November 27, 2016 | David F. Coppedge

Why You Can't Evolve Reason and Morality

Materialists and Darwinians never seem to get it; you can’t get here from there. Here’s another failed attempt.

In an article on Phys.org, Brian Flood describes how atheists get reason and morality. In “Reliance on reason, evidence as a moral issue measured in study,” he begins with a common assumption: evolutionists are rational, deriving their beliefs on the basis of evidence.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is one of several examples of societal disputes that center on the validity of specific beliefs, where one position is backed up by logical reasoning and scientific evidence, and the other is not.

So which is which? Are evolutionists the ones who use logical reasoning and scientific evidence? You know where this is going. Brian Flood talks about a study coming out of academia, where certain psychologists afflicted with the Yoda Complex try to analyze how lower life forms (i.e., their fellow hominids outside the ivory tower) justify their beliefs. In particular, they “study” how those hominids “moralize rationality.” Funny, they never define those terms. Presumably, they merely assume they are the moral, rational ones.

Guess who gets the winning nod? The secularists, of course. (“Secular” here can be seen as a euphemism for atheist or Darwinist, since they previously referred to natural selection.)

While morality is commonly linked to religiosity and a belief in God, the current research identifies a secular moral value and how it may affect individuals’ interpersonal relations and societal engagement.

As an example, one study showed that individuals who strongly moralized rationality were uniquely willing to donate to, and volunteer for, a charity that sought to prevent the spread of pseudoscience and superstition in society.

My, who could those muddle-headed hominids be, promoting pseudoscience and superstition? The framing of the question gives it away. It’s those with “religiosity and a belief in God.” Send in the righteous secularists to the rescue!

The ending comments in the article are not-so-subtle jabs against conservatives in the recent American presidential election. As reported earlier, politics, ethics and scientific philosophy are all tied together in a worldview package (11/17/16).

Regular readers are already formulating sound responses, but let’s clarify one thing at the outset: people should avoid pseudoscience. We agree with efforts to prevent the spread of superstition. In fact, that’s the very reason we are going to refute this article. Secular morality based on natural selection is a superstition. It is pseudoscience. To be charitable, we must oppose its spread.

These evolutionary psychologists are blind to their own self-refuting worldview. The only way they can speak at all is to steal the goods from Christians: morality, logic, and reason. You can’t evolve those out of particles in motion, where Stuff Happens mindlessly without purpose or meaning. If reason and morality are stuff that just happened by unguided processes of physics and chemistry, they are neither reasonable nor moral. Reason and morality must link up to eternal principles. If either evolves, it implodes (e.g., what is reasonable or moral today could be the opposite next year).

As thieves, plagiarists and pseudoscientists, these Yoda-impersonating psychologists must be opposed. It’s for their own good and the good of society. It’s the most charitable thing you can do. It doesn’t take a sword or a bullet. All you have to do is take their masks off and hold up a mirror. They already know better. They are created in the image of God, but they’ve been lying to themselves all this time. Here’s a video that shows one Christian evangelist’s way of exposing atheists to the truth. Your method may differ, but the fact remains: human beings are not really atheists. They know in their heart of hearts that there is a God.

 

Comments

  • rockyway says:

    I guess you can only laugh when a writer champions logic and then engages in logically fallacious reasoning. It’s logical to be an evolutionist if you’re a materialist… but it is also logical to be a creationist if you’re a theist. This isn’t a matter of one person being logical and another person being illogical, but a difference in basic assumptions. Both sides in the c/e debate formulate arguments supported by a variety of data accumulated from the sciences.

    – A major problem in this debate is the lack of knowledge by Darwinists concerning ID and the creationist critique. We all know ardent Darwinists who have literally never read a single book by a creationist or ID proponent… but nevertheless speak with an authoritative tone.

Leave a Reply