I seem to think that all sciences, specifically empirical sciences have a problem with philosophy. If all people were ‘highly evolved apes,’ then why exactly fight against this notion that the human race is more than what scientists posit? I could easily suggest to NY Times Columnist, Richard Polt, who generously posted this article that we are more than apes because we were made in God’s image (Genesis 1); however, I think his problem begins on where to start. While I began glossing into the article from Why Evolution is True, I began to notice a few errors of thought.
The first come from the comment from blogger ‘darrell’:
“Exactly my first thought. He is ignorant about the sciences, especially current scientific knowledge. He has no real idea what he is arguing against, but he knows he doesn’t like it because he finds it undignified. And he thinks he can derive serious arguments against it starting from prescientific classical philosophical concepts and rationalizing his way to a more dignified answer.” [Emphasis mine]
Ignorant about the sciences? How about ignorant about the sheer fact that science is a slave to philosophy or the fact that in order to interpret the evidences that people really need to have some kind of a priori assumptions? This problem of reductionism is the chief result from assuming the evidence supports a type of naturalistic worldview i.e., all there is to life out there in this world is nature and that’s it. If you are going to consider the scientific findings specifically, an open fossil record, you will need to recognize two different things. (1) Fossils don’t do all the talking, it’s the scientists that do. Interpretation of the fossil record (if assumed with a naturalistic worldview) can support evolution in any way imaginable; however, the evidences can immediately change the same instant someone with an entirely different (creationist) worldview comes onto the scene.
While I do agree with the author that reductionism is the chief result of evolutionary evidences, I also tend to think the problems for believing this sort of theory (or hypothesis in my opinion) can be easily pointed out in the article itself.
“Well, almost no biologist thinks that learning how morality evolved, or develops as a cultural phenomenon, tells us what is the right thing to do. I do think that the rudiments of human morality come from our ancestors, for our relatives show some strikingly moral-like behaviors, but clearly morality has a strong cultural overlay, and what is hard-wired can be overridden by social norms. If that weren’t the case, what is considered moral wouldn’t change so quickly.”
Again, morality is not something that necessarily comes from ancestry; for even the ancestors need to know where they came from. Sadly, I think the problem with a changing world is the rejection of an absolute source i.e., a transcendent moral compass. If there really is this idea of highly evolved apes having a ‘code’ or ‘source’ of morality (oh say, the human conscience) that cannot be overridden by culture, then I think that points to a bigger idea: that God really does exist.
Take a look at what Hitler did. He lied, betrayed, and killed millions of innocent people. In the name of what?
Science, just pure science.
Margaret Sanger is another individual who thought the same way along with every other eugenicist who preached the idea of having the perfect race. In the unfortunate world of evolution, there even with the scientific explanation that points out how or why Hitler committed his atrocities, I can assure you evolution has no basis to condemn the German Dictator for murdering people (or even calling this holocaust a form of murder).