 |
|
|
|
| The Complex Of Social Opinions Can Be Ignored As A Factor In Evolution |
| Godbots, in their pitiful efforts to refute the theory of evolution, like to reduce human beings to their most animalistic. They paint a portrait of vicious monkeys ruthlessly striving for dominance, and argue that all of humankind's intellectual, moral and emotional capacities somehow have to be ignored when evolution is discussed. I fail to see why this is so. Human societies have existed for a long time. In our own society, moral and intellectual factors play a part in mate selection. Why should this not have been so in our history as an evolving species? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not quite sure of the point you are debating. Are you trying to argue for-- evolution
explaining morality? If this is so, it doesn't quite do the job. If this is not your point, could
you clarify your terms in the debate topic and in your comments, please. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm in the dark myself, isn't the strive for dominance the awareness for most animals
that there is a social structure involved in
a system? Man, monkey, no matter, groups
of many sorts entail social existence,
please correct me so I can better understand... |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm having a hard time understanding the subject line: "The complex of social opinions", i am not
familiar with that phrase, but the description provided greater clarity. The word "can" sort of
leaves the door open.
The guidelines for making any conclusion has been set by Darwin. And there is great logic in the
process that is provided. However, in the area of social construct it seems more conjecture and
even convenient. Much of morality is that which goes against our instinct. In fact the highest
morality is that which goes the most against our instincts. Instinctual behavior is very
Darwinesque, and very logical. Deviating from that is not quite as logical. I understand the
arguments made to explain the values in the individual that we hold in high regard, i just don't
think they are based on fact, but rather a faith. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This comes up implicitly or explicitly all the time in the unending weak arguments launched by the
cultists against the theory of evolution. We need their magical belief system to explain any sense
of morality, they say. The entire complex of human opinion, which shapes our modern societies,
somehow has to be ignored as a factor in evolution. Cultists seize on anything which even appears to
be superficially incompatible with a ruthless individualism as evidence that the magical being they
believe in really exists.
I fail to see why this is so. Moral judgement plays a part in mate selection in our own age. Would
you marry someone you knew was a serial killer or a thief? In the much smaller communities which
existed in the past, these moral considerations would have been even more powerful. If people took
actions which were damaging to the interests of the community, for example, there is no reason why
potential mates who were members of the community should not shun them, effectively wiping out their
genes from the gene pool. Why therefore cannot the complex of social opinion be a factor in
evolution? |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
02 May 2008 17:53
Sign In
