Thanks for all the answers here... Some of you made me even laugh. You all brought up some good points..
Canuckster1127 wrote:That's a pretty broad question and it behooves anyone attempting to answer it to define their terms.
First, narrowly defined, evolution in the purely scientific sense, is just a process identified in biology where populations change over time. So, in that case, no. Evolution doesn't promote immorality, anymore than say, gravity or geometry promotes immorality.
I agree with you Bart. Perhaps I could phrase it as not evolution itself (the science of it) or the people who believe in it that are immoral (no way), but perhaps the teaching of evolution devoid of God. Mainly because it seems to be (ok, it is..) teaching that the creation of the world and it's species occured without the instruction of God. In other words, if it can't clearly define what immorality is because it is simply science, can we logically or honestly say it doesn't produce or promote it (in the human bias or not) since it really can't define what it is or even means?
Second, in terms of the broader sense that evolution is used, as a philosophy or world view, where spontaneous generation and the evolutionary process are used to "prove" the absence of any need for God, then you could argue that that becomes a platform for no absolute basis for morality other than self-interest in terms of providing a safe society. Very often, that leads to the type of thinking that in effect says, if you aren't harming anyone, do what you want to do. This obviously can lead to all kinds of immorality.
Ok, I'm going to play the devil's avocate here.. Yes, but with the laws that we have in place now, don't they suffice for that? Like the "Golden Rule." Do we really need a God per say for that? Why can't we just say that we need "the law" instead of "the God?" I know that one could argue that our laws came from God, but couldn't you also avocate that our beliefs of God (or a God concept) gave us our laws?
What would be a good answer to that?
I think we have to be careful though as Christians in how we push that argument. What accounts for immorality within Christians and the Church? It's the sin nature we have combined with our own stubborness and disobedience isn't it? Sadly, far too often, the condition and statistics within the Church are not significantly different from the general population.
Totally agree here... I will not argue this.. In fact some of us use our Christianity as a nice place to hide our evil and to feel superior to others. Thus justifying our own works and play God so to speak..
Here is why I'm asking this question.. I started off my quest with science and the Bible as a YEC back in the early 90's... Later I changed to OEC because I just couldn't understand how the YEC model could line up with basic science facts.. Things like the global flood, the distance of the stars, the laws of entropy, etc.. broke my faith in YEC.
However, I guess, there are some principles that have stuck with me from the YEC teachings (maybe even brainwashed..).. In the YEC camp (mainly AIG) they place the immorality problem squarely on the teachings of evolution. They say there is a connection between the belief in evolution and immorality. The point they make is that since evolution teaches that there are no absolutes, no God outside of us, then there is no basis for absolutes between right and wrong either. It cannot be explained or defined (therefore it is wiped out)... It demeans life to no value, similar to that of a fruitfly. Thus the person is left to define their own morality, (as you stated before Bart) devoid of a loving God per say..
You can listen to that
here
But then they (AIG) go further.. They say it promotes racism..
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... racism.asp
I quote AIG: "The increasing spread of evolutionist doctrine has much to answer for in relation to the way people often treat each other.
Sadly, people rarely recognize that the prejudices which have slowly become ingrained in their psyche have often been a result—directly or indirectly—of evolutionary thinking.
One of the prevalent evidences of man's inhumanity to man is racism. Put simply, racism is prejudice against people of other 'races'1 for that reason alone. Stereotypical rules are applied to demean individuals based on their cultural background, skin colour, appearance, or accent.
More often than not, these rules allow an unfounded assumption of superiority over that individual, which in turn justifies any feelings of disdain or indifference towards them. In truth, this attitude is usually based on nothing more than fear, ignorance, and misunderstanding. The manifestations of racism can be blatant, such as in hatred from the Ku Klux Klan or the oppressiveness of apartheid; it can also be as simple as telling degrading anecdotes or possessing a cold attitude of indifference.
As a result of evolutionary thinking, many in Western society are unable to experience heartfelt sympathy for starving children in poverty-stricken Third World countries. For reasons they could never justify, they believe 'life' somehow means less to these strangers with different skin colour and features. Incredibly, I have heard this type of comment from 'educated' people!
This misinformed attitude is understandable if people accept the idea of 'survival of the fittest', that the rules of the animal kingdom must apply to humans 'because we've all evolved from animals'!
Neither racism—nor the idea of evolution—started with Darwin. Both are manifestations of basing one's thinking on a non-biblical foundation. However, Darwin's writings greatly fuelled racism, providing a 'scientific' justification for it. His book's subtitle referred to the 'preservation of favoured races'.
The Bible, of course, teaches in the first chapter of Genesis that God created the heavens and the earth, and all life upon it. There is no evidence to show that man's existence came about in any other way. The theory of evolution is based on assumption and misinformation."
It's all here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... racism.asp
or
From my other post... Again another quote from AIG, "It is a logical fallacy (called the Naturalistic Fallacy) to derive moral codes from science. Morality tells us what people ought to do, while science can at best only tell what people actually do. Science may indicate that if a 20 kg weight is dropped from a height of 100 metres on someone's head, it would probably kill him; morality is determined by our Creator who declares that murder (intentional killing of innocent humans) is wrong."
"However, evolution provides no moral basis for treating women well — since it provides no basis for morality at all! In fact, it seems to be a well-kept secret that Darwin and the founders of modern evolutionism consistently taught that the alleged physical and mental inferiority of women was strong proof of evolution by natural and sexual selection. This can't simply be dismissed as just a product of their cultural prejudices — they went out of their way to try to prove female inferiority to bolster evolution."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp
And then we go into Madonna as quoted as saying "she would be unlikely to choose a black partner again. Claiming to have been mistreated when she dated black men, she allegedly said: 'Maybe a lot of it has to do with the fact that they haven't had the same chances as we white people have had to be educated or exposed to things that make you more evolved."
Then Darwin makes these statements about women:
“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain - whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses”
Anyways, the more I read this, I see your points. Both camps (evolution and creationism) seem to have a claim to immorality... This brings me to my last question however... Could we argue that the teachings of evolution have a stronger bent to immorality than a God fearing one? Doesn't creationism promote a spiritual watchful eye over us? Is the difference 0/0, 0/100, 50/50, 60/40... etc. between the two? Or can we just assume that evolution is pure science and makes NO claim to immorality...
Just another fyi.. It was evolution that was taught in my early years that prevented me from getting closer to God in my teens. It simply taught me that it was illogical to believe in God outside of evolution. There is no spirit world. . This allowed me to go on my immoral rampage... Just satisfy my own self with whatever I wanted. It's just me and nothing else... Habit's I'm still trying to break today. And when I die, who really cares..?
Again, I'm just asking questions here...
G -
...present company excluded of course.