Evolution

This is really a profoud question. We ARE evil and unintelligent. We are also HERE. The things that are characteristic to human kind are the things that helped us survive the millions of years of our history. Barring catastrophic disasters, species sometimes survive because they have enough built-in flexibility to adapt to a new environment. Only time will tell if our evil and unintelligence will continue to serve us, or will be our undoing. We are creating a world vastly different from the one that gave us birth. The world we are creating is becoming alien to us. Let us see if our 'old' skills continue to work their power.

Yes, humanists generally accept the theory of evolution as supported by scientific evidence. Evolution is considered a fundamental concept in humanist thought as it provides a natural explanation for the development of life on Earth without the need for supernatural intervention.

A. Evolution and natural selection. Charles Darwin is primarily known for his theories on evolution, which explains how species change over time, and natural selection, which is the process by which advantageous traits become more common in a population.

His evolutionary approach provides valuable insights into human behavior by emphasizing the role of natural selection in shaping our psychological tendencies and social dynamics. By studying how adaptations have evolved over time, we can better understand why certain patterns exist in contemporary society and how they contribute to our survival and reproduction. This approach allows for a deeper understanding of human nature and provides a framework for exploring a wide range of topics in psychology and sociology.

Fifteen per cent of the British population are said to believe in creationism. Elsewhere in Europe the proportions who believe in creationism vary between around ten per cent and twenty per cent, with countries that have a high Muslim population more likely to have a higher proportion who do not believe in evolution.

Sigmund Freud, an Austrian neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis, developed theories about the power of the unconscious mind. He believed that unconscious desires, memories, and thoughts influence our behavior and mental health.

From a " Darwinian " " perspective " ( perspective is a term not used in science, but usually social science/humanities ) the question makes no sense. Populations evolve, individuals are selected. If you can not get this simple concept evolution and evolutionary theory will make no sense to you and you will continue to ask ill posed questions.

Your question is directly analogous to asking something like....

" How much does the color blue weigh? "

Yes, evolution should be taught in schools as it is a fundamental concept in biology supported by a vast amount of scientific evidence. Understanding evolution helps students to comprehend the diversity of life on Earth and the mechanisms of how species have changed over time. This knowledge is crucial for a well-rounded education in the biological sciences.

"Evolutionism" is a condescending term used by creationists or intelligent design supporters to suggest that evolution is only a belief system, or that it is somehow not scientific.

The correct term is "evolutionary science" or simply "evolution".

The formulation of the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin provided a framework for understanding the origins and development of species, including humans. This influenced the field of psychology by highlighting the idea of continuity between animals and humans, leading to the emergence of comparative psychology and evolutionary psychology which examine behavior and mental processes from an evolutionary perspective. It also contributed to the development of theories such as natural selection and adaptation as explanations for psychological processes.

Moral evolutionism is an attempt to assign the natural changes that evolution brings to any situation, and apply them to Morality. This means that any set of rules that a society uses to govern itself, even on a day to day basis, are subject to change as that society progresses through the time span that is being considered in the environment that that society is found in. This could be years or even centuries.

We see this occurring in so many societies of the past. The most indelible in western thought are those of the Greeks and the Romans as well as the Egyptians. Yet if the Chinese and Indian cultures are included there is a rich world heritage which brings us to the more modern societies such as the English French and American.

Morals in these last three societies on the surface are similar, especially when you talk about the morals of human life and its value to a society. Then as the discussion continues to property and its management there are mores where change becomes more and more evident. In the ancient societies human life was more determined by its value to the state. The evolution we have seen has brought each individual human life into its own context. Yet even that has taken millennium to effect such changes as the Magna Carta, and eventually the American Constitution. But even these were caught in a time frame that has continued to change.

There have always been laws or morals which make murder and theft crimes against the society which enacted these codes. Hammurabi made one of the first written codes of law. In it he defined the roll of government as "to protect the weak from the strong." This is still the very core of government, for if it isn't then we are doomed. However, the governments which have emerged down through the ages have taken this concept and muted it as the strong took over these governments or the governments themselves became the strong, and therefore nullified the original basics which gave them power in the first place.

Evolution means change. In biology 99% of all the species which have ever lived are no longer alive. That is the power of evolution. Even ruling dynasties in the biological context, such as the dinosaurs have not survived the changes that evolution have brought on the face of this planet. So to have dynasties of human societies been cast aside by change. usually much quicker then the biological dynasties.

