On the morality of evolution

[Flinn]

Yes, if one has a natural mindset, it's impossible to not to see that the nature itself is showing us where we come from and where we are hopefully headed to.

[Derc]

A sane mind questions things, but also, more or less, believes in things it does not understand in order to keep itself healthy. An insane mind, however, fails to adapt, clinging to truths which have clearly been proven wrong. The line can be thin, and so can be human behaviour in general.

I find this thread interesting, despite all the derailing, or perhaps especially because of that. Religion, science, morality - they all ask the same questions, and have the same goal, answering: "Who are we?", "Where do we come from?", "Where will we go?". Only the way how we approach it; this is wildly different.
In that, our blessing is our curse: We are aware. And this is haunting. There are massive forces around us, in whatever sense, but only humanity sees (arguably) most of them; interprets them; thinks about them. Deers, boars, chicken, and the like; they do not care where they came from. They don't care about death (or do they?), or whatever.

The massive universe, with all its forces and events, exists, and we are the only ones to be abstract enough to know about it. Without us, it all would exist while no one being aware of it. In that, we already achieved quite something.
And still, we screw ourselves up on the smaller or greater scale on this little blue planet called Earth, time and time again, for whatever laughable reasons.

Tl;dr: Whatever. What I wanted to say: Evolution is true, it is proven, and there is no denying it. Religion has its place in the world, and so has morality, of course. They are forces which help us but also hamper us at the same time. Look at history, arts, and whatever. We need a little evil to do stuff, and this is nature, but we also need a little restraint to keep us from blowing ourselves up. This is morale, and, wrapped around a strange story, religion.

I find it funny that a video game nailed the spot:

Well, let's just see what the future will have in check. If anything, this decade is confronted with the great question what morale is anyway.

[Prodromos]

Some quotes to get your noggin joggin'.

1.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Due to the typical attitude of the contemporary naturalist… the vast majority of naturalist philosophers have come to hold (since the late 1960s) an unjustified belief in naturalism. Their justifications have been defeated by arguments developed by theistic philosophers, and now naturalist philosophers, for the most part, live in darkness about the justification for naturalism. They may have a true belief in naturalism, but they have no knowledge that naturalism is true since they do not have an undefeated justification for their belief.

2.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

3.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean the entirely reasonable hostility to certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to association of many religious beliefs with superstition and acceptance of evident empirical false hoods. I am talking about something deeper---namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true, and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God, and naturally, hope that I am right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.

My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and desiring as fundamental features of the world. Instead they become epiphenomena, generated incidentally by a process that can be entirely explained by the operation of the nonteleogical laws of physics on the material of which we and our environments are all composed. There might still be thought to be a religious threat in the existence of the laws of physics themselves, and indeed the existence of anything at all, but it seems to be less alarming to most atheists.

[sumskilz]

Interesting read with notes on species changing as you watch with no human designer contra your earlier post.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...killer/496637/

and

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...er-dna/503585/

I like this example:

Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows.

In just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder bite, researchers say.

In 1971, scientists transplanted five adult pairs of the reptiles from their original island home in Pod Kopiste to the tiny neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru, both in the south Adriatic Sea.

Genetic testing on the Pod Mrcaru lizards confirmed that the modern population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s.

Religion, science, morality - they all ask the same questions, and have the same goal, answering: "Who are we?", "Where do we come from?", "Where will we go?". Only the way how we approach it; this is wildly different.

There is a major difference, the answers science offers are never prescriptive or normative. Science can only address questions of what is or what was (and to some extent what will/could be), it can inform but can never answer questions of what ought to be or how one should behave. Whereas religion/morality does address those questions, and answers them for those who believe, which is the vast majority of our species. I'm not making a distinction between religion and morality in this case, because even the most stripped down sense of morality requires adherence to empirically unverifiable principles.

[basics]

sumskilz,

Yes they adapted to new conditions but they didn't turn into dogs or cats.

[Cyclops]

Well, for a start no-one has ever witnessed one kind changing into another.

..except God, who evolved snakes from talking animals to non talking ones.

It's all assumption to suit the narrative and when that fails fall back on billions of years which cannot themselves be proved.

...thats what science is: testable statements to fit evidence. Its the falsifiability that makes it science.

As mentioned by several posters, you yourself can conduct experiments to show results you'd expect to be true if the several interlinked process we describe in shorthand as evolution are reasonable ways to explain changes in animal populations. There is literally no way to prove your God theory true short of dying.

God's version of events is far more plausible.

God wrote almost nothing according to scripture, maybe four tablets worth: the ten commandants. I say four tablets because (in amongst the extremely garbled story of what happened on Sinai) Moses breaks the first edition, literally and figuratively. Its OK though, God also breaks the commandments, constantly killing people, taking things away from people and he even got another man's fiancée pregnant... did he covet Mary? Or did he get her pregnant in a loveless transaction. So cold sometimes.

