Evolution focuses on a lot of "survival of the fittest".
Let us see how that can be misused.
Hitler used "survival of the fittest" to justify killing off "inferior races".
When evolution is widely accepted in today's society, we must be careful to not fall into another genocide according to "survival of the fittest".
In the Bible, God "created all man equal in his image".
In Evolution, you're nothing but an animal, an effect of nature. So why is there morality? Why is it wrong to kill? The Bible evidently shaped American society. One of the ten commandments are "Thou shalt not kill". In a society where Christianity was not a building block, you see cannibalism, mass murder, genocide..
What if this country was built upon evolutionist views? Would we all act like animals. I mean, that's what we are right? At the end of the day we are nothing but an ape. So why can't we act like animals? Why can't I go kill my neighbor because I please?
Without Christianity, this country would be no moralistic than the human sacrificing Aztecs or the cannibals of the Indies.
Evolution is taught without any opposing views in school, that is where the problem lies. If you research the subject there are no facts of a transitional form in evolution. There is no macro evolution, Species can only adapt and change to their environment. Scientist have mapped the genes of Humans and it is clear to see that we are not just simple evolved animals. Anyways there is too much info, do research on it. I do agree with glowingdisco in the fact that evolution could be dangerous if we didn't already have some moral rules in place, we would just all be doing what we want. Humans are very greedy creatures. Be glad we have rules, laws, and morality. Without it we would all be in trouble. You need only look at the "evil" people of the world without these. If I only believed in Evolution, I would feel obligated to take your belongings and make my life easier or better for myself.
There is absolutely no evidence whatever supporting the theory of evolution.
If you teach children that there is no Creator, no God, no judgement, then sooner or later you're going to educate someone with the sense to realise what "survival of the fittest" really means. Then you'll have your Stalin, your Hitler, your abortionist.
The philosophy only becomes dangerous when people misinterpret it to justify the acts of killing people based off the alleged fact that they are inferior. This is not what evolutionism is, and therefore it is not a dangerous philosophy.
By glowingdisco's logic, Islam is a dangerous religion, because some of the followers misinterpret the Qur'an to justify the killings of innocent civilians.
Evolution IS NOT a philosophy. It's a scientific theory that's very well supported by empirical evidence. It has helped us understand diseases and helped us find medicine against them. It has helped us understand ecology, and how to avoid biological disasters through the hands of men. Its implications are used to trace murderers with their DNA. Its algorithmic nature has been used to create computer programmes.
It's a pity that so many people have a wrong grasp on the concept and know so little about it. It connects all the fields in biology with one another. Without it, nothing in biology would make sense.
Evolution Is the explanation for how humanity came about on the earth, its not a philosophy. Moreover, scientists who back this have never said that you should live by it as a principle. The origin of our species is a brutal, ruthless process that we have now, thanks to factors such as welfare and technology, managed to break free from.
Every philosophy can be misused to justify killing of others. Christianity was used to justify witch hunts, the crusades and murder of 'heretics'. 'Glowingdisco' claims that 'survival of the fittest' can justify killing "inferior races", but she fails to mention slavery was often justified by claiming the enslaved races were "inferior by a natural God-given order".
The only problem is that there seems to exist a great deal of confusion what 'survival of the fittest' actually means. Humans are social animals and as a consequence we rely on a functioning society to ensure our own survival and that of our genes. Humans are therefore evolutionary 'fittest', when they abstain from killing each other and even show a reasonable level of altruism.
When one argues that only religion can keep us from killing each other, then why don't bees kill each other, to begin with? They show an even greater level of altruism (even without religion) with worker bees sacrificing their lives to help their hive. And just as with humans it can be shown, that this strategy is far more efficient in passing on their genes than rioting and eating each other. Thus, contrary to what 'glowingdisco' claims, we do act like animals.
Actually hard-wired morals (such as condemning murder in social groups) predate religion and thus evolution is the only reason why religions incorporate them.
Evolution as a philosophy is only as dangerous as any other philosophy. Any moral, idea, action, or presentation that goes against something that we believe is dangerous. It makes us question our basis and what we have lived by for so long. No one wants to sit and believe that what we live by is inadequate and meaningless.
Evolution is almost an essential at this point. Creationism is basically disproved. It is important as the smartest beings on the planet that we pursue where we came from and how it can effect us. Evolution, although incomplete as a whole, has far more evidence than creationism. It is true that neither have been entirely proven but it is not a dangerous philosophy. Neither is creationism, even though creationism has no facts backing it and is just a "because that's what happened" kind of subject.
Evolution is based on science it happened and the powers of b have been trying to stop this understanding for over four hundred years. Embrace it come to terms with it. Noah's Ark has been under fire since the findings and discoveries of animal species in the Southern Hemisphere. The debate is long dead and Evolution won. Creation theory has it many loyal followers but unfortunately the world is round and evolution happened get over it and move into the new millennium.
Perhaps, the supporters of the no should informed themselves on the scientific results on Drosophila and E.Coli. They will find that, whatever their origin, species cannot be the result of biological evolution. Considering that modern philosophy is based on the concept of evolution, i would say that it is dangerous philosophy, giving a false impression of the way life develops.
Evolution is an established scientific theory supported by the entire last couple centuries of evidence. It is not a philosophy or a belief system- this is nonsense pushed by religious fundamentalists with an agenda of pushing their bible into our schools by railing against science.
Evolution is simply the change in allelic frequencies of a population over time. It happens- it's observable and testable. Get over it, folks.
Anyone who claims evolution is a dangerous "philosophy" clearly does not understand that evolution is neither a philosophy nor dangerous. Evolution, the proven scientific theory, is the foundational building block every analytical genetics, computational genetics, and genetic theory class is based off of. If you seriously consider evolution a danger, you must by extension consider the multitude of vaccines modern genetics has developed a danger; you must consider the pre-natal diagnosis of serious disorder such as down syndrome or haemophilia a danger; you must effectively consider the advancement of cancer research a threat. All of these things hinge off of the understanding of genetic theory, which is rooted in a simple understanding of evolution at the most basic level.
As for the morality argument which has been raised, altruism has been proven to be a naturally selected trait. Survival of the fittest extends past the individual to the collective group; evolution placed selective pressure on our species to be compassionate. The societies which care for the weakest link and the injured were able to support larger populations and outpaced those who didn't form cohesive society.
As for the "look at Hitler" argument and saying that Hitler was a believer in evolution, so evolution must be bad and we need a Christian god... For the record Hitler publicly identified as a Christian, so that is a double edged sword which is always messy to get into. Besides this, one man's actions do not represent a whole. Pope Alexander IV was and advocate of slavery and practised infidelity; yet I do not assume every Christian is racist or cheats on their significant other.