Evolution cannot account for morality

[Belacqua]

Okay so we chalk up life to chemistry, no problem. We say that inanimate matter transformed into life, by way of chemistry, okay fine. But you do not see anything weird with evolution only applying to life? 

And you have written a lot so I do not want you to think that I am discounting all that you said, but I also need to respond to others as well...

So, to reiterate, what is the problem with saying that matter evolved into life and life evolves into, idk, life that survives longer?

Part of the problem no doubt comes from different meanings of the word "evolve." 

I can say that my views on politics have evolved over the years. Or that pop music has evolved a lot since the days of the Monkees. In those cases, "evolve" just means "change over time." And if that's the way one is using it, then yes, it would be OK to say that non-living matter evolved into life.

When people here use the word, though, it's shorthand for a very specific kind of change over time. Namely, the kind of thing that Darwin talked about. Genetic mutations cause differences in offspring, and these mutations may cause the offspring to be better adapted to an environment. This causes the species as a whole to change, or may cause different species to emerge. 

It's a kind of atheist-debate jargon. The word "evolution" always refers to that specific thing. As such, it requires something that's already alive, with genetic material that can mutate, to qualify as something that can evolve. 

The shorthand use may lack clarity. For example, if someone says "evolution explains it," they don't mean that gradual change over time itself is explanatory. They mean that the theory of evolution by natural selection as currently understood by scientists is a sufficient theory to explain the thing in question.