25 comments on “13. Evolution vs. Creationism:Creationism’s Negative Effects”

• 

  TheBanile

  January 4, 2012 at 6:28 pm

  @MrGreenPoop1000 Maybe, but the two are not mutually exclusive and the religious are equally susceptible to inject their own philosophy and the ‘facts’ of their religion into their ideas. However, the process of science has peer review, falsifiability and countless tests; it may be that once you realise that most religions cannot account for their beliefs or proof of their validity, that one might ask questions about one’s religion. But that doesn’t make them the same.

• 

  TheBanile

  January 4, 2012 at 6:58 pm

  @MrGreenPoop1000 A timeless virtue took until the 1700s for it to come into writing? It was also written by humans for humans, using schools of thoughts and laws that were used in almost every culture around the world. I mean, the DoI isn’t infallible and certainly doesn’t apply to everyone universally. Contrary to what some believe, basic morality like ‘don’t kill, rape or maim people’ is often a general rule in one’s own cultural group.

• 

  MrGreenPoop1000

  January 4, 2012 at 7:48 pm

  Based on the naturally tendency of man to apply what they find in nature into their society, “it wasn’t long before leading thinkers were distilling the ideas of Malthus, Spencer and Darwin into a new concept, bearing a name never used by Darwin himself: social Darwinism,” (Black 12).

• 

  MrGreenPoop1000

  January 4, 2012 at 8:03 pm

  Man has always been linked to nature, making it possible for Herbert Spencer to transform a natural idea into a political one. And b/c man, according to Darwin, is a mammal with the same warm blood of other mammals and ultimately no greater than any other creature (save for the fact of just happening to be at the top of the food chain), then it can be logical to see no reason for man to hold any higher standard of ethics than the ethics of a turtle.

• 

  MrGreenPoop1000

  January 4, 2012 at 8:38 pm

  Man has always been linked to nature, making it possible for Herbert Spencer to transform a natural idea into a political one. And b/c man, according to Darwin, is a mammal with the same warm blood of other mammals and ultimately no greater than any other creature (save for the fact of just happening to be at the top of the food chain), then it is logical to see man with no real reason to hold a moral standard greater than that of a turtle.

• 

  MrGreenPoop1000

  January 4, 2012 at 9:02 pm

  Man has always been linked to nature, making it possible for Herbert Spencer to transform a natural idea into a political one. And b/c man, according to Darwin, is a mammal with the same warm blood of other mammals and ultimately no greater than any other creature (save for the fact of just happening to be at the top of the food chain), then it is logical to see man with no real reason to hold a moral standard no greater than that of a turtle.

• 

  MrGreenPoop1000

  January 4, 2012 at 9:42 pm

  There is nothing explicitly sinister about natural selection. In biblical terms, it was common in the Old Testament for people to apply — unknowingly — the natural selection concept by breeding livestock in order to produce positive traits. In regards to plants, Jesus himself provided a practical example of natural selection while talking about bearing spiritual fruit in one’s life in Matthew 7: 18-19.
  HOWEVER, …………………..

• 

  MrGreenPoop1000

  January 4, 2012 at 9:56 pm

  @TheBanile I’m not saying “the evolution theory is bad.” Science itself is not the culprit; it is more the individual who studies it. I know it’s always intended for science to have only observable facts within nature, but man is a part of nature as well. And coupled with the fact of humans susceptibility, it doesn’t come as a surprise when an initially objective scientist begins to use facts as a way to merge his natural scientific ideas with the religious and political.

• 

  MrGreenPoop1000

  January 4, 2012 at 10:08 pm

  @TheBanile Timeless virtues were the foundation of The Declaration of Independence. It essentially stated that man’s morality and rights came from above, and not simply which culture they live in (Hence the reason “ALL men are created equal.”) It’s also with human rights. Their are universal wrongs that everyone should label as wrong. Those who genuinely don’t see such wrong when faced w/ it are usually psychopaths. “All men are born free” would also be a timeless virtue.

• 

  TheBanile

  January 4, 2012 at 10:24 pm

  @MrGreenPoop1000 A large amount of the scientific community are Christian and there is no debate within that community that evolution is proven. I have certainly read Richard Dawkins and he does make that point, but then again, that is his own conclusion. Science and morality are not mutually exclusive, nor are science and religion. Science is merely observable facts. What you do with that is up to your own perceptions.
  And what proof do you have that ‘virtues’ are timeless?

• 

  TheBanile

  January 4, 2012 at 11:19 pm

  @MrGreenPoop1000 ‘Virtues’ such as altruism can easily be explained with basic psychology and biology. You are also confusing evolution scientists with atheists; they are not the same.
  The religion can be just as amoral and is certainly more confined than those who do not believe ; the bible for example, is an old book that supports stoning, misogyny and multiple genocides, and more atrocities. Evolution is a neutral tool, it doesn’t claim morality or guidance, merely fact.

• 

  MrGreenPoop1000

  January 4, 2012 at 11:50 pm

  @TheBanile Evolution has a very difficult time of explaining virtue. It’s far more than mere brain neurons. And the “morals” that evolutionists may profess can easily become amoral, just as it was with communism.Evolutionary morality is unstable and confined only to either a particular time or situation in history. And I apologize for my so-called stupidity, but I appreciate the quest toward universal virtues that aren’t diluted by the lazy conclusion of “all cultures being true”..

