Darwin Day Part 2 by Tom Neven on 02/21/2008 at 9:54 AM

First, apologies for taking so long to get back to this. Some looming book deadlines prevented me from devoting as much time to this as I would have liked.

In part 1 of this post I brought up some of the logical problems associated with Darwinian explanations for things, particularly their frequent resort to the ad hoc fallacy, otherwise known as the "just-so story."

Here I want to talk about the moral implications of a Darwinian worldview and, more broadly, of the worldview called "scientific naturalism," the belief that all that exists is matter and energy and the natural laws that govern them. In such a worldview, morality is impossible, at least in the sense that morality means a transcendent norm that applies to all people in all places at all times in all similar situations. Do not murder would be such an example.

Right about now a lot of people are indignantly rising out of their chairs, saying, "I can be good without having to believe in your imaginary sky-daddy. I do it because it's right, not because I expect some reward in an afterlife."  (And, no, I didn't just make that up; I've actually read this response, and many similar to it, in numerous places.)

I respond, "Yes, I believe you can." But these people miss the point, because their retort begs a larger question: good as compared to what? Right as compared to what? These words imply an objective standard against which they can be measured. Where does this come from? The usual explanation is that our penchant for making moral judgments evolved, but this is rank speculation. There's absolutely no evidence for this. To say, It could have (doubtful in itself) is not the same as, It did. It's a classic just-so story, taking what exists and concocting a story to fit the evidence.

More important, in a world in which nothing exists but matter and energy, to call something good or right is merely an opinion, since these concepts cannot be tested empirically. They are metaphysical claims, not physical. The opposite is also true: to call something wrong or immoral is merely personal opinion. But that hasn't stopped the Darwinists and their ilk from condemning others hither and yon. For example, here's a famous line from über-Darwinist Richard Dawkins that, upon close examination, is utter nonsense:

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

Wicked? Wicked as compared to what? In Dawkins' world, the word is meaningless, since it's a moral judgment, a metaphysical claim. He might as well have said, "... or jabberwocky, but I'd rather not consider that." A concept of wicked is not empirically derived, nor is it empirically testable or falsifiable. In Dawkins' world it is, literally, nonsense. But Dawkins is too full of himself to realize this, and his legions of worshipers apparently can't see it as well.

More important, Darwinian evolutionists such as Dawkins cannot answer a key question: Why be moral in the first place? If by force or by guile I can steal everything they own, why should I not? They'll point to all sorts of utilitarian justifications for morality, but there's an easy response: I just don't see it that way. Why should their utilitarian calculation or moral judgment obligate me to do anything? A utilitarian judgment carries no moral force. Moreover, it wouldn't be too hard to construct a counter-claim based on similar utilitarian thinking. After all, this "calculus"  depends on the presuppositions you bring to it. There is no objective math in this philosophical system.

"Well," you might say, "if you steal from others we'll lock you up to keep you from doing it again." In such case, this is not punishment for a moral wrong but merely self-protection -- certainly a valid reason for locking someone up, but not one based on moral norms. In fact, it would simply be a case of the powerful forcing their opinion on the less powerful. It's akin to saying, "There are more of us who don't like having our stuff taken than there are of you, and we'll use our strength in numbers to force you to do what we want by locking you up." It's not saying, "What you did was morally wrong, and therefore you're being punished." It's might makes right.

It shows that in the absence of objective morality, all that remains is power. And, at root, that's the world Darwinian evolution would bequeath us.

Darwin Day Part 2 by Tom Neven on 02/21/2008 at 9:54 AM

First, apologies for taking so long to get back to this. Some looming book deadlines prevented me from devoting as much time to this as I would have liked.

In part 1 of this post I brought up some of the logical problems associated with Darwinian explanations for things, particularly their frequent resort to the ad hoc fallacy, otherwise known as the "just-so story."

Here I want to talk about the moral implications of a Darwinian worldview and, more broadly, of the worldview called "scientific naturalism," the belief that all that exists is matter and energy and the natural laws that govern them. In such a worldview, morality is impossible, at least in the sense that morality means a transcendent norm that applies to all people in all places at all times in all similar situations. Do not murder would be such an example.

Right about now a lot of people are indignantly rising out of their chairs, saying, "I can be good without having to believe in your imaginary sky-daddy. I do it because it's right, not because I expect some reward in an afterlife."  (And, no, I didn't just make that up; I've actually read this response, and many similar to it, in numerous places.)

I respond, "Yes, I believe you can." But these people miss the point, because their retort begs a larger question: good as compared to what? Right as compared to what? These words imply an objective standard against which they can be measured. Where does this come from? The usual explanation is that our penchant for making moral judgments evolved, but this is rank speculation. There's absolutely no evidence for this. To say, It could have (doubtful in itself) is not the same as, It did. It's a classic just-so story, taking what exists and concocting a story to fit the evidence.

More important, in a world in which nothing exists but matter and energy, to call something good or right is merely an opinion, since these concepts cannot be tested empirically. They are metaphysical claims, not physical. The opposite is also true: to call something wrong or immoral is merely personal opinion. But that hasn't stopped the Darwinists and their ilk from condemning others hither and yon. For example, here's a famous line from über-Darwinist Richard Dawkins that, upon close examination, is utter nonsense:

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

Wicked? Wicked as compared to what? In Dawkins' world, the word is meaningless, since it's a moral judgment, a metaphysical claim. He might as well have said, "... or jabberwocky, but I'd rather not consider that." A concept of wicked is not empirically derived, nor is it empirically testable or falsifiable. In Dawkins' world it is, literally, nonsense. But Dawkins is too full of himself to realize this, and his legions of worshipers apparently can't see it as well.

More important, Darwinian evolutionists such as Dawkins cannot answer a key question: Why be moral in the first place? If by force or by guile I can steal everything they own, why should I not? They'll point to all sorts of utilitarian justifications for morality, but there's an easy response: I just don't see it that way. Why should their utilitarian calculation or moral judgment obligate me to do anything? A utilitarian judgment carries no moral force. Moreover, it wouldn't be too hard to construct a counter-claim based on similar utilitarian thinking. After all, this "calculus"  depends on the presuppositions you bring to it. There is no objective math in this philosophical system.

"Well," you might say, "if you steal from others we'll lock you up to keep you from doing it again." In such case, this is not punishment for a moral wrong but merely self-protection -- certainly a valid reason for locking someone up, but not one based on moral norms. In fact, it would simply be a case of the powerful forcing their opinion on the less powerful. It's akin to saying, "There are more of us who don't like having our stuff taken than there are of you, and we'll use our strength in numbers to force you to do what we want by locking you up." It's not saying, "What you did was morally wrong, and therefore you're being punished." It's might makes right.

It shows that in the absence of objective morality, all that remains is power. And, at root, that's the world Darwinian evolution would bequeath us.

Comments

[1. Jacob Douvier said the following at 10:25 AM on Feb 21:]

1

Tom,
If you are not already familiar with it, you should get a hold of philosopher Alvin Plantinga's "An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism." He offers an interesting argument that evolutionary naturalism cannot account for the human mind as being something epistemically reliable, since natural selection favors traits that increase a creature's survivability, not epistemic reliability. Certainly the antelope who cuts and runs at the shaking of bush will survive longer than the one who stops to consider whether it is the wind or a lion. Anyway, it's a interesting argument I thought you might be interested in.

[2. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:40 AM on Feb 21:]

2

Tom:

That would certainly appeal to the argument from morality approach, similar to that expressed by C.S. Lewis. Not a perfect line of reasoning, but still better than anything the Darwinians can offer.

While it is logically true that one can be moral without being Christian (or even Theist), empirically the record of Atheism on a mass scale has not been good at all.

WND columnist Vox Day recently exposed the fallacies of the Atheist trinity of Hitchens, Dawkkins, and Dennett in his book The Irrational Atheist.

Even Dennett, arguably the most intellectually honest of the New Atheists, seems to acknowledge the difficulty of defining a standard for morality sans a religious framework. His proposed solution--a quasi-democratic approach--is pretty weak.

Now this is not a slam against all evolutionists--as all evolution supporters are not Atheists--but rather against those who think that evolution somehow guarantees that we will reach a higher state of morality.

One only needs to look at the mass carnage of the last century--and the great start we have had in this century (between slaughters in Darfur and child trafficking worldwide and even the global advancement of Islammunism) to see that it is hardly so.

[3. Tom Neven said the following at 10:47 AM on Feb 21:]

3

Jacob

While I haven't read Plantinga's book, I'm familiar with the argument, and it's a strong one.

The example I remember reading (not sure if it was Plantinga's or someone else's) is you see a stone along the road that has the words "Chicago: 50 Miles" chiseled into it. If you assume an intelligent person of good will put the stone there, you can have epistemic certainty that Chicago is indeed 50 miles away. But if you believe the apparent words are just the product of random forces of nature such erosion and weathering, you might marvel at how they resemble intelligent information but still have no epistemic certainty that Chicago is 50 miles away.

The same is true of our senses. If we believe they are the creation of an intelligent designer, put there for the intent of giving us accurate information about the world around us, then we can for the most part trust what they tell us. (The "most part" exception is for things such as optical illusions and other sensory tricks that can be explained scientifically.) But if we believe our sensory organs are merely the product of purposeless evolution, we can have no epistemic confidence that they're giving us true information.

Compare this to Richard Dawkins' statement that when we look at nature and see evidence of design, we must remember that it's only the appearance of design, since we all know there is no design in nature!

Wow, if only Dawkins knew how silly he sounded sometimes.

[4. Josh said the following at 10:50 AM on Feb 21:]

4

Naturalism and materialism as moral philosophy certainly is difficult to justify, but I still fail to see a necessary link between Darwinian evolution and the collapse of moral beliefs. Evolution does not entail naturalism or materialism, and labeling those who hold these worldviews as "Darwinist" seems to be a misnomer or a deliberate attempt to cast aspersions on a (I would argue) innocent biological framework. To a certain extent I would consider myself "Darwinist" simply because I recognize the importance of his ideas to our paradigm of biology.

[5. Matthew said the following at 11:02 AM on Feb 21:]

5

The problem with this approach is that it's a bit of a strawman. If we say that Communism and Nazism are the end result of evolutionary and scientific naturalism, one could throw spiritwaterblood.com in our faces as an example of why one shouldn't be a Presbyterian or the colonial atrocities as an example of why one shouldn't be a Christian. We say, "that's not the real and authentic way of dealing with the implications of the Bible!" and most evolutionists would say that genocide, Nazism, Stalinism, etc. is the same mis-application of the implications. Dylan Klebold is as good a spokesman for evolutionary naturalism as Fred Phelps is for Christian thought. People will misuse whatever philosophy they wish, whether it is Christian or otherwise, to justify horrific acts.

Most non-theistic moral philosophy either centers around what "works," some form of utilitarianism, or natural law. Either way, there are ways to construct a decent moral philosophy, it's just a lot trickier than "God said so."

Furthermore, if we have a Christian moral philosophy, people are just as able to say that they don't see things the way that we do (just like the theoretical thief in your example.) If they are unconvinced, they won't obey (or they'll obey out of fear of punishment.) What's the difference between God's moral philosophy and an atheistic moral philosophy if you are going to break it anyway?

I say this not because I don't subscribe to the idea that God determines what is right and wrong (I do), but because this is a weak argument. I've tried it, my friends have tried it, and we've gotten rebutted.

[6. John said the following at 11:07 AM on Feb 21:]

6

Tom,

Try telling all this to these guys:

http://www.evcforum.net/

[7. farmer Tom said the following at 12:08 PM on Feb 21:]

7

Matthew,

I'm not sure I follow your thoughts here,...

are you suggesting that because someone out debated you that morality and where it comes from are no longer debatable?

Can you explain yourself further?

Please, thank you.

[8. JB said the following at 12:36 PM on Feb 21:]

8

Tom,

I think you shouldn't conflate the theory of evolution with strict materialism. Plenty of biologists believe in God. For example, the famous Leakeys, the anthropologists who did some groundbreaking work on human origins, are devout Christians. And, on the other hand, plenty of people were materialists before Darwin - Lucretius comes to mind. I'm not sure why you even mentioned Darwin. Sure, it's possible to believe in evolution and strict materialism, but it's also possible to believe in Christianity and be racist. Correlation does not imply causation.

As for your moral argument, I wonder why Dawkins couldn't be a Kantian. Kant argues that our fundamental moral judgments come from a priori reasoning. Morality requires only the ability to reason introspectively and depends nothing on what we think is in the world. If Dawkins can reason, shouldn't he be able to find this ground for morality? Whether that morality evolved or is part of the structure of reason is immaterial if he acknowledges what his reason in fact tells him.

[9. John said the following at 12:53 PM on Feb 21:]

9

Definitely NOT a strawman.

Tom's argument is similar to pointing out to someone when they say, "There are no absolutes.", that what they just said implies an absolute!

That's what Tom's argument does. It points out that morality begs a standard. Unless that standard is universal, it ain't a standard.

Evolutionists/athiests, whatever, want to have their cake and eat it too. Either you recognize that the logical conclusion of absolute morals is a giver of them or you are living illogically. There's no middle ground.

[10. John said the following at 1:01 PM on Feb 21:]

10

JB,

Then the question is where does "a priori reasoning" come from?

And, ultimately, all morality matters squat if there is no judgement after this life.

[11. Matthew said the following at 1:38 PM on Feb 21:]

11

farmer Tom,

What I'm saying is that you can turn these same arguments on a theistic moral philosophy, thus, these are not good arguments.

Point 1: People still commit atrocities even when they claim to have the Bible as their moral guide. Christians (and non-Christians claiming to be Christians) have used and still use the Bible to justify racism, murder, slavery, and disgusting hatred. If we want to say that scientific naturalism logically results in Nazism/Communism/whatever, then any opponent of ours could say that believing in the tenets of Christianity results in all those bad things that I mentioned above. If we say, "that's not true Christianity," then our opponent can just as easily say "that's not true scientific naturalism."

Point 2: You can come up with fairly reasonable atheistic moral structures. You just have to make everyone else agree with you that they are reasonable for them to work in society. If a thief chooses to steal, force is required to stop him and that force is justified by the utilitarian ethics that the society he lives in has embraced.

Point 3: Christian moral philosophy faces the same dilemma: if a thief chooses to steal, force is required to stop him. That force is eventually justified by God's moral law, but either way you have to use force in order to enforce your moral code.

I am not saying in any way that morality isn't debatable. It is debatable. I am saying that trying to make evolution and scientific naturalism look inconsistent by saying that they always have an untenable moral philosophy attached to it is just not a good argument. It makes sense to you (and it makes some sense to me, too), but there are plenty of atheists who have a logically defined moral worldview working from the presupposition that there is no God.

I hope that makes sense to you. I think that you and I probably agree on 99% of what Tom is saying because people do use evolution and naturalism to justify bad behavior, but what I am trying to say is that such a justification is by no means a foregone conclusion.

[12. Jethro said the following at 2:52 PM on Feb 21:]

12

Matthew raises a good point, and he's right, it is a strawman. I've always hated this argument of 'oh look what Stalin did'. It's weak and reeks of desperation. Look at the crusades. People on all sides have done terrible things in the pursuit of their beliefs.

Anyway, re morality itself. Tom's argument of power vs morality is interesting. How do we know that's not what it really is though? Maybe it is simply a matter of the powerful imposing their will on the less powerful. Over time we have come to view this as standard. We have come to label it as 'moral'. If Darwinists simply admitted this was an issue of power though, I think Tom et. al. would still object. Why?

[13. andrew spivack said the following at 3:10 PM on Feb 21:]

13

Sigh... same old argument. Debunked millions of times. OK, let's do it for the million+first time.

Are there moral absolutes? Yes, there is only one: the species must survive. All else is subservient to that absolute. From this standard we get all the religious morality, and all the non-religious morality. At their root is not an imaginary god, but real evolutionary pressure. Thus "thou shalt not murder" is certainly not a moral absolute. As a former Marine Mr. Neven should be well-acquainted with unquestioning killing of other human beings, but to spare his feelings it's not technically called "murder". However, "do not murder" is a good guideline, which applies to the vast majority of everyday situations. Of course there are times when not committing murder actually lessens the survival potential of the human species (or your immediate, genetically similar grouping), in which case murder becomes moral.

So yes, there is an objective moral standard. Always has been. It's just that for millenia we had no concept of evolution, yet had this innate sense of "morality". So when we invented gods to explain the universe we found it convenient to dump this vague notion of morality into their laps. We simply didn't know any better. Now we do, and now it's blatantly obvious that "god's morality" is simply the cultural morality of the people who wrote the particular mythology. Thus not only is it perfectly possible to be moral without belief in god, on average an intelligent atheist should be more moral than an average believer. After all, an atheist bases his moral judgment on the situation at hand, not on a rule book which can be wrong from time to time. Of course this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the vast majority of religious people do the same thing, thankfully they ignore the supposedly "divine laws" when it's clear that they are in conflict with reality. So in practice most atheists and most religious people get their morality from the exact same source. It's just that atheists recognize it, whereas religious people like to make a big spectacle about how they're superior because of the supposedly supernatural origin of their ethos.

P.S. This will likely not get posted by the board sensor. Call it a hunch. If it does, let's see if Mr. Neven bites on the "murder" vs. "killing" bait I threw out there. My bet is... hook, line and sinker.

[14. Sheridan said the following at 4:18 PM on Feb 21:]

14

Andrew Spivack:

Basically what you're saying is that their are no 'absolute' morals, bar survival of the species.
So I ask you. Is rape wrong in your eyes? Is theft? Is pedephilia?
Murder isn't a hard subject for you to explain, of course its obvious. Murder generally goes against the 'moral absolute' of survival of the species.
What about these other acts that are considered, generally by athiests and Christians alike, as immoral?
There are some evolutionists that believe that rape is just a part of man's psyche...since we came from animals anyway etc. Do you hold that belief? Would you happily still hold that belief if your wife or daughter got raped?
How then, if you understand rape, theft ect, is wrong...did you come to that undestanding?
Because it must be wrong because it 'harms people'?

But there you have a problem. Evolution teaches one absolute. you mentioned it. after that, everything goes...if it 'feels' right then do it.
The whole 'Im not hurting anyone so I must be a good person' philosophy.

But that doesnt explain pedephilia.
Most pedofiles would say they do their acts out of 'love' for a child.
They would say they are not hurting anyone. Then how do you tell them its morally wrong? What do you do in a situation (that is so common today)
where one person feels like they are being harmed by another, but the person harming them believes he is doing the right thing? On what do you base your moral judgement? You have nothing but ONE absolute that solves nothing in this case.

[15. andrew spivack said the following at 4:58 PM on Feb 21:]

15

Sheridan, please re-read my post. Then pause. And think. NO WHERE did I say "if it feels right -- do it". Although this is usually true (sex, eating, working out etc. all feel good), this is not always the case.

All the things you mentioned are usually morally wrong because they hurt the survival of the species. For instance, pedophilia is usually wrong because a pregnancy by a girl who is not ready can cause both her and the child severe damage if not death. Because the trauma of sex before a girl is ready can cause her to not have normal sex life later on, reducing her reproductive abilities, which hurts the species. There are other problems as well. Note, it does not matter what a pedophile "says", only your religion values words, evolutionary drives don't care a jot. Theft is usually wrong because it moves resources from those who contributed to society to those who didn't, reducing the survival potential of the more productive members. Also, this reduces the incentives to work hard, and hard work is what aids in the survival of the species or the society.

I could easily keep going, these are softballs. But I'll move on to a more important point: "morality" is the codification of things which usually, in an overwhelming majority of cases, increase the survival probability of our species. Written moral codes exist to simplify our analysis of everyday situations, where you need to make decisions quickly. Most animals have those very same codes, but they lack the written language to convey them. So yes, all morality is derived from the one, single, overwhelming evolutionary imperative. It is not always obvious how, but with a little thought it does become clear. And that is the moral standard by which all others are judged.

[16. farmer Tom said the following at 6:47 PM on Feb 21:]

16

andrew spivack,

Yep, You've got it all figured out.

There is no moral reason to consider rape or incest as anything other than propagation of the species, which is good, so we can not call it evil.

And as Jethro admits the debate is really one of power,
Maybe it is simply a matter of the powerful imposing their will on the less powerful.

And in a Darwinian worldview the survival of the fittest is what matters, therefore it is moral for me to steal your wife, rape your daughter and destroy your city with nuclear weapons because, I have that power. Power is the only arbitrator of morality, and the one with the most power is the most moral.

So you are either advocating anarchy where "every man does that which is right in his own eyes" or communism where the state determines right and wrong, deciding who can live or die and everything belongs to the state. A belief system which establishes morality based on raw power is what evolutionary principles lead to, is that what you guys want?

See Andrew wants to assert that atheist have moral principles based on the situation, and I agree with that, the problem is that he suggests Christians do the same thing. And maybe they do, because they are sinful people. But this part of his argument is wrong,After all, an atheist bases his moral judgment on the situation at hand, not on a rule book which can be wrong from time to time. God's Word is not wrong, "Thy Word is Truth". I believe Scripture is infallible and inerrant. Since some of you worship science and reject the Biblical account of the creation, you consider the Bible to be in error.

[17. John said the following at 7:14 PM on Feb 21:]

17

The argument is not:

"Atheist and Darwinists have done bad things, so they are not moral, so morality must come from a good God..."

The argument is:

The logical conclusion of darwinism, atheism and any philosophy that bars the supernatural is that morality is subjective, not objective. If this is the case, then anything ultimately goes, whether beneficial to the species or not. Trial and error.

For anyone to say something is wrong, they are making a philosophical statement. That statement itself is outside the realm of science. It is not testable.

That's where, among others, those philosophies fall apart. People who believe them want to have it both ways. They want to live as if morality matters, but without a universal, transcendent standard, it doesn't.

Taken to the logical conclusion, there would have to be an ultimate judge who carried out punishment for those who live immorally, because we all know that not everyone suffers the consequences of their immoral actions before they die. Often only their victims suffer.

So without that ultimate judge, it would be logical to get away with as much as you can before you die, because you're not going to have to pay for it.

