Theists and atheists: If Darwinism is the survival of the fittest, does it prescribe infanticide?
The ancient Spartans were known for enhancing their fitness by leaving weak or sickly babies exposed on the mountains to die, i.e., infanticide. Infanticide probably "works" to weed out genes that place a community at risk. If so, doesn't Darwinism, the survival of the fittest, prescribe infanticide?
57 comments
Darwinism is a scientific theory, not a moral theory. It has no dominion over how a conscious being chooses to act.
Idiot, survival of the fittest simply refers to what we have observed with animal life in nature. Humans have long since removed themselves from nature and as such we don't have to worry about a Lion eating the slowest among us. Further more, we support the weaker members of our species and help them develop to adulthood where they are then able to mix into the gene pool. Whether one agrees that it should be this way or not, it doesn't change the fact that nature weeds out those who are not fit. Nor does this fact promote the idea that we should murder our fellow man based on someone's idea of perfection. Someone might latch onto it and claim that if it's good enough for other animals it should be good enough for us, but crazy people also latch onto religion and anything else they can think of to support their nonsense.
evolution is not darwinism.
Evolution prescribes nothing at all.
Evolution explains the origins of complex life.
Darwinism is a foolish extension of evolution which probably predated evolution by quite a bit.
'The theory of gravity states that masses are attracted to each other. So Newtonists surely have many orgies and lead a lewd lifestyle?'
You see, bruce, laws of nature do not work that way.
Theists and atheists: If Darwinism is the survival of the fittest, does it prescribe infanticide?
Is that something your god is above? If you think so then go read your bible and get back to me, scooter.
Bruce,
Yes the Spartans engaged in infantcide. The community representatives would take a new born baby and examine it for physical defects, they would alos look at its size, weight and other characteristics. This wasn't to check only if it was healthy but mainly if it would grow up to be a 'good warrior'.
You can't tell how a person will grow up just from examining them as a baby, the Spartans killed many a healthy child for being that little bit too small when they were born.
The Agoge system (Sparta's system for raising the young boys) mean't that by the end of the 4th century BC Sparta had essentially starved itself of fresh blood and there could have been less than 1000 actual Spartan warriors left.
Un-restricted infantcide = not a clever idea.
Also Darwinism is the survival of the sexiest. Not the fittest.
It matters now if you grow up to be a crippled one armed freak. IF Women want to have sex with you, you are golden...
The peacock strategy is what we are looking at. Peacocks in the wild live very short lives due to their gigantic tail. However the tail helps them "get it on" more. So their genes are passed on despite having a massive disadvantage. Quite a few animals use this strategy.
As the Spartans are not a current world power, It would follow that this infanticide of which you speak did not enhance their survivability in any way whatsoever, indeed, as already pointed out, it may have lead to their downfall.
Theists and atheists: If Darwinism is the survival of the fittest, does it prescribe infanticide?
Even thought infanticide and survival of the fittest are two totally separate things, here is a quick lesson:
There was a time that people did exactly that. Not just the Spartans or other warrior cultures. Children were left in the woods to die, or throttled shortly after birth if their deformities were apparent. And recent history, they were just warehoused in asylums and institutions.
"The ancient Spartans were known for enhancing their fitness by leaving weak or sickly babies exposed on the mountains to die, i.e., infanticide."
That's not natural selection.
It's intelligent design.
Theists and atheists: If Darwinism is the survival of the fittest, does it prescribe infanticide?
No.
The ancient Spartans were known for enhancing their fitness by leaving weak or sickly babies exposed on the mountains to die, i.e., infanticide.
300 is not a documentary. Hollywood movies should not be looked at as factional, or even probable. Movies are fiction. As in "not real".
Infanticide probably "works" to weed out genes that place a community at risk. If so, doesn't Darwinism, the survival of the fittest, prescribe infanticide?
No, it doesn't. What you are describing is a form of eugenics, a.k.a. artificial selection of humans, and a pretty flawed way of doing this in the first place. You never know what a human will be able to do until said human has lived out their natural life. The small and weak may posess mental capabilities that far outweigh the fysical limitations.
Darwinism: The weakest are the most likely to be culled from the herd.
This does not ask you to kill babies. This simply states that sick babies are weaker than regular babies, and therefore more likely to die before passing on their genes. Infanticide would mean that we were making a conscious effort to control natural selection. That would mean it was NOT NATURAL.
If Christianism is kissing the ass of a giant man with a long white beard who lives on clouds, does it prescribe burning people at the stake?
Fundies are known for enhancing their stupidity by burning intelligent people at the stake ie burning alive.
Fixed.
Didn't your god kill the first born male in every household in order to punish the Pharaoh? Your argument cannot stand up unless you can provide stellar examples of the opposite.
Survival of the fittest has nothing what so ever to do with human infants.
survivial of the fittest says that those most fit for their environment will survive and reproduce, not that we should have barbaric feats of strength to kill off those that are physically weaker. Such a ridiculous interpretation would suggest that all humans should be extinct as we're among the weakest animals (physically) of our size on this planet. What you don't realize, and in fact argue against, is that humans are 'fit' for their environment because we are so much more intelligent than other animals and work well socially. Killing off those that we see as weak is not a good social trait and would not have allowed humanity to progress as it has. Social Darwinism is not what survival of the fittest refers to -- not even slightly.
isn't the bible full of mass baby-killing and child-sacrificing? i wonder why this fundie felt the need to go so far afield to find an example of infanticide. after all, aren't the stories in the bible all that a (decent) person needs to know of the cultural history of the world? spartans ... hmmm ... not biblical ... therefore untrue!
image
The theory of evolution ("Darwinism"?) doesn't PRESCRIBE anything, idiot. Science describes, it doesn't prescribe.
The theory of evolution prescribes infanticide no more than cellular biology prescribes inflicting cancer on people and leaving them to die. If you wanted to be consistent, why aren't you going after metallurgists for bullets and cars killing people, and cardiologists for prescribing heart attacks?
1) Science is descriptive, not prescriptive. Gravity does not mean we should push people off cliffs.
2) Your example is artificial selection, not natural selection.
3) Fittest means best-fit between organism and environment (and can mean fastest, best hidden, or most social depending on that environment). It is not, not, some ubermensch wet-dream.
4) "Infanticide probably "works" to weed out genes that place a community at risk. If so, doesn't Darwinism, the survival of the fittest, prescribe infanticide?"
Darwinism does not require murder. It is not a moral code, its a scientific theory based on the observation of animal behaviour. The Bible however, is a moral code and does support killing babies by dashing their heads against rocks. So STFU.
Evolution doesn't prescribe anything, it's just a description of how nature runs itself.
That's like saying 'doesn't the theory of electricity prescribe using incandescent lights?'
Of course it does. It also prescribes racism, homosexuality, anti-theism, sexism, and all kinds of other negative -isms. Any idiot should know that. /sarcasm
If so, doesn't Darwinism, the survival of the fittest, prescribe infanticide?
The term 'survival of the fittest' was coined by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin, and it is an indicator of reproductive success, not physical fitness. Those who leave the most offspring are considered the fittest. Whether they appear sickly or weak at first has nothing to do with it because they may rally and grow to maturity, therefore the practice of the Spartans would negate nature and run contrary to Spencer's doctrine.
You fail.
Gravity makes light objects fall towards more massive ones. Therefore the theory of gravitation demands that we throw people off the tops of high buildings.
Oh, wait, no, it doesn't.
In much the same way, biological evolution doesn't ask for or demand that we do anything at all. It is an simply an observation of the natural world. If we've found a way to allow a person to survive with a disease or a condition that would normally have killed them before, as far as evolution is concerned, that person is perfectly fine--because that person is a part of a civilization created by a species noted for caring for its sick and injured members, and for creating tools to allow them to do things nature did not equip them to do in the first place.
Once again, a fundie confused "is" with "ought." Stop the fucking presses.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
