Creationist Moral Panic

[Amarok]

Creationists and IDiots love to spew the notion the if were just animals or if there preferred ethics is false. Then we will "act like animals" to paraphrase  particular piece of propaganda I've encountered goes as followed.

If evolution is true and morals are nor assigned by a god then humans would give into an instinct for lust and conquest. And we should look at monsters like Gangis Khan in awe as they are the paragon of evolutionist proscriptive ethics.

This dumb of course  dumb for 4 reasons

1. Lust may be an instinct but rape is not. Yes some species under duress will perform the act but that alone does not make it instinctive nor universal. And much of rape is meta or sub cultural often mingled with miscommunication .

2. Conquest is not an instinct in most if  not all cases in humans it's cultural and not an inherent  normative state

3. If we take theists often cartoonish view of evolution. Gangis Khan would have been a failure . His war and massacres wiped our perfectly healthy people thus reducing the gene pools health and diversity same goes for his rapes. And even if 5% of the human race has his genes how much of his sociopathic tendencies have translated to modern times ? If this method was evolutionarily advantageous why is it not still around?

4 . Theists don't get that evolution has little to do with prescriptive ethics on naturalism.
And most are far to lazy to learn what is.

Honestly at the end off it all this line of reasoning is just there to scare believers into to believing

[Jehanne]

I have found the evangelical far right's logic on this to be silly at best; after all, they largely support the death penalty, long prison sentences and overall cruelty to prisoners, not to mention aggressive modern warfare.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have found the evangelical far right's logic on this to be silly at best; after all, they largely support the death penalty, long prison sentences and overall cruelty to prisoners, not to mention aggressive modern warfare.

That's all payment for sin. Plus the fact that the hard right is sadistic as all fuck.

[The Industrial Atheist]

Well you either find proof that it is or isn't true and go from there. There's lot's of proof that it is. It really doesn't matter that they think people will act like animals if it is true.
Truth doesn't care how we feel.

[vorlon13]

One might think their moral panic would kick in when some long lived item of moral dogma is changed on the fly, but hardly a peep out of them . . . .

[Amarok]

Furthermore some other dumb creationist freak out generally go something like this

"If we observe nature we see a tendency to kill the weak and unproductive as being productive to the group so if evolution is proscriptive then this should be replicated"

This is retarded for 5 reasons

1. Even if we grant any of this so what? morality is about what's right and wrong not what you feel comfortable with . (note the above is bullock)

2. Then they observing nature very carefully. As I can't think of an example among social species were the  crippled of there group are killed . In fact the total opposite can be observed from horses and zebra's nuzzling crippled offspring  to primates comforting even still born infants . I argue that within limited capacity for empathy  and intelligence they do similar things . It's just that we are more empathic and intelligent .

3. If were going to be intensely pragmatic  caring  for the sick and crippled has lead to some of the great medical advances that have helped us all

4. Believing in assigned magic morality has not by default made the religious more compassionate to said group in fact  quite the opposite   

5.  Social Darwinism is not naturalistic prescriptive met ethics so this whole statement is a straw man built on disinterest or ignorance.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Actually since 1 in 200 men are descended from Khan, his genetic footprint demonstrates clearly that his was a highly successful approach to extending his bloodline. And in evolution that is all that matters.

[RoadRunner79]

Actually since 1 in 200 men are descended from Khan, his genetic footprint demonstrates clearly that his was a highly successful approach to extending his bloodline. And in evolution that is all that matters.

There is still the difficulty of getting an "ought from an is"  here as well. 

It doesn't matter what is best for society with this kind of evolutionary view as a bases for morality, only what survives, and is passed along through genetics.  That which reproduces more is moral...I can't subscribe to that.

[Mister Agenda]

Actually since 1 in 200 men are descended from Khan, his genetic footprint demonstrates clearly that his was a highly successful approach to extending his bloodline. And in evolution that is all that matters.

However, we're in human society, not 'in evolution'. It simply doesn't follow that Khan is to be emulated.

[Amarok]

I was gonna write a long rave debunking wooters and mini me but upon reflection . Just no . Face Neo you suck . You suck at defending moral objectivism . You suck at defending theistic morality . And you at attacking naturalistic morality almost as much as Sam Harris is at defending it . And Dawkins and company are at undermining it with stupid quotes . So i'm not going to waste my time. Welcome to my ignore list say high to Asshole and Wally.

[size=small]But I minor context . You didn't address the notion that the trait Should have remained present in modern context. Because it was advantageous .  It didn't so evolution would deem it a failure . So point refuted.

---

Actually since 1 in 200 men are descended from Khan, his genetic footprint demonstrates clearly that his was a highly successful approach to extending his bloodline. And in evolution that is all that matters.

There is still the difficulty of getting an "ought from an is"  here as well. 

It doesn't matter what is best for society with this kind of evolutionary view as a bases for morality, only what survives, and is passed along through genetics.  That which reproduces more is moral...I can't subscribe to that.

neither does any serious naturalist

---

Actually since 1 in 200 men are descended from Khan, his genetic footprint demonstrates clearly that his was a highly successful approach to extending his bloodline. And in evolution that is all that matters.

However, we're in human society, not 'in evolution'. It simply doesn't follow that Khan is to be emulated.

Well said