Social Evolution

David O. wrote:

---
Doesn't some of this kind of discussion sort of skirt around the question of 
social evolution, though? If you accept biological evolution, can you 
reject social evolution, particularly as human behaviors increasingly can be 
grounded in biochemistry and genetics? I'm not sure that those who seek to 
draw moral principles out of nature do it so much by simple analogy 
anymore. There's an evolutionary logic to it. This is a problem for me as 
I wrestle with the concept of theistic evolution. If you reject social 
evolution based on prior theological beliefs, aren't you doing the same 
thing as those who reject biological evolution based on the same beliefs?
---
 
This sounds like it is touching on the classic "is vs. ought" fallacy.  What do you mean by "reject social evolution"?
 
It seems likely that there has been some evolutionary impact on human social behavior, at least if we grant that nature (as opposed to nurture) is more than zero percent of the picture.  And that principles analogous to Darwin's have operated in the evolution of societies.  So, if by "reject social evolution" you mean denying that this evolution has happened, that rejection would not seem justified any more than a denial that biological evolution has happened.
 
But it seems like what we ought to "reject" on theological grounds is the idea that the results of social evolution provide any basis for morality.  My evolutionary heritage may (as a recent study suggested) have me genetically wired to be sexually promiscuous, but that doesn't mean such behavior would be moral.  As Keith pointed out today, the only true compass for morality comes from special revelation, and we should not be reading morality from nature (including our own perhaps naturally evolved inclinations).  In fact, it seems that much of our call as Christians is to obey God's revelation and thereby act contrary to our "natural" inclinations.
 
Dr. Allan H. Harvey, Boulder, CO, steamdoc at aol dot com
"Usual disclaimers here."