The fundamental character of biological life evolving is predation and consumption. Human reason rises above mere matter. Reason allows human beings to act cooperatively though evolution itself has no morality. It is immoral. Completely.
Human social reason invented the concept of morality. Morality has no place in evolution. Hence evolution is a bad model for moral and social theory much less practice.
A purely material universe evolves. It changes form. It alters its mass and quantum composition in accord with pre-existing boundary conditions and dynamic thermal inertia. Not before material configuration developed in such a way and so far as to permit the rise of human reason could any kind of moral theory appear. And reason is not of evolution nor embedded in it. Reason is a fundamental phase change entirely different than the insensate, material existence of a Universe such as that humanity appears to co-exist within.
One may of course stipulate that God pre-existed the material Universe and is absolutely moral; perfectly so. Humanity today alternatively, having discovered evolutionary structures and something of the nature of the material Universe often prefers to regard itself as the highest possible appearance of being so far in the Universe as a kind of personification of the Hegelian world-spirit. Be that as it may.
Reason is a break and phase change from matter. It cannot look to matter and energy as moral guides. Some contemporary theorist look to evolution as a justification for moral abnegation and license. If evolution has generated thousands of varieties of insects it goes or if some mammals exist that are bisexual, then it must be OK. for humans to be so too. In the absence of a presiding moral authority such as God, who is believed to have been eclipsed in veracity by the human discovery of evolutionary mechanisms at play in the universe, evolution itself must be the natural model for human social order. Reason is not so good in the paradigm as nature. The natural order of evolving species generates excellent moral models for human reason to abstract from and mimic.
If nature has no natural boundaries than neither must humanity. If a black widow sider eats her male mate, then it would be wrong to judge a female human that does so too.
If a super-computer generates life designs for genomes in every possible configuration for every computationally possible ecosystem on any plant, around any star or within any particle field it would be wrong to prevent the actualization of them. Morality is a matter of success; to fail is wrong, even if the failure allows one’s corpse to be consumed by the dominant successful political powers of the day.
It is ironic that humanity living before the first idea of God appeared along the evolutionary ascent of man had a state that modern, godless man seeks to devolve to dressed in hyper-advanced technology (though it was less than a century ago that most humanity hadn’t electrification and couldn’t ignite a fire with a zip-lock baggie and urine)). Before the rise of the concept of God appeared; probably at the start an idea of a single God, humanity had no moral guidelines except for those of pure force and personal then perhaps group advantage. In time the idea of many gods would arise because different people had different ideas and names about God. As groups banded together many Gods would cohere. Coincidentally society developed more social and legal structure and the idea of morality together with the idea of gods being responsible for everything. Some of those gods were more powerful than others,perhaps in relation to the realms becoming economically important to the people using them such as Neptune and the Sea, or Valhalla for Vikings traveling abroad-sometimes far south.
Many pagan deities and demi-urges followed the development of civilization. With comparison of different laws and religions, of different priesthoods and different worship practices perhaps the most primitive beginning of social sciences arose. In time Moses, the great moral authority appeared to resurrect the primordial idea of one true god to mankind. In the beginning of human intellectual and social ascent. Within the cell of basic mind, mankind needed to reach out in though within an elemental existentialism to think about something more powerful than himself existing as a creator and ruler of everything. Differentiating that capacity into many forms and persons was probably only a much later secondary intellectual development. The book of Jeremiah affirms that in the beginning everyone knew who he was and later forgot with the rise of false consciousness (another existential idea).
Jesus Christ appeared to transform the paradigm for the religion and worship of the One True God. Rather than admonishing everyone to perfectly obey strict and technical behavioral laws and practices, He asked only that people accept Him as their personal Savior and atonement for the sins they do and for their original sin and inability to either atone for it or live a perfect life and abstain from committing any other son themselves. Even today, and even among many Christians, people forget the true salvific work of Christ and believe in a blame compared to social perfection sort of religious criterion akin to that of the Pharisees of Jesus’ first century A.D. appearance on Earth. Seeking to free themselves from shame and blame for given sins and sinful behavior the lost overlook Jesus Christ’s work in taking care of that problem Himself.
Christians should no longer want to sin once they are saved. They would seek to make a doctrinal evolution such that sin is o.k. and ignore Bible truth. In the contemporary American era that evolved through various stages of mass popular Christianity to a present over-willingness to conform itself to popular evolutionary-inspired political and moral beliefs, the formerly Christian Churches that became reprobate gradually accepted the idea that evolution at least makes no moral demands as it has no moral content, and that the truth of evolution theory negates the truth of the Bible, the existence of God and the salvific work of the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe the Lord Jesus is a person of the one ttrue God. He appeared in history when the evolution of ancient kingdoms had run their course, when pagan deities were pervasive, and civilization was ready to advance and update the pagan and uncivilized world. The strict religious method given unto the Jews that required following external technical observances that catalyzed the cohesion of developing government as well as moral and legal codes was unsuitable for bringing a transcending, universal restoration of faith in One true God. The new covenant in the Lord Jesus Christ brought that Universal and transcending presence of God to all of mankind that received the call.
I want to point out in this essay the problem moderns have in looking toward evolution as a moral inspiration and guide for social morality much less social structure; Humanity has with its thought and reason risen beyond the natural criterion of evolution, though they are for the time-being biological tied to it and fated to live within it.
Reason may generate certain demographic, boundary criteria as moral guidelines, and to use those boundary conditions with a mathematical and algebraic social equivalence. Each human life would be regarded as of equal value; 1 = 1. Yet such a basic moral premise is entirely made gratuitously within an evolutionary criterion. For in nature the only measure of success and truth are historical observations describing what occurred.
There is nothing wrong for the evolutionary immoral criterion to act entirely in personal self-interest to the detriment of everyone else; the sole valid nominal moral judgment would be on the success or failure of an act. Act-based egoism could not differentiate between an evil act of killing one individual and killing a billion or a planetful of life. In evolution immorality there are no moral guides. Pragmatic judgments for self-interest must therein be extrapolated to included a utilitarian criterion for the greatest and most beneficial acts for the most people. Yet that too is a phenomenal and effervescent sort of moral judgment for evolution that has no necessary biological or empirical value. Neither may one use it as a way to predict and judge the value of a particular present world-line of actions for the future such that it would benefit and individual or a group or civilization more than others nor create a preferred direction in directed evolution to produce an ‘optimal’ outcome. Any sort of outcome would be as good as any other in directed evolution.
There is no escaping the fact that human reason is requisite for creating social morality. Evolution is in fact a non sequitur; human scientific and technical knowledge may overcome the criterion of selective material evolutionary change one day to produce a Utopia or dystopia. In the meantime encouraging humanity to refrain from creating dystopia for the masses or individuals is needed for the survival f mankind. I believe that in time, when the age of the gentiles if fulfilled, the church of Jesus Christ will encompass most of humanity and they shall be ready for a return to the absolute moral authority and author of reality. That destiny may be upon Earth or in a meta-urth paradigm greater than presently with the capacity of human imagination.