On colour, colour vision, and breastfeeding

A Question for those who believe in evolution

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.Let’s talk for a second about colour…

Philippians 4:8-9  

According to the evolutionist (I assume) we have evolved the ability to discern colour. Which is to say that there is such a thing as colour (different values of the electromagnetic spectrum) and our eyes, brain, and behaviour have evolved the ability to discern and react to those differences.

So we have an evolved ability to discern colour, and there is such an actual thing as colour. That is there are actual different values in the electromagnetic spectrum and there are responses of the eye and nervous system. Two things.

There is not a one-to-one correspondence between those two things. At times our colour sense might ‘see’ a colour that is not there, or see one colour as another, or see two colours combined as a third.

But in general, the idea is that we have evolved the ability to take something in the objective world (namely colour) and recognise and react to it. My wife sends me to the store for ‘slightly green bananas’, for example, and I (hopefully) come back with some. This evolved trait has added to our reproductive and thus evolutionary success

.

…this notion of something smooth and slow, like the ascent of a slope, is a great part of the illusion. It is an illogicality as well as an illusion; for slowness has really nothing to do with the question. An event is not any more intrinsically intelligible or unintelligible because of the pace at which it moves. For a man who does not believe in a miracle, a slow miracle would be just as incredible as a swift one. The Greek witch may have turned sailors to swine with a stroke of the wand. But to see a naval gentleman of our acquaintance looking a little more like a pig every day, till he ended with four trotters and a curly tail, would not be any more soothing. It might be rather more creepy and uncanny. The medieval wizard may have flown through the air from the top of a tower; but to see an old gentleman walking through the air, in a leisurely and lounging manner, would still seem to call for some explanation.{22} Yet there runs through all the rationalistic treatment of history this curious and confused idea that difficulty is avoided, or even mystery eliminated, by dwelling on mere delay or on something dilatory in the processes of things. There will be something to be said upon particular examples elsewhere; the question here is the false atmosphere of facility and ease given by the mere suggestion of going slow; the sort of comfort that might be given to a nervous old woman travelling for the first time in a motor-car.

GK Chesterton, What’s Wrong with the World

Now what I understood from the evolutionists is that our moral sense was different from that. It was, in effect, colour vision without colour. It was a way, purely within myself, that evolution put in me, to differentiate between different classes of actions that actually share nothing objective in common. Murder is not a form of ‘red’, while care for one’s child is not a ‘green’. Murder is merely a form of action which evolution has taught us leads to less success for us as a species, while care for one’s child leads us toward more success.

Take breastfeeding. In the past, it has generally been stated, by artists, poets, theologians, and the like, that breastfeeding is one of the most beautiful, moral, etc. activities. From an evolutionary standpoint, this makes sense: breastfeeding was an important part of caring for an infant, and caring for infants led us to propagate our genes, thus evolutionary success.

When an individual arose who found breastfeeding repugnant, or embarrassing… this individual was shunned by the community, due to this evolutionary instinct. An individual like that could lead to less evolutionary success and was thus not to be tolerated…

But now, tis not so. Now, in our modern society, we don’t need breastfeeding to successfully raise our children. In fact, it might lead to less success, tying down the mother from other, more productive, activities. And so those individuals previously shunned are now becoming important, recognised, etc. Presumably, they will be reproductively successful and will have this new trait bred more widely into the gene pool.

But, and here is where my question lies, if I understand the evolutionists they are saying that there is nothing good in itself, good objectively, good regardless of how successful it is or how much it allows us to breed, in breastfeeding. There is in it nothing intrinsically and objectively beautiful, noble, wonderful, etc. That if breastfeeding were to die completely out of the world, if our genes were to alter so that women’s breasts no longer produced milk, there would be nothing wrong with that, as long as we continued to successfully pass on our genes.

Was I right in that understanding? Or do those of you who believe in evolution believe there is something objectively ’right’ or ‘beautiful’ about breastfeeding even if it plays no role in evolutionary success?

It seems to me that evolutionary theory wants to have it both ways. They wish to appeal to human beings, and thus speak of things such as truth, beauty, and logic. But their theory denies such things at their root. As CS Lewis points out they speak of such things but, in the end, in their theory, such things boil down merely to chemical reactions in the brain.

Romans 1: 20-22 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…

I love comments, especially intelligent comments by those who disagree.