<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>First Things RSS Feed - Benjamin Wiker</title>
		<link>https://www.firstthings.com/author/benjamin-wiker</link>
		<atom:link href="https://www.firstthings.com/rss/author/benjamin-wiker" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<description></description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2025 First Things. All Rights Reserved.</copyright>
		<managingEditor>ft@firstthings.com (The Editors)</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>ft@firstthings.com (The Editors)</webMaster>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2025 16:51:39 -0500</pubDate>
		
		<ttl>60</ttl>

		<item>
			<title>Darwin and the Descent of Morality</title>
			<guid>https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/11/darwin-and-the-descent-of-morality</guid>
			<link>https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/11/darwin-and-the-descent-of-morality</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2001 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
			
			<description><![CDATA[<p> An important part of the current controversy over the theoretical status of evolutionary theory concerns its moral implications. Does evolutionary theory undermine traditional morality, or does it support it? Does it suggest that infanticide is natural (as Steven Pinker asserts) or is it a bulwark against liberal relativism (as Francis Fukuyama argues)? Does it rest on a universe devoid of good and evil (as Richard Dawkins has bluntly stated) or can it be used to provide a new foundation for natural law reasoning (as Larry Arnhart contends)?  
</p> <p><em><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/11/darwin-and-the-descent-of-morality">Continue Reading </a> &raquo;</em></p>]]></description>
		</item>
			</channel>
</rss>
