There’s a very challenging new post at the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute: An Uneven Classic: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.
What makes it challenging is that it’s so extremely muddled that the rational mind recoils in revulsion at the thought of dealing with its cryptic content. Nevertheless, that task is the burden which your Curmudgeon has assumed, so we’ll give it a try.
To begin with, they’re not talking about any science research, or anything at all that might support their never-ending and allegedly scientific crusade against the theory of evolution. Instead, it’s all about a work of fiction — Brave New World — which was published over eighty years ago (in 1932) and was written by Aldous Huxley who, as they note, died fifty years ago this month.
Huxley’s fictional novel has as much bearing on the theory of evolution (i.e., none) as H. G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds does on our knowledge of Mars. Nevertheless, the Discoveroids are discussing Huxley’s novel as if it were somehow significant to their efforts. They specifically say, with bold font added by us:
The book’s themes are certainly relevant to our concerns in this space.
They spend a lot of time discussing and offer several quotes from science writer Philip Ball’s article in Nature: In retrospect: Brave New World, which you can’t read without a subscription.
Why do they bother with this? It’s because they want to make the same point that we see made so often by the more primitive creationist websites — that science, particularly evolution, offers no hope, no morality, and no reason for us to think of ourselves as anything other than animals; thus we have no reason to behave in any manner other than savages, for whom might makes right, and literally anything goes.
Unlike the Discoveroids, the scripture-based creationists are honest about their beliefs, and they forthrightly claim that all morality comes from God. It’s apparent to your Curmudgeon that the Discoveroids are now making the same argument on behalf of their intelligent designer — blessed be he! — whom they never officially identify as Yahweh (because they always pretend that their “theory” is science), but neither they nor their fans have any doubts about who their designer really is. To advance this viewpoint, after discussing and quoting from Ball’s article, they say:
One wonders why Ball should care about individual liberty. Why should he worry about “ways in which we can lose our humanity”? Wherein lays his concern about “science as it affects human individuals”? He’s an evolutionist, after all, writing in a staunchly pro-Darwinist journal. Evolution concerns populations, not individuals. What can he possibly mean by losing our humanity? What is it about humanity that he feels separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom, all equally products of an unplanned, unintended process of blind churning?
See what we mean? Compare that to what we wrote about in Creationism and Morality, where we quoted from something we found at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG). It was an article by Georgia Purdom and Jason Lisle which claimed:
Morality is a very difficult problem for the evolutionary worldview. This is not to say that evolutionists are somehow less moral than biblical creationists — or anyone else. Most evolutionists adhere to a moral code and believe in the concept of right and wrong. But evolutionists have no rational reason for this position. Thus, only creationists have a rational, logical, and consistent reason for morality.
Even though most people do not acknowledge it, the morality and rules that most humans adhere to have their basis in the Bible, specifically in the literal history of Genesis.
We must, therefore, conclude that evolutionists are being inconsistent (irrational) when they talk about right and wrong, since such concepts are meaningless within their professed worldview. Like so many things that we often take for granted, the existence of morality confirms that biblical creation is true.
Although the Discoveroids would surely deny it, what they are saying in their new essay is precisely the same thing the more primitive creationists say. To illustrate this, here’s some more from the Discoveroids:
Ball’s review is ultimately an incoherent muddle. Like Aldous Huxley, he feels repugnance for regimes that would tempt or force a populace into docility, as if the preferred human condition is one of responsibility, creativity and liberty. But where in Darwin’s theory is that promised to any creature?
That’s the sort of thing creationists always say — Darwin’s theory is wicked, because it doesn’t preach morality. The Discoveroids finish their article with this:
Unless these Darwinian evolutionists can define something distinctive about human nature that separates man from the animals — unless that human spirit is worth defending against tyranny — there’s no essential difference between the caste system of a beehive and that of the Central Hatchery [a reference to Huxley’s book, in which humans are born in state-run hatcheries].
What are we to make of this latest Discoveroid offering? What your humble Curmudgeon sees is clear confirmation that, despite their disingenuous denials, the Discoveroids are no different from all the other creationists. Oh, they’re mostly old-Earthers, and they don’t spend their time defending the Genesis account of creation; but those are superficial differences. Deep down they’re still creationists, and their magical designer is none other than You Know Who — the supernatural agency that not only created us, but is also the sole source of morality.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.