Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

Knowledge is power, and power can be dangerous.

So yes, it is a dangerous idea, but so is the knowledge of how to make fire.

Human beings are dangerous creatures, easily the most dangerous on the planet. And all because of our knowledge and ideas. But we are also extraordinary creatures, for the same reason.

And Biological Evolution is an extraordinary idea.

I think evolution is a double edged sword when coupled with technolgy. Should we gentically engineer and speed up evolution or should we do nothing ? What about elimanting species like small pox that have evolved their place here too? Evolution does not distinguish between small pox and whales. Should we ? Just a few questions that pop into mind...

Evolution is not a social theory. Using it in a social sense is intentionally deceptive. If we don't like the outcome of it when it is applied incorrectly, then we must reject it when it is used in it's proper domain?

I don't think so.

T
K
O

We humans have been coupling evolution with technology for about 15,000 years now. It's called "agriculture" or, more specifically, "selective breeding". Overall, the results have been utterly un-dangerous.

True, but the mechanisms used to affect evolution were used by evolution. The change could be thought of as not technological because it didnt involve any science apart from observation.

That moves up a gear when we use our knowledge of genetics and DNA. We are capable of doing things nature would not, and it all depends on our knowledge being accurate. If we fail, it will be because of what we dont know rather than what we can observe. The drug industry is full of medications that fail alarmingly because enthusiasm triumphs over observation.

Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?



In my opinion Evolution a Dangerous Idea because it potentially discredits all three major religions (Islam, Christian and jew) thus taking away its power and authority as unsubstantiated. Religion and the people behind it would lose it's/their hold on mankind.

See Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO5MytakLy8

What specific things are you talking about? What specific changes in a string of DNA can genetical engineers bring about that nature cannot?

Why is that a bad thing, Amigo?

That cant be a serious question. Until we know everything about DNA and what individual strands do, how they 'react' with others in the same DNA and other outside DNA, we are guessing. Previously we would see a positive generated by nature and we would support it by breeding. That is totally different to trying to improve on nature and see if it is positive. Field testing and premature release for drugs has produced absolute disasters. Now they are saying trust me, I am a doctor.

It's not good or bad it's just the way it is. Letting go of god is just another step for mankind.

As far as war, we will find a new reason to kill except this time it will be for a different belief system since science will discredit the god of religion.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John VIII to the bishops in the realm of Louis II [the Stammerer].

"You have modestly expressed a desire to know whether those who have recently died in war, fighting in defence of the church of God and for the preservation of the Christian religion and of the state, or those who may in 'he future fall in the same cause, may obtain indulgence for their sins. We confidently reply that those who, out of love to the Christian religion, shall die in battle fighting bravely against pagans or unbelievers, shall receive eternal life. For the Lord has said through his prophet: "In whatever hour a sinner shall be converted, I will remember his sins no longer." By the intercession of St. Peter, who has the power of binding and loosing in heaven and on the earth, we absolve, as far as is permissible, all such and commend them by our prayers to the Lord."

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/john2-ind878.html



Given to the Frankish Army


"Now we hope that none of you will be slain, but we wish you to know that the kingdom of heaven will be given as a reward to those who shall be killed in this war. For the Omnipotent knows that they lost their lives fighting for the truth of the faith, for the preservation of their country,, aiid the defence of Christians. And therefore God will give then, the reward which we have named."



-Pope Leo IV

Evolution is not the start of creation just maybe an after effect after creation. I am not posiive on whether evolution is the beginning of the question. So if believing evolution was the creation point where does that leave humans and all things created? It is all being destroyed slowly but surely. Then what is left to believe in? Should a person believe in THE CREATOR or the creation.

Why do you need a creator or creation to beleive in yourself? Those things are seperate.

Evolution does not address the question of the origin of Earth or of life either, for that matter. It is about how life has changed and is changing.

well, you said it was dangerous. Dangerous isn't good or bad?

It is. You just can't answer it.

I'm not "anti-evolution," but some things are obvious. As with any other idea, the idea of evolution is dangerous to those whose world view is not sufficient supple and adaptable to deal with contradiction or change.

So, yes, the idea of evolution is dangerous from the point of view of those who are dedicated to a fixed world view which does not and cannot accept the concept.

I'm just noticing that I haven't anwered Edgar's original question: "Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?" My answer is yes. Yes, evolution is a dangerous idea.

To see why, you need to understand that Darwinian evolution is an algorithm. Start with a population of individuals which differ somewhat from each other. Let them compete for resources. Let them be fruitful and multiply, copying their traits into the next generation, in proportion to how well they competed. That's natural selection. Moreover, introduce a low rate of mistakes into the copying, giving the next round of natural selection new traits to select between.

One more important feature of evolution is that it can, in principle, run on any kind of hardware. Given the conditions I just described, evolution just happens. Individuals in the population will continuously improve at surviving; some of them will grow astoundingly complex in the process. All this diversity and complexity can happen without any intention, any mind, any creator in charge. And it can happen to anything. Nothing about the algorithm requires that the individuals, the copying, the mutations, or the selection be biological.

Having understood this algorithm, and having verified that it has brought about the species we know today, people will obviously ask the next question: What else has been passed into our generation by mindless copying? What variations can we try on it? What part of our inheritance can we dump because it no longer works for us? Does it extend to political systems? Social institutions? Laws? Moral rules? Churches?

All these are dangerous questions for authoritarian minds who want there to be a mastermind in charge, and who want to protect our heritage against tinkering and selection. I think they're quite right to think evolution is corrosive of what they hold dear. And it's a good thing, too.

Or in other words, what Setanta said.

I really do appreciate all the input. I am more into learning from you all than into playing advocate for a particular point of view.