morals, etc. from Origins...

From: bivalve (
Date: Mon Oct 15 2001 - 19:57:36 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: relativity and age of cosmos"

    >Allow me therefore to put the matter a little more
    succinctly. Where is the logic in believing that the
    opposites, 'survival of the fittest' and 'thou shalt love thy
    neighbour as thyself', are able to live together amicably,
    and on equal terms?<

    In reality, biological evolution (i.e., the process of change in
    organisms) reflects survival of the fit enough, not just the

    However, the main problem here is in supposing that
    survival of the fit enough should be considered on equal
    terms with giving preference to one other (Rom. 9:10, a
    more extreme command than "as yourself".) Survival of the
    fit enough is a physical description of how organisms act.
    Love one another is a moral command. Why should
    biological evolution be seen as a source of moral
    guidance? No one claims to get moral guidance from the
    theory of gravity. Everyone recognizes that the theory of
    gravity does not mean that I ought to knock everything
    down, drop heavy things off tall buildings and cliffs, etc.
    Basing morals on biological evolution is just as foolish.

    Furthermore, survival of the fit enough does not require
    harming others. Both cooperation and competition may be
    succesful strategies for survival in the short or medium
    term. In the very long run, cooperation may be the best.
    This has received relatively little study. However, intuitively
    it seems likely.

    >Your average atheist appears to understand the absurdity
    of the union quite well - but, strangely, not the Christian
    disposed to accept evolution's dubious scientific

    Atheists have bad theology. Why would you suppose that
    they are more likely to be correct than Christians?

    A careful examination of claims to use biological evolution
    as a source of moral guidance shows that it used merely
    as an invalid excuse for sinful behavior. As is usually the
    case for unbiblical moral systems, the purported moral
    systems are typically hypocritical, used only when they
    promote the advantage of those who developed it.

    For example, Marxism purports to be evolutionary.
    However, it is based on Marx's ideas about the evolution of
    society, not on biological evolution. There is no biological
    reason whatsoever why I should care about the good of the
    proletariat as a whole, much less put it above my own
    interests, unless its interests happen to coincide with
    mine. As it is an artificial group, not reflecting biological
    kinship, the idea of biological support is particularly silly.

    Racism and eugenics run into similar problems if they try
    to claim evolutionary support. If I were to kill off everyone
    who is racially different from me, this will tend to increase
    the proportion of my genes in the gene pool. However, the
    other people have just as much reason to try to get rid of
    me. Biological evolution does not favor one group of
    humans over another.

    Another type of attempt at justifying immoral behavior
    through evolution is the "animals do this so I should, too"
    argument. This is both hypocritical and generally
    inaccurate. First, if someone really considers animals as
    the proper model for behavior, he should be like
    Nebuchadnezzar. Selecting one action that you want to
    justify and then trying to find an animal that purportedly
    shows that action is an attempt at fabricating an excuse,
    not an effort at developing a moral system. It is unlikely that
    anyone would approve of my observing howler monkeys
    and then claiming that it was morally acceptable for me to
    make as much noise as possible every morning at dawn.
    Secondly, often the animal does not really show the
    behavior in question. For example, purported
    homosexuality in animals often really reflects an animal too
    stupid to recognize that it has made a mistake. Some
    male worms may even try to mate with their own other end.

    >Again, speaking of God's 'fingerprints', what is now your
    considered opinion regarding the explosive package of
    numerics that inhabits the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1? In my
    view they have much to tell us about the character of God,
    of his _modus operandi_ , and more<

    I see how the numerical patterns would be viewed as
    supporting the inspiration of Genesis 1:1, but this does not
    negate the need to carefully examine the proper
    interpretation of the days of Genesis 1-2, etc. Finding
    hidden significance would seem to point more towards the
    importance of symbolism, including the numeric
    symbolism of 7, rather than supporting a calendar day

        Dr. David Campbell
        Old Seashells
        46860 Hilton Dr #1113
        Lexington Park MD 20653 USA

    That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand
    Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G.
    Wodehouse, Romance at Droigate Spa

    Sent via the WebMail system at


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 19:45:08 EDT