It just tells me that creation is woven toghether. So many times we disect and put subjects in a box and study it. But in my oppinion it was never the case. Everything is connected. Just like the emotional effects the physical. Both can be studied separatly but they still belong and share and influence the same body. It’s a relational thing…

Interesting and controversial topic, but an important question to ask. Too often those of us who wish to emphasize the differences between man and beast dismiss these questions without truly contemplating them. Perhaps the answer rests in the metaphysics of soul and spirit. Undeniably, there is a similar foundation in creation that results from the nature of God, but where do we draw the line between accountable man and the entrusted creation?

You might enjoy watching the 3 part series on Nova called “Becoming Human.” A friend and I watched it together and it generates some interesting conversation. It is available on the Nova website in the archives, I think. Try this link….  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/becoming-human-part-1.html  Let me know if it works.

John Brasch

could it be that some of these ‘higher things’ morals, kindness, a sense of what is right and good are aspects of the creators nature and as the creator interacts with all of creation it is all influenced by him.

Maybe an aspect of what we in my tradition refer to a preventing grace maybe something a bit more developed.

many who have owned dogs or even other pets have seen them act in the pest interest of others even knowingly putting them self in harms way for those who are ‘close to them’ alla “Old Yeller”.

Thanks, Courtney, John, and Steve.  These are great insights and questions.

And, John, I got the link to work.  The series looks interesting!

There is little doubt that “morality” exists in animals. Selection pressures on animals led to things we consider moral behaviors—such as a sense of justice being in tensionwith a sense of reconciliation. Frans DuWaal (Yerkes Primate Center Director) has shown countless time that non-human primates have reconciliation rituals employed after one of the primates transgresses. Similarly, they seek vengeance (and justice) within the troupe. But a balance exists, necessitating both justice and reconciliation. If there were no justice, no punishment for a transgression, then greedy primates would monopolize the resources of the troupe and many members would not survive. There is selection advantage in troupes that have justice. But, if punishment damages the offender or casts the offender out of the troupe, then the offender is subject to predation and the troupe is decreased in strength by one. Thus, selection advantage goes to animals that can also reconcile.

However, it is somewhat misleading to call these moral virtues in the same way we think of humans making reasoned moral decisions. The difference is stark.

On the other hand, the social intuitionist approach to morals put forth by Jonathan Haidt suggests that we make many moral judgments by emotional, intuitive reaction. In cognitive Psychology we have system 1 cognition (i.e., non-verbal intuitional thinking, or “thin-slicing” as Malcolm Gladwell calls it) and system 2 cognition (i.e., rational analysis). Both are legitimate human cognition. System 1 cognition can be subjected to system 2 analytic cognition, modifying it.

Animals appear to have something like pre-system 1 moral cognition. It probably is not like human system-1 cognition, but is a preliminnarly version of it. But they do not have system 2 cognition.

So, yes, there are similiarities in non-human animal and human moral cognition. But the differences are quite profound as well. Let’s not make too much of the simillarities without keeping in mind the differences.

I think that this shows how closely God has created us. I think that we dont’t think of them having morals because we do not fully act on the same level together. But if we think about it they know what is right and what is wrong. If a dog does his/her business in the house they know that it was not the right thing to do.

Thanks, Ev and Jon.  With regard to the differences between humans and nonhumans, I struggle to see how the differences are finally a difference in basic kind.  Surely the differences in degree are HUGE. 

I’m still working on this issue…

It seems to me that any “moral agent” can only be held accountable to the degree that it is able to reason the best moral choice.  In other words, to those who are given much, much is required.

I agree, Jamie.  And that’s why I think that although nonhuman animals may make moral decisions, their culpability is constrained by the degree they can reason about their choices.  I doubt worms do much reasoning.  But I’m confident that dogs, dolphins, and chimps can reason.

Animals uniquely mediate to me the mystery of God’s love and creativity.  They are gifts of God, part of our common life on this planet.  We share the same stuff of creation they have, the “dust” as Genesis puts it.  Because they come from God and are beloved to God, and because they are vulnerable to our exploitation, I believe we have a moral obligation to honor and care for animal life, and when we harvest animals for food, to do so in as humane and responsible a way as possible.  We have much to learn from Native American traditions in regard to how we relate to animals.

