Evolution and Morality

[rkwright]

Is evolution morally wrong (or an evolutionist mindset morally wrong)? Does survival of the fittest allow or promote genocide? Thoughts?

[jswranch]

Nothing which exists is entrisically evil. Truth is not evil. Evolution is a term used to explain the how species can change its genetic strain. The church does not doubt science, where it is science, but doubts science when science dabbles theology. When evolutionists say the world was not built in 6 days (24 hour periods), the church is not bothered. When the evolutionists say the fact the world was not built in 6 days (contrary to a literal interpretation of scriptures) there is no God, they are in error.

Survival of the fittest is a fact of nature. But, like death and starvation, nature can be cruel in this state (away from Eden etc).

Does it promote Genocide? No. Does a knife, a rock, a gun promote murder? It is only the actions of man that can cause a genocide, though he can wrongly use the lessons of nature to justify his actions in murdering undesireables.

[rkwright]

[quote name='jswranch' date='Apr 13 2006, 01:14 PM']Does it promote Genocide?  No.  Does a knife, a rock, a gun promote murder?  It is only the actions of man that can cause a genocide, though he can wrongly use the lessons of nature to justify his actions in murdering undesireables.
[right][snapback]946260[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

good point! I would have to agree with you on this. Now what about say the AIDS epidemic in africa, is this not natural selection at work? Should we sit back and let it happen if we believe in natural selection?

(obviosuly the answer is no... but if a person were to whole heartedly believed in natural selection, should they not help the people in question?)

[AngelofJesus]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Apr 13 2006, 11:39 AM'](obviosuly the answer is no... but if a person were to whole heartedly believed in natural selection, should they not help the people in question?)
[right][snapback]946408[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Restate question. I read it 5 times and I still was not sure.

[Sarah_JC]

Not to put words in your mouth, but to clarify....

[quote name='rkwright' date='Apr 13 2006, 01:39 PM'](obviosuly the answer is no... but if a person were to whole heartedly believed in natural selection, should they  CHOOSE not  TO help the people in question?)
[right][snapback]946408[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I say no. But perhaps this person would choose to promote chastity and improving the status of women in AIDS inflicted areas, and not fighting it with anti-virals which might cause the virus to mutate.

But I don't think AIDS is natural selection at work. Because then you're saying women who contract AIDS from being raped are 'weak' or have inferior genes, when they're really just trapped in a sick culture.
If chastity and respect for women were social norms, would there be an epidemic at all?

[Desert Walker]

Charles Darwin, when he published The Origin of Species, essentially published a metaphysical theory. This theory has completely changed the way humans think.

Many people developed ideas from this metaphysical theory that they used to justify horrific evil against their fellow man. The ultimate culmination of Darwinian evolutionary theory, however, is a complete intellectual and practical denial of the existence of God.

Adolph Hitler embodied the spirit of nihilistic philosophy, which is a child of Darwin. Though Darwin, perhaps, did not foresee the negative effect his theory would have on the entire human race, I believe that he was aware of the fact that he was engaging in intellectual dishonesty when he published his work as a genuine application of the scientific method. It was not.

In the above sense, I think that the concept of biological evolution, since it can lead to the despair of which Friedrich Nietzsche wrote as the result of removing God from human affairs, is immoral. Or at least it is immoral to teach it to impressionable children without offering an alternative theory.