[wideawake]

Thanks for posting this.

I have yet to hear a coherent argument from a "theistic evolutionist" as to why Dawkins' and Dennett's triumphant claims that Darwinism is a "universal acid" that dissolves faith in God and creates a truly fulfilled atheism are wrong.

[TeenagedConservative]

If there is no God, then why do we have this desire to leave something around for future generations?

If there is a God, why invoke evolution to explain origins?

[orionblamblam]

> In his recent book, Carson Holloway demonstrates the inability of neo-Darwinian theory to undergird the moral framework that is essential to a liberal democracy's survival.

How about the Theory of Relativity? The Laws of Thermodynamics? Quantum Theory? The Germ Theory of disease?

Attacking a scientific theory because it does not provide a "moral framework" is stupid and dishonest, and any conservative should be ashamed and apalled to be associated with such a ridiculous effort.

[Alter Kaker]

Seth Cooper is an attorney and former law and policy analyst for the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture.

A lawyer critiquing science...and creationists are surprised we don't take them seriously!

[Revolting cat!]

Interesting review. Key paragraph:

Observing that the Darwinian understanding of human nature holds that morality "emerged to promote success in the conflicts between groups that prevailed during the period that our nature evolved," Holloway concludes that Darwinism contravenes any universal moral standards rooted in human nature. Since the Darwinian account of humankind maintains that moral obligations arise through desires and feelings we've obtained via undirected evolution, there is no basis for preferring a mere feeling of common humanity over a desire to oppress others to achieve gain for one's self or for one's family. The lack of any clear recognition of universal moral standards renders problematic any international order respecting human rights. It also undermines the demands of justice in any large domestic order. There is always the prospect of tyranny by the majority, and a Darwinian account of morality leaves no reliable basis for the minority to assert their own rights.

Evolutionaries are on the ropes!

[ml1954]

Carson Holloway demonstrates the inability of neo-Darwinian theory to undergird the moral framework that is essential to a liberal democracy's survival.

Since when is a scientific theory's validity dependent on whether or not it undergirds morality? Was this test applied to Galileo's and Newton's and Einstein's (,.etc) theories back when they were introduced, or is this asserted requirement a recent thing?

My assumption is that it's recent, and that it's motivated by some people's religious objections to what they think the ToE implies about their religious beliefs.

This sounds like a lefty postmodern critical analysis deconstruction/reconstruction effort. Are all existing scientific theories now subject to a reexamination of their validity by the criterion of whether or not they undergird a particular religious version morality?

[jennyp]

Seth Cooper (& presumably the book he's reviewing) assumes that the only way there can be a secure basis for morality is if we're all marionettes. The only alternative they can think of is absolute moral chaos: nihilism.

But two facts explain the third option: We operate in a universe whose laws of nature are fixed (as far as we've ever been able to tell), and we have free will. This has enormous implications for what we need to do and avoid doing to create a life-affirming world instead of a life-destroying world.

Please don't fear the world of adulthood. We have to figure out how to live to ensure the long-term flourishing of ourselves & everyone else in this world who we value, instead of blindly following some uber-parent in the sky. And yet, our free will gives us the ability to do exactly that. We are up to the challenge. There's no need to pine for the artificial surety of childhood!

[jennyp]

To its credit, Darwinian conservatism tries to take seriously a natural, biological basis for differences between the sexes. By attributing inclinations and attributes of humanity to its basic biology, the Darwinian conservatism would eschew the post-modern proclivity to treat sex differences as the product of mere social construction. Yet, nothing in neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory renders human sex differences inevitable or permanent. Instead, sex differences only arose because they offered survival advantage, and entirely different human sexual dynamics may provide superior survival capabilities in the future. Darwinian conservatism is thereby unable to escape the relativism that it seeks to supplant.

That is a very poor argument, and is similar to what we see argued on these threads all the time. Sex differences (which are asserted to be more moral than no differences) are useful to humans, but if humans were different then the utility of sex differences would be different, therefore evolution must conclude that sex differences aren't "objectively" moral.

Hey, if things were different then things would be different. How the heck could anybody think that this is some kind of moral problem??? The mind boggles:

John Smith murders 4 innocent people, so he's hanged. But if John Smith hadn't murdered those people, then we wouldn't have hanged him. So therefore, our concept of crime & punishment is relative! We need an "objective" morality that would order us to hang John Smith even if he hadn't murdered anybody.

Do you begin to see, people, how utterly misguided is this quest for an arbitrary morality that's unconnected to its effect on people's actual lives here in the real world?