8th August 2012, 07:41 PM
|
|
Cuss-tard
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,086
|
|
Re: Media Watch - various relevant articles in the media
The author came back, and spent about three seconds worth of brain power responding to critique (roughly half of that that went into the original article). She said this:
Quote:
Also, I should like to point out, I have no beef with the science of evolution. But for two things:
a) you cannot extrapolate from the science of evolution that there is no God.
b) there is a difference, of course, between the biological processes of evolution, and social Dawinism, but I have yet to read a convincing explanation of how evolution PLUS atheism does not lead naturally to social Dawinism. I understand atheists rejecting the concept as abhorrent, but I see nowhere else for them to logically arrive.
|
The first bit, my response was published. I'm not sure my rejoinder to the second will be, so I'll drop it in here for posterity:
Quote:
Evolution plus atheism leads to Social Darwinism?
The recognition of evolution as a process which occurs as a necessary outgrowth of the sort of biology that exists and which we are a part of is nothing more than simple intellectual honesty. It has nothing whatsoever to do with considerations regarding desirable social constructions.
To put it another way: evolution is simply how life changes over extended timelines. It has no value as a basis for how we might best develop as a culture, any more than nuclear decay would. It has, quite literally, nothing to do with it.
Further, I doubt the author actually has much of a grasp of modern evolutionary theory anyway, since Social Darwinism is predicated upon misunderstandings of ideas like 'survival of the fittest' – ideas which have almost nothing to do with modern evolutionary theory, being something like 80 years out of date.
The addition of atheism is just stirring some fear and misplaced superiority into the mix of ignorance and blind assertion. Atheism is simply the state of not believing in god/s. Why anyone thinks a lack of celestial overlords renders the human animal nothing more than a vicious fiend bent upon rapine and destruction is quite beyond me, when it is abundantly clear that even the majority of those who believe are manifestly more moral creatures than the benighted arch-demons they purport to worship.
Think on this: we are, science reveals, evolved social animals. If we didn't possess the tendencies toward sharing, caring, reciprocal altruism, and all the rest of the stuff directly in opposition to so-called Social Darwinism, we wouldn't be social animals. We'd be something radically different – but that still wouldn't mean that it could not be conceived and argued that being nice to each other is demonstrably a more successful strategy for making life all-round better. For everyone.
|
|
.
)
Linear Mode
