Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Principia · 08-01-2002, 04:51 PM

Having been throughly trounced in the discussions about the supposed science of ID, the IDi[s]ts now, true to theif Creationist heritage, have resorted to discussing the social/moral aspects of evolution, <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000242" target="_blank">here</a>. Where, oh where, are those objective morals?

Quote:

Well! Quite a mouthful. But, these are exactly the type of observations & comments I was looking for when I started this thread. Here are some thoughts that arose while I pondered over RBH's eloquent post:

(1) I agree that sometimes people engage in the NATURALISTIC FALLACY, deriving "ought" ethical commands & prohibitions from "is" descriptive observations. Social darwinists like Adolph Hitler, Oliver Wendell Holmes, & others illegitimately derived "oughts" such as ethnic cleansing, forced sterilization of the "retarded," segregation/apartheid, etc., from Darwin's descriptive observation that the "survival of the fittest" (natural selection; supplemented later by mutations) drove the evolution of life on earth. Here's a question I have for you, however. Darwinism may not REQUIRE or sanction "might is right," but does it have any place in morally CONDEMNING in an objective sense the horrible acts which you described or in morally REQUIRING in an objective sense values which you and I would agree are virtuous? For example, you assert that "Science is not value-neutral"; from where did you derive this moral ought command and the specific "values" which you did not mention? You also morally condemn in clear terms acts such as ethnic cleansing and the Holocaust, and you were not simply speaking of your personal, subjective tastes (you strongly implied that these acts are objectively wrong); from where did you derive these moral ought prohibitions? You could not have derived them from Darwinism, as you stated before. Darwinism, it seems to me, may not require acts such as ethnic cleansing, but it ALSO DOES NOT PROHIBIT such acts - IT ALLOWS FOR THEM. It allows these acts, because it gives no objective moral oughts and nots. ZED's quote of Eldredge seems to be a correct assessment of Darwinism: "... there is no necessary set of implications implicit in the very idea of evolution -- or emanating from any subset of evolutionary theory. To those that say there are moral lessons and ethical systems -- evil or good -- implicit in the very idea of evolution, I say, A PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES." Hitler may answer your objective condemnations of his actions with, "Herr RBH! You are correct, sir. My Darwinism and nihilism may not require me to rid the world of 'undesirable,' 'inferior' races. But, sir, Darwinism does not forbid me from doing so, either. I am merely continuing, completely value-free, the history of life on earth from the past billions of years. Who are you to judge me as if my actions are in some ridiculous sense OBJECTIVELY WRONG? From where did you derive these OBJECTIVE MORAL OUGHTS AND NOTS which you are applying not only to yourself, but also shoving down my throat?" How would you answer the fuhrer?

(2) It seems reasonable to try to separate the substance of an ideology from its author. I think that the very large majority of darwinists are not racists, but does Darwinism objectively forbid racism? I cannot remember the exact SUBTITLE of the first edition of The Origin of the Species, but Darwin mentioned something about the struggle and survival of the favored "RACES" in that subtitle. Was he using the word "races" in a very unorthodox manner to mean "species" or was he including human "races" or ethnicities in this description of the theme of his book. Even if Darwin was a racist (I don't know if he was), we cannot conclude that Darwinism requires racism; but, Darwinism seems to leave itself OPEN to such dangerous ideologies.

(3) I make no pretense of being a theologian, but your comments on Christianity and the Bible look open to some obvious criticisms. The difference between social darwinists [I also refuse them the courtesy of capital letters!] trying to derive the moral ought of ethnic cleansing from Darwinism and white supremacists trying to derive their racial hatred from Christianity & the Bible is that, on the former, no moral oughts can be derived from descriptions of nature but, on the latter, the white supremacists are specifically violating clear moral oughts from the teachings of the founder of Christianity. Your methodology of Biblical hermeneutics/interpretation ("one can read into it whatever moral or philosophical lessons one wishes") also seems mistaken if taken to an extreme. How many different ways can you interpret such clear moral commands as "Thou shall not murder," "Thou shall not commit adultery," and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

(4) As you say, science may not imply with necessity (at least before we examine the data) any specific religious or philosophical position, but my initial question in this thread is whether this agnosticism in regard to all beliefs is an inherent ingredient of science (no matter how much data we accumulate and theories we verify) or can this healthy initial agnosticism give way eventually to support one philosophical worldview over others after extensive, but finite, data-gathering and theory-verification?

