Evolution vs. Morality
An internal conflict in the Evolutionist worldview
Quick note: The author in no way advocates murder. The purpose of this article is not to present a case for why murder is ok, but to show that in the Evolutionist worldview, there is no reason murder is wrong. I would also like to note that I do not condemn MEAR or any of its members, and actually advocate supporting them if you feel lead to do so.
Article author: Jay Zeke Malakai
Article editor: Unedited
Introduction
Once, in college, we were visited by an animal rescue organisation called Morley Exotic Animal Rescue (MEAR). The main speaker, whose name I neither know, nor will I mention, so we'll call him Bob, removed a spider from a box, and after telling us a story about how drug dealers will often hide their stash inside tarantula enclosures knowing full well most police officers will not handle one, he proceeded to explain how there are currently no laws protecting this tarantula, or any other invertebrate, from cruelty. Bob could literally have thrown the spider onto the floor and squished it right before our very eyes, and no legal action could be taken. This upsets Bob, because in his own words, this spider "has as much right as any other animal". The problem with this? In the very same presentation, Bob presented a burmese python, and referring to the pelvic spurs, he claimed "Evolution tells us snakes once had legs."
Bob now faces a dilema. One of the best indicators that an Evolutionist does not really believe in Evolution, or does not fully understand it, is the fact that many of them do not behave as if they believe it's true. Bob holds two views. The first is that life is a complete accident, devoid of all purpose, and that no matter what happens in the world, it's all natural. Death, disease, pain and suffering of all sorts have been the natural order of things for millions of years, and man is just one more animal in a long chain. On the other hand, Bob believes not only in human rights, but in the rights of animals. These two views, a belief in Evolution and a belief in morality, are entirely contradictory. If Evolution was true, there would be no such thing of morality in any form. In this article, we will examine Bob's views on morality and demonstrate why he has no ground on which to base his moral views outside his own opinion.
Are you a vegetarian?
The first thing to ask someone like Bob would be "are you a vegetarian?" If Bob is a vegetarian, he has a little more consistency in this view, however if he is not, he is being inconsistent, as the image below (drawn by Pawel Kuczynski) shows.
Image by Pawel Kuczynski. Please note Kuczynski was not consulted, so the message displayed may have been misinterpretted, and the image does not neccessarily reflect his views.
But even if Bob is a vegetarian, it must be assumed that the tarantula is not. As anyone with experience will tell you, tarantulas need feeding, and as a general rule, they will only take live food. I have personally been responsible for feeding a total of four tarantulas, three of which were the same species as the one presented by Bob (Chilean rose tarantula). Tarantulas are usually fed either crickets or desert locust nymphs, as shown by the below image of Millie eating a locust. According to Bob, do these locusts have as much right as the tarantula? If so, is he not being inconsistent by feeding them to the spider? If not, is he not being arbitrary in choosing which species he cares for and which he does not?
As you can see, Bob has no choice but to be inconsistent in his views. If he claims all animals have the right to life, he is forced to be inconsistent because preserving the life of prey animals forces predators to starve, while preserving the life of predators requires feeding them either live prey, or meat that must, of course, be sourced by a creature which must have died.
Humans are animals too?
Things get still worse for Evolutionists, as according to them, human beings are nothing but animals aswell. This makes it extremely difficult to justify any moral laws. Most things that Evolutionists consider wrong for a human to do, they consider it normal for an animal to do, or morally permissable to do to an animal. Meat eating, as mentioned above, is a good example. It is morally permissable, even in the eyes of most Evolutionists, to kill and eat an animal (though some animals, like dogs, cats and horses are "off limits" in some cultures). However, while Evolutionists are often wishy washy even in this area, they often complain when a human being is killed, and are especially sickened when someone eats a person. Evolutionists cannot justify murder being wrong. However, they have given it a pretty good go. Let's have a look at some of the arguments presented by Evolutionists.
"It's how we evolved"
One of the most common arguments Evolutionists present is that murder is wrong because we have evolved with that belief, which has helped our species survive.
Image by Jay Zeke Malakai. Millie the tarantula has caught and killed a locust nymph, which she is now eating.
Problem 1: This argument is that it is just a story. There's no evidence for this story, it's just speculation based on the assumption that Evolution is how we originated. In other words, this argument would only work if the person hearing it also accepted Evolution as a true fact in the first place.
Problem 2: This is that it reduces morality to a subjective level. This is essentially conceding that the anti-Evolutionist is correct in saying that objective morality cannot be deduced from the Evolutionist worldview. But it gets still worse. What if we evolved like other animals? What if we evolved to be solitary creatures that would fight any other individuals we find, even possibly killing them? Would murder be ok in such a situation?
Problem 3: What if we evolve to be cannibalistic or murderous in the future? One could actually make the argument that cannibalism would bolster the survivability of various people groups, particularly those in developing countries. Eating dead family members would be much easier than hunting. Now, obviously there is no possible situation in which I would believe this argument, but unlike an Evolutionist, I have an objective foundation on which to base my moral view that it is wrong to eat human beings.
This argument is highly flawed, and therefore fails to defend the Evolutionist's belief in objective morality.
"Most people agree that murder is wrong"
Evolutionists often claim that because most people argue that murder is wrong, it is wrong.
Problem 1: This is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, which is the fallacy of appealing to the number of people who believe in a certain idea as evidence that this idea is true (which is quite a common fallacy made by Evolutionists). Obviously, truth is not determined by mass opinion. Everyone in the world could believe 1 + 1 = fairy dust, but the correct answer would always be 2. This can be easily demonstrated by the fact Evolutionists will usually admit that if everyone suddenly changed their mind and believed that murder was ok, it would still be wrong and they'd still oppose it.
Problem 2: An Evolutionist who claims most people believe murder is wrong is actually incorrect. Most people do not agree that murder is wrong (murder being the unjust taking of a human life). If we take the world as a whole, there are more people who agree with taking a life for an unjustified reason than agree that someone who does so should be prosecuted. Various religions around the world, the most prominant one being Islam, believe murder is acceptable. In the Qur'an, it is not only permitted, but required, to either kill or opress those who do not submit to Islam, and Muhammad himself declared "if anyone leaves his Islamic religion, kill him." (Bukhari (52:260). Islam, of course, is just one religion (and one that is dominant throughout much of the world, and is becoming increasingly prominant in the "civilised" world aswell). Interestingly, even Evolutionists often advocate murder. Since the 1970s, over 50million children have been brutally slaughtered inside their own mother's womb in America alone. In China, there is a law preventing families from having more than one child. All other children are killed. In North Korea, Christians are executed for simply owning a Bible. In some countries, under-privilidged children will very likley have killed another person before they reach the age of 16. In some countries, "euthanasia" is legal. In my own country, a mother won the legal right to kill her own daughter based solely on the fact the child was terminally ill, leaving the mother to deprive the child of food and water. Not too long ago, I had trouble convincing people this kind of thing could ever happen in my country. When it finally did, I had trouble convincing them that it was immoral. This planet is flooded with murderers of all kinds. If you go door to door one just one street, the chances are you will encounter at least one person who supports murder in one form or another. In fact, it is very likely an Evolutionist who claims murder is wrong supports some form of murder himself.
This argument is highly flawed, and therefore fails to defend the Evolutionist's belief in objective morality.
"It's against the law to murder"
Problem 1: So what? If you're lucky enough to live in a country where it is illegal to kill your specific people group, good for you. However, every country has different laws regarding a person's right to life. In my country, it is legal to slaughter a child as long as it is inside your own body. A Christian pastor is currently facing the death penalty in Iran for denouncing Islam. In Pakistan, Asia Bibi has been on death row for "making blasphemous remarks" since 2010. In North Korea, it is a capital offence to own a Bible. And it gets even worse if an Evolutionist is referring entirely to his own country, because while patriotism is to be admired rather than discouraged, it is incredibly arrogant to claim that one's own country is the moral leader.
Problem 2: A universal law against murder is actually a result of the fact murder is wrong, not a cause. The law has no power to control morality, but instead ought to be governed by morality. If pressed, an Evolutionist will usually admit that if the laws of their country were to change, their moral views would not, and they might also admit that they are willing to condemn foreign countries with different moral laws on murder (or other issues).
"I don't want to be murdered"
An Evolutionist may appeal to their own desire to live. Since most people want to live, it must be wrong to kill them.
Problem 1: This is an entirely subjective argument. It provides no objective basis for morality, and likely wouldn't deter any murderer who disagrees with your right to live.
Problem 2: What you, or other people want do not determine what is right and wrong. While the desire to life is entirely reasonable, most people also have selfish desires, such as the desire for enough money to never have to work again, or the desire to not pay taxes, or even the desire to kill someone who doesn't want to die. None of these desires should be catered to, and it is not immoral to defy them.
Problem 3: Half the things on the Evolutionist's dinner plate the previous night probably had a similar sense of self-preservation.
"You will never exist again when you die"
I remember a conversation with an Evolutionist in which the Evolutionist believed I was downplaying the importance of human life. He claimed something along the lines of: "You're just one human being amongst millions, so you're not that important, right? Wrong! You're a human being that will never exist again."
