Evolution and Evil

[HarleyER]

Evolutionists ignore the fact that along with man evolving, we are the only species on the planet that has also evolved evil. Pain, suffering and death occurs with all creatures. But for mankind, we discriminate, enslave, lie, steal, cheat, murder, have wars, and on and on. Not only do we do things to others, but we do evil things to ourselves. And both internal and external traits of evil grow with each generation. Some psychologists believe evil evolved with evolution. But if this were true, then mankind would be devolving, not evolving-which is a Christian position. Despite the insistence of some that mankind has evolved from the same source and are just like all the other animals, there is no explaining how evil evolved. Evolutionist tend to ignore the issue.

Mankind is unique to this world and generates evil apart from any other animal on the world. And if evolution was correct, and mankind came from the same source as all other living creatures, then evil wouldn't/shouldn't exist.

So how did evil evolved?

 

[AlexB23]

Evolutionists ignore the fact that along with man evolving, we are the only species on the planet that has also evolved evil. Pain, suffering and death occurs with all creatures. But for mankind, we discriminate, enslave, lie, steal, cheat, murder, have wars, and on and on. Not only do we do things to others, but we do evil things to ourselves. And both internal and external traits of evil grow with each generation. Some psychologists believe evil evolved with evolution. But if this were true, then mankind would be devolving, not evolving-which is a Christian position. Despite the insistence of some that mankind has evolved from the same source and are just like all the other animals, there is no explaining how evil evolved. Evolutionist tend to ignore the issue.

Mankind is unique to this world and generates evil apart from any other animal on the world. And if evolution was correct, and mankind came from the same source as all other living creatures, then evil wouldn't/shouldn't exist.

So how did evil evolved?

Evil happened, cos humans have a spirit, and ate of the wrong fruit, causing us to fall. Darwinian Evolution is a deception. Theistic evolution, as well as creation makes more sense.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Evolutionists ignore the fact that along with man evolving, we are the only species on the planet that has also evolved evil. Pain, suffering and death occurs with all creatures. But for mankind, we discriminate, enslave, lie, steal, cheat, murder, have wars, and on and on. Not only do we do things to others, but we do evil things to ourselves. And both internal and external traits of evil grow with each generation. Some psychologists believe evil evolved with evolution. But if this were true, then mankind would be devolving, not evolving-which is a Christian position. Despite the insistence of some that mankind has evolved from the same source and are just like all the other animals, there is no explaining how evil evolved. Evolutionist tend to ignore the issue.

Mankind is unique to this world and generates evil apart from any other animal on the world. And if evolution was correct, and mankind came from the same source as all other living creatures, then evil wouldn't/shouldn't exist.

So how did evil evolved?

And from which sources did you derive your conclusions here? Or is this all culled out from your own personal musings?

 

[HarleyER]

And from which sources did you derive your conclusions here? Or is this all culled out from your own personal musings?

Actually, some non-Christian evolutionary websites talk about how evolutionists don't like to talk about evil or morality. They prefer just to stay on science.

Now it you have something that could add to my enlightenment, I'm all ears...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Actually, some non-Christian evolutionary websites talk about how evolutionists don't like to talk about evil or morality. They prefer just to stay on science.

Now it you have something that could add to my enlightenment, I'm all ears...

Typically, non-Christian evolutionary websites would be expected to talk about evolution without recourse to talk about evil or morality because they're working in the mode of 'Methodological Naturalism,' and as scientists, they aren't predisposed to assume that their experiments will tell them anything about human evil and morality. And unless non-Christian evolutionists are psychologists or anthropologists like Barbara J. King, they probably aren't looking for behavioral patterns that relate to evolved morality.

From my angle on evolution, I think it's a category mistake for them to say that "evil evolves." It's almost like saying that sociopathy or psychopathy "evolve." I don't think these malfunctioning modes of human thought evolve. Rather, we might say instead that through evolutionary development, human beings have become increasingly sapient and technologically able, and when their minds malfunction, they can be increasingly treacherous.

 

[HarleyER]

Typically, non-Christian evolutionary websites would be expected to talk about evolution without recourse to talk about evil or morality because they're working in the mode of 'Methodological Naturalism,' and as scientists, they aren't predisposed to assume that their experiments will tell them anything about human evil and morality. And unless non-Christian evolutionists are psychologists or anthropologists like Barbara J. King, they probably aren't looking for behavioral patterns that relate to evolved morality.

From my angle on evolution, I think it's a category mistake for them to say that "evil evolves." It's almost like saying that sociopathy or psychopathy "evolve." I don't think these malfunctioning modes of human thought evolve. Rather, we might say instead that through evolutionary development, human beings have become increasingly sapient and technologically able, and when their minds malfunction, they can be increasingly treacherous.

"human beings have become increasingly sapient and technologically able, and when their minds malfunction, they can be increasingly treacherous."

Evolutionists want to skirt the morality issue simply by ignoring the issue. But there is a problem. Evolution must assume there is no evil. Nothing is right or wrong. It just evolves. So then we can't say someone is "malfunctioning" by acting treacherously. Who defines what acting "treacherously" is? This may be the natural evolutionary course. So, stealing research material from a fellow scientist is no different than one wolf stealing food from another. Evolution precludes such moral judgements simply as part as the natural order of all things.

If we want to say that when human being became "increasingly sapient and technologically able", then surely this wouldn't apply to every human being in an evolutionary mind. It could only happen in a set few. And, then again, the problem arise isn't this what evolution is all about-minor changes throughout time? It would not apply to everyone.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"human beings have become increasingly sapient and technologically able, and when their minds malfunction, they can be increasingly treacherous."

Evolutionists want to skirt the morality issue simply by ignoring the issue.

Whether non-Christian Evolutionists skirt the morality issue depends on their personal philosophy, not so much their science.

But there is a problem. Evolution must assume there is no evil.

Evolution doesn't assume anything. Rather, it's evolutionists who may or may not assume there is no evil.

Nothing is right or wrong. It just evolves. So then we can't say someone is "malfunctioning" by acting treacherously.

Sure we can say someone is "malfunctioning" mentally. Even atheist believe there is, or can be, right and wrong, but they may or not subscribe to the same set of Ethics that you or I do as Christians. So, sure, even atheistic evolutionists can say that someone is psychopathic and acting treacherously in some moral context. It just may not be within the moral context that you or I would use.

Who defines what acting "treacherously" is?

It will be defined by whomever is the human being assessing the moral situation. Most people know when they've been dealt with treacherously, whether they're Christian or otherwise, unless they've been murdered. Even a murderer who is double crossed by another murderer will know when he's been double crossed and become the subject of treachery.

This may be the natural evolutionary course. So, stealing research material from a fellow scientist is no different than one wolf stealing food from another. Evolution precludes such moral judgements simply as part as the natural order of all things.

You're conjecturing here. You can't just following up a "may be" with a "so, it is ..." That's a non-sequitur. And evolution doesn't preclude such moral judgements since, for humans, it can include the understanding that human being are sapient and have at least general notions of right and wrong across the board.

If we want to say that when human being became "increasingly sapient and technologically able", then surely this wouldn't apply to every human being in an evolutionary mind. It could only happen in a set few. And, then again, the problem arise isn't this what evolution is all about-minor changes throughout time? It would not apply to everyone.

Why can't it apply to every human being (or nearly every human being since about 4% are sociopathic...)??

P.S. You haven't yet established your thesis here, so you need to supply some support to back it up. What are your sources by which you've derived your current assessments? You need to add these into the discussion, or else I'll never be persuaded to see your point of view.

 

[HarleyER]

Whether non-Christian Evolutionists skirt the morality issue depends on their personal philosophy, not so much their science.

Evolution doesn't assume anything. Rather, it's evolutionists who may or may not assume there is no evil.

Sure we can say someone is "malfunctioning" mentally. Even atheist believe there is, or can be, right and wrong, but they may or not subscribe to the same set of Ethics that you or I do as Christians. So, sure, even atheistic evolutionists can say that someone is psychopathic and acting treacherously in some moral context. It just may not be within the moral context that you or I would use.

It will be defined by whomever is the human being assessing the moral situation. Most people know when they've been dealt with treacherously, whether they're Christian or otherwise, unless they've been murdered. Even a murderer who is double crossed by another murderer will know when he's been double crossed and become the subject of treachery.

You're conjecturing here. You can't just following up a "may be" with a "so, it is ..." That's a non-sequitur. And evolution doesn't preclude such moral judgements since, for humans, it can include the understanding that human being are sapient and have at least general notions of right and wrong across the board.


Why can't it apply to every human being (or nearly every human being since about 4% are sociopathic...)??

P.S. You haven't yet established your thesis here, so you need to supply some support to back it up. What are your sources by which you've derived your current assessments? You need to add these into the discussion, or else I'll never be persuaded to see your point of view.

"Rather, it's evolutionists who may or may not assume there is no evil."

I doubt if there is one person on this planet that would assume there is no evil. So if people wish to take a stand on evolution, then one has to say evil must be part of the evolutionary equation. Besides ignoring the issue, the simple question is how do scientists address the issue of evil? Mankind is the only one who generate evil (not to mention the only one who wear clothes).

From a Christian perspective, you seem to skirt the issue by saying someone is "malfunctioning". But this presupposes the generation of morality within evolution has not only been accepted but has certain standards and characteristics. How then this developed from primates? Another question that develops is how to define "malfunctioning" within the evolutionary context. What exactly is your baseline for making such a claim from an evolutionary perspective?

You seem to be waffling between various ideas. I'm interested in knowing how evolutionists account for the development of evil within the evolutionary process. This isn't complicated. You, like so many other scientists, seem not to have an answer.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"Rather, it's evolutionists who may or may not assume there is no evil."

I doubt if there is one person on this planet that would assume there is no evil. So if people wish to take a stand on evolution, then one has to say evil must be part of the evolutionary equation.

There are some folks who don't believe in good or evil. I'm not one of them, for the obvious Christian reasons.

Besides ignoring the issue, the simple question is how do scientists address the issue of evil? Mankind is the only one who generate evil (not to mention the only one who wear clothes).

You need to understand that "evil" falls within the field of Axiology and that most scientists who are Methodological Naturalists don't typically think science has much to say on morality, (unless they're like Sam Harris), other than to perhaps apply surveys to see how people think about morality and to insist that when running experiments and presenting results, honesty must play a part in the reporting process.

In other words, scientists aren't going to put "evil" in a test-tube and qualify it or break it down and analyze it. No, this activity is relegated to Theology or to Philosophy; and these are the areas in which, and by which, people discern and categorize the conceptual qualities of good and evil. Otherwise, if we're doing science, we're just studying animal and human behavior and don't---and probably shouldn't---- have much to say about the subject. [And again, I'm aware that there are atheistic neuro-scientists out there now, like Sam Harris, who are attempting to bridge this formerly unbridged chasm and bring morality into the realm of science and pull it away from Theology and Philosophy.]

However, being that scientists are also, existentially, human beings apart from their doings of science, they can muse about Ethics and Morality too, just like everyone else, and when they do so, they take off their lab coats and put on their philosophy tennis shoes in order to qualify their own personal evaluations about "evil" [or good].

And no, mankind is not the only one who generates evil or the recognition of evil. Some animals of higher order intelligence know something about misconduct, just not to the extent, obviously, that human beings do.

From a Christian perspective, you seem to skirt the issue by saying someone is "malfunctioning".

No, you're simply misunderstanding the specific nuance I'm addressing in regard to sociopaths and psychopaths as outside the norm of human behavior. I'm not saying that only sociopaths and psychopaths sin and do evil; what I am saying is that when they do so, they don't care that they do so.

But this presupposes the generation of morality within evolution has not only been accepted but has certain standards and characteristics. How then this developed from primates? Another question that develops is how to define "malfunctioning" within the evolutionary context. What exactly is your baseline for making such a claim from an evolutionary perspective?

...... I asked you for sources FIRST. But whatever the case, I'm sure both you and I can dig up some relevant sources. For now, I'll give you one of the sources that's listed in my CF personal page:

Science, Life and Christian Belief -- Malcolm A. Jeeves & R.J. Berry (1998)​

​

You seem to be waffling between various ideas. I'm interested in knowing how evolutionists account for the development of evil within the evolutionary process. This isn't complicated. You, like so many other scientists, seem not to have an answer.

Right. From within the bounds of science, I'm not going to say that scientific theory can account for evil. For me to account for evil requires the Logic(S) of both Theology and Philosophy. And if neuro-scientists (like either Malcolm Jeeves or Sam Harris) want to attempt to provide what they think are useful addendums to what Theologians and Philosophers posit, I'm willing to consider their points, but not because they're actually tapping into good or evil with scientific instrumentation. To think that way is, to my mind, a myth. And I disagree with those like Sam Harris who think they can scientifically qualify human morality or definitively specify the nature of good and evil via science.

