Darwinist Reporter Calls Everyone a Hypocrite
In a surprising show of journalistic hubris, reporter Robin Nixon of Live Science accused every human being in the world of being a moral hypocrite.
“Why We’re All Moral Hypocrites” reported results of a study by Piercarlo Valdesolo at Northeastern University that indicated people tend to judge themselves more leniently than others.
The article discussed moral instincts, moral behaviors and moral decisions, and even said “we are instinctively moral beings.” Yet all this morality was ascribed to the amoral processes of evolution: “The researchers speculate that instinctive morality results from evolutionary selection for team players. Being fair, they point out, strengthens mutually beneficial relationships and improves our chances for survival.”
Speak for yourself, Robin. This reporter for one of the most egregious of the dogmatic-Darwin news sites has illustrated profoundly illogical and unscientific behavior. She has just besmirched the character of all gentle grandmothers praying for wayward children, all men of God in the pulpit, all self-sacrificing parents, all missionaries, all doctors serving poor people in third-world countries, and all honorable people everywhere by calling them moral hypocrites. Is a guilty conscience here finding comfort in numbers?
Worse, she speaks nonsense by speaking of morality as a product of evolution. If “morality” is only about self-survival, and if it bears no reference to absolute standards of right and wrong, it is a meaningless word. Not even survival can be called morally beneficial; death and extinction are equally as meaningless as survival in Darwin’s universe. Who is to judge that survival is a good thing? Who is there to pat the chimps on the back when they act like team players and survive better?
“Evolutionary morality” is an oxymoron. The fact that this reporter innately knows right from wrong and makes moral judgments herself refutes her claim that morals evolved. At least she admitted that the researchers had nothing to back up that claim other than speculation.
Only the Biblical world view can defend the assertion that we are moral beings, because it teaches moral absolutes rooted in the character of God who created all things. And only the Biblical worldview can judge humans as hypocritical. This hypocrisy, the result of sin, is curable through Jesus Christ.
Even thoughtful non-Christians should look at this article as profoundly irrational. Can a contrived lab test on 85 individuals be generalized to all of humanity, of all cultures and all times? What kind of scientific reasoning is that? Robin should have been laughing at this study, not praising it. In our culture, any stupid thing that a so-called scientist publishes in some journal somewhere garners more presumptive authority than something that a righteous man in the pulpit has to say from the word of God. Hypocrisy is not limited to the occasional preacher who strays from the moral standard. It applies also to those who speak vain words of morality while denying its foundation. By indicting all humanity, this reporter indicts herself. Her readers are therefore justifiably entitled to ignore anything she says, including the assertion that morality evolved. How can we trust her word? She’s a hypocrite, too – unless she claims Yoda privileges, which make her an exalted master looking in on the predicament of mankind from the outside. But then, how could we know such a claim is not hypocritical?
Evolutionary theory offers no hope for hypocrisy, because whatever moral instincts we have could only be part of a pointless, meaningless, inborn nature; why fight it? The Bible offers forgiveness for hypocrisy (Romans 10) and a moral standard to which we can and should aspire, enabled by God’s Holy Spirit (Romans 12).