Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How the Warren Debacle Demonstrates the Insanity of the Progressive War on Reality

arroba Email

Elizabeth Warren says that a DNA report that shows she is between 1/1024th and 1/64th Colombian, Mexican or Peruvian absolutely scientifically proves her claim that she was a Cherokee Indian, so President Trump must pay up on his $1 million bet.

But Elizabeth Warren is also a strong supporter of the trans-gender movement.  So she also believes that a DNA report that shows a person has an XY chromosome is scientifically meaningless with respect to whether the person is a male and a  DNA report that shows a person has an XX chromosome is scientifically meaningless with respect to whether the person is a female.


There has been an almost complete abandonment by the secular-progressives of natural law. What is natural law? I think Cicero gave one of the clearest definitions and descriptions of natural law that there has ever been.
"There is a true law, a right reason, conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal, whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil. Whether it enjoins or forbids, the good respect its injunctions, and the wicked treat them with indifference. This law cannot be contradicted by any other law, and is not liable either to derogation or abrogation. Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice. It needs no other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience. It is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens; one thing today and another tomorrow; but in all times and nations this universal law must for ever reign, eternal and imperishable. It is the sovereign master and emperor of all beings. God himself is its author, - its promulgator, - its enforcer. He who obeys it not, flies from himself, and does violence to the very nature of man. For his crime he must endure the severest penalties hereafter, even if he avoid the usual misfortunes of the present life." - Cicero, De Re Publica
St. Paul and later Aquinas echoed this thinking. However, I think we have to be careful about natural law because you can arrive at different interpretations depending on your philosophical (metaphysical) presupposition or assumptions. For example, I think you can have a “naturalistic” or Darwinian natural law which is derived from the view that we are all the result of a mindless-purposeless and ruthless evolutionary process or you can have a theistic view of natural law which views our moral conscience being the result of an eternally existing, transcendent creator and lawgiver. The eugenics movement in the early twentieth century which had the backing of the secular progressives of the time. (Many of them who had direct connections to Darwin-- one of his cousins and his son, for example, were eugenicists-- while, others were prominent members of the social-political elite.) In the U.S. they succeeded in passing sterilization laws in several states which in the compulsory of sterilization of tens of thousands of innocent people based on their genetics. The rationalization was that modern compassionate morality wasn’t weeding out the unfit. This was picked up by German eugenicists and later the Nazi’s and we all know how that all turned out. None of this was very good-- indeed, it was unequivocally evil-- but least there was something somewhat rational about it. You could understand the thinking. (Ironically, the early twentieth century secular-progressives would have deemed homosexual and transgender individuals as unfit and undesirable-- they would have been weeded out by natural selection in uncivilized societies.) What secular progressives today are advocating is totally ad hoc and arbitrary-- and therefore irrational and incoherent. That’s what’s scary about Warren’s thinking. It doesn’t make any sense. john_a_designer
She identifies as a Native Indian. Isn't that good enough? Plus, a 1997 piece in Fordham Law Review celebrated Warren as Harvard Law School’s “first woman of color” and Harvard agrees. https://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/05/fordham-piece-called-warren-harvard-laws-first-woman-of-color-123526 So, if she identifies as an Indian and if Harvard agrees, who in the world do we think we are to disagree or to let science stand in our way of the "facts"? It's like when a woman tells us she's a man or vice versa. Regardless of what the scientific facts are, who are we to disagree? How dare we! tjguy
The main thing to see about progressives is that what they espouse need not make sense but they are deadly serious about it. Potential roadkill, be warned. News
You'd think we could all agree that keeping criminals and ate-up flaming detached-from-reality power-trippers from trying to tell people what to do from unreachable bureaucracies is something we could agree on. Evidently not, evidently. Andrew asauber

Leave a Reply