It seems to me that our basic sense of right and wrong, good and evil, is indicative of a creator. The pure evolutionist, a secular atheist evolutionist, would say our moral code evolved with our intelligence. In other words they would hold that as man evolved he developed more intelligence, and that morality developed out of that intelligence. To an extent that makes some sense; however, evolution is based upon survival of the fittest. Would that basic drive, the one the evolutionist attributes their whole theory on, he consistent with the concept of morality. Would mankind need morality to survive?
Surely there would be much desire to preserve the race, therefore treat one's own well, but would that explain the level of our sense of morality? Would that explain our aborance of romantic relations between people of widely different ages? Survival of the fittest might call for seeking the youngest, healthiest wife possible for the purpose of childbearing. Survival of the fittest would condone acts of violence more readily than we do, if there was any justification at all related to survival.
In our societies around the world there is much breaking of mankind's generally understood moral code. Those doing the code breaking, the dishonorable act, often think they're doing nothing wrong. Some cultures exhibit this attitude to some degree. But, generally speaking people have an agreed sense of what is morally correct, and have through much of history. Barbarians, following a different code, have always existed, but generally outside of the mainstream.
The level of our outrage at he discovery of heinous acts seems to indicate something deeper than a mere instinct developed to preserve a species. Disgust at the abuse of animals would have no bearing on survival of the fittest, but it is a pretty common reaction to that behavior. Our emotional and intellectual reaction to horrible behavior may be instinctual but it's an instinct placed in us at the beginning, not evolved over time. A moral code is something that would not be needed badly enough in the world envisioned by the evolutionist to have ever developed on its own.
Surely there would be much desire to preserve the race, therefore treat one's own well, but would that explain the level of our sense of morality? Would that explain our aborance of romantic relations between people of widely different ages? Survival of the fittest might call for seeking the youngest, healthiest wife possible for the purpose of childbearing. Survival of the fittest would condone acts of violence more readily than we do, if there was any justification at all related to survival.
In our societies around the world there is much breaking of mankind's generally understood moral code. Those doing the code breaking, the dishonorable act, often think they're doing nothing wrong. Some cultures exhibit this attitude to some degree. But, generally speaking people have an agreed sense of what is morally correct, and have through much of history. Barbarians, following a different code, have always existed, but generally outside of the mainstream.
The level of our outrage at he discovery of heinous acts seems to indicate something deeper than a mere instinct developed to preserve a species. Disgust at the abuse of animals would have no bearing on survival of the fittest, but it is a pretty common reaction to that behavior. Our emotional and intellectual reaction to horrible behavior may be instinctual but it's an instinct placed in us at the beginning, not evolved over time. A moral code is something that would not be needed badly enough in the world envisioned by the evolutionist to have ever developed on its own.