Perhaps. I'm not seeing it.

And what the heck is "Evolutionary Humanism" and what does it have to do with Darwinism?

Incidentally, am I correct in assuming that the person who told you that Darwinism does not allow for human rights was NOT, in fact, a Darwinist?

That wasn't what he said, that was what I said. Darwinistic evolutionary theory totally invalidates the very concept of human rights. Look up the meaning of 'right' as a noun. 'Right' is an arbitrary semantic invention with no grounding in any objective reality. Under the entire concept of evolution there are no 'rights'. If we are nothing more than a collection of synaptic connections animating a mass of cellular biology, then only right is to feed on or be fed upon.

Taken from the notion of 'survival of the fittest.'

In this sense You'd think the evolutionists would be the most capitalistic?

Korwyn -

There's really nothing inconsistent or particularly ironic here.  Nothing in evolutionary theory would prevent a self-aware species with the capacity to reason from devising such constructs as 'rights.'  You could make an argument that such constructs serve to further the survival of the species, even if they are 'unnecessary' in the strictest individual sense.  A common misconception of evolutionary theory implies that each individual must be pitted in some sort of mortal kombat with contemporaries for supremacy & 'survival.'  It's much more a species phenomenon than an individual one.

I don't know who "he" is but I am guessing that since YOU said it, you are not a Darwinist.

It just doesn't strike me as a statement a real Darwinist would say or agree with.

With Darwinism it's usually the non-Darwinists who make claims they allege represent Darwinism which are morally outrageous.

Real Darwinists don't see it that way. The discussion is hence a bit pointless. Do you want me to answer whether what you think Darwinists believe is excusable?

@Leauki

Really? So theoritically speaking, what are rights? Is there even such a thing as a "right" in the context of that which is deserved by any individual representative of a species?

Also, is ANY discussion pointless if someone's thought and thinking can be sharpened or challenged? It may be pointless for you perhaps, but to call it pointless as a general blanket statement strikes me as a tad arrogant. Who are you to judge what conversation another person considers pointful or pointless?

The question of human rights has nothing to do with scientific research. Darwinism does not create nor recognise or deny rights. It's just a different field.

You wanted to discuss the differences between your position and the position you made up for Darwinism. That's the pointless part.

But I am happy to correct your misconceptions about Darwinism.

Exactly. If you applied that reasoning everywhere, you'd en up saying that any people believing in the theory of gravitation don't believe in human rights. Since gravitation can kill people.

It's irrelevant. Morality is a social element that comes when people lives together, and should be thought about on a social standpoint, with maybe some biological elements that are relevant to the topic (ex: survival of the specie).

Evolution theory is merely a biological theory, and should be restricted to biological talks. Unless we come to a point where stagnation of the evolutionary process of our specie because of our moral standards happens, the two talks have nothing relevant to each other.