Talk:Evolution teaches that we are animals and to behave as such (Talk.Origins)
In whose eyes does evolution "degrade morality"? If evolution is true, we still have morals. If evolution might encourage us to behave as animals (which I doubt it does, since it simply describes the working of nature and is thus morally neutral), then the question is - do we? And the answer is probably that some people who believe evolution do behave badly, and others do not - and that the same can certainly be said of christians.
The objective source
Here are a number of important points about your comments:
- My article did not state that evolutionists don't have morals. It simply stated that they have no objective standard or basis for those morals which they have. Their ideas about morals are subjective which is quite baseless in a world full of people with other subjective ideas about morals. And simply because more people have a certain ideas about what morality should be, our world would still be a very dangerous place if morals were simply decided by majority voting, since it would only be a form of tyranny on those who have different ideas.
- My article did not state that christians are perfect. In fact my article is about creationism not christianity. Christianity is only one religion has advocates creationism. There are Jews and Muslims and even people who wouldn't formally associate themselves with any of these who agree with creation science. Having an objective source of morality doesn't make a person perfect. It just makes them accountable to that objectivity, Deity, and also means there is a form of judgement to come. There is none of this with evolution, which is quite baseless in its morality, and if true, a person shouldn't really have to worry if they do wrong and get away with it.
I altered my article when I saw your comments, mainly the point I said about "degrading morality", only to point more to its objective source. But this still doesn't not refute the point about how evolution affects and degrades morality.
" * My article did not state that evolutionists don't have morals. It simply stated that they have no objective standard or basis for those morals which they have. Their ideas about morals are subjective which is quite baseless in a world full of people with other subjective ideas about morals.
Firstly, I didn't say that you did state evolutionists don't have morals. Secondly, clearly the world is a place where there are many different views of morality, and everyone's views are to a certain extent subjective. This does not mean there are no objective standards that can be arrived at on a rational basis. There is a broad consensus around many issues, many of which were known long before christianity appeared on the scene. Other issues are complex, with diametrically opposed viewpoints that can both be "moral". For example, abortion. One side will argue that it is immoral to kill unborn children. They have a point. Others will argue that it is impossible to outlaw abortions, that they will happen anyway, and that if they are driven underground, women will die. They have a point too. Some moral and ethical problems seem intractable.
" * My article did not state that christians are perfect. In fact my article is about creationism not christianity. Christianity is only one religion has advocates creationism. There are Jews and Muslims and even people who wouldn't formally associate themselves with any of these who agree with creation science. Having an objective source of morality doesn't make a person perfect. It just makes them accountable to that objectivity, Deity, and also means there is a form of judgement to come. There is none of this with evolution, which is quite baseless in its morality, and if true, a person shouldn't really have to worry if they do wrong and get away with it. "
Is there any reason why a moral code handed down by an omnipotent deity should be imperfect? I can't think of one. The problem is you are comparing evolution, a scientific theory, with christianity, a religion. Evolution does not set itself up as a moral code. Christianity does. These ideas that somehow people who accept evolution go off committing crimes or behaving badly is rather amusing. You have accepted that "evolutionists" have morals, and christians aren't perfect. So what is the difference? See my earlier comment.
"I altered my article when I saw your comments, mainly the point I said about "degrading morality", only to point more to its objective source. But this still doesn't not refute the point about how evolution affects and degrades morality."
But it doesn't. People simply do not think "we evolved, therfore there are no morals". This is a creationist fantasy.
The evolutionist/humanist mindset - subjectivism and rationalism
Your points were enlightening as it tells me more about your point of view. Some significant points you raised before, you raised again as though I never dealt with them, but I'll just highlight some things.
Again you said:
People simply do no think "we evolved, therefore there are no morals"
Once again you are dealing with a straw man of your own creation. If its anyone's fantasy, it is your own since you keep on resurrecting a dead issue. The fact is that if evolution is true, then there is no objective moral standard.
You said:
Firstly, I didn't say that you did state evolutionists don't have morals.
You had said before that if evolution is true then we still have morals. In light of my article, this statement is defunct.
You then said:
Secondly, clearly the world is a place where there are many different views of morality, and everyone's views are to a certain extent subjective. This does not mean there are no objective standards that can be arrived at on a rational basis.
Rationalism is just another form of subjectivity. Who decides what is rational? Are you gonna just go with majority opinion? It's just another argument from a non-theistic or possibly deistic point of view. I'm not saying you are either, although I wouldn't be surprised if you were. But rationalism is not an objective source of truth, since it is still based on us and our little mind world, unless you are making a god out of rational (as though concensus is a form of objectivity, how strange). I'm not gonna get into the abortion issue. A significant reason why some moral and ethical issues seem intractable is because people are just going by their own subjective opinions. In this individualistic, capitalist culture (I'm not a communist by the way), everyone wants to do what is right/rational in their own eyes and will go quite far to get it. This is another moral implication of evolution. There is no objective wrong or right, and it is only a human construct that can be bent or twisted by human will, when a person or a group of people is convinced. There is no objective, outside source, in the evolutionist worldview, to arbitrate. That is a fundamental problem with both rationalism, subjectivism and evolutionism.
Also you said:
Is there any reason why a moral code handed down by an omnipotent deity should be imperfect? I can't think of one.
Your style of writing reminds me of the guy that does these Talk Origins pages. No-one said the moral code the deity gave was imperfect. Once again you focus on the wrong issue. The fact is that the Deity gave us free choice, that's why in that same moral code he said "choose today whom you will serve". You can either go his way or the high way, you just had better be prepared for the consequences. The moral code is not imperfect, humans are. Although they have a potential for good, a lot of them just keep on perverting what is good and turning it to bad, worshipping creation rather than the Creator.
You said:
The problem is you are comparing evolution, a scientific theory, with christianity, a religion. Evolution does not set itself up as a moral code. Christianity does.
If you believe an all-pervasive theory, such as evolution, has no moral implications, then you really haven't thought it through to its logical conclusion. You also mistake evolution for a scientific theory, which you may wish to believe, but it is not. It speaks of things that science cannot properly speak of. It is more akin to a religion or an outgrowth of an atheistic/naturalistic religion, and thus can be compared to other religions and the way they view scientific evidence. We all see the real world and the evidences within it. To make it seem that evolutionists are the only ones that really see it for what it really is happens to be no less religious than a bible-believer. And still you have a gripe with Christianity alone when we are not discussing it alone.
These ideas that somehow people who accept evolution go off committing crimes or behaving badly is rather amusing. You have accepted that "evolutionists" have morals, and christians aren't perfect. So what is the difference? See my earlier comment.
Again, you are fighting with your own shadows and fantasies, i.e., your own straw man arguments. If you actually read my article, you would see that I never said anything about people who accept evolution running off to commit crimes or behaving badly. If other people are, then deal with them. Also, if you had read my article, you would see the difference between evolutionist morality and biblical morality. When you actually start discussing issues in my article, then I may continue discussing things with you. But there is a lot of work to be done, and if I keep on stopping to sweep away the small stones, I'll just be distracted from helping in building the building.
A verse that popped into my head
Reading the article brought to mind 2Peter 2:10-12 . --Zephyr Axiom 17:26, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
