Evolution and Morality

[Dan_Eastwood]

I think you hit several nails on the head there. Time to wrap this up.

@sfmatheson

On the other hand – and this might sound sardonic but I’m serious – there might be value in exposing the kind of nonsense that travels under a banner of “let’s discuss evolution and morality” in Christianity.

AND that more or less describes our motivation for doing this in the first place. These appalling claims appear with regularity on ENV and other sites. Yes it is nonsense, but stopping there doesn’t convey how bad it really is.

Puck seems to be away, but I want to quote part of his response from the private discussion here.

@Tim

Quite apart from problems with the premises of this claim, the conclusion appears to be making the naturalistic fallacy – just because evolution occurs in nature does not make it morally good.

This was Puck’s first response in the private discussion too. He added:

@Puck_Mendelssohn

Evolutionary theory says what DOES happen when selection occurs. If tigers eat the slowest people, the fastest people survive, and they breed a faster generation of offspring. This doesn’t mean that tigers eating the slow people is good, and it doesn’t mean it’s bad. It’s not a value statement. It’s not a better world if we are all tiger-tested fleet-footed types; it’s just a different world.

The whole thing is a fallacious argument from the start, and an argument starting from a false premise is bound to go sideways. It’s better to recognize the fallacy from the start and call it out. The alternative is to follow the ugly logic that false premise enables, which is a bit like fighting fire with gasoline.

[Dan_Eastwood]

Closing comments now. Message me if you have constructive comments to add and I will briefly reopen.