God Exists

In my opponent's Youtube link, it is argued that moral genes are good for the population and so these ones survives. First of all, I challenge Con that he cannot name any gene that is specifically responsible for any particular quality. There is no gene that casues envy, or hate, or pride, or love, or empathy, and if he thinks there is, then tell us, what's the name of hat gene? Where in he body is it located? Name the scientist who discovered it! If genes were the cause of such qualities, then people who are known to be filled with hate should have some physical difference in their genes from those who are filled with love; people who are known to be generous should have different genes from those who are not; but that's not the case! We all have the same kind of genes despite our varying qualities, so Con cannot settle the issue of how morality came to be by appealing to genes. Several elements can be distinguished in morality: 1."Do unto others" as you would like them to do to you, as a means to getting them to treat you that way--in other words, hoping that they will reciprocate. 2.Treat people who are special to you--relatives, friends, members of the same group or nation--as you would like to be treated, but not merely as a means to getting them to treat you that way. 3.Treat every human being (and perhaps animals too) as you would like to be treated, even when they are not likely to reciprocate, even if they are not likely to retaliate if you treat them badly. Darwin's theory will explain (1) and (2) easily enough, but not (3). Although the modern Darwinian theory is sometimes said to provide an explanation of "altruism", altruism goes beyond helpfulness to kin. It seems clear that there is in human beings a disposition to treat every human being, even strangers and foreigners, with consideration for their welfare even when they cannot reciprocate or retaliate--otherwise we wouldn't have such concepts as nepotism, favouritism, prejudice, racism, chauvinism, as things to be avoided. How is it possible, on Darwin's "tribal" theory or on the "kin" theory of modern Darwinians, that some people object when their own nation or tribe or group are being unfair to outsiders? In almost every war there has been an ethically-motivated anti-war movement. At the end of the eighteenth century Charles James Fox and his group of Whigs spoke out against the British campaign against the French Revolution. Cobden and Bright spoke out against the Crimean War. Various Liberals opposed the Boer War. There was opposition to World War I, to the Vietnam war, to the Gulf War (some of the American military leaders also seem to have been moved by moral considerations to limit the killing). In World War II there was opposition to the policy of area bombing. In peace time there are organisations to collect money to send to the poor in other countries, obviously without any expectation that the action will be reciprocated. Kin preference is clearly a stronger force than universalist morality, but the latter does have some influence, and it is not accounted for by the current theory. It seems pretty clear that an evolutionary explanation will not provide a foundation for morality. An attempt would be to say that we ought to observe morality because moral conduct enhances the survival chances of our genes. But why should we care about that? We do care about it, perhaps, but if we don't (or didn't), why should we? A dog does n ot care about a cat's survival; why would we care about the survival of strangers? Or it might be said that moral behaviour on my part improves the survival chances of humanity generally. The same question arises: if I don't in fact care about such things, can evolutionary theory give any reason why I should? On the other hand, it seems that the evolutionary explanation may undermine committment to morality. Once morality is seen as serving some purpose, it becomes possible to ask how much we care about that purpose in comparison with other things. Morality is no longer "categorical" or over-riding. Survival of the fittest dictates that only the strong survive, so why not kill all the disabled and retarted people, as well as the mentally sick, who are nothing but dead weight holding us back from progress? They take up time and resources and don't contribute to the success of the clan; so why keep them? Why care? Evolution can explain this, God does provide a rational basis. Con also is running from the holocaust argument. Was it truely wrong? These Nazis were following the laws of their state, and were not obligated to follow laws of other nations, so unless there was some universal moral code from on high, how can you condem them? Theism holds some things are truely evil, evolution holds its just man's opinions, and in nature there is no righ or wrong, just blind pettiless indifference. As for abiogenesis; the link he gave in round 1 references the Miller-Urey experiment as proof. In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an "atmosphere" of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. This produced some of the many amino acids that exist and that are the building blocks of proteins. However, he got just 4 of the 20 amino acids needed for life to exist. More than 30 years later, scientists were still unable experimentally to produce all the 20 necessary amino acids under conditions that could be considered plausible. Miller assumed that earth's primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: "The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions." (The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L.ï¿½Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, 1974, p. 33) Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present. The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: "With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays." (The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 65) The fact is, any attempt to establish the nature of earth's primitive atmosphere can only be based on guesswork or assumption. How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an "organic soup" in the oceans? Not likely at all. The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an "atmosphere," Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them. So Miller was playing God, manaeuvering events to make life, not letting nature take its course. Without a conscious entity (Miller) to romove the 4 amino acids from the spark area they would die, so too, who was the conscious entity that removed them back at creation? Hmmm However, assuming that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: "Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules." (Ibid) So once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! "In other words," Hitching says, "the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding." Abiogensis is a lie. Con can't show us how it worked. I'll respond to the rest of Con's argument in the next round.