• 

  MrGreenPoop1000

  January 5, 2012 at 12:03 am

  @TheBanile Ever heard of a man named Richard Dawkins? He’s a very prominent evolutionist while firmly believing that the theory does lead to atheism. Those of evolution who claim to be theists are contradictory and are incapable of having science and morality on the same ground.
  Pardon me for being “laughable”, but I believe in the ideas of Socrates and Plato, who both claimed that moral virtues (such as justice) are timeless and beyond the scientific/earthly realm. It originates from above…

• 

  TheBanile

  January 5, 2012 at 12:24 am

  @MrGreenPoop1000 To see to be implying that the tenants of atheism are the tenants of the theory of evolution. This is incorrect. An atheist can happily believe in justice, good, evil, love etc; these are all mostly human conceptions are they not? Abstract notions made by the neurons in our advanced brains processes as it goes about it’s business? The human brain is a product of evolution after all.
  Your argument is flimsy at best and just plain laughable at worst.

• 

  raidersSolja

  January 5, 2012 at 1:13 am

  @7777Ralph
  you know sometimes when i find a source that i dont think is reliable, ill look for more and take qualities to make a proper judgement. now, why should i trust the bible when there is too may historical books to ignore that prove otherwise the events that supposedly occurred in the bible?

• 

  ArcanaKnight

  January 5, 2012 at 1:57 am

  @MrGreenPoop1000 How would you know what I consider wrong or why? Morality hasn’t been part of the discussion at all so far; that’s just another strawman you’ve concocted. Besides, its possible to believe in god and still accept such well supported scientific principles as evolution (just look at people like Ken Miller); even the Vatican has come out and said that evolution is not incompatible with religion.

• 

  MrGreenPoop1000

  January 5, 2012 at 1:58 am

  As history progresses, man will come to a point of exhaustion in regards to their singular purpose (SEX), and inevitably fall into a state of nihilism, thus making their entire existence meaningless.

• 

  MrGreenPoop1000

  January 5, 2012 at 2:50 am

  @ArcanaKnight Haha I could say the same about you. And fine, we are mammals, the equivalent of other species.
  Your dissent regarding “wrong” behavior is superficial. You don’t believe rape or murder is wrong b/c it is universally wrong.You believe it is wrong simply b/c it does not fulfill a cold and indifferent purpose of science.

• 

  ArcanaKnight

  January 5, 2012 at 3:46 am

  @MrGreenPoop1000 Being an animal (a classification originally made by a creationist btw) doesn’t preclude finding some meaning or purpose to life. You’re not even trying to understand other points of view, you’re still just trying to promote your little strawman so that you can attempt to argue that any point of view other than yours is wrong.

• 

  MrGreenPoop1000

  January 5, 2012 at 3:55 am

  @ArcanaKnight Oh those are certainly “noble” endeavors to create a “better” place for your offspring, But the only reason it would be is b/c genes must be spread successfully.
  You don’t have a higher calling or purpose. By your very definition, we as a species are no different from other animals. We are beasts of a lower nature, and our destiny is nothing more than an acceptance of nihilism.

  All I am stating are the flaws and incapabilities of science.

• 

  ArcanaKnight

  January 5, 2012 at 4:05 am

  @MrGreenPoop1000 Right, because teaching the next generation, helping to raise them, making the world better place for them, etc. are all entirely meaningless endeavors; once you’re no longer to have children yourself, you’re useless (btw, that was sarcasm).  Your argument is nothing more than an ignorant strawman, one that clearly shows your inability to even try understanding another point of view.

• 

  MrGreenPoop1000

  January 5, 2012 at 4:07 am

  @ArcanaKnight It is not a mischaracterization. That IS the purpose and goal of Atheism and the theory of Evolution. To say otherwise is to concede that there are higher concepts that remain eternal, such as “justice”, “good”, “evil”, “unconditional love”, etc. They may not necessarily originate from a “god”, but the fact remains that neither you nor Evolution can explain.

  I have won this argument. Thank you for trying, my mammal companion.

• 

  ArcanaKnight

  January 5, 2012 at 4:50 am

  @MrGreenPoop1000 Of course, that makes the incorrect assumption that a person’s worth is tied solely to their ability to reproduce. Why is it that theists like you seem only able to make strawmen like this? Are you really that unable to understand another’s point of view that these gross mischaracterizations are the best you’re able to do?

• 

  MrGreenPoop1000

  January 5, 2012 at 5:26 am

  Although Evolution is a scientific theory, its philosophical basis should certainly be examined, for philosophy encompasses all that exists in both the physical and mental realm.

• 

  MrGreenPoop1000

  January 5, 2012 at 6:22 am

  When atheists become impotent and no longer able to carry out their purpose, they become dead weight to the rest of their species, and should thus help their offspring survive by ending their life and providing their body as sustenance. Humans are not in need of training on how to mate, for it is an imbedded instinct and easy to accomplish. The elders of the species should die and cease their consumption of food, water, and other resources in order for there to be more available for the rest.