The Surprising Fact of Morality (Evolutionists have some ingenious explanations for morality)

National Review ^ | 11/4/2009 | Dinesh D'Souza

[SeekAndFind]

Morality and all of those associated ideals are rooted entirely in a presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.

And that presupposition, according to evolutionists comes from the yearning to survive. The fittest are provided with this ideals BY NATURE via evolution.

The thing about the theory of evolution is that it has itself, evolved through the years such that it explains everything, which also tells me that it explains nothing.

[SuziQ]

D’Souza ping!

[Nosterrex]

“How dying for strangers and even enemies benefits our genes is hard to explain.”

If such actions lead to the betterment of human society, it leads to the components of that society to lead more productive lives, thus beginning a virtuous cycle.

In which society would the average individual have the best chance to lead a long, healthy life? In an altruistic society, or an amoral one?

{This was a private reply to my posting, and not my view.}

[Nosterrex]

I'm not certain that I understand your point in regards to morality being an illusion, as many proponents of Darwinism or evolution believe, for in the evolutionist's view all morality is a result of our genes trying to protect themselves by being spread as often and as wide as possible. Just as many evolutionists believe that free will is an illusion.
If that is so, why would anyone care about the betterment of society or more productive lives? In fact, if I am only driven by my need to spread my genes, the best society would be one that eliminated my rivals. The deaths of other males would be to my advantage. Saving a potential rival would be counter to my best interest. Also, my genes would only want the strongest genes to survive, thus insuring my “ken's” survival. That would mean eliminating the weakest genes (ken). This would result in eugenics and the “survival of the fittest.” This would not be what many would call a virtuous cycle. There has to be a better explanation for human morality than science is now offering.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The thing about the theory of evolution is that it has itself, evolved through the years such that it explains everything, which also tells me that it explains nothing.

It is an insular, self-referential cult.

The evolutionists have no more evidence that any life evolved here on the earth than they do for life to have been delivered or engineered by extraterrestrials.

Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness
Chap. xlv. Of Demonology and other Relics of the Religion of the Gentiles

[16] And whereas a man can fancy shapes he never saw, making up a figure out of the parts of divers creatures, as the poets make their centaurs, chimeras and other monsters never seen, so can he also give matter to those shapes, and make them in wood, clay or metal. And these are also called images, not for the resemblance of any corporeal thing, but for the resemblance of some phantastical inhabitants of the brain of the maker. But in these idols, as they are originally in the brain, and as they are painted, carved moulded or molten in matter, there is a similitude of one to the other, for which the material body made by art may be said to be the image of the fantastical idol made by nature. (Hobbes, p 444)

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html