ant wrote:Oh, so inadvertance is when humaness began.

At last I have something good to put into the google scholar search bar.

How. Not when.

I don't know if we can know when.

Regards
DL

Flann 5 wrote:[
My point here was that Bishop in my opinion applies Darwinism not just to animals but humans also and the killing of other tribes and babies might be viewed as no more immoral than a lion doing so on this basis.

Not quite. We have a moral code that is instinct based while lions are following pure instinct.

But I think I can still agree with you.

Let's put two small tribes on an island where resources dwindle to where they can sustain only one small tribe.

Is the moral thing to do, --- to let both tribes weaken to where both are weak and no individual is the fittest, --- or to war and end with one strong or fittest tribe numbered to where the environment can sustain them?

Regards
DL

Flann wrote:Do humans simply lose their evolved moral emotions and just how real is this evolutionary advance it if it can disappear so easily?

Humans don't simply lose their moral emotions. It's just that we don't apply them universally by default, and can override them quite easily toward strangers. It's the in-group out-group mentality that I've mentioned many times before. Moral emotions have evolved to be elicited by acquaintances.

I don't think our current moral sense is that dependent culturally but we have an innate sense of right and wrong and of what is good and bad independent of our culture.

Search deeper into what you mean here. How does this innate sense manifest? What you feel are your moral emotions. But your moral emotions don't automatically engage regarding all parts of our moral code. There are many types of theft that we must learn are in fact theft. Adultery doesn't elicit negative moral emotions in many, unless we know it's wrong to commit adultery. These moral emotions are a product of biological evolution.

Not all science Interbane. I would admit to bias in favour of my beliefs but I do think there are problems with the theory in macro terms nonetheless which are not answered satisfactorily.

This is exactly why we must outsource our beliefs to process. Otherwise, we base them on emotion, subjected to bias. You reject evolution for what appear to be good reasons, but is in fact emotional. For example, do you truly understand the science in such detail that you can say it's wrong? Do you realize that even if you believe you can prove evolution wrong, that does absolutely nothing in support of your religious beliefs? Proper process is pedantic and ruthless regarding what we want to believe.

So I must just take their word for it and not be sceptical?

Skepticism is fantastic. But you're simply not skeptical enough. You need to be skeptical of your own reasoning also. The walking whale hypothesis, as you call it. Let's say it is utterly wrong(however, the claim has actually been debunked). If it were wrong, that does not mean evolution is wrong. Even more, it does not mean your religious beliefs are right.

In order to be right, you have to show support for your beliefs that is more robust and more comprehensive than the evidence for evolution. I'm sorry, but it's a grain of sand compared to a mountain. If you think otherwise, then you're not comparing the two through the lens of proper process/method. You're instead confirming Platinga's evolutionary argument against Supernaturalism.