Because Darwin infers that we do not have an immortal soul.
That's the crux of it.
So you're saying that if we don't have a supernatural soul-organ-thingy that survives after we die, then evolution could not happen? That a person who didn't have a soul would be at a reproductive disadvantage to one who did?
This makes no sense. Once an organism dies, any supernatural something-or-other that releases itself from the body and flies away to heaven or hell isn't going to have any effect that I can think of on whether that organism's genetic offspring go on thriving or not.
And that's the problem with its fallout on society.Ah, so it is purely an argument from the social consequences. OK, then let's do a little thought-experiment here: Tell me, do you agree that the best way to profit (in the immediate short-term at least) is to buy low and sell high? And do you agree that the best way to profit in the long run is to trade value-for-value honestly, with a slight tendency toward benevolence and forgiveness (to avoid endless feuds caused by miscommunication if nothing else)?
If we have no immortal soul, it's just fetal tissue.
Euthanasia's okay. Even murder, incest, rape, theft, adultery, etc.
There are moral implications to Darwin and that is and has always been the problem.
As a good capitalist, I do, and have internalized these principles in my professional & financial life.
Now, assume that we do not have an immortal soul, and the universe we know & love did not come about because of an all-loving creator-God.
What's the best way to profit in the immediate short term? What's the best way to profit in the long term?
The answers are exactly the same! Being good, self-interested human beings, we act according to those principles that will most surely bring us wealth, security, love, etc. But since we are human beings, we can see the long-term consequences to our actions. So we end up building moral systems based on enlightened self-interest, and these kinds of systems include a lot of what we would at first glance think of as altruism & self-sacrifice. But anyone with any wisdom about the world understands the concept of a long-term investment, and the concept of not polluting the environment. The same concepts apply in the purely moral sphere.
(I hope that's not somewhat clear. Gotta run for now. But do you begin to see a glimmer of why us evos can be such good, committed, passionate conservatives & anti-Communists?)
ToE infers neither that we have an immortal soul or the obverse. It doesn't enter into it.
And that's the problem with its fallout on society.
Euthanasia's okay. Even murder, incest, rape, theft, adultery, etc.
There are moral implications to Darwin and that is and has always been the problem.
Wrong. All social groups, even of soulless animals, have rules of society to live by. To disobey them means death or exile in the animal kingdom. Societal law has nothing to do with whether we believe we have souls or not.
Huh? The God that you believe in is so weak that he couldn't grant immortal souls to intelligent apes if they evolved that way, but only if He created the first one and the first one's wife ex nihilo? That is one weak God.