Moral evolution, a response

"I don't see how you escape from the evolution issue."

I am not, as you put it, trying to "escape from the evolution issue." In making this statement, you are attempting to foist upon me a position that I do not hold. I have not reached a conclusion about evolution, one way or the other.

However, in pressing this point, you continue to imply that anyone who believes in evolution must agree with you on the idea of evolved morality. This, as you yourself have acknowledged in previous discussions, is simply untrue. And yet you continue to make this assertion.

"If there was a break in evolution in which God suddenly put in the "morality", then this is a denial of evolution."

No. You have already acknowledged there are scientists who can, and do, believe in evolution, but reject the notion of evolved morality. Why do you persist in making claims that are in direct contradiction to your previous statements?

"There is a similar denial problem with Natural Law as a source of objective morality. It is either Natural (so applies everywhere) or it doesn't."

Is the power of flight "natural?" I'm sure you will agree with me that, yes, it is. But can you fly? I find your definition for what is "natural" (that it must "apply everywhere") to be quite peculiar. Certainly, it is at great variance with the way in which most biologists would apply the term.

"Perhaps you could give a time at which we were gifted with morality? Was it after the neanderthals? Was Homo erectus moral?"

Good questions. Honestly, Steve, I don't know. Of course, you could ask the same question of our capacity to reason, to use logic, etc. At what point in time did humans possess these abilities? Who knows? I would humbly suggest that currently, the best we can do is speculate. However, we can be sure of this much. We can say without fear of contradiction that we are indeed in possession of these faculties now. That you and I can discuss the question proves as much.

"Maybe God gave morality to Ramapithecus?"

I'm sure you're much more knowledgeable about anthropology than I. However, you may want to reconsider your placement of Ramapithecus in the family tree of homo sapiens. At the very least, there seems to be a lack of consensus among scientists where Ramapithecus is concerned:

"Ramapithecus is no longer regarded as a likely ancestor of humans." -- Wikipedia

"Although it was generally an apelike creature, Ramapithecus was considered a possible human ancestor on the basis of the reconstructed jaw and dental characteristics of fragmentary fossils. A complete jaw discovered in 1976 was clearly nonhominid, however, and Ramapithecus is now regarded by many as a member of Sivapithecus, a genus considered to be an ancestor of the orangutan." -- Encyclopedia.Com