Replies

Which proves my point made earlier. Darwinism has no foundation for placing value upon human life.
Nor does it try to do so. You are still arguing against your own strawman.
No I'm not. You may claim that Darwinism doesn't try to place value on human life, but it can not be neutral. There are repercussions to thought systems. That means EVERY though system. Nothing operates in a vacuum and nothing is without effect on how people think. Darwinian evolution makes humans no more valuable than a bacteria. There are implications to when you tell people they are no better than animals, and repercussions to a system of belief without moral foundation. Again, I sure hope you aren't pro-life. Because having someone who is a Darwinist stand up and say why life is valuable would not e very persuasive.

We are just seen as more highly evolved forms from an original source that happened by chance.

Not "highly" - highly is a meaningless adjective in this context. However, we are more specialized than other hominids towards a larger brain, unimpeded voice box, and bipedal stance.
Okay, a "Favored" race. How's that? That is how Darwin worded it. It also shows that you do not understand Darwin.

There is no foundation, other than human opinion, for any kind of moral judgment and that opinion could vary from place to place and we legitimately would have no foundatin for stating it is wrong.

Like gravity or quantum mechanics, the theory evolution makes no moral judgements. Same strawman.
No strawman. You can not have it to where it makes no moral judgments. By declaring the origin of man as you have, you have by implication already made a moral judgment in that there is NO basis for morality. You may try to duck that one, but it is the truth. No belief system operates within a vacuum and Darwinists have the responsibility to examine the implications of their own beliefs.

In the Darwinist world, one can NOT say with a rational basis that Bin Laden was evil. One can say I don't like what he did, but his majority rule may say it was perfectly okay.

On the contrary, as Junior has pointed out several times, both the individual instinct and the cultural basis for survival, reproduction, and the protection of one's children, impose such judgements. And for clearly rational and easily understandable reasons.

Baloney.

Saying that murderers like John Wayne Gacy let "demons" control their actions absolves them of direct personal responsibility for their actions. And, personally speaking, how is it different than saying "the Norms controlled their fates" or "the Elf-Queen made them do it", or even "evil space aliens from Zarg contolled them like sock-puppets".
Saying they are less than human, which is what I was referring to, absolves them of responsibility more than allowing demons to control them.

No I'm not. You may claim that Darwinism doesn't try to place value on human life, but it can not be neutral. There are repercussions to thought systems. [snip]

It's a conceptual model of the operation of a subset of the universe - it doesn't judge people. Try to overcome the bias of your own belief system and view the world through someone else's eyes - you'll never understand them without trying.

There are implications to when you tell people they are no better than animals, and repercussions to a system of belief without moral foundation.

I didn't say that - that's your strawman based on a poor understanding of what science is.

Again, I sure hope you aren't pro-life. Because having someone who is a Darwinist stand up and say why life is valuable would not e very persuasive.

Total non-sequitur. I would not base such an argument on the "value" of life - that's your strawman based on your belief system.

Me: However, we are more specialized than other hominids towards a larger brain, unimpeded voice box, and bipedal stance.

You: Okay, a "Favored" race. How's that? That is how Darwin worded it. It also shows that you do not understand Darwin.

Where did I say that we weren't? You sure like to jump to unwarranted conclusions. Try to stop and think before you post next time.

No strawman. You can not have it to where it makes no moral judgments.

Really? Show me an example. What moral judgements does the Theory of Gravity make?

Me: On the contrary, as Junior has pointed out several times, both the individual instinct and the cultural basis for survival, reproduction, and the protection of one's children, impose such judgements. And for clearly rational and easily understandable reasons.

You: Baloney.

Allow me to rephrase that. Most 5th graders would understand that.

Saying they are less than human, which is what I was referring to, absolves them of responsibility more than allowing demons to control them.

Simple enough. Define "human" then. Explain why they are "less than human" (there's that high/low strawman again).

PMFJI...

[DJ2:] Which proves my point made earlier. Darwinism has no foundation for placing value upon human life.
[B666:] Nor does it try to do so. You are still arguing against your own strawman.
[DJ2:] No I'm not. You may claim that Darwinism doesn't try to place value on human life, but it can not be neutral. There are repercussions to thought systems. That means EVERY though system. Nothing operates in a vacuum and nothing is without effect on how people think. Darwinian evolution makes humans no more valuable than a bacteria. There are implications to when you tell people they are no better than animals, and repercussions to a system of belief without moral foundation.

Ah, we're finally getting somewhere! IMO this kind of argument is why Morton's Demon is so welcomed by many creationists. You (rightly IMO) want there to be a secure moral code that all people can be persuaded to obey, because the alternative is perpetual chaos, war, & degradation on several levels from the personal to the political. But you (wrongly IMO) don't think that the natural world provides any objective reason to be moral, therefore any morality based on an appeal to the facts of the natural world can be persuasive.

Do I have your position essentially correct so far?