rod03801: "survival of the fittest has nothing to do with right or wrong."

I'm talking about two irreconcilable points of view. I'm not attempting to mix the two as though they are same the thing, because that would be inaccurate as well as confusing. It's better to talk about them as if two purists were comparing notes.

An evolutionary purist doesn't believe in God, or is willing to allow the possiblity but doesn't acknowledge His involvement. He doesn't acknowledge morality because it is grounded in God. His own sense of 'morality' is grounded in himself (what man deems is right) and not in God, so his own version of 'morality' is called ethics.

The idea of right and wrong can transcend what we might find convenient, or beneficial only to ourselves. For reasons that should be obvious, a lot of people don't like the concept of morality, because what is right and wrong is ultimately determined by God and not by ourselves.

When an evolutionist talks about how evolution occured, he never puts it in terms of right and wrong. He never says morality played a part in evolution.. because evolution just happened, and the only forces in play were those that enabled a living thing to continue living and progress to becoming other living things. Survival of the fittest means whatever it takes to survive, and ultimately dominate and/or replace creatures who are not as fit as they are for survival.

If you watch nature shows you can't miss the fact that one of the features that enable survival is deception. I see it especially when they show ocean life.. or when someone here (not you) attempts to divert my attention to defending Christian principles, when the only point I was making was that it's okay to own a weapon if it's used for self defense. I was also accused of name calling when it was obvious I wasn't. An attempt to intimidate by alerting the moderator?