• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Implications of Evolution: Ideas Have Consequences

There is a little more to that that, but sure ;)


I agree in some ways and disagree in others. Its a topic that's going to generate a lot of nuance and situational analysis.

Yep, with alleged Christians having opposite positions on many social (moral?) issues (e.g. death penalty, abortion and recreational drug use) points out how problematic being alleged adherents to the Bible (as the word of God) can get.
 
Yep, with alleged Christians having opposite positions on many social (moral?) issues (e.g. death penalty, abortion and recreational drug use) points out how problematic being alleged adherents to the Bible (as the word of God) can get.
There are only a few moral tenants Christians need to agree on, about 8 or so (depending on how you count them).
 
What humans call morality is just instinctive social drives that maximize our chances for procreation
That might have to do with our internal feelings, but even then that hardly most behaviors (like asexual/gay people for example).
Most of the time philosophy is post-hoc reasoning to justify one of those drives.
If what we thought was moral was primarily genetic, how come it changes so much over the years? Executing murderers has been considered moral for most of human history. So was cutting off hands for stealing. In India they traditionally burned widows alive once their husbands died. The Aztecs had human sacrifices. Slavery was moral until relatively recently. Lots of people still feel that being gay is "immoral."

Philosophy is hardly post-hoc (though obviously it can be used that way).
 
That might have to do with our internal feelings, but even then that hardly most behaviors (like asexual/gay people for example).

If what we thought was moral was primarily genetic, how come it changes so much over the years? Executing murderers has been considered moral for most of human history. So was cutting off hands for stealing. In India they traditionally burned widows alive once their husbands died. The Aztecs had human sacrifices. Slavery was moral until relatively recently. Lots of people still feel that being gay is "immoral."

Philosophy is hardly post-hoc (though obviously it can be used that way).
Drives tend to be expressed through a social context. Its kind of like being hungry but you still have a wide variety of foods to choose from to satisfy that need.
 
There are only a few moral tenants Christians need to agree on, about 8 or so (depending on how you count them).

One would suppose that “thou shalt not kill” is among them, but that allows plenty of wiggle room when you add “unjustly” and/or “illegally” to it. I’m done here as we are getting very far off topic.
 
One would suppose that “thou shalt not kill” is among them, but that allows plenty of wiggle room when you add “unjustly” and/or “illegally” to it. I’m done here as we are getting very far off topic.
I wasn't referring to the ten commandments. Christianity works a little differently than Judaism does.
 
Here's one alternative Creation tale, from Learn Religions - there are more
"When the cosmos comes to an end and contracts, and before a new cosmos begins, beings are mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. These luminous beings live for a long time, feeding on nothing but delight. And while the cosmos has contracted, there are no suns or stars, planets or moons.

"In the last contraction, in time an earth formed, beautiful and fragrant and sweet to taste. Beings who tasted the earth began to crave it. They sat gorging themselves on the sweet earth, and their luminescence disappeared. The light that left their bodies became the moon and sun, and in this way, night and day were distinguished, and months, and years, and seasons.

"As the beings stuffed themselves with sweet earth, their bodies became coarser. Some of them were handsome, but others were ugly. The handsome ones despised the ugly ones and became arrogant, and as a result, the sweet earth disappeared. And they were all very sorry.

"Then a fungus, something like a mushroom, grew, and it was wonderfully sweet. So they began stuffing themselves again, and again their bodies grew coarser. And, again, the more handsome ones grew arrogant, and the fungus disappeared. After that, they found sweet creepers, with the same result.

"Then rice appeared in abundance. Whatever rice they took for a meal had grown again by the next meal, so there was always food for everyone. During this time their bodies developed sex organs, which led to lust. Those who engaged in sex were despised by the others, and they were driven out of the villages. But then the exiles built their own villages.

"The beings who had given in to lust grew lazy, and they decided to not gather rice at every meal. Instead, they would gather enough rice for two meals, or five, or sixteen. But the rice they were hoarding grew mold, and the rice in the fields stopped growing back as quickly. The rice shortages caused the beings to distrust each other, so they divided up the fields into separate properties.

