From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Mon Sep 22 2003 - 09:29:28 EDT
George writes:
>
> & I would add on the theoretical side that a person who believes that
evolution
> has taken place & that humanity developed through evolution is by no means
obligated to
> get his or her ethics from the way evolution works (let alone perversions
of
> evolutionary theory). At most, this just shows the danger of natural law
arguments.
> The claim "You accept evolution so you must (in theory) approve of
genocide" is pure non
> sequitur.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
George,
Thanks for adding this point. When I was teaching the Science and Faith
course at Berea College and someone brought up the argument that if you
accept evolution you must accept an ethic that might makes right, the end
justifies the means, and you can do anything, including abuse others, even
murder, because that is what evolution "teaches." I would reply that there
are millions of persons who accept evolution, including Christians, who
reject such beliefs, do not practice such an ethic, and do not see any
connection between the scientific theory and an "anything goes" ethic.
Creationists recently like to bring up Jeffrey Daumer, the serial killer
who was convicted in Florida, as anecdotal evidence for their claim. They
say that Daumer made a confession in which he said that it was his belief in
evolution that drove him to commit his crimes. I have not looked into this
story to determine whether it has any factual basis for it, or to determine
what motivated Daumer to make such a claim, if in fact he did so. But I
have responded to this story by saying that I thought Daumer was crazy.
There are plenty of crazy people who commit brutal murders and claim that
God told them to do it. We don't believe them when they blame God, I told
my students; so why should we believe Daumer when he blames evolution?
Those of you familiar with the background to the Scopes Trial or who
have read Bryan's speechs connected with the trial know that in a famous
trial some years earlier, Clarence Darrow used the evolution defense to try
to sway a jury not to convict Leopold and Loeb of a cold blooded murder.
But Darrow's argument was a lawyer's argument, and not evidentiary; it
should not be taken seriously, and it is unfortunate that it has provided
fodder for the anti-evolutionists.
Bob Schneider
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 22 2003 - 09:33:34 EDT