Is eugenics the logical result of Darwinism?

That's absolute baldersash. Euthanasia of the weak or deformed is as old a crime as written history. Consider the myth of Oedipus, if you will.The idea that we're all better off, somehow, if we get rid of people who are "burdens" is nothing new. I'll grant you that evolutionary concepts provide a pesudoscientific cover for hate and racism, but so what? Absent that blind the forces of evil would have adopted some other haven, such as that often offered by religion.

Absolutely irrelevant. Everything I said in my post applies to the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. You're simply not thinking hard enough. The recognition that humans share the same biological origin as all other living things, for instance, leads to a social/ethical influence towards environmental stewardship and conservationism.But, of course, because you sole intent is to discredit evolution at every turn, naturally those positive influences didn't even occur to you. Compassion is perfectly consistent with it. Sheesh, could you be any more defensive? Did it occur to you even for a second that maybe I was speaking about other religions, too?At any rate, you're only half-accurate. The Biblical directives towards compassion and community do not extend to those we can write off as "enemies of God", or whatever. That's something that I've been repeatedly reminded of by believers.And that's of course what I was referring to. Religion allows us to write off other human groups as the "other", as those exempt from the compassion that God demands of us. A perfect front for racism and hate. I would have thought you'd have learned by now that the No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't cut much mustard with me. After all the forces that use Christianity for hate and evil claim they're the true Christians, and that you're the ones that have fallen from God's grace. Oh, no, they're not in the least the same. The Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - are by far the worst.

No, it's not. The Theory of Evolution can't tell you how to live your life or run a society. It's a description of organisms, not a perscription for how they should behave.It's not a worldview. That's incontrovertable. It's no more a worldview than relativity or germ theory are worldviews.

Really? Because I find the idea that "without God, we are nothing" the single most human-devaluing idea I've ever heard. Funny - everybody I know is an evolutionist, and absolutely none of them hold this position about human beings. Why do you suppose that is?Could it be that, perhaps, the person least likely to truly understand how someone could be an evolutionist is the person who's convinced that understanding a scientific theory is the first step in losing your mortal soul?Well, whatever. Guess I'll go back to killing myself because, apparently, my life has no value. Funny - always seemed pretty important to me at least. Yes. Which is why it's not a worldview.

Missing logical step - implication that that which can be explained lacks value. Is a rainbow any less beautiful when you know it's the refraction of sunlight by moisture? Please be careful not to conclude that, because ToE is not a moral worldview, that it is an immoral worldview.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-29-2005 10:36 PM

So you say, but since I've given an example of a moral social view stemming directly from the understanding of life we get from the ToE, I considered that point effectively rebutted about 20 posts ago. Did you have a response, or what?

Right, because, after all, you were there, right? I mean, never mind that our understanding of history might actually get better with time. I mean, that's clearly idiotic, right? Er, no, you didn't. You said "civilization", not "European civilization", and if you meant the latter, it's not at all apparent from context. Try to work on being clearer. You know, or don't. I guess you'd rather be ambiguous so you can cop a righteous attitude when we invariable misunderstand you.

Go back and take a look. I'm not about to spell it out again for the guy that just told someone to learn to read, ok?

So, in your view, because the ToE does not make specific reference to our worth as human beings, we're to conclude that the position of the ToE is that humans are worthless?Ever heard of a thing called the "false dichotomy"? For all that you bandy about the word "logic", you don't seem to have. Nonsense. You're the pre-eminent example. Why else the persistent, unassailable ignorance in regards to the reality of evolutionary models? Why else the constant, off-handed dismissal of what the theory of evolution consists of? No, I simply don't believe that when you explain something, you eliminate its value. The Mona Lisa doesn't become less beautiful to me because I know what's in the paint; my wife isn't any less special to me even though I know that a fair bit of that feeling is the influence of chemicals in my brain.It's called "maturity". I suggest you investigate it. It'll happen to you eventually, don't worry. Everybody grows up. Sheer logic. A model that can only explain one certain, specific aspect of the universe and reality can't be a worldview. The ToE only explains life on Earth. That's simply too narrow a focus to constitute a lens through which to come to moral decisions. It's not enough, so it's not a worldview.

Oh, didn't you know? The only way you can disagree with Faith is if you're an idiot. I direct your attention to this post.

If only that were true...Seriously the "I'm going to storm off in a huff" was a lot more impressive the first 20 times you did it.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-29-2005 11:33 PM

Your Biblical theology does. Other equally Biblical theologies support racism, and they say that your theology is false. Hey, as far as I'm concerned, you're all wrong.

I am thinking, Faith. That's how I know how wrong you are all the time. Translation: "Hopefully these capital letters will conceal the fact that, once again, I'm unable to rebut Crash's arguments."

Unfortunately, that's a lie. While the argument that the ToE is neutral in regards to ethics, and is just as capable of supporting a compassionate ethics system as callow nihilism, has been presented to you a number of times, you have yet to respond substantively to it.

I've shown you a positive ethics equally "logically" derived from the ToE. When are you going to reply to that rebuttal?