How does our having a conscience argue against evolution?

B

Bubbles™

Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Thank you.
In all races and cultures, people have been willing to help others, even when doing so involved danger to themselves. Such selfless altruism is not what would be expected if humans were mere animals struggling to survive at any cost.

Such willingness to help even if at personal cost is seen in all races and cultures, and it argues against the claim that man evolved by the law of the jungle, “the survival of the fittest.” Francis S.*Collins, a geneticist who led the U.S. government’s effort to decipher the human genome (DNA), said: “Selfless altruism presents a major challenge for the evolutionist. .*.*. It cannot be accounted for by the drive of individual selfish genes to perpetuate themselves.” He also said: “Some people sacrificially give of themselves to those who are outside their group and with whom they have absolutely nothing in common. .*.*. That doesn’t seem like it can be explained by a Darwinian model.”
 
No it doesn't.

All organisms that live in hierarchical societies necessarily evolve a method to evaluate the "morality" of actions as a way to promote unit cohesion and enhance survival.



"Such selfless altruism is not what would be expected if humans were mere animals struggling to survive at any cost."

Wrong, wrong, and more wrong.

Altruism at the cost of one's own survival does not enhance individual survival, but it does enhance the groups' survival as a whole and thus would necessarily evolve. Humans, by the way, aren't the only animals to exhibit altruistic behaviors. Altruism is a well-documented animal behaviour in many species.

Bonobos have been observed aiding injured or handicapped bonobos.
Male baboons threaten predators and cover the rear as the troop retreats.
Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks and even tigers.
African buffalo will rescue a member of the herd captured by predators.

Francis Collins is a geneticist, not an evolutionary psychologist. I'd trust his opinion on DNA but not on this topic which he has no educational or research experience on at all. There are many people in this field which would disagree with him and THEY are the true experts.
 
Scripture says, "The Heavens and earth declare the glory of God." That said, one can objectively look at the beauty of Creation and understand the hand print of God. To deny this is to go against ones conscience and call God a liar. And again Scripture says, "Let all men be liar and let God be true." Another example of all men being liars is seen in the way Americans talk, think about, and PLAY politics and that includes ALL of America's Christians. The invisible Kingdom of Christ is to the EAST of our REpublican wing and also in Heaven because our nation was birthed out of the churches of our Founding Fathers. That said, our Democrat wing leads west and away from the right wing which leads EAST and up because our Democrat wing is actually Lucifer's atheistic democracy undermining the Republican and also has its back turned to the invisible Kingdom of Christ in the east and Beyond or Republican wing. That said, these things make ALL MEN liars including the Christians because they play right along with politics and never every shed light on the road that leads EAST and up into the Heavenly Kingdom. it is because of these things that the United States is now going through rough waters as she is being weighed down by the selfish and greedy NEEDS of the left wing. All these "needs" would supernaturally disappear were left wing Americans to humble themselves and turn from their wicked ways and "Seek the Kingdom of God first." You never hear Christians preach or teach on these things and yet many are down here after being born again and led into the eternal Kingdom. Their conscience is GUILTY as it the conscience of the evolutionists.
 
Some christians fight fiercely against evolution because it goes against their belief that the world is 6,000 years old. The Christian religion has long been known for fighting against education, and have lost many lives for it.
 
Cleveland 12/08/10

What do conscience have to do with it,.?? And, the arguement concerning Evolution,.could
be legit,.however,..in an intelligent community of thinkers,..I doubt,.that the arguement will
show a victory for either side,..

You see,..Creation and Evolution be about the same status of being,..As,..invention= Creation
and, Innovation=Evolution,..,.like stating which came first: the Chicken or the Egg,..The Ch-
icken was Created,.The Egg be the Evolution,..Yuk-Yuk,.!?!!

Sssooo,..someone Invented a thing,.and,.another Improved upon the Invention,.this be Inno-
vation,..The Catipillar(sp) was Created,.and, the Morth(sp),.be the Evolution,.

Later,..my friend,..!?!!

Eliasis Yahwehei ( The Main Man )
 
It doesn't. Early humans lived in small communities and had little connection to outsiders. This taught us to care about everyone in our group. Humans that cared more about their group members were more likely to survive. We are able to learn "right" from "wrong" because doing so was better for survival. Remember, it is relative. Properly punishing a slave was once considered right. Now slavery itself is considered wrong. The conscience is more of a way of following what our society does.

Additionally, many mentally ill people don't have a conscience, which can perhaps be attributed to evolutionary variation, but it is just as likely due to upbringing or a combination of both.

EDIT: Altruism may be part of the brain's reward system. It makes you feel good, so you're doing it for selfish reasons, ultimately. Plus, in our small groups and tribes of the past, we only did nice things expecting something in return. So wanting to do things for others would give you power, because they would return the favor. People who felt good doing these things would do it more and survive better. Now that we don't live in groups, we still feel the need to do nice things. It might just be an evolutionary leftover.
 
It doesn't. In fact we see similar tendencies in the vast majority of social/pack animals which makes evolution seem more likely.

edit:"In all races and cultures, people have been willing to help others, even when doing so involved danger to themselves. Such selfless altruism is not what would be expected if humans were mere animals struggling to survive at any cost."

Evolution doesn't necessairly end up with traits that favor individuals, particularly those who have already bred or cannot/will not breed, over the species as a whole quite frequently.
 
Because monkeys don't have conscience, humans do. If humans were only a more advanced type of animal (say an ape), then they would act like animals, that is to say, they wouldn't have any such thing as conscience, because in many cases, it doesn’t help you to survive.
 
What evolution argues against is that our conscience has any pretense of authority over us. Conscience is like a leftover part of evolution; similar to the human appendix or a tailbone.

Your first answer said "All organisms that live in hierarchical societies necessarily evolve a method to evaluate the "morality" of actions as a way to promote unit cohesion and enhance survival."

Yeah, but that was millions of years ago in a different climate, culture, etc. Are we willing to blindly sacrifice ourselves for the "hive" as evolution would tend to encourage us to do? We'd be idiots to do that.
 
Back
Top