Long time no see ^^
Yesterday was my last day for submitting my assignment. And you know, it was a really panic moment in my life. 10 minutes to the dateline, I submitted. Last minutes work somehow make me realize that, how important every second it was..=.='
Here, I just want to share it anyway ~
It's about Evolution. The article was “Does accepting evolution encourage immoral behavior?” written by Michael Zimmerman.
He argued about the ideas that evolution will lead to the immoral behavior. Firstly, he stated the ideas that evolution will encourage immorality based primarily on three arguments. The first one was evolution reduces the value of human life to be equal to the animal life. The second was evolution also reduces the value of human purpose to the passing of one’s genes and thirdly was evolution replaces the value of moral behavior with the concept of survival of the fittest.
Then the writer reasoned why he argued about the ideas. He mentioned about our special status as human being which have the power to develop and change. He was also comparing our purpose of life with the animals and the theory of altruism which against the concept of the survival of the fittest. He then stated the logical fallacy called information bias when he mentioned about the relation and conflicts between evolution and Genesis.
Then, the article gives conclusion that accepting evolution somehow does not encourage the immorality. The things which he fundamentally agreed on is that being moral is good for the society.
Then, I had to criticize the author whether I agree on his idea or not, whether the author follow the standard of critical thinking or not.
The author argued that the evolution will make the value of human life to be equal to the animal (Michael, 2009). I agree to this statement as human itself were special. We have the so called intellect which is can differentiate us with the other animals. We do have the power to change the environment and we have the ability to reason unlike the other species.
Even on the purely biological plane there is a wide, unbridgeable chasm between man and the animal, as illustrated which the human brain possesses qualities that have no parallel in the animal world. As a result, we can differentiate whether the act is immoral or not. Also, the more we develop, the more we concern about our behavior and ethical acceptance (Dr.Werner Gitt, 2012).
Argument by the author contained critical thinking standard which is clarity of thought. He argued that some people had misunderstood about the evolution theory which will decrease the value of human life to be equal to the animal.
In the article, it was also mentioned that “Evolution replaces the value of moral behavior with the concept of the survival of the fittest” (Michael, 2009, para. 9). I disagree about this statement because it was against the theory of altruism which developed by the evolution itself.
Altruism somehow describes that human do not just want to survive alone. They do need each other in order to continue their life (Samir Okasha, 2003). Also, what replaces the value of moral behavior with the concept of the survival of the fittest was the surrounding factor and it does not concern evolution much.
Biological factor is not the issues. There is barely a 0.5% difference in genetic material between humans and we are only 4-6% genetically different from apes. Our DNA is 90% similar to cats. Given such similarity it is generally said that genetics can cause a propensity for a particular behavior or physical attribute, but it is the environment which has the most impact (Michael@Zeitgeist, 2011).
This argument lacked of critical thinking standard which is accuracy. The statement is not based on the mutual fact, but just an assumption that human moral behaviour will be replaced by the concept survival of the fittest as we continue believe in evolution.
The article also argued that the evolution will reduces the value of human purpose to the passing of one’s genes. Purpose of ensuring survival is a separate issue from the purpose of finding the meaning of life (Michael, 2009). I agree with this statement as human do both.
We have to ensure the survival of our species and also finding the meaning of life. Human and animal do shared some purpose which is in order to survive we must reproduce. If we did not, we would cease to exist. So, what make human so special? Human do search for the meaning of life rather than the animal.
The meaning conferred on a life that cares for something more than the simple satisfaction of personal desires. Examples are political or humanitarian causes in which we join together with others to do something beyond the power of any individual.
There are the little meanings of everyday life that come from living with others and acting in the world. These include the memories and anticipations of daily life, as well as the things of personal significance that surround us. There is no doubt that human life has meaning (Jeff Mason, 2010).
What can be concluded here is that the human search for the meaning of their life and this is what differentiate them with the animal. Meaning here, evolution has nothing to do with the reducing of the value of human purpose to passing of one’s genes but it was the one which give meaning to that purpose.
The argument contained the critical thinking standard which is clarity of thought. The author separates the issue of ensuring the survival of the species and the purpose of finding the meaning of life. In other word, he focused on purpose of finding the meaning of life which differentiate human with the animal.
Dr. Werner Gitt, (September 27, 2012). Differences Between Human Life and Animal Life
Jeff Mason (25 Jan, 2010). The Meaning of Life.
Retrieve from http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=1569
Michael Zimmerman (2009). Does Accepting Evolution Encourage Immoral Behavior?
Retrieve from http://www.teachthemscience.org/morality
Michael@Zeitgeist (26 Jan, 2011). Factors Affecting Behaviour.
Samir Okasha (Jun 3, 2003). Biological Altruism.
Retrieve from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological