|
|
|
Standing on the brink of the twenty-first century, this noble experiment called the United States of America finds itself at a monumental crossroads. At stake is the very heart of our existence. The pending threat is not technological nor ecological but ideological, for we the people of the United States have the unenviable position of upholding a society whose very foundation we have systematically destroyed. The problem we face is that the laws of this land are rooted in such outdated notions as right and wrong, good and bad, and a belief that life is sacred. Though scholars may pretend otherwise, such noble principles categorically cease to exist in the dehumanizing wake of evolution. It is evolutionary principle, in fact, which threatens us most. All external marks of violence and corruption are mere outpourings of the ideological virus which lurks invisibly under the skin of our great nation.
The most foundational document in this country's establishment is built on the premise that "all men are created equal". While we still hold the Declaration's conclusion to be true (men are equal), we have almost completely rejected the mechanism (men are created). The creation clause has yet to be formally pulled from the Declaration of Independence, but it has certainly been excised from the curriculum of our culture. Though many will blithely maintain that omitting the doctrine can be accomplished without compromising the concept of equality, they are gravely mistaken. The fact remains, if the foundation goes, so goes the whole house. The question of origins, while ostensibly rooted in science, is actually the single most significant question in the realm of ethics. The question of how we got here has everything to do with the question of how we should live.
Noted evolutionist Steven Jay Gould made the almost unfathomable statement that "no factual discovery of science (statements about how nature 'is') can, in principle, lead us to ethical conclusions (how we 'ought' to behave) or to convictions about intrinsic meaning (the 'purpose' of our lives)." He goes on to maintain that ethical questions "lie firmly in the domains of religion, philosophy and humanistic study. Science and religion should be equal, mutually respecting partners, each the master of its own domain, and with each domain vital to human life in a different way" (Gould). Such reasoning is completely flawed, and is rooted in a blinding evolutionary bias which seeks to separate that which should never be separated. To imply that there is no crossover between the physical and the spiritual is to assume that science is the real, religion and philosophy the unreal, as if religion is a mere placebo designed to assuage the worries of the ignorant. We are mind and body, and truth must satisfy both realms. An irrational faith is a foolish faith, and yet this is exactly the type which Gould endorses. If science could really prove that there is no Creator, then placing faith in such a deity would be an utter absurdity.
Make no mistake about it, if evolution is true, if we are the product of pure accident, then there is no such thing as right and wrong. There is only nature and chance. Criminal law exists because of an understanding that there are certain actions which are wrong, not merely inconvenient or undesirable, but truly wrong. In this country we have laws against murder despite the fact that murder is an integral function of evolutionary progress. The only way for a superior species to emerge from the pack is for the more fit to eliminate the less fit. Beyond murder, there is no evolutionary basis for condemning any social evil whether it be rape, theft, assault, or even genocide.
|
