POTM: Re: Commentary: Thoughts on atheistic evolution and morality

I'm top-posting just to nominate this excellent post. I wish all
creationists would read it and think aobut it.





"Steven J." <steven_j@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1194075260.728622.257640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Nov 2, 10:08 pm, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From the article:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
---- By PHILIP BRAMBLET
Posted: Nov. 2, 2007

I might as well get it out of the way to begin with. Yes, I am a
creationist. I actually believe God created the universe and
everything in it. I don't believe macroevolution ever occurred.
Macroevolution refers to one species changing into a completely
different species, as opposed to microevolution, which refers to
genetic change within a species.

If a species evolved into another species that was somewhat different,
but not "completely different," what sort of evolution would that be?
A horse is a different species from a zebra, but is it "completely"
different? Given the number of homologies that have been identified,
does it make sense to say that a human being is "completely different"
from a gorilla, or even from a lungfish? The above paragraph makes it
clear that the author accepts just so much evolution as he accepts,
and may imply that he's a bit vague on the meaning of the word
"species."

All creationists believe in genetic variation within a species
because that's empirically observable. We just don't believe a frog
can turn into a prince, no matter how many billions of years and
physical stimuli are brought to bear on it.

I think he means "microevolution" within a species, although, of
course, variation is observable in species: it is the raw material
upon which both natural selection and genetic drift work.

But my argument here is not for creationism. I'm not trying to prove
there is a supreme being and that it created the universe. All I want
to do is discuss the moral implications of atheistic evolution.

As Screwtape put it, "you see the catch? Believe this, not because it
is true, but for some other reason." Of course, one could in
principle be an atheist without accepting evolution; one could be
utterly agnostic about the origins of biological diversity and
complexity. And of course, one could accept evolution and still
accept a God, even a God Who has revealed a code of morality to us.
Or, conversely, one could in principle accept that life required a
Creator, albeit One Who has not seen fit to reveal to us how we ought
to live, and perhaps has no more concern for our physical or moral
welfare than we would have for that of bacteria in a petri dish.

So let's say there's no creator and focus on what it means to us
humans morally if evolution is true.

Again, those are, technically, two separate propositions.
Furthermore, just as the author conflates atheism and evolution, he
conflates evolution and natural selection. He has, to be sure,
illustrious precedent here: Sir Arthur Keith did the same thing,
condemning Hitler for trying to build a social order based on
"evolution" when he really meant that Hitler tried to build a social
order on "natural selection." But it's vaguely irritating,
nonetheless.

If we humans are animals like any other - only more evolved - there
is no basis for us to act any differently from other animals.

Animals don't even act like other animals; they act like the sort of
animals they are. Even our fellow apes differ remarkably in, say,
sexual behavior: gorillas with harems (if they're lucky), chimpanzees
and bonobos promiscuous, gibbons pair-bonded. The author has not
thought carefully about his point here.

There is a bird called the kookaburra where I grew up in Australia.
Baby kookaburras commonly kill the weakest sibling among them. So why
shouldn't my older son be able to kill his little brother? We don't
hold baby kookaburras morally accountable for killing their sibling.
We say it's just the harsh reality of nature and evolution - survival
of the fittest.

Technically, we say it's competition for resources; it is "survival of
the fittest" only to the extent that the weakest sibling, on average,
has some inherited trait that makes it the weakest, so that this trait
is gradually removed from the population.

If two male animals fight over a female and one of the males is
killed, we don't condemn the killing as immoral and pursue justice.
We take it as part of the natural order. So if we are just highly
evolved animals, on what basis do we condemn a man who kills another
in order to take his wife? He has done nothing that other animals
don't do with impunity. And hasn't he done our species a favor by
removing the weaker man?

Evolution is not about doing your species a favor. Even natural
selection isn't about doing your species a favor. Individuals
compete, and, from the standpoint of natural selection, it is their
particular alleles, not their species, which benefit from success in
competition. And which individuals are "the weakest," or which traits
are least fit, is dependent on the specific environment (which
includes other members of one's own species, as well as other species,
climate, terrain, etc.).

This seems as good a point as any to point out the obvious: from the
standpoint of our genes, in an intelligent, social species,
cooperation, mutual aid, and respect for other's rights and interests,
may well pay off better for your genes that trying to kill off all
rivals for potential mates and resources. And if it does, natural
selection will reward individuals tempermentally inclined to such
behavior.

If atheistic evolution is true, what basis do we have for prosecuting
murderers as criminals? They're acting just as naturally as any other
animal that kills. For that matter, why prosecute rapists? You can
see animal rape every day on the Discovery Channel, yet we don't
morally despise animals that don't ask for consent before engaging in
sex.

Well, one could raise the point that, for us, prosecuting murderers is
just as natural as murder itself. Pretty much any behavior that
humans beings are capable of, much less any behavior we're actually
inclined to, is "natural;" so telling us something is "natural" is not
much help in decided whether it should be condoned, tolerated, or
punished.

From a purely evolutionary standpoint, of course, the basis we have is
our own sense, partly genetic and partly cultural, of right and wrong,
based, presumably, on the need to cooperate with fellow members of our
group and to deter or protect ourselves against cheaters and
renegades. Again, humans aren't kookaburas, or lions, or even
chimpanzees. It seems rather odd to tell us that, if evolution is
correct, we ought to disregard what evolution has made us and act as
though our ancestors followed a totally different evolutionary path.

From a theological and philosophical point of view, what does
creationism offer us? It tells us that we have a conscience, which is
just an alternate account of how we came by a sense of right and wrong
rather than a reason to follow that conscience. It tells us that God
has given us rules to live by, although different religious figures
have differed to some extent on what those rules are (can you own
fellow human beings? should you, or may you, tolerate holders of other
religious beliefs?), but why ought we do what God tells us? The
assertion that He can and will reward obedience and punish
disobedience is a reason, but not a moral reason (and eternal reward
or punishment after I die may or may not be as strong an incentive as
temporal reward or punishment in the short term at the hands of my
fellow humans). That God's rules are objectively good for human
beings would be a moral reason, but in that case, the rules
themselves, and their suitability for human nature, would be the
important thing and not their origin at the metaphorical hands of a
Creator.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----­-----

Read it athttp://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=681854

J. Spaceman

-- Steven J.




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Naturalistic Fallacy
    ... They are a part of Darwinian evolution. ... It is interesting to note that sometimes what we humans prefer to call the ... Few spots remain on earth that are ... ESCAPING each species' needing SOME kind of externality complex if it is to ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Couple questions for evolution experts
    ... >> process of evolution was occuring, did the human female birth canal ... If it were beneficial for the survival of the species, ... Why is it such a guessing game with humans? ... many atheists agree with those religious persons that evolution and religion are not alternatives. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Protection of the public
    ... local extinction of some species, ... Yes but humans are also part of the "natural world". ... as likely to affect the balance of other animals indirectly. ... control, even if that involves killing some animals, I don't have a big ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
  • Re: Temporal Learning
    ... >> be born with pre-wired knowledge about one's environment. ... I think that humans inherit of a lot less knowledge than they learn ... You can believe in the magic of evolution all you ... species to emerge, there must be a lot of opportunities for mutations. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?
    ... how humans came to be and how we fit in the universe"... ... human prehistory and the origin of species does not mean that those ... Macro) evolution has been tested, ... logical that humans genetics would also most closely match primates. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading