Morality and Biological Evolution?

Assertion:The short of it is that compassion, empathy, reciprocity, and other such 'moral' qualities are good for individuals and society as a whole and they are hard wired into our behavior.

Response:I agree! But that doesn’t explain why morality exists. If it is simply a matter of evolution (random mutations acted upon by natural selection over eons of time), then morals are, in reality, random firings in our brains. Lets take compassion, for example. If one organism somehow acquired a mutation that caused it to have compassion on another individual….? In order for it to act upon that, charity (in the general sense) must have also come about simultaneously. Compassion is an emotion. I can have compassion on someone, yet not act upon it. The action would be an act of charity. So, would the emotion be propagated through natural selection if it had no actual outworking? If it did have an outworking, how would that increase the individual’s fitness, unless the individual on which it extended charity had simultaneously evolved reciprocity? The charitable individual would, seemingly, increase the well-being of its immediate population, but according to BTE, wouldn’t it necessarily have to increase its OWN fitness, in order to increase its ability to propagate its genetic code? I think the general rule of charity is providing for a need at your OWN expense (exceptions would prove the rule). How would this increase its fitness?

Now, let’s examine morality from a Christian worldview.

1. God has created the universe with a number of laws that reflected His character: moral, physical, logical, etc.
2. Before the fall of Adam and Eve, and the subsequent curse on Creation, the moral law was known, period.
3. After the fall (when Adam and Eve chose to disobey God), all of Creation began to deteriorate (mutations, entropy, etc.).
4. The laws still exist and in the case of morality are written on the hearts of men. What we have are humans that choose to what extent they recognize and uphold the moral law. The consequences of their actions still demonstrate the fact that the law exists.
1. In my evolutionary indoctrination in college (I left buying BTE hook, line, and sinker), the evidence provided for the evolution of morality was that it can be observed in “lower” animals. However, there is nothing Biblical that explicitly or implicitly suggests that this cannot be. Rather, as all animals were vegetarians, it might be suggested that they, too, obeyed the moral law! (that is my own conclusion, and not a doctrine of the church, that I know of).

FURIOUSnads...Good points. Would you mind checking this out?

Furiousnads said:
Irrelevant. Let's try this one more time: Science isn't merely about competing "points of view" -- it's about the best current theories, arrived at scientifically, to explain the world around us.

Interesting, your understanding of science. You say that you don't know whether or not the information that was presented was accurate, yet you do make a claim about what science is. Ideally, science would just be about the best current theories. However, there are many theories that are a matter of "point of view." For example, did birds evolve from the trees down, or the ground up? Truly, they work with the same evidence. What about the origin of man, as far as location? Is there no disagreement about where, exactly, man originated? Or the hominid predecessors of man? Are all scientists in agreement as to which order to place the various specimens? Yet, all of those are considered scientific theories. Indeed, many scientific theories DO have to do with a person's presuppositions, pride, or "point of view."

Also, science is founded on scientific inquiry: observations/gather data, hypothesis, test hypothesis, record data, draw conclusions. Where is it stated that science must only come from a naturalistic worldview? If I understand what you are suggesting, that science done by creationists may be valid, but it should not be taught in public schools because of the presuppositions of creationists...why does it seem you invalidate the introducing of science done by creationists simply because of their worldview? If their worldview is not taught (which, if you examine Helphinstine's material, you will see that creationism was NOT taught...or perhaps there is a misunderstanding as to what creationism is on your part???) why is their science not valid to teach? I agree that it may be available from other sources, but that is beside the point. If Helphinstine had referenced material by Richard Dawkins, the students may have looked him up and discovered that he is an agnostic, at most. They might have been influenced to explore agnosticism. Or John Dewey (Dewey decimal system, used in our school libraries). He helped pen on of the Humanist Manifestos. Secular Humanism is categorized as a religion by the Supreme Court. To what extent should we go to sterilize our school from anything but atheism, because that seems what you are suggesting? Should we remove teaching from our schools by minds such as Pascal, Pasteur, Newton, Boyle...and other scientists who had a creationist/Christian worldview?

Also, I asked if you had read the letter from the students at Sisters...not all the rest. But in their letter, they emphasized what Helphinstine had also said...creationism was not taught. That was the point. Your other points were interesting, though!

The point about Helphinstine's history paper was that it could be possible, just maybe, that he actually had done some hard research and knew what he was talking about. Has it occurred to the cyber-sleuths that did the PowerPoint research (which I tip my hat to their passion!) that Helphinstine might have actually gone to a library and cited an actual book? Do you think that may be why only a few slides can be "traced" back to creationist websites? But again, that wasn't your point, was it? The fact that he may have acquired information from....CREATIONISTS...just proves he was trying to proselytize. Or, maybe, he is open minded enough to utilize a variety of sources without prejudice, as people of many different worldviews can present accurate information. Anyhow, I am not trying to be a punk, so if I come off punk-ish, that is not my intention. I just think there are a lot of questions to ask, and the bottom line is, unless you know Helphinstine, his character, and were actively involved in the issue, you can speculate all we want and believe what you want about the issue. As for me, I have the first two (I know him and his character), and because of my close relationship with him, I actually saw all the information he presented, as well as his lesson plans. Sooo...
Thanks for reading. I'm enjoying our (different blog) dialogue!
Emalman

FURIOUSnads! Feel free to comment...

FURIOUSnads! You wrote the following:

(26 Mar 2007) -- Just a friendly piece of advice to Christianity and Science. You're quite right that "[a] lot of misinformation has been passed around concerning the firing of biology teacher Kris Helphinstine". But do yourself a favor and read the truth of the matter before accusing other people of passing around misinformation. Otherwise, you just look like an idiot.

