Um, rstuart, you miss my point completely. I’ll try to make myself clearer.

You say that roughly the definition evolutionary science uses to define “good” is “Anything that perpetuates them [genes] is good - at least to them.” But that is just it – evolutionary scientists make up the idea that perpetuation of genes is “good”. There is nothing inherently “good” about genes or their survival or anything else. Genes just “are”. Science can tell us nothing about whether there existence or survival is good or bad. Any value statements about their existence are simply made up by people.

Do you get what I am saying yet? Science tells us nothing, and can never tell us anything, about what is “good”.

You then go on to talk about my “absolute religious belief” - I have made no religious claims in these posts. I have just repeatedly pointed out that evolutionary science can tell us nothing about moral values. That is not a religious claim – it is simply a logical fact.

CJ Morgan, you refer to my “apparent blindness to the adaptive value of religious and 'spiritual' belief systems”. Here is another instance of a moral value being smuggled into the argument. Your reference to “adaptive value” implies that it is ”good” that creatures adapt and therefore increase their chances of survival. You, like rstuart, are begging the question and are just assuming what is being argued about.

GP,

You were clear the first time. Equally I thought I had made it plain: we have a different definition of "good". Good, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Good for the murderer isn't good for the murdered; good for the person isn't good for the cow being eaten. So 'evolutionary scientists make up the idea that perpetuation of genes is “good”' aren't wrong just because you disagree.

You originally asked "tell me even one single moral principle that can be derived from evolutionary science". Perhaps we define "moral principles" differently? To me moral principles are short cuts we follow when confronted with familiar situations. When we all follow them we are all better off. Things like "be nice to your neighbour", "share food so no-one starves", and so on. They have to be taught to kids because often instincts tell you do to something else - like eat when you are hungry rather than share.

You can have whatever moral principles you want, but if you want me to go along with them there has to be some benefit to me and mine. They are useless if you can't do that - rules on interaction don't work unless the majority follow them. No appeal to universality or higher authority is going to work for me. You have to show me they will benefit both of us.

This is where science comes in. When it comes to a way of reasoning about rules and their effects the scientific method is king. So when you said: 'Science tells us nothing, and can never tell us anything, about what is “good”', you were completely wrong. Predicting good outcomes, good and bad, is in one sense the only thing science is good for. This makes it the ideal tool for justifying and deriving moral principles.

As for you being religious - belief in a absolute some moral compass, a universal (and usually unquestioned) definition of "good" is the basis of all religions. You seem to share that viewpoint, so I made an intuitive leap - sorry if I was wrong.

goodthief wrote:

david f, All I mean by “evolutionist” is someone who not only believes evolution occurs, but believes that that fact is all we have to go on when we try to establish values. That person is likely to be an agnostic or even an atheist, but they might not bother to say so. (I believe in evolution, but because I’m a Christian I see it as a part of what I have to consider, and by no means my source of values.)

Dear Goodthief:

I am an atheist but don't believe in evolution. Belief means a leap of faith. There is no proof for either the existence or non-existence of God so one must have faith to believe in God. I have had a religious education but have become an atheist. I think the evidence of the fossil layers with species dying out and new species appearing, bacteria evolving and developing resistance to antibiotics along with other manifestations indicate that there is such a thing as evolution. I accept evolution because of evidence but do not believe in it.

We both are atheists regarding the Greek and Roman pantheon and the Norse gods. Neither of us believes in them. I see no more reason to believe in the monotheist God of Jews, Christians and Muslims. I reject all belief in any kind of supernatural. We are both atheists, but I don't believe in one more god than you don’t believe in.

Social Darwinism emphasizes competition and justifies war, complete laissez-faire capitalism without amelioration and racism on the basis of Darwinian theory. This distorts Darwinian theory and is unacceptable to both Christians and humanists. Fitness to survive in Darwinian theory includes both intraspecies and interspecies cooperation. We humans survive both by competition and cooperation.

However, I know of no one who believes that evolution is all we have to go on when we try to establish values. That seems as unreasonable as believing gravity is all we have to go on when we try to establish values. Can you name such a person?

On the Professor Richard Dawkins programme on Monday Nights on ABC he summed it all up when he quoted it is the belief in superstition against the science of reason.

dawkins is a fraud ,he picks on the most foolish and gullable then edits his stuff to make himself look good

science measures itself against a placebo[ie their neo [new] medicine] versis nothing ,as if somehow medicine knows better [it cant even explain what placebo affect is , let alone better it.

when a new medicibne goes to trial ,the spin docters are after a NNT number [if you never heard of a NNT number read this link]
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/05/08/medicine-s-dirty-little-secret.aspx?source=nl

yes its sciences dirty little secret ,it basiclly reveals how many doses need to be taken for a set period of years to cure one person more that nothing [ie than a placebo]

nnt for many medicines is 50 to 100 [plus many are well over 100 ;thats number of patiants taking doses of their new medicine to CURE JUST ONE PERSON

So a nnt of 50 means the medicine wont work for 49 [ie 49 take the medicine [and get the side affects ,BUT GET NO ADVANTAGE WHATSOEVER ,yet are still paying via a deception of that science dorkins defends ,in calling the phycic treatments ''placebo'' affect

mr dawkins uses the same deciets to spin evolution upon the unthinking evolution athiests [like a fish rubbibg his eyes in the sand] is how he seriously reveals how a flat fish has both eyes on one side of their bodies [yet cleverly dosnt mention their own young fry of the same fish parental species have 'normal shape like any other fish while in their juvinile developmental stage.

"one under god" wrote:

"mr dawkins uses the same deciets to spin evolution upon the unthinking evolution athiests [like a fish rubbibg his eyes in the sand] is how he seriously reveals how a flat fish has both eyes on one side of their bodies [yet cleverly dosnt mention their own young fry of the same fish parental species have 'normal shape like any other fish while in their juvinile developmental stage."

The fact that the young of the flat fish have eyes on both sides of their body is merely an indication that flatfish have ancestors who are not flatfish. Human embryos have a similar development. Our embryos are similar to that of other creatures and diverge more toward the human form as it develops. The development of the flatfish and the human embryo are records of evolutionary development.

Atheist means one who does not have a belief in god. One may accept evolution and have a belief in god. A belief in god does not mean that one has to accept the Jewish tribal myths in Genesis. Christians such as Bishop Spong along with other thinking Christians and Jews recognise that the Bible contains mythic material.