Next week, a guy is going to have a little speech about the implications of social darwinism, or darwinism in medicine, during religion class.

Now what I am going to do is oppose him in every possible way. But I don't really know exactly what I should say.
I know that fascism isn't based on evolution, because of biodiversity.
I could say that we surpassed evolution, because we are with 7 billion, and we help the weak.
Then, of course, I should say that people have equal rights, independent of 'social darwinism'.

But that's about it.

Edit:

I meant to ask if any of you guys have some things to add. Since, you know, you guys debate all day long, and it's really thing for this forum.

I'm also going to search the site; maybe the topic has been made before

That demonstrates that cooperation is an advantage for survival of species that live in groups, that some form of 'group selection' clearly works, that 'Darwinism' is not purely about individual competition and selection

LOL...Christnut psychos will find some INSANE way to justify their MYTHICAL god.  They'll say Jeebus kick started the whole thing eventhough that's NOT what creationism says and the bible mentions NOTHING about any of the branches of science!!

But Christianity continues to lose influence and Christians have more doubt than ever before in the west! It'll be marginalized into a Jim Jones type cult eventually.

The ability of the original buffalo to communicate the situation in some sense to the rest of the herd, and trigger that response, is to me, the most impressive thing. Just what the 'thought processes' involved may have been, at what level, is indeed very much fascinating to contemplate.

No matter how you judge the level of 'conscious' vs. instinctive reaction involved here, it should give us all pause as to just how much our own moral decisions are a matter of instinctive reaction or conscious choice.

Yet another example of how there is not this absolute distinction between humans as conscious and moral 'agents', and the rest of the natural world as purely acting from 'instinct'.

If such examples from the non-human world could be argued away as mere instinct, then so can much of our own behaviour.

I don't think there is any difference, we're (humans) just a more complex system and we've applied labels to that complexity in an attempt to make functional generalizations.  Being able to think about thinking doesn't mean we're any less tied to our instincts than a buffalo, it just means our minds have created this elaborate feedback loop that 'tricks' itself into thinking it has a choice about how it acts.

I agree, it would be fascinating to understand exactly how the herd came to the conclusion to fight back.  To get inside their heads, as it were.

The whole thing is strange and counter-intuitive and possibly very complex.  Hhow did I word this..."An atom bumping into another atom eventually translates into 1.19 x 10^57 atoms in an isolated orb of energetic particals ejecting radiation over vast distances that is then taken in by another group of atoms on a larger substrate that turns the energy into a self replicating engine capable of endless adaptation. Or, sunshine makes the trees grow.

People seem fine with that level of complexity being natural, and it is all based on 'simple' chemistry. I find it no more absurd to think the mind is also goverened by the same processes."

Consciousness is fascinating.

Hi RedNef,

Wow, comedy hour or happy hour? Close enough?

Look, I've discussed this problem philospohically on many occasions and yet you don't learn. If you were my student I would thrown the chalk board right at you.

Bob Spencer1 had this problem to. You have to qualify and clarify what type of "KNOWING" you will pursue in first before you even talk about evolution.

But there is so much confusion regarding epistemology and so many categorical fallacies, it's almost like this is one of those dillusions that God sent to the reprobate (II Thess 2:9).

Are you approaching this empirically? This is NOT via the rules of logic, but rather via ostensive observation. Or are you using Reason capital R where Logic and Reason are God like the Deists? Or you are arguing intuitively via your feelings?

As I bring this up, I know, I just know that all will mix up the categories, get confused, and be dumbfounded. But you must keep a given method of epiesemology in it's field lest you become absurd like my friend Bob Spence did regarding empiricism and logic.

Justify your method of the know, then we can talk about Darwin. If this isn't done, you are peeing in the wind and thus peeing on yourself.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

You're an idiot

Hello,

Hey KTULA, why'd you call Bob an Idiot. He seems like a nice guy.

Bob, just becaues you are stumped and have no answer, doesn't mean that your ad hominems will make it easier for you. You can walk away from your linguistic and rational holes. When it comes to this subject, you are wholy.

Again, the interpretation of empirical data is NON EMPIRICAL. The ability to contrast, cause and effect, etc. The interpretation part is LOGICAL not empirical.

I know that's what they do, but the do this via a categorical fallacy outside of rationality.

lol.

So again, unless one can provide a logical justification of their method of knowing when it comes to evolution, they cannot argue for or against evolutions since they are no more intelligenct then my uncle's monkey on a stick.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

You are still stuck on that false dilemma, that you cannot analyse empirical data with the help of non-empirical tools (logic and math).

I did not claim that the analysis is itself empirical, it certainly does not need to be. The interpretation is to an extent empirical, in that it is informed by how fruitful and useful previous approaches to interpreting related data have been.

Logic without empirical data can tell us nothing about reality. Empirical data without logical and mathematical analysis does actually tell us something, but little beyond the raw information. 

People build houses with hammers and other tools. Tools which cannot of themselves serve as shelter. We also apply conceptual ideals to designing a house, even though such ideas are in a different category to a physical structure.

You make a category error, failing to distinguish conceptual and analytic tools from the processes by which we gather data to apply those tools to.

What problem is that?...

Thanks, AE.

Another example showing how 'unselfish' animals can be.

Dolphins also exhibit, not only sympathy, but will defend another dolphin, and other species from attacks by predators like sharks.

Animals are compassionate. We are compassionate because we are part of the animal kingdom.

I mean, these people are certifiably insane if they think we are not animals.

This is not even up for debate.