What is the connection between the creation/evolution issue and morality?

Answer 1

There is none.

Evolution is about biological history. It is as irrelevant to morality as auto mechanics or calculus.

... Or even history. Most of our ancestors even 3,000 years ago were murderous barbarians. If that is irrelevant to how we behave today, then why is it relevant to morality what our ancestors were like 3,000,000 years ago?

It is incredibly frustrating to see creationists first try to connect evolution to some conclusions about human morality, and then condemn that connection. The connection is *their* invention, not that of science.

Perhaps if religious fundamentalists would spend more time thinking about the really *deep* questions of what it is to be human that religion is *supposed* to be addressing (questions about how we should behave towards each other morally), instead of the relatively mundane questions of what it is to be human that science is much better equipped to handle (questions about our biological origins), they might realize that they already have the really *deep* questions in their jurisdiction, and leave the mundane questions for science.

However, fundamentalism in this country has lost its way. They have forgotten that the concept of 'morality' is supposed to be about *YOUR OWN MORALITY* ... but instead they focus most of their time on OTHER PEOPLE'S MORALITY ... including reading things into evolution about morality that *just isn't there*!

Answer 2

It depends on what you are asking.Typically,creationists will say that if we weren't created by some supreme being that is the arbiter of morality,then anything goes.They make up many false assertions about evolution because they don't like the idea that a god did not have a personal touch in the making of every living thing.Evolution certainly helped shape us by providing our tools for reasoning and our aversion to pain.It's only a process though.It's descriptive,not prescriptive.The theory of evolution itself won't tell you how to make moral decisions any more than digestion will.Even animals can live in complex societies without the direction of holy books.Cooperation is necessary for survival and can be selected for.

Answer 3

If you ask a scientist, there isn't one.

Science itself is amoral - but not immoral; that is to say, science is a tool used by humans, and in and of itself it dictates *nothing* about how humans should behave (excepting certain sociological studies, which are more about how humans *do* behave). It is not, however, evil; what is "evil" or "good" is the uses humans find for science (or any of their other tools).

If, however, you were to ask a Creationist, they would make the following arguement:
[1] All morality stems from a belief in God, and following his rules.
[2] Belief in evolution neccessitates that you accept that the Bible is not literally true - that much of it is a myth or story.
[3] If you believe that, then there is no reason to believe any of the rest of the Bible, and there is therefore no reason to be moral.

Of course, statements [1] and [2] are not true. Non-Christian people (either people of other faiths, or atheists/humanists) do, of course, have morals - and many of those morals (e.g. - be nice to other people) are the same as Christian morals.

Another arguement used by born-again Christians is:
[1] A belief in the literal truth of the Bible, along with a veneration of God (accepting Jesus as your personal saviour) is neccessary to enter heaven.
[2] Since a belief in evolution prevents this, it also prevents you from entering heaven.
[3] Therefore promotion of evolution is tantamount to condemning people to hell.

This arguement is much harder to rationally refute, as it is based on an irrational premise.