Is morality good evidence for creation?

No, it's not. One of the classes I took in college for my anthropology degree focused on the evolution of cooperation and conflict, and the theory is that those who are more cooperative (i.e. act according to established social/moral codes) are more likely to survive because other members of their social group like them more and would help and/or protect them when they need it. There are a few books and scholarly articles dealing with this very subject.

It is a good start. <t><

Science is about observation and cannot therefore be about proof.

Only in Mathematics are there proofs.

Moral awareness requires that there be a Judgement, it must be at the end of or after life and it must be by the Judge, God. Moral awareness cannot arise of itself, it can only be given.

no

Morality has nothing to do with pretend deities. It is what humans have decided to agree on as being moral.

None of the large religions could ever be accused of being 'moral', or ethical, they are dishonest at their very core.

I would say no because the mechanism is known.

All social species have a common moral system derived from the need to cooperate for mutual survival advantage. Social species without a moral code do not survive as well as those that do. Over time, the increased survivability of those with a moral system refines those morals into an intricate system of behaviors that gives the appearance of design.

More ongoing evidence that creationists do not understand emergent complexity.

YES.

But I don't know if I like the term "mechanism for morality." Is it a mechanism?

A sense of morality has been written into our DNA by God. Yes, God wrote our DNA.

We can't even fully fathom what the population would be like if we did not have that intrinsic moral code.

Sure, people still have the option to be bad. But all people have a sense of right and wrong even before we are taught these things as we grow up. Different cultures from all over the world reflect this same sense of morality. Why? Because it is not dependent on their culture, but it is part of our DNA.

To illustrate the idea that certain things are written into our DNA, consider migrating birds. Certain kinds of bird migrate across the entire globe once a year. And they do that even though they have no formal education, no language, no GPS, no maps, no smart phone, and no calendar. Birds do not make "to do lists." And yet they get things done. And they know when it is time to migrate. And they know where to go.

Can you imagine how a tiny hummingbird flies for hundreds of miles over the ocean with no land in sight? How do they know where they are going? Obviously, it is written into their DNA.

Now, an evolutionist might suggest this behavior evolved over time, but that doesn't make any sense. Baby birds do not go to school to learn this stuff. And their parents do not teach them this stuff, and remember, they have no language. The birds just know what to do, and that is because it has been written into their DNA by their creator.

You can study ant colonies, or bee hive behavior, or whatever. And we can marvel at how these tiny little creatures seem to know what to do. How big is an ant brain? Or a bee brain? And yet these tiny creatures maintain an orderly existence as they build their homes, and gather food, and care for their young, etc. Obviously, these instructions for life were written right into their DNA by their creator.

--- (A Yahoo! User)

No.

"If scientists could prove the mechanism for morality"

You seem to have no idea what morality actually is.

Morals is the set of rules a group of people uses to reduce in-group fights.

It has nothing to do with whether life is of magical origin or caused by natural events.

Only if one is an ignorant dumb@ss desperately grasping at straws in a futile attempt to prove the "reality" of one's personal delusions. Rolls eyes

It never fails to astound me that religitards are so utterly incapable of logic and routinely robo-spew stupid assertions that the existence of A proves the existence of B when A and B are NOT equal. LMAO

No, it isn't. Very little in the study of human life has been left untouched by developments in evolutionary biology. Morality is no exception. Like so many things, it has been shaped over time as a response. Over eons what we call "moral behavior" aided in our survival and reproduction.

It also isn't surprising to see kin selection, and it tells us that we should care for our closest relatives, especially our children. After all, caring for our relatives increases the likelihood of their survival and reproduction, which in turn increases the likelihood of our genes - including the ones that lead us to care for our relatives - get passed on to future generations.

But why would this extend further than family? It might be confusing at first since natural selection leads us to expect animals to behave in ways that increase their own chances of survival and reproduction, not those of others. But, it is very simple. Consider a group of animals that have a better chance of defense from predators working together rather than alone. So, they live in a group. Their own welfare is inherently tied to the welfare of the group as a whole. By sharing resources and ensuring fellows are doing well, social animals buy insurance against predators in the shadows.

We, like many other animals, are social creatures. This plays directly into a sense of empathy. When one of us is frightened, the rest go into high alert, when one of us is angry, we can rouse a mob.

You've been listening to too many theologians that claim evolution can't explain morality. Our behaviors that people call morality fall perfectly into what we'd expect to see for survival when you consider enlightened self interest.

no, not remotely