Replies

We need not fear that with evolution, or without a god, there is no basis for ethics. There is an objective basis for ethics, but it does not reside in the heavens. It arises from our own human nature and its objective requirements.

Nothing but moral relativism disguised.

Creationists and advocates of intelligent design come to their beliefs in part through honest errors and in part from evasions of facts and close-minded dogmatism. But we should appreciate that one of their motivations might be a proper rejection of value-relativism, and a mistaken belief that acceptance of divine revelation is the only moral alternative.

There are several alternatives, about 6 billion or so. So which moral alternative should we pick? Attila the Hun had his own moral alternative. So do the muslims in Pakistan who do honor killings. How, then, do we pick the right one?

If we can demonstrate to them that the basis for ethics lies in our nature as rational, volitional creatures, then perhaps we can also reassure them that men can indeed have morality—yet never fear to use that wondrous capacity which allows us to understand our own origins, the world around us, and the moral nature within us.

We haven't seen this level of naivete since the Enlightenment period (Hume, Berkelely, Locke). In fact, that was the true beginning of the moral relativism we see here now, as well as political correctness and multiculturism, i.e. liberalism.

C.S. Lewis warned us about the reductionism we would get in the PostModern world trying to use science/evolution to solve all of mankind's problems. The man was truly a prophet.