My original question was whether "moral" and "immoral" even exist in the Evolutionary model of life - so, I guess this is both my working answer (pending further consideration) and a more fully explained question. I asked the question because it seems to me that the Theory of Evolution precludes the possibility of an objective determination regarding such concepts as good and bad, right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable. Therefore, it seems anyone who truly believes Evolution would - of necessity - have to base a determination of whether of any choice, action, policy, etcetera was good or bad (et al.) on the eventual outcome for the species. If that is true, it automatically precludes any objective judgement of good and bad since all such judgements could only be relative to immediate impacts and could not forecast eventual impacts accurately. For instance: Global Warming. Certainly as touchy a subject of moral discussion as any other discussion of ecological responsibility. Any Evolutionist would have to admit complete ignorance of the eventual impacts to our species of Global Warming. Therefore, while they may find absolute proof of Global Warming and absolute evidence of its major causes, no one living could say whether it would be helpful or harmful for humankind to prevent Global Warming, because no one knows whether the potential outcome of action or inaction would be helpful or harmful in terms of benefit/cost to the species. This is only one instance, but the same could be said of any moral argument put forward: Death Penalty, Eugenics, Rape, Population Explosion, Expansionism, or whatever else. This leads me to think that Evolution cannot truly be believed and accepted alongside a concept of morality and immorality. Within the confines of Evolutionary dogma, the existence of morality and immorality appears to be nothing more than a intellectual, emotional, or biological deceit. The teaching does not seem "immoral", it seems "amoral", completely devoid of the *concept* of morality. I am not an Evolutionist, and would like the considered opinion of those who ARE regarding this issue. Respectfully, Baneblessed

This is a somewhat long explanation, but it does I feel address the question. The length of the explanation is somewhat nessisary to explain how we get from a belief in the origin of the various traits and species on earth, to a belief that this is somehow connected to morality. I would say that evolution is neutral on the subject of morality. Evolution isn't a dogma or a belief, but rather an observation of what has been, and what does occur in nature to produce variations within a species. The debate in Evolution isn't really about whether it occurs, but how it occurs, as even Darwin suggested that gradualization is simply AN explanation for what he observed in the fossil trail. During the industrial revolution, we observed a sort of rapid evolution of moths in some cities due to the ash pollution blanketing some citites. Various species of moth suddenly began turning the same color as the ash. To be more precise, they didn't really "turn" that color, but the ones that were closer to that color survived better, and the ones who weren't were eaten by birds. Continue the process for several generations of moths, and you get ash colored moths that blend into the ash covered city better. That said, how evolution applies to humans today is really very limited. Because of our insulation from predators and disease, humans don't really live in a darwin world anymore. We evolved beyond the simple constraints to survival, mainly not being eaten by a predator, not starving to death, and not dying due to environmental conditions. (Though we're not entirely immune, as natural disasters still have a way of killing us) Herbert Spencer proposed the idea of "Social Darwinism," widely summarized as "Survival of the fittest," a phrase Darwin never actually used. The basic precept of social darwinism is that since we no longer exist in a true Darwinist world, society should be seen as the new Darwinian existance. This basically means we shouldn't try to help the sick, the poor, the drug addicted, etc, because those people are the genetic garbage of society. We should look out for ourselves, to make sure we're the survivors. To name a few problems with this thoery: We have friends, and we have emotions for them. If it's some stranger in the gutter, you may not feel the need to help, but if it's your friend, you would "pollute" the gene pool by helping him. Sometimes good people end up in bad situations. Drug addicts and poor people still have children. It also ignores morality as having any value in society, since all that matters is who's on top. That last point may be why you have the idea that evolutionists don't believe in any sort of morality beyond what's best for the species, but in fact, the theory of Social Darwinism is widely rejected among scholars. Certain groups have taken the idea to heart however, and use it as a basis for policy and a justification for actions that can otherwise be seen as somewhat cruel. Darwinism itself is neutral on the issue only because it's not a theory of "what should be" like Social Darwinism, but rather an observation of what has been, and an attempt to explain why it has been. The why is still the part in question, and although many theories have been proposed, none of them explain entirely science's observation of the fossil trail. ------------------------------------------ One last thought: A friend proposed to me a while back that Creationism and Evolution aren't mutually exclusive, and I've since seen this viewpoint in the media. I stated earlier that the driving force behind evolution isn't really known, but several theories do exist. One of the theories that has been proposed by various theistic scientists is that outside intervention (ie, God) may be responsible for variations in the species that current theories are entirely incapable of explaining. I find the idea slightly comical, but also very interesting, to think of God sitting at a laboratory table, looking down upon a small earth sitting on that table, making subtle changes to our predecessors until he/she/it (depending on your beliefs) perfected a predecessor of ours biologically, then decided, having done that, to make that organism in his/her/it's likeness, based on that previous creation. I can even picture a poster for this kind of theory, with God holding a test tube with the earth suspended in it. "God's Science" would be the title, as the test tube is held out toward the viewer, and Pangea can be seen, just starting to split into the modern continents.

