The implications of Evolution

I think that you are talking about he extremes of evolutionary psychology - perhaps made worse by reporting in the popular press. To call those implications of evolutionary theory is controversial to say the least. Both the research methods and the extreme adaptionism (assuming every trait has an evolutionary advantage) are criticised by other scientists working on evolution.

Eugenics isn't really a consequence of evolution, and the aspects that relate to it are often accepted by anti-evolutionists, such as the Nazis. Scopes could have quite happily taught eugenics without any prosecution.Evolutionary theory does not prescribe what we should do - which is why Darwin was not a fan of eugenics. It can only help us work out the consequences of trying it - and in my view it tells us that we don't yet know enough.

quote:

---

I don't see why you are trying to pin me down to one argument here when I am having *a general discussion about (possible) implications of evolution.*

---

Perhaps because you might be more successful at making a point ? Or having a useful discussion ?

quote:

---

The case I recently highlighted of the Nazi's is not the case that the ramifications of evolution are frightening rather the theory itself was utilised in a frightening and deadly way.

---

Except that it must be remembered that the Nazis were not really in favour of evolution and didn't really make use of the theory.

quote:

---

The theories of a hierachies of races and the idea the mentally ill disabled were useless etc are theories under the banner of evolution that were destructive and pernicious.

---

And neither of these are implications of evolutionary theory. Or really supported by it.

quote:

---

I personally think that evolution as it it is widely disseminated is negative. It is portrayed as meaning human life is essentially in service of mindless reproduction so that behaviours are subservient to this goal.

---

That evolution has shaped human behaviour in some ways to encourage reproduction can hardly be in doubt. That human life is or must or should be subservient to reproduction is quite outside the theory.

quote:

---

It is portrayed as doing away with gods and meaning and downgrading humans to "just another animal".

---

I don't think that you should take such views very seriously - after all they are generally the arguments of poorly-informed opponents of evolution. It is true humans are animals - but that was known well before Darwin - and the idea that it is a "downgrading" seems foolish.Evolution does away with some Gods, and removes one of the least-bad arguments for a God, but that doesn't stop many believers from accepting evolution.And you clearly don't agree with such claims as you say:

quote:

---

I don't see what the relevance is of the idea we evolved to our present day life anyway.

---

So I ask again, why worry about assertions made by opponents of evolution when you don't even agree that they could possibly be true ?

quote:

---

Altruism is only a problem because of assumptions made in theories of Evolution. Dawkins say in TSG Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are all born selfish. Which implies he doesn't see it as innate.

---

Or maybe, as a parent, he has observed very young children.Altruism is a "problem" in evolutionary theory because a naive understanding of evolution would have it encouraging selfishness. The problem is solved by taking a wider and deeper view - as Dawkins argues.

quote:

---

You seem to have missed this:

​

Dawkins says in The Selfish Gene

​

"We are survival machines — robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the *selfish* molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment."

​

That is plainly reductionism it is not equivalent to explaining how a computer emerges from its parts but rather how behaviour we value is actually based on amoral selfish behaviour.

---

Not when it is properly understood. Dawkins is offering only an explanation of how we came to be, not a complete description. Reading "nothing but" into it is an error and if you bothered to understand Dawkins' work you would know that.