Evolution as taught in Colleges and Universities

[Guest shiloh357]

I just did watch the video. That a couple evolutionists are 'moral relativists' or want to be doesn't have any bearing on whether or not evolution entails moral relativism.

 

It wasn't a couple of them.  It was ALL of them. He asked the same questions to all of them and all of them stumbled over the issue of moral relativism.  I am not saying evolution entails moral relativism.   But that is where it will lead if applied to moral situations.   It is evolutionary thinking and the devaluing of the importance of human life that has softened the ground where immorality, indifference to human suffering, and lowering the value of human life is concerned. 

 

 

Besides which, Hitler's use of evolution was factually mistaken.

 

Hitler was reading from Margaret Sanger before he even came to power and she was already promoting the evolutionary view that humans were just higher animals. Her reasoning was the the African people were evolutionary inferior and needed to be exterminated and abortion was originally engineered to get rid of those who were lower on the evolutionary scale of development.   Even Darwin believed this.  He stated in "The Descent of Man" that civilized races of man would exterminate and replace the savage races. 

 

[alphaparticle]

 

 

\Evolution itself, as a purely biological theory, has nothing to do with whether or not God exists, whether or not He created us or endows us with value.

 

 

Evolution is a theory, however it is being taught as a fact.  We can see and prove natural selection, but natural selection is not Evolution.   There is a really big difference in changing long hair to short or large to small or even changing the shape of a bird beak......   and changing monkeys or apes into humans....     or something to both dogs and cats

 

As the movie asks where is any proof that one type of  living things turned into another type.    I've been waiting for that information since I first took biology in 1963.  Our science teacher then said that he had been waiting a long time for the same...

 

The problem with all that line of reasoning, and the fact that I think the biologists were twitching, is because 'kinds' isn't a real category in biology. Comfort is framing the debate in an unreal way. There isn't a cat essence, that all cats have, and a dog essence, that all dogs have, and that makes them categorically different. There's the DNA that a particular cat has, the DNA that a particular dog has, and the way that that is expressed. What Comfort is really asking for is, where are gross morphological changes?- Because if he's asking for speciation, he was given examples of that. You can see the process happening in 'real time' in ring species. Gross morphological changes, the type that would impress us, do actually take a long time to come about, for lots of reasons. But it's an arbitrary question and arbitrary distinction.

[alphaparticle]

 

I just did watch the video. That a couple evolutionists are 'moral relativists' or want to be doesn't have any bearing on whether or not evolution entails moral relativism.

 

It wasn't a couple of them.  It was ALL of them. He asked the same questions to all of them and all of them stumbled over the issue of moral relativism.  I am not saying evolution entails moral relativism.   But that is where it will lead if applied to moral situations.   It is evolutionary thinking and the devaluing of the importance of human life that has softened the ground where immorality, indifference to human suffering, and lowering the value of human life is concerned. 

 

 

Besides which, Hitler's use of evolution was factually mistaken.

 

Hitler was reading from Margaret Sanger before he even came to power and she was already promoting the evolutionary view that humans were just higher animals. Her reasoning was the the African people were evolutionary inferior and needed to be exterminated and abortion was originally engineered to get rid of those who were lower on the evolutionary scale of development.   Even Darwin believed this.  He stated in "The Descent of Man" that civilized races of man would exterminate and replace the savage races. 

 

 

He only interviewed a couple experts. i don't think random students on a campus count. And, even if every biologist on the planet wants to be a moral relativist that is uninteresting to the question of whether or not evolution is a *biological* idea with merit.

 

Hitler was factually mistaken. The problem is, evolution doesn't have a ladder of species, wherein, people are better than fish which are better than bacteria. Lifeforms that are alive today, according to evolution, are alive because the genetic material in them happened to get passed along. That is it. There is no directionality of superiority. That people in the past interpreted it that way is incredibly irrelevant to anything.

[other one]

just a general note that all of you should get more informed of Hitlers dark side before you decide why he would do anything......    When you are doing the devils work sometimes you just can't put reasoning into the picture.  Hitlers views on Jews, Gypsies and Christians goes way deeper spiritually than evolution.

[Guest shiloh357]

He only interviewed a couple experts.

 

No, there were 4 or 5 "experts"  The experts were stumbling as much as the students were.  in addtion to the students.  The students trust the experts that teach them.  The students reflect what they have been taught.  Most of the students came off as graduate students, and not freshmen biology students.

 

And, even if every biologist on the planet wants to be a moral relativist that is uninteresting to the question of whether or not evolution is a *biological* idea with merit.

 

But that goes very much to the problem.  When you view human beings as being pretty much nothing more than an higher animal, it can lead to desensitization to suffering and in some cases, already has.

 

 

Hitler was factually mistaken.

 

 

Factually mistaken about what?

 

The problem is, evolution doesn't have a ladder of species, wherein, people are better than fish which are better than bacteria.

 

Bingo!  That is why evolutionists can say that human beings are just evolved animals and have no greater value than dogs or cats or garden slugs.   If I apply that knowledge to my paradigm of the world, then if you are driving in your car and you hit and seriously injure an elk and yourself, and I drive by and find you and the elk are in need of help, there should be no reason why I should choose you over the elk. You are no more important in the grand scheme of the elk and since I am animal lover, I can't help but feel more sorry for the elk you hit than for you.  After all what would make you more deserving of my compassion than the elk since there is no directionality of superiority that would assist me in prioritizing my efforts to care for two suffering creatures?