Well, it depends on your definition of morality of course. Let's assume, though, that you mean at least in part that people should treat each other well. Helping others can lead to benefits for yourself and your offspring since you are more likely to be helped in return and generally enjoy the benefits of living in a community. Along the way, these benefits have given certain beings (either humans or our ancestors) an edge over their competition that was more antisocial. They might have had an easier time getting a mate and more resources for their offspring which would be a huge benefit, since (evolutionarily speaking) whoever has the most descendants wins.

In a way, chales is right -- evolution is not a comment on morality any more than Maxwell's Theory of Electromagnetism is. It is simply a description of processes at work in the natural world. Those who look to religion as the only possible source of morality seem to be able to extrapolate from these processes a conclusion that (a) if you accept evolution, you must stop believing in God, and (b) if you don't believe in God, you will have no reason to behave in a moral manner. Both of these are fallacies, simply not true on examination. Belief in the literal inerrancy of the Bible and an acceptance of evolution are mutually exclusive. Belief in God and an acceptance of evolution is perfectly feasible, and indeed many scientists do both. And there are good arguments for morality which go far beyond "fear of punishment and/or hope of reward" by any higher power. However, you could ask a closely related question, which is related to (b). That is: "Is there an evolutionary explanation for morality?" The answer is actually, "yes". Humans went down the "social cooperation" route for survival, as did most primates. It's actually safe to say that the typical primate pattern is to look to the group for protection; a group of 12 chimps can take on any predator in Africa and make it think twice, and even much smaller monkeys are capable of mobbing leopards to make them abandon a hunt. But living in a group carries a price -- you can't just kill whoever annoys you. Groups don't last long that way. One of the basic tenets of evolution is that there are often more organisms needing resources than there are resources to support them, which leads to competition. This does not disappear when you are living in a group, either. In fact, in some ways it can be worse, since it means that multiple individuals are likely to find the same resources at the same time. However, as just mentioned above, widespread bloodshed over who-gets-what isn't a good idea either. So conflict in a group has to be managed. There need to be ways of sorting out who-gets-what, who is entitled to do what (and to whom), and acceptable ways of dealing with anger and frustration -- and the idea is not to leave dead bodies behind, unless it is really, really necessary. If you think about it, this is a logical place for "morality" to start. And this is actually true for every social species on the planet, not just primate species but wolves, meerkats, elephants, you name it -- anything which lives in a group as a survival strategy. Primates, however, with their big, clever brains and half-decent memories, take it a step further. It isn't *just* about managing conflict any more; it becomes about behavior in general. If Joe over there starts screaming, and the other hairy apes look up and see that Joe is being dragged away into the forest by a leopard, and some of the hairy apes think, "hangonaminute, Joe's the one who always shares his bananas!", then they are more likely to leap to Joe's defense and go chuck things at the leopard until it drops him, than if they look up and think "Oh yeh, Joe's the grouchy bastard who bites us a lot" -- in which case, they are more likely to simply watch with interest as Joe gets dragged off to become leopard-lunch. Either way, it has definite implications for Joe's chances of survival and reproduction. At that point, it isn't enough to simply be able to manage conflict without bloody fights, you want other individuals to remember that you are good to have around and that they *like* you. And it isn't just direct, one-on-one interactions which stick in our big, clever brains. Primates (indeed, many mammals) are capable of watching Joe's interactions with Mike, Ralph, Harry, and Sue, and extrapolating what Joe's tendencies are. Individuals get reputations, and get treated accordingly. So individuals have even more motivation to watch their step. But it does even go beyond that. It IS actually important to help maintain the strength and unity of the group; it is beneficial not just for the individual but for the individual's kin. To this end it may even be "right" and beneficial for individuals to act in self-sacrificing ways; perhaps the individual is eliminated from the gene pool because of it, but that individual's family (most of whom will share a substantial portion of his genetic pattern) will be safer or in some way better off. And as soon as one starts adding even rudimentary intelligence and planning into the mix, well, you have the seed of a formal moral code. In this view, religion as a way of solidifying moral behaviour is actually a natural outgrowth of evolution! For further, very good discussions of how we might have inherited morality from an evolutionary background, I strongly recommend the books by Frans De Waal, an ethologist working at the Yerkes Institute. Many of his books can be found on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/002-0349561-5746426 . I've recommended his work before, and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it again. Edit: Incidentally, the question of "who would reproduce more, the kamikaze or the coward?" is an interesting one -- and the answer, unhelpfully, is "both or neither, depending on the circumstance." Consider: the kamikaze is an obvious candidate for not reproducing at all, especially since kamikazes were drawn from unmarried young men. However, they frequently had surviving parents and siblings -- and because of their service, their family gained both status and financial reward, which in a time of famine and shortage had obvious implications for the survival of other minor children in the family. This is an example of what biologists and anthropologists both call "kin selection", self-sacrificing behavior that aided the survival of family, not necessarily offspring, but still those sharing a great deal of the individual's genes. Cowards, on the other hand, are almost universally despised across a wide variety of cultures, and it is not hard to see why. Cowards are unlikely to step up and take their share of the burden when it comes to a fight against another group; they are equally unlikely to be able to stand up against others within their group to claim a "fair share" of resources, if others want to bully them. Consequently, a coward is both an uncertain ally and an uncertain provider, and not likely to be valued as either -- and if *he* gets in trouble, it is not an absolute given that the rest of the group will go out of the way to help him, since they may have to make up their minds whether or not it is worth it. Thus, someone with the reputation of a coward may have a very difficult time attracting a date, much less a mate. Even their family may suffer by association, since we often assume (justified or not) that families share traits. But of course, there are more traits which we value other than just courage, and many cowards may nevertheless find someone willing to put up with the trait on the basis of something else they have to offer (perhaps cleverness, or access to abundant resources through family connections) -- so, it does pretty much depend on individual circumstances in the end. We can predict that both insane courage and cowardice will continue to propagate in the species.

