All of these things seem like they are so impossible naturalistically, that they seem to point to an outside creator.
SEEMING like they must come from a creator because we don't know enough about something is hardly an argument - let alone something that we should base education on.
Surely you agree that "I don't know much about that, therefore there must be a God" isn't really a defensible position.
We do not suggest that water came from non-water, gold came from non-gold, etc..., because we claim that God created them, along with each animal kind, and there can be adaptation and speciation within each kind.
Do you think the Cambrian explosion might be an interesting example of many different distinct body plans all of a sudden coming into existence without having common ancestors?
You may not suggest it, but water
did come from non-water. And gold
did come from non-gold.
We know how elements and compounds are formed. We know where they came from, and it's from the bellies of stars. Heavy elements don't just exist magically, they are created in the bellies of dying stars - that's where the compounds that allow your to have dirt to stand on come from. That's where the chemicals and the elements that form your cell walls come from. There is no mystery to it, really.
No, the Cambrian explosion isn't what you're asserting here. It took place of over the course of 500 Million Years... The Cambrian Explosion was a period that lasted 8 times longer than the time period between your birth and the last T-Rex... It covers an enormous amount of time.
It's not like complex organism literally sprang into existence overnight.
To suggest such a thing shows a pretty serious misunderstanding of the science behind it on your part. No offense.
To properly critique something you have to first fully understand it, otherwise you're just chasing dead ends, and making arguments from ignorance.
Good questions. Our ideas of man being special, above animals, his soul being immortal, and him being subject to a moral standard all come from the Bible, which we believe to be the final authority on all things. It does not mention animals having souls.
To accept something as being correct without question is a little foolish, isn't it? Sure, it's easy to accept the ideas of others without putting more thought into it, but is that really the best way to ensure accuracy, by never questioning conclusions. So while the Bible may not mention animals having souls, have you ever taken time to study animal sociology and behavior? Perhaps you should, just over the course of a few weeks, brush up on it. Start to come to your own conclusions about the differences and similarities between human cognition and animal cognition. (I'll tell you from personal study it can utterly transform your perspectives)
The next question has to do with souls - are they even a thing, or just a concept that we've invented as part of our constant attempts to distinguish ourselves from our more primitive forms?
Anytime you openly question the authority of something, you run the risk of losing faith in the accuracy of it's teachings. I understand that. But if the Bible is true as you obviously assume it to be, then it won't teach you something that isn't accurate, right? The only way to know what is valuable and truthful and what is not, is through questioning... I'm pretty sure you'll find that same advice written in somewhere in Thessalonians.
If we are a bunch of chemical reactions, are people responsible for their actions? If my son steals something, could he not claim that his chemicals made him do it?
If we have no intrinsic value greater than animals, is it okay to treat other people like animals? What would it ultimately matter what one bag of molecules and chemicals does to another? Without God, can one argue that something like rape, for instance is objectively "right" or "wrong"? On what grounds could you say something is "wrong"?
Good question.
Even IF we are nothing but a handful of chemical reactions, we still have to be held accountable to the society that we surround ourselves with. If your son steals something, he isn't punished because stealing is inherently evil or vile. He's punished because that behavior affects more people than just him. It's essentially an inequality for the person from whom he stole something and so that particular behavior has to be addressed. Chemical responsibility or personal responsibility, the eradication of the behavior is the reason for the punishment - not because of an inherent "badness" or "goodness" of his soul.
The other questions you posited are answered the same way. Even if we have no other intrinsic value, we can't just go around treating people however we like because that would disrupt the societal peace that we maintain in our daily lives. If there is no security of person there can be no security of society. Animal groups operate the same way. They establish hierarchies and rules and they even have bloodlines that maintain those societally imposed boundaries - it's very interesting to watch. I'm specifically thinking about a species of Chinese Macaques that decide who, what, when, and where certain members of their groups can use the hot springs to keep warm in the Winter. They have a class-based system and there are severe punishments for those members of the lower classes that try to use the hot springs when the upper class macaques are using them... Just look it up.
I don't particularly believe there is such a thing as objective morality, but I may be in the minority. We each choose our own personal moral code, and constantly change it and adapt it over the course of our lives, teaching it both directly and indirectly to our children. Over time, we eventually have populations of people who generally share a very similar moral code. And so we find that where those moral codes overlap we assume a sense of objective morality. So as a thought experiment, imagine a bizarro world in which the value of rape was somehow lauded. Where women were glad to have it happen and felt proud that they were chosen. Imagine a world where men's social status was attached to the amount or quality of woman that he could conquer... It's strange, I know. But image that value system carrying on for generations until it finally got to you and me - would we suddenly assume that rape culture was inherently wrong and that it needed to be wiped from the face of the Earth, or would we accept it as a wholly good thing, like we did so many other morals and thoughts that our forefathers passed down to us?
So on what grounds do I say that something is wrong or that something is right? I judge those things through my own moral framework, which is influenced by the culture around me, direct teaching from parents and mentors, and from whatever else I've picked up along the way... I judge those things based on how they affect the perpetrators and how the affect the victims. I judge those things based on how they affect society as a whole and how they affect the individual. I judge those things a lot of ways - I just don't attribute that judgement to a supreme being that has established rules beyond questioning.
