The moral implications of evolution, and their discontents.

The currently active thread, "Teacher Fired for Disagreeing With Literal Interpretation of Bible", has had some trouble in staying on its intended topic. It has been suggested that some of the side topics be spun off into their own threads.One of the topics that was being discussed was the issue of whether the theory of evolution is inherently racist. There were several posts generated by this: here is a link to the last post before the admin off-topic warning.This OP isn't intended to be a direct response to that post per se. What I propose is to discuss the moral, social, and philosophical implications of the theory of evolution, and whether there are any such implications.It is my position that there are no moral, social, or philosophical implications to the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is simply a description of observable phenomena, and the use of those phenomena to explain other observable phenomena.The theory of evolution simply states the following:(1) The individuals in a population vary in the physical characteristics.(2) These differences in physical characteristics are hereditary.(3) Some individuals in the population will produce many offspring, some will produce few offspring, and some will produce none at all.(4) This difference in reproductive success is often determined by the inheritable physical characteristics.(5) Therefore, as a conclusion, the next generation will have more individuals with the characteristics associated with reproductive success, and few individuals with the characteristics associated with fewer individuals.(6) Eventually, provided there is no source of the less productive characteristics, the entire population will consist of individuals having only the successful characteristics, and none of the others.This phenomenon is called natural selection. As far as I know, with few exceptions, no one really disputes the existence of natural selection.The theory of evolution postulates another statement:(7) New variations of physical characteristics will appear in a population, and these new variations will often be hereditary.This, too, is an observation. This, too, is a fact. Under our current understanding in the heredity of physical characteristics, we call these new variations genetic mutations.Finally, the theory of evolution makes one more statement:(8) All known species are the result of the modification of populations of organisms by processes (1) through (7) over a long period of time, starting with a single ancestral population.This is the part that is under dispute by creationists. Now whether (8) is an accurate description of reality or not is not the subject of this thread. The point made here is that, like the others, (8) is simply a description of a phenomenon, called common descent; it is simply a proposed description of history, and is a simple, objective fact that is either true or not true.None of the statements (1) through (8), either individually or together, imply any moral, social, or philosophical positions.Now, it is true that one may use the theory of evolution to inform one's moral or social beliefs. For example, if one's ethics is heavily based on Genesis being literal history, and if the theory of evolution is the correct description of reality, then one is obliged to rethink one's moral positions. But the theory of evolution doesn't promote any particular ethics or philosophy.It is also true that any individual may use the theory of evolution to develop a philosophical framework, but there is nothing in evolution that will produce any particular direction in philosophy -- that will be the result of the idiosyncracies of that particular person's beliefs. Futhermore, the theory of evolution doesn't even force a person to use it as part of her philosophical framework; whatever the person's philosophy or religion, the theory of evolution may simply be regarded as a true fact without any further implications for that person's philosophical outlook.I think this sums up my view of the matter. If this thread is promoted, I think "Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution" would be the best place for it, although "Social Issues and Creation/Evolution" would be appropriate as well.Edited by Chiroptera, : minor typos