 

[public hermit]

I doubt if there is one person on this planet that would assume there is no evil. So if people wish to take a stand on evolution, then one has to say evil must be part of the evolutionary equation.

There are probably a good number of atheist that believe evil is simply a matter of perception. As @2PhiloVoid pointed out, it might have more to do with their overall philosophy than evolution in particular.

For example, Spinoza believed that all events are necessitated, according to God/Nature, and our reckoning of evil is a matter of our own perception, but in the grand scheme of things, everything is going along swimmingly.

ETA: Whether Spinoza was atheist is debated, but I would bet a good many atheists are also determinists, which can lend itself to the position that there is no evil, per se.

 

[HarleyER]

There are some folks who don't believe in good or evil. I'm not one of them, for the obvious Christian reasons.

You need to understand that "evil" falls within the field of Axiology and that most scientists who are Methodological Naturalists don't typically think science has much to say on morality, (unless they're like Sam Harris), other than to perhaps apply surveys to see how people think about morality and to insist that when running experiments and presenting results, honesty must play a part in the reporting process.

In other words, scientists aren't going to put "evil" in a test-tube and qualify it or break it down and analyze it. No, this activity is relegated to Theology or to Philosophy; and these are the areas in which, and by which, people discern and categorize the conceptual qualities of good and evil. Otherwise, if we're doing science, we're just studying animal and human behavior and don't---and probably shouldn't---- have much to say about the subject. [And again, I'm aware that there are atheistic neuro-scientists out there now, like Sam Harris, who are attempting to bridge this formerly unbridged chasm and bring morality into the realm of science and pull it away from Theology and Philosophy.]

However, being that scientists are also, existentially, human beings apart from their doings of science, they can muse about Ethics and Morality too, just like everyone else, and when they do so, they take off their lab coats and put on their philosophy tennis shoes in order to qualify their own personal evaluations about "evil" [or good].

And no, mankind is not the only one who generates evil or the recognition of evil. Some animals of higher order intelligence know something about misconduct, just not to the extent, obviously, that human beings do.


No, you're simply misunderstanding the specific nuance I'm addressing in regard to sociopaths and psychopaths as outside the norm of human behavior. I'm not saying that only sociopaths and psychopaths sin and do evil; what I am saying is that when they do so, they don't care that they do so.



...... I asked you for sources FIRST. But whatever the case, I'm sure both you and I can dig up some relevant sources. For now, I'll give you one of the sources that's listed in my CF personal page:

Science, Life and Christian Belief -- Malcolm A. Jeeves & R.J. Berry (1998)​

​

Right. From within the bounds of science, I'm not going to say that scientific theory can account for evil. For me to account for evil requires the Logic(S) of both Theology and Philosophy. And if neuro-scientists (like either Malcolm Jeeves or Sam Harris) want to attempt to provide what they think are useful addendums to what Theologians and Philosophers posit, I'm willing to consider their points, but not because they're actually tapping into good or evil with scientific instrumentation. To think that way is, to my mind, a myth. And I disagree with those like Sam Harris who think they can scientifically qualify human morality or definitively specify the nature of good and evil via science.

"Right. From within the bounds of science, I'm not going to say that scientific theory can account for evil."

Scientific theory cannot account for evil. This seems to me to be a rather big flaw in evolutionary theory.

"No, you're simply misunderstanding the specific nuance I'm addressing in regard to sociopaths and psychopaths as outside the norm of human behavior."

I understand. What doesn't seem to be answered is if evolution is correct, then man is just one more step in an evolutionary change. There is no evil since that is part of evolution. A deviant may not really be a deviant. Rather they might simply be another step in evolutionary development. Science might spend a great deal of time looking at it from a biological angle, but they can't escape the fact that man is unique because we generate evil. You can't separate the two issues.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"Right. From within the bounds of science, I'm not going to say that scientific theory can account for evil."

Scientific theory cannot account for evil. This seems to me to be a rather big flaw in evolutionary theory.

"No, you're simply misunderstanding the specific nuance I'm addressing in regard to sociopaths and psychopaths as outside the norm of human behavior."

I understand. What doesn't seem to be answered is if evolution is correct, then man is just one more step in an evolutionary change. There is no evil since that is part of evolution. A deviant may not really be a deviant. Rather they might simply be another step in evolutionary development. Science might spend a great deal of time looking at it from a biological angle, but they can't escape the fact that man is unique because we generate evil. You can't separate the two issues.

ok... ... enough of your stonewalling everything I say. You're not listening, so please don't feign like you "understand" what I'm saying as if you're even paying attention. You're obviously not, and it's not acceptable to me that you dismiss me out of hand. And what's more, I don't think anyone has to accept your "just so" statements, and I will work against ANYONE, ANYWHERE who applies this form of needless and vacuous rhetoric to what I'm attempting to communicate.

Frankly, to the last, I don't care if you're a Creationist, or a proponent of Intelligent Design, or an Evolutionist. Take your pick. I don't care.

If you know Christ, that's all that counts.

 

[HarleyER]

There are probably a good number of atheist that believe evil is simply a matter of perception. As @2PhiloVoid pointed out, it might have more to do with their overall philosophy than evolution in particular.

For example, Spinoza believed that all events are necessitated, according to God/Nature, and our reckoning of evil is a matter of our own perception, but in the grand scheme of things, everything is going along swimmingly.

ETA: Whether Spinoza was atheist is debated, but I would bet a good many atheists are also determinists, which can lend itself to the position that there is no evil, per se.

The issue I'm trying to raise is not one of atheists who believe in evil. The issue is that, if man evolved from lower forms of life, then one can't say there is good and evil. It is part of the way we have evolved.

This isn't meant to be phylosophical or psychological. Rather it is meant to draw a rational biological conclusion which biologists wish to ignore.

 

[HarleyER]

ok... ... enough of your stonewalling everything I say. You're not listening, so please don't feign like you "understand" what I'm saying as if you're even paying attention. You're obviously not, and it's not acceptable to me that you dismiss me out of hand. And what's more, I don't think anyone has to accept your "just so" statements, and I will work against ANYONE, ANYWHERE who applies this form of needless and vacuous rhetoric to what I'm attempting to communicate.

Frankly, to the last, I don't care if you're a Creationist, or a proponent of Intelligent Design, or an Evolutionist. Take your pick. I don't care.

If you know Christ, that's all that counts.

I'm not talking about creationism, psychology, anthropology, or any of those such notions.

I'm specifically talking about BIOLOGY and the evolutionary process and how it explains the biological difference of man's morality in the context of evolution. I'm hard press to find any biological explanation for how man evolved to the point of morality. Biologist ignore the issue. So please don't cloud the issue with, "This is psychology." or "This is anthropology" nonsense. This obfuscate the issue from a biological point of view.

If you believe in the evolution of man, then from a biological view it should be rather simple to explain how man developed morality while every other animal on the planet did not.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Evolutionists ignore the fact that along with man evolving, we are the only species on the planet that has also evolved evil. Pain, suffering and death occurs with all creatures. But for mankind, we discriminate, enslave, lie, steal, cheat, murder, have wars, and on and on. Not only do we do things to others, but we do evil things to ourselves. And both internal and external traits of evil grow with each generation. Some psychologists believe evil evolved with evolution. But if this were true, then mankind would be devolving, not evolving-which is a Christian position. Despite the insistence of some that mankind has evolved from the same source and are just like all the other animals, there is no explaining how evil evolved. Evolutionist tend to ignore the issue.

Mankind is unique to this world and generates evil apart from any other animal on the world. And if evolution was correct, and mankind came from the same source as all other living creatures, then evil wouldn't/shouldn't exist.

So how did evil evolved?

This is a question that is irrelevant to the topic of biological evolution. You are asking for a scientific answer to moral, philosophical, and theological questions. This is like asking how quantum mechanics deals with the the problem of evil--it doesn't.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[public hermit]

The issue is that, if man evolved from lower forms of life, then one can't say there is good and evil

I don't see how that follows. Can you explain?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not talking about creationism, psychology, anthropology, or any of those such notions.

I'm specifically talking about BIOLOGY and the evolutionary process and how it explains the biological difference of man's morality in the context of evolution.

It does? Which non-Christian evolutionists explain "the biological difference of man's morality"????

I'm hard press to find any biological explanation for how man evolved to the point of morality. Biologist ignore the issue. So please don't cloud the issue with, "This is psychology." or "This is anthropology" nonsense. This obfuscate the issue from a biological point of view.

No, it does no such thing, at least it can be seen that it doesn't for those who understand the interdisciplinary nature of the sciences.

If you believe in the evolution of man, then from a biological view it should be rather simple to explain how man developed morality while every other animal on the planet did not.

Why would it be simple if Methodological Naturalism is the central aspect of the praxis by which scientists undertake their empirical and experimental studies? I'm not following you here .........................

NO. Wait!!!! ... I'll make it easy here. I don't believe the Theory of Evolution or Creationism, either way, is a hill for Christians to proverbially die upon. So, just forget I asked.

 

[HarleyER]

This is a question that is irrelevant to the topic of biological evolution. You are asking for a scientific answer to moral, philosophical, and theological questions. This is like asking how quantum mechanics deals with the the problem of evil--it doesn't.

-CryptoLutheran

Sorry, but this is NOT irrelevant to biological evolution. If one wants to argue in favor for biological evolution, then they need to be prepared to address why man is different from every other creature on this planet. It would HAVE to be biological.

 

[HarleyER]

It does? Which non-Christian evolutionists explain "the biological difference of man's morality"????

No, it does no such thing, at least it can be seen that it doesn't for those who understand the interdisciplinary nature of the sciences.


Why would it be simple if Methodological Naturalism is the central aspect of the praxis by which scientists undertake their empirical and experimental studies? I'm not following you here .........................

NO. Wait!!!! ... I'll make it easy here. I don't believe the Theory of Evolution or Creationism, either way, is a hill for Christians to proverbially die upon. So, just forget I asked.

Lots of people here seems to be convinced of evolution. Biologically speaking, we seem to be different in view of morals, clothes, religion, etc. Since we seem to be the only animals who are different, I'd just like a simple explanation of how morals evolved through the biological evolutionary process. Why are we different? Is that too much to ask of biologists?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lots of people here seems to be convinced of evolution. Biologically speaking, we seem to be different in view of morals, clothes, religion, etc. Since we seem to be the only animals who are different, I'd just like a simple explanation of how morals evolved through the biological evolutionary process. Why are we different? Is that too much to ask of biologists?

Right. Lots of people not only "here," but in the world at large, are convinced of a wide number of different perspectives on a wide number of different topics. This has always been the case throughout human history. It's no different today. This shouldn't be surprising.

But regardless of Biology, the failure to provide an explanation for how morals evolved through the biological evolutionary process is present because no one knows everything and not all questions that human beings are able to articulate can be answered.

Sometimes, the evidences and data just aren't there to be had on an utterly comprehensive level, so human beings begin to speculate, however rationally or irrationally they do, pondering and attempting to deduce the "answers." And this goes for how and when they attempt to handle both the Bible and Biology [or any science]. It also goes for our attempts to "explain" the nature of evil, which is a philosophical [axiological] topic, not a scientific one.

As for my being "convinced" of evolution, you would have to understand the reasons why I do lean toward Evolution---which to me isn't much different from understanding why I think the earth is round and revolves around the sun rather than the sun revolving around the earth, but you don't seem interested in understanding any of that. You're only interested in honing in on the FACT that we humans don't know everything and you insist that others here MUST perceive the Bible in the same, identical way that you do. For my part, I don't care if you feel that the Bible must be read in an isolated, woodenly straightforward way. I won't agree with that, but you're free to do so ... it's not like I'm here to insist that all other Christians MUST also begin to subscribe to seeing the world in an evolutionary way. I don't, and I won't.

What I do insist upon is that fellow Christians who are Literal Creationists stop badgering those of us who approach the Bible in a less than woodenly literal way. I don't badger evangelicals; and they need to stop badgering folks like me. We both have Jesus Christ in common, and THAT should be enough. More than enough. Like you, I believe in human sin, that it separates us from God, and that we need to repent, turn to Jesus Christ, and enter into the Grace and Mercy that God the Father wants to bestow upon each and every one of us. One doesn't have to be a Creationist to appreciate what we need to do in our own lives in turning to the Lord.

Also, like you, I don't think science can answer as many things as some purport that it can ... and what's more, there are some things I don't think science should be attempting to answer for everyone, but today we see folks like atheist Sam Harris sometimes attempting to do so anyway. I think the topic of the nature of Good and Evil is one of those things science shouldn't be intruding into, and thereby, I don't expect the Theory of Evolution to be able to address that topic. Scientists need to stay in their own epistemic lanes and not intrude into Axiology.

[..............what this means, ultimately for me, is that I don't accept all of the current tenets of thought among Evolutionary Psychologists. Even though I personally subscribe to the Theory of Evolution, this doesn't mean that I have to imbibe all that Evolutionary Psychologists pass off as "science"].

Criticism of evolutionary psychology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org