 

 

Lifeforms that are alive today, according to evolution, are alive because the genetic material in them happened to get passed along. That is it.

 

So, do you apply that to man as well?  Do you disagree with the Bible when it claims that man is a special creation that God made separate from the rest of the created order from the dust of the ground?

[alphaparticle]

Evolution alone provides no sense of value, yes. I have said that nearly every time I've commented on this. So yes, if these students are atheists on top of being evolutionists, they aren't going to get a sense of humans having more value than a pig from evolution. Why should that provide such information?

 

As far as my beliefs go about what actually happened, I think at minimum at some point God endowed us with particular spirits. God could create our physical forms 'from dust' using evolution, but it also seems clear me at minimum God has intervened specially with human beings.

[Enoch2021]

Evolution alone provides no sense of value, yes. I have said that nearly every time I've commented on this. So yes, if these students are atheists on top of being evolutionists, they aren't going to get a sense of humans having more value than a pig from evolution. Why should that provide such information?

 

As far as my beliefs go about what actually happened, I think at minimum at some point God endowed us with particular spirits. God could create our physical forms 'from dust' using evolution, but it also seems clear me at minimum God has intervened specially with human beings.

 

Hey Alpha,

 

I just replied to you on a another thread (evolution as taught in schools).  I'd be interested in your response when you get some time. 

 

So we're on the same sheet of music, can you please define the Theory of evolution?  It appears there are more than a Baker's Dozen currently.

 

Thanks

 

Praise The LORD!!

[Guest shiloh357]

As far as my beliefs go about what actually happened, I think at minimum at some point God endowed us with particular spirits. God could create our physical forms 'from dust' using evolution, but it also seems clear me at minimum God has intervened specially with human beings.

 

How would God create us from dust using Evolution?   The Bible says that God created us in His image.  So how does that fit with evolution.

 

 

Evolution alone provides no sense of value, yes. I have said that nearly every time I've commented on this. So yes, if these students are atheists on top of being evolutionists, they aren't going to get a sense of humans having more value than a pig from evolution. Why should that provide such information?

 

I have been on this board for over 10 years.  Do you know how many atheists have been here in the past claiming it was Evolution that caused them to lose their faith?

 

The theory of Evolution, whether you can make room for this or not, affects people's worldviews.  Evolution is not some benign theory that has no affect on how people view the world.   Even in that video, it shows that people had to actually stop and decide if they thought a dog was worth saving more than human being.   One should not even have to think about it, whether they are a Christian or not.  There is an intuitive value system in us that tells us that humans are more important and valuable than animals.

 

Yet when one's worldview amounts to looking at people as animals, there is desensitization that takes place when it comes to morality and just what constitutes an immoral action.

[alphaparticle]

 

Evolution alone provides no sense of value, yes. I have said that nearly every time I've commented on this. So yes, if these students are atheists on top of being evolutionists, they aren't going to get a sense of humans having more value than a pig from evolution. Why should that provide such information?

 

As far as my beliefs go about what actually happened, I think at minimum at some point God endowed us with particular spirits. God could create our physical forms 'from dust' using evolution, but it also seems clear me at minimum God has intervened specially with human beings.

 

Hey Alpha,

 

I just replied to you on a another thread (evolution as taught in schools).  I'd be interested in your response when you get some time. 

 

So we're on the same sheet of music, can you please define the Theory of evolution?  It appears there are more than a Baker's Dozen currently.

 

Thanks

 

Praise The LORD!!

 

Sure, by evolution I mean that life on earth originated from some common ancestor.

[alphaparticle]

 

As far as my beliefs go about what actually happened, I think at minimum at some point God endowed us with particular spirits. God could create our physical forms 'from dust' using evolution, but it also seems clear me at minimum God has intervened specially with human beings.

 

How would God create us from dust using Evolution?   The Bible says that God created us in His image.  So how does that fit with evolution.

 

 

Evolution alone provides no sense of value, yes. I have said that nearly every time I've commented on this. So yes, if these students are atheists on top of being evolutionists, they aren't going to get a sense of humans having more value than a pig from evolution. Why should that provide such information?

 

I have been on this board for over 10 years.  Do you know how many atheists have been here in the past claiming it was Evolution that caused them to lose their faith?

 

The theory of Evolution, whether you can make room for this or not, affects people's worldviews.  Evolution is not some benign theory that has no affect on how people view the world.   Even in that video, it shows that people had to actually stop and decide if they thought a dog was worth saving more than human being.   One should not even have to think about it, whether they are a Christian or not.  There is an intuitive value system in us that tells us that humans are more important and valuable than animals.

 

Yet when one's worldview amounts to looking at people as animals, there is desensitization that takes place when it comes to morality and just what constitutes an immoral action.

 

Evolution just doesn't entail atheism. That some people are led that way doesn't make it so either. They just were and are mistaken. There is nothing in evolution alone which determines that someone value a dog over a human, or even atheism for that matter! I would not have answered 'dog' when I was an atheist for instance, I would have unhesitatingly picked the human being as more valuable (and obviously still would). Evolution doesn't entail that were are 'mere animals'. Not even atheism entails materialism, or naturalism.