First, I would like to note that I agree with the Evolutionist that I was downplaying the value of human life. However, I was doing so to be consistent with Evolution. In my view, when attacking a certain worldview, one must do so with the assumption that it is true, and remain consistent with it. This prevents you from misunderstanding the view, or arguing against an entirely different view (i.e. creating a strawman argument). With that side note out of the way, here are the problems with this view:
Problem 1: Again, half the things on your plate probably felt the same way. In fact, this argument can be applied to all the things on the Evolutionist's plate, because the plants will also never exist again. If the Evolutionist adds that he only uses this argument in defence of human life, he is being inconsistent because Evolution claims that human beings are merely animals. If he wants to limit his argument entirely to humans, he must provide a reason for the distinction between humans and animals.
Problem 2: Why would this matter? I'd say that this actually removes the value of human life even more, because if death is really the end of your existence, you're not going to know if someone cuts you into tiny pieces and feeds you to their pigs. Eventually, no one will be conscious at all. No one will know we were ever here. The universe will eventually become a tragic, desolate wasteland of evenly spread, useless energy, devoid of any form of consciousness at all.
"Murder causes suffering"
This argument is based on the premise that anything that causes suffering is evil. Murder causes suffering, and is therefore evil.
Problem 1: First, the Evolutionist must defend his definition of evil. Why is it wrong to cause suffering? If the Evolutionist can objectively answer this, then his argument will succeed, but since he is trying to defend morality (in his view) with the premise that it is morally wrong to cause suffering, this argument is circular.
Problem 2: If someone is paralysed from the neck down, could I morally stab them in the lungs while they sleep? They wouldn't suffer, they'd just die. The obvious answer is no, it is evil despite the absence of suffering.
Problem 3: By this premise, murder wouldn't be wrong, it would be right, because the best way to end someone's suffering is to kill them. In fact, one could become the hero of the universe by causing a nuclear explosion that destroys the earth, because all suffering would suddenly be eliminated all at once.
Problem 4: What about things that cause suffering but are neccessary? Injections, for example. Nobody likes them. Some people even have a phobia of needles. Personally, I don't, but I still flinch involuntarily when I see a needle headed towards me, and I don't exactly feel much better if I turn my head. Also, most Evolutionists would be unwilling to argue against tattoos, for example. A tattoo, of course, is someone's personal choice. I, myself, have two tattoos, one on each upper arm. I can testify that these hurt a lot, and can be even more painful as the needle reaches different parts of the arm. Will Evolutionists argue against my right to choose to have a tattoo, or the neccessity to recieve injections or give blood or have an operation etc. based on the suffering caused by these things?
Problem 5: The process of taking life may cause pain, but the process of giving life hurts aswell. Childbirth is one of the most painful experiences a woman can endure, and any man can be quite grateful they will never have to experience it. Ask any woman who has ever given birth. In fact, some women might even remind you of it without being directly asked. Will an Evolutionist claim we should just stop the human race right here because it causes suffering to carry and deliver a child?
Problem 6: This is the fallacy of appeal to consequent.
"Their families would miss them"
This argument is an extension of the above argument. It is claimed that if you kill someone, their loved ones would miss them greatly, and therefore it is wrong to murder.
Problem 1: Problems 1, 3 and 6 apply to this argument too.
Problem 2: What about those who have no loved ones? A homeless person on the street, for example. Would it be acceptable to kill a homeless person in cold blood, just because no one cares for them?
Problem 3: Most Evolutionists argue for various forms of murder, such as abortion and euthanasia. This argument would cover these in most cases, as there is usually at least one person who cares for the one being killed, which is a major inconsistency in the Evolutionist's argument (though I can honestly say I wish they would apply this argument consistently, as abortion and euthanasia would swiftly tumble to the ground that way).
Natural selection is descriptive, not prescriptive
According to this argument, natural selection is an observed process. It only tells us what does happen, not what should happen.
Problem 1: Natural selection and Evolution are opposite processes. Both Christians and Evolutionists believe in it. In fact, it was Creationist Edward Blyth who discovered natural selection long before Darwin.
Problem 2: Evolution itself has never been observed, nor could we reasonably expect to observe it, so it is neither descriptive nor prescriptive.
Problem 3: The argument isn't that Evolution demands that we have specific moral views, but that it removes the need for them, as it denies the existence of the one to whom we are accountable.
Conclusion
If Evolution was true, morality would not exist. The one who is right is the one with the biggest gun. The existence of human rights can only be justified by a view that believes human beings have more inherant worth than animals. Evolution is not one of these views. By contrast, Christianity places human life as the most valuable thing on the earth, because our species is made in the image of God himself. That same God has commanded us not to murder, and even claims that a righteous man cares about the life of his animals (Proverbs 12:10). If Bob truly believes in morality, and wishes to be consistent with his views, he would be much better off as a Christian, following the one who created both he and the animals he loves so much. This pholosophy will not only give him a consistent world view, but will grant him eternal life after Earth, in which both man and beast will live in perfect harmony for all eternity, with God sitting on the throne over them.