If evolution is true how do you tell right from wrong since there are no absolutes according to evolution?

Answer 1

Theory of evolution describes how life developed through 'descent with modification' (Darwin) without any supernatural involvement. Some religious people believe evolution removes the need for god and god's laws so encouraging relativism or, at worst, nihilism. Even though evolution has had a profound effect on our understanding of our origins as well as the reality of things, many religious people have accommodated evolution and retained their faith.

Decisions about correct moral behaviours arise from many sources, including ethical reasoning, religious practices, innate moral instincts, wider cultural influences and local laws. However there are effectively no simple universal moral laws. Even religious people will apply their moral laws in selective ways to suit circumstances. For example, the killing of people during war even civilians has been defended by many religious people, even though their own religions may have laws prohibiting killing. Similarly as there are many religious beliefs through the world, there are widely differing and, often, contradictory religious moral laws.

So religions provide only general moral laws for their particular believers while people, believers and non-believers alike, actually decide on the moral issues. So it is hard to see how the acceptance of evolution leads to a breakdown of morality as implied by the question.

Ironically the best attempt to achieve universal moral values is through the secular arrangements of the United Nations, namely with the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights'.

There are many moral philosophies atheists subscribe to, and ironically many religious people subconsciously do as well (as seen by things such as the Moral Sense Test from Harvard). For example, utilitarianism is one such philosophy. Most contemporary ethicists, such as Rawls, were atheists. Basically, most atheists base their morality off variations of the Golden Rule, or treating others as one would want to be treated. The difference is that they reason through what creates the best society whereas most religions promote just following their rules regardless of the consequences (and if they don't, they are internally inconsistent). This leads to people trying to force their morality on others, since it is the "right" morality and not because it is the moral system that creates the best society or some other uniersally accepted good. Beliving morality derives from a god doesn't remove the human element of deciding what is moral; you have to pick and choose what religion you are, which, by definition, cannot be done through logic. Even within Christianity, there are vast differences of opinions as to what is moral (from complete pacifism of some sects to the very staunch support of most wars/patriotism in others, etc etc). So, in short, atheists generally derive their morals from universal principles instead of from sectarian teachings.

Right and wrong are either relative or absolute principles relating to human behaviour. If they are relative, i.e. have no influence on our behaviour, then they are lrrelevant. If they are absolute then they remain constant for all humanity from Adam to the last human being. This makes nonsense of evolution for if humans evolve then the principles of right and wrong must correspondingly evolve and become relative and therefore irrelevant.

Some evolutionists have sought to promote ethics using evolution as the basis. The results are horrifying, at least from a non-evolutionary perspective. Many others realize that it is impossible to live with the logical consequences of such a philosophy, that is, 'nature red in tooth and claw.' Richard Dawkins simply says 'that's the way it is', and so he is honestly acknowledging the meaninglessness and total lack of moral basis inherent in evolution. Yet he can also express Horror at a bus smash which kills and injures schoolchildren. The consistent basis for this is unclear.

Many evolutionists are not prepared to acknowledge this and so wish to have on the one hand scientific evolutionism but on the other hand a morality which has Christian values which involve the value of each individual and care for the weak as its basis. Yet, according to those who follow evolutionary theory such as Peter Singer, such should be eliminated.

What often happens is that as part of belief in evolutionism, with subsequent rejection of Christian morality, and Christian teaching about origins, people choose their own morals. They do so because it is in reality impossible to live with the logical consequences of such a theory. However, the theory itself provides no solid basis for any morality, except what will make 'the fittest' survive.So, some indeed revert to some form of Christian morality as a logical and consistent adherence to evolutionary theory alone, when consistently applied, give them no justification for doing so.

Answer 2

Claiming that Evolution need not address your Question ( - saying that Evolution concerns origins, not morality) is disingenuous. People who actually take Evolution to heart and take it to its logical conclusion might feel no compunction in killing others, as long as there is no impediment such as witnesses or religious influence. This may be part of the explanation for the big upswing in recent decades, of crimes of all types, and an implicit excuse for hedonism, as few people want "bothersome" rules, or limitations to their personal pleasure. Lack of self-discipline has led to epidemic obesity, drunkenness, divorce rates, violence etc.Why avoid perjury, if an oath is meaningless? Why not steal, if the fittest are defined by their survival at all cost?

Even for moralistic Evolutionists, ethics are continually liable to change, often drastically. Social mores come and go, with certain practices deemed acceptable at one time or in one area, but capitally liable elsewhere.
Therefore, a higher ethical standard, not invented by humans, can serve as a permanent criterion and a safeguard against excesses.

Though one can claim to believe in Divinely-guided evolution, this is often not the case. The general paradigm in which Evolution is taught, is one of mere natural causes. Teaching Creation and Intelligent Design have been made illegal in public classrooms.

Evolution is fraught with difficulties and it remains in fact a theory, open to dispute by people who choose to avoid ignoring its problems. It can neither be proven nor demonstrated in the lab (in its broader sense of giving rise to new organs or species).

See also:

The value of religion

Is there evidence against Evolution

God's wisdom seen in His creations

More about God's wisdom

Can you show that God exists

Answer 3

Evolution is not about morality - it is about science. It does not claim to be a theory which explains everything, because it is merely an explanation of where we came from. It is not our heritage, but our conscience that tells us right from wrong. And claiming not to believe in evolution does not make us any better able to tell right from wrong.