the results which may follow therefrom. Under no circumstances should the truth be suppressed; yet suppression and distortion of the truth is a deliberate part of Nazi policy. Every anthropologist in Germany, be he German or Jew, was and is silenced in Nazi Germany unless the Hitlerian racial doctrine is accepted without any reservation whatsoever. Authors, artists, preachers, and editors are undone if they stray beyond the limits of the National Socialist tether. Individual liberty of thought and of its expression is completely suppressed. An effective tribal unity is thus attained at the expense of truth. And yet has not the Church in past times persecuted science just in this Hitlerian way? There was a time, and not so long ago, when it was dangerous for a biologist to harbor a thought that clashed in any way with the Mosaic theory of creation.

No aspect of Hitler's policy proclaims the antagonism between evolution and ethics so forcibly as his treatment of the Jewish people in Germany. So strong are the feelings roused that it is difficult for even science to approach the issues so raised with an unclouded judgment. Ethically the Hitlerian treatment of the Jews stands condemned out of hand. Hitler is cruel, but I do not think that his policy can be explained by attributing it to a mere satisfaction of a lust, or to a search for a scapegoat on which Germany can wreak her wrath for the ills which followed her defeat of 1918. The Church in Spain subjected the Jews to the cruelty of the Inquisition, but no one ever sought to explain the Church's behavior by suggesting that she had a

13.

lust for cruelty which had to be satisfied. The Church adopted the Inquisition as a policy; it was a means of securing unity of mind in her flock. Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions. When the Huguenots fled to Germany they mingled their "genes" with those of their host and disappeared as an entity. The Jews are made of other stuff: for two thousand years, living amid European communities, they have maintained their identity; it is an article of their creed, as it is of Hitler's, to breed true. They, too, practice an evolutionary doctrine. Is it possible for two peoples living within the same frontiers, dwelling side by side, to work out harmoniously their separate evolutionary destinies? Apparently Hitler believes this to be impossible; we in Britain and in America believe it to be not only possible, but also profitable.

It must not be thought that in seeking to explain Hitler's actions I am seeking to justify them. The opposite is the case. I have made this brief survey of public policy in modern Germany with a definite object: to show that Dr. Waddington is in error when he seeks to place ethics on a scientific basis by a knowledge of evolutionary tendencies and practice.

Chapter 4

Human Life: Its Purpose or Ultimate End

IN THE COURSE OF GATHERING INFORMATION concerning man's morality and the part it has played and is playing in his evolution, I found it necessary to provide space for slips which were labeled "Life: Its Ultimate and Proximate Purposes." Only those who have devoted some special attention to this matter are aware of the multitude of reasons given for the appearance of man on earth. Here I shall touch on only a few of them; to deal with all would require a big book. The reader may exclaim: Why deal with any of them! What has ultimate purpose got to do with ethics and evolution! Let a man with a clearer head and a nimbler pen than mine reply. He is Edward Carpenter, who wrote Civilization: Its Cause and Cure (1889).

14.

It is from the sixteenth edition (1923) I am to quote, p. 249:

If we have decided what the final purpose or Life of Man is, then we may say that what is good for that purpose is finally "good" and what is bad for that purpose is finally "evil."

If the final purpose of our existence is that which has been and is being worked out under the discipline of evolutionary law, then, although we are quite unconscious of the end result, we ought, as Dr. Waddington has urged, to help on "that which tends to promote the ultimate course of evolution." If we do so, then we have to abandon the hope of ever attaining a universal system of ethics; for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy. Dr. Waddington has not grasped the implications of Nature's method of evolution, for in his summing up (Nature, 1941, 150, p. 535) he writes "that the ethical principles formulated by Christ . . . are those which have tended towards the further evolution of mankind, and that they will continue to do so." Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me, that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed. Clearly the form of evolution which Dr. Waddington has in mind is not that which has hitherto prevailed; what he has in mind is a man made system of evolution. In brief, instead of seeking ethical guidance from evolution, he now proposes to impose a system of ethics on evolution and so bring humanity ultimately to a safe and final anchorage in a Christian haven.

 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 05:52 pm
Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with ethics. That's a relationship dreamed up by people who doesn't understand science.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 05:53 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
An evolutionite has no logical basis for morality. Jeffrey Dahmer noted that

Evolution is simply an observation of how the natural world works, it's not a mandate for how people should behave. And Jeffrey Dahmer is not a good choice for getting answers on life.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 06:05 pm
@rosborne979,
As I noted, if evolution were anything more than junk science you might could overlook the ethical problems; problem is, it isn't.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 06:20 pm
@gungasnake,
And if your unsupported ridiculous statements were anything more than paranoid propaganda, rational people might consider them; problem is, they aren't.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 01:22 pm
What's ethical about lying in order to advance the claims of ID?
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 02:01 pm
@JTT,
What lie??
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 02:29 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:

SCIENCE WINS IN PENNSYLVANIA!

The trial in Dover Pennsylvania was essentially over whether ID can be taught along with evolutionary theory. The judge ruled it cannot. Here’s the money quote from the judge:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

This has been closely watched by both sides of the issue (and by both sides, I mean the correct side, science, and the wrong side, ID) but it was clear from early on that the proponents of ID were behaving foolishly and badly. The judge concurred:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

Hear that? The judge said the IDers lied, something we scientists have been saying for months. Years. It’s truly remarkable that the judge was so candid about this; certainly reporters who have been discussing this in newspapers and on TV have bent over backwards to sound “fair”, giving equal time to ID nonsense when it is not deserved. You can’t be fair to both sides of an argument when one is wrong.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2005/12/20/science-wins-in-pennsylvania/

gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 04:51 pm
@JTT,
The judge in that Dover case has zero credability. His entire final statement appeared to have been prepared by the evolutionists for him.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 04:57 pm
@gungasnake,
What is the basis for your morality, Gunga? I sure hope it's not the god of the Judeo-Christian Bible. You know, the one who tortures Isaac with a mock-execution to make a point to his father Abraham; the one you encourages His chosen people to commit genocide against enemy peoples; the one who would rather have Job's innocent family killed gratuitously, rather than lose an argument with Satan.
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 05:16 pm
@Thomas,
The sermon on the mount would do for starters. The OT is a history book which you have to know how to read (you clearly don't) to get much of anything out of. There were at least two kinds of things going on in those times which do not go on now, i.e. cosmic catastrophe (e.g. the Noachean flood), and communication with the spirit world. The best place to start reading about the later would still be Julian Jaynes' Origin of Consciousness.

All of the kinds of things Jaynes describes involved trance states, they all involved static electricity, and they all stopped working, gradually during OT times, and none of them worked any longer by the time of Alexander. That included prophets and prophecy, Oracles, "familiar spirits" (the ghost story concerning Saul, Samuel, and the "witch" of Endor), Idolatry, which turned much of the planet into an insane assylum for a thousand years or thereabouts, and pure electrostatic devices which included the pyramids and things like the ark of the covenant.

The closest thing we have to any of that in our modern world is EVP.

JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 05:21 pm
@gungasnake,
"The OT is a history book which you have to know how to read (you clearly don't) to get much of anything out of"

You want to get out of it what you want to see in it. That's your delusion.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 05:36 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
An evolutionite has no logical basis for morality.

Is that because evolution is incompatible with morality, or because evolution is incompatible with a belief in god, and god is the source of all morality?

gungasnake wrote:
Jeffrey Dahmer noted...

Rolling Eyes
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 05:52 pm
@joefromchicago,
The only reason that muslim or secular humanist societies work at all is that the basic ideas of morality are imprinted on most of us genetically and biologically.

