Does biological evolution have any bearing on moral or ethic

Solution

Evolutionary Ethics as Inherently Atheistic? According to Darwin, random mutations within the genetic codes of an organism will result in either beneficial mutations or unfavorable ones. Mutations that are favorable to an organism’s life—a process known as \"natural selection\"—are subsequently passed on to the organism’s offspring, making it easier for them to survive. These mutations accumulate over time, eventually culminating in a completely different set of organisms that are substantially different in nature from the original set of parents.[2] As of today, evolution is one of the most well established theories in all of the biological sciences. As Richard Dawkins, famously known as “Darwin’s Rottweiler” puts it: “it is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”[3] Since the time of Darwin, some have concluded that evolution is intrinsically atheistic. In Dawkins’ words: \"Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.\"[4] Controversial statements like these are well known in contemporary American culture. It is not in dispute that many Christians have overreacted to the scientific validity of evolution in light of the theory’s atheistic endorsements. Nevertheless, there has always been a significant amount of theologians, philosophers, and scientists who have argued that evolution has no bearing on the question of God’s existence.[5] There are many atheists would agree with this contention.[6] Of those Christians who accept the validity of the theory of evolution, relatively few of them have seriously taken the time to incorporate it within their ethical theories.[7] Perhaps one of the reasons why Christians have not utilized the theory is due to the outspoken claims made by the atheists. “We now know,” says Michael Ruse, “that despite an evolutionary process, centring on a struggle for existence, organisms are not necessarily perpetually at conflict with weapons of attack and defence. In particular, co-operation can be a good biological strategy.”[8] Although it is rationally conceivable within an evolutionary schema that “might makes right” and that nature is “red in tooth and claw,” human nature has not predisposed us to make utterly selfish actions. Ruse presses the issue: “I emphasize, in connection with this last point, that the claim is not that humans are hypocritically consciously scheming to get as much out of each other as they possibly can whilst perhaps pretending to be nice, but rather that humans do have a genuinely moral sense and awareness of right and wrong. It is this which motivates them.”[9] Ruse explains the reason why we have this moral sense: “The simple fact of the matter is that, although winning outright in the struggle for existence is the best of all possible results, such success is often not possible—especially given that every other organism is likewise trying to win. Consequently, one is frequently much better off if one decides to accept a cake shared rather than gambling on the possibility of a whole cake but one which might be lost entirely.”[10] One cannot escape the disposition to think that morality is objective and that we are obliged to follow what are commonly thought of as moral norms. “It is important, therefore, that biology should not simply put moral beliefs in place but should also put in place a way of keeping them up. It must make us believe in them.”[11] In light of these important truths, Ruse has argued that the primary tenet of the Judeo-Christian ethics are illusory: