Darwinism and welfare

[avatar4321]

I was reading Manu's list of topics to discuss with liberals at a dinner party and I was particularly intrigued with the Darwinism and welfare topic.

I know there are some hard core evolutionists around. How do you justify interfering with Natural selection by supporting welfare or universal health care?

For that matter how do you justify interfering with natural selection by opposing war?

[diuretic]

I was reading Manu's list of topics to discuss with liberals at a dinner party and I was particularly intrigued with the Darwinism and welfare topic.

I know there are some hard core evolutionists around. How do you justify interfering with Natural selection by supporting welfare or universal health care?

For that matter how do you justify interfering with natural selection by opposing war?

Whoa talk about assuming your own conclusions. Got anything that's not a leading question?

[Gunny]

Whoa talk about assuming your own conclusions. Got anything that's not a leading question?

What's leading about it? Are you backpeddaling so fast that's your tires squealing I hear?:poke:

It's a damned-good question.

[Yurt]

Whoa talk about assuming your own conclusions. Got anything that's not a leading question?

Ok counselor:


How do you justify interfering with Natural selection by supporting welfare or universal health care?

Is the theory of natural selection supported by a theory that believes in welfare or universal health care?:poke:

:coffee:

[diuretic]

Ok counselor:

I'm not a lawyer, I don't have the patience for detail and I'm not quick on my feet. I'd be hopeless in court-based work and I would stuff the detailed work up.

But I have been cross-examined enough to know a leading question when I hear/read one :laugh2:


[QUOTE=Yurt:]
Is the theory of natural selection supported by a theory that believes in welfare or universal health care?:poke:

:coffee:

Nope, there's no valid comparison. I could suggest that medical science interferes with natural selection on a long term basis so it should be stopped. But that would be silly as well as completely uncivilised and just morally wrong. Anyway to point out the obvious, the theory of natural selection (which I think may have been Spencer and not Darwin) is a scientific theory used to explain observations. Welfare and universal health care are social policy ideas.

No, I don't believe in Social Darwinism either.

[Hugh Lincoln]

I was reading Manu's list of topics to discuss with liberals at a dinner party and I was particularly intrigued with the Darwinism and welfare topic.

I know there are some hard core evolutionists around. How do you justify interfering with Natural selection by supporting welfare or universal health care?

For that matter how do you justify interfering with natural selection by opposing war?

Hard question for some!

Liberals like to champion Darwin because he makes the religious fundamentalists mad, but they should note that he's not so great for many of their positions.

I say take a moderate path: recognize the reality of evolution and adaptivity and try to work with it, not against it. A little welfare to ease suffering, OK. A ton that encourages the breeding of entire populations of defectives, hell no.

One human problem is that we've evolved to a point where we may devolve: we can provide so much comfort, the hard conditions that created hardy people to begin with are gone!

[diuretic]

Hard question for some!

Liberals like to champion Darwin because he makes the religious fundamentalists mad, but they should note that he's not so great for many of their positions.

I say take a moderate path: recognize the reality of evolution and adaptivity and try to work with it, not against it. A little welfare to ease suffering, OK. A ton that encourages the breeding of entire populations of defectives, hell no.

One human problem is that we've evolved to a point where we may devolve: we can provide so much comfort, the hard conditions that created hardy people to begin with are gone!

Maybe liberals just understand that Darwin proposed a theory which has guided scientific research and discovery up until now, but like any other scientific theory will have to be reviewed if it fails the test in the future. Maybe liberals understand the idea of paradigm shifts in science.
Maybe liberals understand that Darwin was a religious man and had no intention of trying to take on religious teachings.
Maybe liberals understand that there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and religious teachings.
Mayble liberals understand that Christian fundamentalists hate Darwin and science and will defend both in the face of irrational attacks.

[manu1959]

Whoa talk about assuming your own conclusions. Got anything that's not a leading question?

refute it.....

if you belive in natural selection and evolution......why do you tamper with natures will by helping those that cannot make it...live.....

socialisim is an affront to evolution

[avatar4321]

Leading questions implies i know the answers. I dont. I have no clue what you guys think of it. Hence the point of asking the questions.

[Yurt]

[QUOTE=Yurt;126048]Ok counselor:

I'm not a lawyer, I don't have the patience for detail and I'm not quick on my feet. I'd be hopeless in court-based work and I would stuff the detailed work up.

But I have been cross-examined enough to know a leading question when I hear/read one :laugh2:




Nope, there's no valid comparison. I could suggest that medical science interferes with natural selection on a long term basis so it should be stopped. But that would be silly as well as completely uncivilised and just morally wrong. Anyway to point out the obvious, the theory of natural selection (which I think may have been Spencer and not Darwin) is a scientific theory used to explain observations. Welfare and universal health care are social policy ideas.

No, I don't believe in Social Darwinism either.


