I monitor blogs and stories that involve human exceptionalism. Recently, I noticed a recent upswing in Darwinists railing against the idea that human beings have unique moral value. In essence, they say, we are just animals: Get used to it.
That theme is found in review of a motion picture biography of Charles Darwin that appeared in the Guardian. From the review:
You can see why creationist cinemagoers might start feeling a little smug. On the Origin of Species didn’t dispose of religion. Through whatever process life took shape, there’s still as much or as little reason to believe in a Prime Mover. What evolution certainly does, however, is to wipe out human exceptionalism. No longer are we alone created in God’s image. We must take our place amid the beasts we have disdained, and accept the part played in our behaviour by brute instinct.
What to say? First, human exceptionalism does not require a belief in God and is perfectly compatible with neo Darwinism. (Why are so many neo Darwinists so obsessed with religion, anyway?) Second, one of the aspects that sets us apart from the fauna is that we, alone among species (unless taught otherwise by us), are able to–and do–overcome “brute instinct.” Indeed, while we have not totally escaped nature, we have certainly stepped well outside of its control. Not only that, but radical environmentalists accuse us of abusing it!
We have gone into the many and varied reasons why human beings are the exceptional species many times before at SHS (for example, here), so I won’t belabor the point now. But if neo Darwinsist want to foolishly defend the low hill of human unexceptionalism, they are certainly free to do so. In fact, I think my pals at the Discovery Institute would like that very much.
September 28th, 2009 | 10:45 pm
Human un-exceptionalism is one of the tenets of the Darwinian religion, and woe betide anyone that casts a jaundiced eye towards it. (And when I say “religion”, I mean it: Darwinists, by and large, act more aggrieved about ‘affronts’ to their faith than most of the religious I know, likely because they aren’t used to being questioned and mocked which, I wager, is a side-effect of the ham-fisted efforts of the New Atheists and the screams of blasphemy that erupt every time someone points out something as innocuous as human exceptionalism.)
September 29th, 2009 | 1:02 am
Hey Wesley, I can’t prove any of what I’m about to say unless someone wanted to walk in my shoes and I wouldn’t recommend “IT”
Anyway let’s just go on faith and say or pretend that Our Heavenly Father really did cast our First Parents out of Paradise and left the animals there. Now don’t blame them for thinking that they are now in-charge and some have brain washed Darwin that they really are “IT” and because there is no more humans left in our lost paradise, “IT” is causing a repercussion of Darwinism in our time.
I hear ya Wesley! And if people on earth don’t believe you Victor, they simply need to ask your cat. :) Peace
September 29th, 2009 | 8:36 am
Now that you’ve rejected one of the underlying principles of biology are you also going to start promoting geocentrism, the flat earth and the six-day creation?
September 29th, 2009 | 9:30 am
I agree that there is no inherent conflict between Darwinism, neo or otherwise, and theism. The idea of God goes much farther than Darwin’s ideas. Evolution is just part of the Big Guy’s methodology.
More broadly I don’t see an inherent conflict between science and religion, and most times I see it come up it’s pretty clear somebody is deliberately creating conflict for profit or self-aggrandizement. I see it more often from the biblical literalists, but I have seen it on occasion from the scientific side, and I find it disappointing.
September 29th, 2009 | 9:57 am
I didn’t reject anything History Writer, except the rejection of human exceptionalism. Darwinists are the ones rejecting the unique worth of human beings. It’s stupid of them to do so.
September 29th, 2009 | 11:15 am
It’s entirely possible to be an atheist and still support human exceptionalism on other grounds, and to see human beings as moral creatures with duties and obligations. George Orwell falls into this category, for example.
September 29th, 2009 | 3:52 pm
Wesley,
I agree with you about human exceptionalism, but I don’t see how it is obvious that humans are exceptional apart from a robust religious perspective like the Judeo-Christian doctrine of the imago dei: that humans are created in the image of God.
Now, if all you mean by human exceptionalism is that humans are different and (dare I say) superior to other animals in terms of our abilities, I agree that this is obvious, and should be obvious to all (including Darwinists and atheists). But I don’t think an atheist who disparages the idea of human exceptionalism would disagree with the observation that human abilities exceed that of any other animal. What they are objecting to is the idea that our unique abilities give us instrinsic moral value, or at least more value than everything else. I see their point. How does one get moral value out of the mere possession of certain capacities and abilities? We can assign moral value to these abilities, but it would merely be a subjective claim. Indeed, if moral value comes from abilities, then wouldn’t those humans with greater abilities have greater moral value? I just don’t see any reason to think humans have intrinsic, objective, and equal moral value unless we are made in the image of God.
September 29th, 2009 | 3:52 pm
Hey, look at that: History Writer thinks human unexceptionalism is one of the basic principles of biology! I think that answers your question, Wesley: neo-Darwinists _define_ their theory as including human unexceptionalism. Like it or lump it, from their perspective. To them, neo-Darwinism is a kind of explain-it-all biological TOE (theory of everything). Everything we are is explicable in terms of mutation plus natural selection. Say otherwise and be damned as unscientific. It’s the old story: You’re increasingly ending up with allies you never expected to be lumped with, because the left won’t allow you to be part of their club unless you embrace their all-encompassing worldview.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact