[bdeaner]

Unfortunately, many creationists argue against evolution specifically because they insist that it must be making some kind of moral point.

Yes, but this is due in part to many evolutionary theorists, such as the sociobiologist, who continually insist on using evolutionary theory in order to make what are essentially moral and ethical points. But again, this is absurd, since evolutionary theory cannot be the foundation of morality -- nay, cannot even be the ontological foundation for the condition of possibility for morality -- because, by definition, it is amoral. To make it the foundation of morality is, in effect, to dispel morality as morality. On this score, the creationists have a point, but they might be better served through an immanent critique of evolutionary theories of morality (that is, a critique of evolutionary theory of morality on its own terms), because this is ultimately a more gratifying argument.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

We have to understand creationists ane where they are coming from.

My Brother is a Quantum/Nuclear Physicist, PHD.( (Studied under Edward Teller)After nearly 20 years of intense research he kept coming to the same conclusion: This Universe was created with a design-genius that cannot be disputed. Einstein, also came to that same conclusion.

Entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes a better model for how the Universe is assembled than does Evolution. There are countless holes and missing links in the THEORY of Evolution that Evolutionists continually avoid. These are serious discrepancies that threaten Evolutionist credibility. Yet, somehow it remains unchallenged and when it is challenged, it is not given due notariety.

My Brother and I believe that there is a God who created us. One thing for certain, it wasn't Carles Darwin.

[jennyp]

Yes, but this is due in part to many evolutionary theorists, such as the sociobiologist, who continually insist on using evolutionary theory in order to make what are essentially moral and ethical points. But again, this is absurd, since evolutionary theory cannot be the foundation of morality -- nay, cannot even be the ontological foundation for the condition of possibility for morality -- because, by definition, it is amoral. To make it the foundation of morality is, in effect, to dispel morality as morality. On this score, the creationists have a point, but they might be better served through an immanent critique of evolutionary theories of morality (that is, a critique of evolutionary theory of morality on its own terms), because this is ultimately a more gratifying argument.

Well, you can't base morality upon morality itself. Morality then becomes a free-floating abstraction: "You must be moral because morality demands it. And this 'morality that demands it,' um, just is."

Morality ultimately exists for selfish reasons. It's just that morality, being a set of behavioral principles, recognizes that our actions have consequences, and the relationship between actions & consequences is based on a non-contradictory world. (Otherwise principles would be useless.) We only think about morality because we are able to conceive of the future, and to integrate our experiences into a larger, coherent model of the world & how it all works. The reason that moral decisions often seem hard to follow is that often our long-term, principled, enlightened self interest is very different than our short-term, ad-hoc desires.

So to say that evolutionary theory fails as a foundation for morality because it itself is amoral, misses the mark, IMO. The ultimate reason for having morality in the first place is the preservation of that which we value. Our biggest & most immediate value is our own lives, but we also value the lives of our loved ones, etc., even (for some people) up to all humanity & far into the future.