|
||||||
|
Organizations for
21st Century Science Education |
Does accepting evolution encourage immoral behavior?Evolution and Genesis A common anti-evolution tactic is to claim that accepting evolution leads to immoral behavior. The flip-side of this tactic says that if you consider yourself a moral person, you can’t accept evolution. Here's the reasoning: If evolution conflicts with Genesis, then evolution must call into question the entire Bible and its morality. And anything that calls into question the morality of the Bible must be bad. Therefore, evolution is immoral.
Unfortunately, showing a relationship between these two things would be nearly impossible, and making “proof” of such claims is prone to a logical fallacy called confirmation bias Examining the causes of immorality is something that concerns us all. We all want to do what's best for society and avoid things that might corrupt. Unfortunately, some claim that the science of evolution is an idea that will lead to immorality. Their intentions are well-meant, but misguided. The information on this page addresses these concerns and demonstrates that understanding evolution will not influence morality. The idea that “Evolution = Immorality” is based primarily on three arguments:
Let’s address each of these arguments… Not your average ape If accepting evolution means we will behave like apes, then there are some pretty sophisticated apes among us. Nearly all of our greatest scientists
First, if we accept that evolution doesn't play favorites based on importance, then, yes, we are “just another organism.” Evolution produced humans with the same set of rules that it used to produce gnats. But of course we think we are special. That’s natural. Just for fun, let’s pretend that gnats were capable of thinking like us. You can bet that they would say their species is the most important. It is always challenging to see another's perspective. But it can be helpful in revealing our biases. Second, whether we are animals or not, it is extremely clear that humans are not “just another organism.” We have the power to change our environment. We have the ability to communicate and reason like no other species. This special status is ours regardless of whether one accepts evolution or believes that we were specially created. Evolution needn’t detract from a deep feeling of significance. Equal, but extraordinary Many people – religious and secular alike – happily accept that humans evolved, just like every other species. But that doesn't mean they think humans are ordinary. We have extraordinary abilities that can be put to good use, making the earth a better place for all of its inhabitants. Argument #2: “Evolution reduces the value of human purpose to the passing of one's genes.” Here, two nuances of the word “purpose” are conflated. There is the “purpose” of “passing one's genes,” which means that in order to survive we must reproduce. If we didn't, we would cease to exist. Besides, the drive to “pass one's genes” brings us children, and what could be more wonderful than that? But the “purpose” of ensuring survival is a separate issue from the “purpose” of finding meaning in life. On this point, evolution is irrelevant: how one finds “purpose” or “meaning” in life is personal. Life would be empty without it. What gets you out of bed each day? Is it God? Is it desire to make the world a better place? The desire to learn? Regardless of whether one accepts evolution, these questions are critical to life. The meek shall Although survival does sometimes necessitate aggression, evolution actually selects for non-violent alternatives. Aggression can result in injury or death. To avoid such drawbacks, organisms have ways of asserting themselves without actually hurting each other. Animals display teeth or claws. They posture and make loud noises. They bluff. Only if all else fails, does physical combat ensue. Argument #3: “Evolution replaces the value of moral behavior with the concept of survival of the fittest.” This argument makes incorrect assumptions about evolution. First, the argument assumes that “survival of the fittest” means “be as brutal, ruthless, and selfish as you can to survive.” This is incorrect. No species would survive by being utterly selfish. For one thing, an organism that only took care of its own needs would never want to reproduce because having offspring would mean giving up resources to them. Moreover, behavioral science has reams of data supporting the idea that organisms prefer to avoid conflict, eat, and raise their young.
Second, this argument assumes that evolution cannot produce the trait of being moral. Why not? Other complex and “good” behaviors are products of evolution. Evolution produced maternal care (and paternal care!). Group living requires cooperation, reconciliation and negotiation. Mating rituals require courting, spectacular displays, and even gift-giving! Just as the eye evolved by degrees, so must behavior. In fact, scientists have found interesting behaviors in great apes that might well be precursors to morality One thing we can all agree on is that being moral is good for society. The behavioral precursors to morality seen in the great apes help their societies run well. Humans just took that idea to a new level. A word about eugenics and slavery Evolutionary language has been used in the political sphere to advance terrible causes such as eugenics and slavery. People then conclude that if evolutionary language can be used in this fashion, evolutionary theory must lead to immorality. The fact is that eugenics and slavery predate scientific understanding of evolution. This immoral behavior is independent of the Theory of Evolution. The association between causes that demean people and evolutionary language is also wrong because such practices have no actual basis in science. Claims of superiority of one group of people over another are always wrong. The fact that society rejects eugenics and slavery as inherently wrong speaks well of humankind’s use of science and our interpretation of the Bible. |
|||||
|
Sponsored By
|
||||||
