Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview (Talk.Origins)

Claim CA001:
 * Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview.

Source: Moon, Rev. Sun Myung. 1990 (27 Mar.). Parents day and I.

CreationWiki response:

On the subject of morality, it is important to remember that there are two types of evolutionists: In establishing that "evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview", there needs to be such a thing as immorality. It is uncommon for an atheist to admit that there is no such thing as morality. Therefore, this response will deal with those who acknowledge morality, and leave discussion of a worldview void of morality for a different page.
 * 1) Those who believe in morals - some atheists and all theists
 * 2) Those who believe there is no such thing as morality (right and wrong) - some atheists

(Talk Origins quotes in blue)

Evolution in and of itself is not immoral but it tends to remove the foundation for morality, thereby leading to immorality.

If evolution were true, then describing it would not be immoral. However, just as we have seen in the real world, this "description" has provided a convincing justification, if not a motivation, for the grossest immorality you can imagine in human history, including eugenics, genocides, and social Darwinism.

The act of describing, and any conclusions from that description, can be described as morally neutral only if the description is accurate.

There are some cases in which natural selection would favor cooperation and perhaps altruism. It is equally true, though, that natural selection has mostly favored the greedy, selfish, and sexually violent. In other words, any morals derived from evolution would have to recognise the fact that no behaviour can be considered right or wrong. Cooperation and altruism are no more or less virtuous than greed or selfishness in the grand scheme of history.

Even as an abstract argument, evolution reduces morality to just another biological attribute, a simple matter of predicating it on the condition that it "helps us survive". Any "moral code" then must get its basis in terms of "better fitness". And what is this basis in natural selection but survival and reproduction?

What argument can you use against the guy who wants to steal your car? "Don't do that, it's not in your genes"? "This is counter-productive to the survival of our gene pool?"

The key to this argument is the word "some". It is irrelevant whether some immoral behaviour is based on a misunderstanding of evolution. The important thing is that some immorality does come logically from a correct understanding of evolution.

According to the theory of evolution itself, assuming its chief mate, natural selection, the rule is whatever aids survival and reproduction of the genes. As to the specific examples of eugenics, and its sibling racism and racial genocide, and social Darwinism, one only needs to use the subtitle of Darwin's "Origins.. And the Preservation of the Favored Races".

This statement is blatantly false. See the response to It is bigotry to claim that the Bible/creation is right.

One does not have to be a Christian to accept the Biblical creation account. For example, a Jew or a Muslim should not have any problems with it.

Regardless, it is irrelevant whether Christianity promotes religious bigotry or not. Claiming this does absolutely nothing to refute the claim that evolution leads to an immoral worldview. The logical conclusions of Christianity are an independent topic to the logical conclusions of evolution.

Actually, the most effective weapon against bad morals is a firm foundation for good morals. Evolution removes the foundation for good morals, allowing those who do not want morals to exploit others.

Many creationists are scientists, so a separate professional code of ethics is not needed. Furthermore, creationists have the Bible as a foundation of ethics, which is firmer than any discussion based on subjective (human) or faulty (evolutionary) foundations. Any claim about the nature of scientists applies to both creationists and evolutionists, unless it is first established that there are no creationist scientists.

No disagreement here, but it also irrelevant as to the question of a relationship between Evolution and immorality.

Related References

 * Women's dilemma: Sex on first date? (Mature Content) According to Dr. Diana Luzzatto, the doctrine of evolution says the instinct of the male is to spread his seed. Hence, according to evolution, a man should have various sexual partners to insure the propagation of the species. This is considered fundamentally immoral by society in general, and by most of the world's religions.
 * Answers in Genesis Q&A: Morality and Ethics
 * Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’? - Evolution and Morality
 * Rape and evolution - Evolution shows its true colours
 * Morals decline linked to belief in evolution
 * Evolutionary biology: Polygamy and parenting (Paper: "[M]onogamy, if it even exists, is a sort of evolutionary last resort: it arises only when both partners’ full efforts are required to raise offspring successfully.")
 * Truth is, everyone lies (Montclair State University's Julian Keenan: "Lying has played a key role in our evolution, in making humans, human.")