Skip to forum content

You are not logged in. Please login or register.

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → Darwinism: Misinterpreted?

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

RSS topic feed

Posts: 16


If it were the Russian government this discussion would be about Lamarkianism. Letting government finance basic research, theories and science guarantees that whatever the government's political position, the scientists will toe the line. And you can be sure that there will be many stooges supporting the government line. Somewhere in all of this, you will find cronies of the government making a mint out of bad science.


The theory of evolution just like other scientific theories are descriptive (they explain or describe what we observe) they are not prescriptive (prescribe or dictate the rules that must be followed). People who want to claim Darwinism (not sure what this word means) says it must be this way are misunderstanding or misapplying the theory of evolution.


Appreciate that natural selection does choose anything. Though it is a common short hand way of describing one of the elements of evolution, it is misleading.  Natural selection is a statistical process; populations better adapted to their changing environment have better odds of leaving behind more offspring. There is no more ethical content to Darwinian evolution than there is in math.
What you find offensive, and rightly so, are the distortions of this blind statistical concept into societal prescriptions. Who are the human winners in environmental lottery right now?  There is no way to know.  If you are rich, you might say the rich, but you would look pretty foolish when the next super flu wiped out everyone you know and left only the maids and the grounds keepers. To put it another way, Social Darwinists are as ignorant of evolution as creationists.


Darwinism is used as a name for the theory of evolution because of the person who theorized it in the first place (Charles Darwin).


Pinkie.   Where are the morals and ethics issues here?


I thought Social Darwinism and man-made extinctions was part of the morals and ethics issues.


In fact, you are the one misinterpreting the theory of evolution. "Survival of the fittest" is a term which is ill suited to describe the mechanisms of natural selection, for a couple of reasons. First, because survival is only one part of the overall goal of passing along ones genes, and not always the most important one at that. Second, because "fitness" tends to be misinterpreted as meaning physical fitness, as you seem to do here, when in fact it means how "fit" you are for your current environment, which depending on the qualities that environment has, can mean a variety of things. For instance, in cold areas with limited food sources, being fat would be an evolutionary advantage.


"My question to you guys is do you believe if ethics exists in Darwinism?"
Nope. It's an explanation of how something happens, not a base answer to why or the idea of should/should not. That's not its purpose. Any additional context rather than the biological is added to it. Make what you will of my answer.


Oh thanks,
New religious systems that were not embraced or well received than; as for my agenda,it is very very broard to such an extant that I'm still trying to figure it out


Actually, should we decide to follow Darwin, then the welfare class would be allowed to fail and die off, meaning that the surviving humans would be smarter, stronger, and more likely to survive.  However, that means that the Democrat Party implodes within weeks.  They need to tap into the wealth of the fittest to ensure that the unfit vote for them.


That assumes that people on welfare are somehow less strong or smart than other kinds of people. Which is false.


You might want to cross out the "smarter" part because according to the movie Idiocracy, Darwinism favors the lesser intelligent people over smarter ones due to their willingness to reproduce sooner than smart people would. A couple of my friends from another Disquis group find that the movie as a prophet because the current stupidity of people on both the internet and in politics.


Invitations sent then.


Social Darwinism relates to Darwin's theories and writings as Superman comic books relate to G.B. Shaw's "Man and Superman".  There's no real connection.


Comprehension fail. Evolutionary theory does not dictate that only the strgnest survive. That is a common misunderstanding. It suggests that those best suited for change survive.


"Idiocracy" also favours a welfare system. Without welfare, those people would simply die in numbers large enough to offset their higher birthrates. There actually needs to be a class of intelligent people keeping stupid people alive for them to have kids. That's why a welfare state is often described as "dysgenic".

Posts: 16

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → Darwinism: Misinterpreted?

Similar topics in this forum