Evolutionary Origin of Morality: A Rebuttal to Callie Joubert

This is a response to the article in Answers in Genesis, Can Theistic Evolutionism Explain the Origin of Morality?  Based on the source, I think it seems clear from the outset that the author, Callie Joubert, doesn't think so.  

Firstly I want to note this article probably isn't directed at me, since I reject the term theistic evolutionist to describe me.  I am a person that believes in a Christian God and evolutionary theory at the same time.  But I ask anyone that wishes to label me a theistic evolutionist, to think about why they don't feel the need to label me a theistic gravitationalist, nor a theistic electromagnetist since I agree with those scientific descriptions of reality (or theories) as well.

And the rebuttal.  This might be a long one and it might get philosophical.  So I don't know if this blog is the place for it, since it's a science blog.

If we accept that morality and ethics are about good and evil, right and wrong, and the truth and falsehood of moral beliefs (Holmes 1984), then it is only consistent with being a biblical Christian to exhibit thought and modes of moral reasoning that are consonant with God’s nature...

I would explain morality a little simpler.  My view of morality is actually rather simple.  Good actions are those that seek to minimize suffering.  Evil actions are those that tend to cause suffering.  Just because an action is evil, doesn't mean that it isn't unjustifiable, and there is a spectrum of good and bad actions.  The reason I define morality in this way is because justification is not quantifiable and subject to opinion.  Suffering, though not measurable precisely at the moment, can be quantified eventually because human neural responses to stimulus are phenomenon that involve measurable quantities.  I would classify an action that causes suffering to another is always immoral, although in certain circumstances it can be justifiable.

When it comes to the evolution of morality we need to start at something more rudimentary. Altruism or cooperation is observed among animal species. Indeed one can observe these behaviours among animals. What we observe as human morality is simply a very complex set of altruistic behaviours developed through social interaction. Some of these memes are useful and so they stick around, while others don't.  The end result of this being what we call a moral code or behaviour.

Elsewhere Scripture refers to, for example, “the falcon after its kind,” “every raven after its kind,” “the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its kind,” “the heron after its kind,” “the locust, cricket, and grasshopper after its kind,” and the mole, mouse, lizard...

...First, the created kinds were created in mature form and completely functional. Second, each of the created kinds can be called a “natural kind”,⁴ for each was endowed by the Creator with the ability to naturally reproduce...

I skipped quoting a bit of material. It seems to be a review of scripture.  But what does a review of Genesis have to do with an evolutionary origin of morality?  It now seems that Ms. Joubert is simply trying to show that scripture is incompatible with evolution.

What do we normally do when scripture comes into conflict with modern observations and refinements?  We have encountered situations like this before where modern information conflicts with scripture, the same way evolution conflicts with it.  Take 1 Kings 7:23

²³And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. 

In this passage we are given a definition for π which is clearly inaccurate for modern calculation.  These are examples where the Bible produces suboptimal answers in a modern context.  A modern school child knows π to at least two digits, 3.14, or maybe even to a few more 3.141592.  We are now aware that π is an irrational transcendental number, which means it can't be computed from basic operations like addition, subtraction, multiplications, roots, etc.  Without disregarding the Biblical answer in contexts like engineering, we would not be able to build working electric or mechanical devices.  In short, when the Bible and well established scientific fact come into conflict, the appropriate resolution is to go with what is observed.  Of course Ms. Joubert hasn't presented any attempt to demonstrate incompatibility, so I digress.  Back to my response.

Joubert's review of Genesis continues, and then

The facts of the biblical record of creation put theistic evolutionists under huge pressure to explain to us how human nature and the moral sense, as part of that nature, can “emerge” from ape-like ancestors (so-called hominids) over millions of years, when they entirely lacked these properties.

To say that ape-like ancestors entirely lacked moral sense is quite an astounding thing to say considering what we know about the mammalian brain.  Moral sense is observable even in non-human animals.  A rather marvelous example is one of not just empathy, but cross species empathy observed in elephants for example

South African conservationists are baffled by the behaviour of a herd of elephants which appeared to raid an enclosure on a private game reserve "deliberately" to release a group of antelope captured by rangers as part of a relocation and breeding programme. 

"The herd circled the fence and then the matriarch moved to the gate and very carefully and deliberately undid all the gate's metal latches with her trunk and pushed it open."

Of course, they aren't even close to being human, so we would expect something closer to human to have an even more developed sense of social context and morality.  It would have been a necessary adaptation for humans living in large groups together.  Indeed, non-human apes like Bonobos display these rudimentary traits of morality and social structure.  Though far different than what we are accustomed to as humans, there is a set of social customs that are followed.  It is possible to realistically map great ape behaviour to at least some of the rudimentary social and sexual behaviours of human beings.

In contrast to theistic evolutionists, biblical creationists are under no such pressure. We have seen that God not only created kinds of things and equipped them with abilities appropriate to and natural for them to exercise, but also that the Creator made the first humans in His image. This means that creationists already have a first instance of a maximally moral Person;

She seems to imply that her position is superior because she is not under any pressure to explain anything, because she can simply defer it to a Creator.  I don't know when that became the deciding factor in determining whether a position fits the description of reality or not.  But I still haven't heard her explain why she feels it's not possible, for someone that finds evolution the most compelling description of what we observe, to meaningfully explain morality.

Elsewhere Murphy (1998) concluded that there is a “massive amount of evidence” which suggests that we no longer “need to postulate the existence of a soul or mind in order to explain life and consciousness” (Brown, Murphy, and Malony 1998, p. 17).¹¹ The real reason why she and fellow theistic evolutionists found such “evidence” in the neuro-sciences is very simple...

...We can summarize. Murphy and fellow theistic evolutionists make it difficult for us to believe that methodological reductionism can be embraced by a Christian and continue to maintain Christian faith...

Joubert's seems to be reading too much from Murphy's words.  I believe what they are saying is that based on the evidence there is no need to postulate a soul or mind.  Murphy is not saying that one must accept there is no soul.

Is it really true that it is the brain or size of the brain that makes us human? And if it is true, can evolutionists explain this, as opposed to merely asserting it as a fact of evolution? Eminent neuroscientist Professor Joseph LeDoux (1997), who adheres to the view that it is the brain that makes us human, admitted that he and his fellow neuroscientists are unable to explain...

Brain size alone doesn't make us human but it goes a long way.  It's true we don't understand exactly why humans got to be so intelligent compared to other animals and even to other primates.  But we didn't understand exactly what the value of π was either and we figured that out.  The Bible continues to give us the same answer.  This is why we must actively seek the truth, and test results which is what the search for scientific truth is about.

While I commend her on her knowledge of scripture, Ms. Joubert seems to make many philosophic assertions.  Sadly she also seems to use the argument from ignorance fallacy continuously when speaking of human consciousness.  Of course the argument from ignorance fallacy has nothing to do with calling anyone ignorant; simply that she seems to imply because it cannot be explained at the moment it must be false.  Because it is fruitless to continue providing a response to these types of claims, I shall sum up my position at this point.

When scripture and well established scientific principle come into conflict, I reject scripture on that topic.   Take Galileo and his conflict with the early church over heliocentricism, for example.  The reason is that on every issue where scripture and scientific fact have come into conflict through the ages, it has been shown repeatedly that science gives the best answers.