Thursday, December 21, 2006

The Logical Implications of Evolution

If what some say is true, that there is no creator God and that we are mere products of evolution, then there would be numerous implications of this in our world. If you believe this, then you must apply it to such areas as health care and environmentalism.

Let's clarify what is meant by evolution before we go on to its implications. Encyclopedia Britannica says that evolution is the "theory in biology postulating that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." These modifications come from random changes in individual organisms genetic code (DNA). Organisms with modifications advantageous for their particular environment increase their probability of reproducing while organisms with disadvantageous modifications decrease their probability of reproducing. (Hence survival of the fittest) Organisms that reproduce pass on these modifications to their offspring, this process of selecting organisms with advantageous modifications is called natural selection. Over much time, through natural selection, new species arise as change occurs, this change being evolution. I will stress at this point that what I refer to as evolution is an unguided process. If any divine intervention occurs then it would not strictly be considered evolution, neither in this post nor by most scientists.

Survival of the fittest should be the only rule of law. Why then do we need to improve our health care system. I'd say we should just go to a Darwinian health care system. Surely we've been making our species weak by actually preventing the sick from dying. I have bad eyesight, shouldn't natural selection have weeded me out so that later generations would not have the same problem. Therefore, glasses, contacts, and laser eye surgery must go. More and more weakness enters our species every generation as more and more people are able to survive with disorders that should have killed them off. We must put a stop to this nonsense, this health care devolution that is taking place.

What about the little children though? Surely we should provide health care for them. Wrong! Evolution depends on natural selection to remove organisms from the gene pool before they reproduce, not after. So, the implication of this is that we need to let the weak youth die off before they can have children. Therefore, that lofty goal of ensuring every child has access to adequate health care is the worse idea ever. Childhood is the perfect time to let them die, to make our species stronger. If anything, we must strip children of health care, not give them more.

And then you have the elderly. If the goal of life is to reproduce, which would be suggested by evolution, then after people have children we don't need them. Why bother taking care of people late in life, clearly Darwinism would necessitate that we let them die. They're just taking up vital resources anyways. We don't need to even wait until someone retires, because the only real importance one has is not in his or her work but in his and her progeny.

Health care is not the only area that would be affected by a consistent application of evolution. We, human kind, are just animals, no more special then single cell amoebas. What does this mean? It means everything we do is natural. How did we get to the point of where we're at now? Natural selection. If we're burning fossil fuels and causing global warming, so what? Natural selection caused it to happen, so its not wrong. We should continue just as we are, and let natural selection guide us. At most we'll kill ourselves off and nature will continue and adapt. You know what else has an impact on its environment, trees. Trees absorb water and release it later. They also hold soil together, preventing erosion. No one criticizes trees for changing the weather or interfering with the flow of water, why should the case be any different with humans. We're no better or worse than a tree.

Who cares that animals and plants are dying off because of global warming? Let evolution do its work. If they can't survive then they don't deserve life anyways. If they can't adapt then they must go. Make way for the new, progress must go on. What if, by the extinction of hundreds and hundreds of species today, many new species can arise? Would you deprive them of their existence by selfishly protecting the species alive today? If the dinosaurs hadn't died off would we be around? We should repay that debt and kill off other species so new ones can arise.

Who cares about global warming, regardless of it being caused by humans or not. First of all, because humans are just natural, then global warming is natural either way. Change is natural. Coast lines changed before, whats wrong with them changing now? The earth used to be a molten piece of rock, where's the outcry over that change?

For that matter, do we need police? Clearly, there is no such thing as right or wrong anyways in a Darwinian world. Just let natural selection do the job of police. If crime is disadvantageous then criminals will get killed off in natural selection. On the other hand, if crime is advantageous then those who hold to outdated morals such as not killing, stealing, raping, etc., then they will be the ones to die off. In 'nature' does one say that one animal killing another is wrong? No, of course not. Well, its already been established that we are just as much apart of nature too, certainly not above it. So the same should apply to us too. We cannot commit wrongs anymore than other animals can.

I should point out at this point that this is not what I believe. There is a God who created the universe, every living being, and us. We're not here by accident, by random chance. We're here because God made us. And God made us in his image. And God created mankind above the rest of the living beings. That does not give us free range to destroy recklessly creation, but a responsibility to care for it. Only on God does environmentalism have any basis, not on evolution. And because we are made in God's image, we are not free to kill and steal and rape. Every man, woman, and child is made in God's image, and because of that we should treat them with respect. God put in us a moral compass. That's why we have laws, not because they evolved through natural selection. One must consider their beliefs and the logical implications they necessitate. So if you hold to evolution, then you should wholeheartedly embrace these ideas. To do anything but is to foolishly hold conflicting beliefs.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Science describes what happens, not what should happen. Accepting that evolution happened and continues to happen does not logically require one to help the process along or to be indifferent to it.

Tue Jul 03, 05:35:00 PM EDT  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home