Of late, my friend Chris has been blogging about the moral argument for the existence of God. Atheists typically respond to the moral argument by saying that morals evolved. While some very good refutations of that view are available, I wish to add my own comments regarding the atheist position. I'll tackle that position from the angle of genetics and not philosophy et al.
First off, is it morally acceptable for a member of the species homo sapiens to kill another homo sapiens without cause? Not at all, and most people, including atheists, will agree with me. So, here's another question: is it morally acceptable for humans to kill chimpanzees, for no reason other than, say for the chimpanzee's fur? If the answer is "no," then is it morally acceptable to kill (without cause other than profit) a gorilla? A lemur? To get to the meat of my argument, at what percent of DNA similarity to our DNA does it become morally acceptable to kill an animal for no real cause? Are we allowed to kill an animal whose DNA is say, 99.99% similar to our own DNA? Is it okay to kill an animal whose DNA is 98% similar to our own? 97%? You see, if morals evolved without any guiding intelligence, at what percentage of DNA similarity are we supposed to draw the line that separates those creatures that we may kill and those we may not kill? Something to ponder over. After all, we share 97.5% similarity to mice [Mural et al. 2002], and yet, intriguingly, tonight I am setting up some mice traps to catch those nasty pests. So, I would love to hear an atheist response to this.
References:
R. J. Mural et al. A Comparison of Whole-Genome Shotgun-Derived Mouse. Science 296: 1661 (2002).
I'm afraid you'll have to hear a theist, once again as the devil's advocate, so to speak. Isn't the definition of species that it can breed with itself, and not a percentage of genetic similarity? Correct me if I'm wrong.
ReplyDeleteThere is no solid definition of what constitutes a species. However, I accept the physiological definition of species as proposed by Theodosius Dobzhansky; namely, two organisms will be considered a different species if their hybrid is sterile.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of what a species is defined as, the reason a species is different from another species is because of differences in the chromosomal structure, and since chromosomes are made out of DNA, this reflects differences at the DNA level.
Also, if atheists argue that it is morally acceptable to kill without cause as long as it is outside of the human species, then we must ask if it is morally acceptable to say, use chimpanzees for arguably cruel experiments such as the testing of chemical weapons. Just where are atheists willing to draw the moral line, is the basic question.
I love it.
ReplyDeleteThanks John ; )
ReplyDeleteThank you for your correction. I was aiming for Dobzhansky's definition, but it looks like I missed!
ReplyDeleteI criticize only in an attempt to clear up apparent errors, and I'll continue to do so if I see any. Thank you for making this blog for the less informed, like me!
Also, I think that while killing animals for a good purpose is our right as stewards and members of nature, cruelty to even the lowest forms is immoral.
..."cruelty to even the lowest forms is immoral."
ReplyDeleteThat is correct, and what you just said gave me another argument against the Darwinians who claim that morals evolved. If it is not immoral to kill beyond our own species, why is it suddenly immoral to be cruel to animals beyond our own species? I wonder what the atheist response to that would be. Any ideas?
Perhaps a remnant of the time when wounding an animal instead of killing it caused it to turn on you? You would have to ask an atheist.
ReplyDelete"To get to the meat of my argument, at what percent of DNA similarity to our DNA does it become morally acceptable to kill an animal for no real cause?"
ReplyDelete-why kill at all for no cause?
an interesting video somewhat related to the discussion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M
How about an Agnostic:
ReplyDeleteMosquitos - Proof that god is immoral or proof of evolution? Either way Kill Kill Kill them all. No I have NOT watched Jason and the Argonauts too many times.
Evolution isn't going to create a moral value regarding OTHER species, unless we humans have some sort of symbiotic relationship with them. Dogs are warm fuzzies and rats aren't for instance.
The idea of not killing closely related species has more to do with the level of intelligence and self-awareness of related species. This is not something that could be from evolution. It is purely an intelectual concern. Sure isn't a Biblical concern as it says nothing about slaughtering chimps for bush meat much less killing them via medical testing.
And I completely agree with lcsou. Why kill for no cause?
Ethelred
To kill or not to kill. We can dither about what is moral to kill or what we cannot kill - but we are all men and men can not decide morality. For consensus does not make something right nor wrong. Germany 1938 - US Supreme Court 1973. The list could go on where groups of people decide what is right or wrong at the peril of others (Jews and unborn children accordingly).
ReplyDeleteGodwins law now invoked. There is no morality that can be assigned by man. For were evolution to be true how can another ape tell me what to do or what is right or wrong? If God be true, then God sets morality. Either case man does not set the goalposts of moral or immoral.
This is all based on the idea that killing is wrong. First of all in Genesis we were given dominion over the earth - it is ours. As are the critters that wander it. Don't like sharks, extinct them. It is our choice. It is not immoral to rid ourselves of species - for God sets the morality and the bounds of which in Genesis.
The slaying of the buffalo in the 19th century nearly drove them extinct. If we had drove them extinct - it would not have been immoral. Not in the Levitical sense of the word. Nor by the words of Christ. It is simply "on us" we were given dominion and it is our ball game.
Agnostics and atheists have no guiding morality document. No ethos. No guide. They cannot be relied upon for consistent judgment. They do what they want, when they want, and justify it with a blend of how they think the universe should conduct itself. Christians have a hard enough time and we have a guiding document.
We are not related to chimps. We have a common designer. If you could magically reassign a few billion molecules specifically then you could become a chimp. John G could give you the numbers.
The evolutionists have made a new morality - one that would like to supersedes Gods in a few subjects. In the new morality you can no longer shoot an old dog. You must lethal inject it as though it was a felon.
"There is no morality that can be assigned by man."Treat others as you want to be treated. Just saying humans can't decide what is moral does not make the claim true.
ReplyDelete"If God be true, then God sets morality. "Big if. And which god? I hope its not the one that the Bible shows killing so many innocents in Genesis. Rather get morals from Zeus.
"First of all in Genesis we were given dominion over the earth - it is ours."That is what the men that wrote the Bible said.
"Agnostics and atheists have no guiding morality document."See that first line of mine above.
"They cannot be relied upon for consistent judgment."Same thing. And take a look at the prison population in the US. Atheists and Agnostics are very rare there. Easy to find Christians. Make up 80 percent of the prison population.
"We are not related to chimps. We have a common designer."The evidence is against you.
"If you could magically reassign a few billion molecules specifically "Doesn't take that many as that is the entire genome. Ask LivingstoneMorford as I saw him claim to be taking a class on molecular evolution. You could look it up instead of make it up.
"n the new morality you can no longer shoot an old dog. "Since when? Since you made it up? I can assure you that I wouldn't SHOOT an old dog. I would use something more certain and less painful.
"You must lethal inject it as though it was a felon."I recommend CO2 scavenging and recycling the O2 depleted air. Saw Dr. Miller do it on The Body In Question. To himself.
Lethal injection and oxygen deprivation are the standard methods for veterinarians. What do yo have against that? Just like to make things go bang? Like seeing brains spatter around? Its nasty. I have seen pictures of a shotgun suicide. Nasty stuff. I am sure he didn't a feel a thing but it sure made a mess for others to clean up.
Ethelred