I am convinced we can draw a direct line from acceptance of
evolution to much of our current moral, social, and political upheaval. Am I mad as a hatter? You be the judge.
What is evolution?
Probably better to say what it is not,
It is non-personal, non-logical, non-rational, and non-conscious. Evolution is not an entity with a mind. Evolution does not think. Evolution cannot be located. We cannot communicate with evolution nor can
it communicate with us. It is nothing
more than a word that scientists use to describe a process – much like the word
hurricane describes a meteorological process.
Evolution has no consciousness because it isn’t a real
entity. Evolution doesn’t make any
decisions, doesn’t promote one species over another, doesn’t demand anything of
any species and doesn’t react in any way.
Evolution is just like a hurricane – it simply is. Some scientists have taken to describing
evolution as designing animals in various ways.
This is a logical absurdity. How
can a non-conscious, non-thinking, non-rational, non-entity design
something? Except for human beings, no
other species on the planet designs anything.
Yes, I know, chimpanzees will use a stick once in a while to get some ants
or honey – this hardly compares to designing the immeasurably complex systems humans have configured such
as computers, cars, skyscrapers, and rocket ships. Despite
our technological genius, the DNA of even the most simple species of animal on
this planet contains significantly more complex information than even very
sophisticated machines. How then can we
believe in this non-thinking, non-conscious, non-logical, non-rational “force”
we call evolution and accept it somehow caused us to become what we are? It defies logic and rationality.
If evolution is an accurate depiction of how we got here,
then any claim objective morals exist is utter nonsense. Our existence arose from mere chance and
chaos. Certain chemicals got mixed in
just the right proportions with certain environmental factors and eventually,
as various animals continued to breed, human beings arose. Evolution teaches we are nothing more than
animals – distinctly intelligent and immeasurably complex, to be sure – but
mere animals nonetheless. As a result,
morals must mean only what we say they mean, when we say they mean
something. Chimps, dogs, mice, crickets,
and bacteria are equally as moral, amoral, or immoral as we are, depending on
our definition. This opens us up to
proclaiming different morals for different people. As a result, one group has one set of morals,
one has another. Maybe their morals
meet, maybe not.
But who cares, right?
I mean we all have our own moral compass and we have to follow our
hearts, right? Everyone can decide for themselves what is right and wrong for
him or her personally, right? Utter
drivel. You and I both know that doesn’t
work.
Let’s put this in more stark terms. Every year thousands upon thousands of wildebeest
make a lengthy trek across the Serengeti in Africa. Along the way, they must cross rivers full of
crocodiles. Not shockingly, the
crocodiles have no compunction about chomping on as many wildebeest as
possible. Do crocodiles feel
nothing? Uh, yeah, they feel hungry. The moral exigency in this instance is
survival – wildebeest want to get across the river alive and crocodiles want to
eat. Something’s gotta give. We tend not to view this problem as a moral
matter, though; rather, we tend to view this as simply part of the “animal
kingdom.” But why? When Bernie Sanders proclaims that it is somehow wrong for
so few to have so much, is he not suggesting some moral principle is at
work? But how? If evolution is true, then we should take the
position that crocodiles eat and wildebeest bleat (cheap rhyme, I know) and that’s just the way it
is. And make no mistake, Bernie Sanders
is a secular humanist par excellence, so he believes in evolution absolutely.
Nonetheless, Bernie’s view is correct in a certain way. If evolution is true, then he gets to believe
anything he wants, if he’s a crocodile. He gets to chomp all day on wildebeest if he has power to do so. He can then force those silly wildebeest to
believe anything he wants them to believe.
Moreover, he gets to say that what he believes is morally superior to
other beliefs. It cannot be objectively true, though, because we
can’t count on a non-thinking, non-conscious, non-logical, non-rational non-entity
to provide us with any sort of objective moral understanding. Morals, it turns out, are completely
subjective.
So, if evolution is true, morals simply mean whatever those
who have power to dictate morals say those morals are.
Sex with anyone you want, believing you are something you
are not, is perfectly acceptable in an evolutionary system.
Killing unborn babies for the sake of convenience is
perfectly acceptable in an evolutionary system.
Lying to Congress, lying to the FBI in order to obtain more
power is perfectly acceptable in an evolutionary system.
Claiming to have notorious sexual escapades with other men’s
wives, building an empire by helping others gamble away theirs is perfectly
acceptable in an evolutionary system.
Shouldn’t we all be cheering? Shouldn’t we all be proclaiming that we have
a front row seat to see evolution at work?
Shouldn’t we all be lambasting any idiot who suggests evolution is
false? I mean, look at the incredible
results. It’s what we all want,
right? Right?
As John Wayne often said in his movies, not hardly.
The ultimate irony in all this is that everyone, from Fox
News “Christian” commentator Todd Starnes to Black Lives Matters, really wants
the same thing: a moral answer to life’s questions. Evolution offers only a subjective, ends
justifies the means, whoever has the power to enforce their view kind of
morality. It’s not what anyone truly
wants – we all want a morality that
tells all of us how to behave and to
which we are all beholden.
Crocodiles eat while wildebeest bleat isn’t it. Next post, I’ll offer an alternative.
