Evolutionary morality - or why anything goes, isn't theoretically sound

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,446
803
71
Chicago
✟121,700.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
First, they are not so much principles as fact.
Second, that does not change anything about selfish genes favouring unselfish social behaviour.
Nor does it change anything about human capacity to envision scenarios of the future and be guided by them.
If unselfish social behaviour and thinking about the future helps to preserve and multiply genes, those characteristics will be favoured here and now in a population of selfish genes even though the genes themselves can't deal with tomorrow.

I have no idea what you mean by humans violating these principles. Human evolution is the same process as all other biological evolution. Our genes do not attempt to deal with tomorrow. And we have no conscious control over the activity of our genes. But our genes don't have a lot of control over our thoughts and behaviour either. All they can do is survive, or not. So, if they are more likely to survive in a population that encourages unselfish behaviour, that is the type of behaviour that will be encouraged genetically as well as socially in future generations. Not because genes are planning ahead, but because genes which stimulate empathy, compassion, sharing, etc. are the survivors in a larger and larger proportion of the population over subsequent generations.

All evidence we have of human origins clearly indicates we are indeed products of an evolutionary process.

I am trying to connect evolution and morality by application/implication.

You on one hand, insist evolution process has nothing to do with morality. But on the other hand, try to us the concept of selfish gene to make an actual physical connection.

Evolutionist recognized the unsurpassable gap between physical substance/process and spiritual awareness, and tried everything to bridge the two. It is a scientific impossibility. If it were ever work, then it becomes a religion.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟31,520.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
I am trying to connect evolution and morality by application/implication.

Why? It makes no more sense (as I said earlier) that trying to connect digestion and morality.


Evolutionist recognized the unsurpassable gap between physical substance/process and spiritual awareness, and tried everything to bridge the two.

You are contradicting yourself. As you said above, it is you who is trying to do this. And you are not the only creationist who tries to. Scientists, for the most part, agree that science tells us little if anything about spiritual awareness or morality.





It is a scientific impossibility. If it were ever work, then it becomes a religion.

I agree. So why do you keep attempting the impossible?


Take evolutionary science for what it is (science) and stop trying to deform it into something it is not (religion).
 
Upvote 0