In my recent article, James Watson is Not a Racist; He’s a Darwinist! I commented on the recent statements of noted scientist and evolutionist, James Watson. You may recall that Watson suggested that black people were inherently less intelligent due to their stunted evolutionary development. As I pointed out, Watson was simply speaking in a way that revealed the ethical dilemma of Darwinism in which morality as we understand it has no place. True to form, the evolutionists were outraged.
One respondent wrote:
First, I did not say that Darwinian evolution is inconsistent with any ethical system; I wrote that is was inconsistent with Judeo-Christian ethics and morality. If it is to be logically consistent, Darwinism demands a completely new understanding of morality in which the preservation of the fittest becomes the highest moral good.
In Descent of Man, Darwin tried to demonstrate that all human traits—including moral behavior—are different in degree, but not in kind, from other organisms. Darwin argued that all human behavior [including morality] was a result of biological determinism and not human reason. This implies that we do not possess a rational moral nature but that all our actions are driven by the biologically-induced aim of survival. Logically speaking, this aim would be [and must be] opposed to self-sacrifice or altruism of any kind if such acts do not contribute to your prosperity and survival.
Another reader writes:
This is typical of the silly statements so often made by evolutionists. On the one hand this person assumes Darwinian or “macro” evolution to be fact. The only fact related to Darwin’s theory is the observation of “natural selection” or genetic adaptation occurring within species. This was Darwin’s unique contribution to evolutionary theory. Others prior to Darwin had developed evolutionary theories but none had ever identified a plausible mechanism by which such evolutionary changes could have occurred. Natural selection is an observable phenomenon but again, only within a species. The theoretical begins and remains to this day at the point when you assume this same process occurs between species.
Secondly, Darwin’s theory of evolution does indeed have a “goal”—providing an alternative to the biblical explanation of origins. Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus Darwin was a noted intellectual, physician and writer who, long before Charles, theorized an evolutionary alternative to biblical origins. The senior Darwin strongly opposed Christianity going so far as to include “Credulity, Superstitious Hope, and the Fear of Hell in his catalogue of diseases.”
Finally, this reader’s statement reveals the self-contradictory position of Darwinians who embrace Judeo-Christian morality. On the one hand he objects to my moral criticism that Darwinism is racist but on the other he writes, “There is no right and wrong or good and bad in science and nature.” Exactly! If nature is the ultimate and final reality, there is no universal right or wrong and each individual is at liberty to live in whatever way best serves their selfish interest of personal progress and survival. So by what authority can Darwinism condemn racism? This is just one of the areas where Darwinism conflicts with reality demonstrating its fallacy.
Darwinism proposes a completely alternative reality to that of the Judeo-Christian worldview. This is not just some collateral theory of life that fits nicely into the existing philosophical structure, i.e. the biblical worldview—it completely undermines this perspective and everything we understand about reality, replacing it with a radically different interpretation.
Concepts such as compassion, mercy, forgiveness, as well as the belief in human equality are virtues revealed exclusively through and established by a Christian interpretation of life and reality. These virtues are recognized as uniquely human and nowhere relevant to the animal world.
My favorite response is this one:
I love the righteous indignation. Not only is this position logically inconsistent but it is often the only defense offered by evolutionists; simply label the alternative as being unintelligent. This is certainly the premise of those who attack any discussion of Intelligent Design.
Make no mistake, Darwinism is not science, it is philosophy. It is dogma! This, I think, accounts for both its proponents’ vehement defense and aggressive reaction to any challenge.
There are some excellent resources available to help you analyze and understand the scientific limitations of Darwinism. Resources such as: The Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis.
© 2007 by S. Michael Craven
Comment on this article here
Subscribe to Michael's weekly commentary here
Subscribe to Michael's podcast here
S. Michael Craven is the President of the Center for Christ & Culture. The Center for Christ & Culture is dedicated to renewal and discipleship within the Church and works to equip Christians with an intelligent and thoroughly Christian approach to matters of culture in order to recapture and demonstrate the relevance of Christianity to all of life. For more information on the Center for Christ & Culture, additional resources and other works by S. Michael Craven visit: www.battlefortruth.org
Michael lives in the Dallas area with his wife Carol and their three children.
Have something to say about this article? Leave your comment via Facebook below!
Recently by Michael Craven
- Spending This Christmas or Spending It Well: Resisting ConsumerismMonday, December 02, 2013
- Giving Thanks to God: Losing a National TraditionTuesday, November 26, 2013
- Would You “Give Up Everything” for the Kingdom?Monday, November 18, 2013
- Christians in America: Out of Touch and Out of ReachMonday, August 26, 2013
- Moral Insanity: California's Transgender-Student BillMonday, August 19, 2013
Recently on Crosswalk Blogs
Add Crosswalk.com content to your siteBrowse available content