# Logical conclusions of natural selection.



## stringmusic (Aug 31, 2012)

Are things such as partial birth abortions, the holocaust, and world wars not the logical conclusion of natural selection?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 31, 2012)

Not in the sense  of the meaning in the animal world. I would call that artificial selection. 
http://www.answer5.com/education_reference/science_mathematics/?id=b843450


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 31, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Not in the sense  of the meaning in the animal world. I would call that artificial selection.
> http://www.answer5.com/education_reference/science_mathematics/?id=b843450



That argument would make Hilter himself not a part of natural selection.

If Hilter is a product of natural selection, then Hilter's actions are a product of natural selection, ergo, the holocaust is a product of natural selection.

I think the argument that because Hilter and the Germans could think that it doesn't make the Holocaust part of the natural selection process by natural beings is a weak one.


----------



## JB0704 (Aug 31, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Not in the sense  of the meaning in the animal world.



Everything in the human world is also natural function if there is no creator.  Everything we did would simply be a chance circumstance enabled by our evoultion.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 31, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Are things such as partial birth abortions, the holocaust, and world wars not the logical conclusion of natural selection?



Wars in general work against natural selection. Wars kill anybody from the fitest and the strongest and the weakest and the invalids. It makes no difference to war who she kills off. Think of the civil war, what traits did it wean out of the gene pool? And the firebombing of Japan did it add or take away from being japanese or a person living on the Island of Japan?

Peace on the other hand is natural selection as it permits the strong and ambitious to thrive and prosper and to have some resources left over for the weak and invalid. Peace permits you to manage food resources. It also permits orderly university attendance and preacher-missionaries away from battlefields. It permits hospitals and the people who train in them to learn well. Peace permits wholesome economics where people can plan families and portfolios with far greater security. 



Peace is the engine of natural selection...it is for this Island ( peace) that we are who we are.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 31, 2012)

gordon 2 said:


> Wars in general work against natural selection. Wars kill anybody from the fitest and the strongest and the weakest and the invalids. It makes no difference to war who she kills off. Think of the civil war, what traits did it wean out of the gene pool?
> 
> Peace on the other hand is natural selection as it permits the strong and ambitious to thrive and prosper *and to have some resources left over for the week and invalid.*
> 
> Peace is the engine of natural selection...it is for this Island ( peace) that we are who we are.



Is that part of the natural selection definition?


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 31, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Is that part of the natural selection definition?



Well the weak get stronger this way and the strong even stronger.... So yes, perhaps, maybe.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 31, 2012)

gordon 2 said:


> Well the weak get stronger this way.



I thought, in terms of NS, that the weak were to be eliminated.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 31, 2012)

I'm trying to understand how the holocaust was not simply a naturally superior being riding the world of what he thought were genetically inferior people.

From the naturalists' perspective, whats so wrong with that?


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 31, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I thought, in terms of NS, that the weak were to be eliminated.



Nationalism is a weak platform from which to hit someone over the head. Peace eliminates this weakness-- I think natural selection is pointing in this direction. The pointer, the stick( has gotten big, real big.)

Now granted...peace as well as being natural is also an intelligent design in my estimation.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 31, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I'm trying to understand how the holocaust was not simply a naturally superior being riding the world of what he thought were genetically inferior people.
> 
> From the naturalists' perspective, whats so wrong with that?



 It is not logical in the end. So  I suspect that this is what is wrong with it from the naturalist's perspective.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 31, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Everything in the human world is also natural function if there is no creator.  Everything we did would simply be a chance circumstance enabled by our evoultion.



But there is a creator. This creator gave us "free will" to do terrible unnatural acts against our fellow men. When these acts are used to alter genetics they are artificial. Humans also take care of offspring with genetic defects allowing them to breed. This would never happen in the animal world. 
Now if you want to argue that everything humans do to each other is natural selection such as nuclear war and abortions then you would have to assume we are no different from animals, there is no creator, and we have no souls. 
I can see the point that perhaps it's all natural selection: global warming, nuclear power, abortions, war, love, peace, letting genetic defective people live, & helping starving, flood ridden people survive.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 1, 2012)

I understand that, AD.  I believe in a creator.

Without a creator, though, there is no difference between a skyscraper and an anthill.   It is simply natural things manipulating their environment.   War would be no less natural than how deer act during the rut, and the winners would be those selected for whatever reason.....strength, intelligence, whatever.

The survivors of war would be those "selected."

While I do believe in natural selection, and evolution, I also believe in a creator.....and whatever it is that seperates us from the animal kingdom.


----------



## Four (Sep 11, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Are things such as partial birth abortions, the holocaust, and world wars not the logical conclusion of natural selection?



I don't know about saying its the "logical conclusion".. But in a vague sense we can say that everything is a result of evolution by natural selection, at least indirectly. That being said just because something is natural doesn't make it good for humans.. e.g.  tapeworms, earthquakes.



stringmusic said:


> I'm trying to understand how the holocaust was not simply a naturally superior being riding the world of what he thought were genetically inferior people.
> 
> From the naturalists' perspective, whats so wrong with that?



I think in order to get more information about the holocaust you have to look in to more non-biological fields.. psychology, political history, economics, etc.

Also, I don't think Naturalism takes a position on ethics. I don't think it makes a claim about good or bad so much as it just "is"



stringmusic said:


> If Hilter is a product of natural selection, then Hilter's actions are a product of natural selection, ergo, the holocaust is a product of natural selection.



If man is a product of god and the holocaust was a product of man, ergo, the holocaust is a product of god.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 11, 2012)

Four said:


> I don't know about saying its the "logical conclusion".. But in a vague sense we can say that everything is a result of evolution by natural selection, at least indirectly. That being said just because something is natural doesn't make it good for humans.. e.g.  tapeworms, earthquakes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, no, no.   Man can do no good without God.  All the bad stuff he does is because of Satan (who also came from God, strangely enough).


----------



## JFS (Sep 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> and whatever it is that seperates us from the animal kingdom.



Sometimes I think it's not much.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 13, 2012)

JFS said:


> Sometimes I think it's not much.



I know that guy.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 14, 2012)

JFS said:


> Sometimes I think it's not much.



My point is that the animal in your picture is quite similar to us.  But....also quite different.  We survived with inferior physical abilities, but a superior intellect to manipulate our environment. 

Either way, shouldn't everything man does be viewed as natural if all we are is a natural occurence in the universe? Is a skyscraper just another step in our evolution....to be viewed in the same manner as a bee-hive?


----------



## Four (Sep 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Either way, shouldn't everything man does be viewed as natural if all we are is a natural occurence in the universe? Is a skyscraper just another step in our evolution....to be viewed in the same manner as a bee-hive?



In a really vague abstract way, yes. Technically you can say anything that exists is natural.. If god exists, it would be natural too.

The Skyscraper is a tool that we've learned to use due to our brain that was a step in evolution..


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 14, 2012)

Four said:


> In a really vague abstract way, yes. Technically you can say anything that exists is natural.. If god exists, it would be natural too.



Agreed.  Just kind-of kicking around the abstract thought.  It is also typically my response to the "supernatural" argument against God.

Just something fun to think about.  Maybe help me not get so irritated when I drive through Atlanta every morning.....I'm just viewing man in his natural environment.


----------

