Replies

You are wrong here my friend. I have seen the NAZI propaganda films from the 1930s where a german "scientist" is explaining to students that only the fitest servive. It was used for justifying getting rid of slavs and jews, etc. Social Darwinism is not something that creationists made up. It was indeed the Sangors and Hitlers(or his minions) that came up with these concepts and spin on Darwin's theories.

Which means that they are, at best, founded upon a fundamental lack of understanding (and more likely a deliberate misrepresentation) of Darwin's theory. It's also possible that someone decided that they could spin the theory into a nice justification for what they'd already decided to do.

The real problem with atheistic explainations of the world as it now exists is that it leaves no one accountable for anything.

This isn't a problem. And it's not true. I'm certainly accountable. If I don't complete tasks that I'm given where I work, I'll be fired.

If I don't answer to a creator, then why should I do anything except what best suits me?

You shouldn't. I certainly don't. I just have the ability to understand that satisfying all of my current desires may not ultimately be in my best interests.

Other than a short bit of pain by execution, why should I respect any laws of man?

That's up to you, though there would be more consequences than execution. There's the stay in prison prior to the execution, the fact that you'll be known as a murderer -- some people do care about how others perceive them -- and whether or not you think that you can handle the guilt of taking another human life. Of course, all of that only becomes an issue if you have the desire to take a human life. Do you have any such desire? I certainly don't, apart from a strong desire to put a crowbar into Alan Ralsky's skull (known Internet spammer).

Should we all not become socialpaths like Ted Bundy?

Why would I want to do that? I have no desire to rape and murder women. If I did, I would seek counselling rather than engage in behaviour with such undesirable potential consequences.

There is no right or wrong for me except what benefits me or doesn't benefit me?

Ultimately there is no right or wrong period. It's all defined by human desire.

I could appeal to my superior fitness to exist and hunt you down to destroy you and any prodigny, and ensure that only my genes are passed along - you see, it can really get out of hand.

Yes, you could do that. And in the process you could end up getting killed. You see, I'd kind of like to continue living, and I wouldn't appreciate your efforts to stop that. You'd have to consider that as a possible outcome; while you would ensure that your genes were passed on should you succeed, there's a risk that you will fail and that your genes will never pass on, and if you don't take the risk at all you'll still have a chance to pass your genes on to offspring. Of course, all of that is moot if you don't have the desire to take me out in the first place. I certainly don't feel a need to kill off other people to see that only my genes get passed on to subsequent generations. I see absolutely no benefit in it whatsoever.

Besides, I don't plan on having children.

Once again, this doesn't disprove evolution. It just shows how it can be misused - as most religions have been.

Except that this isn't even misusing evolution. It's a full-on misrepresentation of it.

It's also possible that someone decided that they could spin the theory into a nice justification for what they'd already decided to do.

"It is God's will!"

"Ultimately there is no right or wrong period. It's all defined by human desire."

You made my point exactly as to the social consequences of athestic evolutionary thought. It produces a society that is totally self centered. I am trully sorry that you cannot grasp this and its danger. However, I must again concede that even if a society devoid of things other than self is a natural, and undesireable, result of evolutionary thought being fully embraced - that does not prove macro evolution to be wrong.

It should however, give "theistic" evolutionists pause about what they are giving "aid and comfort to."