Validerer darwinismen sosialdarwinisme?

[Europa]

Evolusjon, eller artsmessig utvikling (ikke fysisk) ihvertfall er eneste hensikten med livet hvis man ikke er religiøs...

 

lol

[RWS]

Evolusjon, eller artsmessig utvikling (ikke fysisk) ihvertfall er eneste hensikten med livet hvis man ikke er religiøs...

Trenger ikke noen mening med livet. Just let it flow, tiden som den kommer.

Enig så enig!

 

Bedre å leve et godt liv en gang enn å kaste vekk det ene livet i den tro at en skal leve i alle evigheter...

[Red Frostraven]

Evolusjon, eller artsmessig utvikling (ikke fysisk) ihvertfall er eneste hensikten med livet hvis man ikke er religiøs...

 

HVIS evolusjonsteorien er riktig, mener du.

 

Hva man tror på er underordnet hva som er sannheten.

Endret 22. desember 2008 av Andre1983

[tsoiland]

Hva man tror på er underordnet hva som er sannheten.

 

Sånn som at religiøs overtro er underordnet den enorme bevismengden som støtter opp evolusjonsteorien mener du?

[The_Kris]

Evolusjon, eller artsmessig utvikling (ikke fysisk) ihvertfall er eneste hensikten med livet hvis man ikke er religiøs...

 

HVIS evolusjonsteorien er riktig, mener du.

 

Hva man tror på er underordnet hva som er sannheten.

Ja, selvfølgelig, men vi må vel ærlig talt gå ut ifra at det er en viss sannhet til det vi har "oppdaget", hva skal vi ellers se på som en sannhet, at den ikke finnes?

 

Artsmessig utvikling har uansett ingenting med evolusjon å gjøre, med det mener jeg som feks utviklingen av demokratiet (og evt. bedre styresett i fremtiden), utviklingen av teknologi, gradvis fjerning av kjønnsfordelinger og normer, osv osv osv.

 

Hadde alle fulgt Frohmans livsmotto ville vi ikke hatt samfunnet vi har i dag, vi hadde muligens hatt et fredelig samfunn, men vi ville ikke hatt microchips, vi ville stått og utviklet bedre manuelt landbruksutstyr eller ennå verre.

Endret 22. desember 2008 av The_Kris

[Frohman]

Hadde alle fulgt Frohmans livsmotto ville vi ikke hatt samfunnet vi har i dag, vi hadde muligens hatt et fredelig samfunn, men vi ville ikke hatt microchips, vi ville stått og utviklet bedre manuelt landbruksutstyr eller ennå verre.

Hvem sier at jeg ikke har tenkt til å gjøre noe med livet mitt? Jeg sier bare at jeg gidder ikke å kaste bort tid på å tenke på hva som er meningen med livet, fordi det er mitt liv, og jeg bestemmer.

[Europa]

Newton snakket ikke om å drepe. Darwin snakket om å utrydde.

Hva sa Darwin om å utrydde? Sitat, takk.

 

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." Charles Darwin-The Descent of Man

[GeirGrusom]

Har ikke det skjedd flere ganger da?

 

Tasmanerne for eksempel.

[Pricks]

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." Charles Darwin-The Descent of Man

Her snakker han ikke om å utrydde eller drepe i det hele tatt. Se Google Cache for følgende link:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html

 

Søk etter f.eks. "savage" på siden for å se tullet ditt konfrontert med fakta.

[Europa]

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." Charles Darwin-The Descent of Man

Her snakker han ikke om å utrydde eller drepe i det hele tatt. Se Google Cache for følgende link:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html

 

Søk etter f.eks. "savage" på siden for å se tullet ditt konfrontert med fakta.

 

Kan ikke vise siden.

[Pricks]

Som sagt, bruk Google-cache. Søk etter linken på Google, så får du den opp, og da kan du se den som er i cachen deres.

[Europa]

Skjønte ikke det der, du. Skal jeg bare google linken? Får ikke åpnet første treffet.

[Trynemjoel]

Her, Europa.

 

Evt. se under her, dog alle lenkene i teksten ikke følger med.

 

Something must be said concerning the Darwin quote Hsü included above.

 

The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. F. Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905, p. 286, which can be found at: The writings of Charles Darwin on the web

 

Darwin seems to be referring there to the same idea he advanced in The Descent of Man, which is frequently quote mined as:

 

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. - Darwin, Descent, vol. I, 201.

 

See representive quote miners found in entries for Quote #2.10 and Quote #2.11.

 

Here is the quote in context:

 

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies -- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae -- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2nd edn., London, John Murray, 1882, p. 156, which can be found at The writings of Charles Darwin on the web.)

 

First of all, Darwin is making a technical argument as to the "reality" of species, particularly Homo sapiens in this case, and why there should still be apparently distinct species, if all the different forms of life are related by common descent through incremental small changes. His answer is that competition against those forms with some, even small, advantage tends to eliminate closely related forms, giving rise to an apparent "gap" between the remaining forms. Whether or not Darwin was right about that is irrelevant to the use of this quote mine, of course, since that is part of the context that the creationists using it have assiduously removed. For those interested in the real issue, a bit more information can be found in the response to Quote #3.1.

 

Claims based on either of these quotes that Darwin and by extension modern evolutionary theory was or is "racist" or that the theory leads to racism, are less than honest. As John Wilkins noted in a "Feedback" article:

 

Throughout the Descent, when Darwin refers to "civilised races" he almost always is referring to cultures in Europe. I think Darwin was simply confused at that time about the difference between biological races and cultural races in humans. This is not surprising at this time - almost nobody made the distinction but Alfred Russel Wallace.

 

. . . At this time it was common for Europeans (based on an older notion of a "chain of being from lowest to highest") to think that Africans ("negroes") were all of one subspecific form, and were less developed than "Caucasians" or "Asians", based on a typology in around 1800 by the German Johann Friedrich Blumenach. In short, Darwin is falling prey to the same error almost everyone else was . . . So far as I can tell, he was not hoping for the extermination of these "races", though. ... Throughout his life, Darwin argued against slavery and for the freedom and dignity of native populations under European slavery.

 

Darwin was not perfect. But he was no racist.

 

In short, there is nothing in Darwin's words to support (and much in his life to contradict) any claim that Darwin wanted the "lower" or "savage races" to be exterminated. He was merely noting what appeared to him to be factual, based in no small part on the evidence of a European binge of imperialism and colonial conquest during his lifetime. And if Wilkins is correct (and I think he is) about Darwin confusing biology and culture in this instance, Darwin was not entirely wrong. Certainly we can still see more technologically and militarily "advanced" cultures either destroying or, perhaps worse and more lasting, co-opting and replacing the less "advanced" ones.

 

In any event, attempts to draw moral conclusions from the facts of nature commit the "Naturalistic Fallacy" of confusing statements of "what is" with those about "what ought to be". (See John Wilkins' "Evolution and philosophy: Does evolution make might right? and the "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CA002: Survival of the fittest implies that 'might makes right'".) Darwin avoided the fallacy in his personal life and nowhere advocated it in his scientific writing.

 

Even if we hold that Darwin was a racist (by our present-day lights) [5], what of it? Would that invalidate modern evolutionary theory? As noted above, these "chain of being" attitudes were widespread at the time. Similarly embarrassing statements on race can be found in the words of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. Does that invalidate the idea of democracy or America's version of it? Martin Luther made strongly anti-Semitic statements. Is all Protestant Christianity therefore suspect? Even Henry Morris, the "godfather" of "creation science" has made statements of a racial nature that many would find repugnant. (See "Creationism Implies Racism?" by Richard Trott and Jim Lippard.) Is that alone enough to "disprove" creationism?

 

Finally, what if evolutionary theory did say that some human "races" will be winners and some losers through natural selection (though most scientists and philosophers of science deny that the theory dictates anything of the sort)? Any such argument against acceptance of the science of evolution commits the "Fallacy of Appeal to Consequences", an argument that a proposition is true because belief in it has good consequences, or that it is false because belief in it has bad consequences. (See, for example, "Appeal to Consequences" by Gary N. Curtis.)

 

Whether we like it or not, our hopes and aspirations are irrelevant to how the universe actually works. Fortunately, evolutionary theory presents us with no such conundrum. But even if it did, those who ignore the facts of nature in favor of what they would like it to be have historically caused their share, and more, of the adverse consequences our species has suffered.

 

- John (catshark) Pieret

 

[5] For more on the issues of Darwin's supposed racism, the actual roots of past "scientific" claims about racial differences and creationist attempts to exploit the general public's ignorance of the history of evolutionary theory, see Joe Conley's article "Is Darwinism Racist?: Creationists and the Louisiana Darwin-Racism Controversy".

 

[Pricks]

Skjønte ikke det der, du. Skal jeg bare google linken? Får ikke åpnet første treffet.

Du åpner ikke selve linken, men GOOGLE CACHE-linken.