LONA

Why do people reject Darwinsim so much? From what I've understood it's "survival of the fittest". That man has an innate goal to pass on his/her genes. I broke out into discussion with a friend and then they started acting like it was this huge immoral theory and trying to relate it to Hitlers idea of this geat race/population. I don't see how it has anything to do with that.

As a species do we want a population full of sick and damaged people, or would a population of healthy and attractive be more beneficial to the species. And I'm not just talking about humans, but all species.

For example, my friend brought up my grandmother. She is diabetic, and she would probably die if she didn't take insulin injections. Under the Darwinism theory she would die due to her condition. But death is a part of everything. People just choose to act like it didn't exist and try to ignore and escape death. I think its when people actually start dying is when people have a problem with Darwinism. Instead people ought to confront death and stop trying to be "politically correct" all the time.

As it is we all have a small instinctual drive towards Darwinism. Would you want an attractive or totally unattractive mate. Studies have shown that physical attractiveness is a sign of good genetic health. And the fact of the matter is that everyone wants an attractive mate.

So I dont get it.

papermachesatan

We started taking care of our sick and injured when we became civilized.

"Survival of the fittest" as a social policy IS immoral. Hitler claimed that Ayrans WERE the fittest and was purging the "inferior" races.

Tell me that we were better off without than with these disabled, sick individuals: Stephen Hawking, Beethoven, Franklin D Roosevelt, Alexander Graham Bell, Albert Einstein, etc.

All had physical disablities, illnesses, or learning disablities that would mark them for termination under your "Survival of the Fittest".


Let's hope darwninism starts with you then.

As an unfit individual(intelligence), you wouldn't.

saltfish

I'll be simple and straightforward.

The Darwinian theory of evolution helped to explain what was not explainable. For some, it eliminated the idea of a 'supreme creator'
In some respects it challened many different religious viewpoints and contradicted biblical teachings. The church has always fought that which cast any doubt upon it. Copernicus, Da Vinci and the like.

Even simpler:

Religious : God created MAN, and from MAN he created WOMAN.

Darwin: MAN evolved.

Got me?

-SF

filtherton

Darwinism doesn't apply to humanity in the same way it applies to animals. It applies more in an economic/social sense now than it does in an actual survival sense.

phukraut

in the descent of man, darwin talks about survival of the group, not just the individual. so concepts like social darwinism don't grasp darwin's idea properly. darwin imagined that people can sacrifice themselves for the good of the group and still be in line with natural selection. besides, the term survival of the fittest doesn't really capture the concept of darwinism. it's not so much about weakness as much as it is about abilities to adapt to a changing environment long enough to procreate. so, talking about human communities, someone may be able to argue that charity can be a good thing, and also curing the sick and caring for the elderly? why? because all this can strengthen a community, and allow it to grow and adapt to new challenges.

and about evolutionary psychology.. attractiveness is one trait that is looked at.. but there are others, like being able to provide for a child and protect it.

skippy

Wow,

I can feel the narrowing of the minds in this room.

1. Darwinian theory simply points out that the fittest "species" have survived. That has nothing to do (nor should it) with social poilicy.

2. Read carefully... Lona didn't imply that it has anything to do with social policy. She is correct when she says that we are atracted to our own definition of a "fit" mate. (some people like heavy, thin, Black, white, yellow or otherwise, big deal) We subconciously like certain traits. We translate those traits into our our own definition of "fitness" as a mate.

3. What is the big conflict between Darwin and the Bible? Read the Bible and see...(please don;t respond to this unless you first read all of genesis chapter 1 .) There are two creation stories in Genesis, not one. Each sea creature was made "after it's own kind" on the fifth day ... and here is the real clincher... All of the land animals were made... and humans were made on the sixth day.. each after it's own kind, Sorted and told to "go forth and multiply and fill the earth"

did you catch the operative word there.... sorted, as in genetics. Darwinian theory is just a theory... but it isn't fascism, nazi-ism or a solial policy. it is just survival of the fittest species.

Please read darwin before you condemn him to hell... he was just pointing out the obvious... and frankly the scriptures easily agree with it. (and even darwin admitted he "might" be wrong, it's just a theory, he wasn't arrogant about it)

Pacifier

that is not correct.
of only the fittest species whold have survived there would be only one species left.
"Survival of the fittest" is about all individuals within one species. it is about "niches" to live in. Birds do not compete against cats (according to your theory birds must have been long extinct since cats are "fitter" compared to a bird especially a young one). Birds compete against other birds within their species. If you are fitter then your neighbr bird you will more likely breed and spread your genetic code. Bird and Cats dont compete, they are not even playing the same game.

BTW: the term "survival of the fittest" was not used by darvin, it was used by the journalist Herbert Spencer whos job it was to interpret and explain darwins theories to the masses.
And, as someone said,
"The phrase has the advantage of convincing everybody that they understood what darwin was saying, and it hat the disadvantage of convincing everybody that they understood what darwin was saying "

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

DownwardSpiral

I'd say the theory of evolution makes a hell of a lot more sense than God creating everything.

__________________
"So Keep on Pretending.
Our Heavens Worth the Waiting.
Keep on Pretending.
It's Alright."

-- H.I.M., "Pretending"

Rubyee

I just don't believe in Darwinism because I don't want to think that I evolved from an ape. I like to think of myself as better than that. That, and I think it is just about as far fetched as any other theory there is. I don't care how I was created, but how I live my life. I care more about what laundry detergent I use.

__________________
You don't know from fun.

CSflim

Wow! I am stunned by your convincing, powerful and compelling logical argument.

I don't believe in war or poverty anymore. I like to think of the human race as being above all of that.

__________________

splck

From what I remember we didn't evolve from an ape, but rather we have a common ancestor that we both evolved from.
It's been years since I took a course on this subject, but it still makes the most sense to me.

__________________
nice line eh?

lordjeebus

It's true that we didn't evolve from a chimp or a gorilla, but we did evolve from some sort of non-human primate that is no longer around. Whether that primate can be called an "ape" is a matter of taxonomy that's not very important.

stingc

Evolution is much more complicated than "survival of the fittest." That certain genetic tendencies are selected for and passed down through the generations is obvious to anyone who bothers to look at the world around them. Any reasonably intelligent person who has thought about this should not disagree.

The difficult point is exactly how new species arise, and how often it should happen from chance. The exact process(es) are AFAIK not completely understood. Even so, I personally can't understand how all animals could be so extraordinarily similar if they were not directly related.

In terms of modern human life, darwinism obviously doesn't apply in its usual sense anymore. We take care of those would have never survived, etc. I think this is good to a point - intelligence is now more important than physical strength - yet modern medicine is I think getting close to seriously degrading our intrinsic health.

At the same time, we are still a product of our past. We are not wired to be attracted to modern traits. Nerds can hardly get laid, yet they shape our future

stingc

That argument isn't so obvious if there were an identifiable group that could be objectively argued to be superior to others. Just because Hitler used the word didn't mean he used it correctly.

SLIMM

i have noticed that 9 times out of 10,if arguing with someone who is anti-darwin i soon see that they know nothing of the subject!
how can one be against something they know so little about?

Mojo_PeiPei

I couldn't agree more. Although the thing about the mental strength vs Physical strength hasn't really applied up until this past century. Think about how rapidly our technology has evolved in the last century??? I would say it is a dangerous rate, we have come farther in 100 years then in 10,000 years of our existence, radical change like that will for sure lead to problems. At the same time I don't think we have gotten physically weaker as a species, just look at people like professional athletes, people like Shaq... wasn't the average size of a male like 5'5" up until the 18th century? People like William Wallace were considered giants and he was only 6'4" (big, but not huge by today's standards).

As far as the species getting weaker though, I think it is definently possible. Those that would've died off have been preserved thus keeping the gene pool at a lower standard.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

CSflim

simple...

1. The bible is infalible, and literally true.
2. It says evolution is wrong.
3. Therefore evolution is wrong...and I don't need to know a damn thing about what I am talking about... I don't CARE how much evidence you have...you're still wrong!

Oh yeah...and it breaks the second law of thermodynamics, and I know what I am talkiing about...really

p.s. it's just a theory.

__________________

Rubyee

Hey, no one said that you had to.

I can believe in whatever religion I want, regardless of how convincing, powerful, or compelling the reasons behind that religion are. So therefore, if I don't believe that I evolved from some lesser species, I don't have to. Maybe I do believe that God created Adam and Eve and that humans have been the same all throughout time. I have every right to believe that. Sorry that my opinion differs from yours.

__________________
You don't know from fun.

Sledge

He wasn't attacking your right to believe. He was attacking your basis for that belief: you want to, period.

papermachesatan

Yup, he's perfectly free to stick his head in the sand.

Rubyee

To me, an attack on a basis for a belief is an attack of a belief. Let me put it another way. I don't believe in Darwinism because I like to think that we were made in some glorious way. If that means creationism, then so be it. But I don't believe we came about from just evolving. Sure, we probably did adapt and evolve from our first form, but I don't think that it is what Darwinism points that out to be. I think that as humans we are to complex and special to have come from a purely scientific background. To attack that, is to attack the belief. However, how humans were made really makes no difference to me now, which is why is isn't really all that important to me.

__________________
You don't know from fun.

saltfish

Other great creationistic ideas:

The earth is the center of our solar system, the sun and all other panets revolve around the earth...

...the earth is the single most center of the entire known universe...

...the earth is only 10,000 years old...

...g-d put dinosaurs in the ground to make us beleive that that the earth could be really old, but only those with faith will truly beleive that it is 10,000 years old...


...all creatures were created in the beginning and have only changed small amounts since.


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

I did a thesis on this, and still to this day I chuckle whenever I hear this argument. <hehehhhehehhe>


more to come...


-SF

happyraul

Rubyee, what you want to say is that as humans we are too complex and special to have come from purely natural origins. When you say you think that we were made in some glorious way, you mean we were made supernaturally. No offense to you, but this is a very self-centered point of view. What makes humans so special over other life forms? There are characteristics that distinguish us from other life-forms, but our origin need not be one. If God created humans, then it is likely God also created all other life, so how are we any more special with respect to origin? If humans evolved through natural processes, that does not make humans any less special than other life-forms. The other things that make us special and complex are still there.

Now, just a minor gripe I have: Please do not use the phrase "evolution is just a theory." For some reason, it is popularly thought that a scientific theory is just a random guess someone came up with, but this is not the fact. In science a theory is as good as you are ever going to get, it's not something to be taken lightly. You do not often hear people criticising gravity by saying "gravity is just a theory," do you? Yes there is a possibility that evolution is wrong, but that is about as likely as the theory of gravity being wrong.

Evolution is not debated, because all the theory of evolution says is that descent with modification occurs. Given our knowledge of genetics, unless you discount that knowledge, you cannot say that descent with modification does not occur.

The mechanisms by which evolution occurs are debated, and the Darwinian mechanism is one of those.

papermachesatan

Duh.

Just because you want to believe in the Santa Clause doesn't mean that he's real.

reason being?


wtf are you talking about?

eple

Er.....I kinda thought that Darwin made a theory regarding the origin of speices, not a ideology for govermental use?

Social darwinism suck, but I do belive Darwin should be remembered as a scientist and not an creater of some ideology.

eple

btw:

HAY DUDES I BELIVE THAT THE SANTA CLAUSE IS REAL 100% AND YOU ARE ALL WRONG IN BELIEVING ANYTHING ELSE WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE ME????

CSflim

We have a winner!

__________________

Mojo_PeiPei

Social Darwinism wasn't one of Darwin's thoughts, it was a notion contrived by an 18th century sociologist.

P.S. CSfilm PJP II has come out and stated ideas like the big bang are in accordance with creation by God.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

archer2371

Yes, social Darwinism does suck, a lot. Through discussion (quite a bit of it on the TFP) I have changed my views just a little bit. I leave a possibility open that man did evolve. However, I believe that God did at least create the beginning product, or He helped to shape and mold it over millions of years (how long is seven days in God days, we don't know) or maybe He did make Adam from the Earth and Eve from Adam, my point is I believe that God created this universe that we know. We don't know how He did it, but I believe He did it. There is quite a bit in the Bible that is metaphorical, doesn't mean that the message that you should help others, be kind to others, and share the love of Christ is wrong or false. It may be illogical to believe in God, but then faith isn't really defined by logic is it?