"Eventually a man took a plot that belonged to another and lied about it. In this way, theft and lying were born. People who were angry with the man hit him with fists and sticks, and punishment was born.

This specific story fits in with the Big Bang hypothesis
 
It would appear that if it was not for the fact that in the bible it is written though shall not kill. Then the baron would be unable to think up one good reason as to why he should not just randomly kill people.
 
I think you have an error in here, otherwise it's just circular reasoning. I am guessing that one of those "evolution"s is supposed to be something else.
I screwed that up.

What I meant to say is that evolution isn't a science for the same reason I.D. isn't a science.

Both take existing evidence and try to explain it within their own existing paradigms. Neither use the scientific method which is why neither can be considered a science.
 
I screwed that up.

What I meant to say is that evolution isn't a science for the same reason I.D. isn't a science.

Both take existing evidence and try to explain it within their own existing paradigms. Neither use the scientific method which is why neither can be considered a science.

What then is your scientific explanation, or any explanation at all, for the manner in which life has come to its present form on this planet?
 
Right, except the evolution crowd is using science whereas the I.D. crowd is not exclusively using science.
No. Evolution is not a science as it does not utilize the scientific method.
Then why did you get your post wrong? Do you need to take a refresher?
My understanding of the subject is fine. Your grasp of what is being discussed is questionable, however.
 
I agree with the bold part, I think there are still incentives.
And I wouldn't argue the point with you.
No? That's an insane logical leap.
Is it? Consider that if there is no life after death, there is not God, no reward, no ultimate justice then what is to deter you from following your most base nature? There's no real basis for morality without God, only someone's opinion of what is "right" and "wrong". Without God, there is nothing more important than yourself and what you want.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–81), the Russian novelist and philosopher, saw the importance of God for the preservation of livable, humane existence: “If there is no God,” he noted, “all things are permissible.”

Russian novelist Fydor Dostoyevsky understood the importance of God the when he stated that “If there is no God all things are permissible.” He's right.
There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, but you can still ground ethics in philosophy. If anything a philosophical foundation of ethics is stronger and answers more questions than a biblical one.
But what you ultimately have is someone's opinion of what is or is not ethical. And people's opinions change all the time.

Take homosexuality for example. When I was growing up, homosexuality was wrong. Everyone knew that to be so. There was no question about it.

Still true today?

Ethics--like morality--needs an unchangeable foundation. Otherwise you can begin to make an argument that anything is ethical.
I agree. I don't think we are inherently important.
From a Christian view, we are all created in the image of God and that gives us immense worth.
I agree with some parts of determinism, specifically the cause and effect tenant. Not that people are not responsible for their actions.
Cool.
What? Pretty sure the Greeks, Persians, Native Americans etc had morals.
And their morals were based on their own--for lack of a better word--opinions.

I've not doubt that the Aztecs considered themselves very moral and yet the cut the hearts out of thousands and thousands of people to sacrifice them to...some damn thing or another.

Nazi Germany is an obvious example.

Look at how every communist / socialist country has treated their own populations.

In our modern world, we kill babies in the womb.

No doubt, all of these considered themselves very moral people.
 
Many Christians, I've found to feel that a belief in their God to be a necessity, I do not. Buddhism, an atheistic religion, existed prior to Christianity, and Gautama Buddha was not a God but simply a human being.
Okay.

I know you're trying to make a point but I don't know what it is.
 
Well if you don't believe in god, nothing can be inherent. He isn't saying any of those things aren't wrong. He is just saying we didn't find right and wrong written on a stone tablet. It's a concept we invented.
I do believe that is exactly the point.
 
No. Evolution is not a science as it does not utilize the scientific method.
It’s recognized by the broad scientific community as science
My understanding of the subject is fine. Your grasp of what is being discussed is questionable, however.
I’m this case, it was a hypothesis
 
Because of where you put this thread, shielded by rules governing this area of the forums, we cannot have the real conversation we should.

The implications of all science end up adversarial to religion, but I cannot say much else... and I think you know why.
I swear to you I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
There’s been quite some discussion regarding the “science”--or, more accurately--the lack thereof regarding evolution and it seem that there is a very important part of this conversation that is being overlooked.

Ideas have consequence. That is a inescapable fact. And some years ago, in a debate with Phillip Johnson (University of California, Berkley), William B. Provine, PhD. and Evolutionary Biologist at Cornell University summarized the implications of evolution. You can see a blurb of that debate where he summarizes the ideas presented below
here.

To be sure, the ideas he listed were not his own but this was the first--and only time--I’ve been aware of anyone summarizing all of these implications together.

I will bold Dr. Provine’s ideas and then add additional quotes, thoughts, etc. in normal type to simply bolster Dr. Provine’s points.

And as you read this, please keep in mind that Dr. Provine is pro-evolution.

Per Dr. Provine, evolution means that there are:


1. No gods or purposive forces.
“Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam & Eve and original sin and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God…and if Jesus was not the redeemer who dies for our sins, and this is what Evolution means, then Christianity is for nothing.” [emphasis mine]
- G. Richard Bozarth, American Atheist, page 30, February 1978


2. No life after death.
a) This life is all there is.

b) There is no ultimate justice.
c) There is no ultimate reward, therefore, no incentive for charity, humility nor goodness in this life.
d) As such, man need only to follow his most base instincts…everything is permitted.

3. No ultimate foundation for ethics.
a) No basis for morality.
b) No basis for calling something “good” or “bad”.
c) “Might” makes “right”.

Richard Dawkins (Evolutionist, Academic, Author, Professor at Oxford University) has--on different occasions--expressed his view that there is nothing inherently wrong with rape, Muslim terrorism or the atrocities of Hitler.
- Weikart, Richard. The Death of Humanity: and the Case for Life. New York, NY: Regency Faith, 2016.


Part I of II
Lack of science involving evolution?

Lol.
 
I swear to you I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
No. Evolution is not a science as it does not utilize the scientific method.

My understanding of the subject is fine. Your grasp of what is being discussed is questionable, however.

The primary problem is that you clearly do not understand the scientific method.
 
I will bold Dr. Provine’s ideas and then add additional quotes, thoughts, etc. in normal type to simply bolster Dr. Provine’s points.

And as you read this, please keep in mind that Dr. Provine is pro-evolution.

Per Dr. Provine, evolution means that there are:


1. No gods or purposive forces.
“Evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam & Eve and original sin and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God…and if Jesus was not the redeemer who dies for our sins, and this is what Evolution means, then Christianity is for nothing.” [emphasis mine]
- G. Richard Bozarth, American Atheist, page 30, February 1978

This is true, of course. Without the instantaneous “creation” of Adam and Eve per the Christian Bible (which does not conform with evolutionary theory), there is no “fall from grace”, no need for a “redeemer”,Jesus becomes just another Itinerant Jewish preacher, and the entire doctrine of Christianity gets squashed. I’m not saying that this is good or bad, but merely that it is fact and truth.
 
No life after death.
a) This life is all there is.

b) There is no ultimate justice.
c) There is no ultimate reward, therefore, no incentive for charity, humility nor goodness in this life.
d) As such, man need only to follow his most base instincts…everything is permitted

Dr Provine’s quote in bold is correct, but the follow-on statements by anti-evolutionists simply don’t follow. While there is no “ultimate justice” or “ultimate reward” at the hands of a “God”, if you remove the word ultimate as an adjective, then humans can and do indeed perform acts of charity and can be good and humble as its own reward or to be recognized by other humans in some manner. Likewise, the laws of humans are meant to promote justice in a society, and they generally work pretty well in a democratic rule-of-law society like the United States and other “First World” countries. Finally, the claim that “anything is permitted” is clearly not correct in that the aforementioned laws outline the limits of “permitted” in a civil society.
 
Back
Top Bottom