Just as scripture can be used for selfish means, Darwin can take information concerning, “The close similarity between man and the lower animals,” and create a theory that pleases his personal agenda. Perspective has everything to do with outcomes.
Whereas I may look at the similarities between humans and non-humans and see a common creator, Darwin may see a common ancestor… Information that we receive is constantly filtered through a sort of cognitive sieve allowing ideas that we agree with to more easily pass through than those that we do not.

I think there are definitly similarities between animals and humans, but there are differences as well. God says to love others, but I think that doesn’t just single it down to humans. God made all living creatures for a purpose some we may not understand. But we all do offer something.

There are controversies over this topic just like evolution and creation.  It is crazy to see how similar animals and humans can be, but at the same time very different.  It is hard to understand but maybe this whole idea is relational and ties together.  Maybe God created animals and humans in a certain way where we can relate.

There are some traits that we can see in non human creatures and can relate them to human traits.  There are probably just as many similar as there is different traits.  I have seen human type traits in my dogs.  When they do something wrong (like getting into the garbage) and they are caught, I can see quilt because of dropping their head and not looking at you…Just as a child would do if they who took a cookie from the jar when they were not supposed to.  Many non human creatures run on instinct or survival mode were they are only looking out for themselves.  Because man has evolved over time, we almost never switch to survival mode to stay alive.  That then brings us into the age old question of creationism or evolutional?

It is an interesting concept to think of non-humans to have morals, a concept that I do believe to be true.  We often think of animals as cute things to look at, but we forget that they have brains and morals.  For example,  when one yells at their dog for doing something bad, the dog will often get mopey and sad after it has been yelled at, which may show that the dog feels bad for its’ actions.

It does not surprise me at all that animals have so many similar traits to human beings. After all, do we not have the same creator? As noted in previous comments, Darwin looked at this through the lens of evolution, but when looked at through the lens of God as Creator, how marvelous that He created everything with such detail that is in many ways similar, but each species, in fact each individual, is incredibly unique.

It is remarkable to think that animals and non-human creatures could be compared on the same levels such as intellectually, morally and sub-consciously. Being of a science major background, I have studied the body and its certain precise functions that happen each second of the day.  It is so fascinating to me how God has crafted the human body and brain that it is hard for me to imagine something not created in His image to be just as intricately designed and have so many similarities (like genetic information).  I guess we will never fully know the capacity of those creature’s brains because of communication barriers.

I definitely would say that many animals have something knowing or learning right or wrong but I don’t think in any case is the same as human morals.  Some animals are very smart and can exibit simpathy and concern for others but I do not think that animals typically contemplate the morality of an action before but act more instinctively.  My Labrador retrievers know right or wrong based on the consequences we have taught them. They can recognize when we or another dog is hurt and they try and comfort the injured person or dog. God did say that his creation was good and I see no reason why many animals should not be empathetic.  Survivability of a population depends on good relationships between individuals in many species.

I feel that it would be very silly of us to believe that God would create only humans to have morals. I feel that animals may not take them to the extent we do but they do have morals (maybe not all but some). It is similar to those who say that animals do not have feelings.  I believe they most certainly do. I also think that animals that are in constant contact with humans may display both emotions and morals more easily.  (If you are a pet owner you know what I mean.  They display very similar emotions and feelings to us.)  There are of course some exceptions which we don’t have much contact with such as gorillas and monkeys that have been observed displaying similar characteristics to humans, so it makes since that they to may have some morals such as we do.

I find it quite enticing to think that animals have morals, yet, I am not sure how biblical this concept is. If God only created man in His image, what does this say about animals? Does this mean that man is made like God’s physical body, heart, soul, moral compass or all of the above? And what does this say about what He gave animals? I cannot help but feel that my dogs can love, but cognitively I am just not sure if their behavior means the same thing it would in a human.

I tend to think that the discoveries of these animal/ people similarities are good news.  Morals and a conscience I believe point to a creator.  Seeing these qualities in animals is an extension of God’s character, his beauty, in his creation.  Animals, though seemingly able to exhibits evidence of morals and maybe even a conscience, seem to be primarily ruled by instinct, whereas human beings can choose to be ruled by devotion to God.  Therein lies the difference, humans were created in the image of God, and animals where created by God and manifest aspects of him, but are not meant to fully exemplify and glorify him.

