Mysterious

Since evolution rules out a divine supernatural or entity created the life on Earth, and it attempts to show biolgical steps, process, events in which life evolved over time, it presents serious issues when behavior, values, physchological, moral, ethic, etc are mentioned.
First and foremost, if humans can think, act, and co-exist to live peacefullt, harmony, prosperous, etc without divine interventioned and all is required is evolution, knowing what helps/harm, and understanding our evolutionary nature?
Then, how can we say our values or what we believe to be acceptable, ethical, true? has annything to do with actual reality. Since all our thoughs, cousciousness, actions, and other behavioral attributes occurs by impulse, lack of restraint, unplanning, greed, selfenrichment, and personal gain when taken collectively,

how do we know if our value are contigent meaning unecessary for survival, gowth, prosperity, etc for all of society, or if our values are neccessary for the survival, meaning that the values we have now such as capitalism, individualism, incentives, money, religion, taxes, government, legal system, etc are neccessary for our survival and any serious changes could make matters worse because the values we have presently have been around for a very long time, and is part of psyche so much that we can't change or deviate to some higher more responsible system?

For example, I ma asking that if evolution, time, and undersatnding showed us that humans need money, government, legal system, religion, taxes, indivisualism, free from tyranny, abuse, etc to survive prosperous over time, that would be neccessary,

but, if we evolution takes time, acceptance, education, and desir by people to create a new system, wouldn't this mean that some are abusing the system by taking too mcuh resources, power, and other neccesities to ensure survival of all due to the fact that us humans can't change instantly and when we want because of our mental psyche, and change is actually very difficult, slow, and takes time.

My question is, how can be prove or disprove that our values reflect reasonability, reality, and relation to creating a stable, prosperous, society for all, eg low poverty, high education, wages, opportunies, little corruption, fraud, abuse, destruction of environment, high transparency, information, etc etc.

Flint

It does not. Post is based on false assertion. GONG! Try again.

Mysterious

Yes evolution does because it fail to give god full credit of actually creating mankind in his image and that natural process were not fully responsible for the character, attributes, and uniqueness of mankind on Earth.

I mentioned this is part 1, i asked why is that mankind evolved to be so cognitive, complex, intelligent, and dominant over all other species, why don't other species possess what mankind has?> the reason is because only mankind was created in god's image and everything else is just creatures with no unique purpose other than to just exist, survive, and reproduce.

Man is very unique and his purpose is more than just exist, survive, and reproduce. His purpose is worship, pray, and serve the lord. Other species can't preach, start corpoartions, make money, debate issues, make nuclear weapons, cause great suffering, poverty, inequality, and cause social strife like we can. Thats because there is a god, devil, and a heven and hell and good/evil to judge mankind after death!

Tim Thompson

No, evolution does not. You cannot hope to argue anything with anyone if you can't start from a reasonable premise. Evolution is ambivalent to the existence of God; neither does it rule God in, nor does it rule God out. It does not care.

Evolutionists, on the other hand (assuming that "evolutionists" of appropriate definition actually exist), are people, not scientific theories. They may choose to rule God in or out, based on their own personal beliefs.

You should avoid making uninformed assertions about theories, and instead ask of people what they believe, and they may choose to answer.

Coragyps

Says you. Perhaps you haven't noticed that the name of this place is Internet Infidels? That can be construed to convey that several of us here don't buy into your mythology.

Coragyps

Hey Tim! I haven't seen you in a tortoise's age! Welcome back!

Jet Black

what is this god of which you speak?
because they followed different evolutionary paths. you might as well ask why people can't fly.
ipse dixit.
so you say.
And what a bloody good job; one species doing all that is bad enough.
lots of blind assertions there. This isn't really evolution material though to be honest, it's just you claiming a lot of stuff.

Jet Black

I can't really see any evolution/creation discussion in the OP, and this is also a copy of a previous thread which was locked. I'll move it to ~E~ on the off chance that Anyone really does want to continue the discussion.

Jet Black [EC] Mod

ModernHeretic

First of all, please use spell check.

The previous poster was correct. The theory of evolution by natural selection does not actually rule out the possibility of a supernatural creator, it simply makes one unnecessary.

Is this a question?

This really doesn't follow from the theory of evolution, even if you accept Dawkins' Selfish Gene theory.

Furthermore, you are conflating acceptable/ethical with true. What is true and what is ethical are two different questions. In case you have not heard this before: Science is not ethics. You can't get an ought from an is.

As far as how we know that what we observe has to do with reality, this has to do with how you define reality. If you define reality as "that which we observe", then by definition what you observe is reality.

If you want to know how you know that reality is objective, you technically don't, however you can compare your observations with those made by other people, and if everyone can pretty much agree on something then you have what is known as intersubjective verification.

In addition, if you come up with a theory that explains reality, and this theory makes predictions that can be tested (which it must if it is to be called a theory), and when tested these predictions prove to be fairly accurate, then you can be fairly certain that you have a model that fairly accurately models reality. Of course, you still don't know that you're model is objectively true, only that it fits with what data you have observed so far.

I think it was Winston Churchhill that said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other form that's been tried." Essentially, you don't know that your values are the best, you just know that your values are the best that you've managed to come up with so far. So, it's quite possible that you'll manage to come up with something better in the future.

Of course, it's quite possible that serious changes could make things worse, and in fact this has happened when people have tried to implement Utopian ideologies that were too different from anything that had been tried before (for example, Marxism). So, I think we're generally better off with a paradigm of gradual change than of massive overhaul, because massive overhaul runs the risk of massive failure.

First of all, this is very hard to read. Please try to clean up your posts a bit if you want people to respond to them.

That said, yes it's quite possible that some people are taking too much in terms of resources. I'd argue that corporate CEOs generally earn way too damn much money, and American consumers are of course using natural resources way out of proportion with the rest of the world. So, your premise is correct, this can and does happen because changing a system - like Capitalism in this example - is in fact difficult and does take time.

Ok, methinks you're a bit confused here. It's the "stable, prosperous, society for all..." that we value. Our values, of course, are not what cause us to be stable or prosperous. Rather, it is the systems and institutions that we create that determine what kind of society we have. So, a better question would be "do the systems that we currently have (e.g. Capitalism, consumerism, democracy, secularism, etc.) create the kind of society that fits our values?"

In all honesty, I'd say that there are endemic problems with some of the current systems, however given that they're the best systems we've ever had (i.e. those which best allow us to realize our values) we'll just have to stick with them until we come up with something better.

Flint

But if you think about this for a second, you'll realize this is not what you said. You said "evolution rules out a divine supernatural or entity" and it does not. For all anyone will ever know, a supernatural, indetectible entity guides evolution in real time.

Now, you are changing your wording from ruling out whether such an entity exists, to ruling out specific doctrinal claims as to what that entity DOES. In which case, what rules out your claim is observed reality. Evolution is only one tiny part of that reality, ALL of which rules out your doctrine. Sorry.