In the Darwinian view of humans as animals, what would cause us to stop practicing animal husbandry within our own species? Reduce the meaning of "human" to "just another animal", and eugenics is fair game. Scientific data for animal husbandry is well supported. Eugenics is only abhorrent to those who recognize that there is something transcendently special about humans.
(It should be noted here that we are talking about Darwinism not ‘evolution’ per se. I think that everyone agrees that random genetic changes occur in nature. Darwin put forth the idea that all life came from a single common ancestor and changed without design, goal, or purpose (i.e creator) and humans are merely another animal – and our brain and morality developed as such – as he put forth in Descent of Man – and On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)
Natural selection and the birth, death and transformation of species over time (including the evolution of humans from common ancestors to apes 7 million years ago) either did or did not happen.
The “did-it-actually-happen-or-not” isn’t altered by or dependent on, or in any way related to how it might happen to affect morality in human behavior.
In other words, “people who believe in evolution behave worse than people who don’t” isn’t proof one way or the other of the factfullness of the theory of natural selection as understood in today’s biological sciences.
I have an issue with this.
They have very neatly defined "evolution" as "genetic change". And, yes, everyone knows that genetic change happens -- red hair, blue eyes, tall, short -- you can see genetic change in families all around you. And, since "genetic change" is a synonym for "evolution", therefore everyone now admits that "evolution is true".
No.
That oh-so-neat definition is designed to end the argument, and I don't accept it.
If "evolution" is at all interesting, then it needs to explain how one species becomes a different species. We're not talking about bacteria adapting to medicine and becoming resistant to that medicine. We're talking about dinosaurs becoming birds, or lions becoming leopards or whatever.
Science has a hard time settling on the definition of "species".
Science has a very hard time explaining how a species becomes a totally different species.
The notion that "genetic change" is simply "evolution" glosses over the science which is not really settled.
First thought that occurred to me as well. While Darwin is and should be deeply respected for what his studies contributed to science, his conclusions led to most of the terrors of the last century. The Eugenics movement isn’t the only direct result of Darwinism. Marxism, Communism, their cousins Fascism and Nazism, even the environmental movement’s neo-pagan worship of Gaia can find their roots in Darwin’s forceful disregard for the Creator in his studies of the Creation.
“Does Darwinism Lead to Infanticide Acceptance?”
I would have to say no because in the U.S., the majority of abortions are had by women who probably have not the slightest idea of what Darwinism is.
Hitler was clean-shaven except for his mustache.
Thus we know he used a razor.
Hitler created the Nazis.
Thus the invention of the razor created the Nazis.
(IOW: Not this sh!t again! Puhleeze, this is the worst sophomoric non sequitur. And that even grants you there is such science as “Darwinism”)
there is that pesky God given natural right to life thingy
I think Singer has said he wanted to be able to abort up to two year olds.
Evolution leads to much worse. I have lost all respect for Coyne as a philosophically clear thinker.
Evolution leads to much worse. I have lost all respect for Coyne as a philosophically clear thinker.