Thread: Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I have studied behavioral psychology (of course, I'm no expert) and yet I have still seen no definitive evidence of moral codes among animals.What I have seen is patterns of behavior due at least in part to social stresses, which is not the same thing. What have you studied that has lead you to believe otherwise? There are alternative forms of evidence that you could provide other than a picture.

I'm not clear what you are using as a definition of "morals" if you can't see evidence of what we would call moral behavior in humans in animals as well. To start very simply, it is moral behavior when a when a mother takes care of her children instead of abandoning them, right? Obviously animals do this. A step up might be altruistic behavior in animals, examples of which can easily be found. (I'm defining that as an animal risking danger to itself to help another, in addition the parental behavior). Another analagous behavior to that which we call moral in humans is the aversion of breeding with siblings, parents, etc. Some animals have much more complex rules about sex even than that. Animals who live in groups have much more complex social "moral" behavior than those that live individually. Every human moral behavior can easily be explained by the biopsychosocial model of evolution, and in fact, make no sense otherwise (barring belief of course in a higher power who created the universe and is also deeply interested in human's sex lives.)

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Also, not all cultures developed moral stigmas about killing and sex, and even the ones that have moral guidelines regarding these things differ drastically from each other.

OK, the vast, vast majority of cultures have moral guidelines concerning killing and sex. I guess I shouldn't say "all", but I'd be surprised if there were any.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The Romans and the Greeks had very few social restrictions when it came to sex,

So incredibly wrong I'm not going to bother.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

and most early meso-american cultures were not against killing for virtually any reason.

Wow, so wrong I'm seriously starting to wonder about you. You must have studied history at the same place you studied biology.

I'm really so astounded by your statements that I don't know what to say.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

As far as your comment about Moses is concerned; religion existed long before Moses; among the Jews and otherwise. I think you would be hard pressed to come up with an example of a moral code that predated religion, as it is near impossible to tell when the advent of religion came about.

Well.. that actually is more support for my argument than yours, I would say.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

This statement is either disingenuous or deluded. The vast majority of 'religious people,' no matter how you define 'religious,' believe in science at least insofar as it produces technology, even if they perceive bias in some work. Many also believe in evolution to varying degrees, though pernicious misinformation erodes that demographic. Waving a strawman does not support your claims to objectivity and reason.

Yea, you're right, that was kind of a stupid thing to say. Most religious people of course believe in most aspects of science; they just away from it turn to faith when it comes to geology, biology, etc.; whichever happens to contradict something that they have faith in.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

0.o I think your dictionary's broken. You're treating faith like something exotic that you don't experience. It's a synonym of trust, not belief. It's trust in something one cannot know for certain, based on evidence that typically includes direct experience and sources one finds authoritative. Obviously you reject their evidence and reasoning, but it's present nonetheless.

Well, I guess it can be used in both senses, can't it? I have faith that my car will start in the morning, but I can't prove it. I meant it in the religious sense of faith, which is belief despite a lack of or even evidence to the contrary, not the wider meaning of things that we think are true but which we can't prove, but for which we have some experience based on past occurrences in similar circumstances.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

things that we think are true but which we can't prove, but for which we have some experience based on past occurrences in similar circumstances.

That's precisely the case with religious faith of all kinds. Like the example of your car, virtually every action we take requires faith for us to proceed. Religious teachings and practices, when they're working, serve as both a well of faith--an energizing force--and a toolkit for shaping the mindstream to proceed more easily, with less resistance.

I take my personal understanding of religion from Buddhism, which is a very deliberate and self-conscious religion, but it is a religion. The other religions, and many secular philosophies, do the same things Buddhism does, but with different styles and emphases. Also, I would say, different strengths and weaknesses.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I'm really so astounded by your statements that I don't know what to say.

Thats quite obvious, since your post was lacking in any evidence or arguments whatsoever. Your unsupported assertions that I am wrong do nothing to convince me.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Thats quite obvious, since your post was lacking in any evidence or arguments whatsoever. Your unsupported assertions that I am wrong do nothing to convince me.

OK, whatever. Maybe you'll learn about it someday.

These sort of threads allways lose me in there wide range of Vocabulary. These sort of people should rule the world. lol

However on topic, apologies for my abysmal use of sentence structure and vocab in my first post. O'nus the bit you didnt understand was the bit that I hadnt actualy quoted.

I dont think you answered it very well or not in the simple terms that mere mortals as myself understand, I cannot see how you can tell me or anyone else that we cannot say that GOD made it that way? He/She/It just decided oh what the heck Ill create a Magnetic field for all mass and have it flip every thousand years just as an example?

Originally Posted by Verto

These sort of threads allways lose me in there wide range of Vocabulary. These sort of people should rule the world. lol

However on topic, apologies for my abysmal use of sentence structure and vocab in my first post. O'nus the bit you didnt understand was the bit that I hadnt actualy quoted.

I dont think you answered it very well or not in the simple terms that mere mortals as myself understand, I cannot see how you can tell me or anyone else that we cannot say that GOD made it that way? He/She/It just decided oh what the heck Ill create a Magnetic field for all mass and have it flip every thousand years just as an example?

I was just watching Sam Harris lecture from last year's Beyond Belief conference, and he provided a good context for this question by distinguishing between evidence suggesting a god vs. being compatible with a god. When you look at evidence with the assumption that there is a god and ask, is this evidence compatible with my belief?--as you point out, you can always answer yes. If, however, you examine the evidence of cosmology, biology, history and other disciplines, and you ask instead, what does this evidence suggest?--the existence of a benevolent, involved creator is unlikely to come up.

Thank you, I like that answer. That is a very interesting way to look at this repetitive view that alot of Christians come up with.