Does evolution have a affect on morality or society?

I would say yes. If we evolved from monkeys and are just part of a natural process  then why have morals at all? I mean lots of animals eat there babies and eat each other so what makes us better? This has nothing to do with whether evolution is true or not, it's just to talk about what it would mean for our moral systems if it was.

If you think about it, the Holocaust was an attempt at forcing artificial evolution onto a human society.

Objectively speaking, without God, all good is subjective.

Yes, I believe evolution definitely has an effect on morality. One of the unique traits that humans have is language, which allows us to do things that no other animals can. Through language, we are taught morals at a young age, and continue to revise our beliefs throughout the rest of our lives. We can pass parts of our moral code to other people through language.

Whatever the answer to this question, it is really important to recognise that the question of what is true is completely independent of any purported effects of believing something (other than legitimate use of the information as informative about how the real world behaves).

You might like to use the reasoning that believing in evolution makes people burn other people at the stake or whatever, but regardless of whether there was such an effect, such reasoning could not throw any light on whether it was true.

Note that the most peaceful, least violent period in history happens to the same period in which the science of evolution has existed. I don't believe this is cause and effect.

yes, and if evolution where true what would be wrong with it? obviously there is a ton of stuff wrong with it. 

Reality is what it is. It doesn't help to complain about the weather.

Elroch, I agree that the consequences of truth does not change truth. I think I said that in post #1

Firstly, evolution provides all organisms with an interest in their young. This interest is exhibited to a great extent in the behaviour of advanced, intelligent animals, including birds and mammals. It is a gross distortion to suggest that it is the norm for animals to eat their children, any more than it is the norm for human parents to kill their children (it does happen sometimes).

There is a very active area of study in biology called ethology, which includes studying the animal analogs of morality and other behaviour patterns we view as characteristically human. You can be quite sure that many animals have certain aspects of human morality, regarding certain types of right and wrong, fairness and so on.

An interesting example is when monkeys are offered rewards for tasks. One series of experiments showed they went along with rather bland rewards for tasks, but if they could see another monkey getting much more desirable rewards they kicked up a fuss, showing an understanding of fairness quite independent from the actual value of rewards to them in isolation.

The purpose of human moral systems is primarily so that human society can function, and that people are generally kept happy. Quite different systems are used at different times and places in history (such as during the era of slavery, or the long past when females were viewed as second class citizens - still the case today in Saudi Arabia, for sure).

To put it more briefly: good is subjective.

God's good would be that good which God subjectively prefers.

If God exists, which your statement assumes he does, He is the standard of objective good. He is the being who created the universe, and his "opinion" would be the definition of the universal objective truth.

No. This is not how the difference between objectivity and subjectivity works. Subjectivity means for example that if this hypothetical god chose to have a different standard of good (perhaps requiring not working on Saturday and Sunday) then this would be possible. Your claim of objectivity means the god would not have any choice.

God defines objective truth, if he defined it differently, objective truth would be different. Imagine you are writing a computer program, how you write it would define what it does. You could have wrote it differently, but the way you chose to write it there is an objective truth to what happens in your program.

Facts are we all know what is right and wrong and the only way for that to be is if God created us with that knowledge. God said he did.

ok. So I know evolution is right.

You may believe evolution is right, but you of course know that stealing is wrong. Not because culturally you were raised to think that, but morally you know it. That is what is called a conscience. 

My personal value system for human beings holds that stealing is wrong. But I acknowledge that this is subjective, not an absolute. Moreover, it would not be difficult to think of exceptions.

This is getting a bit off topic I think.

Meh, I come from the CHT. If you start a forum there, be sure it'll get off topic real fast.

If you think reality has a bad effect on people, it's not a valid reason to deny it.