Actually, there are animals that naturally help mend another hurt animal, sometimes not even of the same species. So I would proffer that humans medically helping others is very much part of so called natural selection and the evolutionary process.

Whether your right to health care is entirely different. If we follow the train of thought, one could say that only the evolutionary superior humans can afford evolutionary superior health care and to give away to those who have not earned the ability to have such things is against the natural process.

Not saying I believe that, just following the bouncing ball.

[diuretic]

refute it.....

Ask a question and I will try, but first ask a question instead of suggesting the answer you're looking for. As I said, I've been cross-examined too many times to walk into that one





if you belive in natural selection and evolution......why do you tamper with natures will by helping those that cannot make it...live.....{/quote]

I don't "believe" in "natural selection and evolution". I accept that there are a bunch of scientific theories that explain certain observed effects.

I support medical science's efforts at prolonging human life both for individuals and for humans in general. There's no inconsistency there. If you think there's inconsistency then show me where it is

[QUOTE=manu1959:]
socialisim is an affront to evolution

That's your opinion, you're entitled to it.

[diuretic]

Leading questions implies i know the answers. I dont. I have no clue what you guys think of it. Hence the point of asking the questions.

Leading questions assume the response.

[diuretic]

Actually, there are animals that naturally help mend another hurt animal, sometimes not even of the same species. So I would proffer that humans medically helping others is very much part of so called natural selection and the evolutionary process.

I remember seeing a film of a hippo helping a gazelle that had been mauled by a crocodile in a waterway in Africa. It was amazing, evidence of inter-species altruism.




Whether your right to health care is entirely different. If we follow the train of thought, one could say that only the evolutionary superior humans can afford evolutionary superior health care and to give away to those who have not earned the ability to have such things is against the natural process.

Not saying I believe that, just following the bouncing ball.

I suppose a Social Darwinist would say that if you can't afford to pay for health care then you die and that's a good thing because then the poor eventually die out. I doubt if an economist would approve though :laugh2:

[manu1959]

i grew up poor....no universal health care....no food stamps....my dad died and regan cut my social security to 0.....

i survived....

[AFbombloader]

I was reading Manu's list of topics to discuss with liberals at a dinner party and I was particularly intrigued with the Darwinism and welfare topic.

I know there are some hard core evolutionists around. How do you justify interfering with Natural selection by supporting welfare or universal health care?

For that matter how do you justify interfering with natural selection by opposing war?

I like your questions and would love to see a reply.....but aren't evolution and natural selection different? The theory that we "evolved" from a single cell organism to what we are today is evolution and is crap. But the fact that animals keep the traits that make them stronger and more able to survive is true.

[AFbombloader]

Hard question for some!

Liberals like to champion Darwin because he makes the religious fundamentalists mad, but they should note that he's not so great for many of their positions.

I say take a moderate path: recognize the reality of evolution and adaptivity and try to work with it, not against it. A little welfare to ease suffering, OK. A ton that encourages the breeding of entire populations of defectives, hell no.

One human problem is that we've evolved to a point where we may devolve: we can provide so much comfort, the hard conditions that created hardy people to begin with are gone!

The funny thing about Darwin is that he was extremely religious. And he never said we evolved. He noted the changes in birds, which showed adaptation to the environment, not evolution.

I am not an evolutionist but my father is and I grew up seeing all of the Cosmo's tv shows with Carl Sagan and such.

[avatar4321]

Leading questions assume the response.

That's exactly my point. I have no clue what you or anyone else would respond. Hence the point of the question, to find out.

[Gunny]

Hard question for some!

Liberals like to champion Darwin because he makes the religious fundamentalists mad, but they should note that he's not so great for many of their positions.

I say take a moderate path: recognize the reality of evolution and adaptivity and try to work with it, not against it. A little welfare to ease suffering, OK. A ton that encourages the breeding of entire populations of defectives, hell no.

One human problem is that we've evolved to a point where we may devolve: we can provide so much comfort, the hard conditions that created hardy people to begin with are gone!

I agree. Well-said.

[diuretic]

I like your questions and would love to see a reply.....but aren't evolution and natural selection different? The theory that we "evolved" from a single cell organism to what we are today is evolution and is crap. But the fact that animals keep the traits that make them stronger and more able to survive is true.

Before you denounce things as crap you should try and understand them a bit. Try reading a bit about Herbert Spencer and "survival of the fittest". Wikipedia has a nice entry about him. Then see the link with evolutionary theory. Then realise that you can't decry one and accept the other. But also try to see the world through Spencer's eyes as a Victorian biologist.

[diuretic]

That's exactly my point. I have no clue what you or anyone else would respond. Hence the point of the question, to find out.

Open question. Closed question. Difference. You asked a closed question. I'm not being cranky, just pointing out the difference.

[diuretic]

Hard question for some!

