Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?

and make a declaration? Something like that?or Universal Declaration of Human Rights | United Nations?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ..

Yes, very much like that.

I suppose our main point of disagreement is the definition of the word "objective". I tend to think of objectivity as dealing with an object - i.e. something that has definite qualities and/or quantities. We can objectively measure a two-by-four without knowing what it is; we're only interested in the qualities and/or quantities of the object itself.What you're describing seems more like a collective subjectivity, a consensus of opinion based on highly subjective criteria rather than on a real-world object. We can look back on results that suited us but what's good for us isn't necessarily "good". Some species, sure. But other species survive by being more specialized. Shouldn't that put them on a "higher scale of fitness" too?

The concept of good requires a subject and a frame of reference. The only way that your claim can be true is if you change the frame of reference after assessing what is good for us and before assessing if it is good in some other way.Humans as a species become the object of assessment. Again it is the reference frame. In 1850 we might have said that the passenger pigeon was equally fit as the shark, crocodile or cockroach. Today we see that this was not the case. Isn't this an objective assessment?

Exactly. It's subjective. And different subjects have different standards for that assessment.Since when does anybody think in terms of what's good for "humans as a species" anyway? No. Accidentally arriving at a conclusion that seems correct in retrospect does not indicate objectivity.

I know some who think that what's good for humanity as a species is to get rid of 2/3 of them.

Classic freemason teaching

Keep thinking.Power does not grant a love response.

HUH?You really have not read the Bible have you? Freemason teaching or simply pointing out what the Bible actually says?

Do you know anything about Freemasonry?

How is that a response to what I said? Please ty to make a clear point.

Because we all live in a yellow submarine.

Jar writes:
"You don't know anything about the Bible or Christianity or Science or Honesty or Morality or evidence or debate or discussion for starters.If you did then you would know that the Bible says mankind has the same capability to know right and wrong as God does ....
....
You really have not read the Bible have you?"What difference does it make whether someone read the Bible? I've read it, all of it, but that does not mean I believe any of it or that it comes from a god. Morality is easily explained by evolution. The tribes that cooperated and treated each other fairly survived. They had a distinct advantage over tribes that did not work together and did not treat one another fairly. Even animals have a sense of fairness and reciprocity. This has been clearly demonstrated by many studies and featured in a TED talk by Frans de Waal. Frans de Waal: Moral behavior in animals | TED Talk

Your a new kid here so I will cut you a ton of slack but your post has absolutely no relevance to what I posted.If you read more of what I post here at EvC you will learn I have only minor points of contention with anything in your post above.My point was that those who think the Bible is much of a moral guideline or that God determines morality simply have not read the Bible. The Bible is filled with the question of what morality is, the God character in the Bible constantly struggles with trying to figure out what is moral and very often behaves in what we can only describe as an immoral manner if not utterly depraved. Also, as the part you quoted points out, the Bible itself says that man has the exact same ability to determine right from wrong as God, and we too constantly struggle with determining what is moral or immoral.I never tell anyone they should believe in God but personally, I do. But that is me. However I do think it is important to point out what the Bible (or Veda or Koran or Tanach or Eight Fold Path or writing of Confucius or Mencius or ...) actually do say particularly when folk resort to using such writings as support for their personal positions.

And to muddy the waters even further the interpretation and application of what was read; example......all of them folks who take up serpents. If you get bit it cuz you doing it wrong!