Does the theory/model of evolution create an absence of moralitry?

Answer 1

It is a historical reality that belief in Evolution has contributed to Eugenics and Genocide.

Evolution by itself contributes to a "morality" of "survival of the fittest", and "might is right".

This is not to say that all evolutionists subscribe to such mores; however to the extent that an Evolutionist chooses to subscribe to the golden rule -- he/she is doing so independently of their faith in Evolution.

Cordially,
John

Answer 2

not necessarily. Morality could be defined to include fairness, justice, and the golden rule. These are valid concepts regardless of our source. They are not perfect, however. Morality cannot apply to all situations. Do unto others, even when they want to be mistreated? Evolution, and in fact, that we have a demonstrable history that is not what the Bible states creates an absence of the Bible being trustworthy. Bible morality doesn't fit any of these concepts very well either.

Answer 3

Morality is a human construct. Evolution is a scientific theory that describes the increasing complexity of life in response to environmental pressures.

Human beings have the ability to construct morality in a way that helps ensure our continued existence on the planet. This, no doubt, is the result of an evolutionary process that allows for free thinking instead of wholly instinctive behavior. Humans have, by and large, created codes of morality/ethics that help maintain communities and ensure the healthy raising of children. When those codes fall apart, there is enormous pressure to re-install them. To my mind, evolution in human beings allows for the creation of ethics.

Answer 4

You know, one of the excuses given during the 19th century in North America about having African Americans as slaves, was that --according to them-- they were "half developed humans", based on the theory that humans were devoloped from monkeys.

Of course, we know that's not true and we all are human beings with equal rights. But, judge by yourself. If slavery was supported by the theory of evolution, and I think it does create an absence of morality because --according to evolution-- there's not God, no morality, no purpose for life, we're an accident, then it would mean we can do whatever we want without giving reasons to anybody.

I believe that, besides creationism is true, it makes sense to live. We were planned, are loved, and there's a wonderful future waiting for anyone who accepts to be a child of God.

See the video called "Evolution, Creation and Logic" on http://www.amazingfacts.org/media/everlasting_gospel.asp

God bless you!

Answer 5

No, not at all. I'm a believer and devout Christian, but I don't buy the creationist narrative as a scientific approach to the origins of life and/or human being. Evolution theories and even atheism do not undermine morality because they are all into proposing models to strengthen life, human fellowship and goodness.

Answer 6

No. In fact, evolution is proof of why we HAVE an innate sense of altruism (and thus morality).

Picture two groups of protohumans:

Group A: The altruists. Tight knit community, closely related by environmental isolation.

Group B: The selfists. Tight knit community, closely related by environmental isolation.

Group A and Group B exist in the same geographic location, and are in competition for resources.

Which one will see its particular set of genes passed on more? If an altruist gives up his/her life to save three of its group's lives, then because it is closely related, many of its genes will continue despite the individual being dead (its genes are present in those that are closely related to it). Thus altruism, in a social species, increases procreation of genes. Now, if genes can play a role in altruism (which they do), then those genes that favor altruism will be passed to more offspring than those for selfism. Eventually, Group A is gonna win and Group B dies out. Altruism is 'more fit' for social creatures than is selfism.

Evolution isn't the death of morality -- it's the reason for it!

Answer 7

Only in the eyes of creationists. Those same morals don't exist in the eyes of evolutionists. When both sides start demonizing the other for their beliefs, that's when there is an absence of morality. God wants us all to be good to one another...that is morally right.

Answer 8

If I believed it, it would for me. If we evolved from stardust, there's no real meaning to life. We're all just randomly ordered clumps of matter, spending our existence trying to keep ourselves arranged in that same order (staying alive). Where does morality have validity in a world like that? How can you wrong someone if they are just a clump of atoms that is no more significant than the dirt under your feet?

Darwin had qualms himself about putting out his *theory* because of what he knew it would do to the church. Morality has no meaning at all if evolution is true.

Answer 9

No. Religion does NOT have a monopoly on morality.
Rather evolution explains the existance of moral norms - they are nesesary for the continual existence of society and society is nesesary for the conitunal survival of the individual.

Answer 10

no.. I know plenty of atheists and who are as moral , if not moreso than a lot of those who believe in "divine creation"

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
US physicist (1933 - )

Answer 11

No, why would it? That makes no sense. At the same time that religion tries to set morals to follow, it undermines the morals by telling everyone that they will be forgiven for all they do wrong if they ask for forgiveness and accept Jesus Christ.