What are some christian's beliefs on how evolution effects moral values?

You could say, if evolution is true, Genesis is wrong, unless you want to interpret it metaphorically. And if Genesis is wrong, this says something about claims made for the Bible as divinely inspired. And if the Bible is faulty, then . . .

True enough. But that seems to be a very weak argument. There is already much that even the most literal fundamentalist would take as being metaphorical in the Bible. So that logic would have no one believing the Bible is true.Devinely inspired doesn't make it a geology, biology or physics text book does it? Or does it? !??? That would be an odd thing for someone to say. It would also make it a rather large book to have to copy by hand over the centuries. Quick guess, it would have to be equivalent to a 30 volume encyclopedia. That is, unless you want to rather gloss over the unimportant details that would be incomprehensible to the audience of a millenia or three ago anyway.

If Genesis is wrong, perhaps Deuteronomy and Leviticus are wrong. There goes Kosher out the door.

Seems the Christians chucked that already. So I guess there is a lot of wiggle room in the Bible if you want to interpret it in a particular way.Of course, there is a great deal of wiggle room. That is why the majority of Christian's are happy to take Genesis as a metaphorical or very simplified description of geologic history. It is also why Christianity didn't implode when the Earth was found to not be the center of the universe or the Earth flat. It is the rigid, literalist (attempts to be literal anyway -- if you follow threads here you find that no one really sticks to literalism when the going gets tough) view that will crack under the pressure of increasing knowledge.

There will always be Deli.Kosher be good.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

They are both part of my if statement - read it again. Generally evolution is seen as the alternative to God creating the world, so that is why I lumped then together as being equivalent, although technically they are not.If: Evolution is true and God does not exist
Then: There is no reason to not do something immoral if doing that immoral act is in your best interests.Of course there is always the possibility that evolution is true AND God exists. Then a case for evolution being morally dangerous is much harder. True... but there are many situations when doing one little immoral thing does not produce anarchy.. for example say you find someones wallet but pocket the money insead of returning it. I would venture to say someone who doesn't believe in God would be more likely to steal in this case than someone who does.

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

That would be an intersting study. Based on the people I know there would be no difference.

Why?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Because that act is in your best interests... this includes factoring in the risks of getting caught and punished against the benefits that could be gained. If there is no God it is quite likely you can get by doing lots of immoral things that will help you in life and not get punished. If there is a God then you will have the knowledge that you will have to answer for your actions eventually.

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

How is that? There are many, many moral systems that seem to work really well that have no GOD? How is it that Buddhism works as an example, or atheism?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Good question. Obviously many people have found other reasons to be moral, but this does not remove the fact that disbelief in God removes one of the reasons to be moral.

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

There are practical reasons to be moral.And then there is also what your heart is telling you.I have too much guilt in me to just toss that away as inconsequential.

I find myself going on what my "heart" tells me about 90% of the time and the rest on more practical concerns (don't want to go to jail for example).The conscience that we carry should dictate a lot of our behaviour. I seem to have one although I am an atheist.

The nihilist in me tells me that "conscience" is mere cultural programming, ultimately meaningless of course. And then there's a little part that says it's something real--i.e., objective.But if somebody tells me that "cultural programming" is somehow objective, I would have to disagree with that.If somebody tells me that it is actually "evolutionary programming" and this somehow puts it on an objective level, I would also have to disagree with that.No, no. You can't have it both ways.

But if it works? But if it works?IMHO the key thing is that everywhere we look, both in GOD and Judgement based systems, in philosophic systems such as Buddhism, in atheist systems, in monotheistic or polytheistic, Judaic or Norse, Pagan or Infidel, we see the vast majority of life goes on within moral bounds.So, given the almost universal nature of moral stucture and behaviour, I don't see how anyone could consider whether or not evolution is taught as even being a factor.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion