Recently EvilBender [don’t you just love this guy’s name?] was playing the whole “Creationists just quote mine” game, meaning that he thinks we quote things out-of-context if they don’t support his views or, more to the point, that we just Google quotes and search for those that fit what we want to say. [Now anyone who makes an argument which includes a quote will not include one that defeats his own argument, but we’ll pass over further commentary on the execution of rhetoric for the present].
In this case, he was accusing Creationists of quote-mining Darwin to make him say things that he did not truly believe. Nevermind that he did exactly that to me once, quoting me entirely out-of-context and attributing beliefs to me and other creationists that we simply do not hold. I love this guy’s consistency!
Anyway, he reminded folks that despite the evil eugenics things Darwin wrote down in books like Descent that he also talked out of both sides of his mouth and advocated philanthropy.
Darwin was in fact a philanthropist…
…which makes him a hypocrite as far as the implications of his theory are concerned.
Dawkins has the same sort of cold feet about embracing the cold, harsh moral implications of evolution [much to his credit].
But if it’s true, why shouldn’t our morality have evolved in such a way that we do not find these moral implications morally repugnant? Why does “survival of the fittest [and by implication the elimination of the weak and undesirable]” seem so unnatural to us? I’ll go out on a limb: Why does it seem so antithetical to the sense of morality and justice common to man?
Science has implications for morality. Naturalistic science says that morality is a product of evolution, not that it came about by some other method [you know: God].
So why are the moral implications of evolution so morally repugnant? Shouldn’t our common morality be more in synch with the process that produced it?
Now, EvilBender just responded with a rather typical Well,you’rejuststoopidtounderstand evasion, but someone else commented and mentioned altruism. He had an interesting spin on the situation, but I wasn’t satisfied.
When a man throws himself in front of a bus to save some kid, he isn’t doing it for the species. He’s doing it for the kid. Not his kid. Not his cub. Not his tribe. Not his genetic material. He’s doing it because he believes life is precious. Not just human life. He’d do it for a dog as well as a kid.
Evolution teaches the opposite. Life is not precious. It is meaningless. There is no point other than survival until something better comes along to replace us.
Even if we throw in altruism and social concessions implemented to help us all get along, we are still posed with the problem of why altruism and social dynamics should be so antithetical to natural selection, which ultimately must have produced them. Or again are they admitting to a creator where altruism is concerned?
Why are the moral implications of Darwinism so unnatural to its products that they would adopt altruism [we include animals here] in defiance of survival of the fittest and elimination of the unfit? Why would we come up with social concessions so antithetical to the laws of nature if we’ve come about by nature?
These are interesting philosophical questions.
I think you will find that your worldview will determine how you approach answering them. They are by no means unfair questions.