To think that animals share the same morals as humans just makes me think of all the cartoons I have watched in my life. Tom and Jerry for instance show very human-like qualities in their behavior, eexpressions, and emotions. I am sorry to say that these are only cartoons though. Many people could give the example of a dog feeling bad while getting scolded when he knows he was not supposed to do his business on the carpet, but I think this is more a reaction of fear than one of remorse. I find it hard to believe animals know right from wrong. They have instincts that guide their behavior. When we try to train an animal to behave a certain way and they don’t behave accordingly, humans scold the animals, and the animals can learn to fear a scolding. Their behavior becomes directed towards how not to get scolded, not doing something because they think it is morally right.

I think that we need to be careful comparing morality between humans and non-humans, because I think that it can become an excuse for us that we only do what our instincts tell us, however we do have a moral code that Christians have agreed to and that we should abide by. Animals on the other hand will not be judged at the end of the day and there for their decisions are purely based on survival.

It is fascinating how close we are in regards to physical characteristics. I can even see similarities in basic actions like “fight or flight syndrome.” However I do not know how comfortable how I feel with placing humans on the same levels as animals in regards to morality. I think that humans are much more complex than other animals. I think that the bible shows this in the amount of focus that is illustrated in regards to humans and their life. There is little yet some focus on animals, but nowhere near the level of humans. With all that said we should take into account the value of animals and show it in how we treat animals and their environment.

Darwinian Evolution is one of four schools of thought; within itself it has three tiers which are historical evolution, common descent, and strong Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution focuses on the idea of common descent with modification; this is made possible through inheritance, variation, and natural selection. According to the three forces that make natural selection possible fitness of an organism is measured by their ability to pass on dominant genes to the next generation (this idea is most commonly known as survival of the fittest). Variation is introduced to a population through mutations, which creates diversity and variance; however, one has to take into account that not all mutations are harmful as well as DNA and RNA’s repair mechanisms. One fundamental theory behind evolution is that origins of life are a result of random chance, theories such as RNA world, formation of microspheres, and deep air vents all of which try to explain the origins of life.
The scientific method provides a protocol for scientists to conduct experiments that test hypothesis. In laboratory conditions one can conduct an experiment, yet the probability of having the obtained results in the biological world are slim to none. Empiricism is used every single measurement and data point collected, which creates a certain degree of bias in an experiment.  The statement on how there is “evidence for similarities between humans and nonhumans has substantially increased through the study of genetics” points out homology structures, which suggests the divergence of organisms from a last common ancestor (LUCA) and a common tree of life. The “similarities” between organism’s body plan, organs, and genetics seem to support the idea of Intelligent Design rather than those of evolution. In order for evolution to be proven to be true, advocating scientists will have to prove that structures can in fact be created by natural selection and random mutations. The complexity and intricacy of the way cells, tissues, and organs function cannot arise simply by random chance. Trying to prove evolution would require scientists to eliminate and manipulate the genome, override problems with natural selection, and be able to prove that any experiment conducted can indeed occur in the “real world”.

I do not see a profound need to decide if animals have morals or not, but I think it’s plausible. Still, if they do, I do not think it is nearly to the same extent that humans have morals. Animals are driven by their instinctual needs. We may see small acts of generosity, love, malice, or hate, but animals are not capable of consistently acting out based on their moral convictions (what is the animal equivalent to Mother Theresa? Hitler?). It is an interesting question, nonetheless.

I definitely think that humans and nonhumans do share similar morals. Humans often care for one another, especially in closer relationships. Animals care for each other too, not necessarily in a broad sense, but in closer relationship (eg mates, offspring) there are obvious signs that animals follow same morals as humans do. Male and female birds work together to build a nest for the eggs, then mutually work to defend their young and each other. While this is true of most species with their young, this helps show that animals will act sacrificially towards one another of their own kind, just like humans will.

I do believe that animals have a sense of morals and some similar aspects to humanity. Most of us have had family pets that show us glimpses of that. However, I do feel that humankind is far more developed as far as morals go. We humans have obvious consciences, morals, opinions, reactions to situations, etc. Animals kind of just learn more right and wrong from experiences. They definitely have a few similar traits, but not at the same levels as humankind.

It is interesting to think about animals having a similar moral connection. I definitely don’t think that animals have the same capacity to understand morals the way humans do, which makes me wonder if there is a line between natural processes and moral definitions? Like you said, humans form their moral structures through social interaction. The community builds our moral values. What would be interesting to me is how do nonhuman animals form their morals? Having a connection between humans or nonhumans could bring on the helping of each other but what about strangers? Will a chimpanzee comfort a hurting chimpanzee that they are not familiar with? If nonhuman animals only have moral values that stop at family, can we really say they are that similar? Additionally, there are many other moral topics that humans perform aside helping companions.

This is a very interesting and controversial topic.  My gut reaction is that animals cannot possibly have moral similarities to humans.  However, through God’s infinite power he could have created animals with some sort of moral capacity.  I do believe though that God made human minds much more complex and that we are not on the same level as all other animals. In addition, Darwin had a very set scientific view point and I think that he, like many people do, interpreted most things to fit that view point.

I believe that it is neat that non-humans exhibit moral similarities with humans. Science has shown that God has made many of the creatures on earth to have a conscience. However, I do not believe that animals have all of the same morals that humans have. They have limited knowledge and they may have the basic instinct morals but they do not come close to the complexity of human morals. I believe that it is fascinating that animals can distinguish right from wrong but I believe that it is limited.

It may be true that animals are capable of very simplistic forms of what can be labeled as morality, but this morality is far from being synonymous with human morality. As Richard Joyce argues in “The Evolution of Morality,” human morality requires both language and complex emotions such as guilt, which non-human species do not have access to.

It is interesting how similar we are to animals in the sense of behavior in some instances.  At the same time as saying that I have to agree with DeWaal in that this is a large bridge to gap between human morality and animal morality and difficult to prove.  It was enlightening to hear that animals do share a sense of social consciousness with one another and to be honest it is not something I have thought about much.

This is a fascinating article and one that needs to be discussed more in the church.  Personally, I think that there are some moral similarities between human and nonhuman beings.  I think animals can tell right from wrong to a point.  I think a great example brought up in the article is the crying of a baby.  Humans will react to a crying infant/child and so will a bear hearing the cry of her cub or in the rare occasion a crying stray cub.  But the one thing that keeps me from agreeing completely with the idea that animals know right from wrong is animal instinct.  It is an animal instinct to prey on the weak, but that doesn’t make it right or necessarily wrong.  I can’t help think of a great quote from the movie “Finding Nemo” when one of the pelicans says “Hey, birds got to eat, fish got to swim.”  Sometimes we see that animals migrate on treacherous paths that may put them and whoever they are traveling with in great danger.  But it is instinct to take the route.  For example it is instinct for salmon to spawn in the same stream that they are born in even if those streams may have changed and have become hazardous to them and their young’s health.  I am torn between on saying which side I agree with more with.  I honestly must say that it is 50/50 for me for animals to know which is right or wrong.

I find claims like the ones made in this blog fascinating and inspiring. I could definitely believe that animals possess, on some level, a moral compass. Especially more intelligent animals such as Dolphins and Chimpanzees. I think that this is a clear sign of the power of the creator. He not only called on us, humans, to live moral lives, but it’s reasonable to assume that since he allowed for morality to develop in animals that he expects morality from them as well. Which bring the question to my mind: If an animal possesses the concept of morality, can an animal sin?

Seeing the comparison between animals and humans does not surprise me. As stated before we are created under one God, so why would there not be similarities. But at the same time I do not think that animals have the same capacity to do the same things we can do. I feel that whatever there prime instinct is takes over most things we would rationally think.

Darwin’s observation proves that (1) we have the same creator, and (2) we live on the same planet earth. First, we have the same creator, so we can see the same signature in His purpose for creation. Two, animals and man are similar in their composition/flash because we are inhibitors of the same planet; we have earthly bodies. Morality is the good way of conduct. Therefore, to be moral is to conform to moral rules. The only origin for morality is God’s order, purpose of every creature in His creation, which is revealed to us via God’s law. Corruption of God’s way (immorality) has entered into the world through sin. This deviation is seen (through the lenses of God’s law) in animals and men life.
However,“the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (Rom 8:23).
This is not news. Darwin’s observation s can be used for good or evil purposes depending if you are moral or immoral; redeemed or fallen.

It is difficult to conceptualize that animals make decisions based on moral inclinations. And yet when our golden retriever destroys our favorite slippers we immediately tell her she is a bad dog. A dog with no moral code could care less if her actions resulted in being called bad dog unless perhaps she associates the word bad with impending punishment. And for the most part I think she does not realize her action was incorrect. Only that it was punished therefore she should not do it. However I am more intrigued by my action toward her. I am annoyed and tell her she was bad, inadvertently revealing a belief that she somehow knows the difference between right and wrong. Yet if asked I would probably say animals are not capable of making moral decisions. This inconsistency between thought and action within myself makes me curious as to whether animals really can make decisions based on a general concept of good and bad or if moral decisions are an attribute solely possessed by humans.

Animals work together, protect each other, care for each other, and tend to show some moral characteristics. Dogs know when they are in trouble. Chimps show care for those in their family who have been wounded. Is this even morals or perhaps just instinct? This is an interesting topic to discuss because it does lead to creation versus evolution. It is known that there are many similarities between animals and humans is this true because we evolved from each other or is this true because we have the same creator?

I most certainly agree that animals and humans are very similar to one another in our morals. After all, God created both humans and animals. I find it so interesting when I observe animal behavior how similar we truly are. The care and respect similar species show one another with daily activities is amazing. I definitely believe these animals have morals of their own. No matter how similar or different they are, they exist.

I find it very interesting that humans and non-humans are so similar and easily comparable. I don’t know how far I would go with the fact that animals have morals. I agree that they do.. but not the same as humans.

I believe that animals do have some sense of feeling and morals. I grew up on a small farm and have observed animal “friendships” for years. For example, we used to have 3 horses and while they were all older, in their 20’s, one horse, Pokey, took the leader position and the others just followed his “direction”. But when we would ride one of the other horses, Pokey would throw a fit up at the barnyard because the other two were gone, he would get lonely. I also believe that animals have a caring 6th sense about them. While I do not know much about the theories of evolution with Chimps, I do believe that animals have a moral compass, to some extent. Or at least a sense of what is right and wrong according to their owner.

I thought it was interesting to see people trying to decide whether animals have morals or not.  I was not sure the reason why these discoveries are thought to be necessary though.  I certainly think that how each individual people think of difference perspective in this specific decision depending on their own definitions of morals.  I think that animals feel their instinct needs and think of their lives in a way of survival.  However, they do not always behave based on what is right thing to do or not which makes it difficult for me to understand that animals have conception of morals.

I was grown up with being taught with Darwinism,evolution.Though I do not exactly believe that humans can be considered same as the high intelligence animals. The animals may have the similarities that human have though I do not think that animals can be considered same level as humans.

I believe that the higher levels of animals do have some form of moral capacity. I don’t think that it is on the same level as the moral capacity that we as humans have, but I do see it working in some examples. My dog along with my fiancés dog are two of the most expressive dogs that I know of, and when they do something wrong, they know it. Now, like Jill mentioned above, this is because they have been trained this way, but weren’t we trained in just the same way as babies and toddlers? After a certain amount of training I think that we as people, and them as animals, then develop a working system. Acts of kindness in the animal world are the most convincing to me-when you see a dog offer its food to another dog-that goes against instinct. Or, when people argue that warning the rest of the group (think prairie dogs), is just instinct, I argue that it is against instinct. Instinct is to save one’s own life and maybe immediate family, not staying outside our burrow to make sure that the alarm is sounded and that everyone gets out of danger.

I think that animals and humans are very similar, and science seems to concur. I have heard many different scientific reports about how similar animals and humans behave. It is fascinating to see how humans can share instincts with animals like “fight or flight” or protecting offspring. Even our anatomies are similar in many ways. Despite the similarities and with the lack of evidence I would argue that it is highly inconclusive as far as humans having morals similar to humans. I am highly skeptical about how that could be measured and distinguished from survival instincts. I am also a believer that while animals are important there is a fundamental difference between animals and humans.

It is not surprising to hear that humans and non-humans have physiological similarities. But it did surprise me a little to think that animals have morals. As I thought about it I keep thinking about situations that I have seen that would lead me to believe that animals have morals. The first thing that popped into my head were my dogs. They know that it is good to give kisses and not to bite. So once I thought about it a little more it doesn’t come as a surprise that animals have morals after all.

1st of all, I pity Darwin for being to bull headed to accept the TRUE origin of man, which was from God, and not ape. That being said, I do agree with him that in some degree, animals have a moral capacity. While not as prevalent as humans, nature has shown us through many species that animals do in fact exhibit certain moral characteristics. Elephants have been filmed grieving (in their own unique ways) for dead offspring or companions indicating they have the capability to love. BBC captured a grey mother whale lifting her calf above the water as it was being attacked by predator killer whales. She was trying to prevent her baby from drowning in which the baby eventually did. Again, this shows a deeper moral side to an animal that seems to not be entirely driven on pure instinct. I think as with humans, God didn’t want to make mere drones for his creation but limited them to keep things balanced.

