A logical conclusion is that life is meaningless if we are just a random quirk of nature? How do you justify right and wrong in a society when foundationally, life is meaningless?
If you google “evolution fact or theory”, it is clear that there is no proven theory for natural, biological evolution. Thus, a critical question to answer is, did we get here naturally, or were we created? If we were created, we can say a creator creates for a reason, thus, we were created for a reason, and we have a purpose to fulfill with the potential we possess in our genetic code.
www.peace-purpose-
prosperity.com
2006-07-08 08:57:10 · 7 answers · asked by Cogito Sum 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The issues are entirely unrelated.
First, your premise is faulty. There is huge amounts of evidence to show that species change over time, and that species are related. That's what evolution says. The idea of "survival of the fittest" is one guess at WHY species change over time. But only the most fanatical creationists refuse to accept that fact that species do change over time.
The issue isn't whether we got here naturally or were created. Because that's never something that can be resolved. The best we can ever hope to do is prove that we MIGHT have gotten here naturally.
Science has been able to duplicate initial creation of life in controlled experiments, simulating the estimated conditions on the planet millions of years ago. Is that what happened? We don't know. Nobody now alive was there. So, at best either explanation is a guess.
That has nothing to do with morals. Let's say hypothetically that we did evolve naturally. And then almost six thousand years ago a bunch of people got together and wrote a book containing their mythology, and included some pretty good ideas about how to live with each other. That doesn't make the morals that come from that book any less valid.
Let's say that we were created. But the creator didn't actually ever communicate with us. And then almost six thousand years ago a bunch of people got together and wrote a book... same as above. The fact (in this hypothetical) that we were created, as opposed to being 'natural', doesn't change anything.
So, the only way it could make a difference is whether some divine being communicated with us, and inspired the books that give rise to the moral codes. And that could have happened regardless of whether we were created or not.
So, the issues are entirely distinct. Just because we might have evolved naturally doesn't make life meaningless. That's like saying diamonds are worthless because they occur naturally.
Value and meaning are what we make of them. Most of us choose that life is valuable. And at least some of us choose that freedom is valuable. And I think they are even more valuable if we've chosen to make them so, rather than that being what was expected of us by some higher power.
2006-07-08 09:10:26 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The universe does NOT have any inherent morals of right or wrong, regardless of a creator. If it has any inherent values it is that the strong prey on and murder the weak. We see it on the animal channel every day.
Second, there is much more scientific evidence proving the fact of evolution than there is scientific facts proving the miracles of Christ.
Nevertheless, the purpose of all life is to survive long enough to pass on it's genes. Morals are a function of our intellect to help us survive. Every system we create we do so to help us survive. Murderers are locked up because they threaten our survival. So we view murder as "inherently" wrong, but it's not. Tigers murder zebras, and antelope every day.
The problem lies in that the facts of the universe point to an inherently meaningless existence. That harsh reality is often too much to take for many people and they choose to delude themselves with Religion.
Those of us that can handle the fact that when we die we cease to exist for all eternity, go on living the fullest lives we can with this knowledge.
Good luck.....
2006-07-08 17:39:25 · answer #2 · answered by GobleyGook 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whether you believe in evolution or creation is beside the point. In both instances, humans only have one true purpose; to adapt to their environment and pass on their genes to ensure the survival of their species. That is one thing Darwin and Genesis have in common. This leads me to believe that the inherent morals of right and wrong we posses are just part of being human. Whether or not a higher power gave them to us or if it is nothing more than the ability to think rationally through years of evolution, we have them in order to ensure survival.
2006-07-08 16:33:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ah, this is the religious bugbear that atheism and evolution mean no morality. Sadly for you, morals are not the exclusive province of your religion or any other. People don't need religion to be moral.
2006-07-09 15:44:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
2006-07-08 16:29:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A concept based soley on FICTIONAL ''matter ''...by science fiction writers alluding to a fram of mind of someone who lacked the 'POVERBIAL >>>GREY MATTER<<< BETWEEN THE ears.....SO-TO-SPEAK...
2006-07-08 16:19:10 · answer #6 · answered by BILL P 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is no right or wrong, no white or black. just kill people if you want. im serious. killing someone is on my list of things to do before i die
2006-07-08 16:10:30 · answer #7 · answered by mbmixer_the_rj 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