Darwinism as devolution: Killing Martin Luther King’s dream
| January 18, 2018 | Posted by News under Culture, Darwinism, Ethics, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Mind |
Devolution means that a life form jettisons valuable qualities just to survive, often by becoming parasite or “freeloader” (see below).
From Nancy Pearcey at CNS:
King’s vision of equal rights is no longer “self-evident” to many of America’s opinion makers in media, politics, and academia. Why not? Because they have embraced secular ideologies that sabotage King’s ideal.
Listen in on some of the thinkers who are busy destroying King’s vision of inalienable rights.
In a UNESCO lecture, the atheist philosopher Richard Rorty observed that throughout history, societies have excluded certain groups from the human family—those belonging to a different tribe, class, race, or religion. Historically, Rorty noted, it was Christianity that gave rise to the concept of universal rights, derived from the principle “that all human beings are created in the image of God.”
However, Rorty went on, because of Darwin’s theory of evolution, many people no longer affirm the idea of creation. Therefore, he argued, they no longer have a basis for maintaining that everyone who is biologically human is also part of the “moral community” (people toward whom we bear a moral responsibility).
Ironically, Rorty admitted that he himself had to borrow the concept of human rights from Christianity. In fact, he dubbed himself a “freeloading atheist.”
Historian Yuval Harrari elaborates in greater detail on why secularism undercuts King’s concept of universal rights. In his international bestseller “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind,” Harrari says if life evolved by material processes, we must dismiss the Declaration of Independence with its concept of “unalienable rights … endowed by [the] Creator.” More.
It’s actually worse than that. Darwinism can only succeed by making war on the intellectual life as well as on ethics. And the Darwinians are going at it hammer and tongs. Destruction of the intellectual life is fine with them as long as they come out on top. Which is what Darwinism finally is, a form of devolution of humans: Winning by dispensing with being human (a costly fitness burden).
Nancy Pearcey is the author of Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality.
See also: The illusion of consciousness sees through itself.
and
Devolution: Getting back to the simple life
4 Responses to Darwinism as devolution: Killing Martin Luther King’s dream
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
That’s correct. Human rights are not the gift of some divine providence but freedoms, entitlements and privileges which human beings in society agree to afford each other.
Apparently, Harrari and Pearcey need to be reminded of the is/ought gap and the naturalistic fallacy. The natural processes of evolution have no bearing on morality.
While I agree with the position that the life of an individual human being should be regarded as beginning at conception and be entitled to the right to life from that point I don’t recognize Christianity as being the source of “unalienable” rights for all.
If we look at the Old Testament we find that if you were a Midianite or Canaanite or Amalekite or any other kind of “ite” there was no “dignity and status of a full member of the moral community” for you. Your rights were routinely trampled on by God and the Israelites if you were so unfortunate as to get in their way or be in possession of land they decided was rightfully theirs.
As for women:
or
It’s a tad ironic that Pearcey is arguing that Christianity extols the virtues of equal rights for all when her own faith requires her to be in all respects subordinate to men and be silent in church.
Off topic:
Yes, that’s horrific.
It’s also what you would have found at backstreet abortionists before abortion was made legal and there’s a good chance it’s what you’ll have again if you ban it.
So what’s your solution?
Seversky:
If people are really that stupid that they cannot control themselves what are the smart people supposed to do? Seriously if you cannot educate the fools then they get hoisted on their own petard.