News:

The default theme for this site has been updated. For further information, please take a look at the announcement regarding HAF changing its default theme.

Main Menu

Evolution and Philosophy

Started by minstrelofc, April 21, 2009, 07:41:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

minstrelofc

(Pardon the subject, I'm notoriously bad at those)

So I was wandering about on the internets, and I came across a page that's all "evolutionists are nazis! zomg!" or something, I frankly don't care what its point was.

What I found interesting was the presented points of what "darwinists" are claimed to have believed at the time, and how they look in the light of a modern evolutionary perspective:

Quote1. Darwin argued that humans were not qualitatively different from animals. The leading Darwinist in Germany, Ernst Haeckel, attacked the "anthropocentric" view that humans are unique and special.

2. Darwin denied that humans had an immaterial soul. He and other Darwinists believed that all aspects of the human psyche, including reason, morality, aesthetics, and even religion, originated through completely natural processes.

3. Darwin and other Darwinists recognized that if morality was the product of mindless evolution, then there is no objective, fixed morality and thus no objective human rights. Darwin stated in his Autobiography that one "can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones."

4. Since evolution requires variation, Darwin and other early Darwinists believed in human inequality. Haeckel emphasized inequality to such as extent that he even classified human races as twelve distinct species and claimed that the lowest humans were closer to primates than to the highest humans.

5. Darwin and most Darwinists believe that humans are locked in an ineluctable struggle for existence. Darwin claimed in The Descent of Man that because of this struggle, "[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races."

6. Darwinism overturned the Judeo-Christian view of death as an enemy, construing it instead as a beneficial engine of progress. Darwin remarked in The Origin of Species, "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows."

1. Humans are not the most numerous species, do not have the greatest biomass, etc. We've developed certain functions that (evidently) allow us to dramatically change our environment, but that does not make us any more "special" than the early blue-green cyanobacteria that transformed Earth's atmosphere into an oxygenated environment.

2. The "soul" is a philosophic/religious concept. I know of no reputable scientific studies that suggest its existence.

3. There is no objective, fixed, morality. There are only things that potentially benefit our species (as individuals, and/or as a whole) and things that are to the detriment of our species. A form of "morality", quite similar to the typically agreed-upon one, can be constructed (and defended) on this basis.

4. Human inequality is real. Genetics shape our abilities to a fairly large extent. However, a few things jump out at me:
a) Homo Sapiens has only split into races recently (Out of Africa ~70,000 years ago), which is not very long, evolutionarily speaking.
b) Many traits that would help survival in one area of the world would be just as helpful in another: Physical Strength, Intelligence/Problem Solving, Compassion, etc. and would therefore be just as likely to be selected for. Regional-based dominance seems (to me) to be much better explained by Jared Diamond's theories.
c) Given the recent split of races from early Homo Sapiens, the variation of "desirable" genetic traits (ie. excluding melanin concentration, certain mostly-cosmetic differences, and the results of as-yet unknown genes) is probably greater birth-to-birth than race-to-race. This likely could be backed up by studies.
d) Seeming inferiority in one one area does not require inferiority in all areas. Also, Diversity is a feature.  ;)
(e) the "twelve distinct species" thing is silly enough that I feel no need to refute it except to a "true believer" of the idea)

5. Darwin made a prediction based on the evidence and theories he had available at the time. I don't think that view has too much present scientific support .

6. Death as enemy (or friend) is a philosophic view. Darwin may have been making the point that something that is bad for the individual may be good for the species.


So, any thoughts, contrasting viewpoints, etc?

PipeBox

Well put.  I'd even add to 4 that the author is very confused in that Haeckel's concept of species is not shared by anyone else, so far as I'm aware, and that even if it was, it couldn't change the fact that we're all still primates.  One doesn't become "closer" to being a primate when they demonstrably are one.  It's like asking to find a place inside San Francisco that's outside California.   :D

Whoever wrote that was one shoddy author who needs to actually think about why any person's actions based on science should invalidate the science.  If he's arguing the Theory of Evolution is amoral, well good for him.  It's also an accurate description of what we observe actually happening in nature.  You don't get to say that combustion and momentum aren't true because you don't like handguns.
If sin may be committed through inaction, God never stopped.

My soul, do not seek eternal life, but exhaust the realm of the possible.
-- Pindar

Squid

When I read the first paragraph, I knew this guy: 1) had an ideological agenda; 2) holds a distorted idea of evolutionary theory; 3) being a history professor would have no problem twisting history to fit his agenda - I hate academics who are academically dishonest.

PipeBox

And now I know why we have to take seemingly unrelated courses at university.  Because without those unrelated classes, you up the risk of having an expert historian who knows jack-shit about sociology, philosophy, and biology, who no doubt reflects this wider ignorance with bias in his classes, and writes a book that amounts to the Catholic Church decrying heliocentrism because he doesn't like what man does with the science, nor its implications.  The implication, in the case of evolution, not even being what he would have us believe, but rather that he isn't special to nature, or biology, but only other people.

Here's to hoping he accepts the facts, and that in the mean time he doesn't main his students with too much anti-biology.
If sin may be committed through inaction, God never stopped.

My soul, do not seek eternal life, but exhaust the realm of the possible.
-- Pindar

Tanker

Seem like he's troting out the whole smash-evolution-and-social darwinism-togther-and-hope-nobody-knows-they're-differnt tact. I hate intelectual dishonesty especialy from those who should a) know better and b) decry the same dishonesty in others.
"I'd rather die the go to heaven" - William Murderface Murderface  Murderface-

I've been in fox holes, I'm still an atheist -Me-

God is a cake, and we all know what the cake is.

(my spelling, grammer, and punctuation suck, I know, but regardless of how much I read they haven't improved much since grade school. It's actually a bit of a family joke.

McQ

Quote from: "Squid"When I read the first paragraph, I knew this guy: 1) had an ideological agenda; 2) holds a distorted idea of evolutionary theory; 3) being a history professor would have no problem twisting history to fit his agenda - I hate academics who are academically dishonest.

Ditto...and one who is also intellectually dishonest. And who probably didn't get enough attention as a child from his parents. And who has a littl.....Nah, never mind. Not going there.  :D
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette