Little help with evolution blog

dcomin · #1 (**permalink**) 04-29-2009, 08:18 PM

Recently posted a little blurb from Dabney on my blog in which he sets forth an ad hominem argument against atheistic evolution. It seems to have attracted the attention of some blog surfing atheists, and I would LOVE to have some of you who are more informed on things scientific jump in and help me out.

View the blog at Comin Sense

Thanks!

NateLanning · #2 (**permalink**) 04-29-2009, 09:03 PM

I don't understand the blurb from Dabney. I'm with him through the "they learn from experience" statement... but I lose him after that. Can you explain the

Quote:

But this teaches us that the propagator of these atheistic ideas is preparing intolerable mischief; for, just so far as they have prevailed, they have let loose a flood of misery upon mankind. Now, then, these teachers are venemous.

statement? Was there something in the preceeding text that explains this, but that is not shown on you blog?

dcomin · #3 (**permalink**) 04-29-2009, 10:18 PM

Thanks Nate. Yes, there is something lost from the context. Dabney's prior discussion in the chapter demonstrated how the evolutionary philosophy, because of its dismissal of the soul as a spiritual entity, has led invariably to oppression and violence where it has been self-consciously embraced. Hence, his conclusion that the propagators of evolutionary theory are dangerous and venemous, because their ideology is an ideology of death.

He is not, of course, advocating the murder of evolutionists, but is employing a tongue-in-cheek argument to show how their own theory of "survival of the fittest" turns upon themselves apart from the moral principles of the Scripture and the Scripture's God.

christianyouth · #4 (**permalink**) 04-29-2009, 11:37 PM

Quote:

By the way, our moral sense evolved as a consequence of our species using a social survival strategy. As mammalian species started living together in groups individuals better able to smoothly interact with other members was inevitable. Those that lacked such an ability were ostracized (which was a death sentence). This is the source of morality - codes of conduct which allowed members of groups to get along and ensure its smooth operation. A significant body of evidence from primatology demonstrates just this. Try reading Franz de Waal’s “Your Inner Ape”. There is not one single human behavioral trait that is not found in chimpanzees or gorillas, which makes primatology invaluable in studying the development of morality.

Could someone critique this section?

***VictorBravo*** · #5 (**permalink**) 04-30-2009, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by christianyouth

Quote:

There is not one single human behavioral trait that is not found in chimpanzees or gorillas, which makes primatology invaluable in studying the development of morality.

Could someone critique this section?

The assertion is basically silly. How many chimpanzees and gorillas demonstrate the decidedly human trait of wondering about their origin? How many of them feel the need to express themselves in the written word(spontaneously, not in an aping fashion)? How many of them can be demonstrated to think about themselves thinking?

These are human behavioral traits, they are ubiquitous. Every culture of humans in history demonstrates these things. Only by negating human self-reflection can we conclude that we are just like other primates. (And by self-reflection, I'm not talking about a chimp recognizing his reflection in a mirror--I'm talking about being able to observe yourself thinking or doing something else.)

Bern · #6 (**permalink**) 04-30-2009, 12:51 PM

Its interesting that in an interview, Richard Dawkins actually confessed that it is hard to believe that our earth was not "seeded" by a higher life form... which must have come about by some Darwinian means. So basically he believes in Aliens..... God or Aliens... you decide

cih1355 · #7 (**permalink**) 04-30-2009, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by christianyouth

Quote:

By the way, our moral sense evolved as a consequence of our species using a social survival strategy. As mammalian species started living together in groups individuals better able to smoothly interact with other members was inevitable. Those that lacked such an ability were ostracized (which was a death sentence). This is the source of morality - codes of conduct which allowed members of groups to get along and ensure its smooth operation. A significant body of evidence from primatology demonstrates just this. Try reading Franz de Waal’s “Your Inner Ape”. There is not one single human behavioral trait that is not found in chimpanzees or gorillas, which makes primatology invaluable in studying the development of morality.

Could someone critique this section?

If rape were to enhance the survival of a species, would it be morally right to rape someone?

If killing the weak and the handicapped helps to improve our health and survival, does that mean that it is okay to kill the weak and handicapped?

If evolution is the source of morality, then what’s to stop morals from evolving (changing) to the point that one day rape, theft and murder are considered morally right?

If you compete in the Olympic Games and cheating helps you to beat the competition, then is it okay to cheat? Someone might say that if a cheater is caught, then he will not survive. My response is this: Is it okay to cheat during the Olympics as long as you don't get caught?

How does a chemical process (natural selection) yield an immaterial moral law? And why does anyone have a moral obligation to obey a chemical process? You only have a moral obligation to obey an ultimate personal being (God) who has the authority to put moral obligations on you. You don’t have a moral obligation to obey chemistry.

dcomin · #8 (**permalink**) 05-02-2009, 10:02 AM

Thanks for the good feedback. Actually though, I was hoping that some of you would be kind enough to post your responses directly on my blog.