If you're talking about the Bible then a story that has windows in the sky and a heaven overflowing with water can be proven false by looking out your own window. If its all true you can easily prove it: head off to the source of the Tigris and the Euphrates and take a photo of the angels with the burning swords.

[conon394]

Yes they adapted to new conditions but they didn't turn into dogs or cats.

No no they did not and will in the scale of time that will be observable to you. but the Alterations are consistent with the explanation provided by evolution. Check back in 50,000 years or so.

-----------

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0417112433.htm

A full summary of the same story Sumskilz posted without have turn your email. The changes are pretty remarkable in such a short span of time.

[AqD]

Nothing moral about evolution or attempts to stall it for one's own benefit - it's in the viral nature of humans: expand and exploit until you have killed the host. One might argue that attempts to not kill the host would be against the 'morale' of humans. After all eradicating anything that impedes and exploit everything that provides is a basic survival instinct, unfortunately it will in the end result in killing the host which will kill humankind as well, unless the 'morale' in general changes (unlikely that it will happen in a timely manner) - which may actually not be that bad a thing, considering that there might be other life out there that would be spared annihilation by mankind.

Would you prefer we enforce one child or two child policy worldwide and actively prevents poor overpopulated countries from development? Or just stop curing some diseases and let people die? Or stop trying to negotiate peace?

War and disease had kept human population under control for centuries. In fact it's precisely because of moral reasons the developed countries have been helping each other and the undeveloped to grow and breed like rats which in turn make the whole environment worse.

Want to make the planet a better home for all humans? start by committing suicide!

[basics]

Cyclops,

Even if the animals did talk which they didn't but for two examples, to make them non-talking ones is not evolution. The serpent remained a serpent and Balaam's ass remained an ass.

The theory you ascribe to is that we all came from a singularity and by some chance action every living thing on the planet is living proof without a shred of proof. That's not science. Dying is when all you evolutionists will discover or rediscover that God did make us in six literal days.

The Bible was written by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit what to put on paper and so it is as if God had written the words Himself. The commandments were given because sin had to be seen for what it was and so anyone who could keep them was safe from the punishment laid down by God. God made the Law and therefore had to keep it by dishing out what the Law demanded of man. People die because sin has to be punished.

Concerning Mary, she was picked out before the worlds were made to be the woman who would bring God into the world and so regardless of what situation she was in she would do it. That she had a fiancée is quite true and intentional so that he, Joseph, would be a source of comfort and love to her during the time that he lived. He nurtured Jesus just as if He was his son.

When God separated the waters into two parts, one part above and the other below on earth it would serve two purposes. One, to protect the earth from the sun, moon and all the planets and stars that God made close to the earth before He spread them out across the galaxy, and two, to bring about the flood that would cover the earth once more just as He had made it. God knew what sin was doing to man at that time and so in Noah's day He had that man and his family build an Ark so that they could repopulate the world after being saved by the Ark.

Oh I can look out my window and every time I see a rainbow be reminded that God promised never to flood the whole world ever again. I can also see on my tv pictures of severe flooding from around the world and wonder why you cannot see how little else need be added to get close to what happened in Noah's day.

[conon394]

Noah's day He had that man and his family build an Ark so that they could repopulate the world after being saved by the Ark.

When exactly would date this supposed event? Also protection from the moon. Some kind of imagined water shield would not do much protecting from Jupiter's gravity.

You still failing into a basic trap having decided to allegorical creation myths devised by people with limited understanding the mechanics of the physical you have to been over backward to make random interpretations to deal with each time they run in facts based in logic and the observable data.

The theory you ascribe to is that we all came from a singularity and by some chance action every living thing on the planet is living proof without a shred of proof. That's not science. Dying is when all you evolutionists will discover or rediscover that God did make us in six literal days.

Could also discover the Japanese Shinto believers were right instead. Or that the Buddha was really enlightened. Or maybe since they got the fist try the Sumerians where right and tier gods have sitting around for 4000 years just enjoying the show and a lot free time.

[basics]

conon394,

Quote, "The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3761 BC while the later Seder Olam Zutta to 4339 BC.[61] The Hebrew calendar has traditionally, since the 4th century AD by Hillel II, dated the creation to 3761 BC.[62][63." Unquote.

We know that on the first day of creation only the earth is said to be there and so the moon came along when God created the stars, sun and moon on the fourth day. He called the sun the greater light and the moon the lesser light. So, one has to ask why the firmament above and so with all that happens and written of one sees why as being the only possible explanation.

