Evolutionary explanation of morality self-refuting?

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Actually, I'd say that both of Craig's premises are wrong.

Taking it one at a time:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. - This is another way of saying "Objective moral values come from god". I can prove this statement wrong by a simple logical formulation

1. For moral values to be objective, they need to exist independently from any entity's mind.
2. If moral values came from god, they would depend on god's mind.
3. Therefore, if moral values come from god, then they are not objective moral values.
4. Therefore, objective moral values can exist only if god does not exist.

There you go. His first premise should be the opposite of what he said.

2. Objective moral values do exist. Well, this just hasn't been shown to be true.

Thus his argument is a complete failure.

By the way, whether or not he treats the socio-biological accounts of morality and reason consistently is irrelevant. He is wrong on both counts.

That was an interesting argument. I don't see though why it follows that god cannot exist along with objective moral values. It at most shows that objective values could possibly (if there are any) exist whether or not God exists.

Most theists I know to avoid the euthyphro dilemma don't think that God "defines" morality. If I remember correctly they say morality exists as reflection of God's character or nature. In way, you might say, God is morality, just like they say God is truth, and God is logic, etc (rather than God having to create these things). Craig summarizes this response as "God's nature is the Good, and God's will necessarily expresses His nature" (p. 145). I'm not sure if you're argument addresses this specific view of God.