BreezeWood
VIP Member
- Oct 26, 2011
- 17,632
- 1,429
- 85
.Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere..So, now that my mistake has been cleared up, the problem with your concept is that you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement. In that case morality would dovetail with evolutionary imperatives. Except it doesn't. If it did, "Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not? In that case shouldn't it be the moral thing to do to drown children with birth defects at birth? The mentally handicapped? Shouldn't we just "mercifully" put bullets in their brains? But we don't do these things. The fact is that we used to do these things, but our moral code, over time, began to develop separately from evolutionary imperatives. So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work. I mean, you're close, in my opinion, but you went left when you started going with evolution.If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.
that has yet to be determined, moral direction could very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite where forces of Good vs Evil do become part of the equation and like gravity may someday be calibrated to determine an outcome - leading eventually to the true religion that is responsible for physiological existence.
the problem with your concept is that you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement. In that case morality would dovetail with evolutionary imperatives. Except it doesn't. If it did, "Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not?
you are equating evolutionary imperatives with moral judgement.
for theism, the initial life template was initiated by a calibrated moral standard that is required to be maintained or the template will perish, those are the evolutionary imperatives that can allow for change when properly administered. moral standards are forces in nature the same as gravity that make up any being that exist.
"Survival of the fittest" would be the most "morally good" would it not?
no, that's what is not known, what the calibration of morality really is - "Survival of the fittest" is not the criteria were that option to cross the calibration of morality that would be contrary for how life began where the "fitness" of the "fittest" would be the necessary ingredient for the change to occur.
but our moral code, over time, began to develop separately from evolutionary imperatives. So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work. I mean, you're close, in my opinion, but you went left when you started going with evolution.
So, your idea that evolution "designed" our moral code just doesn't work.
evolution would not exist without a calibrated moral code that controls the evolutionary development, the opposite of your statement.
in a nut shell, the moral code is what began the initial life template and only by maintaining the calibrated moral forces of that template is how the evolutionary process progressed to create the multitude of beings that presently exist. that is why theism exists, to understand the forces that crated life wherever that leads.
Okay, now you've digressed into gibberish. What is the "original life template"? I can't seem to find a reference to that anywhere.
you have a short memory, when life began on Earth is the original template that all beings have emerged from in their development, evolution. the genome of life, physiology and the communication that leads to alterations from one generation to another the metaphysical presence that must exist to make it possible.