Essay talk:Evolution teaches better morals than creationism

First post! Did I do it right? ^{— Unsigned, by: PatriotismOverProfits / talk / contribs}

No, you forgot to sign. Innocent Bystander (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Why evolution?

First of all I'm not sure that anybody really gets their morals from "creationism" as such. People would probably say "the bible" or "My church" or "God". So this may be a bit of a straw man. Having said that, I agree that basing morality on a selection of ancient myths, dubious deities and often corrupt institutions is probably not the best way to go.

But what about evolution?

Evolution is one of the sciences and as such it attempts to describe the real world, it is not the opposite of creationism. It is only an alternative to creationism in the very general way that truth describes reality better than fiction. In fact just about every single area of science contradicts creationism. Geology, astronomy and chemistry for example. It would make as much (or as little) sense to get your morals from chemistry as it would to get them from evolution.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I get that, and I'm trying to find a way to word things to get across what I'm trying to say….Basically I'm talking about "mythology" as the kind of background ideas or tropes that influence everything we do, without us even knowing it. Moral lessons can be imparted from anything, for example sports are held up as a way to teach kids lessons. Maybe "evolution" isn't the right term, I could say "science teaches better morals than religion." I'd like to spread the idea that science isn't only useful in labs. PatriotismOverProfits (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Science does not try to teach people how to live their lives, it seeks to describe the way the natural world works. There are valuable life lessons that might be drawn from those descriptions--don't use tobacco; drop some weight; wear a condom; practice mixed agriculture to limit the effect of crop diseases--but these generally don't fall under the rubric of morality. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Several things are amiss here. Your summary of creatioinism is subjectively negative (& is really just a summary of the Old Testament, not creationism per se) while your summary of evolution based on "hard work and wise decisions" is heavily romanticised & unrealistic. We could just as easily reverse these and say that evolution is the view that we exist because of a benevolent creator who loves us and evolution is a harsh view of existence based on violence, competition & dominance.

Then you're directly crediting Darwin with the spread of democracy, based only on a very vague time correlation. If you want to make that argument, you need to explain how & why Darwin contributed to democracy. & You're too quick to throw out Social Darwinism. "Survival of the fittest" is a pretty important concept in evolution, and the "inclusive and unifying" stuff you're talking about doesn't fit into it very well.

As for building a "Global Civilization", this reads like weird world government shit. Obviously modern international communications & popular culture contributes to the sense of a global community, but the idea that this global community must be supplied with a single "mythology" is junk. What memes, beliefs and concepts catch on is ultimately down to "survival of the fittest" (as per natural selection) rather than everyone collectively adopting something because it's "inclusive and unifying"". Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)