Re: Signs of Scientism

Merv wrote:

> So how do you respond to the charge that evolutionary wisdom (seems?)
> (is?) so contrary to the notion of Christian charity? Nature targets
> the weak, decrepit, and crippled with a cruel and indifferent eye,
> and yet we are called to be part of an "upside-down" kingdom where
such
> disadvantaged as these are the especially valued brothers and sisters
> -- the "least of these, my brethren".

The answer is that you cannot derive moral principles or ethics from the
natural world. Features of the natural world can be used to legitimize
virtually any ethic. You can use natural metaphors to validate
ruthless competition, and you can with equal ease use it to support
altruism, cooperation and self sacrifice for the common good. I
disagree with all attempts to derive an evolutionary ethic. Ethics can
only be read into nature, they cannot be read out.

Nature is not where we go to learn moral truth -- it is to God's
revelation in the person of Jesus. Furthermore, God in Jesus
identified with the weak, the losers. George Murphy has spoken of this
often in connection with the theology of the cross.

Keith
Received on Tue Jan 24 13:14:32 2006