The Failure of Ethics in Evolution
Ethics and moral norms die within modern evolution culture. It is amusing to consider how far the demise of morality and ethics go, for there is no basis for preferring one moral order over another on the basis of necessity, except as one believes in a natural law and necessary moral order inferred fro that. Logicians and ethicists might argue however that any ethics of evolution based on natural law is forced by circumstance and without coherent or compelling necessity.
Some evolutionary scientists that are militant atheists have argued that the sole moral value or imperative is passing on genes. Of course they are entirely wrong about that. It is not at all necessary to pass on genes, and one outcome of evolution is as valid in its entire, complete meaninglessness as any other. Life is itself meaningless and nothing more than sound and fury signifying nothing as Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet.
If contemporary evolution ethics is less meaningful if possible than that of Buddhism, it is interesting to consider some of the formulations possible with the meaninglessness.
If we give symbols for various ethical systems and consequences, moral orders and etc and put them into a mathematical logic expression the results return 0 for meaning. * equals multiplication or process of regard by Evolution…
i.e. Evo * morality = 0
Evo * moral system 1to infinity= 0
Evo * political ethics = 0
Evo * environmental conservation = 0
Assuredly people can make moral systems and orders themselves and sometimes even collectively yet the result is still meaningless. Power may be meaningful yet the end result of power and politics is meanninglessness. As a Christian I believe in a coherent divine ethics and grace of God yet for evolutionary atheists that is a non sequitur. Athiests have David Attenbororo (I like Mr. Attenboro’s work incidentally) as their defender that they will not be summoned to a Day of Judgment…ahem.
I was motivated to note the meaninglessness of evolution in its own logic wherein everything that exist is phenomenal and a fluke, godless and a kind of joke upon itself after noting a Scientific American blog article taking an indirect shot at Christians via environmentalism. Actually the most important role of Christians is to talk about the Lord Jesus Christ. Scientists should be concerned more with science instead of religion yet as they generally have the polarizing filter of atheism that moves them to view religion as a sociological phenomenon it is irresistible for contemporary scientific evolution based atheists not to try to rid the world of Christians and their ethics as if it would be a better place.
Evolution is however completely godless in the scientific atheist point of view, even though some Christian philosophers regard God as quite capable of evolving anything he deems worth evolving at any time before or after any given Universe he [plans to actually mortal human life in at some point. Scientific evolutionist-atheists today believe the entire concern is one of a requirement that all be atheists because evolution is true and evolution requires a world without God, and that is not logically valid either.
I would suggest that the value of meaningfulness in nature and meaningfulness in words and ideas have some natural validity. Words and ideas have meaning in communication. Valid communication isn’t meaningless and neither is the truth or falsity of expression or words representing ideas. In fact it is challenging to prove the meaninglessness of the Universe and everything in it when sentient beings finding meaning in things, and it becomes churlish to deny in theory the existence of any being greater than humanity or other biologically based life. Evolution-atheists cannot tolerate any sort of immaterial nature of meaning and thought, spirit or values based on spirit though there are some intellectual hazards in attempting to do so. Semiotics must leads to quarks or strings ultimately and meaning must vanish into meaninglessness as a Universe must too even if only to reappear in a cyclic tree of infinite Universe blossoming.
Modern science while being technologically strong is also morally indefensible. That is it hasn’t a shred of ethical validity within its own logic, and that’s the way they want it.