__________________
"This ain't no Ice Cream Social!"

"Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it."

"I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

Rubyee

Listen, you all have very valid points, and I am not saying that you are wrong. I am also not saying that I am right. Nothing has been proven to 100% either way. But my point is this- I would like to think that we came from something special. If that means God, than so be it. We live in such a depressing world where the only thing that is sure is that we will die. So why is it such a bad thing for me to think that we came from something special, and more meaningful? It isn't. Sure, it is self- centered. And sure, it is harder to believe. But I have that right. I am not trying to be a bitch and tell you that you are all stupid idiots, because any one of us could be. No one really knows what happened, and maybe we never will. But out of the thousands of bad things in this world- disease, death, hunger, war, pop music- why shouldn't I be able to believe in something nice. I guess I just tried to talk to the wrong people. When you talk about anti-darwinismists being closed minded, you also need to think about what you might be saying to them, as well.

__________________
You don't know from fun.

CSflim

What has that got to do with me?

And also, just because the Pope says so, does not sway the minds of creationists.

Creationists believe that the bible is literrally true: The earth and its inhabitants were created by god in 6 days.

__________________

CSflim

Classic case of the blue pill.

for me, I choose to believe not that which makes me comfortable, but that which is real.

__________________

Rubyee

Actually, you may be wrong there. From my perspective, it is a case of the red pill in my direction, and a case of the blue pill in yours.

Since nothing has been proven, anyone can say that what they believe about how humans came to be is true. Therefore, I can say that what I believe is true, and I would take the red pill.

That is the great thing about this country. I can believe whatever the hell I want to, without fear of persecution. Except for on the internet, that is.

You have to understand that all philosophy is seen from different view points, and that one truth will not hold for all people. The only truth that there is in philosophy is that all people have a different perspective, and see things differently.

Until you accept that, you can post as much as you want about how wrong I am or how wrong my logic is. But I am just as in the right as you are. You just need to realize that for yourself.

__________________
You don't know from fun.

CSflim

Rubyee, until you are willing to back up your opinion with evidence of some kind, your opinion is just that: groundless, unfounded, and not belonging on a board about philosophical discussion.

You are simply ignoring evolution on the basis of: "I don't like it...I want to be special".

This is not an argument. It is not a mature outlook on life. It is self-decieveing. It is pulling the wool over your own eyes.

You can perfectly well apply your strategy to almost anything: A belief in Santa Claus, the easter bunny, the refusal to accept the existence of poverty, war and death.

Also, the converse IS NOT true.
You are welcome to question any one of my beliefs and I will be able to back it up, and argue for it.
You can ask me why I believe in evolution, and first of all, I will point you to the myriads of pieces evidence supporting my belief.
I will then point out the flaws in the dozens of ceationist counter arguments.

You will not find me saying "I believe in evolution just because I want to".

True, you do have the right to believe in what ever the hell you want to. Far be it from me to impinge on this, however since you are posting them on a philosophical board, I have the right to
a.) disagree.
b.) point out the flaws in your argument and
c.) defend my own "belief"

and cut out the "persecuted for my beliefs" crap.

__________________

Rubyee

I think I can decide what is mature and proper for my own life.

How do you know that your alarm clock will go off in the morning? You don't. It's called faith. That is what leads me to believe in what I do. Call it pulling the wool over my eyes if you like, but it won't change a thing.

A couple of months ago, when my grandfather was in the hospital clinging onto life, I sure as hell did not pray to Darwin.

So if my opinion does not belong on a board for philosophy because it involves faith, please point that rule out for me, and I will gladly argue that. Until then, I will continue to express my opinion, whatever it may be. At least I can truthfully say that I am open minded enough to accept that what I say may not be true.

and cut out the holier than thou crap, if we are going to call names and have petty fights

__________________
You don't know from fun.

papermachesatan

There is clear observable evidence that our alarm clocks will go off in the morning. There is some sort of basis for maintaining this belief. There is absolutely no basis for your beliefs.


