« Planned Parenthood and the Cross | Main | The Unanswered Question »
November 12, 2005
Young Darwinists in Love
Moments after writing the last post on the Planned Parenthood Federation's co-opting of the cross of Christ, I came across the Federation's "Save Roe" Internet site. The site, a youth-oriented activist page, includes a section of "Choice News," culling news reports on abortion rights issues. I was surprised to see that the top article is about the Intelligent Design movement's latest advance in Kansas.
Now what does ID have to do with Roe v. Wade? It must simply be that both are contested "culture war" issues, headed once again for the Supreme Court. What else could be the correlation? Roe, after all, is about freedom, individual autonomy, and the dignity of women, right? Whereas, Darwinian naturalism is about the survival of the fittest, the triumph of the strong over the weak, a violent unfolding of progress, and a bloody natural order red in tooth and claw.
Oh.
Posted by Russell D. Moore at 03:49 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d8346192ac53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Young Darwinists in Love :
Comments
Heh, heh. Well said.
Posted by: Phil W | Nov 12, 2005 9:01:20 PM
True...but sad.
Posted by: Fr. Phil Bloom | Nov 14, 2005 10:57:05 AM
Though your comment may just have been intended as harmless snark, I might guess that the abortion battle and the ID movement are seen as linked in that they are both an interjection of religiously grounded argument into the sphere of public policy. That said, the inclusion of the Kansas story on that list of links did seem odd to me as well.
One more thing: I'm afraid you're perpetuating the false notion that belief in the mechanism of natural selection is equivalent to advocacy for any moral philosophy that might be derived from it. Please don't do that -- it's baseless and, though I wish I could find a gentler word, insulting. Seculars and divines have a great deal to say to one another, but we'll only be able to have that dialogue if we work hard, on both sides, to be fair and respectful.
Posted by: John Hart | Nov 14, 2005 12:37:49 PM
I understand John Hart's concern about fairness and respect, but I have to disagree. The original post makes a fair observation -- that under Darwinian evolution, whatever happens, happens, and that morality is but a social construct.
Well-intended moralists such as John Hart may construct laws, codes of ethics, and social mores all they like, but they're still only constructs, superimposed over a foundation that not only does not support them, but that often seems to oppose them.
Shout your morals into the Darwinian abyss all you like. Only two centuries ago, it was considered immoral to allow a slave to exert any degree of independence. Only two centuries from now, today's prevailing mores will blow in yet other directions. We may respect the best intentions of seculars, as John Hart admonishes us, but that is not to say we need ever kneel to will of the crowd that shouts loudest. History has enough examples of the dangers of that mentality (I'll refrain from naming them to avoid giving John Hart offense).
Posted by: the forester | Nov 14, 2005 5:15:34 PM
Whoops, wrote the wrong URL for my blog. I'm at seedlings.blogsome.com (not blogspot).
Posted by: the forester | Nov 14, 2005 7:56:35 PM
The Forester has neatly laid out the crux of the problem, as I make it out. For the religious, imagining a world without a benevolent God, and a God-given moral structure, is staring into a terrifying abyss. But whether or not a world without God is terrifying is neither here nor there as far as determining if there is a god to begin with.
I've often gotten the sense in this sort of conversation here and elsewhere that some on the religious side of the fence assume that belief in natural selection is a moral choice. It's not. It is, right or wrong, a conclusion. I don't choose to believe in natural selection any more than I choose to believe in gravity, or that someday I'll die, or that the earth revolves around the sun.
In a world without God, morality is, yes, by necessity, a social/philosophical/intellectual construct, but we (evolutionists) are not responsible for that necessity. It is responsible, given an assessment that that's the way the world is, (godless), to do one's best to build a system of ethics based on virtue. A task made harder by the requirement to work out what virtue is to begin with. But there's no requirement that such a system be founded on the workings of natural selection, or quantum physics, or linear algebra.
Let me reiterate: I'm not advocating a Godless world - but as far as I can make out, I'm living in one. And I have to proceed from there.
"Only two centuries ago, it was considered immoral to allow a slave to exert any degree of independence." Well, yes, and many if not most American churches were ok with that, and even found biblical support for it. But then the prevailing winds changed, and many, though not by any means all, churches in this country contributed to that change. But then again, so did freethinkers and atheists. So Godfearing and biblical adherence cannot be said to be proof against moral error, nor atheism an express ticket to amorality.
Generally throughout western history, it has been the religious who command the largest loudspeakers, and "History has enough examples of the dangers of that." All in all, I'd vote for bypassing the argument that consists of bringing out all the historical examples of theocratic or anti-theocratic abuse, lest we get into an unending round of extra-biblical proof-texting. History does have a lot to tell us about the dangers of this or that world-view -- sadly though, it's got no examples of a world-view that provides a foolproof recipe for the perfect society.
