Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinism as devolution: Killing Martin Luther King’s dream

arroba Email

Devolution means that a life form jettisons valuable qualities just to survive, often by becoming  parasite or “freeloader” (see below).

Picture 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.


Devolution: Getting back to the simple life

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.
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. ET
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
Off topic:
These Irish Eyes Don't Blink Excerpt: the abortion "House of Horrors," as the Philadelphia Women's Medical Society at 3801 Lancaster Avenue came to be known, was also discovered quite by accident.,,, They walked into a veritable waking nightmare. A cat had the run of the place, and the stench of cat feces, urine, and formaldehyde hung in the air. There was blood on the floor, urine on the stairs, and piles of trash everywhere. The chairs, blankets, and all surfaces were drowning in cat hair, and the medical equipment was unsanitary, outdated, rusty, and lying haphazardly about the place in varying states of disrepair. The more they looked around, the worse it got. A metal cupboard housed jars of severed baby feet. Refrigerators and freezers scattered throughout the cobbled-together maze of a building held more bloody fetal remains—they were stuffed into used water jugs, milk jugs, cat-food containers, plastic bags, and Minute Maid juice bottles. The basement housed -fetal remains stacked to the ceiling. It was the stuff of horror movies, but this was no Hollywood set. This was real life. Semiconscious women moaned in the waiting room, while none of the post-op patients were hooked up to any kind of monitoring device. Two were bleeding heavily and in such distress that paramedics were called, only to discover that the emergency exit door had been padlocked shut, and no one could find a key. Meanwhile, Gosnell wanted to do an abortion while the investigators went about their work. When he finished, he sat down at his desk wearing torn, bloody surgical gloves and ate his dinner, gesturing with his chopsticks while answering investigators' questions.,,, ,,, The most powerful testimonies in the trial, Ann said, were those of the abortion doctors themselves when describing what constituted "a good, legal abortion." Nearly everyone on the jury was pro-choice at the outset, but some let out audible gasps as an expert witness abortionist explained in detail what she did. Nor was it just Phelim, Ann, and jury members who would reexamine their views. "Prosecutors, several journalists, and even Gosnell's own lawyer ultimately experienced changes of heart and mind," Ann wrote. "Basically, once you find out the truth about abortion, you drop the pro-choice easy narrative very quickly," says Phelim. "Abortion is like an article of faith for some people, you know? They don't think about it, but they just are pro-abortion. I'll tell you, their faith was shattered. Everyone's faith was shattered." http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo42/these-irish-eyes-dont-blink.php
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.” [...} In secularism, of course, the Creator invoked in the Declaration does not exist and therefore does not “endow” humans with intrinsic rights.
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.
Why? Because natural selection is a process for culling the most viable variations among living things. Thus, Harrari says, the key to evolutionary advance is not equality but difference: “‘Created equal’ should therefore be translated into ‘evolved differently.’”
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.
By contrast, the pro-life position is inclusive. If you are a member of the human race, you’re “in.” You have the dignity and status of a full member of the moral community.
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:
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
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. Seversky

Leave a Reply