Natural selection is a corner stone in the theory of evolution. It tells us that some characteristics are chosen over others for the survival and benefit of a reproducing organism during its development. However we still see increases in the percentage of infant mortality rates due to birth defects, and a rise in disorders such as those who are bipolar(1 in 4 people suffer from depression). Natural selection doesn't seem to be doing what it's supposed to. And please don't tell me it's the organism that reproduces the most that determines the dominant charateristics. This goes against the basic principle of natural selection, survival.
So now we come to eugenics. An idea that no longer should nature select, but man should select(or at least nudge in the right direction) which characteristics will determine the development of the human race. Much like dog breeding, where certain dogs are chosen to reproduce due to physical attributes. Though this idea is somewhat controversial among evolutionists, it's really no different then what they all hope to have happen through natural selection.
Now I'm not talking about Nazi style eugenics yet, but the whole concept lacks compassion, and natural selection lacks compassion. Evolution lacks compassion. However the vast majority of mankind is born with the feeling of compassion. There is no satisfactory answer from evolutionists, that does not contradict the principle of natural selection, as to why we feel compassion.
Religion is condemned for its instigation of wars and hatred throughout the millenia, and rightly so. However, what type of attitude has evolution promoted in people? In "Mein Kampf" we see that Hitler was inspired by Darwin's theory of evolution in developing his own ideas of survival of the fittest. Was Hitler catholic? Yes, by birth not choice. Did he believe in evolution? Yes, which he chose and obviously had the greater impact on his belief system.
Evolution is no moral plateau. Nor does it claim to be. However it's theories can lead to just as much suffering and bloodshed as any other out there.
4 comments:
Evolutionists will cry foul and claim that social Darwinism in no way follows from natural Darwinism. But I don’t see why not, or at least it seems but a tiny hop from one to the other. Why maintain any special respect for something that came about just through accident?
First off - I'm a scientist but not working in the field of evolution, so can't claim to be an expert.
However, some of what you mention comes under other branches of science. Why we feel compassion for example. I wouldn't expect an evolutionary scientist to answer that because it's not part of their remit. It's more part of the psychology/neuropsychology field.
I'm not crying 'foul' so much as 'unfair' - I wouldn't be playing fair if I said 'explain why Buddhists have so many gods yet appear to worship none', because that's asking you to answer something that's outside your field.
What science refers to as natural selection, or survival of the fittest, means simply that the animal best suited to a particular environment will do best there. It's not evolution but it can (in theory) result in the evolution of new species. It really doesn't have any social implications. However, as Tom said, it's but a small step to take that idea and force it into a social context.
Just as Einstein's amazing theories ended up spinning off the atomic bomb as a dreadful side-effect, so Hitler's use of Darwin's theories was twisted to evil use.
Hitler wasn't applying 'natural selection', nor was he applying 'survival of the fittest'. He wanted a particular body-type, the Arian type, and he decided to force the issue by killing everyone who didn't fit his ideal. Pity he didn't start with himself.
But he wasn't applying Darwin's principles, because Darwin's principles just happen. Eugenics is forcing a particular outcome by human intervention. It has no regard for whether its products are the best fit for the environment, the eugenics people have decided what they think is best and won't be swayed. The social application isn't Darwinism because Darwinism presupposes that the effects occur naturally, with no human interference.
People who live at high altitudes, for example, develop much greater lung capacity. Those born with poor lungs either die or move down the hill to where there's more oxygen. That's a selective pressure, resulting in a population where the enlarged lungs are inherited. But it's not evolution because those people are still the same species as us. If they never intermarried with other, low-dweling people, then in a few thousand years they might not be able to interbreed with the rest of humanity. If that happened (and it hasn't) then they would be a new species, an evolutionary divergence.
Natural selection and evolution are different things. The peppered moth example, often dragged out in these arguments, is an example of natural selection. It's not a new species. The moth naturally produces peppered and black variants. Always has. When the trees are clean, the black ones stand out so they get eaten faster. When the trees are covered with soot, the peppered ones get eaten faster. It's selection, resulting in a greater proportion of black moths but it's not evolution because it's the same species. The black and peppered variants are the same moth, just as black and white people are the same species.
I don't think the evolutionists do themselves any favours by force-fitting examples, and science does itself no favours by the current forcing of the word 'evolve' into every damn topic. It's a specific subject area. Some people don't agree with it. Some people don't agree with spending billions to look for a theoretical subatomic particle which nobody is sure exists...but I'm in danger of ranting here.
There seems to be a big panic in science that some people don't believe in evolution. Why? Some people still think the Earth is flat but nobody seems bothered about them. Non-belief in evolution could be a problem if you work as a biologist but otherwise, so what?
I don't work as a geographer so I can refuse to believe in Belgium if I want. I'm not a physicist so I can refuse to believe in string theory and the Higgs boson if I want. Neither of these things would impact my work, or my life, at all. My non-belief might irritate a geographer or a physicist but it won't hinder their work either. They might try to convince me, but we'd probably just agree to disagree in the end.
Why can't that work with evolution and creation? Neither side will move, that's for sure, so why not just agree to disagree?
Sorry for the ramble. It's hot today and my brain is fried.
I have to agree with you that the topics I mentioned belong to different areas of science. However, even looking at evolution for example, there are many different branches of theory on it. Much like if one was to say "I'm a christian." Which denomination would I be referring to?
Even in the area of natural selection there seems to be various theories as to what it is and how it works. I can't personaly claim to fully understand the principles behind it. Is it a macro vs micro evolution discussion?
I guess my post stemmed from Dawkin's book the 'God Delusion'. He muddled many differnt fields of science, theology, and sociology together to reach (in my opinion) an erroneous conclusion. I felt compelled to mention that belief in evolution does not prevent delusional people from existing who can cause great harm. The show-and-tell for me was eugenics and Hitler's freak show.
So far from what I've read eugenics seems to stem from evolution, though this is a cursory summation of the info.
I totally agree with your last comments. I don't see why the evolution vs creation debate has turned into such a fight to the death. I don't mind exploring out facts on both sides of the discussion, but after all is said and done is my choice really impacting that much on other people?
Dawkins is a-- well, I won't use the word here but he is one.
Part of his championing of what he calls 'scientific method' is the way new theories are accepted and included in scientific thinking. He uses the discovery of the bat's use of echo location in the fifties as an example.
It was in fact discovered a long, long time before that and the scientist who discovered it was laughed out of town.
As was the scientist who first described apoptosis (the way sick and damaged cells self-destruct rather than turn cancerous). There was a particularly vitriolic attack on that guy which lasted years.
These, and many others, were eventually accepted into mainstream science but the first discoverers suffered badly for going against what was then the accepted wisdom.
Science can't hold itself up as some kind of pure-logic, sensible group devoid of the influence of their own beliefs. The high-ups in any field are about as likely to change their minds in the face of new evidence as the Pope is to seriously consider buddhism.
I say that as a scientist. I've met our own brand of fundamentalists and they're as adept at twisting information to suit themselves as any other fundamentalist.
Scientists are required to back up their claims with solid, untainted evidence. Science should contain no element of belief, it should be entirely evidence-based. Science can prove but never disprove - there is no way to prove absolutely that there is no God so it's a subject beyond the scope of science. There are some things which simply cannot be studied using the current scientific method - and with no method, there can be no experiment and therefore no definite conclusion.
Some scientists need reminding of that.
Actually, science hasn't ever proved where or when life originated, you know. Science and religion can argue over dates, timescales and the order of appearance of forms of life, but in the end, life just appeared. Science can't prove it wasn't deliberately put here.
Maybe that's what gets our fundamentalists so worked up.
Post a Comment