Yet "evolution" as it is so argued has produced an organism that seems to need moral values taught to it as it does not seem to exhibit these values from merely instinct. How could nature produce an organism that seems to behave transversely to NATURE?...Unless nature her-self meant to create an organism that is quite capaple of in fact..destroying all of nature?(Oppenheimer:"I have become Vishnu, the destroyer of worlds!")I think the evidence is that human nature is biased just enough toward cooperation & abstract thinking that the rise of moral systems & civilization was more likely than not. IOW, I see the generation & teaching of systems of moral values as a natural outcome of our basic human nature.Is this not a paradox?
IOW: What paradox?
"I think the evidence is that human nature is biased just enough toward cooperation & abstract thinking that the rise of moral systems & civilization was more likely than not. IOW, I see the generation & teaching of systems of moral values as a natural outcome of our basic human nature. "
But you are speculating, not citing scientific evidence...how could evolution have created the concept of a "God", since it is argued scientifically that there is no evidence of one. Dogs don't worship at the altar of the unseen Bone....dolphins arguably as intelligent as man don't seem to worship at the altar of the Great Fish. It seems that the best evidence of man having evolved should have been his "lack" of the concept of guilt and morality!
The apostle Paul believe it or not throws evolutionists a bone when he stated "If there be no resurrection of the dead, then let us eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!" The power of Christianity lies in the power of the resurrection, if science could prove it did not happen then let Christianity be consigned to the dustbins of history....
Yet a certain shroud seems to point towards that extraordinary event, as well as the millions of changed lives who have felt His resurrection in their hearts