So this must lead us to see the inevitability of moral changes coming into our own moral codes of conduct usually described by religious entities in our current societies. The potential is that soon enough things that are taboo now will become much more accepted, and soon there will be a dramatic change in the things we may now hold sacred. Gay marriage and drug use are already being worn down by the pressures of time and testimony. The holding onto these aspects of our moral codes are subjects of fierce debate and are almost unable in most cases to be adequately discussed since one side usually takes a tenet that cannot be truly expressed let alone easily proven. Here is where the compromise breaks down and it becomes a test of wills. However the usual eventual outcome is the opposition is just worn away and their arguments just no longer have any credence since they are believed by less and less as the easier way of experiencing it. This is the pressure all of evolution is inclined to succumb to. The while moths of Wales were eventually forced to become black when their environment was blackened by the burning of coal as the majority fuel in their area in the 19th century.

Moral evolution is as inevitable as time itself. What is the definition of time? It is the measurement of change. Therefore the arrow of time denotes the inevitability of change in our society even of the very moral code itself. To try to change that is an impossible task eventually as the time frame may change but the the inevitable change will still occur at some time in the future.

Alfred Russel Wallace, a British naturalist, independently conceived the theory of evolution through natural selection around the same time as Charles Darwin. His work on biogeography and observations of natural history contributed to the development of evolutionary theory.

Sociocultural evolution, as defined by Lenski, refers to the process by which societies and cultures change and develop over time. It involves the progression of societies from simple to complex forms through technological advancements, economic systems, and social organizations. Lenski's theory emphasizes how these changes impact the way people live and interact within their environment.

Social Darwinism is the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. It was used to justify social and economic inequality, arguing that those who were the fittest would naturally rise to the top while the weak would fall behind.

Social evolution refers to the process of change and development within societies over time, including the adaptation of social norms, practices, and institutions. It involves the ways in which social structures, behaviors, and beliefs evolve in response to various influences such as technology, environment, and cultural interactions. Understanding social evolution helps to trace the development of human societies and their impact on individuals and groups.

In medieval times, royal courts were often influenced by political agendas, resulting in biased verdicts. Additionally, court proceedings were not always transparent, and the accused might not have had access to a proper defense. The use of torture and the absence of legal counsel further suggest that fair trials were not always guaranteed.

The Tennessee trial of John Scopes, also known as the Scopes Monkey Trial, illustrated the conflict between those who held religious beliefs, particularly creationism, and those who supported the teaching of evolution in schools. The trial highlighted the tension between religious fundamentalism and modern scientific thought in American society during the early 20th century. It became a landmark case in the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Auguste Comte proposed three stages of social evolution: the theological stage, where societies are based on religious beliefs and superstitions; the metaphysical stage, where societies transition to more rational and abstract thinking; and the positivist stage, where societies embrace science and empirical evidence as the basis for understanding the world.

Scopes was, in fact, unable to recall whether he had actually taught evolution at all. However, the book he was required to teach from, a book that was mandated by the state, did address the subject of evolution. In effect, the state required teachers to break the law by making them use a book that violated the Butler Act. Scopes saw the indictment as an opportunity to bring the matter to the attention of the public, and encouraged his students to make statements against him.

The theory of evolution that believes every organism has an internal vital force is known as Lamarckism, proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Lamarck believed that organisms could pass on traits acquired during their lifetime to their offspring, driven by a force he called "vitalism." However, this concept has been largely discredited in modern evolutionary biology.

Darwinism, the theory of evolution by natural selection, focuses on the adaptation of species over time. In the context of a dollhouse, one could draw parallels with the evolution of design and functionality in dollhouses as they have adapted and changed over the years to meet the needs and preferences of users. Just as species evolve to survive in their environment, dollhouses have evolved to meet the changing tastes and demands of their audience.

Yes, John Scopes was found guilty in 1925 of violating Tennessee's Butler Act, which forbade the teaching of evolution in state-funded schools. He was later fined $100, although the verdict was later overturned on a technicality.

A paper written by Alfred Russel Wallace is 1855. This paper was not taken with the degree of seriousness that it should have been by Charles Darwin because, in retrospect, one can see that Wallace's thinking is headed for his own theory of natural selection.

The Sarawak law, also known as the Sarawak Land Code, is the primary legislation governing land issues in the Malaysian state of Sarawak. It deals with matters such as land ownership, land titles, land administration, and land development regulations. The law is important for regulating land use and ownership rights in Sarawak.