Liberals like to champion Darwin because he makes the religious fundamentalists mad, but they should note that he's not so great for many of their positions.

I say take a moderate path: recognize the reality of evolution and adaptivity and try to work with it, not against it. A little welfare to ease suffering, OK. A ton that encourages the breeding of entire populations of defectives, hell no.

One human problem is that we've evolved to a point where we may devolve: we can provide so much comfort, the hard conditions that created hardy people to begin with are gone!

Now you've moved from science to social policy - not that it's a bad thing. But it would be good to recognise the shift or we'll get some sort of backwards attack on evolutionary theory based in social policy.

I could at this point suggest we now discuss Aristotle's ideas about eudaimonia.

[AFbombloader]

Before you denounce things as crap you should try and understand them a bit. Try reading a bit about Herbert Spencer and "survival of the fittest". Wikipedia has a nice entry about him. Then see the link with evolutionary theory. Then realise that you can't decry one and accept the other. But also try to see the world through Spencer's eyes as a Victorian biologist.

I do study these things and try to understand them. I have read books (real ones) and gone online to look at this information. I have come to my opinion that it is crap. The theory of evolution does not stand up to the scientific process.

What is being missed by most people is the fact that there is a difference between "evolution" and "natural selection". Not only can I decry one and not the other, you have to. They are seperate.

Try looking at more credible references. Wicapedia is not a good reference. My professors will not accept is because it in not regulated. I can go on it and post whatever I want and it is fact because it is there.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_2.htm

[PostmodernProphet]

Maybe liberals understand the idea of paradigm shifts in science.


lol, only liberals would go the extra mile to give a name to "Shit, that didn't work, let's try something else"........

[diuretic]

I do study these things and try to understand them. I have read books (real ones) and gone online to look at this information. I have come to my opinion that it is crap. The theory of evolution does not stand up to the scientific process.

What is being missed by most people is the fact that there is a difference between "evolution" and "natural selection". Not only can I decry one and not the other, you have to. They are seperate.

Try looking at more credible references. Wicapedia is not a good reference. My professors will not accept is because it in not regulated. I can go on it and post whatever I want and it is fact because it is there.

I don't want to sound flippant but if you know that the theory of evolution doesn't stand up to the scientific process then you should let everyone know. To date it hasn't been refuted by scientists. And I don't mean Creationists. I mean scientists who are working in the field, as in how real science is done.

If you're into reading may I suggest you peruse "The Phenomenon of Man" by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. It's a damn difficult read but Chardin, who was a palaeontologist and a Jesuit priest (rehabilitated after Vatican Two) made a cogent argument for evolution as part the natural process ordained by God. Now I don't happen to agree with Chardin's views about religion but I thought he did a sterling job of (back when he wrote the book back in about the 1950s from memory) making his case in the face of hostilty from the Vatican.

[AFbombloader]

I don't want to sound flippant but if you know that the theory of evolution doesn't stand up to the scientific process then you should let everyone know. To date it hasn't been refuted by scientists. And I don't mean Creationists. I mean scientists who are working in the field, as in how real science is done.

If you're into reading may I suggest you peruse "The Phenomenon of Man" by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. It's a damn difficult read but Chardin, who was a palaeontologist and a Jesuit priest (rehabilitated after Vatican Two) made a cogent argument for evolution as part the natural process ordained by God. Now I don't happen to agree with Chardin's views about religion but I thought he did a sterling job of (back when he wrote the book back in about the 1950s from memory) making his case in the face of hostilty from the Vatican.

It may not have been refuted by scientists but is has not been proven either. It is a theory, but is being taken as fact by many. Nobody can explain the gaps that exist. I will look at your list of authors.
I Personally agree that natural selection (evolution) does exist and is part of the creation process.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter2.asp

[diuretic]

It may not have been refuted by scientists but is has not been proven either. It is a theory, but is being taken as fact by many. Nobody can explain the gaps that exist. I will look at your list of authors.
I Personally agree that natural selection (evolution) does exist and is part of the creation process.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter2.asp

It's a theory, yes, but that's how science works, everything is a temporary explanation, a theory, if someone comes up with a better theory then it will be dumped, that's how science works.

When it comes to the creation process that's when it gets contentious I suppose. The only point I would make is that science isn't about disproving the existence of a Deity. I think sometimes people think that but it's not the case. I would think any scientist that told his or her peers that they were setting out to disprove a Deity would be grabbed immediately and given a very different white coat. Science is about explaining things so advance human knowledge. It goes back to Aristotle who smacked previous philosophers about the head (notably Plato) and said, forget the heads in the clouds metaphysics stuff, look at what you can see. And that's what science is about - the empirical stuff, the stuff that can be explained by observation.

It doesn't threaten religion. It's neutral, or at least it should be, if it isn't neutral then it's not science.