The author seams to have overlooked some parts of the original article in his “review”
Like this for example:
“The question then becomes: What shapes moral emotions in the first place? The answer has long been evolution, but in recent years there’s an increasing appreciation that evolution isn’t just about competition. It’s also about cooperation within groups. Like bees, humans have long lived or died based on their ability to divide labor, help each other and stand together in the face of common threats. Many of our moral emotions and intuitions reflect that history. We don’t just care about our individual rights, or even the rights of other individuals. We also care about loyalty, respect, traditions, religions. We are all the descendents of successful cooperators.”
The author failed to mention that article states, “ in recent years there’s an increasing appreciation that evolution isn’t just about competition. It’s also about cooperation within groups.”
That statement nullifies the rest of the arguments the author brings up.
Here is a link to the full article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07Brooks.html?_r=1
The rest of his review is full of out of context quotes, and incorrect assumptions regarding evolution.
The fact is that the author of article you cite makes a claim without any evidence to show how ‘moral ethics’ can evovle- He does nothign to show that the universal moral code isn’t still inplace despite cultural subjective itnerpretations of hte objective code- so no- the IRC article is not ‘nullified’- not by a logn shot
==The author failed to mention that article states, “ in recent years there’s an increasing appreciation that evolution isn’t just about competition. It’s also about cooperation within groups.”
You obviously didn’t even bother to read the article. The author mentions it in the third paragraph:
‘So the question naturally arises, “What shapes our moral emotions in the first place?” And with this question Brooks, ironically, in this particular week, knows not what he does. He gives the standard Darwinian answer that evolution shapes our moral faculties; and Brooks, like most Darwinists, seems to think that this is no detriment to objective morality since Darwinians now think that evolution is not just full of ruthless competition but also “cooperation within groups.’
And then he proceeds to destroy the illogic of the Evo you seem intent on defending in the remainder of the article. Tell me IL, do you think God intends man to live according to fixed moral laws of right and wrong, or do you think God evolves them over time?