Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Of course it isn't Darwin's fault for the evil done in his name. Evil done in the name of religion however is totally the respectives god's/prophet's fault.

 

[skeptik]

How could something that doesn't exist be at fault for causing something?

 

[Dak]

We are talking about faulting belief systems and the system's creators. Whether or not the belief system is correct or not has no bearing. It still does influence actions.

 

[skeptik]

Well something that doesn't exist can't create a belief system either.

 

[cookiecutter]

Calling Darwinism a belief system is not entirely accurate because it places it on the same level as a political or religious belief system when in reality it is supported by scientific evidence and therefore is held up to a much higher standard. To then blame Darwin for inaccurate beliefs that were influenced by his theory would be like blaming a famous chemist for the use of chemical weapons.

 

[Dak]

I don't see how striving to maintain the natural evolutionary process is comparable to the weaponization of any science, although weapons do assist in maintaining that process.

@Dodens: I did say "prophets" as well. Someone created the religious belief systems, whether supernatural or not.

 

[skeptik]

Well prophets can only actually be prophets if they were spoken to by god and then made prophecies. So prophets don't exist either.

 

[cookiecutter]

I don't see how striving to maintain the natural evolutionary process is comparable to the weaponization of any science, although weapons do assist in maintaining that process.

I don't understand your point. I was saying that blaming Darwin for such ugly beliefs as Social Darwinism would be equivalent to blaming a peaceful chemist for the eventual creation of chemical weapons. Darwin did not propose Social Darwinism and the biological theory of evolution which has since been created from Darwin's work does not give evidence for Social Darwinism, so to blame Darwin for it is not a reasonable thing to do.

 

[Dak]

Since Dodens insists on splitting hairs over labels, I will skip his response.

Whether or not Darwin proposed "Social" Darwinsim, there cannnot be any other logical conclusion. Of course, you can participate in double think and it would make sense to believe in natural selection, survival of the fittest, humans being an advanced animal, etc. AND also believe the obvious social applications to be "evil".

 

[skeptik]

Darwin did not invent evolution, natural selection, or survival of the fittest. These things exist in nature. He merely described them. You lose.

 

[Einherjar86]

Darwin was an evil man responsible for evil things... ...if you don't actually know what you're talking about. Then again, look at all of the evil done in his name... ...by ignorant people who have no idea what they're talking about

edit: also http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d...-article-of-the-week-the-dark-side-of-darwin/

That's a good Discover article. I'm glad at least one mainstream published magazine had the guts to counter TIME.

 

[Dak]

Darwin did not invent evolution, natural selection, or survival of the fittest. These things exist in nature. He merely described them. You lose.

Thank you for providing a completely random statement. No said anything about Darwin "inventing" these theories. Sometimes I wonder if Dodens is two different people. The razor "tongued" misanthropist, and the aspiring (but failing) younger sibling who sneaks on his account.



Just like the tough questions regarding social programs (like how do we pay for them), the tough questions on Darwinism get ignored. Assuming natural selection/"survival of the fittest" to be natural processes insuring the success and prosperity of the species, what is wrong with "Social Darwinism"?

 

[skeptik]

You're laughably moronic. It's utterly delightful how you so blatantly do not understand simple concepts. Darwin is not responsible for anything that stems from "Darwinism" because he didn't have anything to do with it. He merely observed and reported. Do you blame a news anchor for delivering bad news and what stems from that news? Anybody who faults Darwin for writing about evolution due to stupid things that stupid people may or may not have done on some twisted notion of his writings is utterly fucking moronic.

 

[Dak]

You're laughably moronic. It's utterly delightful how you so blatantly do not understand simple concepts. Darwin is not responsible for anything that stems from "Darwinism" because he didn't have anything to do with it. He merely observed and reported. Do you blame a news anchor for delivering bad news and what stems from that news? Anybody who faults Darwin for writing about evolution due to stupid things that stupid people may or may not have done on some twisted notion of his writings is utterly fucking moronic.

What the hell are you going on about? I never said actions of others were Darwin's fault.

Originally, I was pointing out how on the one hand athiests will point out the obvious flaw in blaming actions of "followers" of Darwin (to simplify it), and turn around and blame the idea of god and religion for historic atrocities done "in the name of god".

Secondly, I was asking why is there a problem with Social Darwinism.

You didn't address either point, instead went off on a tangent about something that was never even argued with.

 

[skeptik]

Why is there a problem with "Social Darwinism"? First of all, "Social Darwinism" has nothing to do with Darwin. Secondly, under this idea, it is acceptable to shoot a cripple in the head because it's for the betterment of the species. Do I have to explain why this is a problem?

Also, the difference between "followers of Darwin" (which doesn't even make sense) and religious fanatics is that one is a simple scientific fact and the other is some bullshit made up fairy tales. Religion should not even exist, so the fact that such utter abuses and atrocities can be ascribed to its name just makes it even worse.

 

[Dak]

I like how you took two paragraphs to not answer my question. I will rephrase the question:

Assuming natural selection/"survival of the fittest" to be natural processes insuring the success and prosperity of the species, what is wrong with the human species participating to the fullest extent?

To do otherwise would be to fight the natural process, not only to our detriment as a species, but to the detriment of our environment.

 

[skeptik]

If you're actively participating in eliminating certain elements from the species, then it's not a natural process. To do otherwise would be to support the natural process. To do so would be to negate the natural process. That would be artificial selection, not natural selection.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

I like how you took two paragraphs to not answer my question. I will rephrase the question:

Assuming natural selection/"survival of the fittest" to be natural processes insuring the success and prosperity of the species, what is wrong with the human species participating to the fullest extent?

To do otherwise would be to fight the natural process, not only to our detriment as a species, but to the detriment of our environment.

Because due to the invention of human society what is 'right' in a purely Darwinian sense is no longer always applicable in our society. Example: from the purely Darwinian sense of survival of the fittest (i.e. being fit enough to survive and produce offspring) the millions of meth-heads with 15 kids each would be the most fit. Whereas someone like Stephen Hawking who can't even move let alone have 15 kids would be unfit regardless of how much he's advanced our society and our species knowledge. The point I'm making is that we've reached a point in our development and society where the strict rules of Darwinism aren't always what's best for the species. People like Beethoven or Hawking are far more necessary than welfare people who breed 19 kids.

 

[Dak]

Social programs (like welfare) are an example of "doing otherwise".
Enabling lifestyles that would fail when replicated on a wide scale and without broad social assistance is the opposite of the natural process.
So those meth-heads with 15 kids wouldn't be the most fit, since the entire family would die off since the meth would eventually kill off the parents and they wouldn't have the funds to feed the kids.

Beethoven as well as Hawking contributed to society, more than balancing out any drain they may have been on their family or society due to disabilites.

From this viewpoint, the people who murder in the name of "weeding out the weak" cannot be viewed with complete contempt, since they believe they are trying to balance out a current social system which assists the negative elements while draining on the productive elements. Both sides are misguided.

If it is wrong to participate in artificial selection through murder, so it is through social programs.

 

[Dak]

Obama to boost troop levels

White House: Patience with Iran is limited

Sounds like the Bush administration to me. What next, the revival of the "Axis of Evil"?