But, for morality to actually matter, there has to be a judge on the other side.

He is also the same who write morality (the law) on everyone's hearts, so nobody has an excuse.

Sorry, deny it all you want, we're going to have to answer for every thought, word and deed.

If you think not, then go out to rob, cheat and steal, for tomorrow you may die! (It's the congruent thing to do):)

(And please, seriously, don't start with the crusades as an example of "bad christians". It's old and tired and totally unrelated to Christianity. Next you'll bring up the Salem Witch Trials or Galileo. Tired and old, old and tired.)

"but there are plenty of atheists who have a logically defined moral worldview working from the presupposition that there is no God."

Read above, clearly they do not. That which is logical in their arguments are barrowed from theism.

andrew,
Sorry, but you've been weighed and found wanting.

Boy, what fun. Imagine what could be justified in the name of "survival". That's real objective. LOL.

[18. Jethro said the following at 7:35 PM on Feb 21:]

18

John,

Assuming I gloss over the numerous and fundamental flaws in your reasoning for the moment, answer me this simple question:

How do we know (beyond anything more than personal choice and belief) that the God who judges is the God of the Bible and not the God of Islam? Prove it to me.

[19. Josh said the following at 7:53 PM on Feb 21:]

19

John:
The logical conclusion of Darwinism is not subjective morality. Nothing about Darwinism inherently presupposes the absence of the supernatural. To make the claim that natural selection is the overarching motivator behind biological systems doesn't preclude the "interference" of the moral facet of human behavior. I am still at a loss to find a solid reason why anyone here on Boundless sees a necessary link between Darwinism and moral anarchy.

I think your arguments against an atheistic morality are begging the question in favor of a definition of morality that inherently needs the supernatural. Naturally, the atheist won't accept a definition of morality that you put forth, just as you don't accept their definition of morality. Really the debate about a non-Divine source of morality is a question of definition, and the atheist is perfectly justified in rejecting a definition that appeals to objective values as long as their definition of morality remains consistent ("survival", or what have you).

And I do believe that the "bad Christian" examples ring true and relevant. They show how anyone can skew an ideology into sin, just as many have done with Darwin. It's a good way for us to orient ourselves straight again and look at philosophies as they are, not as we project onto them.

[20. Mike Theemling said the following at 8:33 PM on Feb 21:]

20

andrew spivack,

Thanks for your posting. As stated for others, if the ultimate morality is "the species must survive" then a lot of human behaviors should not be considered "wrong" from a purely evoluationary standpoint.

For example, you haven't answered Sheridan's question on how rape could hurt the survival of the species. Propogation, whether consentual or not is usually beneficial to the species as a whole. It allows genetic variation, produces offspring that can help, etc. (unless for example in a closed system like Easter Island where the consumption of resources did not match the growth rate). In many other species (such as insects), the female is the one with the power to kill the male. This gives her the freedom to select the "best" mate perhaps. Or in other instances in animals males fight over females. That is evolution at work according to the value system. So according to evolutionary values, why would rape not be permissible? After all, it's the male who is stronger than the female and since he is able to overpower her must be "fit" enough to carry on the seed.

farmer Tom's posting is somewhat extreme but overall is accurate. If in fact it's about species survival and domination, then evolutionary values would defend mass genocide. Obviously the "weaker/inferior" races couldn't defend themselves so they deserve to be eliminated to make way for the stronger, superior ones. Why should compassion be showed towards those that are infirmed and probably won't contribute to society(species) like those starving in Africa?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and would like to hear more about your position. But the point is that not ALL behaviors can be explained through the evolutionary model. Compassion towards those of a fellow species is one thing, but compassion towards those who by Natural Selection's scale would score low doesn't seem to make much sense.

[21. Sheridan said the following at 8:41 PM on Feb 21:]

21

I won't keep arguing with the likes of Andrew, not because he has me stumped like he hopes, but because it gets none of us anywhere. I am beginning to wonder why he is even commenting on Boundless. He is smart enough to know that not one person he is arguing with are gonna change their minds. Why not just jump on the hundreds of pro evolution pages get his other 'intelligent' friends to pat him on the back?
Sure, label us simple, and unintelligent if you will. If we are wrong as you say, well, we have nothing to lose but a bit of pride.
But if YOU are wrong, you lose a lot more. You have to answer to God.
Don't believe in God? Thats fine...but then why are you here?

[22. JB said the following at 12:48 AM on Feb 22:]

22

John,

A priori reasoning is reasoning from fundamental principles which can be reached through introspection. It is distinct from a posteriori reasoning which uses as a starting point facts about the world around us. Kant argued that we could, through the pure power of reason, come to the fundamental principle of morality, the categorical imperative. His first formulation of the imperative was, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." From here, we can make arguments for things like the immorality of lying and stealing. I suppose if you wanted, you could say that the categorical imperative is not reached by pure reason, but is in fact God's command written on men's hearts. It wouldn't really matter - the point is that you can find an absolute, universal morality without resorting to anything outside one's self. I don't see, then, why Dawkins couldn't read Kant and, without making reference to any objectionable metaphysics, come to an objective and absolute morality.

Maybe the issue would be better illuminated by asking why it is that you (and, presumably, Tom) believe that the existence of God resolves the problem of morality. That is, why does God get to define what is moral and what isn't? It can't be because God can reward or punish us - that power wouldn't yield morality, just obedience or disobedience. And it can't simply be because God has stated His moral law for us in the Bible. Even if God has created us, why does the act of genesis necessarily imply moral authority? One can at least conceive of an evil Gnostic god, so creation can't be the source of morality.

I don't really have an answer, but it might be a profitable line of inquiry. Socrates argued that the concept of the Good comes prior to gods and that the search for morality couldn't use gods as a reference point. Maybe if you can articulate why and how God is an adequate reference point for morality, then it would be easier to see if other such reference points are possible.

[23. JB said the following at 1:12 AM on Feb 22:]

23

Andrew,

I'm confused by your argument. Are you saying that organisms in fact act for the survival of their species and that all human moral conventions are subconsciously based off of that biological fact? Or, are you saying that the survival of the species is a Good and that, therefore, all moral laws should seek to promote that Good?

Because if you're saying the former, then you're making an irrelevant point to this debate. It may or may not be the case that all law-givers and moral philosophers in history have been influenced by some genetically hard-wired imperative to preserve Homo sapiens. That is, however, a completely separate question from whether those laws and moral systems are right. The accuracy of what the apostle Paul or JS Mill or Immanuel Kant tell us about morality stands or falls on the strength of their arguments alone. It may be the case that Paul had a gene that made him value the survival of humanity, but that does not mean that he could not also have been relating to us a revelation from God. Kant could have the same gene, but that doesn't mean his argument for morality is not also valid. If you want to deny the existence of objective morality, you're going to need to engage the arguments, not simply imply that the arguments were made from biological motivations.

If you mean the latter, I think you are making a logical mistake. It is a fact that organisms act so as to preserve their species, yes, but recognizing that fact is very different from deeming it good, bad, or indifferent. There is a gap between what is and what ought to be. That fact that something *is* the case does not mean that it *ought* to be. So, if you want to say that species survival is good, then you need to argue the point. You can argue that I am disinclined to kill because of biological factors, but that has no bearing whatever on whether killing is right or wrong.

[24. Bob said the following at 2:48 AM on Feb 22:]

24

John, Good response,

Andrew, there is no basis for initial hypothesis

"Are there moral absolutes? Yes, there is only one: the species must survive."

In the Darwinian world it is survival of the fittest, therefore it is Not, the species must survive. But, I must survive.

Which debunks your entire argument that 'morality' is as a result of not wanting to harm the species.

[25. farmer Tom said the following at 5:18 AM on Feb 22:]

25

Andrew,

You can't give a straight answer, can you?

You say,

For instance, pedophilia is usually wrong
Well is it or isn't it? I expect your answer to be, "depends on what the meaning of is, is". From your previous answer, one can conclude that you think it is wrong to rape little girls, but you wouldn't have any problem buggering little boys, is that right?

Theft is usually wrong
Are you saying it's sometimes ok? Are you saying it's ok for the government to steal just not individuals? Or are you saying that there really is no such thing as private property, everything belongs to the state? Again your communist tendencies are showing up.

You can't give a straight answer, because in doing so you would have to admit to moral absolutes, and you must avoid that to support your worldview.

[26. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:16 AM on Feb 22:]

26

Matthew says: The problem with this approach is that it's a bit of a strawman. If we say that Communism and Nazism are the end result of evolutionary and scientific naturalism, one could throw spiritwaterblood.com in our faces as an example of why one shouldn't be a Presbyterian or the colonial atrocities as an example of why one shouldn't be a Christian. We say, "that's not the real and authentic way of dealing with the implications of the Bible!" and most evolutionists would say that genocide, Nazism, Stalinism, etc. is the same mis-application of the implications. Dylan Klebold is as good a spokesman for evolutionary naturalism as Fred Phelps is for Christian thought. People will misuse whatever philosophy they wish, whether it is Christian or otherwise, to justify horrific acts.

Here's the problem, Matthew: it's not just Leninism, Stalinism, and Nazism. And also keep in mind that as we discuss these systems, we are looking at them in hindsight. In the early 1900s, when Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, and Wilson were getting their footholds, the academic elite and policy wonks looked at the European totalitarians in a very positive light. From Dubois to Dewey to Lippman and even Woodrow Wilson himself, the leading academics of the time lauded the experiment in totalitarian and praised its evolutionary nature.

On the other hand, there are two fronts on which evolution is being challenged: the scientific front and the social front.

On the scientific front, macro-evolution has no more empirical proof than Biblical Creationism. Neither are empirical. (On the other hand, Micro-evolution, which few Creationists contest, is very empirical.)

On the social front, it is perfectly valid to challenge Darwin on the merits of the application of his theory, even if--as you suggest--those were "misapplications". It is also appropriate to compare the "misapplications" of Darwin with the "misapplications" of the Bible.

Surely you cannot be kidding to put Fred Phelps in the same boat with Stalin, Mao, and Mussolini!

Even the "misapplications" of the Bible--COMBINED!--are VERY mild compared to those "misapplications" of Darwin.

The annual execution rate during the Spanish Inquisition, for example, was less than the annual execution rate of Texas.

Even if you add all the Colonial atrocities, the Indian wars, the Crusades--most of which were peripherally Christian at best--you wouldn't scratch the surface of the damage wrought by the "misapplication" of Darwin.

[27. Jane2 said the following at 7:17 AM on Feb 22:]

27

Tom's post gives me a lot of food for thought. I'm not schooled in the Darwinian worldview and moral philosophy but I would like to comment even though it might not be that relevant to the post, per se.

Andrew says,
"Are there moral absolutes? Yes, there is only one: the species must survive."

I'm not trying to stir the waters but his question and answer got me thinking.

Jesus Christ is my moral absolute. [Actually I could stretch that sentence out and say that Jesus Christ IS the moral absolute].

People do not need to be Christians to know that there is an astounding amount of historical, solid evidence for his birth, death, and resurrection.

His words were recorded by a set of trustworthy individuals. Jesus said a lot of radical things about Himself. He also said that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

He is called "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." And "for by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."

And so I believe the Words of Christ.

It takes a much, much bigger leap of faith to believe in any worldviews outside of a biblical worldview.

Books like More than a Carpenter and Case for Christ go more thoroughly into the historical valid examination of Jesus Christ.

As much as I like Logic and Philosophy, I'm not that great at those debates and am not good at debating the "moral implications of a Darwinian worldview and, more broadly, of the worldview called "scientific naturalism," the belief that all that exists is matter and energy." I can leave that into more trustworthy hands.

But then again, I don't have to be. My focus is on Christ. I fix my eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of my faith.

[28. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:00 AM on Feb 22:]

28

Jethro says: Assuming I gloss over the numerous and fundamental flaws in your reasoning for the moment, answer me this simple question:

How do we know (beyond anything more than personal choice and belief) that the God who judges is the God of the Bible and not the God of Islam? Prove it to me.

For any model of God to be correct, it would be fair to assume that such a model makes the correct assessment of the human condition. On that front, Islam fails, big time.

Islam does not accept the premise of human depravity; in fact, the Islamic model assumes that humans are inherently good and that the only differences are (a) how children are raised and (b) the choices they make for themselves.

The Biblical model, on the other hand, asserts the abject fallenness of humanity against the backdrop of a God who intervenes in time and space to redeem humanity.

Empirically speaking, the Biblical model of human fallenness is correct, whereas the Islamic model of human goodness is not.

Advantage: the God of the Bible.

[29. andrew spivack said the following at 9:16 AM on Feb 22:]

29

Mike, you make good points. But don't think that I've not analyzed the situation. Here is why rape is usually wrong.

Propagation of the species requires not just to have offspring, but to have offspring that survive to reproductive maturity. As such, in species where the offspring are few and sexual maturity takes years to reach (such as all mammals) offspring need to be protected and raised by adults. In a rape victim, we're already losing half the protecting (rapists don't stick around to raise their children), and the mother is far less likely to take care of the child. This is the first point. The second, and more important point, is that in consensual sex the female gets a chance to "screen" the male to make sure these are the genes she wants to pass on. As with all mammals, there is competition for mating with females, and they choose those they feel produce best genetics. This is highly beneficial to the species, since that's basically how evolution works -- selection of positive traits through reproduction. Rape destroys that very foundation -- the element of selection is taken out of the process. Therefore rape is actually one of the most evolutionarily destructive acts possible.

Hope that helps. I will tackle your questions about natural selection a bit later, I don't have time for it right now. But rest assured, compassion, caring for the weak etc. are all readily explained by the evolutionary model. This does not mean it's true, it simply means that evolution does account for the observations of our moral codes.

Sheridan, if you can't stand the heat...

[30. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:48 AM on Feb 22:]

30

Farmer Tom says: For instance, pedophilia is usually wrong
Well is [pedophilia wrong] or isn't it? I expect your answer to be, "depends on what the meaning of is, is". From your previous answer, one can conclude that you think it is wrong to rape little girls, but you wouldn't have any problem buggering little boys, is that right?

Good point, Farmer Tom, as we have had cultures in world history that practiced--even celebrated pederasty. The ancient Greeks come to mind.

[31. John said the following at 9:55 AM on Feb 22:]

31

JB,

If I'm not mistaken, it was Kant, maybe someone else; the point remains true, that in order for morality to mean anything or have any relevance, there must be an ultimate judge.

Otherwise, there is no ultimate reason for "playing by the rules". Namely because the rules would be subjective under those circumstances.

There are enough ambiguities in life, even with God's standard.

And it is the God of the bible for several reasons some of which are, the God of the bible is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and most importantly holy!

This is what is required of a judge for morality to matter. He has to know everything, there can be no doubt. He has to be able to be everywhere otherwise He would not be all powerful and He has to be all powerful in order to carry out the consequences of His judgments. Finally, He'd have to be holy in order to be incorruptible.

All these are qualities of the God of the Bible and logically necessary for morality to have any meaning.

But, of course, Darwinists and the like want this not to be true, so they can be gods of their own lives and not answer to anyone.

Sorry, to burst your bubble, but ya will.:)

[32. John said the following at 10:10 AM on Feb 22:]

32

"Assuming I gloss over the numerous and fundamental flaws in your reasoning for the moment,"

hahaha. lol.

The only thing glossy is your eyes every time I knock over your house of cards.

Point out one flaw.

Why don't you go back to some other posts where you try to make wild aspersions to avoid logical argumentation so you can finish them before you jump over here to start something that you're not going to finish.

One. Try to point out one flaw. I'll be waiting.

[33. John said the following at 10:38 AM on Feb 22:]

33

"The logical conclusion of Darwinism is not subjective morality."

Yes it is. Read my posts, they explain why.

Here's the question you need to ask: what or who decides what is beneficial to the species and what is not. Trial and error?

"Nothing about Darwinism inherently presupposes the absence of the supernatural"

Except that whole, "Neither God, nor god nor gods created or sustained existence." But other than that, what was your point again?

"I am still at a loss to find a solid reason why anyone here on Boundless sees a necessary link between Darwinism and moral anarchy."

No, not anarchy; might makes right. Who said anarchy? There would not be an absence of morality, but instead, the imposition of morality by who ever had the most force to impose it.

What people have saying, at least me, is that atheist and evolutionists are not living congruent to their beliefs, which is anything goes. Of course it's not really possible to live that way 100%, but that's the point, to say there is no transcendent morality is illogical.

"I think your arguments against an atheistic morality are begging the question in favor of a definition of morality that inherently needs the supernatural."

First, look up what begging the question is. You're misapplying it here. (Or "misremembering" it)

Second, logic necessitates the supernatural. That's logic, not me favoring anything.

"Naturally, the atheist won't accept a definition of morality that you put forth, just as you don't accept their definition of morality."

Right, because their definition is wrong and the definition I give is correct.

"Really the debate about a non-Divine source of morality is a question of definition, and the atheist is perfectly justified in rejecting a definition that appeals to objective values as long as their definition of morality remains consistent ("survival", or what have you)."

I could just let that speak for itself, but just incase you really believe what you are saying, I can't help but help.

Yes, definitions matter. People like to define things to favor their argument. That's what non-believers (and believers can be guilty, too) do. The important thing is to be careful about "misdefining" words.:)

Yes, the atheist is perfectly justified "misdefining" words and then living by those wrong definitions using bad logic. I could not have said it better myself.

"And I do believe that the "bad Christian" examples ring true and relevant. They show how anyone can skew an ideology into sin, just as many have done with Darwin. It's a good way for us to orient ourselves straight again and look at philosophies as they are, not as we project onto them."

Well, where to start. The examples given and often given (over and over again) about "bad christians" aren't as horrible as non-christian examples AND are themselves NOT Christian examples! (Inquisition, Crusades, Witch trials, etc) They're catholic examples.

After that, they may have been done in Christ's name, but they were obviously not Christian in nature.

The examples given about Darwinism run amuck are NOT "skewed" applications, but logically consistent with the theory!

[34. andrew spivack said the following at 12:17 PM on Feb 22:]

34

Farmer -- good job. You have figured out the meaning of the term "usually". You win a prize. So yes, theft is sometimes right. Pedophilia is sometimes (though very rarely) right.

I have no idea where you got "communist" in all this, I'm assuming it's your comfort blankie, something you call anyone who disagrees with what you've been told to believe. Therefore I will disregard it, and you, as simply irrelevant to a serious discussion.

Jane2 -- first of all there is absolutely no evidence for Jesus' resurrection, and precious little extra-Biblical evidence for his existence at all. I simply pity the fact that you have chosen to not educate yourself or think for yourself, instead "fixing your eyes on Jesus". Anyone who does that with Jesus, Allah, Doe, Joseph Smith, Buddha etc etc etc worries me. I'm sure you could become good at logic and philosophy. I'm not very good at it either, but that doesn't mean I simply give up.

Amir -- Greeks practiced same-sex pedophilia, and they also gave us the greatest civilization until Renaissance Italy (with the possible exception of China). I'm not defending the practice, but obviously it didn't destroy their society.

[35. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:38 PM on Feb 22:]

35

Andrew Spivak says: Greeks practiced same-sex pedophilia, and they also gave us the greatest civilization until Renaissance Italy (with the possible exception of China). I'm not defending the practice, but obviously it didn't destroy their society.

The issue here, Andrew, was whether the premise that pedophilia is wrong is something you could ascertain purely from a secular, evolutionary, scientific framework. The case for an objective statement of morality on that matter simply is not there.

[36. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:53 PM on Feb 22:]

36

Andrew Spivak says: first of all there is absolutely no evidence for Jesus' resurrection, and precious little extra-Biblical evidence for his existence at all.

That's not true, Andrew. There is no scientific evidence for it, but there is ample eyewitness evidence of it. Scientific evidence is only one type of legally-admissible evidence. Whether or not that evidence is enough to convince you is a different matter, bit the eyewitnesses are there.

Besides, whether or not the practice of pederasty played a role in the downfall of the Greek empire is debatable. We may never know that answer on this side of eternity, but there is substantial Biblical premise that God punishes entire nations for varieties of evils, including widespread practice of sexual perversions.

And those "punishments" often came in the form of collapses that appeared unrelated to the sins for which they suffered.

[37. andrew spivack said the following at 12:55 PM on Feb 22:]

37

whether the premise that pedophilia is wrong is something you could ascertain purely from a secular, evolutionary, scientific framework
Sure, Amir, very easily. First of all, it's easy to see that there are no advantages to pedophilia. It's non-reproductive, as far as I can tell there are no advantages to practicing it, evolutionarily speaking. Please feel free to disagree.

So, since there are no advantages, even a single disadvantage would make the practice immoral, right? Well, apparently you don't know this, but pedophilia is actually quite harmful, especially for girls. For both genders it can stunt sexual and psychological development, which leads to less adapted adults who are less likely to procreate. In girls it can also damage vital reproductive organs, preventing them from having children. That seems to be a bad thing evolutionarily, don't you agree? And in both genders the psychological effects of sexual behavior before onset of puberty severely harm these individuals.

To summarize -- pedophilia has no positives and lots of negatives. Thus it is immoral in light of evolution's one law.

Any more, Amir?

[38. Josh said the following at 1:04 PM on Feb 22:]

38

John:

(Me)"Nothing about Darwinism inherently presupposes the absence of the supernatural"

You replied:
"Except that whole, "Neither God, nor god nor gods created or sustained existence." But other than that, what was your point again?"

By defining Darwinism like that you are misrepresenting what it actually is. Darwinism doesn't presuppose that there is no God, or that there is no Creator. That is a metaphysical question; Darwinism is about how biological systems work, and it has nothing to say about whether there is ultimately a Creator or not. There is no need to read all these philosophical deductions into a purely biological claim. It's like saying that the Theory of Gravity will inevitably cause a husband's hand to fall and strike his wife: therefore, Gravitism (or some similarly contrived philosophy) is the root of domestic violence.

I also find it unfortunate that you don't think Catholics are Christians (I'm Baptist, but a fan of a lot of Catholics and the Church in general). Protestant history isn't squeaky clean by any means either, so its useless to say that all the evil done in the name of Christ is Catholic in nature or done by people who weren't really Christians. And I would argue that they are as bad as "non-Christian" examples of evil. Maybe "atheism" has killed 2 million more people than "Christianity" has or whatever statistic people like to bring up, but the fact is that *anything* the Church does that is evil is worse than anything else the World does. It is worse because it is our business to be better.

[39. Jane2 said the following at 1:17 PM on Feb 22:]

39

Andrew,
There are a few points I would like to disagree with you over a few things.

First, you come off sounding very arrogant and full of yourself. Is this intentional or are you really trying to engage in a conversation? Or do you think it's pointless to have a conversation with somebody that you "pity?"

Secondly, I have educated myself. I do think for myself. I have done the research on what matters most to me. However I am not fully educated in Darwinian thought ...which I freely admit...and I freely admit that I don't need to be in order to educate myself about the world.

Thirdly, there IS a high level of "extra-Biblical evidence for his existence." I have looked into it. Have you? And I sincerely ask this.

And lastly,
I must say, you have taken one of my comments out of context--that I only "fix my eyes on Jesus." I have the facts/evidence of the life of Jesus AND I have the faith to go along with it. [Though I have both, one does not need to be a scholar in apologetics to have great faith in Christ].

It's like the currency analogy. It's probably lame in your eyes. But that's ok, I will say it anyway. It goes something like this: the people who are responsible for identifying counterfeit currency don't need to study all the counterfeit currency out there. All they have to do is study and KNOW how the real currency looks like.

I have studied the real currency and I do know what it looks like. You may disagree. And you have the free will to do so.

[40. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:18 PM on Feb 22:]

40

Andrew Spivak says: Sure, Amir, very easily. First of all, it's easy to see that there are no advantages to pedophilia. It's non-reproductive, as far as I can tell there are no advantages to practicing it, evolutionarily speaking. Please feel free to disagree.

The premise that there are no advantages is a purely subjective one. It would be more accurate to say that there are no reproductive advantages.

And if you wish to go that route, you could make a case against homosexuality on those grounds. One could also make the case against marrying people--even straights--who cannot reproduce. One could also make a case for forced marriages on those grounds.

Do you suggest that any of those things are objectively morally right?

Andrew continues: So, since there are no advantages, even a single disadvantage would make the practice immoral, right?

One could make the case against anything on the "even a single disadvantage" grounds.

Andrew continues: Well, apparently you don't know this, but pedophilia is actually quite harmful, especially for girls.

Pedophiles do not all agree, and there is an entire body of academics that disagrees with that premise.

Even if you were correct, the same can be said for many heterosexual practices.

And one more think, Andrew: please do not try to tell me what I know and what I don't know. If you want respect, then be respectful.

For both genders it can stunt sexual and psychological development, which leads to less adapted adults who are less likely to procreate. In girls it can also damage vital reproductive organs, preventing them from having children. That seems to be a bad thing evolutionarily, don't you agree?

Not necessarily. Psychological factors are not very concrete measurements, and--even in the case of physiological damage--the issue is at which age that occurs.

That is not the same for everyone. Ergo, you're still being subjective here.

While I agree with the premise that pedophilia is wrong, you still have not provided an objective framework.

And in both genders the psychological effects of sexual behavior before onset of puberty severely harm these individuals.

While I agree, there is a whole body of academics out there that disagrees with you on that. The Kinsey studies come to mind. The late John Money of Johns Hopkins certainly disagreed.

Much of our legal framework--which gives pedophiles a pat on the butt--owes its legacy to Kinsey, who was very amenable to the premise that pedophilia was not necessarily a bad thing. (He was also very much a Darwinist.)

To summarize -- pedophilia has no positives and lots of negatives. Thus it is immoral in light of evolution's one law.

That it has "no positives" is a subjective statement. While I agree with you, the pedophiles certainly disagree.

Moreover, a whole body of academics out there disagrees with you.

And the very legal framework that proscribes our treatment of pedophiles rests on the work of a very Darwinian "scientist" who disagreed with you, and with whom a large body of academics agrees.

[41. andrew spivack said the following at 1:41 PM on Feb 22:]

41

Fine, Amir, name a single positive, evolutionary advantage of pedophilia. I can't think of any. From your post it seems that you can. So rather than speaking in hypotheticals, provide these supposed evolutionary advantages.

Since the rest of your post hinges on this hypothetical, which I'm almost certainly you'll be unable to provide examples of, there is not much left to say. Also, your vague claims of "body of academics" hold little to no water. Even if some "academics" think something, unless their thoughts square with the overarching law of evolution, they're wrong. You keep trying to appeal to authority here. I'm telling you where our morality comes from, you're telling me that not everyone agrees with every moral point. So what? Not every Christian agrees on every single moral point, that does not mean morality is irrelevant, does it?

Again, is there a flaw in my logic that you see, or are you disagreeing for the sake of it? Can you find a single thing that I've said that is illogical, that's contradicted by the world as we know? If so, please present it. Your attempts to say "some people disagree with this morality" are pointless. This is precisely why we consider some people immoral! If Kinsey's morality contradicted the one law of evolution, then he was wrong there. It's irrelevant whether he was a "Darwinist", or male, or 5'9" tall or anything else. Believe it or not, we atheists don't have idols. We don't care if someone is brilliant, or shares our beliefs or whatever. We tend to analyze their positions. If Kinsey thought pedophilia was good for modern society, he was wrong, because it contradicts evolution. If any other nebulous "academic" agrees, then I think they're wrong as well.

Jane2 -- your post basically said "well, I don't know much about science or philosophy, but I believe in Jesus". Sorry, that evokes the emotion of pity in me. As for your currency analogy, it's nice. Except in my opinion someone told you that Monopoly money is "real currency", so now unless it looks like Monopoly money you consider it counterfeit. And since you apparently aren't overly bothered with looking up other currencies to see if what you were told is right, you're happy with the Monopoly money. Question is -- why DON'T you study evolution, or "Darwinism"? I've studied Christianity quite extensively. Why don't you do the same?

[42. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:27 PM on Feb 22:]

42

Fine, Amir, name a single positive, evolutionary advantage of pedophilia.

Now you are narrowing your definition of "advantage", and in so doing you are opening yourself to a big-time can of worms. One respondent has already pointed out that--on the basis that you have defined--one could conclude that rape is morally permissible.

Moreover, if you are suggesting that something that has no positive evolutionary advantage is fundamentally wrong, I'm sure there are any number of senior citizens--who enjoy sex lives well past childbearing age--who would take exception. I'm sure the AARP will take your hypothesis under advisement. ;)

In fact, using your definition, I could make the case that evolution is wrong, as nearly every mass implementation of Darwinian principles to society--from Deweyization of our education system to the governmental frameworks of Fascism, Nazism, Maoism, Leninism, Stalinism, and the Khmer Rouge not to mention Mugabe's great experiment in Zimbabwe--has been an unmitigated disaster on a grand scale.

Contrary to your assertion, my argument is hardly resting on hypotheticals. As I said, pedophiles disagree with you on "positive advantages", and Kinsey was hardly a nebulous academic. In fact, he was VERY much a devotee of Darwin.

He certainly was one with whom I take substantial exception for a number of reasons--fact is, his team molested 300+ children with taxpayer funding in their "research"--but nebulous he was not.

Andrew continues: I can't think of any [positive evolutionary advantages]. From your post it seems that you can. So rather than speaking in hypotheticals, provide these supposed evolutionary advantages.

See answer to above.

Also, your vague claims of "body of academics" hold little to no water.

Even if those academics form the basis for our entire legal framework that makes the case for easy treatment of pedophiles?

While I'm glad you agree with me on the evil nature of pedophilia, the Kinsey studies are hardly "vague" or "nebulous".

Andrew continues: Even if some "academics" think something, unless their thoughts square with the overarching law of evolution, they're wrong.

Now we're no longer debating the theory of evolution; you now have established it as a law. On what scientific (and by that I mean empirical) evidence do you do this?

Andrew continues: You keep trying to appeal to authority here. I'm telling you where our morality comes from, you're telling me that not everyone agrees with every moral point. So what? Not every Christian agrees on every single moral point, that does not mean morality is irrelevant, does it?

Sure it does. Of there is no transcendental basis for truth, then right or wrong is just a matter of who has the better artillery.

Andrew: Again, is there a flaw in my logic that you see, or are you disagreeing for the sake of it? Can you find a single thing that I've said that is illogical, that's contradicted by the world as we know? If so, please present it. Your attempts to say "some people disagree with this morality" are pointless. This is precisely why we consider some people immoral! If Kinsey's morality contradicted the one law of evolution, then he was wrong there. It's irrelevant whether he was a "Darwinist", or male, or 5'9" tall or anything else. Believe it or not, we atheists don't have idols. We don't care if someone is brilliant, or shares our beliefs or whatever. We tend to analyze their positions. If Kinsey thought pedophilia was good for modern society, he was wrong, because it contradicts evolution. If any other nebulous "academic" agrees, then I think they're wrong as well.

(1) Again, "nebulous" or "vague" Kinsey was not. Glad to know you disagree with him and his perverted discipiles, but they were in fact quite influential and our society is worse off for it. Team Kinsey, in fact, was the father of the sexual revolution.

(2) Your definitions have shifted. You went from "positive advantage" to "positive evolutionary advantage". Fact is, there are many ways to define "positive evolutionary advantage", and that can include factors that are tangentially related to perpetuation of species.

Besides, Andrew, you even suggested yourself that there is a positive evolutionary advantage.

In your own words: "Greeks practiced same-sex pedophilia, and they also gave us the greatest civilization until Renaissance Italy (with the possible exception of China)"

[43. Matthew said the following at 2:31 PM on Feb 22:]

43

Amir #26,

This is quickly becoming irrelevant, but I would contest your assertion about not scratching the surface. We don't know how many people died from colonialism and slavery (probably the two biggest areas where the Bible was misused to justify racism.) In the Belgian Congo it was probably 5-10 million people, the transatlantic slave trade moved somewhere around 10 million of which 10-20% of them died. That's less than those killed by Communism and Nazism (two very different systems in and of themselves, anyway), but still a significant number.

In any case, it is more abhorrent that these crimes, along with the Crusades and the Inquisition, were committed by Christians supposedly operating under the guidance of the Bible. We would expect sinful humans without God to misuse Darwinism; Christians ought to be held to a higher standard. As Josh said, "*anything* the Church does that is evil is worse than anything else the World does. It is worse because it is our business to be better."

Fred Phelps and people like spiritwaterblood.com are real, and they would do Stalin-like damage if they only had the power. And they would profanely and sinfully justify themselves all the way along with the Word of God.

[44. Jane2 said the following at 2:36 PM on Feb 22:]

44

Andrew,

I'm sorry my post came across that way. It wasn't my intent to be so simplistic.

Can I just speak to you from my personal experience in life?

You said, "Except in my opinion someone told you that Monopoly money is "real currency", so now unless it looks like Monopoly money you consider it counterfeit."

There wasn't someone who told me what currency to believe in. No pastor, no friend, nobody...

I'm not sure but it doesn't look like you want to involve the supernatural in your discussions. But I have experienced the power of Christ in my life. I can only explain it as my eyes being opened to the Truth of His Word. Nobody told me this. All I did was open the Bible. [I know I know I could have picked up any other book--but just stick with me. I'm not here to fight]. I read the gospels. I was convicted. I felt refreshed and Fear of the Lord came upon me as I was reading the words. I, for the first time ever, realized that there was sin in the world and that I was sinful and needed salvation. I asked Christ to be my Lord and Saviour. I did this all in my bedroom, alone, knowing full well the persecuation I would face from my parents once they found out I was now a Christian. And from that point on, the Lord has been changing my heart. It's not by my effort. I have experienced God. I know Him.

I have been called brainwashed and all sort of things. And you might think the same of me. That is ok with me. The thing I long most for others is that they will one day have a relationship with the Lord and experience that joy and peace--which transcends all understanding---.

I do agree that one should be at least familiar to the theory of evolution and other stuff like that. But, in my leisure, I prefer reading different books. If I was still in school and taking a class that challenged my views, I would definitely engage in it more, just so I can stand even-more firm in my faith. But that's just not necessary for me in my every-day life.
There's no need for you to look down on me for it.

Anyway we all have backstories as to why we believe what we believe. Even you. I mean I don't think you were born with all this knowledge. You learned what you wanted/chose to learn and believe in what you want to believe for some reason... right? How did you come upon this path?

[45. John said the following at 2:43 PM on Feb 22:]

45

Andrew's reasoning:

"If it does not advance the species, then it is immoral.

If it advances the species, then it is moral."

How do we know if something advances the species or not?

How should we punish those who act against the species?

Why does the species exist in the first place?

How many women do you actually know who think about the future of the species before sex or marriage? Have you ever visited a state college?

What about abortion? Is it immoral or not? Under your frame work, wouldn’t the answer be, “It depends”?

Now, you can continue to personally attack the other posters in order to avoid actually backing up your own posts, or you can give real answers to real questions.

But, my gut tells me you're not really here to debate. You're here to feed that ego that tells you Christians are so dumb and I'm so smart.

Here's a message to your ego: Stop lying!

[46. andrew spivack said the following at 3:31 PM on Feb 22:]

46

Amir, are you even trying? Several quick, easy points. First of all, I never said that anything that lacks evolutionary advantage is wrong. It's wrong if it not only has no advantages, but also has disadvantages. Senior sex has no evolutionary disadvantages, therefore it's not wrong.

I have no idea where your obsession with Kinsey arises from, nor do I care. Since he's entirely irrelevant to the discussion, I'm skipping this. I'm not sure why you feel I should be defending him.

If you want to know how evolution is established, you can go to talkorigins.org I don't think you can seriously expect me to present the mountains of evidence here.

"Positive evolutionary advantage" is defined solely as what's best for the propagation of the species. I'm not changing the definitions at all, you're dancing around them claiming that I do.

Nowhere did I claim that Greek pedophilia was a positive evolutionary advantage. You're making this up whole cloth.

[47. andrew spivack said the following at 3:53 PM on Feb 22:]

47

Jane2 -- I've said this on a different board, but here's a repeat. You can believe what you wish, it does not affect me. I also, honestly, don't really care about your personal story about how you found Jesus, any more than you care about the personal story of how someone found Allah or Ganesh. Nor do I think you really care how I came to believe what I do. But here's the thing: personal stories don't matter as far as truth, logic and reality are concerned. You can have the most wonderful, inspiring back story, and be wrong. Same goes for me. These are interesting from a psychological standpoint, but not from a standpoint of analysis of what's true, what's not.

I'm sorry I sounded condescending. You're right, I shouldn't have.

[48. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:12 PM on Feb 22:]

48

Matthew says: his is quickly becoming irrelevant, but I would contest your assertion about not scratching the surface. We don't know how many people died from colonialism and slavery (probably the two biggest areas where the Bible was misused to justify racism.) In the Belgian Congo it was probably 5-10 million people, the transatlantic slave trade moved somewhere around 10 million of which 10-20% of them died. That's less than those killed by Communism and Nazism (two very different systems in and of themselves, anyway), but still a significant number.

It certainly is; however, the examples you cite are specifically secular ones. The Belgian Congolese genocide, for example, was hardly an application of Christianity, as Leopold II was a nominal Christian at best whose sentiments toward the Congolese had no religious foundation at all. (Mark Twain's assertions in his satire don't count as historical fact any more than Inherit the Wind accurately describes the Creation-Evolution debate.)

Thomas Sowell--who has extensively researched the realities of the slave trade--has also debunked many myths about the death tolls of slavery.

The takeaways of slavery and colonial rule?

(1) It was definitely evil, but certainly a walk in the park next to Stalin, Mao, Ceaucescu, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Mugabe, Castro, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il...

(2) Slavery has been a staple of every culture in every era of history. And its abolition was almost exclusively the work of the Christian. Even today, the Christian is the leading advocate against child trafficking.

In any case, it is more abhorrent that these crimes, along with the Crusades and the Inquisition, were committed by Christians supposedly operating under the guidance of the Bible. We would expect sinful humans without God to misuse Darwinism; Christians ought to be held to a higher standard.

It is certainly abhorrent that religious leaders led the charge on these matters--in the name of Christianity. On the other hand, the Biblical framework provides the lens through which to objectively judge such actions.

The same Biblical framework from which Wilberforce led the charge to abolish slavery is the same Biblical framework from which we can condemn the Crusades, the evils of Colonialism (which, by the way, pale in comparison to what has transpired in many of these former colonies since the end of colonialism), and even the Spanish Inquisition (in which the death toll was quite miniscule, with the annual execution rate being less than that of the state of Texas.)

Moreover, it is even more abhorrent--and intellectually dishonest--for Darwin's disciples to evade the fact that the worst atrocities in world history were the applications of Darwinists.

As Josh said, "*anything* the Church does that is evil is worse than anything else the World does. It is worse because it is our business to be better."

I disagree. It ought to be a source of shame to Christians when The Church does this, but to suggest that the Inquisition was more abhorrent than the atrocities of Mao would be quite ludicrous.

Fred Phelps and people like spiritwaterblood.com are real, and they would do Stalin-like damage if they only had the power. And they would profanely and sinfully justify themselves all the way along with the Word of God.

And Christians would keep them from getting that power. Just as the Christian marginalized the KKK, and white supremacist groups--they are functionally irrelevant--they will keep Phelps and Company at bay.

Darwinians, on the other hand, have yet to rein in world leaders who seek to inflict their Utopian visions on Mankind.

In fact, it was the other way around: they are often lauded as visionaries and men of "progress", until long after the fact. Even then, many academics refuse to concede the reality of what they did or the framework that made it possible.

Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were lauded by the American and European elite when they rose to power. The American Progressive movement praised them to the hilt, as fascism was looked at as evolutionary progress.

You want a more recent example? Robert Mugabe in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

The bottom line here: beware of what you call "progress".

[49. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:40 PM on Feb 22:]

49

Andrew:

I was waiting for Farmer Tom to chime in on something that you left wide open, but since he is not here--I know he would have jumped on this--I'll take the honors.

While your attempts to make a case against pedophilia using a purely evolutionary framework were very impressive, you inadvertently stepped in it. Big-time.

Let me explain...

When pressed on the matter, you decided on the following standard: for something to be "right", it must have a "positive evolutionary advantage".

Your attempt to deligitimize pedophilia requires a very narrow framework that leaves a moral allowance for the following atrocities:

(a) active euthanasia. A reasonable person, without much effort, can make the case for a "positive evolutionary advantage" of euthanizing people in a variety of circumstances. This case would be substantial, as this can be quantified in terms of positive economic tradeoffs. When the number of people receiving social security benefits exceeds the number of people working and paying into the system, you will see where this goes...

(b) eugenics. There are entire populations of people who (1) are net consumers of economic assets and resources, (2) are always creating political and military instability that negatively impacts the world economy, and (3) reproduce at such rates that they are literally a drag on other major economies. Rather than expend hundreds of billions of dollars toward economic development and humanitarian aid, one could make a very strong case that it is a much greater "positive evolutionary advantage" to the rest of the species to just kill off--or sterilize--these populations.

Bill Bennett, speaking rhetorically, let that cat out of the bag. If "positive evolutionary advantage" is all that matters, I could justify things that would make Hitler and Stalin look like Mother Teresa and Billy Graham.

(c) rape. I could easily make the case that rape provides a positive evolutionary advantage. Especially when one looks at it purely in terms of perpetuation of the species, and especially in certain populations where the birth rates are on a very dangerous downward path.

Here's the problem, Andrew: you can't win this one. This is because, to delegitimize pedophlilia, you have to define a framework so narrow that it allows for genocide, rape, and active euthanasia.

And no, we are not talking mere hypotheticals here. After all, everything I am describing here--except for the legitimacy of rape--has either happened before or is in progress now.

[50. Matt W said the following at 6:42 PM on Feb 22:]

50

If one accepts both evolution and Christianity (a controversial point on this board) the development of "morality", as understood in the narrow sense that Andrew S. has described, can be "explained" in naturalistic terms and from God. When St. Paul talks about the "law written on the hearts of men", we don't think God literally wrote. If we drop these literalistic and anthropomorphic concepts and start thinking of God acting through nature to achieve his will, (secondary causation) these issues become quite trivial.

[51. Michael said the following at 7:12 PM on Feb 22:]

51

In the Ten Commandments, morality is defined as how we relate to God (the first ones), and how we relate to society (the latter ones). It is easy to find pro-human species advantages in the second set, because everything that is immoral about those commandments stems from the fact that they are harmful to humans. But I wonder how anyone would claim an evolutionary benefit for those commandments that relate to God (one God, no idols, do not profane, keep the Sabbath). Clearly, in the biblical view, morality goes beyond what helps or hinders our fellow humankind.

Additionally, the biological basis of morality falls apart when you realize that humans have different standards of moral behavior than animals. For example, many animals will intentionally kill their young, or at least not help them, if they deem their young to be a drain on resources (runts, injured young, etc.). Christians, and most humanists, would consider such treatment of weak or dependent humans as reprehensible. Likewise, many animals, especially of the higher orders, exhibit strong clan-like behavior, even attacking and killing others of their own kind. This, too, is counter to all Christian morality. Indeed, the tendency of humans to exhibit such behaviors is regarded in all Christian teaching as the ascendency of animalistic behavior, the very opposite of moral behavior. In other words, the more we reflect animalistic codes of morality, the more immoral we become.

[52. Michael said the following at 7:22 PM on Feb 22:]

52

John, I do not agree with Andrew either. But you are starting to sound antagonistic, and that is not a quality that will lend credibility to your position. Facts and logic and even debate can be good. Incendiary remarks never help.

[53. Amir Larijani said the following at 7:25 PM on Feb 22:]

53

Andrew says: Are there moral absolutes? Yes, there is only one: the species must survive.

Species die every day. On what objective basis is it morally necessary that the human species survive?

[54. Amir Larijani said the following at 4:07 AM on Feb 23:]

54

Andrew says: Nowhere did I claim that Greek pedophilia was a positive evolutionary advantage. You're making this up whole cloth.

