Can survival of the fittest accomodate morals?

My question to the Athiests/ Evolutionists is why can rape, murder and poligamy in the animal kingdom be seen as natural and successful in the eyes of natural selection for all animals, but why does science exclude homo sapiens from conducting such behaviour? why are those people who rape and murder put in prison instead of respected, such as the strong lion? why dont we imprison other animals which commit such acts? isnt this a double standard?

That doesn't even make sense. You are using terms as if all of ecology has a standard of morality. Most things in nature are amoral.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Since rape, murder and poligamy is common in the animal kingdom and I dont know of any case in the animal world where biological science considers that any animal which uses either rape, murder or poligamy in order to pass on its genes unsuccessful. For example, lions murder the cubs of other lions and then rape the lionesses when they take over a new pride, rape is common in Dolphins, yet all this is considered as a positive natural process in the eyes of biological science.

There's a guy on these forums you ought to talk to. By a curious coincidence, his name is also Den, and he also comes from Australia. And here, he wrote:

You say Nature as stupid,wasteful and cruel? Thats just your perception of reality. Everything is perfect [...] Nothing is wasted in nature, nothing is wrong or imperfect [...] Nature in all its forms is perfect.

Now he really does thing that rape and infanticide are not merely "positive", but absolutely perfect in every respect. Funny thing is, though (this will surprise you) he's not a biologist. He's a creationist.

Perhaps you could challenge him to a debate. I'm sure the two of you must have a lot to talk about.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You are taking what I have said out of context, maybe I've failed to explain myself properly or perhaps you are just on an immature ego trip.

You are taking what I have said out of context, maybe I've failed to explain myself properly or perhaps you are just on an immature ego trip.

I provided the context --- I gave the link to your post.

But if I have misrepresented your ideas, then please feel free to explain yourself further. You wrote "Nature in all its forms is perfect". Now, please tell us. Does that include dolphins committing rape and lions committing infanticide, or doesn't it?

Den writes: You are taking what I have said out of context, maybe I've failed to explain myself properly or perhaps you are just on an immature ego trip.

I noted the contradiction myself when I first read that message, and I think Dr Adequate has accurately captured your views. I didn't reply to your message because so far with you it's been, "So many mistakes, so little time." One has to carefully pick and choose else there'd be no time to eat or sleep.

But if we've misunderstood you then please just clarify. Is murder and rape in nature immoral and not to be imitated by man? Or is murder and rape in nature just another perfect part of God's perfect creation, and hence to be admired and (gasp!) aped?

--Percy

Since rape, murder and poligamy is common in the animal kingdom and I dont know of any case in the animal world where biological science considers that any animal which uses either rape, murder or poligamy in order to pass on its genes unsuccessful.

Natural procreation in animals and the social ills of "rape" within human morality are not synonymous. Animals cannot be immoral for the sole fact that they have no moral sense. That would make them "amoral," which is very different from "immoral." To do so has you setting yourself up as the arbiter of how animals should act.

My question to the Athiests/ Evolutionists is why can rape, murder and poligamy in the animal kingdom be seen as natural and successful in the eyes of natural selection for all animals, but why does science exclude homo sapiens from conducting such behaviour? why are those people who rape and murder put in prison instead of respected, such as the strong lion? why dont we imprison other animals which commit such acts? isnt this a double standard?

Humans are moral creatures, lions are not. They don't understand morals in the same sense that a human would, so there is no significance and no need to muddle the terms. If things evolved in a different manner, it is possible that the social phenomena we refer to as "rape" could have been very different. It is possible that if through a different set of circumstances, what we call rape might have been natural sexual behavior within this species.

But since it is not, it is useless to speculate.

Since homo sapiens follows a completely different moral code to the entire animal kingdom is it possible that humans fit outside the order of the rest of the animal kingdom? Could this mean we have a different origin? a unique purpose?

Possible, yes. Plausible though? I don't think there is any evidence to support the assertion. We see a less defined sense of altruism in the animal kingdom, but generally increasing depending upon the level of intelligence as well as more complex and defined with mammals. You can call that sense of altruism "less evolved" or "more archaic," whatever you want to call it. In primates it is even more defined as you go up in lineage until you get to humans which have a very well defined set of altruistic and moralistic behavior.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

Hi Dr A,

But if I have misrepresented your ideas, then please feel free to explain yourself further. You wrote "Nature in all its forms is perfect". Now, please tell us. Does that include dolphins committing rape and lions committing infanticide, or doesn't it?

It's a fair bet friend Den is clueless about your ecological revelations. I have tended to find over the years that most creationists are mind-bogglingly ignorant about most matters in the natural world.

I even encountered a creationist on another site who screamed at me that the fact we have opposable thumbs was proof we aren't related to other primates! I asked him if he'd ever been to a zoo and gazed at the opposable thumbs, and big toes, of the chimps, monkeys, gorillas ......he went very silent.

As did the idiot who maintained that features like wings couldn't develop gradually since if it didn't work the very first time the critter would be gobbled up. I replied "What you mean like ostriches don't exist - wings but no flight whatsoever- so they obviously must all get eaten?" Again, total silence - you could almost hear him think "Oh shit - I didn't think about that!"

I have a notion that if these creationists were thrust into the field of ecology for a year there would be likely to be quite a reduction in the number of them pushing views on debate boards such as these. It's amazing what a bit of real education can do for a person!

Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

It's amazing what a bit of real education can do for a person!

Too right, mate. If only they came here for that..........

Edited by hooah212002, : yargh, me sig

---

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan

"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

I even encountered a creationist on another site who screamed at me that the fact we have opposable thumbs was proof we aren't related to other primates! I asked him if he'd ever been to a zoo and gazed at the opposable thumbs, and big toes, of the chimps, monkeys, gorillas ......he went very silent.

It would be a pretty bizarre argument even if his premise was true. Evolution is not, after all, a process whereby things stay exactly the same ...

I have a notion that if these creationists were thrust into the field of ecology for a year there would be likely to be quite a reduction in the number of them pushing views on debate boards such as these. It's amazing what a bit of real education can do for a person!

For example, Glenn R. Morton, who has participated on this forum. He converted in college, learned practically everything he knew about geology from the ICR et al. and authored a number of published creationist geology articles (eg,

quote:

---

I published 27 articles and notes in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, presented a paper at the first International Conference on Creationism, and ghost wrote the evolution section in Josh McDowell's book Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity.

---

Graduated from college with a BS Physics and, facing a market that wasn't hiring physics grads, went to work as a field geologist for a petroleum company, even hired several other creationist geologists. Reported at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism how they had to face and work with rock-hard evidence that the ICR had taught them did not exist and could not exist for Scripture to have any meaning and that they had all suffered "severe crises of faith". It was later that he was himself driven to the verge of atheism, but was finally able to find an harmonization that preserved his faith. Though he is definitely no longer a creationist.

His own story is told at:
The Transformation of a Young-earth Creationist
Why I left Young-earth Creationism

He posts other "Personal Stories of the Creation/Evolution Struggle" are posted at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/person.htm

Share and enjoy!

I have tended to find over the years that most creationists are mind-bogglingly ignorant about most matters in the natural world.

I've had the same experience, though with many who would be on either side of the divide. There's some serious ignorance out there.

Though still, I have found that the surest way to anger a creationist is to take his claims seriously and try to discuss them with him. My first interpretation was that they knew that they were lying and now were finding themselves caught in their lie. But I came to realize that they simply did not know what they were talking about. They were just regurgitating some creationist crap that they had read and understood none of it.

Too right, mate. If only they came here for that..........

They do Hooah, but they intend to educate us - not the other way round....it's amazing what confidence belief in God instills...!

It would be a pretty bizarre argument even if his premise was true. Evolution is not, after all, a process whereby things stay exactly the same ...

Agreed - but that is quite subtle for creationists to swallow. But you'd at least think they'd get out there to zoos and such like to see how things really are - physically in nature - before arguing from ignorance. It's not hard to see opposable thumbs, and toes on primates in zoos is it? Don't these guys ever 'get out'?

Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

Hi Dwise1

Graduated from college with a BS Physics and, facing a market that wasn't hiring physics grads, went to work as a field geologist for a petroleum company, even hired several other creationist geologists. Reported at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism how they had to face and work with rock-hard evidence that the ICR had taught them did not exist and could not exist for Scripture to have any meaning and that they had all suffered "severe crises of faith". It was later that he was himself driven to the verge of atheism, but was finally able to find an harmonization that preserved his faith. Though he is definitely no longer a creationist. His own story is told at: The Transformation of a Young-earth Creationist Why I left Young-earth Creationism He posts other "Personal Stories of the Creation/Evolution Struggle" are posted at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/person.htm Share and enjoy

I'd heard about Glen Morton before - I think possibly reading one of your earlier threads - thanks for fleshing out the details for me.

As a sad counterbalance though it can swing the other way:

I believe Kurt Wise was a Harvard trained geologist who learned under Steven J Gould (no less) and realised the bible and the geology he learnt were incompatible. Apparently he cut out all parts of the bible that had to go if our geological understanding is correct - and he found there was virtually nothing left of the bible.

So he made a choice - and turned to fundamentalism and rejected his Harvard geology degree and all his hopes for a scientific future - simply because he was forced to make a choice over two incompatible systems....and in his case creationism won!

Don't know about you but I find that very sad.....so much lost on so little (well none actually!) evidence.

I had heard of Kurt Wise many years ago and read an interview with him several years ago on AnswersinGenesis. As I recall, he had grown up in a fundamentalist home and had taken the scissors to his Bible long before he started work on his doctorate, so he had pursued his education despite his religious beliefs. As I recall him describing it, the evidence in favor of evolution is extensive and solid, so he was making a personal choice in favor of his faith over evolution (though I'm surprised that it had apparently never occurred to him that such a choice is not necessary). Furthermore, the reports I had read of him prior to reading the interview was that he was a stickler for truthfulness and accuracy and had on many occasions been the one who examined and tested creationist evidence and reported them as not being what the creationists were claiming.

So my impression of him was that he was an incredibly and refreshingly honest creationist who did not let his beliefs get in the way of science. Unfortunately, the last that I had heard of him was that he had joined forces with the ICR, so I fear that since he has fallen in with a bad crowd his honesty may have suffered.

BTW, having worked on my family history, I'm fairly sure that we're not related. "Wise" is a common anglization of several different German and Jewish surnames.

Hi dwise and Drosophilla,

So my impression of him was that he was an incredibly and refreshingly honest creationist who did not let his beliefs get in the way of science.

google "honest creationist" -- with the quotes.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : h

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •