Religion and evolution

[MarkCharles]

39. Evidently you are unfamiliar with the research.

We have ample evidence of animals caring for each other. We have voluminous evidence, of which I am sure you are aware, that certain species warn each other of potential threats of predators, from birds to monkeys.

We also have evidence of animals caring for injured members of their species, aiding in the healing, and, of course, caring for the young by members of the same species who are NOT the parents, adoptions of orphaned animals, etc.

We have recorded film of this in the wild, and in other laboratory conditions,
under observation caring for each other, enhancing the experience of each other before they become "verbal", we even have older siblings in nature, not yet mature themselves, not reproducing, (bears, elephants, horses), caring for the newest fold, after the parent becomes absent. We have surrogate mothers allowing babies who are NOT their own offspring to share in the suckle of a lactating mother.

None of that is evidence of "moral" law from a god, or more. It is a survival instinct more than a moral law.

If you'd like to " file a thread about what I think Collins means", perhaps you could begin with what research a geneticist might not be too familiar with from the animal world.

Let's face it, some animals, (humans included) care for their fellow members of their species: while others, (humans included) eat their young. A comprehensive study of animal biology and their life cycles from a naturalist, rather than a genetic perspective, will reveal that this concept of a "moral" law coming from a god is a rather selective view of the entire animal kingdom. Evidence for and against exists in all species.

So when you start your thread, be sure and be inclusive of all those instances when humans did NOT show "moral" law from a god, while other species did.