A psychopath, like SlicKKK KKKlintler or Hitler or Stalin (or Jeffrey Dahmer for that matter) however, is somebody on whom the imprint did not take and experts like Robert Hare are uncertain as to what percentage of the human race that amounts to. some figure about one person in a hundred and fifty or thereabouts, others say something more like one in fifty or even one in thirty. For these people, IT HAS TO BE WRITTEN DOWN SOMEWHERE. That is why the Bible still sells as well as it does; that's where it's written down.

You might want to buy a copy of Hare's "Without Conscience", read through it, and ask yourself how many of the people he describes you really want thinking that morality is simply whatever the want it to be on a given day.
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 09:38 pm
http://www.defaithed.com/system/files/u1/motivator8426550.jpg
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 05:39 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnaKKKe wrote:
The only reason that muslim or secular humanist societies work at all is that the basic ideas of morality are imprinted on most of us genetically and biologically.

If that's true, then it really doesn't matter if people believe in evolution or not, since even "evolutionites" will be genetically imprinted with the basic ideas of morality.

gungasnaKKKe wrote:
A psychopath, like SlicKKK KKKlintler or Hitler or Stalin (or Jeffrey Dahmer for that matter) however, is somebody on whom the imprint did not take and experts like Robert Hare are uncertain as to what percentage of the human race that amounts to. some figure about one person in a hundred and fifty or thereabouts, others say something more like one in fifty or even one in thirty. For these people, IT HAS TO BE WRITTEN DOWN SOMEWHERE. That is why the Bible still sells as well as it does; that's where it's written down.

Well, first of all, you don't offer any evidence (or any argument) that all psychopaths believe in evolution, so although all psychopaths may reject morality, and all "evolutionites" may reject morality, it does not follow that all psychopaths are "evolutionites" (or that all "evolutionites" are psychopaths). So you still haven't made the connection between belief in evolution and rejection of morality.

Secondly, if it's true that, for psychopaths, the rules of morality must be written down somewhere in order for psychopaths to follow them, the truth is that they are. They are embodied in society's laws. The fact that true sociopaths like Jeffrey Dahmer refuse to follow those laws is, I think, a pretty clear indication that they wouldn't follow the rules set forth in the bible either.

Finally, if it's true that most people are moral simply because they are genetically "hard-wired" to be moral, and that a small percentage of the population won't be moral unless the rules of morality are written down somewhere, then it seems to me you are saying either: (1) that a purely secular society can be just as moral as a religious one, so long as its rules of morality are written down; or (2) that religion is strictly for psychopaths. Which is it?
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 06:23 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:

Secondly, if it's true that, for psychopaths, the rules of morality must be written down somewhere in order for psychopaths to follow them, the truth is that they are. They are embodied in society's laws. The fact that true sociopaths like Jeffrey Dahmer refuse to follow those laws is, I think, a pretty clear indication that they wouldn't follow the rules set forth in the bible either.


Dahmer clearly stated that the problem was evolution and God's laws; man's laws could be dealt with simply by nog getting caught. Othe rthan that, religion is about more than morality, it's about honoring the creator of our living world as well.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 07:30 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
The only reason that muslim or secular humanist societies work at all is that the basic ideas of morality are imprinted on most of us genetically and biologically.

In that case, so what if we don't have a logical basis for morality? By your own assertion, we already have a biological and genetical basis for it, and it serves us just fine.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 10:10 am
Man has always done things before and after the bible. Older civilizations have always tried to codify human behavior, and "morality" has been culture based.

It doesn't matter whether they were "written" down or not.

Human sacrifice, anyone?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Sep, 2008 10:21 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnaKKKe wrote:
Dahmer clearly stated that the problem was evolution and God's laws; man's laws could be dealt with simply by nog getting caught. Othe rthan that, religion is about more than morality, it's about honoring the creator of our living world as well.

Well, of course one of the problems with taking the word of someone like Jeffrey Dahmer is that he was a sociopath. Given that Dahmer was a serial killer, cannibal, and chronic liar, I don't feel inclined to accept his assertions regarding morality and religion. If you are, then I suppose that's your business.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution and Ethics
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/23/2024 at 04:39:08