Where did 'right" and "wrong" come from?
"There ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue. There's just stuff people do." The quote is from the preacher in John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath. If the proponents of Darwinian Evolution are correct, that all living things evolved, randomly and by chance, from nonliving things, and that Evolution is an undirected, purposeless process, then the preacher's quote is absolutely true. If so, then it's nonsensical to speak of concepts like "sin" or "virtue" or man as being "basically good" or "basically evil". There would be no such thing as good or evil. They would necessarily be concepts invented in the minds of people for some reason or another.
The Evolutionist might say that the idea of morality evolved because adherents have a greater chance of thriving and thus are naturally selected for survival. But how would adhering to concepts of right and wrong enhance one's chances for survival? It seems to me that those who adhere to self imposed moral restrictions on their behavior would be easy prey for those without such restrictions. Imagine two next-door neighbors, one moral and the other not. Apart from the moral influences of conscience, the police, and judiciary system, who's garage would be full and who's would be empty?
Animals operate according to an unwritten "code" which is "the fittest survive". According to evolutionary theory, this "code" is directed by the amoral influence of natural selection and completely devoid of any influence from, or concern about, what may be right or wrong. If some mutant gene arose that caused an individual animal to have some inkling of morality (hard to imagine, I know, but stick with me here), how would that inkling affect its chances to survive? Compare two lions, one moral and the other amoral, coming upon an injured antelope. Which lion would be the quickest to kill and eat the antelope? While the amoral lion would have no reason for hesitation, the lion with the mutant morality gene might hesitate. And as they say, "he who hesitates is lost".
The existence of morality implies choice. Consciously or unconsciously, morality pauses and asks, "is this action that my stomach is calling for right or wrong?" An amoral animal has no reason to pause. It's either hungry or it isn't. If it's hungry, it kills and eats. No pause for contemplation necessary.
The stomach is either full or empty when the lion comes upon prey and its behavior is predictable. Not so with the moral lion. So, I don't see how explaining everything coming about by natural selection can account for concepts of morality.
I wonder if Evolutionists are troubled by the "coincidence" that man seems to be the only animal with a highly developed sense of morality and Genesis' contention that man is made in the image of God?
Back to the Evolutionists claim that nature is all that exists and that survival of the fittest is the only determinant of behavior. If that is so, then how do they explain the vast differences between man and animals and how these differences enhance survival? Why does man, among a myriad of differences that could be described, think, reason, ponder, reflect, choose, appreciate, marvel? Why does man eat a strawberry and ponder or rejoice over its flavor? Why does he eat an orange and ponder how different it is from the strawberry? Why does man gaze at sunsets, waterfalls, stars, and butterflies and do this thing called "marveling"? Why does man "waste" a lot of time talking, or writing books and newspaper articles, or reading fiction, when he could be hunting and gathering? What survival value does getting your feelings hurt or holding grudges have? Why does man feel proud? Why does man feel deflated, encouraged, perplexed, guilty?
Why does man argue, not only over the best course to take in terms of survival, but the best course to take in terms of right and wrong? Why do people have a sense of justice? Why are people incensed when they read about an injustice perpetrated on someone else? Why do they go to such lengths to right wrongs that occurred in the past? Why are we repelled and appalled when some human being actually acts like an animal and kills and eats another human being, as Jeffrey Dahmer did? How and why did all this evolve (and I am just scratching the surface)? Why in the world did mankind depart from the standard animal model where every quality exists only because it enhances survival?
Finally, why does every Evolutionist I've heard or read minimize this kind of questioning? Why don't they embrace it? The pursuer of truth, after all, has nothing to fear from questions. Truth cannot be injured or altered by questions. In an open and free inquiry, truth will always remain standing. In fact, truth is ESTABLISHED by questioning. So why are Evolutionists so afraid of anything that dares to question their version of truth? If you doubt that they do, please consider the curriculum that is force fed to all publicly schooled children.
If the Evolutionist is correct, then so is John Steinbeck's preacher, and there is absolutely no basis to believe in God or expect a civil society. But if the Evolutionist is wrong, and the evidence just touched on here declares that he is, then what could be more important than finding out the truth with regard to God?
