Setanta, I again say that this thread was in no way started to disprove evolution. There's plenty of threads on that topic already.
I don't know how to make this clear if it isn't already...
the philosophy that would be the most logical to abide by if we take macroevolution to be true is the very philosophy that acquits Hitler of any crimes and not only that, but it pats him on the back for what he did.
The underlying argument I am making is that if macroevolution and abiogenesis are the case. There is no moral code. The moral code is a universal set of morals that all people know intuitively. It is why we think Hitler was a bad guy. it's why we think rape and murder and infanticide are wrong.
If there was no God to create the universe, there is no such code. The code is immaterial and therefore cannot exist if there is nothing beyond the material world.
The philosophical implications of macroevolution are what's at stake. Not the theory itself. I know Darwin was not a philosopher, but his theory has philosophical implications.
There IS historical evidence for what I have said, and I presented that immediately. Based on Darwinian/macroevolutionary philosophy, Hitler considered himself just giving nature a hand and 3 others consider rape to be a genetic adaptation "same as a giraffe's neck" and infanticide to be a valid option.
I am arguing that if we accept this philosophy, we would not be in the wrong to kill whoever we want, but most of all, those who we consider weaker or inferior.
Now the philosophy being wrong does not immediately mean that evolution is wrong. That is - as I said before - not at stake. But know that I am not arguing the science of evolutionary theory in this thread, only the philosophy that comes with the belief in it.
I'm not sure from whence the connection between evolution and ethics springs? As my crude, but obviously true, understanding of evolution goes, it doesn't make any value judgements. The theory says something to the effect of this: Genetically inherited traits that facilitate survival and reproduction will become more common over successive generations. Clearly this is a merely empirical claim. If people with a hypothetical 'rape gene' reproduce more than those without (as one might perhaps expect), and the gene is passed on, cetaris paribus
, there will be more rapists in successive generations. This does not mean that rape is in some sense morally vindicated, indeed, it has absolutely nothing to do with the moral worth of rape, only that it will be more plentiful.
Secondly, why do you think ethics must come under some all subsuming 'moral code'? Ethical life is incredibly rich and complex. We have a huge variety of ethical concepts at our disposal: Guilt, duty, welfare, virtue, sympathy, blame, etc. The idea that these can be captured without remainder by some kind of rule is hopeless reductionism. Once I have these concepts, I know at a very primitive level, that happiness is a thing to be promoted, cruelty is bad, I should look out for my friends, and that I'm obligated to do my duties. If you want to get into questions about what happens when friendship and duty clash, or whether or not I should allow a rape to prevent the second world war, well then you're going to have to pull out some persuasive reasons for whichever takes your fancy, but the primitive understanding is enough to get by everyday.