-Arm

Anyone want to take a gander who Arm might be? He talks as if he is personal acquaintances of the big names in ID.

Albion · 08-01-2002, 05:04 PM

It gets very tiring to hear them explain away how the Bible was used to justify (if not positively encourage) segregation and slavery and other social horrors. Yes, maybe the Bible's message was being twisted, but people weren't exactly standing up in large numbers and saying so at the time, were they? Exactly how that makes it OK to take a process like natural selection, which occurs entirely without intention, and use it to excuse the deliberate murder of handicapped children and other groups labelled inferior by the people in charge has always been beyond me.

Principia · 08-01-2002, 05:11 PM

Arm's ridiculous premise is that because Darwinism, as a science, is devoid of moral implications, it 'leaves open to dangerous ideologies.' Specifically, he fears that scientific support of Darwinism would lend credence to amorality... now where have we all heard this before?

Quote:

Darwinism, it seems to me, may not require acts such as ethnic cleansing, but it ALSO DOES NOT PROHIBIT such acts - IT ALLOWS FOR THEM.

This is a logical fallacy, of course. Why must Darwinism be mutually exclusive to all other notions of morality? What about the idea of social contracts? What about beliefs in (or fears of) supernatural edicts?

*shakes head*

Xeluan · 08-01-2002, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Scientiae:
<strong>Having been throughly trounced in the discussions about the supposed science of ID, the IDi[s]ts now, true to theif Creationist heritage, have resorted to discussing the social/moral aspects of evolution, <a href="http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000242" target="_blank">here</a>. Where, oh where, are those objective morals?

Anyone want to take a gander who Arm might be? He talks as if he is personal acquaintances of the big names in ID.</strong>

I was thinking this morning that Arm may be someone like Dembski, Wells (not saying the one of them is Arm) posting on the board. I could be wrong.

Xeluan (Zed over at Arn).

DireStraits · 08-01-2002, 06:57 PM

Ethics is concerned with values.

Science is concerned with explanation of the natural world.

Without values, all the scientific facts in the world are useless with respect to ethical decisions.

Albion · 08-01-2002, 11:56 PM

Long-winded lot, those IDists on the ARN board, aren't they?

Daggah · 08-02-2002, 03:41 AM

Oh my gosh! Gravity does not say that we shouldn't throw other people off buildings!

Get gravity out of school! It is a theory devoid of all morals! It's amoral...we mustn't let our children be taught it!

Godless Dave · 08-02-2002, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daggah:
<strong>Oh my gosh! Gravity does not say that we shouldn't throw other people off buildings!

Get gravity out of school! It is a theory devoid of all morals! It's amoral...we mustn't let our children be taught it!

Exactly.

08-02-2002, 04:45 AM

Quote:

The Atomic theory, it seems to me, may not require acts such as ethnic cleansing, but it ALSO DOES NOT PROHIBIT such acts - IT ALLOWS FOR THEM.

Talking Rain · 08-04-2002, 11:55 PM

Indicting evolution for its lack of morality, is like sending back your steak because it can't swim.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-01-2002, 05:04 PM	#2
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	It gets very tiring to hear them explain away how the Bible was used to justify (if not positively encourage) segregation and slavery and other social horrors. Yes, maybe the Bible's message was being twisted, but people weren't exactly standing up in large numbers and saying so at the time, were they? Exactly how that makes it OK to take a process like natural selection, which occurs entirely without intention, and use it to excuse the deliberate murder of handicapped children and other groups labelled inferior by the people in charge has always been beyond me.

08-01-2002, 06:57 PM	#5
DireStraits Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 81	Ethics is concerned with values. Science is concerned with explanation of the natural world. Without values, all the scientific facts in the world are useless with respect to ethical decisions.

08-01-2002, 11:56 PM	#6
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Long-winded lot, those IDists on the ARN board, aren't they?

08-02-2002, 03:41 AM	#7
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	Oh my gosh! Gravity does not say that we shouldn't throw other people off buildings! Get gravity out of school! It is a theory devoid of all morals! It's amoral...we mustn't let our children be taught it! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

08-04-2002, 11:55 PM	#10
Talking Rain Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Cascadia Posts: 435	Indicting evolution for its lack of morality, is like sending back your steak because it can't swim.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.