Evolution isn't a dispute over the greatest point guard, or Haggar v. Roth (v. Cherone?), it's a dispute over the fossil record. Which is to say, a dispute over the indisputable.
From the op-ed
Sure, Lewis said, evolution could have rendered humans capable of nice
behavior; we have affiliative impulses — a herding instinct, as he put
it — like other animals. But, he added, evolution couldn’t explain why
humans would judge nice behavior “good” and mean behavior “bad” — why
we intuitively apprehend “the moral law” and feel guilty when we’ve
broken it.
Hilarious.
We apprehend and apply moral law out of convenience. We stopped arbitrarily hacking each others heads off not because we felt guilty about it, but because arbitrarily hacking people's heads off isn't a sound way to run a municipality.
We live in a nation of laws because it protects property and equity, not because we have some deep moral guidance preventing us from doing so.
Or at least that's what stops me from doing it.
Comments