EvC Forum: Is Evolution the Work of Satan?

Otto Tellick writes:

As a general rule, there is strength and safety in numbers. A larger group of individuals acting collaboratively will generally have better chances of surviving adversity and improving the quality of life when compared to a smaller group. Also, when all individuals within the group are treated with respect and fairness, fostering a sense of self-worth, the group is stronger, more cohesive, and more successful.

It follows naturally that behaviors leading to larger, stronger collaborative groups (wider acceptance of differences among individuals and subgroups, etc) will tend to succeed over those that lead to smaller groups (rejection, exclusion, denial of rights, killing, etc). In effect, natural selection favors the former behaviors, and in fact the history of human cultural evolution shows a general trend toward larger and larger collaborative groups over the ages, correlated with broader acceptance of diversity within these larger groups.

Obviously, there are plenty of exceptions to the trend, and there is no guarantee against reversals of the trend. But I hold that it's wrong to attribute these exceptions and reversals to "lack of religion" (as many theists do), just as you would say it's wrong to blame them on religion (as many atheists do).

I was not trying to make the point that it was either the fault of religion or the lack of it. I am just contending that there is an external objective morality that all are called to but that can also be ignored. I suggest that outside of a small minority of humans when they break this code they are aware of it and do it anyway out of self interest.

Otto Tellick writes:

The pragmatic truth of the matter is that some religious sects fully accept and practice those "good" (naturally selected) behaviors that lead to larger, stronger and more diverse collaborative groups. But frankly, I don't see this as an attribute of the majority of religions and religious believers, and that's a serious problem.

I think that I made the point that it is true for the Christian religion which is not to say that it is necessarily true of all of its followers. It is also true of Buddhism.

Otto Tellick writes:

Meanwhile, secular humanism, being founded on respect for individuals, aimed toward maximizing collaboration, and guided by evidence, has the essential attributes for success built in.

But all of its followers don’t follow those attributes either. There is still no way to know however whether the attributes you talked about were formed because of an external moral code or not. It is my belief that they are but it can’t be proven either way.

Otto Tellick writes:

In any case, my point is that Hitler's methods clearly go the wrong way in evolutionary terms, and this is easily substantiated by evidence and simple logic. It's really appalling -- in fact, insulting -- how often his name is invoked in theistic arguments against secular humanism. The same applies to invoking Stalin and other "godless" dictators. Secular humanism has nothing at all to do with these bastards.

I didn’t link Hitler to secular humanism. I was only trying to make the point that if a moral code is strictly the result of evolutionary forces then I can’t see where we can objectively say that one moral code is correct and another one isn’t. Hitler’s moral code led him to believe that Jews should be exterminated and it seems that many agreed with him and no doubt some still do. Most of us see that as abhorrent regardless of our religious views. However, once again if there is only a non-directed evolutionary process that produced our moral code then we can’t objectively make the point that we are right and the Nazis were and are wrong.

6 online now:	kjsimons, PaulK, popoi, Tangle, Taq, Zucadragon
Newest Member:	popoi
Post Volume:	Total: 916,353 Year: 3,610/9,624 Month: 481/974 Week: 94/276 Day: 22/23 Hour: 1/0