I do think animals can act morally, but I think they do this because these traits are innate. I also think that animals and humans can relate to some degree, but humans were given dominion over the animals, which leads me to think humans have been given abilities animals have not. Yes, animals do make choices, but they are out of instinct for survival and are learned responses from reward. Chimpanzees and human DNA is actually 96% similar, which does not imply that there is a connection as far as human descent from apes. A chimp is still at chimp at the end of the day and a human a human. Even when mutations occur within species they do not become another species.

I’m not really sure what I think. I know that animals take care of one another, and act for the good of their family, herd, colony, etc. It would appear that they have some sense of morals, knowing what would be best for the other animals and acting accordingly. But as far as morals such as knowing right and wrong, I’m not sure how you would determine whether or not this existed in animals. However, since the same God created animals and humans alike, it is perfectly plausible He instilled morals in all of us.

This topic is very interesting. I believe you should love all of god creations, wether its non-humans or humans but you should be careful comparing the two. I just have a hard time thinking of myself the same as a chimp or any other animal. No matter how smart a animal is it does not change the fact that humans are humans.

I was not surprised that Darwin made many connections between humans and non-humans.While there are similarities there are also differences too. I know that some genomes are the same but a fly didnt come from a mouse and a mouse did not come from an ape. I believe things change and evolution can be a word for that but that does not excuse the fact that there is a bigger picture underneath. Darwin didnt even know about DNA at the time of his books so I can not even begin to understand why someone would believe such unscientific evidence in the first place.

I believe that humans and non-humans can somehow be tied together to have the same morals and feelings. Maybe it is not on the same-level but I think that God created all things on this earth and there has to be some explanation as to why non-humans are able to express some similarities to human kind. I think animals are able to distinguish between right or wrong and able to comfort those of their own kind. However, I am not one to say that the cannot distinguish between one decision and reflect back with regret for not choosing the other one.

I think it’s a lot easier for some to focus on the vast similarities between the genomes of species than it is to focus on the differences.  However, the differences are the important factors.  The differences are what make things work and what make things fail.  To step away from creation and evolutionary theories, you can apply this to chemical reactions: a chemist can use the same ingredients for an experiment but end up creating two completely different compounds, just because the measurement of one ingredient is increased in one experiment and decreased in another.  The important factor is the difference and what results because of it.  I think it’s time to focus on the differences found in the genomes, and time to step away from putting ourselves on the same level as animals.  I also think it’s important to remember that we were created because of and out love so obviously there would be “…a biological basis for the emergence of love.”

Like almost everything in the world, this claim shares good and bad news.  To say animal - nonhumans exhibit moral similarities with humans, in someway meant that other animals are in the same standard as human – and obviously there will be a rise of conflict…there shouldn’t be any killing of cow or pig for our food, there shouldn’t be killing animals for furs and luxury goods…They didn’t do anything to us – so why are we killing their species? If nonhumans do exhibit moral similar to humans, then like humans there are animals that are amoral or immoral…how would one knows to treat those animals? And to “Do to others as you would have them do to you” is questionable in terms of moral? If a mobster killed someone you love – do you go and kill someone they love?

I don’t believe that animals have morals. I believe certain animals can have learned behaviors in which they they can kind of learn right from wrong, but even then that is hard to say. I have a dog and I have told my dog a thousand times not to get into the trash, but sometimes when I am not home she still will get into the trash. I read above some one said something about God created us in his image, not animals. I believe that God didn’t make animals to have the mental capabilities to have morals.

How can anyone believe Darwin on matters of morals especially in his writings at age 40 gave up on Christianity. In 1880 he wrote that he no longer believed in the Bible as a divine revelation of God, or in the Son of God. Everone knows Genesis [2:7} That God formed man from the dust of the ground. And in Genesis [1:26] Describes man in God’s spiritual likeness. In the Hebrew, the word formed, “vayyitzer” is written with two “yods” therefore man was created with a “yetzer tob” and a yetzer ra”  capable of doing both good and evil. Animals were created with only one “yod” having no moral conflict. That is why an animal can kill without any remorse of conscience. The Bible does not tell us how animals were created or out of what. No I did not come from a monkey.