I thought this series done. Then I read Do morals evolve? by 
Here is how
I thought about this question in light of the discussion on my recent posts here, here, and here. It seems that naturalists and secularists want us to believe that our moral values come to us from our biology and these are evolving as humankind hurdles forward through time and space.
Of course, from this beachhead they are free to dismiss religion by saying that we would’ve eventually arrived at our current moral state anyway. While the last sentence is a totally unsubstantiated speculation, a faith statement, if you will, there is one way I can agree that we’ve evolved morally and one way in which I think the evolutionary assertion is false. (continued here)
This is the sixth part in a series designed to inspire debate on the nature of our Rights.
- Part 1: Here we considered the definition of rights promoted by the Declaration of Independence.
- Part 2: This part examined whether the Bible affirms whether or not our rights are God-given.
- Part 3: This part looked more carefully at the argument for government-given rights.
- Part 4: This section considered the philosophical decision we have to make when we decide how to institute a government. It explains the true nature of the decision Liberal Democrats and Progressives demand we support.
- Part 5: Is compromise an option? That is the question this part addressed. Here we considered problem posed by putting government in charge of legislating against sins of omission. The founders arguably just wanted the government to prohibit sins of commission.
Here we will consider the following question.
Do Morals Evolve?
When
Evolution requires heritability. Specific moral values are not heritable because they are not biological. What IS biological is the neurology that responds to reciprocity and fairness. These are the fundamental principles of morality and they ARE biologically inherited. All the other moral values relate directly to this sense in that social groups are social and that this aspect of social interaction is what activates the neurology when disturbances to reciprocal and fair behaviour occurs. (from
Reciprocity and fairness are heritable? Here is
Evolution requires heritability. Specific moral values are not heritable because they are not biological. What IS biological is the neurology that responds to reciprocity and fairness.
Exactly! Thank you for making my point (and ONLY point of this post). You are the first one in over 100 comments to get this. Moral values have not evolved. We are still trying to actually live out loving others as ourselves (and others), which was an ancient religious moral value. I have no argument or comment on how our biology helps us to respond to this. That was not my point. (continued here)
We are still trying to figure out inheritance works. No knows actually knows if there is a mechanism for passing on traits for reciprocity and fairness. So even that is speculative. Undoubtedly, instincts are heritable, but morals? We are still trying to figure this stuff out, but it doesn’t seem likely.
Consider the first comment I made on
For all we know, modern civilization could disappear in matter of weeks because of a plague. A seemingly insignificant, apparently not much evolved, certainly amoral life form could humble us. If that happened, does anybody believe that most people would still be worrying about whether or not “I am a good person” in the eyes of others? If we don’t believe in God, what would our priorities be? Looking good to someone who could be dead tomorrow? Only if we love them.
We like to think we control our own destiny. That is really what I think those who wish to believe in the evolution of morals want to believe. Yet we have no way of assuring that we will continue to plod forward. Without God and His revelation, the Bible, we don’t even have a yardstick to measure our progress. (from here)
What if we accept the argument we are simply biological constructs “designed” by evolution? Then, because of the inevitable forward march of evolution, we are now hugely intelligent. Are we ready to take control of our evolution? Should we not do so? Shouldn’t we use our huge mass of scientific knowledge to perfect humanity and create a super race? What could go wrong? Don’t the science of Eugenics and our advanced and highly reliable techniques in educational pedagogy allow us to perfect human beings to the highest degree? Would it not be thrilling to entrust the best among us, our great and wise politicians and bureaucrats with the breeding and the thorough indoctrination of “our” children? No? Yet we are already entrusting politicians and bureaucrats with the education of our children, and how is that working?
Citizen Tom 
I surmise this latest “discovery” will be soon be used by lawyers to defend their biological deprived law-breaking clients.
This reminds me of a novel I read about a mathematical genius who spent a lifetime to come up with a mathematical formula to explain altruism. He committed suicide after he supposedly discovered his mathematical formula. (The Price of Altruism)
I sometimes wonder if these people who dream up these findings are on drugs. If so, at least that might help explain their foolish findings.
If not on drugs, there is no explanation other than they are fools to assign their names to their findings, in my opinion.
Madness and folly are what I believe King Solomon might file this new discovery under of he read their findings.
Regards and good will blogging.
@Scatterwisdom
There is actually no such thing as an Atheist. We all put our faith in something or someone. Idol worship is just putting one’s faith in something or someone besides God. Idol worship is a bad decision that provides the foundation for a bunch of other bad decisions.
Interesting thought leads to other words to describe faith in oneself such as vanity or egotism.
I’lll have to tell my wife she reason I am both is because of my heredity and I cant do anything about it same as my lack of morality.
Oh well, wonder how that will work?
Regards and good will blogging.,
I don’t know why you guys keep talking to those folks, you know whom I speaking, what fruit comes from conversing with them ?
@Philip Augustine
Good question. I have three answers.
1. I spent well over 30 years of my life as an agnostic. So I can’t point to myself and say talking to an agnostic Tom would have been a rewarding experience. Yet someone did.
The Bible is not especially kind to Atheists, apostates, Pharisees, idol worshippers, and various other scoffers. It just says we are supposed to spread the Gospel. Matthew 7:6 offers an exception, but how do we judge who are the swine and dogs?
2. I have banned a couple of the more obnoxious of “those folks” from my blog. I still confront even those for the sake of the Christian bloggers whose blogs they visit. It is easy enough. They are not as smart as they think they are. Neither am I, of course, but I am still smarter than they are, especially if I remember to pray BEFORE I reply.
3. The topic of this post presents another issue. Even though I may not gain any fruit conversing with “them”, others may benefit. Consider that the Nazis actually implemented a eugenics program. The Nazis actually indoctrinated children and sought to instill their own peculiar moral teaching into those poor children. Because it could happen again, even in this nation, we have no choice except to denounce the propagandists who promote such beliefs.