Why would you?

By posting your thoughts on this messageboard, you openly invited everyone to criticize or agree with them. You shouldn't have posted the message expressing your irrational beliefs if you didn't expect us to shred it pieces.

wtf are you talking about?

saltfish

QUOTE:

A couple of months ago, when my grandfather was in the hospital clinging onto life, I sure as hell did not pray to Darwin.

If I am reading your ideas/thoughts correctly, I would have to question exactly how you percieve our belief in Evolution. Many of us do not see Charles Darwin as a person to be praised. He was just an man with an idea, an idea that was brought forth in a place and time where this was against the norm. We respect his work. Any further than that he was just a scientist that made remarkable observations. Evolutionists do not have a spiritual faith in Evolution, we use this as another piece of the puzzle that explains our surroundings in a logical manner; a key to unlock that which we do not know--a token of knowledge.

Quote:
We live in such a depressing world where the only thing that is sure is that we will die.

I can see that this discussion can be somewhat hard to deal with, and I myself have gone through a period of questioning my own beleifs. I have also gone through a period in my life where I saw the world and everything around me as being depressing. Though, conciousness is exactly what one makes of it. I choose to enjoy all that is around me for it's sheer beauty. I take solace in the fact that I am alive; I wouldn't have it any other way. This is the way that I choose to live my life, the pursuit of knowledge, being open-minded and never turning down that which will enlighten me. During this pursuit, I wish to tread as lightly as possible on the beielfs of others. We are all going through this together and we each have out own unique perception, just like fingerprints, no two are alike.

I do have to admit that I respect your thoughts/feelings. My father is a very spiritual person who was raised jewish, and has always had a relationship with g-d. I support his feelings and I will do that which I can to make him happy. Though I have decided that it is not for me.

Please continue to share your ideas and thoughts, I beleive that there may be some common ground that we can all agree upon.



-SF

riptide4070

I believe in adaptability and survival of the fittest. Macro evolution has been proven but micro hasn't.

Some call me crazy but I don't think the earth is billions of years old. If it were, wouldn't we have larger populations.

How did the dinosaurs breathe when their nostrils where the same size as our horses notrils? Gravity has been proven! Micro evolution hasn't been. The big bang theory is just a theory. Only those who believe in the bible will think it is true.

Those who believe in evolution may do as they please. It is called free will and that is one of the many things that puts us above animals.

Creationism vs. Evolutionism is an ongoing debate. Sometimes it gets rough and usually sides are drawn and they don't change.
It sure is fun though and can be enlightening!!!!!

__________________
"the greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was making the world believe he didn't exist" -Kevin Spacey 'The Usual Suspects'

saltfish

Quote:
Some call me crazy but I don't think the earth is billions of years old. If it were, wouldn't we have larger populations.

Advances in technology have led to lower mortality rates, which have lead to longer lifespans. In the future 50+ years we will see a population explosion. In the past we didn't have adequate means of disposing of sewage, proper sanitiation, adequate vaccination and medical technology. These things would have created a larger population. Humans with an average lifespan of 45 years cannot create a large population. Think exponentially, a average lifespan with a differential of one year can change a predicted population signifigantly.


I couldn't help it... ..but, Occams Razor, "Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred"

So we say, umm, a supernatural being created our planet. While doing so, that being left fossil remains and radioactive carbon molecules that we can date with our advanced technology, leading us to beleive that our earth is 4.3 billion years old. When in fact it is just 10,000 years old. This being did so just to fool us. Whereas the one's with faith that the earth was created in this way are the only ones who hold the truth, they have privelidged information... ...and when they die, they will go to a place that is wonderful and they will be forgiven of all their sins.

OR

The earth is really 4.3 billion years old and we are just forms of life that exist at this given moment in time.

Anyone? Thoughts?



-SF

saltfish

Quote:
How did the dinosaurs breathe when their nostrils where the same size as our horses notrils?

Dinosaurs were cold-blooded, hence their metabolic rate was dependant on their body temperature. They didn't require the amount of gas exchange that mammals did.


-SF