Posted by: John Hart | Nov 14, 2005 9:22:51 PM
"It is responsible, given an assessment that that's the way the world is, (godless), to do one's best to build a system of ethics based on virtue." I'd like to thank you for pointing out that belief in evolution is not so much choice as conclusion. I was once an evolutionist, and that was not a choice; now I find evolution's holes too large to ignore, and that is no choice on my part either. (Who would choose to be a laughingstock in the eyes of the scientific community?) So thank you for the reminder to respect the best efforts of the other side. I'm frequently disgusted by the sanctimonious air of politicians, professors, scientists, and celebrities who mount a soapbox, then sneer at all those not already standing up there with them. But I shouldn't equate that holier-than-thou attitude with the basic effort to craft a social contract. It's only when that contract is used to beat others down, sans humility, that I should bristle.
As for church involvement in historical abuses -- yes, you're right there as well, but I see a distinction in the two cases. Social contracts shift like sand dunes, without reference to any standard. But the positions of a church can be measured against the teachings of the Bible, which are open to interpretation, but do contain a few fairly obvious principles. It took some serious squinting for 18th-Century Southern churches to find their way to a Biblical defense of slavery -- an honest reading of the entire Old and New Testaments debunks that view easily. Churches have certainly been involved in some horrendous actions in the past, but only when their values have shifted from those of their own Scriptures.
You might argue that an "honest reading" is only a matter of point of view; that the very plethora of denominations proves no "honest reading" is possible. I disagree. I'm no deconstructionist, and have little regard for reader-response theory. Texts do contain meaning. In the case of the Bible, the basic tenants are comprehensible among all peoples across all centuries, and evaluate the values and actions and of any church.
Not so the migrating waves of social contracts. Women's suffrage was not Constitutional a hundred years ago. Not it is. Yet a hundred years from now, a simple amendment could make women's right to vote unconstitutional again. Where is right or wrong in that? We're tempted to say the "right" is what we believe right now -- but that's only because our opinions are informed by our social contract. I guarantee, back in the 1800's many women believed that giving women the right to vote would be immoral.
Posted by: the forester | Nov 15, 2005 8:27:55 PM
Responding to John Hart in support of the Forester.
Planned Parenthood's interest in the topic of ID vs. Darwinism shows the issue to be at the very heart of the culture war in Western Civilization. Abortion is a symptom of the current dominance of Darwinism in Western cultures.
This nation was founded by men who would choose the assumptions of ID over the assumptions of Darwinism: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are 'created' equal, that they are endowed by their 'Creator' with certain inalienable rights."
If, as Darwinism proposes, there is no Designer, no Creator, then men are NOT created equal, but unequal. Some, I guess, are "evolving" at conception or wherever evolution is supposed to be taking place and are "more equal" than others. These, we suppose, become scientists and Senators and bond market moguls. If Darwinism is as you say as true as gravity, then humans have no inalienable rights. No right to life....and there is where abortion makes it's home. In fact, all rights of man are at risk--might makes right(s for the powerful) in fact.
Personally, I believe if something is true, then it is consistent with everything that is true in every field of knowledge. Government is a field of knowledge. What the framers wrote about the foundation of human rights was the most profound expression of the dignity, inherent liberty and worth of man in the history of government on earth. Darwinism is not consistent with that knowledge. To make government consistent with Darwinism has led to deprivation of the right to life of millions of unborn human beings.
Planned Parenthood understands that the end of Darwinism is the end of abortion on demand.
Posted by: Red Reader | Nov 16, 2005 8:11:14 PM
Red Reader, I encourage you to learn what the theory of evolution actually *is*, because it bears little to no resemblance to this straw man caricature that you've presented. There isn't any such thing as "darwinism" in the same way that there isn't any such thing as "newtonism". Just as the theory of gravity does not concern itself how matter came into being, the theory of evolution does not concern itself with how life came into being. The theory of evolution only deals with the mechanism of how life has changed and diversified since it began. Maybe it began naturally, maybe it began because of a creator, maybe it began because the Invisible Pink Unicorn accidently did it; it doesn't matter to the theory of evolution.
Disagree with and rail against the theory of evolution all you want, *AFTER* you've learned what it actually is, and have stopped presenting a straw man argument to easily knock down. Also, please learn what the scientific definition of the word "theory" is, because that is very often misunderstood.
You don't have to accept the theory, just know what it actually is, what evolutionary biologists mean when they talk about it. Otherwise, you might as well be saying, "Physicists have faith in the theory of gravity, which states that invisible orange trolls hold us to the ground. That's laughable!" You wouldn't take someone seriously who said that, would you?
Lastly, regarding biblical support for slavery, please go to http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=biblical+support+of+slavery to see the research that other people have put into this. Agree or disagree, but please understand that people aren't just making this up out of thin air.
Regardless of any point of view held, I think it's always best to research the arguments of people that do not hold that point of view; whether or not you agree with them is up to you.
Thank you.
Posted by: Sipi Aimi | Mar 17, 2006 7:19:15 PM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004