Result of empirical data can also be simply "hypothesis".
The Theory of Evolution is nothing people should agree to. It's a fact, that's why it's called "theory" instead of "hypothesis". In Science a "theory" is the result of empirical data, not of empty deductions, so not believing in the Theory of Evolution is as nuts as believing that the Earth is flat.
To make a theory, it has to be tested further in, for example, (among other ways) whether it can predict something outside the data.
Many people confuse the 2 words, though (some people seem to define theory simply as "something that can explain the things observed"), so I won't take anything for granted unless it's a theorem in Mathematics.
The notion that earth is more or less flat comes from observations, too (daily experience), unlike some "imaginary" deductions (like the elephant or turtle beneath some flat-earth models).
Earth is locally almost flat, but globally is very much curved. We have tested and made applications of the round earth notion, so it stands as a "verified theory".
In genetic algorithm, bad samples always seem to keep appearing. We only can expect that number of these are somehow decreasing compared to the far past.
Individuals who are not altruist are naturally eliminated from the "evolutionary equation" -they may have no couple, or may be rejected by other members of the community, so their "memes", their behaviour, won't pass down to other generations.
That expectation is really high, even with any religion around.
He said: "they were Christians, so they could not lie"...
Unlike some people might expect because of the term "the chosen people", there's an instance where old testament God was recorded to "raise" (興起) non-Hebrews into glory, e.g. in Habakkuk 1:6.
Btw, related with the topic: some Christian scholars believe that Confucianism, like Plato's Theory of Ideas and Aristotle Ethics, are some kind of preface to Christ. That's their "ad hoc" way to explain how societies with a non-theistic ethic can exist -God gave them to the sages, but didn't reveal himself until Christ-.
I also vaguely remember a Christian that mentioned about "righteous men outside Israel's coverage", not sure if it's really there in the bible.
I would reform my previous argument making a more general statement Let's say we have different kinds of morality, and that helping someone just for the sake of the family or group is one of them (duty towards your group or different groups), while a more conscious morality, based on knowledge, is more particular of human beings (and maybe other animals). Also, human beings seem to be the only ones able to dispose of morals and make someone else, alien to them (God), to behold them.
"Morality but only towards your immediate family" is different from "morality towards all human beings" or "compassion that includes non-human animals".
Generally, care towards closer beings are easier to achieve as they live among each other. (Afterall the evolution of beings into being "social" arose from living together)
Btw, given the possible differences in defining "morality", the answer might be different.
If one only accepts "perfect/strict morality among humans", maybe I would say it's no (whether God exists or not is not relevant to this conclusion).
But if "partial" is accepted as well, it gives a "yes".
If the context is not defined clearly... I would choose maybe "neither yes nor no" or "both yes and no".
Edited by qrasy, 08 June 2010 - 02:43 AM.