Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Sopater
Oh, that's why it's OK to "choose" to kill our "undesirable" children, and/or other people's children.

Obviously, the theory of evolution is not a basis for morality. Very few people claim that it is.

It's nothing more than a theory about how life changes over time. To try to read anything else into it is to go beyond the limits of science.

8 posted on 08/28/2007 3:38:36 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: curiosity
Yet there are plenty of ramifications if life came about via Macroevolution.

Macroevolution and Creationism are both scientific models of the origins of life and the universe for dueling philosophies.

One--Macroevolution and cosmic evolution--is the model of a philosophy glorifying death. Life advances by culling the weak and malformed, with the strong to survive and thrive in the wake. Development through conflict and predation. Less violent--since life is not directly involved--but still poignant, is stellar evolution, with the figurative birth of planets emerging from the supernova figurative deaths of stars providing heavier elements. Death paradoxically bringing forth life.

The other--Creationism--is the model of a philosophy honoring life. Life was created perfect and there was no death. The carnage and death which supposedly fuels Macroevolution, would be an aberration to Creationism, things gone awry from the way they were supposed to have been. Life is not in feral, savage, dog-eat-dog advance. Life is in decaying decline due to the Fall. Similarly, the stars and planets were created formed. Their figurative deaths do not bring forth life, but destruction. Death does not bring forth life. Life brings forth life.


Then, the topic of this thread, is the point that humans are considered to be another animal species, one to which natural selection applies. People with genetic deficiencies would be bad for the race if they reproduced, so--according to the logic--they should be culled, via sterilization, abortion, or other methods to remove them from the gene pool. If they were permitted to live, they would draw resources which could have otherwise gone to more closer-to-perfect members of the species, so abortion would be an economical way to go. Social Darwinism was on the rise before the atrocities of World War 2, with Belgians massacring Congolese because they figured that natural selection would kill off Africans anyway--they would just help the natural process along, with Australian aborigines being hunted down as if they were animals, murdered, and taxidermally stuffed and sent to European museums to be put on exhibit, with nations across the world sterilizing their retarded and others, along with the despicable acts which occurred during the war.

If Social Darwinism happened once, Social Darwinism can happen again.

That the world will not return to such savagery is not something that should be taken for granted.


17 posted on 08/28/2007 6:08:21 PM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson