Monkeying Around with the Evolution of Morality

Rusty Swingset, foreman at the Darwin Ranch near Deception Pass, was all excited about new efforts that are being made to show how morality itself evolved. Those rascals keep trying to find ways of explaining immaterial things using materialistic presuppositions. That is, only naturalism: No Creator need apply.

Their efforts do not go well. To have morality, it stands to reason that consciousness itself must exist. Secularists cannot explain the evolution of consciousness. Then there is the puzzle of how morality evolved, but that is not explained either. Are new efforts to explain the evolution of morality faring any better?

Puzzled chimpanzee is puzzled, Pixabay / Marcel Langthim, modified at PhotoFunia
Before we go any further, a bit of history. While Charles Darwin gets applause for creating evolution (no, he did not), Alfred Russel Wallace is sometimes credited as a co-discoverer of evolution through natural selection. What is less known is that, although they maintained a cordial relationship over the years, Wallace eventually abandoned the idea. Alfred could not reconcile materialism with the existence of consciousness. His position was similar to those of people in the Intelligent Design community today.

Some weird ideas are being put forward on the evolution of morality, and some pretend to be scientific but are actually very half-hearted. Once again, evolution is assumed to be a fact, and research is built on that. Ever hear of oxytocin? It has been called the "love hormone," and some researchers thing that has a bearing on morality. Also, a study on whether we are born with a moral compass is...truly bizarre.

Instead of constantly banging their heads against a wall, these jaspers should admit that morality comes from the Creator that they try to deny, not atheistic materialism. To read about the foolishness mentioned above and a few more, click on "Darwinian Morality as an Oxymoron."