I quoted your own words. Wanna read them again? Here:

"Amir -- Greeks practiced same-sex pedophilia, and they also gave us the greatest civilization until Renaissance Italy (with the possible exception of China). I'm not defending the practice, but obviously it didn't destroy their society."

I didn't make that up; you did. I say this not to ridicule you, but rather to call you to account.

Moreover, you don't seem to get it with respect to your own argument about "positive evolutionary advantages".

I bring up Kinsey because his body of work is the most influential in academia in terms of human sexuality studies. He is to sexuality what Darwin is to biology.

In fact, his experimental framework was Darwinian all the way, as that--in and of itself--provides a "positive evolutionary advantage".

You see, Andrew, using people--especially children--for such experimentation, can be justified under any "positive evolutionary advantage" angle, be it "perpetuation of the species" or any other metric by which we choose to define it.

As I've said, your "positive evolutionary advantages" criteria is hardly a moral one.

Besies, why is it morally necessary that the human species survive? After all, other species die every day.

In a purely secular framework, what objective moral necessity requires that homo sapiens survive as a species?

[55. andrew spivack said the following at 10:46 AM on Feb 23:]

55

Amir, I'll address #53 first, before getting to debunking the longer #49. You have it backwards. It's not "morally necessary for human species to survive". That implies a morality that supercedes the one law I've talked about. Human species have a wired-in instinct that tells them they must do what they can to ensure survival of our species. All species have this same instinct. Those who do not die out quickly. It no more "morally necessary" for our species to survive than it is "morally necessary" for a crocodile to eat meat. If a croc does not eat meat, he dies, as does his genetic line. If a specie, including homo sapiens, did not have a biological drive to survive, they wouldn't. It's this survival drive that leads to morality, rather than morality leading to the survival drive.

This is tantamount to me asking you "what makes god moral?"

[56. andrew spivack said the following at 10:55 AM on Feb 23:]

56

Amir -- first the "why rape is evolutionarily wrong" question. See post 29. Case closed.

Second -- eugenics. I have no idea who these "entire populations" are. Please do tell us. You sound exactly like Hitler. That's scary.

Euthanasia -- I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you. You really need to learn to deal with reality, Amir, your addiction to hypotheticals is rather useless. I honestly thought that your longer post would have a shred of substance, which is why I put off reading it, but I was wrong.

And not only can I win this one, so far I'm pitching a shutout. You're yet to present a single, coherent argument against anything I've said. All you rely upon are "if I cared to, I could..." Well, enlighten us. Care to, for once. As the old saying goes -- put up or...

[57. John said the following at 11:17 AM on Feb 23:]

57

Matt,

We don't know how many people died from colonialism and slavery?

Really? I would think that would not be too hard to finout on the web.

Slavery was largely the business of Catholic countries like Spain and Portugal. As were the atrocities of colonialism.

Brittain, Catholic-light (Church of England), was big into it too, but later was the very country that ended it in the Western hemisphere.

Besides, you act as if slavery has stopped AND that it was a race issue. Interesting. It's still very huge and very non-christian.

"In any case, it is more abhorrent that these crimes, along with the Crusades and the Inquisition, were committed by Christians supposedly operating under the guidance of the Bible."

That's the point, they weren't Christians. Again, you characterize something like the Crusades as totally bad. As if they had been carried for completely evil reasons. They saved Europe from becoming Islamabad! Of course, after the first crusade, they were pretty unsuccessful at recapturing the holy land and pretty messed up besides. But more than any of this, they weren't Christians who carried them out. They were started by the Pope. Christians may have been involved, but it was almost entirely Catholics and hired soldiers.

Again, Darwinism is not misapplied when people use it to justify murder.

And the Church does not do evil. People, under the banner of the Church, did evil and do evil.

Christians can be mistaken and misapply God's word, but none have ever done so to the degree and magnitude of the examples you gave or any where close to the level of Nazism, communism etc.

[58. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:39 PM on Feb 23:]

58

Andrew says: Amir -- first the "why rape is evolutionarily wrong" question. See post 29. Case closed.

Not so fast. You are assuming that the child NEEDS a father in the home. While we would agree that this would be the better solution, it certainly is not logically necessary. Ergo, your case against rape on those grounds is pretty weak.

Andrew continues: Second -- eugenics. I have no idea who these "entire populations" are. Please do tell us. You sound exactly like Hitler. That's scary.

I'll answer this on two fronts:

(a) Sure that argument sounds like Hitler; I am demonstrating the telos of your line of reasoning. If all that matters is "perpetuation of the species", then anything done to make the species stronger--and more likely to perpetuate--would be morally correct. This makes eugenics--which was SPECIFICALLY born from a Darwinian paradigm--and even genocide each morally permissible.

Who are these net consumers of economic capital? I could name several:

(a) Many populations in sub-Saharan Africa to include Sudan, Nigeria, Ethopia, and Niger.

(b) Much of the populations of the Middle East, to include Iran (the country of my heritage), Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The populations have done little over the last 60 years except breed political and military turmoil. This destroys wealth and creates economic instability, which is a "negative evolutionary factor" as it erodes the quality of life for the people who are the better producers.

Ergo, a "positive evolutionary advantage" could be realized by wiping them out. That would free up the natural resources for the developed world, which better-uses those natural resources to produce wealth.

If all that matters is taking steps to create "positive evolutionary advantage", there is no limit to the evil one can justify.

Euthanasia -- I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you. You really need to learn to deal with reality, Amir, your addiction to hypotheticals is rather useless.

As Reagan once said, "There you go again..." assuming you can tell me what I know and what I do not know. Shame shame shame...

Seriously, Andrew, I know quite well what I am talking about. As the Netherlands has already begun experimenting with active euthanasia. And, by the way, Nazi Germany did exactly that, and it was considered a "positive evolutionary advantage", as Hitler used such techniques to purify the "German race".

Not hypothetical, my friend. Quite real, in fact.

When you have people who are retired, and can no longer work, and they are a drag on the economy because the producers must work harder--sacrificing their wealth--to support them, a "positive evolutionary advantage" can be realized through their euthanasia. Especially when they outnumber the people working and producing.

Again, my friend, that is right around the corner. You may wish to call that hypothetical, but to do so would be to buck the Congressional Budget Office, and the Comptroller General.

Andrew continues: I honestly thought that your longer post would have a shred of substance, which is why I put off reading it, but I was wrong.

I thought you could attempt answer substantively. Instead, you have resorted to personal attacks. This is quite regrettable, as I have raised very legitimate points, and those are not hypotheticals but in fact were implemented by devoted Darwinists using the evolutionary paradigm as the pretext.

Andrew continues: And not only can I win this one, so far I'm pitching a shutout. You're yet to present a single, coherent argument against anything I've said.

If you say that, then you haven't really "read" anything I have written, but rather dismissed it without thinking. That strikes me as quite knee-jerk. Fact is, your "positive evolutionary advantage" paradigm leaves wide open any number of atrocities. The record of application of evolutionary thought to public policy is on my side.

Andrew continues: All you rely upon are "if I cared to, I could..." Well, enlighten us. Care to, for once. As the old saying goes -- put up or...

I already have. Want a recap?

(1) Your "positive evolutionary advantage" (PEA) paradigm, while representing a spirited attempt to make the case against rape and pedophilia, fails. In fact, in a previous post, by lauding Ancient Greece, you yourself made a prima facie case that pederasty could pose a PEA.

(2) Your PEA paradigm leaves wide open the systematic application of eugenics, active euthanasia, abuses of humans in experimentation which seeks to find PEAs, infanticide for genetically-unfit children, and even mass extermination of foster children.

Much of that agenda--eugenics, genocide, active euthanasia, abuses of humans in experimentation, and infanticide, has been practiced before in the name of evolutionary progress or utilitarian ethics (which logically follows from your PEA paradigm).

This is real, my friend, not hypothetical. And it represents the telos of your PEA paradigm.

Now, to address your other points...

Here, you said: Amir, I'll address #53 first, before getting to debunking the longer #49. You have it backwards. It's not "morally necessary for human species to survive"

Unfortunately, you seem to be contradicting youself. Want me to quote your original statement?

Here:"Are there moral absolutes? Yes, there is only one: the species must survive. All else is subservient to that absolute."

You originally said that the survival of the species is a "moral absolute" (which is what I meant by "morally necessary")

Now you say that the survival of the species is not morally necessary.

Are you now saying that there are no moral absolutes?

[59. andrew spivack said the following at 2:42 PM on Feb 23:]

59

Amir -- I repeat: where did I claim that same-sex pedophilia is evolutionarily justifiable? I KNOW what I wrote, I'm asking you to either provide evidence that I said what you claim I said, or to apologize to me. My guess is you'll never do either.

I have already said all that I'm going to say about Kinsey, feel free to obsess over him, I will ignore everything dealing with him from now on.

You have anything new, or are you stuck on misrepresenting what I said (I think Bible calls it "bearing false witness") and reeeeeally hoping I'm going to start talking about Kinsey?

[60. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:56 PM on Feb 23:]

60

Andrew: By citing the Greeks--and lauding their society--you certainly inferred a PEA. Do you wish to clarify your statement?

I have no need to apologize to you; you, however, have much for which to answer here, as you have failed to do so.

I have shown you the telos of your PEA paradigm, which has already been demonstrated historically. While future abuses on a grand scale are indeed hypothetical, past abuses on such grounds are historical fact.

That you dismiss historical fact as hypothetical is problematic on any reasonable scale.

[61. John said the following at 3:06 PM on Feb 24:]

61

Amir,

It's quite clear that you are wasting your time with andrew.

In typical fashion, he avoids answer things straightforward, yet insists that he has. He insults, straw mans and throws non sequitur about to delude himself into thinking he's much too smart to believe the bible.

He will never admit to any holes in his reasoning.

He's got it all figured out.

We're all stupid. He's super intelligent.

That's why he won't answer many of the questions addressed to him by me and others.

The only thing he can do is belittle other posters to avoid facing his own logical inconsistencies.

Allow him to enjoy his delusion without continuing to feed his ego.

Responding to him only encourages his delusion. It makes him believe that his opinions actually have some kind of validity.

As they say at the Internet Zoo: Don't feed the trolls!

[62. andrew spivack said the following at 7:18 PM on Feb 24:]

62

Amir -- if you can't see how it's evolutionarily advantageous for a child to have 2 adults protecting and feeding him or her instead of 1, I can't do much to help you.

I'm going to ignore all your comments about people in the Middle East and Africa because a) I'm certain whatever I say will not be let through by the board sensor; and b) commenting would legitimize the vile and disgusting stuff you wrote.

I'll get to the rest of it later. I don't feel like it right now

[63. LisaMarie Goetz said the following at 10:43 PM on Feb 24:]

63

I know I haven't been around here so I apologize for jumping in the middle of your conversation...but I just really am wondering why we do this? Arguing over these tangential issues, simply trying to prove one another wrong, name-calling and demeaning one another...and it comes from both sides, too.
I just don't see how that's positive for anyone, when it comes down to that.

[64. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:56 AM on Feb 25:]

64

Andrew says: Amir -- if you can't see how it's evolutionarily advantageous for a child to have 2 adults protecting and feeding him or her instead of 1, I can't do much to help you.

I didn't mean that there was no positive evolutionary advantatge (PEA) to it; however, the issue is whether a two-parent family is necessary. That it would be more advantageous does not necessarily make a compelling case against the legitimacy of rape, any more than it makes a compelling case for banning illegitimacy.

In a case of catastrophically-low birth rates, a PEA can be legitimized for legalizing rape, as the "negatives" could be adjudged to outweigh the "positives".

What you are failing to account for, Andrew, is that in your scenario, all you need is the "right" set of Darwinians deciding on what constitutes a PEA.

They'll be able to produce their own sets of "scientific studies" to prove their cases. After all, such experimentation would be morally permissible in your line of reasoning, as it is rationalizable as "seeking progress through positive evolutionary advantage".

Andrew continues: I'm going to ignore all your comments about people in the Middle East and Africa because a) I'm certain whatever I say will not be let through by the board sensor; and b) commenting would legitimize the vile and disgusting stuff you wrote.

I'm glad you accept that what I put out there is vile and disgusting (although in your framework that is a purely subjective statement, even if I happen to agree with it). On the other hand, those are among the implications of your PEA criteria.

While I abhor eugenics and any wanton killing, the fact remains: if all that matters is "positive evolutionary advantage"--those vile and disgusting ideas would be progress.

You said it yourself: You're not very good at philosophy or logic. And it shows. Subjecting a line of reasoning to truth tests is hardly about "hypotheticals", especially when some of those "hypotheticals" have been implemented by other countries (and in some cases here) using your very reasoning. And on mass scales.

If positive evolutionary advantage--PEA--defined as "perpetuation of the species" is all that matters, then anything that makes the species stronger, more economically efficient, and more likely to perpetuate, is justifiable as "morally correct" by your definition.

That means the creation of a "master race" is not morally repugnant in your line of reasoning.

In addition, according to your line of reasoning, it would logically follow that any scientific experimentation that seeks to determine elements that would add a positive evolutionary advantage, would also be morally permissible.

That means subjecting women and children, and other races of people, and elderly, and handicapped people, to all sorts of cruel experimentation--in the name of seeking progress through evolutionary change--would be morally permissible. After all, all that ultimately matters is the perpetuation of the species. Since that is the only moral absolute in your framework, it logically follows that seeking a positive evolutionary advantage is a legitimate pursuit.

[65. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:27 AM on Feb 25:]

65

LisaMarie:

I'm hardly insulting Andrew's character, only his line of reasoning.

I'm glad he agrees that pedophilia and genocide and eugenics and rape are all evil.

On the other hand, his positive evolutionary advantage (PEA) criteria doesn't necessarily define those as morally repugnant and--in fact--leaves the door open for their legitimization.

If anything, Andrew's attempt to decry things as evil--using a Darwinian paradigm--is quite impressive, even if it falls short of the proverbial glory.

It also shows how futile the attempt is, as the Darwinian has proven incapable of reining in the world leader who seeks to create a "master race", or engage in societal engineering to create a new man who is subservient to the state (Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao), or the scientist hellbent on using humans in shady experimentation in search of evolutionary progress.

[66. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:39 AM on Feb 25:]

66

John:

Cut Andrew a little slack. Yeah, he's a little fired up, but wouldn't you be if someone was telling you that your moral framework would allow for genocide or eugenics or active euthanasia?

On the other hand, I'd say that enough has been poured out on these pages that others can make up their own minds. Andrew can make assertions about my statements, and I about his, and this could easily devolve into a "DID NOT...DID SO!!" match.

So with that, I will give you all the last word, and move on to other topics that Boundless might put out there for discussion. This has been fun.

[67. farmer Tom said the following at 12:46 PM on Feb 25:]

67

Amir,

I thought about adding my two-cents. But you've already got at least a buck .98 on the table.

Andrew, I would suggest some remedial reading for the guy who just got his head handed to him.

Try The Privileged Plant by Guillermo Gonzalez,
Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe,
Darwin on Trial by Philip E Johnson
and one that will rattle your cage and make you angry,

The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day

BTW, the last one has a disclaimer. It is a crude, rude and in your face beat down of the New Atheists, you know Darwinian materialists, who deny that there is a God. Some of the language and descriptions are, well, course and vulgar.

Andrew, when you get done reading those come back, maybe you'll be able to bring a better game.

[68. Al said the following at 9:30 PM on Feb 25:]

68

Amir brings up a very good point concerning Andrew's argument: Evolution says nothing about the advancement or preservation of a species. It's only imperitive is the survival of the fittest-- not of species-- but of actual genes, or combination of genes. In fact, evolution gladly dispenses with whole species as it retains the most beneficial and "fit" genes-- which may result in entirely new species.

Evolution (and the supposed "morality" of evolution) actually favors *new* species at the expense of old ones, if the new ones are better suited to its biological ecology.

True evolution is rather apathetic about the survival of any species. It in fact applauds a species demise if through it, a more survivable one can arise. That's the entire premise of speciation and naturalistic evolution.

[69. andrew spivack said the following at 11:03 PM on Feb 25:]

69

Al, I'm sorry, what?? Evolution says nothing about the advancement or preservation of a species Er, no. That's the basis of evolution. Survival of the fittest is subservient to that. Most people don't realize that, but it's actually true. Any species which lacks the drive to preserve itself disappears quickly, thus evolution very efficiently selects for those with the highest degree of self-preservation. And in every species preservation of self takes a back seat to preservation of the entire population. In animals we call it "instinct". In humans we call it "morality". Same thing, except humans have a rather hubristic outlook on their own specialness.

Evolution does not favor new species at all, every single species on this planet has a totally ingrained drive that it must preserve itself. New species only arise if old ones fail. That's the crux of my argument. If this is true, and I'm pretty sure it is, that completely explains morality from an evolutionary standpoint.

[70. John said the following at 11:03 AM on Feb 26:]

70

Andrew,

What's the evolutionary basis for hubris?

Where does it fit into your evolutionary paradigm?

What is the evolutionary basis for categorizing ideas as "hubristic"?

Is hubris evolutionarily beneficial or not?

[71. Michael Zacharko said the following at 1:57 PM on Feb 26:]

71

Hubristic - A term that can be attached to anything to give it a sense of purpose,worth or power. Especially useful when you really have nothing to say or do not understand the true relationship or cause of a series of unrelated or diametrical events.An emmotional interpretation Vs a scientific one.
It is difficult for one to envision this casual, indifferent, cold evolutionary process with purpose let alone arrogance or pride. The word "Evolution" refers to a theoretical process or sub-groups of impinging processes. Words like "Drainage System", "Planetary System", "Life Cycle" are of similar usage.
Overall, it lends an air of power to the non extant; similar to the caprice of the Grecian gods of lore.

[72. Al said the following at 2:03 PM on Feb 26:]

72

Andrew,

Natural selection at its base core does not apply to "species" as a whole-- it applies to favorable genetic combinations, whether on the species, group, or individual level. New species do not arise simply *because* old ones die. New specimens arise from old species due to genetic mutation and variation in members of a community, that gradually, and over time, might be so different from the original population that it is unable to backbreed and becomes classified as a new species. There are different reasons why the new variations might become separated from the original population and why these differences aren't exchanged back into the gene pool and become distinct as a population on their own. In any case, based on environmental conditions, populations are selected for and against-- but these new differences must exist prior to selection.

I was inaccurate in suggesting that the old species *must* always die so that the new one survives, and in the same way, Wikipedia's entry on Speciation details four major ways it can happen, none of which require old species to die first before new ones arise, as you assert.

However, one theory regarding why Neanderthals died out has to do with Cro-Magnon man exterminating them. Here we have the opposite of what you describe, and a more "progressed" species actually causes the demise of another sharing a common ancestor, rather than coming into being because fo their demise.

It seems that you conceive of evolution as somehow "considering" species as a whole, when it does no such thing-- rather it selects the most favorable traits and allows the least favorable to perish-- and these traits and the process of selection can exist at an individual level, sub-species level, or species level. Species is merely a phenomenon-- not the end goal of evolution. It is completely blind to our distinctions. It only asserts that the fittest survive-- whether it be an individual, a population, a "race", or a species. It does not have a generous mandate to preserve species. It's a blind mechanical process.

You equate morality with evolutionary progress, and conceive of evolutionary mechanisms as a kind one that perserves species for their own sake and allows new ones only if old ones fail. It does no such thing. It has no conception of the greater good. It only deems that the most fit survive and thrive, and where competition exists, deems that the weaker should fall by the wayside.

You can't appeal solely to a naturalistic mechanical process that operates ruthlessly on all levels, from individual to species, to entire biodomes, and simultaneously appeal to a metaphysical precept that mandates species preservation. If you do, it's no longer naturalistic evolution that you're talking about.

You also equate morality with instinct, when our instincts regularly go against our morality. Animals appear to have no such problem, and its men who behave most instinctually and like animals that we often consider most immoral. Obviously the two are not quite the same thing.

[73. JB said the following at 2:48 PM on Feb 26:]

73

Andrew,

You said, "And in every species preservation of self takes a back seat to preservation of the entire population. In animals we call it "instinct". In humans we call it "morality". Same thing, except humans have a rather hubristic outlook on their own specialness."

I think this is really the core of the problem with your argument. When people talk about morality, they mean a normative system. What is moral is what I should do, as distinct from what I want to do or what I in fact do. It's the normative component of morality which is key and it's that which is not explainable in scientific terms.

For example, it is the case that mothers care for their children. In fact, most mothers want to care for their children. But the question of morality is whether or not mothers should care. You can use evolution to explain why mothers care for their children and even why mothers generally want to care for their children, but this does not explain the should and thus does not explain morality.

I think what you're arguing is that there is no morality. You would say, and correct me if I'm wrong, that all the world's laws and rules are derived from evolutionarily advantageous desires and the social systems which have evolved to limit and direct those desires in a genetically advantageous way. That's a fine argument and interesting as far as it goes, but it does not explain morality proper. That kind of argument tells us why, say, murder is generally outlawed and why you and I are disinclined to murder people, but if I want to know about the morality of murder I ask if it is Right or Wrong. You may not believe that it is Right or Wrong - in which case you don't believe in morality.

I fully believe that you're a moral skeptic, but what I disagree with is your assertion that evolution has anything to do with morality as a normative system.

[74. Wayne said the following at 1:40 PM on Feb 28:]

74

I think Al on post #72 hit the nail on the head. Evolution itself cares nothing for morality. It cares only that the fittest organisms that can survive in our world do so, whether by adapting thru mutation or finding a place on this world where thier unique qualities allow them to survive.

Humans are an exception to this rule. We have survived on this world for a short amount of time (unlike the alligator)but we have applied limits to our evolution because of social, moral, or religious beliefs. There are certian things we will not do or be allowed to do by the majority to advance our species.
Amir's many examples while abhorrent to us all (including myself) would or could impact human evolution in a positive manner. We as humans try to balance what evolutionary advances we can make in our species with what is or feels morally right. While this is a subjective view of who you happen to be talking to at the moment, nevertheless it is true.
So how do we explain morality? What basis do we have to say what is good or evil? Do we base it off some Religious point of view? or do we base it off a social or economic point of view? Anyway you look at it there are flaws to any framework you could contruct that could be used to define morality.
Having said that, what frameworks exist or could exist to define morality.

Morality as define by the dictionary: A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct

1) Social or Governmental organizations - what society deems as moral. this type of moral code can change drastically and quickly. (ex. Nazism, Communism, Democracy, PETA, KKK)

2)Religion: - what your god or gods have told you is moral. this is a more enduring morality but can still change over time (ex. Christianity, Islam, Buddism)

3) Any framework that allows the improvement or perpetuation of our species without regard to social or religious moral limitations can have a system of morals also.

It is safe to say that any discussion to come up with a finite definition of what is morally right or wrong is pointless.

[75. Kevin Peters said the following at 2:02 PM on Feb 28:]

75

I know this is off topic but,
As a Christian looking at my faith, I see nothing in the basic idea of evolution that contradicts my belief. What is it that Darwinists have against the idea that a creator has His "hands" in the process, even if just setting up the laws of it? Also what issue do other Christians have with Evolution? Adam and eve were created by God. After they were sent out of the garden they had children. One of those children, Cain, got married, not to his sister but to a woman from the Land of Nod. Were did the people of Nod come from? **THIS IS MY PERSONAL THOUGHT**. What if they evolved from apes? That doesn’t change the fact that God created everything. This is just my understanding but maybe Evolution is not some horrible evil idea. Maybe, just maybe, it's another aspect of God’s wonderful creation.

[76. Kevin Peters said the following at 9:02 AM on Feb 29:]

76

Morals are affected by another aspect of humanity, free will. I can choose to follow the basic morals of society or not. How does free will fit in to evolution. Why would free will develope through evolution. There is also the idea that my own understanding (or how I think) in a situation, and how I understand the morality of it, may effect how I react. Ex. killing in war. Even on the same side some believe it is necessary and some do not.
As understanding of a situation changes the "right" course of action changes.

[77. Jackie said the following at 11:39 PM on Mar 1:]

77

There is a saying that I really like and it is - There is a principle which is a bar against all information,which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a person in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation. Thanks

[78. Dan said the following at 10:24 PM on Mar 3:]

78

When pondering Darwinists or Christians committing crimes or other atrocities, it should be noted that a Christian committing any form of harm against someone else does so AGAINST the morals of Christianity, whereas a Darwinist does so within the realm of Darwinism. The Darwinist realm is one that suggests no ultimate or immediate consequence for harming another, whereas the Christian moral system exists with the notion of ultimate consequence.

[79. Cory said the following at 8:24 PM on Mar 5:]

79

Dan, right on.

In fact, survival of the fittest demands that we slay the weak, the sick, the old, the retarded, the maimed, the crippled, the non-reproductive.

Contradiction, means one of our premises is wrong. Is it Morality? Or is it Survival of the fittest?

See: Eugenik

Pretty sick stuff. I'm all for morality, but evolution still needs to figure out what the heck it means to change a species--and how it happens.

[80. John said the following at 9:32 AM on Mar 6:]

80

Kevin,

Cain DID marry his sister, or a daughter of one of his sisters or even a grand daughter.

We all come from Adam and Eve, after them, brothers married sisters.

Macroevolution is very much in contradiction to the bible.

[1. Jacob Douvier said the following at 10:25 AM on Feb 21:]

1

Tom,
If you are not already familiar with it, you should get a hold of philosopher Alvin Plantinga's "An Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism." He offers an interesting argument that evolutionary naturalism cannot account for the human mind as being something epistemically reliable, since natural selection favors traits that increase a creature's survivability, not epistemic reliability. Certainly the antelope who cuts and runs at the shaking of bush will survive longer than the one who stops to consider whether it is the wind or a lion. Anyway, it's a interesting argument I thought you might be interested in.

[2. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:40 AM on Feb 21:]

2

Tom:

That would certainly appeal to the argument from morality approach, similar to that expressed by C.S. Lewis. Not a perfect line of reasoning, but still better than anything the Darwinians can offer.

While it is logically true that one can be moral without being Christian (or even Theist), empirically the record of Atheism on a mass scale has not been good at all.

WND columnist Vox Day recently exposed the fallacies of the Atheist trinity of Hitchens, Dawkkins, and Dennett in his book The Irrational Atheist.

Even Dennett, arguably the most intellectually honest of the New Atheists, seems to acknowledge the difficulty of defining a standard for morality sans a religious framework. His proposed solution--a quasi-democratic approach--is pretty weak.

Now this is not a slam against all evolutionists--as all evolution supporters are not Atheists--but rather against those who think that evolution somehow guarantees that we will reach a higher state of morality.

One only needs to look at the mass carnage of the last century--and the great start we have had in this century (between slaughters in Darfur and child trafficking worldwide and even the global advancement of Islammunism) to see that it is hardly so.

[3. Tom Neven said the following at 10:47 AM on Feb 21:]

3

Jacob

While I haven't read Plantinga's book, I'm familiar with the argument, and it's a strong one.

The example I remember reading (not sure if it was Plantinga's or someone else's) is you see a stone along the road that has the words "Chicago: 50 Miles" chiseled into it. If you assume an intelligent person of good will put the stone there, you can have epistemic certainty that Chicago is indeed 50 miles away. But if you believe the apparent words are just the product of random forces of nature such erosion and weathering, you might marvel at how they resemble intelligent information but still have no epistemic certainty that Chicago is 50 miles away.

The same is true of our senses. If we believe they are the creation of an intelligent designer, put there for the intent of giving us accurate information about the world around us, then we can for the most part trust what they tell us. (The "most part" exception is for things such as optical illusions and other sensory tricks that can be explained scientifically.) But if we believe our sensory organs are merely the product of purposeless evolution, we can have no epistemic confidence that they're giving us true information.

Compare this to Richard Dawkins' statement that when we look at nature and see evidence of design, we must remember that it's only the appearance of design, since we all know there is no design in nature!

Wow, if only Dawkins knew how silly he sounded sometimes.

[4. Josh said the following at 10:50 AM on Feb 21:]

4

Naturalism and materialism as moral philosophy certainly is difficult to justify, but I still fail to see a necessary link between Darwinian evolution and the collapse of moral beliefs. Evolution does not entail naturalism or materialism, and labeling those who hold these worldviews as "Darwinist" seems to be a misnomer or a deliberate attempt to cast aspersions on a (I would argue) innocent biological framework. To a certain extent I would consider myself "Darwinist" simply because I recognize the importance of his ideas to our paradigm of biology.

[5. Matthew said the following at 11:02 AM on Feb 21:]

5

The problem with this approach is that it's a bit of a strawman. If we say that Communism and Nazism are the end result of evolutionary and scientific naturalism, one could throw spiritwaterblood.com in our faces as an example of why one shouldn't be a Presbyterian or the colonial atrocities as an example of why one shouldn't be a Christian. We say, "that's not the real and authentic way of dealing with the implications of the Bible!" and most evolutionists would say that genocide, Nazism, Stalinism, etc. is the same mis-application of the implications. Dylan Klebold is as good a spokesman for evolutionary naturalism as Fred Phelps is for Christian thought. People will misuse whatever philosophy they wish, whether it is Christian or otherwise, to justify horrific acts.

Most non-theistic moral philosophy either centers around what "works," some form of utilitarianism, or natural law. Either way, there are ways to construct a decent moral philosophy, it's just a lot trickier than "God said so."

Furthermore, if we have a Christian moral philosophy, people are just as able to say that they don't see things the way that we do (just like the theoretical thief in your example.) If they are unconvinced, they won't obey (or they'll obey out of fear of punishment.) What's the difference between God's moral philosophy and an atheistic moral philosophy if you are going to break it anyway?

I say this not because I don't subscribe to the idea that God determines what is right and wrong (I do), but because this is a weak argument. I've tried it, my friends have tried it, and we've gotten rebutted.

[6. John said the following at 11:07 AM on Feb 21:]

6

Tom,

Try telling all this to these guys:

http://www.evcforum.net/

[7. farmer Tom said the following at 12:08 PM on Feb 21:]

7

Matthew,

I'm not sure I follow your thoughts here,...

are you suggesting that because someone out debated you that morality and where it comes from are no longer debatable?

Can you explain yourself further?

Please, thank you.

[8. JB said the following at 12:36 PM on Feb 21:]

8

Tom,

I think you shouldn't conflate the theory of evolution with strict materialism. Plenty of biologists believe in God. For example, the famous Leakeys, the anthropologists who did some groundbreaking work on human origins, are devout Christians. And, on the other hand, plenty of people were materialists before Darwin - Lucretius comes to mind. I'm not sure why you even mentioned Darwin. Sure, it's possible to believe in evolution and strict materialism, but it's also possible to believe in Christianity and be racist. Correlation does not imply causation.

As for your moral argument, I wonder why Dawkins couldn't be a Kantian. Kant argues that our fundamental moral judgments come from a priori reasoning. Morality requires only the ability to reason introspectively and depends nothing on what we think is in the world. If Dawkins can reason, shouldn't he be able to find this ground for morality? Whether that morality evolved or is part of the structure of reason is immaterial if he acknowledges what his reason in fact tells him.

[9. John said the following at 12:53 PM on Feb 21:]

9

Definitely NOT a strawman.

Tom's argument is similar to pointing out to someone when they say, "There are no absolutes.", that what they just said implies an absolute!

That's what Tom's argument does. It points out that morality begs a standard. Unless that standard is universal, it ain't a standard.

Evolutionists/athiests, whatever, want to have their cake and eat it too. Either you recognize that the logical conclusion of absolute morals is a giver of them or you are living illogically. There's no middle ground.

[10. John said the following at 1:01 PM on Feb 21:]

10

JB,

Then the question is where does "a priori reasoning" come from?

And, ultimately, all morality matters squat if there is no judgement after this life.

[11. Matthew said the following at 1:38 PM on Feb 21:]

11

farmer Tom,

What I'm saying is that you can turn these same arguments on a theistic moral philosophy, thus, these are not good arguments.

Point 1: People still commit atrocities even when they claim to have the Bible as their moral guide. Christians (and non-Christians claiming to be Christians) have used and still use the Bible to justify racism, murder, slavery, and disgusting hatred. If we want to say that scientific naturalism logically results in Nazism/Communism/whatever, then any opponent of ours could say that believing in the tenets of Christianity results in all those bad things that I mentioned above. If we say, "that's not true Christianity," then our opponent can just as easily say "that's not true scientific naturalism."

Point 2: You can come up with fairly reasonable atheistic moral structures. You just have to make everyone else agree with you that they are reasonable for them to work in society. If a thief chooses to steal, force is required to stop him and that force is justified by the utilitarian ethics that the society he lives in has embraced.

Point 3: Christian moral philosophy faces the same dilemma: if a thief chooses to steal, force is required to stop him. That force is eventually justified by God's moral law, but either way you have to use force in order to enforce your moral code.

I am not saying in any way that morality isn't debatable. It is debatable. I am saying that trying to make evolution and scientific naturalism look inconsistent by saying that they always have an untenable moral philosophy attached to it is just not a good argument. It makes sense to you (and it makes some sense to me, too), but there are plenty of atheists who have a logically defined moral worldview working from the presupposition that there is no God.

I hope that makes sense to you. I think that you and I probably agree on 99% of what Tom is saying because people do use evolution and naturalism to justify bad behavior, but what I am trying to say is that such a justification is by no means a foregone conclusion.

[12. Jethro said the following at 2:52 PM on Feb 21:]

12

Matthew raises a good point, and he's right, it is a strawman. I've always hated this argument of 'oh look what Stalin did'. It's weak and reeks of desperation. Look at the crusades. People on all sides have done terrible things in the pursuit of their beliefs.

Anyway, re morality itself. Tom's argument of power vs morality is interesting. How do we know that's not what it really is though? Maybe it is simply a matter of the powerful imposing their will on the less powerful. Over time we have come to view this as standard. We have come to label it as 'moral'. If Darwinists simply admitted this was an issue of power though, I think Tom et. al. would still object. Why?

[13. andrew spivack said the following at 3:10 PM on Feb 21:]

13

Sigh... same old argument. Debunked millions of times. OK, let's do it for the million+first time.

Are there moral absolutes? Yes, there is only one: the species must survive. All else is subservient to that absolute. From this standard we get all the religious morality, and all the non-religious morality. At their root is not an imaginary god, but real evolutionary pressure. Thus "thou shalt not murder" is certainly not a moral absolute. As a former Marine Mr. Neven should be well-acquainted with unquestioning killing of other human beings, but to spare his feelings it's not technically called "murder". However, "do not murder" is a good guideline, which applies to the vast majority of everyday situations. Of course there are times when not committing murder actually lessens the survival potential of the human species (or your immediate, genetically similar grouping), in which case murder becomes moral.

So yes, there is an objective moral standard. Always has been. It's just that for millenia we had no concept of evolution, yet had this innate sense of "morality". So when we invented gods to explain the universe we found it convenient to dump this vague notion of morality into their laps. We simply didn't know any better. Now we do, and now it's blatantly obvious that "god's morality" is simply the cultural morality of the people who wrote the particular mythology. Thus not only is it perfectly possible to be moral without belief in god, on average an intelligent atheist should be more moral than an average believer. After all, an atheist bases his moral judgment on the situation at hand, not on a rule book which can be wrong from time to time. Of course this is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the vast majority of religious people do the same thing, thankfully they ignore the supposedly "divine laws" when it's clear that they are in conflict with reality. So in practice most atheists and most religious people get their morality from the exact same source. It's just that atheists recognize it, whereas religious people like to make a big spectacle about how they're superior because of the supposedly supernatural origin of their ethos.

P.S. This will likely not get posted by the board sensor. Call it a hunch. If it does, let's see if Mr. Neven bites on the "murder" vs. "killing" bait I threw out there. My bet is... hook, line and sinker.

[14. Sheridan said the following at 4:18 PM on Feb 21:]

14

Andrew Spivack:

Basically what you're saying is that their are no 'absolute' morals, bar survival of the species.
So I ask you. Is rape wrong in your eyes? Is theft? Is pedephilia?
Murder isn't a hard subject for you to explain, of course its obvious. Murder generally goes against the 'moral absolute' of survival of the species.
What about these other acts that are considered, generally by athiests and Christians alike, as immoral?
There are some evolutionists that believe that rape is just a part of man's psyche...since we came from animals anyway etc. Do you hold that belief? Would you happily still hold that belief if your wife or daughter got raped?
How then, if you understand rape, theft ect, is wrong...did you come to that undestanding?
Because it must be wrong because it 'harms people'?

But there you have a problem. Evolution teaches one absolute. you mentioned it. after that, everything goes...if it 'feels' right then do it.
The whole 'Im not hurting anyone so I must be a good person' philosophy.

But that doesnt explain pedephilia.
Most pedofiles would say they do their acts out of 'love' for a child.
They would say they are not hurting anyone. Then how do you tell them its morally wrong? What do you do in a situation (that is so common today)
where one person feels like they are being harmed by another, but the person harming them believes he is doing the right thing? On what do you base your moral judgement? You have nothing but ONE absolute that solves nothing in this case.

[15. andrew spivack said the following at 4:58 PM on Feb 21:]

15

Sheridan, please re-read my post. Then pause. And think. NO WHERE did I say "if it feels right -- do it". Although this is usually true (sex, eating, working out etc. all feel good), this is not always the case.

All the things you mentioned are usually morally wrong because they hurt the survival of the species. For instance, pedophilia is usually wrong because a pregnancy by a girl who is not ready can cause both her and the child severe damage if not death. Because the trauma of sex before a girl is ready can cause her to not have normal sex life later on, reducing her reproductive abilities, which hurts the species. There are other problems as well. Note, it does not matter what a pedophile "says", only your religion values words, evolutionary drives don't care a jot. Theft is usually wrong because it moves resources from those who contributed to society to those who didn't, reducing the survival potential of the more productive members. Also, this reduces the incentives to work hard, and hard work is what aids in the survival of the species or the society.

I could easily keep going, these are softballs. But I'll move on to a more important point: "morality" is the codification of things which usually, in an overwhelming majority of cases, increase the survival probability of our species. Written moral codes exist to simplify our analysis of everyday situations, where you need to make decisions quickly. Most animals have those very same codes, but they lack the written language to convey them. So yes, all morality is derived from the one, single, overwhelming evolutionary imperative. It is not always obvious how, but with a little thought it does become clear. And that is the moral standard by which all others are judged.

[16. farmer Tom said the following at 6:47 PM on Feb 21:]

16

andrew spivack,

Yep, You've got it all figured out.

There is no moral reason to consider rape or incest as anything other than propagation of the species, which is good, so we can not call it evil.

And as Jethro admits the debate is really one of power,
Maybe it is simply a matter of the powerful imposing their will on the less powerful.

And in a Darwinian worldview the survival of the fittest is what matters, therefore it is moral for me to steal your wife, rape your daughter and destroy your city with nuclear weapons because, I have that power. Power is the only arbitrator of morality, and the one with the most power is the most moral.

So you are either advocating anarchy where "every man does that which is right in his own eyes" or communism where the state determines right and wrong, deciding who can live or die and everything belongs to the state. A belief system which establishes morality based on raw power is what evolutionary principles lead to, is that what you guys want?

See Andrew wants to assert that atheist have moral principles based on the situation, and I agree with that, the problem is that he suggests Christians do the same thing. And maybe they do, because they are sinful people. But this part of his argument is wrong,After all, an atheist bases his moral judgment on the situation at hand, not on a rule book which can be wrong from time to time. God's Word is not wrong, "Thy Word is Truth". I believe Scripture is infallible and inerrant. Since some of you worship science and reject the Biblical account of the creation, you consider the Bible to be in error.

[17. John said the following at 7:14 PM on Feb 21:]

17

The argument is not:

"Atheist and Darwinists have done bad things, so they are not moral, so morality must come from a good God..."

The argument is:

The logical conclusion of darwinism, atheism and any philosophy that bars the supernatural is that morality is subjective, not objective. If this is the case, then anything ultimately goes, whether beneficial to the species or not. Trial and error.

For anyone to say something is wrong, they are making a philosophical statement. That statement itself is outside the realm of science. It is not testable.

That's where, among others, those philosophies fall apart. People who believe them want to have it both ways. They want to live as if morality matters, but without a universal, transcendent standard, it doesn't.

Taken to the logical conclusion, there would have to be an ultimate judge who carried out punishment for those who live immorally, because we all know that not everyone suffers the consequences of their immoral actions before they die. Often only their victims suffer.

So without that ultimate judge, it would be logical to get away with as much as you can before you die, because you're not going to have to pay for it.

But, for morality to actually matter, there has to be a judge on the other side.

He is also the same who write morality (the law) on everyone's hearts, so nobody has an excuse.

Sorry, deny it all you want, we're going to have to answer for every thought, word and deed.

If you think not, then go out to rob, cheat and steal, for tomorrow you may die! (It's the congruent thing to do):)

(And please, seriously, don't start with the crusades as an example of "bad christians". It's old and tired and totally unrelated to Christianity. Next you'll bring up the Salem Witch Trials or Galileo. Tired and old, old and tired.)

"but there are plenty of atheists who have a logically defined moral worldview working from the presupposition that there is no God."

Read above, clearly they do not. That which is logical in their arguments are barrowed from theism.

andrew,
Sorry, but you've been weighed and found wanting.

Boy, what fun. Imagine what could be justified in the name of "survival". That's real objective. LOL.

[18. Jethro said the following at 7:35 PM on Feb 21:]

18

John,

Assuming I gloss over the numerous and fundamental flaws in your reasoning for the moment, answer me this simple question:

How do we know (beyond anything more than personal choice and belief) that the God who judges is the God of the Bible and not the God of Islam? Prove it to me.

[19. Josh said the following at 7:53 PM on Feb 21:]

19

John:
The logical conclusion of Darwinism is not subjective morality. Nothing about Darwinism inherently presupposes the absence of the supernatural. To make the claim that natural selection is the overarching motivator behind biological systems doesn't preclude the "interference" of the moral facet of human behavior. I am still at a loss to find a solid reason why anyone here on Boundless sees a necessary link between Darwinism and moral anarchy.

I think your arguments against an atheistic morality are begging the question in favor of a definition of morality that inherently needs the supernatural. Naturally, the atheist won't accept a definition of morality that you put forth, just as you don't accept their definition of morality. Really the debate about a non-Divine source of morality is a question of definition, and the atheist is perfectly justified in rejecting a definition that appeals to objective values as long as their definition of morality remains consistent ("survival", or what have you).

And I do believe that the "bad Christian" examples ring true and relevant. They show how anyone can skew an ideology into sin, just as many have done with Darwin. It's a good way for us to orient ourselves straight again and look at philosophies as they are, not as we project onto them.

[20. Mike Theemling said the following at 8:33 PM on Feb 21:]

20

andrew spivack,

Thanks for your posting. As stated for others, if the ultimate morality is "the species must survive" then a lot of human behaviors should not be considered "wrong" from a purely evoluationary standpoint.

For example, you haven't answered Sheridan's question on how rape could hurt the survival of the species. Propogation, whether consentual or not is usually beneficial to the species as a whole. It allows genetic variation, produces offspring that can help, etc. (unless for example in a closed system like Easter Island where the consumption of resources did not match the growth rate). In many other species (such as insects), the female is the one with the power to kill the male. This gives her the freedom to select the "best" mate perhaps. Or in other instances in animals males fight over females. That is evolution at work according to the value system. So according to evolutionary values, why would rape not be permissible? After all, it's the male who is stronger than the female and since he is able to overpower her must be "fit" enough to carry on the seed.

farmer Tom's posting is somewhat extreme but overall is accurate. If in fact it's about species survival and domination, then evolutionary values would defend mass genocide. Obviously the "weaker/inferior" races couldn't defend themselves so they deserve to be eliminated to make way for the stronger, superior ones. Why should compassion be showed towards those that are infirmed and probably won't contribute to society(species) like those starving in Africa?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and would like to hear more about your position. But the point is that not ALL behaviors can be explained through the evolutionary model. Compassion towards those of a fellow species is one thing, but compassion towards those who by Natural Selection's scale would score low doesn't seem to make much sense.

[21. Sheridan said the following at 8:41 PM on Feb 21:]

21

I won't keep arguing with the likes of Andrew, not because he has me stumped like he hopes, but because it gets none of us anywhere. I am beginning to wonder why he is even commenting on Boundless. He is smart enough to know that not one person he is arguing with are gonna change their minds. Why not just jump on the hundreds of pro evolution pages get his other 'intelligent' friends to pat him on the back?
Sure, label us simple, and unintelligent if you will. If we are wrong as you say, well, we have nothing to lose but a bit of pride.
But if YOU are wrong, you lose a lot more. You have to answer to God.
Don't believe in God? Thats fine...but then why are you here?

[22. JB said the following at 12:48 AM on Feb 22:]

22

John,

A priori reasoning is reasoning from fundamental principles which can be reached through introspection. It is distinct from a posteriori reasoning which uses as a starting point facts about the world around us. Kant argued that we could, through the pure power of reason, come to the fundamental principle of morality, the categorical imperative. His first formulation of the imperative was, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." From here, we can make arguments for things like the immorality of lying and stealing. I suppose if you wanted, you could say that the categorical imperative is not reached by pure reason, but is in fact God's command written on men's hearts. It wouldn't really matter - the point is that you can find an absolute, universal morality without resorting to anything outside one's self. I don't see, then, why Dawkins couldn't read Kant and, without making reference to any objectionable metaphysics, come to an objective and absolute morality.

Maybe the issue would be better illuminated by asking why it is that you (and, presumably, Tom) believe that the existence of God resolves the problem of morality. That is, why does God get to define what is moral and what isn't? It can't be because God can reward or punish us - that power wouldn't yield morality, just obedience or disobedience. And it can't simply be because God has stated His moral law for us in the Bible. Even if God has created us, why does the act of genesis necessarily imply moral authority? One can at least conceive of an evil Gnostic god, so creation can't be the source of morality.

I don't really have an answer, but it might be a profitable line of inquiry. Socrates argued that the concept of the Good comes prior to gods and that the search for morality couldn't use gods as a reference point. Maybe if you can articulate why and how God is an adequate reference point for morality, then it would be easier to see if other such reference points are possible.

[23. JB said the following at 1:12 AM on Feb 22:]

23

Andrew,

I'm confused by your argument. Are you saying that organisms in fact act for the survival of their species and that all human moral conventions are subconsciously based off of that biological fact? Or, are you saying that the survival of the species is a Good and that, therefore, all moral laws should seek to promote that Good?

Because if you're saying the former, then you're making an irrelevant point to this debate. It may or may not be the case that all law-givers and moral philosophers in history have been influenced by some genetically hard-wired imperative to preserve Homo sapiens. That is, however, a completely separate question from whether those laws and moral systems are right. The accuracy of what the apostle Paul or JS Mill or Immanuel Kant tell us about morality stands or falls on the strength of their arguments alone. It may be the case that Paul had a gene that made him value the survival of humanity, but that does not mean that he could not also have been relating to us a revelation from God. Kant could have the same gene, but that doesn't mean his argument for morality is not also valid. If you want to deny the existence of objective morality, you're going to need to engage the arguments, not simply imply that the arguments were made from biological motivations.

If you mean the latter, I think you are making a logical mistake. It is a fact that organisms act so as to preserve their species, yes, but recognizing that fact is very different from deeming it good, bad, or indifferent. There is a gap between what is and what ought to be. That fact that something *is* the case does not mean that it *ought* to be. So, if you want to say that species survival is good, then you need to argue the point. You can argue that I am disinclined to kill because of biological factors, but that has no bearing whatever on whether killing is right or wrong.

[24. Bob said the following at 2:48 AM on Feb 22:]

24

John, Good response,

Andrew, there is no basis for initial hypothesis

"Are there moral absolutes? Yes, there is only one: the species must survive."

In the Darwinian world it is survival of the fittest, therefore it is Not, the species must survive. But, I must survive.

Which debunks your entire argument that 'morality' is as a result of not wanting to harm the species.

[25. farmer Tom said the following at 5:18 AM on Feb 22:]

25

Andrew,

You can't give a straight answer, can you?

You say,

For instance, pedophilia is usually wrong
Well is it or isn't it? I expect your answer to be, "depends on what the meaning of is, is". From your previous answer, one can conclude that you think it is wrong to rape little girls, but you wouldn't have any problem buggering little boys, is that right?

Theft is usually wrong
Are you saying it's sometimes ok? Are you saying it's ok for the government to steal just not individuals? Or are you saying that there really is no such thing as private property, everything belongs to the state? Again your communist tendencies are showing up.

You can't give a straight answer, because in doing so you would have to admit to moral absolutes, and you must avoid that to support your worldview.

[26. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:16 AM on Feb 22:]

26

Matthew says: The problem with this approach is that it's a bit of a strawman. If we say that Communism and Nazism are the end result of evolutionary and scientific naturalism, one could throw spiritwaterblood.com in our faces as an example of why one shouldn't be a Presbyterian or the colonial atrocities as an example of why one shouldn't be a Christian. We say, "that's not the real and authentic way of dealing with the implications of the Bible!" and most evolutionists would say that genocide, Nazism, Stalinism, etc. is the same mis-application of the implications. Dylan Klebold is as good a spokesman for evolutionary naturalism as Fred Phelps is for Christian thought. People will misuse whatever philosophy they wish, whether it is Christian or otherwise, to justify horrific acts.

Here's the problem, Matthew: it's not just Leninism, Stalinism, and Nazism. And also keep in mind that as we discuss these systems, we are looking at them in hindsight. In the early 1900s, when Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, and Wilson were getting their footholds, the academic elite and policy wonks looked at the European totalitarians in a very positive light. From Dubois to Dewey to Lippman and even Woodrow Wilson himself, the leading academics of the time lauded the experiment in totalitarian and praised its evolutionary nature.

On the other hand, there are two fronts on which evolution is being challenged: the scientific front and the social front.

On the scientific front, macro-evolution has no more empirical proof than Biblical Creationism. Neither are empirical. (On the other hand, Micro-evolution, which few Creationists contest, is very empirical.)

On the social front, it is perfectly valid to challenge Darwin on the merits of the application of his theory, even if--as you suggest--those were "misapplications". It is also appropriate to compare the "misapplications" of Darwin with the "misapplications" of the Bible.

Surely you cannot be kidding to put Fred Phelps in the same boat with Stalin, Mao, and Mussolini!

Even the "misapplications" of the Bible--COMBINED!--are VERY mild compared to those "misapplications" of Darwin.

The annual execution rate during the Spanish Inquisition, for example, was less than the annual execution rate of Texas.

Even if you add all the Colonial atrocities, the Indian wars, the Crusades--most of which were peripherally Christian at best--you wouldn't scratch the surface of the damage wrought by the "misapplication" of Darwin.

[27. Jane2 said the following at 7:17 AM on Feb 22:]

27

Tom's post gives me a lot of food for thought. I'm not schooled in the Darwinian worldview and moral philosophy but I would like to comment even though it might not be that relevant to the post, per se.

Andrew says,
"Are there moral absolutes? Yes, there is only one: the species must survive."

I'm not trying to stir the waters but his question and answer got me thinking.

Jesus Christ is my moral absolute. [Actually I could stretch that sentence out and say that Jesus Christ IS the moral absolute].

People do not need to be Christians to know that there is an astounding amount of historical, solid evidence for his birth, death, and resurrection.

His words were recorded by a set of trustworthy individuals. Jesus said a lot of radical things about Himself. He also said that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

He is called "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." And "for by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."

And so I believe the Words of Christ.

It takes a much, much bigger leap of faith to believe in any worldviews outside of a biblical worldview.

Books like More than a Carpenter and Case for Christ go more thoroughly into the historical valid examination of Jesus Christ.

As much as I like Logic and Philosophy, I'm not that great at those debates and am not good at debating the "moral implications of a Darwinian worldview and, more broadly, of the worldview called "scientific naturalism," the belief that all that exists is matter and energy." I can leave that into more trustworthy hands.

But then again, I don't have to be. My focus is on Christ. I fix my eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of my faith.

[28. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:00 AM on Feb 22:]

28

Jethro says: Assuming I gloss over the numerous and fundamental flaws in your reasoning for the moment, answer me this simple question:

How do we know (beyond anything more than personal choice and belief) that the God who judges is the God of the Bible and not the God of Islam? Prove it to me.

For any model of God to be correct, it would be fair to assume that such a model makes the correct assessment of the human condition. On that front, Islam fails, big time.

Islam does not accept the premise of human depravity; in fact, the Islamic model assumes that humans are inherently good and that the only differences are (a) how children are raised and (b) the choices they make for themselves.

The Biblical model, on the other hand, asserts the abject fallenness of humanity against the backdrop of a God who intervenes in time and space to redeem humanity.

Empirically speaking, the Biblical model of human fallenness is correct, whereas the Islamic model of human goodness is not.

Advantage: the God of the Bible.

[29. andrew spivack said the following at 9:16 AM on Feb 22:]

29

Mike, you make good points. But don't think that I've not analyzed the situation. Here is why rape is usually wrong.

Propagation of the species requires not just to have offspring, but to have offspring that survive to reproductive maturity. As such, in species where the offspring are few and sexual maturity takes years to reach (such as all mammals) offspring need to be protected and raised by adults. In a rape victim, we're already losing half the protecting (rapists don't stick around to raise their children), and the mother is far less likely to take care of the child. This is the first point. The second, and more important point, is that in consensual sex the female gets a chance to "screen" the male to make sure these are the genes she wants to pass on. As with all mammals, there is competition for mating with females, and they choose those they feel produce best genetics. This is highly beneficial to the species, since that's basically how evolution works -- selection of positive traits through reproduction. Rape destroys that very foundation -- the element of selection is taken out of the process. Therefore rape is actually one of the most evolutionarily destructive acts possible.

Hope that helps. I will tackle your questions about natural selection a bit later, I don't have time for it right now. But rest assured, compassion, caring for the weak etc. are all readily explained by the evolutionary model. This does not mean it's true, it simply means that evolution does account for the observations of our moral codes.

Sheridan, if you can't stand the heat...

[30. Amir Larijani said the following at 9:48 AM on Feb 22:]

30

Farmer Tom says: For instance, pedophilia is usually wrong
Well is [pedophilia wrong] or isn't it? I expect your answer to be, "depends on what the meaning of is, is". From your previous answer, one can conclude that you think it is wrong to rape little girls, but you wouldn't have any problem buggering little boys, is that right?

Good point, Farmer Tom, as we have had cultures in world history that practiced--even celebrated pederasty. The ancient Greeks come to mind.

[31. John said the following at 9:55 AM on Feb 22:]

31

JB,

If I'm not mistaken, it was Kant, maybe someone else; the point remains true, that in order for morality to mean anything or have any relevance, there must be an ultimate judge.

Otherwise, there is no ultimate reason for "playing by the rules". Namely because the rules would be subjective under those circumstances.

There are enough ambiguities in life, even with God's standard.

And it is the God of the bible for several reasons some of which are, the God of the bible is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and most importantly holy!

This is what is required of a judge for morality to matter. He has to know everything, there can be no doubt. He has to be able to be everywhere otherwise He would not be all powerful and He has to be all powerful in order to carry out the consequences of His judgments. Finally, He'd have to be holy in order to be incorruptible.

All these are qualities of the God of the Bible and logically necessary for morality to have any meaning.

But, of course, Darwinists and the like want this not to be true, so they can be gods of their own lives and not answer to anyone.

Sorry, to burst your bubble, but ya will.:)

[32. John said the following at 10:10 AM on Feb 22:]

32

"Assuming I gloss over the numerous and fundamental flaws in your reasoning for the moment,"

hahaha. lol.

The only thing glossy is your eyes every time I knock over your house of cards.

Point out one flaw.

Why don't you go back to some other posts where you try to make wild aspersions to avoid logical argumentation so you can finish them before you jump over here to start something that you're not going to finish.

One. Try to point out one flaw. I'll be waiting.

[33. John said the following at 10:38 AM on Feb 22:]

33

"The logical conclusion of Darwinism is not subjective morality."

Yes it is. Read my posts, they explain why.

Here's the question you need to ask: what or who decides what is beneficial to the species and what is not. Trial and error?

"Nothing about Darwinism inherently presupposes the absence of the supernatural"

Except that whole, "Neither God, nor god nor gods created or sustained existence." But other than that, what was your point again?

"I am still at a loss to find a solid reason why anyone here on Boundless sees a necessary link between Darwinism and moral anarchy."

No, not anarchy; might makes right. Who said anarchy? There would not be an absence of morality, but instead, the imposition of morality by who ever had the most force to impose it.

What people have saying, at least me, is that atheist and evolutionists are not living congruent to their beliefs, which is anything goes. Of course it's not really possible to live that way 100%, but that's the point, to say there is no transcendent morality is illogical.

"I think your arguments against an atheistic morality are begging the question in favor of a definition of morality that inherently needs the supernatural."

First, look up what begging the question is. You're misapplying it here. (Or "misremembering" it)

Second, logic necessitates the supernatural. That's logic, not me favoring anything.

"Naturally, the atheist won't accept a definition of morality that you put forth, just as you don't accept their definition of morality."

Right, because their definition is wrong and the definition I give is correct.

"Really the debate about a non-Divine source of morality is a question of definition, and the atheist is perfectly justified in rejecting a definition that appeals to objective values as long as their definition of morality remains consistent ("survival", or what have you)."

I could just let that speak for itself, but just incase you really believe what you are saying, I can't help but help.

Yes, definitions matter. People like to define things to favor their argument. That's what non-believers (and believers can be guilty, too) do. The important thing is to be careful about "misdefining" words.:)

Yes, the atheist is perfectly justified "misdefining" words and then living by those wrong definitions using bad logic. I could not have said it better myself.

"And I do believe that the "bad Christian" examples ring true and relevant. They show how anyone can skew an ideology into sin, just as many have done with Darwin. It's a good way for us to orient ourselves straight again and look at philosophies as they are, not as we project onto them."

Well, where to start. The examples given and often given (over and over again) about "bad christians" aren't as horrible as non-christian examples AND are themselves NOT Christian examples! (Inquisition, Crusades, Witch trials, etc) They're catholic examples.

After that, they may have been done in Christ's name, but they were obviously not Christian in nature.

The examples given about Darwinism run amuck are NOT "skewed" applications, but logically consistent with the theory!

[34. andrew spivack said the following at 12:17 PM on Feb 22:]

34

Farmer -- good job. You have figured out the meaning of the term "usually". You win a prize. So yes, theft is sometimes right. Pedophilia is sometimes (though very rarely) right.

I have no idea where you got "communist" in all this, I'm assuming it's your comfort blankie, something you call anyone who disagrees with what you've been told to believe. Therefore I will disregard it, and you, as simply irrelevant to a serious discussion.

Jane2 -- first of all there is absolutely no evidence for Jesus' resurrection, and precious little extra-Biblical evidence for his existence at all. I simply pity the fact that you have chosen to not educate yourself or think for yourself, instead "fixing your eyes on Jesus". Anyone who does that with Jesus, Allah, Doe, Joseph Smith, Buddha etc etc etc worries me. I'm sure you could become good at logic and philosophy. I'm not very good at it either, but that doesn't mean I simply give up.

Amir -- Greeks practiced same-sex pedophilia, and they also gave us the greatest civilization until Renaissance Italy (with the possible exception of China). I'm not defending the practice, but obviously it didn't destroy their society.

[35. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:38 PM on Feb 22:]

35

Andrew Spivak says: Greeks practiced same-sex pedophilia, and they also gave us the greatest civilization until Renaissance Italy (with the possible exception of China). I'm not defending the practice, but obviously it didn't destroy their society.

The issue here, Andrew, was whether the premise that pedophilia is wrong is something you could ascertain purely from a secular, evolutionary, scientific framework. The case for an objective statement of morality on that matter simply is not there.

[36. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:53 PM on Feb 22:]

36

Andrew Spivak says: first of all there is absolutely no evidence for Jesus' resurrection, and precious little extra-Biblical evidence for his existence at all.

That's not true, Andrew. There is no scientific evidence for it, but there is ample eyewitness evidence of it. Scientific evidence is only one type of legally-admissible evidence. Whether or not that evidence is enough to convince you is a different matter, bit the eyewitnesses are there.

Besides, whether or not the practice of pederasty played a role in the downfall of the Greek empire is debatable. We may never know that answer on this side of eternity, but there is substantial Biblical premise that God punishes entire nations for varieties of evils, including widespread practice of sexual perversions.

And those "punishments" often came in the form of collapses that appeared unrelated to the sins for which they suffered.

[37. andrew spivack said the following at 12:55 PM on Feb 22:]

37

whether the premise that pedophilia is wrong is something you could ascertain purely from a secular, evolutionary, scientific framework
Sure, Amir, very easily. First of all, it's easy to see that there are no advantages to pedophilia. It's non-reproductive, as far as I can tell there are no advantages to practicing it, evolutionarily speaking. Please feel free to disagree.

So, since there are no advantages, even a single disadvantage would make the practice immoral, right? Well, apparently you don't know this, but pedophilia is actually quite harmful, especially for girls. For both genders it can stunt sexual and psychological development, which leads to less adapted adults who are less likely to procreate. In girls it can also damage vital reproductive organs, preventing them from having children. That seems to be a bad thing evolutionarily, don't you agree? And in both genders the psychological effects of sexual behavior before onset of puberty severely harm these individuals.

To summarize -- pedophilia has no positives and lots of negatives. Thus it is immoral in light of evolution's one law.

Any more, Amir?

[38. Josh said the following at 1:04 PM on Feb 22:]

38

John:

(Me)"Nothing about Darwinism inherently presupposes the absence of the supernatural"

You replied:
"Except that whole, "Neither God, nor god nor gods created or sustained existence." But other than that, what was your point again?"

By defining Darwinism like that you are misrepresenting what it actually is. Darwinism doesn't presuppose that there is no God, or that there is no Creator. That is a metaphysical question; Darwinism is about how biological systems work, and it has nothing to say about whether there is ultimately a Creator or not. There is no need to read all these philosophical deductions into a purely biological claim. It's like saying that the Theory of Gravity will inevitably cause a husband's hand to fall and strike his wife: therefore, Gravitism (or some similarly contrived philosophy) is the root of domestic violence.

I also find it unfortunate that you don't think Catholics are Christians (I'm Baptist, but a fan of a lot of Catholics and the Church in general). Protestant history isn't squeaky clean by any means either, so its useless to say that all the evil done in the name of Christ is Catholic in nature or done by people who weren't really Christians. And I would argue that they are as bad as "non-Christian" examples of evil. Maybe "atheism" has killed 2 million more people than "Christianity" has or whatever statistic people like to bring up, but the fact is that *anything* the Church does that is evil is worse than anything else the World does. It is worse because it is our business to be better.

[39. Jane2 said the following at 1:17 PM on Feb 22:]

39

Andrew,
There are a few points I would like to disagree with you over a few things.

First, you come off sounding very arrogant and full of yourself. Is this intentional or are you really trying to engage in a conversation? Or do you think it's pointless to have a conversation with somebody that you "pity?"

Secondly, I have educated myself. I do think for myself. I have done the research on what matters most to me. However I am not fully educated in Darwinian thought ...which I freely admit...and I freely admit that I don't need to be in order to educate myself about the world.

Thirdly, there IS a high level of "extra-Biblical evidence for his existence." I have looked into it. Have you? And I sincerely ask this.

And lastly,
I must say, you have taken one of my comments out of context--that I only "fix my eyes on Jesus." I have the facts/evidence of the life of Jesus AND I have the faith to go along with it. [Though I have both, one does not need to be a scholar in apologetics to have great faith in Christ].

It's like the currency analogy. It's probably lame in your eyes. But that's ok, I will say it anyway. It goes something like this: the people who are responsible for identifying counterfeit currency don't need to study all the counterfeit currency out there. All they have to do is study and KNOW how the real currency looks like.

I have studied the real currency and I do know what it looks like. You may disagree. And you have the free will to do so.

[40. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:18 PM on Feb 22:]

40

Andrew Spivak says: Sure, Amir, very easily. First of all, it's easy to see that there are no advantages to pedophilia. It's non-reproductive, as far as I can tell there are no advantages to practicing it, evolutionarily speaking. Please feel free to disagree.

The premise that there are no advantages is a purely subjective one. It would be more accurate to say that there are no reproductive advantages.

And if you wish to go that route, you could make a case against homosexuality on those grounds. One could also make the case against marrying people--even straights--who cannot reproduce. One could also make a case for forced marriages on those grounds.

Do you suggest that any of those things are objectively morally right?

Andrew continues: So, since there are no advantages, even a single disadvantage would make the practice immoral, right?

One could make the case against anything on the "even a single disadvantage" grounds.

Andrew continues: Well, apparently you don't know this, but pedophilia is actually quite harmful, especially for girls.

Pedophiles do not all agree, and there is an entire body of academics that disagrees with that premise.

Even if you were correct, the same can be said for many heterosexual practices.

And one more think, Andrew: please do not try to tell me what I know and what I don't know. If you want respect, then be respectful.

For both genders it can stunt sexual and psychological development, which leads to less adapted adults who are less likely to procreate. In girls it can also damage vital reproductive organs, preventing them from having children. That seems to be a bad thing evolutionarily, don't you agree?

Not necessarily. Psychological factors are not very concrete measurements, and--even in the case of physiological damage--the issue is at which age that occurs.

That is not the same for everyone. Ergo, you're still being subjective here.

While I agree with the premise that pedophilia is wrong, you still have not provided an objective framework.

And in both genders the psychological effects of sexual behavior before onset of puberty severely harm these individuals.

While I agree, there is a whole body of academics out there that disagrees with you on that. The Kinsey studies come to mind. The late John Money of Johns Hopkins certainly disagreed.

Much of our legal framework--which gives pedophiles a pat on the butt--owes its legacy to Kinsey, who was very amenable to the premise that pedophilia was not necessarily a bad thing. (He was also very much a Darwinist.)

To summarize -- pedophilia has no positives and lots of negatives. Thus it is immoral in light of evolution's one law.

That it has "no positives" is a subjective statement. While I agree with you, the pedophiles certainly disagree.

Moreover, a whole body of academics out there disagrees with you.

And the very legal framework that proscribes our treatment of pedophiles rests on the work of a very Darwinian "scientist" who disagreed with you, and with whom a large body of academics agrees.

[41. andrew spivack said the following at 1:41 PM on Feb 22:]

41

Fine, Amir, name a single positive, evolutionary advantage of pedophilia. I can't think of any. From your post it seems that you can. So rather than speaking in hypotheticals, provide these supposed evolutionary advantages.

Since the rest of your post hinges on this hypothetical, which I'm almost certainly you'll be unable to provide examples of, there is not much left to say. Also, your vague claims of "body of academics" hold little to no water. Even if some "academics" think something, unless their thoughts square with the overarching law of evolution, they're wrong. You keep trying to appeal to authority here. I'm telling you where our morality comes from, you're telling me that not everyone agrees with every moral point. So what? Not every Christian agrees on every single moral point, that does not mean morality is irrelevant, does it?

Again, is there a flaw in my logic that you see, or are you disagreeing for the sake of it? Can you find a single thing that I've said that is illogical, that's contradicted by the world as we know? If so, please present it. Your attempts to say "some people disagree with this morality" are pointless. This is precisely why we consider some people immoral! If Kinsey's morality contradicted the one law of evolution, then he was wrong there. It's irrelevant whether he was a "Darwinist", or male, or 5'9" tall or anything else. Believe it or not, we atheists don't have idols. We don't care if someone is brilliant, or shares our beliefs or whatever. We tend to analyze their positions. If Kinsey thought pedophilia was good for modern society, he was wrong, because it contradicts evolution. If any other nebulous "academic" agrees, then I think they're wrong as well.

Jane2 -- your post basically said "well, I don't know much about science or philosophy, but I believe in Jesus". Sorry, that evokes the emotion of pity in me. As for your currency analogy, it's nice. Except in my opinion someone told you that Monopoly money is "real currency", so now unless it looks like Monopoly money you consider it counterfeit. And since you apparently aren't overly bothered with looking up other currencies to see if what you were told is right, you're happy with the Monopoly money. Question is -- why DON'T you study evolution, or "Darwinism"? I've studied Christianity quite extensively. Why don't you do the same?

[42. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:27 PM on Feb 22:]

42

Fine, Amir, name a single positive, evolutionary advantage of pedophilia.

Now you are narrowing your definition of "advantage", and in so doing you are opening yourself to a big-time can of worms. One respondent has already pointed out that--on the basis that you have defined--one could conclude that rape is morally permissible.

Moreover, if you are suggesting that something that has no positive evolutionary advantage is fundamentally wrong, I'm sure there are any number of senior citizens--who enjoy sex lives well past childbearing age--who would take exception. I'm sure the AARP will take your hypothesis under advisement. ;)

In fact, using your definition, I could make the case that evolution is wrong, as nearly every mass implementation of Darwinian principles to society--from Deweyization of our education system to the governmental frameworks of Fascism, Nazism, Maoism, Leninism, Stalinism, and the Khmer Rouge not to mention Mugabe's great experiment in Zimbabwe--has been an unmitigated disaster on a grand scale.

Contrary to your assertion, my argument is hardly resting on hypotheticals. As I said, pedophiles disagree with you on "positive advantages", and Kinsey was hardly a nebulous academic. In fact, he was VERY much a devotee of Darwin.

He certainly was one with whom I take substantial exception for a number of reasons--fact is, his team molested 300+ children with taxpayer funding in their "research"--but nebulous he was not.

Andrew continues: I can't think of any [positive evolutionary advantages]. From your post it seems that you can. So rather than speaking in hypotheticals, provide these supposed evolutionary advantages.

See answer to above.

Also, your vague claims of "body of academics" hold little to no water.

Even if those academics form the basis for our entire legal framework that makes the case for easy treatment of pedophiles?

While I'm glad you agree with me on the evil nature of pedophilia, the Kinsey studies are hardly "vague" or "nebulous".

Andrew continues: Even if some "academics" think something, unless their thoughts square with the overarching law of evolution, they're wrong.

Now we're no longer debating the theory of evolution; you now have established it as a law. On what scientific (and by that I mean empirical) evidence do you do this?

Andrew continues: You keep trying to appeal to authority here. I'm telling you where our morality comes from, you're telling me that not everyone agrees with every moral point. So what? Not every Christian agrees on every single moral point, that does not mean morality is irrelevant, does it?

Sure it does. Of there is no transcendental basis for truth, then right or wrong is just a matter of who has the better artillery.

Andrew: Again, is there a flaw in my logic that you see, or are you disagreeing for the sake of it? Can you find a single thing that I've said that is illogical, that's contradicted by the world as we know? If so, please present it. Your attempts to say "some people disagree with this morality" are pointless. This is precisely why we consider some people immoral! If Kinsey's morality contradicted the one law of evolution, then he was wrong there. It's irrelevant whether he was a "Darwinist", or male, or 5'9" tall or anything else. Believe it or not, we atheists don't have idols. We don't care if someone is brilliant, or shares our beliefs or whatever. We tend to analyze their positions. If Kinsey thought pedophilia was good for modern society, he was wrong, because it contradicts evolution. If any other nebulous "academic" agrees, then I think they're wrong as well.

(1) Again, "nebulous" or "vague" Kinsey was not. Glad to know you disagree with him and his perverted discipiles, but they were in fact quite influential and our society is worse off for it. Team Kinsey, in fact, was the father of the sexual revolution.

(2) Your definitions have shifted. You went from "positive advantage" to "positive evolutionary advantage". Fact is, there are many ways to define "positive evolutionary advantage", and that can include factors that are tangentially related to perpetuation of species.

Besides, Andrew, you even suggested yourself that there is a positive evolutionary advantage.

In your own words: "Greeks practiced same-sex pedophilia, and they also gave us the greatest civilization until Renaissance Italy (with the possible exception of China)"

[43. Matthew said the following at 2:31 PM on Feb 22:]

43

Amir #26,

This is quickly becoming irrelevant, but I would contest your assertion about not scratching the surface. We don't know how many people died from colonialism and slavery (probably the two biggest areas where the Bible was misused to justify racism.) In the Belgian Congo it was probably 5-10 million people, the transatlantic slave trade moved somewhere around 10 million of which 10-20% of them died. That's less than those killed by Communism and Nazism (two very different systems in and of themselves, anyway), but still a significant number.

In any case, it is more abhorrent that these crimes, along with the Crusades and the Inquisition, were committed by Christians supposedly operating under the guidance of the Bible. We would expect sinful humans without God to misuse Darwinism; Christians ought to be held to a higher standard. As Josh said, "*anything* the Church does that is evil is worse than anything else the World does. It is worse because it is our business to be better."

Fred Phelps and people like spiritwaterblood.com are real, and they would do Stalin-like damage if they only had the power. And they would profanely and sinfully justify themselves all the way along with the Word of God.

[44. Jane2 said the following at 2:36 PM on Feb 22:]

44

Andrew,

I'm sorry my post came across that way. It wasn't my intent to be so simplistic.

Can I just speak to you from my personal experience in life?

You said, "Except in my opinion someone told you that Monopoly money is "real currency", so now unless it looks like Monopoly money you consider it counterfeit."

There wasn't someone who told me what currency to believe in. No pastor, no friend, nobody...

I'm not sure but it doesn't look like you want to involve the supernatural in your discussions. But I have experienced the power of Christ in my life. I can only explain it as my eyes being opened to the Truth of His Word. Nobody told me this. All I did was open the Bible. [I know I know I could have picked up any other book--but just stick with me. I'm not here to fight]. I read the gospels. I was convicted. I felt refreshed and Fear of the Lord came upon me as I was reading the words. I, for the first time ever, realized that there was sin in the world and that I was sinful and needed salvation. I asked Christ to be my Lord and Saviour. I did this all in my bedroom, alone, knowing full well the persecuation I would face from my parents once they found out I was now a Christian. And from that point on, the Lord has been changing my heart. It's not by my effort. I have experienced God. I know Him.

I have been called brainwashed and all sort of things. And you might think the same of me. That is ok with me. The thing I long most for others is that they will one day have a relationship with the Lord and experience that joy and peace--which transcends all understanding---.

I do agree that one should be at least familiar to the theory of evolution and other stuff like that. But, in my leisure, I prefer reading different books. If I was still in school and taking a class that challenged my views, I would definitely engage in it more, just so I can stand even-more firm in my faith. But that's just not necessary for me in my every-day life.
There's no need for you to look down on me for it.

Anyway we all have backstories as to why we believe what we believe. Even you. I mean I don't think you were born with all this knowledge. You learned what you wanted/chose to learn and believe in what you want to believe for some reason... right? How did you come upon this path?

[45. John said the following at 2:43 PM on Feb 22:]

45

Andrew's reasoning:

"If it does not advance the species, then it is immoral.

If it advances the species, then it is moral."

How do we know if something advances the species or not?

How should we punish those who act against the species?

Why does the species exist in the first place?

How many women do you actually know who think about the future of the species before sex or marriage? Have you ever visited a state college?

What about abortion? Is it immoral or not? Under your frame work, wouldn’t the answer be, “It depends”?

Now, you can continue to personally attack the other posters in order to avoid actually backing up your own posts, or you can give real answers to real questions.

But, my gut tells me you're not really here to debate. You're here to feed that ego that tells you Christians are so dumb and I'm so smart.

Here's a message to your ego: Stop lying!

[46. andrew spivack said the following at 3:31 PM on Feb 22:]

46

Amir, are you even trying? Several quick, easy points. First of all, I never said that anything that lacks evolutionary advantage is wrong. It's wrong if it not only has no advantages, but also has disadvantages. Senior sex has no evolutionary disadvantages, therefore it's not wrong.

I have no idea where your obsession with Kinsey arises from, nor do I care. Since he's entirely irrelevant to the discussion, I'm skipping this. I'm not sure why you feel I should be defending him.

If you want to know how evolution is established, you can go to talkorigins.org I don't think you can seriously expect me to present the mountains of evidence here.

"Positive evolutionary advantage" is defined solely as what's best for the propagation of the species. I'm not changing the definitions at all, you're dancing around them claiming that I do.

Nowhere did I claim that Greek pedophilia was a positive evolutionary advantage. You're making this up whole cloth.

[47. andrew spivack said the following at 3:53 PM on Feb 22:]

47

Jane2 -- I've said this on a different board, but here's a repeat. You can believe what you wish, it does not affect me. I also, honestly, don't really care about your personal story about how you found Jesus, any more than you care about the personal story of how someone found Allah or Ganesh. Nor do I think you really care how I came to believe what I do. But here's the thing: personal stories don't matter as far as truth, logic and reality are concerned. You can have the most wonderful, inspiring back story, and be wrong. Same goes for me. These are interesting from a psychological standpoint, but not from a standpoint of analysis of what's true, what's not.

I'm sorry I sounded condescending. You're right, I shouldn't have.

[48. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:12 PM on Feb 22:]

48

Matthew says: his is quickly becoming irrelevant, but I would contest your assertion about not scratching the surface. We don't know how many people died from colonialism and slavery (probably the two biggest areas where the Bible was misused to justify racism.) In the Belgian Congo it was probably 5-10 million people, the transatlantic slave trade moved somewhere around 10 million of which 10-20% of them died. That's less than those killed by Communism and Nazism (two very different systems in and of themselves, anyway), but still a significant number.

It certainly is; however, the examples you cite are specifically secular ones. The Belgian Congolese genocide, for example, was hardly an application of Christianity, as Leopold II was a nominal Christian at best whose sentiments toward the Congolese had no religious foundation at all. (Mark Twain's assertions in his satire don't count as historical fact any more than Inherit the Wind accurately describes the Creation-Evolution debate.)

Thomas Sowell--who has extensively researched the realities of the slave trade--has also debunked many myths about the death tolls of slavery.

The takeaways of slavery and colonial rule?

(1) It was definitely evil, but certainly a walk in the park next to Stalin, Mao, Ceaucescu, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Mugabe, Castro, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il...

(2) Slavery has been a staple of every culture in every era of history. And its abolition was almost exclusively the work of the Christian. Even today, the Christian is the leading advocate against child trafficking.

In any case, it is more abhorrent that these crimes, along with the Crusades and the Inquisition, were committed by Christians supposedly operating under the guidance of the Bible. We would expect sinful humans without God to misuse Darwinism; Christians ought to be held to a higher standard.

It is certainly abhorrent that religious leaders led the charge on these matters--in the name of Christianity. On the other hand, the Biblical framework provides the lens through which to objectively judge such actions.

The same Biblical framework from which Wilberforce led the charge to abolish slavery is the same Biblical framework from which we can condemn the Crusades, the evils of Colonialism (which, by the way, pale in comparison to what has transpired in many of these former colonies since the end of colonialism), and even the Spanish Inquisition (in which the death toll was quite miniscule, with the annual execution rate being less than that of the state of Texas.)

Moreover, it is even more abhorrent--and intellectually dishonest--for Darwin's disciples to evade the fact that the worst atrocities in world history were the applications of Darwinists.

As Josh said, "*anything* the Church does that is evil is worse than anything else the World does. It is worse because it is our business to be better."

I disagree. It ought to be a source of shame to Christians when The Church does this, but to suggest that the Inquisition was more abhorrent than the atrocities of Mao would be quite ludicrous.

Fred Phelps and people like spiritwaterblood.com are real, and they would do Stalin-like damage if they only had the power. And they would profanely and sinfully justify themselves all the way along with the Word of God.

And Christians would keep them from getting that power. Just as the Christian marginalized the KKK, and white supremacist groups--they are functionally irrelevant--they will keep Phelps and Company at bay.

Darwinians, on the other hand, have yet to rein in world leaders who seek to inflict their Utopian visions on Mankind.

In fact, it was the other way around: they are often lauded as visionaries and men of "progress", until long after the fact. Even then, many academics refuse to concede the reality of what they did or the framework that made it possible.

Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were lauded by the American and European elite when they rose to power. The American Progressive movement praised them to the hilt, as fascism was looked at as evolutionary progress.

You want a more recent example? Robert Mugabe in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

The bottom line here: beware of what you call "progress".

[49. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:40 PM on Feb 22:]

49

Andrew:

I was waiting for Farmer Tom to chime in on something that you left wide open, but since he is not here--I know he would have jumped on this--I'll take the honors.

While your attempts to make a case against pedophilia using a purely evolutionary framework were very impressive, you inadvertently stepped in it. Big-time.

Let me explain...

When pressed on the matter, you decided on the following standard: for something to be "right", it must have a "positive evolutionary advantage".

Your attempt to deligitimize pedophilia requires a very narrow framework that leaves a moral allowance for the following atrocities:

(a) active euthanasia. A reasonable person, without much effort, can make the case for a "positive evolutionary advantage" of euthanizing people in a variety of circumstances. This case would be substantial, as this can be quantified in terms of positive economic tradeoffs. When the number of people receiving social security benefits exceeds the number of people working and paying into the system, you will see where this goes...

(b) eugenics. There are entire populations of people who (1) are net consumers of economic assets and resources, (2) are always creating political and military instability that negatively impacts the world economy, and (3) reproduce at such rates that they are literally a drag on other major economies. Rather than expend hundreds of billions of dollars toward economic development and humanitarian aid, one could make a very strong case that it is a much greater "positive evolutionary advantage" to the rest of the species to just kill off--or sterilize--these populations.

Bill Bennett, speaking rhetorically, let that cat out of the bag. If "positive evolutionary advantage" is all that matters, I could justify things that would make Hitler and Stalin look like Mother Teresa and Billy Graham.

(c) rape. I could easily make the case that rape provides a positive evolutionary advantage. Especially when one looks at it purely in terms of perpetuation of the species, and especially in certain populations where the birth rates are on a very dangerous downward path.

Here's the problem, Andrew: you can't win this one. This is because, to delegitimize pedophlilia, you have to define a framework so narrow that it allows for genocide, rape, and active euthanasia.

And no, we are not talking mere hypotheticals here. After all, everything I am describing here--except for the legitimacy of rape--has either happened before or is in progress now.

[50. Matt W said the following at 6:42 PM on Feb 22:]

50

If one accepts both evolution and Christianity (a controversial point on this board) the development of "morality", as understood in the narrow sense that Andrew S. has described, can be "explained" in naturalistic terms and from God. When St. Paul talks about the "law written on the hearts of men", we don't think God literally wrote. If we drop these literalistic and anthropomorphic concepts and start thinking of God acting through nature to achieve his will, (secondary causation) these issues become quite trivial.

[51. Michael said the following at 7:12 PM on Feb 22:]

51

In the Ten Commandments, morality is defined as how we relate to God (the first ones), and how we relate to society (the latter ones). It is easy to find pro-human species advantages in the second set, because everything that is immoral about those commandments stems from the fact that they are harmful to humans. But I wonder how anyone would claim an evolutionary benefit for those commandments that relate to God (one God, no idols, do not profane, keep the Sabbath). Clearly, in the biblical view, morality goes beyond what helps or hinders our fellow humankind.

Additionally, the biological basis of morality falls apart when you realize that humans have different standards of moral behavior than animals. For example, many animals will intentionally kill their young, or at least not help them, if they deem their young to be a drain on resources (runts, injured young, etc.). Christians, and most humanists, would consider such treatment of weak or dependent humans as reprehensible. Likewise, many animals, especially of the higher orders, exhibit strong clan-like behavior, even attacking and killing others of their own kind. This, too, is counter to all Christian morality. Indeed, the tendency of humans to exhibit such behaviors is regarded in all Christian teaching as the ascendency of animalistic behavior, the very opposite of moral behavior. In other words, the more we reflect animalistic codes of morality, the more immoral we become.

[52. Michael said the following at 7:22 PM on Feb 22:]

52

John, I do not agree with Andrew either. But you are starting to sound antagonistic, and that is not a quality that will lend credibility to your position. Facts and logic and even debate can be good. Incendiary remarks never help.

[53. Amir Larijani said the following at 7:25 PM on Feb 22:]

53

Andrew says: Are there moral absolutes? Yes, there is only one: the species must survive.

Species die every day. On what objective basis is it morally necessary that the human species survive?

[54. Amir Larijani said the following at 4:07 AM on Feb 23:]

54

Andrew says: Nowhere did I claim that Greek pedophilia was a positive evolutionary advantage. You're making this up whole cloth.

I quoted your own words. Wanna read them again? Here:

"Amir -- Greeks practiced same-sex pedophilia, and they also gave us the greatest civilization until Renaissance Italy (with the possible exception of China). I'm not defending the practice, but obviously it didn't destroy their society."

I didn't make that up; you did. I say this not to ridicule you, but rather to call you to account.

Moreover, you don't seem to get it with respect to your own argument about "positive evolutionary advantages".

I bring up Kinsey because his body of work is the most influential in academia in terms of human sexuality studies. He is to sexuality what Darwin is to biology.

In fact, his experimental framework was Darwinian all the way, as that--in and of itself--provides a "positive evolutionary advantage".

You see, Andrew, using people--especially children--for such experimentation, can be justified under any "positive evolutionary advantage" angle, be it "perpetuation of the species" or any other metric by which we choose to define it.

As I've said, your "positive evolutionary advantages" criteria is hardly a moral one.

Besies, why is it morally necessary that the human species survive? After all, other species die every day.

In a purely secular framework, what objective moral necessity requires that homo sapiens survive as a species?

[55. andrew spivack said the following at 10:46 AM on Feb 23:]

55

Amir, I'll address #53 first, before getting to debunking the longer #49. You have it backwards. It's not "morally necessary for human species to survive". That implies a morality that supercedes the one law I've talked about. Human species have a wired-in instinct that tells them they must do what they can to ensure survival of our species. All species have this same instinct. Those who do not die out quickly. It no more "morally necessary" for our species to survive than it is "morally necessary" for a crocodile to eat meat. If a croc does not eat meat, he dies, as does his genetic line. If a specie, including homo sapiens, did not have a biological drive to survive, they wouldn't. It's this survival drive that leads to morality, rather than morality leading to the survival drive.

This is tantamount to me asking you "what makes god moral?"

[56. andrew spivack said the following at 10:55 AM on Feb 23:]

56

Amir -- first the "why rape is evolutionarily wrong" question. See post 29. Case closed.

Second -- eugenics. I have no idea who these "entire populations" are. Please do tell us. You sound exactly like Hitler. That's scary.

Euthanasia -- I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you. You really need to learn to deal with reality, Amir, your addiction to hypotheticals is rather useless. I honestly thought that your longer post would have a shred of substance, which is why I put off reading it, but I was wrong.

And not only can I win this one, so far I'm pitching a shutout. You're yet to present a single, coherent argument against anything I've said. All you rely upon are "if I cared to, I could..." Well, enlighten us. Care to, for once. As the old saying goes -- put up or...

[57. John said the following at 11:17 AM on Feb 23:]

57

Matt,

We don't know how many people died from colonialism and slavery?

Really? I would think that would not be too hard to finout on the web.

Slavery was largely the business of Catholic countries like Spain and Portugal. As were the atrocities of colonialism.

Brittain, Catholic-light (Church of England), was big into it too, but later was the very country that ended it in the Western hemisphere.

Besides, you act as if slavery has stopped AND that it was a race issue. Interesting. It's still very huge and very non-christian.

"In any case, it is more abhorrent that these crimes, along with the Crusades and the Inquisition, were committed by Christians supposedly operating under the guidance of the Bible."

That's the point, they weren't Christians. Again, you characterize something like the Crusades as totally bad. As if they had been carried for completely evil reasons. They saved Europe from becoming Islamabad! Of course, after the first crusade, they were pretty unsuccessful at recapturing the holy land and pretty messed up besides. But more than any of this, they weren't Christians who carried them out. They were started by the Pope. Christians may have been involved, but it was almost entirely Catholics and hired soldiers.

Again, Darwinism is not misapplied when people use it to justify murder.

And the Church does not do evil. People, under the banner of the Church, did evil and do evil.

Christians can be mistaken and misapply God's word, but none have ever done so to the degree and magnitude of the examples you gave or any where close to the level of Nazism, communism etc.

[58. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:39 PM on Feb 23:]

58

Andrew says: Amir -- first the "why rape is evolutionarily wrong" question. See post 29. Case closed.

Not so fast. You are assuming that the child NEEDS a father in the home. While we would agree that this would be the better solution, it certainly is not logically necessary. Ergo, your case against rape on those grounds is pretty weak.

Andrew continues: Second -- eugenics. I have no idea who these "entire populations" are. Please do tell us. You sound exactly like Hitler. That's scary.

I'll answer this on two fronts:

(a) Sure that argument sounds like Hitler; I am demonstrating the telos of your line of reasoning. If all that matters is "perpetuation of the species", then anything done to make the species stronger--and more likely to perpetuate--would be morally correct. This makes eugenics--which was SPECIFICALLY born from a Darwinian paradigm--and even genocide each morally permissible.

Who are these net consumers of economic capital? I could name several:

(a) Many populations in sub-Saharan Africa to include Sudan, Nigeria, Ethopia, and Niger.

(b) Much of the populations of the Middle East, to include Iran (the country of my heritage), Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The populations have done little over the last 60 years except breed political and military turmoil. This destroys wealth and creates economic instability, which is a "negative evolutionary factor" as it erodes the quality of life for the people who are the better producers.

Ergo, a "positive evolutionary advantage" could be realized by wiping them out. That would free up the natural resources for the developed world, which better-uses those natural resources to produce wealth.

If all that matters is taking steps to create "positive evolutionary advantage", there is no limit to the evil one can justify.

Euthanasia -- I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you. You really need to learn to deal with reality, Amir, your addiction to hypotheticals is rather useless.

As Reagan once said, "There you go again..." assuming you can tell me what I know and what I do not know. Shame shame shame...

Seriously, Andrew, I know quite well what I am talking about. As the Netherlands has already begun experimenting with active euthanasia. And, by the way, Nazi Germany did exactly that, and it was considered a "positive evolutionary advantage", as Hitler used such techniques to purify the "German race".

Not hypothetical, my friend. Quite real, in fact.

When you have people who are retired, and can no longer work, and they are a drag on the economy because the producers must work harder--sacrificing their wealth--to support them, a "positive evolutionary advantage" can be realized through their euthanasia. Especially when they outnumber the people working and producing.

Again, my friend, that is right around the corner. You may wish to call that hypothetical, but to do so would be to buck the Congressional Budget Office, and the Comptroller General.

Andrew continues: I honestly thought that your longer post would have a shred of substance, which is why I put off reading it, but I was wrong.

I thought you could attempt answer substantively. Instead, you have resorted to personal attacks. This is quite regrettable, as I have raised very legitimate points, and those are not hypotheticals but in fact were implemented by devoted Darwinists using the evolutionary paradigm as the pretext.

Andrew continues: And not only can I win this one, so far I'm pitching a shutout. You're yet to present a single, coherent argument against anything I've said.

If you say that, then you haven't really "read" anything I have written, but rather dismissed it without thinking. That strikes me as quite knee-jerk. Fact is, your "positive evolutionary advantage" paradigm leaves wide open any number of atrocities. The record of application of evolutionary thought to public policy is on my side.

Andrew continues: All you rely upon are "if I cared to, I could..." Well, enlighten us. Care to, for once. As the old saying goes -- put up or...

I already have. Want a recap?

(1) Your "positive evolutionary advantage" (PEA) paradigm, while representing a spirited attempt to make the case against rape and pedophilia, fails. In fact, in a previous post, by lauding Ancient Greece, you yourself made a prima facie case that pederasty could pose a PEA.

(2) Your PEA paradigm leaves wide open the systematic application of eugenics, active euthanasia, abuses of humans in experimentation which seeks to find PEAs, infanticide for genetically-unfit children, and even mass extermination of foster children.

Much of that agenda--eugenics, genocide, active euthanasia, abuses of humans in experimentation, and infanticide, has been practiced before in the name of evolutionary progress or utilitarian ethics (which logically follows from your PEA paradigm).

This is real, my friend, not hypothetical. And it represents the telos of your PEA paradigm.

Now, to address your other points...

Here, you said: Amir, I'll address #53 first, before getting to debunking the longer #49. You have it backwards. It's not "morally necessary for human species to survive"

Unfortunately, you seem to be contradicting youself. Want me to quote your original statement?

Here:"Are there moral absolutes? Yes, there is only one: the species must survive. All else is subservient to that absolute."

You originally said that the survival of the species is a "moral absolute" (which is what I meant by "morally necessary")

Now you say that the survival of the species is not morally necessary.

Are you now saying that there are no moral absolutes?

[59. andrew spivack said the following at 2:42 PM on Feb 23:]

59

Amir -- I repeat: where did I claim that same-sex pedophilia is evolutionarily justifiable? I KNOW what I wrote, I'm asking you to either provide evidence that I said what you claim I said, or to apologize to me. My guess is you'll never do either.

I have already said all that I'm going to say about Kinsey, feel free to obsess over him, I will ignore everything dealing with him from now on.

You have anything new, or are you stuck on misrepresenting what I said (I think Bible calls it "bearing false witness") and reeeeeally hoping I'm going to start talking about Kinsey?

[60. Amir Larijani said the following at 2:56 PM on Feb 23:]

60

Andrew: By citing the Greeks--and lauding their society--you certainly inferred a PEA. Do you wish to clarify your statement?

I have no need to apologize to you; you, however, have much for which to answer here, as you have failed to do so.

I have shown you the telos of your PEA paradigm, which has already been demonstrated historically. While future abuses on a grand scale are indeed hypothetical, past abuses on such grounds are historical fact.

That you dismiss historical fact as hypothetical is problematic on any reasonable scale.

[61. John said the following at 3:06 PM on Feb 24:]

61

Amir,

It's quite clear that you are wasting your time with andrew.

In typical fashion, he avoids answer things straightforward, yet insists that he has. He insults, straw mans and throws non sequitur about to delude himself into thinking he's much too smart to believe the bible.

He will never admit to any holes in his reasoning.

He's got it all figured out.

We're all stupid. He's super intelligent.

That's why he won't answer many of the questions addressed to him by me and others.

The only thing he can do is belittle other posters to avoid facing his own logical inconsistencies.

Allow him to enjoy his delusion without continuing to feed his ego.

Responding to him only encourages his delusion. It makes him believe that his opinions actually have some kind of validity.

As they say at the Internet Zoo: Don't feed the trolls!

[62. andrew spivack said the following at 7:18 PM on Feb 24:]

62

Amir -- if you can't see how it's evolutionarily advantageous for a child to have 2 adults protecting and feeding him or her instead of 1, I can't do much to help you.

I'm going to ignore all your comments about people in the Middle East and Africa because a) I'm certain whatever I say will not be let through by the board sensor; and b) commenting would legitimize the vile and disgusting stuff you wrote.

I'll get to the rest of it later. I don't feel like it right now

[63. LisaMarie Goetz said the following at 10:43 PM on Feb 24:]

63

I know I haven't been around here so I apologize for jumping in the middle of your conversation...but I just really am wondering why we do this? Arguing over these tangential issues, simply trying to prove one another wrong, name-calling and demeaning one another...and it comes from both sides, too.
I just don't see how that's positive for anyone, when it comes down to that.

[64. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:56 AM on Feb 25:]

64

Andrew says: Amir -- if you can't see how it's evolutionarily advantageous for a child to have 2 adults protecting and feeding him or her instead of 1, I can't do much to help you.

I didn't mean that there was no positive evolutionary advantatge (PEA) to it; however, the issue is whether a two-parent family is necessary. That it would be more advantageous does not necessarily make a compelling case against the legitimacy of rape, any more than it makes a compelling case for banning illegitimacy.

In a case of catastrophically-low birth rates, a PEA can be legitimized for legalizing rape, as the "negatives" could be adjudged to outweigh the "positives".

What you are failing to account for, Andrew, is that in your scenario, all you need is the "right" set of Darwinians deciding on what constitutes a PEA.

They'll be able to produce their own sets of "scientific studies" to prove their cases. After all, such experimentation would be morally permissible in your line of reasoning, as it is rationalizable as "seeking progress through positive evolutionary advantage".

Andrew continues: I'm going to ignore all your comments about people in the Middle East and Africa because a) I'm certain whatever I say will not be let through by the board sensor; and b) commenting would legitimize the vile and disgusting stuff you wrote.

I'm glad you accept that what I put out there is vile and disgusting (although in your framework that is a purely subjective statement, even if I happen to agree with it). On the other hand, those are among the implications of your PEA criteria.

While I abhor eugenics and any wanton killing, the fact remains: if all that matters is "positive evolutionary advantage"--those vile and disgusting ideas would be progress.

You said it yourself: You're not very good at philosophy or logic. And it shows. Subjecting a line of reasoning to truth tests is hardly about "hypotheticals", especially when some of those "hypotheticals" have been implemented by other countries (and in some cases here) using your very reasoning. And on mass scales.

If positive evolutionary advantage--PEA--defined as "perpetuation of the species" is all that matters, then anything that makes the species stronger, more economically efficient, and more likely to perpetuate, is justifiable as "morally correct" by your definition.

That means the creation of a "master race" is not morally repugnant in your line of reasoning.

In addition, according to your line of reasoning, it would logically follow that any scientific experimentation that seeks to determine elements that would add a positive evolutionary advantage, would also be morally permissible.

That means subjecting women and children, and other races of people, and elderly, and handicapped people, to all sorts of cruel experimentation--in the name of seeking progress through evolutionary change--would be morally permissible. After all, all that ultimately matters is the perpetuation of the species. Since that is the only moral absolute in your framework, it logically follows that seeking a positive evolutionary advantage is a legitimate pursuit.

[65. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:27 AM on Feb 25:]

65

LisaMarie:

I'm hardly insulting Andrew's character, only his line of reasoning.

I'm glad he agrees that pedophilia and genocide and eugenics and rape are all evil.

On the other hand, his positive evolutionary advantage (PEA) criteria doesn't necessarily define those as morally repugnant and--in fact--leaves the door open for their legitimization.

If anything, Andrew's attempt to decry things as evil--using a Darwinian paradigm--is quite impressive, even if it falls short of the proverbial glory.

It also shows how futile the attempt is, as the Darwinian has proven incapable of reining in the world leader who seeks to create a "master race", or engage in societal engineering to create a new man who is subservient to the state (Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao), or the scientist hellbent on using humans in shady experimentation in search of evolutionary progress.

[66. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:39 AM on Feb 25:]

66

John:

Cut Andrew a little slack. Yeah, he's a little fired up, but wouldn't you be if someone was telling you that your moral framework would allow for genocide or eugenics or active euthanasia?

On the other hand, I'd say that enough has been poured out on these pages that others can make up their own minds. Andrew can make assertions about my statements, and I about his, and this could easily devolve into a "DID NOT...DID SO!!" match.

So with that, I will give you all the last word, and move on to other topics that Boundless might put out there for discussion. This has been fun.

[67. farmer Tom said the following at 12:46 PM on Feb 25:]

67

Amir,

I thought about adding my two-cents. But you've already got at least a buck .98 on the table.

Andrew, I would suggest some remedial reading for the guy who just got his head handed to him.

Try The Privileged Plant by Guillermo Gonzalez,
Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe,
Darwin on Trial by Philip E Johnson
and one that will rattle your cage and make you angry,

The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day

BTW, the last one has a disclaimer. It is a crude, rude and in your face beat down of the New Atheists, you know Darwinian materialists, who deny that there is a God. Some of the language and descriptions are, well, course and vulgar.

Andrew, when you get done reading those come back, maybe you'll be able to bring a better game.

[68. Al said the following at 9:30 PM on Feb 25:]

68

Amir brings up a very good point concerning Andrew's argument: Evolution says nothing about the advancement or preservation of a species. It's only imperitive is the survival of the fittest-- not of species-- but of actual genes, or combination of genes. In fact, evolution gladly dispenses with whole species as it retains the most beneficial and "fit" genes-- which may result in entirely new species.

Evolution (and the supposed "morality" of evolution) actually favors *new* species at the expense of old ones, if the new ones are better suited to its biological ecology.

True evolution is rather apathetic about the survival of any species. It in fact applauds a species demise if through it, a more survivable one can arise. That's the entire premise of speciation and naturalistic evolution.

[69. andrew spivack said the following at 11:03 PM on Feb 25:]

69

Al, I'm sorry, what?? Evolution says nothing about the advancement or preservation of a species Er, no. That's the basis of evolution. Survival of the fittest is subservient to that. Most people don't realize that, but it's actually true. Any species which lacks the drive to preserve itself disappears quickly, thus evolution very efficiently selects for those with the highest degree of self-preservation. And in every species preservation of self takes a back seat to preservation of the entire population. In animals we call it "instinct". In humans we call it "morality". Same thing, except humans have a rather hubristic outlook on their own specialness.

Evolution does not favor new species at all, every single species on this planet has a totally ingrained drive that it must preserve itself. New species only arise if old ones fail. That's the crux of my argument. If this is true, and I'm pretty sure it is, that completely explains morality from an evolutionary standpoint.

[70. John said the following at 11:03 AM on Feb 26:]

70

Andrew,

What's the evolutionary basis for hubris?

Where does it fit into your evolutionary paradigm?

What is the evolutionary basis for categorizing ideas as "hubristic"?

Is hubris evolutionarily beneficial or not?

[71. Michael Zacharko said the following at 1:57 PM on Feb 26:]

71

Hubristic - A term that can be attached to anything to give it a sense of purpose,worth or power. Especially useful when you really have nothing to say or do not understand the true relationship or cause of a series of unrelated or diametrical events.An emmotional interpretation Vs a scientific one.
It is difficult for one to envision this casual, indifferent, cold evolutionary process with purpose let alone arrogance or pride. The word "Evolution" refers to a theoretical process or sub-groups of impinging processes. Words like "Drainage System", "Planetary System", "Life Cycle" are of similar usage.
Overall, it lends an air of power to the non extant; similar to the caprice of the Grecian gods of lore.

[72. Al said the following at 2:03 PM on Feb 26:]

72

Andrew,

Natural selection at its base core does not apply to "species" as a whole-- it applies to favorable genetic combinations, whether on the species, group, or individual level. New species do not arise simply *because* old ones die. New specimens arise from old species due to genetic mutation and variation in members of a community, that gradually, and over time, might be so different from the original population that it is unable to backbreed and becomes classified as a new species. There are different reasons why the new variations might become separated from the original population and why these differences aren't exchanged back into the gene pool and become distinct as a population on their own. In any case, based on environmental conditions, populations are selected for and against-- but these new differences must exist prior to selection.

I was inaccurate in suggesting that the old species *must* always die so that the new one survives, and in the same way, Wikipedia's entry on Speciation details four major ways it can happen, none of which require old species to die first before new ones arise, as you assert.

However, one theory regarding why Neanderthals died out has to do with Cro-Magnon man exterminating them. Here we have the opposite of what you describe, and a more "progressed" species actually causes the demise of another sharing a common ancestor, rather than coming into being because fo their demise.

It seems that you conceive of evolution as somehow "considering" species as a whole, when it does no such thing-- rather it selects the most favorable traits and allows the least favorable to perish-- and these traits and the process of selection can exist at an individual level, sub-species level, or species level. Species is merely a phenomenon-- not the end goal of evolution. It is completely blind to our distinctions. It only asserts that the fittest survive-- whether it be an individual, a population, a "race", or a species. It does not have a generous mandate to preserve species. It's a blind mechanical process.

You equate morality with evolutionary progress, and conceive of evolutionary mechanisms as a kind one that perserves species for their own sake and allows new ones only if old ones fail. It does no such thing. It has no conception of the greater good. It only deems that the most fit survive and thrive, and where competition exists, deems that the weaker should fall by the wayside.

You can't appeal solely to a naturalistic mechanical process that operates ruthlessly on all levels, from individual to species, to entire biodomes, and simultaneously appeal to a metaphysical precept that mandates species preservation. If you do, it's no longer naturalistic evolution that you're talking about.

You also equate morality with instinct, when our instincts regularly go against our morality. Animals appear to have no such problem, and its men who behave most instinctually and like animals that we often consider most immoral. Obviously the two are not quite the same thing.

[73. JB said the following at 2:48 PM on Feb 26:]

73

Andrew,

You said, "And in every species preservation of self takes a back seat to preservation of the entire population. In animals we call it "instinct". In humans we call it "morality". Same thing, except humans have a rather hubristic outlook on their own specialness."

I think this is really the core of the problem with your argument. When people talk about morality, they mean a normative system. What is moral is what I should do, as distinct from what I want to do or what I in fact do. It's the normative component of morality which is key and it's that which is not explainable in scientific terms.

For example, it is the case that mothers care for their children. In fact, most mothers want to care for their children. But the question of morality is whether or not mothers should care. You can use evolution to explain why mothers care for their children and even why mothers generally want to care for their children, but this does not explain the should and thus does not explain morality.

I think what you're arguing is that there is no morality. You would say, and correct me if I'm wrong, that all the world's laws and rules are derived from evolutionarily advantageous desires and the social systems which have evolved to limit and direct those desires in a genetically advantageous way. That's a fine argument and interesting as far as it goes, but it does not explain morality proper. That kind of argument tells us why, say, murder is generally outlawed and why you and I are disinclined to murder people, but if I want to know about the morality of murder I ask if it is Right or Wrong. You may not believe that it is Right or Wrong - in which case you don't believe in morality.

I fully believe that you're a moral skeptic, but what I disagree with is your assertion that evolution has anything to do with morality as a normative system.

[74. Wayne said the following at 1:40 PM on Feb 28:]

74

I think Al on post #72 hit the nail on the head. Evolution itself cares nothing for morality. It cares only that the fittest organisms that can survive in our world do so, whether by adapting thru mutation or finding a place on this world where thier unique qualities allow them to survive.

Humans are an exception to this rule. We have survived on this world for a short amount of time (unlike the alligator)but we have applied limits to our evolution because of social, moral, or religious beliefs. There are certian things we will not do or be allowed to do by the majority to advance our species.
Amir's many examples while abhorrent to us all (including myself) would or could impact human evolution in a positive manner. We as humans try to balance what evolutionary advances we can make in our species with what is or feels morally right. While this is a subjective view of who you happen to be talking to at the moment, nevertheless it is true.
So how do we explain morality? What basis do we have to say what is good or evil? Do we base it off some Religious point of view? or do we base it off a social or economic point of view? Anyway you look at it there are flaws to any framework you could contruct that could be used to define morality.
Having said that, what frameworks exist or could exist to define morality.

Morality as define by the dictionary: A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct

1) Social or Governmental organizations - what society deems as moral. this type of moral code can change drastically and quickly. (ex. Nazism, Communism, Democracy, PETA, KKK)

2)Religion: - what your god or gods have told you is moral. this is a more enduring morality but can still change over time (ex. Christianity, Islam, Buddism)

3) Any framework that allows the improvement or perpetuation of our species without regard to social or religious moral limitations can have a system of morals also.

It is safe to say that any discussion to come up with a finite definition of what is morally right or wrong is pointless.

[75. Kevin Peters said the following at 2:02 PM on Feb 28:]

75

I know this is off topic but,
As a Christian looking at my faith, I see nothing in the basic idea of evolution that contradicts my belief. What is it that Darwinists have against the idea that a creator has His "hands" in the process, even if just setting up the laws of it? Also what issue do other Christians have with Evolution? Adam and eve were created by God. After they were sent out of the garden they had children. One of those children, Cain, got married, not to his sister but to a woman from the Land of Nod. Were did the people of Nod come from? **THIS IS MY PERSONAL THOUGHT**. What if they evolved from apes? That doesn’t change the fact that God created everything. This is just my understanding but maybe Evolution is not some horrible evil idea. Maybe, just maybe, it's another aspect of God’s wonderful creation.

[76. Kevin Peters said the following at 9:02 AM on Feb 29:]

76

Morals are affected by another aspect of humanity, free will. I can choose to follow the basic morals of society or not. How does free will fit in to evolution. Why would free will develope through evolution. There is also the idea that my own understanding (or how I think) in a situation, and how I understand the morality of it, may effect how I react. Ex. killing in war. Even on the same side some believe it is necessary and some do not.
As understanding of a situation changes the "right" course of action changes.

[77. Jackie said the following at 11:39 PM on Mar 1:]

77

There is a saying that I really like and it is - There is a principle which is a bar against all information,which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a person in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation. Thanks

[78. Dan said the following at 10:24 PM on Mar 3:]

78

When pondering Darwinists or Christians committing crimes or other atrocities, it should be noted that a Christian committing any form of harm against someone else does so AGAINST the morals of Christianity, whereas a Darwinist does so within the realm of Darwinism. The Darwinist realm is one that suggests no ultimate or immediate consequence for harming another, whereas the Christian moral system exists with the notion of ultimate consequence.

[79. Cory said the following at 8:24 PM on Mar 5:]

79

Dan, right on.

In fact, survival of the fittest demands that we slay the weak, the sick, the old, the retarded, the maimed, the crippled, the non-reproductive.

Contradiction, means one of our premises is wrong. Is it Morality? Or is it Survival of the fittest?

See: Eugenik

Pretty sick stuff. I'm all for morality, but evolution still needs to figure out what the heck it means to change a species--and how it happens.

[80. John said the following at 9:32 AM on Mar 6:]

80

Kevin,

Cain DID marry his sister, or a daughter of one of his sisters or even a grand daughter.

We all come from Adam and Eve, after them, brothers married sisters.

Macroevolution is very much in contradiction to the bible.