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Hi, Berreta. No, it appears that most of your post isn't really the topic that I intended. I guess that it could be confusing for someone new to the evolution/creationism discussion -- creationists seem to think there are a lot of connections where there aren't any. I guess it's because of the "lit crit" style in which they read their scriptures -- since they think every event in the Old Testament is a symbol of the coming of the Christ, I can see where there is going to be the sense of connections where there really aren't any.-First, the intent of this thread isn't to discuss whether or not the theory of evolution is a correct description of reality or of the history of life on earth. The intent is to examine what the theory of evolution actually is, and to determine whether it, by itself, implies any given code of morality or any philosophy.Second, the intent of this thread isn't to discuss whether atheism implies any morality (or lack thereof) or philosophy. That is worth its own thread: you can start your own, if you want, although there may still be a few open if someone wants to search for one.-This thread is to discuss what conclusions one can reach about morality or philosophy based on the theory of evolution. This thread started by your comments on another thread that evolution was inherently racist. You can discuss that if you wish.This comment you made in this thread is kind of on topic: I'll just say that no version of accepted meteorology involves God as a causative process in any way. Does modern meteorology imply any moral or philosophical conclusions? Furthermore, there are people who will point to various hurricanes as part of God's will or God's plan. People will even believe that God directly caused a particular hurricane to form or to travel along a certain path. Does modern meteorology have any moral or philosophical implications?If the description of the formation and path of hurricanes can be made strictly in naturalistic terms without having any philosophical implications, then why can't the origin and evolution of species? If God does and can intervene in the development and course of hurricanes while it looks completely naturalistic, why not the development and course of the history of the species?As far as I know, the evolution of species has no more implications for the activities of God or there lack than does the thermodynamic theories of hurricanes, or the medical theories of illness, or the geophysical theories of earthquakes. Each of these has been accepted with very little complaint. And, despite that every single earthquake, every single hurricane, and every illness can be studied in terms of naturalistic laws of nature, some people continue to see the hand of God in their manifestations. Why would the evolution of species be different?

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Yeah. I'm one of those smarter evolutionists, and I'm totally manipulating you.(CFO will probably recommend a tin foil hat to help you.)

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Is this a surprise? Read the OP; is it really difficult to figure out what the topic is? Read your post; is it really difficult to figure whether it matches the topic?Odd. I thought that the U.S. educational system was pretty bad. Don't they teach reading and writing skills in South Africa? I mean skill beyond just reading the label of an aspirin bottle -- things like reading comprehension and writing to make a point?By the way, I do realize that the post to which you're responding was way off-topic, but that was written to answer an off-topic post of your own.Look, I started this thread because I thought evolution and racism was something you wanted to talk about, since you brought it up in a thread where it wasn't appropriate. Evidently, I was wrong.What do you want to talk about? Try opening a thread on that topic. Personally, I don't care if this thread goes in this particular direction; morality and god is interesting enough, but judging from your posting history here, I kind of figure that pretty soon you'll be going off on yet another unrelated topic.I've asked this before, but doesn't it strike you that maybe your inability to remain on a given topic for any length of time indicates that you haven't really given enough thought to any of these subjects to reach a reasonable conclusion?Edited by Chiroptera, : typo

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Hi, Beretta. Which you haven't really demonstrated, even though that is the subject of this thread. This thread is about the moral implications of the theory of evolution, and you claim that evolution has moral implications. So why are you avoiding discussing this?- Huh? Wait, what? You made the comment:

quote:

---

The ToE is a philosophy with racist connotations....

---

You can't even keep track of what you are saying. So I have severe doubts when you say that - Why? Let me repeat from the OP:

quote:

---

The theory of evolution simply states the following:

​

(1) The individuals in a population vary in the physical characteristics.

​

(2) These differences in physical characteristics are hereditary.

​

(3) Some individuals in the population will produce many offspring, some will produce few offspring, and some will produce none at all.

​

(4) This difference in reproductive success is often determined by the inheritable physical characteristics.

​

(5) Therefore, as a conclusion, the next generation will have more individuals with the characteristics associated with reproductive success, and few individuals with the characteristics associated with fewer individuals.

​

(6) Eventually, provided there is no source of the less productive characteristics, the entire population will consist of individuals having only the successful characteristics, and none of the others.

​

This phenomenon is called natural selection. As far as I know, with few exceptions, no one really disputes the existence of natural selection.

​

The theory of evolution postulates another statement:

​

(7) New variations of physical characteristics will appear in a population, and these new variations will often be hereditary.

​

This, too, is an observation. This, too, is a fact. Under our current understanding in the heredity of physical characteristics, we call these new variations genetic mutations.

​

Finally, the theory of evolution makes one more statement:

​

(8) All known species are the result of the modification of populations of organisms by processes (1) through (7) over a long period of time, starting with a single ancestral population.

---

That is the theory of evolution right there. I don't see anything there that would be exceptionally objectionable to black people. Maybe you can explain this?- Great! Why don't you open a thread about it?

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Hi, Nem. Like what? We try to explain everything in the natural world through the actions of the laws of physics, too. Why do the planets orbit the sun? Because of the laws of physics. Why do hurricanes form in the Atlantic and move toward North America? Because of the laws of physics.Are the laws of physics promoting its own ethics and its own philosophy? I think you need to say a little more to explain what you mean here.-In a subsequent post you write: Sure, evolution would explain why we have feelings we describe as morality and ethics. But it doesn't, in itself, explain which things should be categorized as "moral" and which things should be categorized as "immoral". That is completely due to social convention and individual conscience, which can and does change from one society to another and from one person to another within each society.So the theory of evolution does not promote any particular moral code or set of moral dictates.I'll repeat it againg, here is a short description of the theory of evolution:

quote:

---

The theory of evolution simply states the following:

​

(1) The individuals in a population vary in the physical characteristics.

​

(2) These differences in physical characteristics are hereditary.

​

(3) Some individuals in the population will produce many offspring, some will produce few offspring, and some will produce none at all.

​

(4) This difference in reproductive success is often determined by the inheritable physical characteristics.

​

(5) Therefore, as a conclusion, the next generation will have more individuals with the characteristics associated with reproductive success, and few individuals with the characteristics associated with fewer individuals.

​

(6) Eventually, provided there is no source of the less productive characteristics, the entire population will consist of individuals having only the successful characteristics, and none of the others.

​

This phenomenon is called natural selection. As far as I know, with few exceptions, no one really disputes the existence of natural selection.

​

The theory of evolution postulates another statement:

​

(7) New variations of physical characteristics will appear in a population, and these new variations will often be hereditary.

​

This, too, is an observation. This, too, is a fact. Under our current understanding in the heredity of physical characteristics, we call these new variations genetic mutations.

​

Finally, the theory of evolution makes one more statement:

​

(8) All known species are the result of the modification of populations of organisms by processes (1) through (7) over a long period of time, starting with a single ancestral population.

---

Now you may dispute whether some of these statements are accurate descriptions of reality, but they do not, either together or in isolation, promote any particular code of ethics.Like all scientific laws and theories, the theory of evolution is amoral. But science is amoral. No one tries to draw moral implications from the law of gravity, nor does anyone try to draw moral implications from the laws of thermodynamics. Simple descriptions of reality simply do not promote any code of morality, except inasmuch as they may contradict certain facts upon which one would prefer to base one's morality.If your morality is, in some way, dependent on a literal reading of Genesis, then, yes, the theory of evolution does have implications -- namely, it implies that your morality is based on beliefs that are not true. If your morality is, in some way, dependent on feathers appearing on theropod dinosaurs before powered flight evolved from them, then, I guess, evolution has some implications here, too, in that one cannot dismiss the moral code until one has examined it more closely.Maybe this conversation would move forward if you were to provide a more concrete example of a philosophical point or a moral tenet that is promoted by evolution?

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Hi, Nem. I guess I don't understand your point here. We aren't discussing naturalism. We are discussing whether or not the theory of evolution itself promotes any particular philosophy; in particular, we are discussing whether the theory of evolution promotes any particular moral code.The point I was trying to make here is that we explain the motion of the planets solely through the laws of physics. Do you agree that scientists can calculate the motions of the planets without reference to God? If so, does that remove God from the laws of celestial mechanics?The formation and motion of hurricanes can be explained solely through the laws of physics. Do you agree that scientists can estimate the strength and path of a tropical storm or hurricane without reference to God? If so, does that remove God from the laws of thermodynamics as applied to weather systems?If you feel that it is appropriate for an astronomer to calculate the future path of a planet without referencing God, and that it is appropriate for a meteorologist to estimate the strength and path of a hurricane without reference to God, why is it inappropriate for a biologist to explain a feature in an organism and its evolutionary history without reference to God?Weather systems are chaotic systems, and so there is a limit to the accuracy of the predictions of meteorologists; as a result, theists find room to squeeze in the hand of God in the formation and movement of a particular hurricane. Likewise, there is limited knowledge about the structure of the earth's crust, and the strains and movements are also chaotic, so there is a limit to the accuracy of the predictions of geologists concerning earthquakes; as a result, theists find room to squeeze in the hand of God in the timing and severity of particular earthquakes.In the same way, the exact evolutionary path of any particular population of organisms cannot be precisely predicted, even in retrospect, because of the limits to our knowledge of exact specifications of the ecosystem and exact mutations; therefore, there seems to be room for the hand of God to be involved in the exact evolutionary history of any particular lineage (especially the one that led to humans).The point of this series of posts was to counter Beretta's assertian that evolution removes God from the history of species. I am merely pointing out that the theory of evolution is no different from any other theory. The laws of celestial mechanics don't preclude the existence of God, and just as the laws of thermodynamics don't preclude (in the mind of theists) the role of God in hurricanes; the theory of evolution is entirely analogous. If celestial mechanics does not, by itself, preclude the existence of God, then neither does natural selection. If the role of thermodynamics in the behavior of hurricanes does not preclude a role for God, then neither does evolution in shaping the history of a population of organisms.-The rest of your post is also opaque to me. The question is whether any particular moral code is a direct logical consequence of the theory of evolution.For example, some people have claimed that an evolutionist must, as a logical result of the "tenets" of evolution, support eugenics. Some people have claimed that an evolutionist must, as a result of her belief in evolution, engage in purely selfish behavior. This thread was started because Beretta made the claim that an evolutionist, as a consequence of her acceptance of evolution as a fact of nature, be a racist.The first part of this post (the nonsense about hurricanes, planets, and so forth) was a response that as a logical consequence of the acceptance of evolution, the evolutionist must believe that God has no role in the formation of the species.If you have some comment on whether any particular morality or philosophy is a consequence of the belief in the accuracy of evolution as a description of the history of life on earth, then by all means lets discuss that.

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Actually, the apartheid regime in South Africa discouraged the teaching of evolution. Their racism, like racism here in North America, was based more on religious belief.

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Actually, that's not true. The number of people who use evolution as a justification for their racism has been a minority of racists. Racists have tended to use religious beliefs as a justification for their racism. In North America (as well as South Africa), racism has traditionally been based on interpretations of Christianity, not on an eisegesis of evolutionary theory.

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Hi, Beretta. Sorry to see you suspended. But I'll respond to this and wait for your return. I don't see how. Is it the phrase "survival of the fittest" that bothers you? Darwin didn't like that phrase much, and it is a bit misleading. At any rate, it's pretty much a cartoon phrase that describes evolution like "things fall down" describes the theory of gravity. Not very precise, and it can be misleading.- I'm not sure that this was true -- my understanding is that Nazism was mostly an eisegesis of Nietzsche combined with traditional European Christian antisemitism. Could you provide some verification of his evolutionary views? Even if he was an "evolutionist", did he use the theory of evolution as understood by scientists to justify his fascism? Can you provide something that would show what he understood evolution to be?At any rate, all you are doing is repeating an earlier point. We both agreed that a racist can justify her racism with whatever explanatory framework that is available. A racist that is a fundamentalist Christian will use the Bible to justify racism; a racist that is more scientifically minded might justify it using her understanding of biology.The question is whether racism comes naturally out of the theory of evolution. So far all you have done is say it does -- you haven't explain how it does at all.- Not the subject of this thread. The question is whether the theory of evolution promotes racism or any other moral, philosophical, or social theory.

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Could be. The Nazis rose during the '20s and '30s, when eugenics was a biggish movement here in the States.The question remains, though, whether Hitler really understood what the theory of evolution really means. As Beretta pointed out, racists can and do use Christian terminology inappropriately -- it isn't surprising if they would also use biological terminology inappropriately.So, does evolution promote racism?

---

If it's truly good and powerful, it deserves to engender a thousand misunderstandings. -- Ben Ratcliffe

Here is another topic for Cedre's consideration. The topic of this thread is whether one can derive any moral or philosophical implications from the theory of evolution.

---

To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. -- John McCarthy