Actually people in more secular countries appear to behave more morally. And even if this claim was true, that would not alter the facts or justify their suppression.
鈥淒arwinism claims that living beings have evolved as a result of coincidences and by means of a struggle for life. This evil morality advises people to be egoistical, self-seeking, cruel and oppressive.鈥�
Such views are not uncommon. The unspoken implication is either that 鈥淒arwinism鈥� (see Biologists are Darwinists) is wrong because it leads to immorality, or that this knowledge should be suppressed even though it is true. Both are nonsense. Even if it were true that accepting the theory of evolution undermined people鈥檚 sense of morality, it is not a reason to doubt the reality of evolution. This is equivalent to arguing that atomic theory must be wrong because a nuclear war would be catastrophic.
Advertisement
It is also simply not true that evolution undermines morality. Certainly there are examples of people appealing to evolutionary ideas to justify behaviour some would regard as immoral, although the best example was a song called by the Bloodhound Gang, with its chorus: 鈥淵ou and me baby ain鈥檛 nothin鈥� but mammals. So let鈥檚 do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.鈥�
On the other hand, one could draw up an extremely long list of examples of people appealing to religion to justify immoral behaviour, from and racism to suicide bombings and . This kind of exercise proves little, though.
Rational morality
A better way of assessing the effects of embracing evolution is to compare countries with different levels of acceptance. Countries where higher numbers of people accept evolution have lower rates of murders, sexually transmitted diseases, teenage pregnancies and so on. In fact, more secular societies are healthier in almost every regard, concluded.
This kind of crude correlation does not prove actually promotes moral behaviour, nor that religion promotes immoral behaviour. Indeed, other studies suggest the issue is far more complex. But it does prove accepting evolution does not immediately lead to the breakdown of society, as some creationists claim.
Those who dismiss evolution as immoral often assume that religion is crucial to morality. As in: 鈥淧eople who believe in evolution have no basis for a moral code, other than the preeminent concern to pass on one鈥檚 genetic inheritance.鈥�
In fact, there is growing evidence that we have an innate moral sense 鈥� that morality is something that evolved, in other words. This may seem surprising to those for whom the phrase 鈥渟urvival of the fittest鈥� conjures up images of lions ripping each other to shreds and stags clashing antlers. But 鈥渢he fittest鈥� can mean the cleverest, the sneakiest, the best camouflaged, the least aggressive, the most attractive 鈥� or the least selfish.
Natural selection can favour altruism and fair play in certain circumstances. Behaviours such as loyalty to kin, intolerance of theft and punishment of cheats 鈥� the roots of morality 鈥� can be seen in many of our primate cousins.