I would have to agree with others who stated that evolution in and of itself is amoral. Morality is based on philosophical ideologies which can differ greatly from individual to individual. Evolution is, at its very basic, "survival of the fittest". Survival (securing food, reproducing, and protection) may be enhanced (and limited) by communal living. But even within a group "survival of the fittest" still applies with the stronger, healthier animals getting first dibs on food and choice of mates, whereas the weaker animals are last to eat, last to breed, and first to fall to predators. Evolution does not define "right or wrong". Cooperative, communal living evolved from a need for survival. The ideological concepts of "right and wrong" are not required for survival and could actually be detrimental to survival (e.g. the kamikaze example). Morality is a human concept based on religious and nonreligious philosophies. It has nothing to do with our survival as a species, but rather how we view and treat each other and what we conceive of as right or wrong. Morality is a (relatively recent) conception based on cooperative communal living, but is not an evolutionary determinant. HOWEVER, that being said, our concept of morality can influence evolution, by how we treat other members of our own species as well as our species' influence on the environment and other species (animals and plants). Some of the influences have been beneficial, such as increased milk production from dairy cows or increased yield from genetically engineered crops; whereas other influences have had a decided nonbeneficial influence, such as hip dysplasia in dogs or genetic diseases in horses (both examples due to selective breeding programs). As to how morality is related to evolution: Evolution does not require morality for continuation. Morality, on the other hand, is a human concept and, right or wrong, can influence the path of evolution. OKGhostrider

The study of other primates has suggested that morals may be linked to evolution. For example, some species of Gorilla find 'adultery' unacceptable. Some tribes of monkey have been known to banish or kill an individual that kills another in the tribe. But whether these morals have developed due to a genetic instinct, and therefore through evolution, or by the primates themselves making the decision between what's right and wrong is still unknown.