Would We Have Morals, If We Were Not Created By God?

Question

Evolution is a theory that flies in the face of logic and common sense. Science has invalidated it. But because it supplies atheist philosophies with a supposedly scientific foundation, it has found support among many scientists, and its propaganda has influenced masses of people.
To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of 1,000 volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt—the paradigm takes precedence!
http://www.harunyahya.com

Answer 1

Wow! I didn't know science had invalidated evolution. But if you say it, it's good enough for me.

I think you're saying we've all been brainwashed. How do we stop this?

Answer 2

Is terrorism morally acceptable? God teaches that it is an acceptable way of achieving ones political agenda. Moses was instructed to invade the land of Canaan and butcher its entire inhabitants. Roman emperor Constantine again used religion as a tool to achieve his political agenda, and the Crusades! Is slavery morally acceptable, is a relentless persuit of those free thinkers who do not embrace your myth morally acceptable.
Athiests have a moral code that is based on a philosophy promoting peace, love and respect. It does not require a 'Higher Authority'
As for evolution, the only randomness is genetic mutation, it has no plan or goal. Natural selection is anything but random, it is strongly goal orientated with nature favouring the mutation only if
the survival of the species is enhanced by selecting the mutation for survival only if changing envornmental factors justify it.
Adaptation occurs when environmental factors change and a random mutation produces a desired genetic characteristic that is compatable with the new conditions. For a new species to evolve there must be a physical separation of one group from the main gene pool for sufficient time to allow both adaptation to the new environment to occur and genetic specialization to occur within the separated group. This can readily be observed in obligate troglodytes, these permenant cave dwellers have been physically separated from their surface dwelling relatives long enough to have evolved into a different species. Thier eyes have undergon 'reverse evolution' to the point where they are merely a cluster of light sensitive nerves and their bodies are soft and jelly-like and transparent. they are no longer sexually compatable with their surface dwelling relatives.

Answer 3

A) Evolution is perfectly acceptable, IF you will only remember that God is 1. infinite; 2. eternal; 3. omnipotent; 4. omniscient.

B) In other words, He's got all the room, all the time, all the moxie and all the knowhow to do His schtick any way He wants, including via evolution.

C) Random chance is mathematically incapable of explaining its own existence. It is totally incapable, therefore, of explaining the existence of anything else!

D) The creationism being pushed by fundamentalist evangelicals requires that one leave one's brains outside the sanctuary and forget about them. I'm truly surprised that they're not still pushing the flat earth fallacy.

E) As to your actual original question: No, we would not. We would be truly animals and the only "moral code" an animal CAN follow is its genetic programming. Programming which is geared soley to survival of its species and of itself.

F) Animals with a long and close association to man can learn a higher code, one which includes certain humans in its concept of "species". That's why you sometimes get dogs, cats, etc. who save their humans from something awful. Please note: these instances are far too infrequent for any intelligent human being to count on in the crunch.

Answer 4

I would ask you another question.

Why if we were created by God, who is all knowing and all wise, would we not have been created with good genetic programming and brain software, let's say version 1.0 HUMAN MORALS. Was God faulty in this software programming? Was and is his creation flawed? Did God make a mistake? Is that why he was so pissed off at mankind in the old testament for simply using the brain that he supposedly gave man?

If you say that he allowed mankind to have free will I can still accept that premise. But good software designers do that all the time with what they call "decision trees" based on logic and reason.

Again, if you want to argue that God created man, then you must accept that God must have created a faulty product, since he obviously didn't like what he saw. Then you must accept that God is fallible and imperfect. And then you must accept that this Bible and God that you worship is just all a bunch of crazy talk!

Answer 5

The claim ignores what happens when organisms live socially. In fact, much about morals can be explained by evolution. Since humans are social animals and they benefit from interactions with others, natural selection should favor behavior that allows us to better get along with others.

Fairness and cooperation have value for dealing with people repeatedly (Nowak et al. 2000). The emotions involved with such justice could have evolved when humans lived in small groups (Sigmund et al. 2002). Optional participation can foil even anonymous exploitation and make cooperation advantageous in large groups (Hauert et al. 2002).

Kin selection can explain some altruistic behavior toward close relatives; because they share many of the same genes, helping them benefits the giver's genes, too. In societies, altruism benefits the giver because when others see someone acting altruistically, they are more likely to give to that person (Wedekind and Milinski 2000). In the long term, the generous person benefits from an improved reputation (Wedekind and Braithwaite 2002). Altruistic punishment (punishing another even at cost to yourself) allows cooperation to flourish even in groups of unrelated strangers; the abstract of Fehr and Gächter (2002) is worth quoting in full:

Human cooperation is an evolutionary puzzle. Unlike other creatures, people frequently cooperate with genetically unrelated strangers, often in large groups, with people they will never meet again, and when reputation gains are small or absent. These patterns of cooperation cannot be explained by the nepotistic motives associated with the evolutionary theory of kin selection and the selfish motives associated with signalling theory or the theory of reciprocal altruism. Here we show experimentally that the altruistic punishment of defectors is a key motive for the explanation of cooperation. Altruistic punishment means that individuals punish, although the punishment is costly for them and yields no material gain. We show that cooperation flourishes if altruistic punishment is possible, and breaks down if it is ruled out. The evidence indicates that negative emotions towards defectors are the proximate mechanism behind altruistic punishment. These results suggest that future study of the evolution of human cooperation should include a strong focus on explaining altruistic punishment.

Finally, evolution does not require that all traits be adaptive 100 percent of the time. The altruism that benefits oneself most of the time may contribute to life-risking behavior in some infrequent circumstances.


This claim is an argument from incredulity. Not knowing an explanation does not mean no explanation exists. And as noted above, much of the explanation is known already.


Don't you think it's about time you actually picked up a biology textbook and actually read it? Instead of getting all your informaion from websites?

Answer 6

I don't need the fear of eternal hell fire to make me want to be good to my fellow man, i learnt this all on my own.

You on the other hand seem to suggest that if you don't believe in god, you think that means you can kill, rape, murder and pillage. If thats the sort of person you are, then yes stay in your religion if it prevents you from doing those things.

I on the other hand simply want to be good and do good for all around me. I don't care whether they reward me or not, or whether some old man is keeping tally of my good or bad actions. I don't do it for reward, unlike when in religion you do it for your own selfish salvation.

Don't you dare talk to me about morals and ethics, because in truth you have none of your own, or those done for pure intention - it is all about you.

We have them because it is of natural benefit for a species to care about and look after their own species, this makes good logical sense that is rooted in evidence and observation of the natural world. Animals too can show great feats of 'human' kindness.

Just because it's too complex for you or I to understand fully, doesn't mean it doesn't happen, or that a diety did it.

Even morals and ethics are only needed for people that don't know how to behave, religion & law is an extension of this.

(they may not be pushing a flat earth, but Geocentrism is still alive and well - Do you think the earth is at the centre of the solar system and universe? Science theories tell us otherwise, who do you believe?)

Answer 7

yes we would have morals, because morality doesn't need God to exist. It all comes down to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. also "survival of the fittest" isn't completely random. and you can believe in evolution and the bible

Answer 8

if i found out i was a glorified animal i would see no problem with taking a dump on a couple choice peoples lawns in this forum.