Why didn't you post it on my blog? Anyone can post on mine. I am confused, because if you took issue with my statements, why didn't you tell me straight away? I did not post on yours b/c I have no desire to give any of my information out to more places. You don't have to on mine.

Perhaps you can explain the truth of the matter. I read you blog, but didn't find it there. I found someone angry that a teacher acquired accurate (agreed?) information from a source you do not like. Does that make it invalid? Evidence is evidence...would you agree? Have you found where the rest of his scandalous slides came from? Do you realize that Helphinstine did a final paper for a 500-level history of science class on Nazi science, which emphasized eugenics? Have you read the Nugget editorial letter from five students that was posted this last Wednesday? Do you realize that he edited out religious and biblical references from his articles to avoid teaching creationism? Again, is information automatically invalid because it is on a creationist website? If that is the case, then all the science they discuss would be invalid--mutations, natural selection, artifical selection, carbon-dating limitations and capabilities, and on and on...all those scientifically observable phenomena are therefore invalid because they are discussed and evaluated on a creationist website whose authors interpret data from a different worldview than yours?

Feel free to comment on my bog site.

Thanks,
Emalman

Sisters Biology Teacher, Kris Helphinstine, Fired: some facts

A lot of misinformation has been passed around concerning the firing of biology teacher Kris Helphinstine of Oregon. Here is some information that may clear some misunderstandings:

1. The Bible was never referenced in class, or in school, for that matter.
2. Creationism was never taught.
3. Accurate scientific information was presented that posed challenges for a scientific theory. The theory in questions is the biological Theory of Evolution.
4. No laws were broken.
   
5. He introduced supplemental material, as do most teachers, that helped explain certain subject-matter content. He cited sources of the information. The sources were included so students could identify the bias (as there is bias in everything written by men).

Hopefully this will clear the air a bit.

Emalman

The Nature of Man

Verso,
One thing I think would be great to discuss is the condition, or nature, of man without God's grace. I will edit this post and put in some verses that discuss discuss this.

Here are a few:

(Genesis 6:5) The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

(Genesis 8:21) And when the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.

(Isaiah 53:6) All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.


Emalman

Why do some believe in Evolution, and some do not?

This depends on the definition of Evolution. If all that is meant by Evolution is change over time (as many textbooks innocuously suggest), then we can see the Evolution of many things, including our own bodies (aging). However, if when we speak of Evolution we are speaking of the process by which many biological scientists assert life has developed into its present form (an ancestral single-celled organism developing, or evolving, into the variety of life we see today) we have to delve more deeply into what the Bible says, the authority of the Bible, the cooperation of the Bible and current scientific ideas, etc.

It seems that the current disagreements between Christians on the topic of Evolution, and between Christians and "others", originates with individuals' worldviews (the set of suppositions or ideas that govern/influence the understanding of what we see, do, feel, understand, think, defend, attack, etc.).

We all have presuppositions. I go into a coffee store to buy coffee because I desire to drink it (more than I desire not to drink it) and I presuppose several things:

1. They have coffee.
2. They sell coffee.
3. They will sell me coffee.

Likewise, when I read and study the Bible, I do so because my desire to read and study it is greater than my desire not to, and I presuppose these things (among others) about my task:

1. It is beneficial.
2. I am capable of doing it.
3. The Bible is the inspired Word of God.
4. The Bible is inerrant (in its original autographs, or writings).
5. My translations have insignificantly altered the actual meaning of the text.
6. The Holy Spirit will assist me in understanding.
7. I will draw closer to God.
   

When many professional "scientists" interpret data from experiments, they also have presuppositions (any honest scientist will admit that). Some common presuppositions among many scientists are:

1. The data may not be accurate or reliable.
2. The data may be accurate or reliable.
3. The data mean something.
4. There is no supernatual element needed to understand and interpret the data.
5. The observable, "testable" universe is all there is, was, and will be.
6. Human understanding is sufficient to explain the data.

continued...

An orthodox Christian scientist may make some of the following presuppositions:

1. The data may not be accurate or reliable.
2. The data may be accurate or reliable.
3. The data may mean something.
4. There is a supernatural element necessary to understand and interpret the data properly. It can be found in the Holy Bible, which in its original autographs (manuscripts written by original authors) is inerrant and the Word of God.
5. The observable, "testable" universe was created by God at a finite point in time, which is recorded in Genesis, particularily.
6. Human understanding, apart from the Word of God, will never truly understand creation.

Starting with these two different sets of presuppositions, two scientists similarly educated in the same field will come up with two different conclusions, though the facts are the same for both. An example would be...to be continued.....

...(continued)...the fossil record.

An observer who has a naturalistic presupposition (all things can be explained by the "natural" world, through "natural" laws, without supernatural intervention) may see fossils lower in the strata and suppose that they were early, "primitive" organisms--some of the first to evolve, and that they were buried slowly by layer after layer of sediment and over (perhaps) millions of years, pressure, heat, and elemental solutes affected the remains and formed them into fossils.

An observer who has theistic presuppositions (i.e. understanding the Bible's Genesis account as an accurate description of the beginning of the universe) might look at the SAME fossils and understand them to be less-mobile organisms that were buried under layers and layers of sediment and millions of tons of water during the worldwide flood of Noah's time.

[Notice that the Fossil Record as interpreted by Evolutionists suggests that the "primitive" organisms are found first because they evolved first. Those same organisms are usually some of the least mobile, aquatic organisms. Therefore, a creationist's interpretation that these are found first because they were buried first during the flood (drastic sedimentation during the opening of the deep and heavy rains)]

Both observers are using the same data ("facts") and coming up with two very different, yet viable (according to their presuppositions). I will post other examples at a later date.

One of the bottom-line question that I believe must be asked is, "Whose interpretation makes the most sense of the data? Who has to stretch farthest to 'make it work'?"