So ole friend, the day you have to bow the knee and confess that Jesus Christ is our Creator you will probably also realise that all your arguments against Him were quite wrong and all the false religions you pout was just your way of twisting the truth that for some reason you can't abide.

[conon394]

Quote, "The earliest post-exilic Jewish chronicle preserved in the Hebrew language, the Seder Olam Rabbah, compiled by Jose ben Halafta in 160 AD, dates the creation of the world to 3761 BC while the later Seder Olam Zutta to 4339 BC.[61] The Hebrew calendar has traditionally, since the 4th century AD by Hillel II, dated the creation to 3761 BC.[62][63." Unquote.

So basically a hodgepodge of mythological blood lines is what you are sticking with? Also thanks for making me have to google your text quote. A link would have been polite.

We know that on the first day of creation only the earth is said to be there and so the moon came along when God created the stars, sun and moon on the fourth day. He called the sun the greater light and the moon the lesser light.

Err we know that is what again one mythology says that it is fact right or wrong is up for debate. To bad god seemed to fail notice the moon was not a light.

So ole friend, the day you have to bow the knee and confess that Jesus Christ is our Creator you will probably also realise that all your arguments against Him were quite wrong and all the false religions you pout was just your way of twisting the truth that for some reason you can't abide.

They seem quite real to their true believers.

[conon394]

War and disease had kept human population under control for centuries. In fact it's precisely because of moral reasons the developed countries have been helping each other and the undeveloped to grow and breed like rats which in turn make the whole environment worse.

Nice turn to is that racism I see. They do nothing the 'West did not do in the past'. Growing a breeding is certainly something the French government for example bends over backward to try and encourage. In any case War and disease have certainly not done what you suggest.

[basics]

So basically a hodgepodge of mythological blood lines is what you are sticking with? Also thanks for making me have to google your text quote. A link would have been polite.
Err we know that is what again one mythology says that it is fact right or wrong is up for debate. To bad god seemed to fail notice the moon was not a light.
They seem quite real to their true believers.

conon394,

What's mythological about keeping a family tree as it's how history is made? Oh wait a minute, isn't it from the Bible and the Bible is not history, really?

If the moon does not reflect light why then do we humans write so much about moonlight? The list of songs is huge as well as the films and books that use the word moonlight. Every night when walking my Huskie I see the moon in all its shapes giving off light but as being a reflection from the sun it remains a light in the sky especially for nightime.

Even the Japanese who believe in Shinto or any other peoples with their religions will also come to realise that Jesus Christ is God and the only means of entry to where He lives.

[conon394]

What's mythological about keeping a family tree as it's how history is made? Oh wait a minute, isn't it from the Bible and the Bible is not history, really?

Parts are (history that is) , but like most mythical genealogies all over the work past a couple generations you are looking at a just so story. As soon as you 100+ year life times, age of heroes etc you can fairly sure you are now in just made stuff up territory.

If the moon does not reflect light why then do we humans write so much about moonlight? The list of songs is huge as well as the films and books that use the word moonlight. Every night when walking my Huskie I see the moon in all its shapes giving off light but as being a reflection from the sun it remains a light in the sky especially for nightime.

Didn't say it did not reflect light, rather just pointing out whomever wrote that bit did not understand that's all it does is reflect the suns light.

Even the Japanese who believe in Shinto or any other peoples with their religions will also come to realise that Jesus Christ is God and the only means of entry to where He lives.

Supposedly. There have been different views and still are and were.

[basics]

conon394,

So we're settled then that the earth is only some six thousand years old and evolution is a load of bunk?

[Derc]

Now all you need to do is to tell us that the Earth is flat and that Biden + Johnson are lizard people, then we have the bs bingo complete.

[conon394]

So we're settled then that the earth is only some six thousand years old and evolution is a load of bunk?

Err how you get that out what I wrote. Any particular mythological genealogy of an ancient people is a valid way to age the earth. It is probably useful to tell you about political power in the time it was writen down becouse the official geneolgy likely confirms the power of sets of elites, or claims to territory etc.

[Flinn]

Evolution rewards the changes that makes surviving easier, which in turn become the standards. So evolution begins as an exception and continues as the norm.

Morally speaking, is then correct to say that the needs of the many comes before the needs of the few?

[basics]

Now all you need to do is to tell us that the Earth is flat and that Biden + Johnson are lizard people, then we have the bs bingo complete.

Derc,

Job 26:10-14 mentions the horizon showing the earth cannot be flat. Now as far as Biden is concerned, he, as we all know, is a crook as well as a dirty old man. Boris on the other hand is a genius politician.

conon394,

There's nothing mythological about the genealogies written in the Bible. In fact its purpose is to show us a continual lineage right up until Christ's coming into the world from the point of Adam's fall. God's not daft because He knew that there would be people like you picking and twisting at anything to do with Him and so it is right up to today.