Because they can’t challenge the theory of evolution on scientific grounds, creationists are always claiming that evolution is bad because it’s inherently immoral — unlike their glorious religion about a deity who cursed the whole universe because of what Adam & Eve did, and who then destroyed virtually all animal life on the planet — sparing only Noah’s family and their floating menagerie.
We’ve written about this several times, most recently Creationism and Morality, Part 4, and that links to several earlier posts on the same topic. The Discovery Institute, allegedly a science think tank, promotes the same theme — see, e.g., Discoveroids: The Designer Gives Us Morality.
Now the Discoveroids are at it again. Their latest post is by Nancy Pearcey, a new Discoveroid “fellow” who teaches at a bible college. We present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from For Its Moral Ideals, Evolutionary Materialism “Freeloads” on Christianity. The bold font was added by us for emphasis:
Westerners pride themselves on holding noble ideals such as equality and universal human rights. Yet the dominant worldview of our day — evolutionary materialism — denies the reality of human freedom and gives no basis for moral ideals such as human rights.
Wow — she’s right. But then, the same is true of physics, chemistry, and astronomy. Maybe that’s because science doesn’t pretend to be a system of human morality. Then she says:
So where did the idea of equal rights come from? The 19th-century political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville said it came from Christianity.
Tocqueville said that? Maybe he did. But as is generally recognized, the American Revolution was based on the ideas of the Enlightenment — particularly the Scottish Enlightenment, which (quoting from the linked article) “… asserted the fundamental importance of human reason combined with a rejection of any authority which could not be justified by reason.”
Let’s read on:
The 19th-century atheist Friedrich Nietzsche agreed …
Nancy goes on for several paragraphs, name-dropping and quote-mining all over the place, simulating the appearance of great erudition. We’ll skip most of that. Ah, then she tells us this:
At the birth of our nation, the American founders deemed it self-evident that human rights must be grounded in God. The Declaration of Independence leads off with those bright, blazing words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident — that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”
Lordy, lordy. Now she’s quote-mining Jefferson. But she gives us only the Declaration’s second sentence. Like so many other creationists, Nancy conveniently leaves out the one before it. You know, the one that says the American people were assuming “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” entitle them. Who or what is “Nature’s God”? Does it sound like Yahweh? No, it doesn’t, and that’s why creationist quote-miners always skip Jefferson’s first sentence. See also Is America a “Christian Nation”? Here’s more from Nancy:
Atheists often denounce the Bible as harsh and negative. But in reality it offers a much more positive view of the human person than any competing religion or worldview. It is so appealing that adherents of other worldviews keep freeloading the parts they like best.
Skipping a massive ark-load of similar material, which you can read for yourself, we come to the end of Nancy’s post:
What drives religious variants of evolution is a sense that there must be more to reality than the flat, one-dimensional vision offered by materialism. Evolutionists reach out for higher dimensions to answer the human longing for greater meaning to life. Those longings are one more expression of general revelation. They are signposts to the biblical God.
So there you are. Evolution is not only godless, it’s immoral. So it must be abandoned. Everything good and moral is religious, and even those evil evolutionists know that and freeload on religion.
Okay, what can we say about Nancy’s essay? First, it’s beyond question that the bible endorses slavery — starting with the Ten Commandments (“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”) Servant is “slave” in many translations. Pro-slavery passages are also in the New Testament. In Colossians 3:22 (and other places) it says: “Servants [i.e., slaves], obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.” And by the way, Darwin was an outspoken opponent of slavery, but Nancy ignores that.
Nancy also doesn’t mention the fact that the bible is — from beginning to end — a book about monarchy and theocracy, on Earth as it is in Heaven. Also, nowhere in the bible is there any mention of democracy. That’s why — despite the claims of theocrats and revisionists — the bible wasn’t a blueprint for the American Revolution. Nor was it a blueprint for the Constitution, which explains why the bible isn’t cited in the Federalist Papers, where Madison and Hamilton describe the Constitution clause by clause.
Oh, wait — we’ve figured out something else that’s disturbing about Nancy’s essay. Her quasi-intellectual romp has a startling omission — there’s no mention of the Enlightenment, nor do we see the names of any Enlightenment thinkers — the ones who inspired the Founding Fathers and the American Revolution. That’s not surprising. We’ve always known that the Discoveroids are Enemies of the Enlightenment.
Hey, Nancy: You’re a great Discoveroid. Welcome to The Controversy.
Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.