Evolution and what is right and what is wrong.?

Question

If evolution is true, why is it wrong to for a human to kill another human but it is okay to kill another animal? Why when animals kill each other as they normally do, it is normal, but when a human kills another human it is not normal? The keystone of evolution is the survival of the fittest, so why do we let the mentally challenged, the paralyzed, and other "unfit" humans live?

Answer 1

If evolution were true there would be no right or wrong, we wouldn't have any standards. Anything you wanted to do would be right because you wanted to do it and everybody else would be wrong. The fact that we are not all running around killing everybody that thinks differently than ourselves or those we see as "unfit" is proof against survival of the fittest (others have to die so the rest of us get ahead). The evolution religion only survives on tax dollars and is used to justify racism and support the idea that one human is better than another because of various differences. If evolution were true, who would decide right from wrong? Bill Clinton? Bob Hope? Hitler? Garfield?

Answer 2

GOOD POINT, the concept of the survival of the fittest is a fallacy.

*** ce chap. 2 pp. 15-16 Disagreements About Evolution—Why? ***

Evolution Under Attack

4 The scientific magazine Discover put the situation this way: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism.”1 Francis Hitching, an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe, stated: “For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble.”2

5 After an important conference of some 150 specialists in evolution held in Chicago, Illinois, a report concluded: “[Evolution] is undergoing its broadest and deepest revolution in nearly 50 years. . . . Exactly how evolution happened is now a matter of great controversy among biologists. . . . No clear resolution of the controversies was in sight.”3

6 Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: “The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He spoke of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,” and added, “things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists.”4

7 A London Times writer, Christopher Booker (who accepts evolution), said this about it: “It was a beautifully simple and attractive theory. The only trouble was that, as Darwin was himself at least partly aware, it was full of colossal holes.” Regarding Darwin’s Origin of Species, he observed: “We have here the supreme irony that a book which has become famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind.”—Italics added.

8 Booker also stated: “A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.” He concluded: “As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and probably never shall.”5

--Evolutions' coffin is being nailed shut along with the few claimed fossils and concepts that might have the slightest bearing on life

Answer 3

its because humans are not like animals. animals kill each other because there is no true feeling between them. it is wrong for humans because people should understand that each and every person has a family, loved ones and feelings. When an animal kills another animal, it has no clue about family and the aspects i mentioned above. humans also do not need to kill eachother to survive at the moment

Answer 4

This a mix of ethics and evolution. Humans are rational beings, and they-us- (in theory) follow ethics dictated by society. If we kill each other, we would be extinct. That is against nature. Animals are not rational, therefore they cannot distinguish right from wrong, they have not consciousness of what it means to kill the same kind. Because humans are rational, and follow ethics, we will not kill the unfit, it is a luxury of the rational species to mantain the unfit, because they are creatures of God (whatever God means to different people). Some humans tried to eliminate the unfit. The head of that movement was Hitler. As you see, a very disturbing image.

Answer 5

Evolution the religion is very bad. Evolution the science is science or the pursuit of knowledge about creation. Science is not offering moral guidance.

Consider this, the largest force on mankind is mankind. Sexual selection is a bigger force than homicide or disease. So human evolution is a moral issue after all.

Answer 6

Because evolution tells us our biological origins ... but human beings are not bound to behave like our biological ancestors ... supposedly we are better than that.

This is no different from saying that we are not bound to behave like our human ancestors even a few hundred years ago (a few hundred years ago, we owned slaves, burned people as witches, stoned women for adultery) ... so why would we be bound to behave like our animal ancestors a few million years ago?

Answer 7

You have a point, actually. A species can't evolve if all members of the species procreate. The whole point to survival of the fittest is to get rid of the weak ones (and their bad genes) before they can pass them on. Darwin never claimed morality guided evolution.

Answer 8

Ethics have nothing to do with evolution. Humans are capable of abstract thought, and we should use it for the betterment of the world. Animals don't have that luxury.

Answer 9

Societal constructs of morality and human decency and compassion are totally unrelated to the concept of evolution, which exists because it explains what we know about the development of living creatures as they now exist.

The general societal objection to murder, and the general societal preference for compassionate treatment of persons who are not whole have to do with social and spiritual aspects of humanity. The characteristics that are explained by the doctrine of evolution (for example, why we have ten fingers and one stomach) are much simpler, and are not matters of moral choice.

Answer 10

Because that behavior evolved in humans lol.

Seriously some species are, by nature or nurture, more violent - chimps vs. bonobos for example...