Re: Human evolution and religious beliefs.

Scott Sellers (
Sat, 30 Sep 1995 02:27:13 GMT wrote:

> I speak as a human upon this Earth of ours. If evolution, and its refine-
>ment, sociobiology (evolutionary sociology, call it what you like) is true, as
>I and most thinking people are convinced it is/they are... so what? These
>theories show that life, if lived according to truth, is meaningless and

I think I don't think much of creationism OR of sociobiology : )

> Yet we as humans are saddled with this thing called human nature.

Human nature? Which definition-- the creationist or the
sociobiologist? Is there a difference?

> We desire happiness. We like truth, but really, that is not our overriding
>priority. Happiness, which for the most part depends on a sense of meaning to
>life, is much more our goal. And why should it not be? if there is ultimately
>no real meaning or purpose to life. Except for the fact that it is not true,
>one could in effect say that the supreme achievement of conservative Christian-
>ity and other religions like it is that they recognize life's meaninglessness
>and man's need for meaning and then jump in and provide it (meaning/purpose.)

Hitler provided a ton of meaning : (

> So why do we, as modern intellectuals who understand evolution and its sig-
>nificance, try to destroy the worldview of conservative Christians?

The goals of conservative Christianity extend beyond the realm of
simply "providing meaning." Just ask Pat Buchanan how he feels about
homosexuals, abortion rights, etc.

> Really, I fear it's quite misplaced antagonism. Somewhat like when the
>confident older child unthinkingly destroys the younger child's belief in
>Santa Claus.

They're not children. They have guns : )

> Of course, if one believes we have discovered some other moral or otherwise-
>motivating truth, one could take issue with what I say. But as far as I am
>aware, today's data has not produced anything along those lines. People who
>claim it nonetheless are, it seems, merely our modern religionists. Not,
>perhaps, known under that appelation but religionists just the same.
> So that I may go a step further and say that the war against creationism
>or conservative Christianity in general, if waged with full understanding of
>the issues I have raised, is really a war between religionists; a holy war.
> A modern-day holy war! What a sight. Will wonders never cease.

You know, between the stark, amoral bulwark of sociobiology (as you
see it), and the other-worldly, authoritarian dogma of creationism,
lies a vast realm. It's called HUMANITY. I find it chalk full 'o

I think that motivation for a moral life exists within the common
experience of man. Simply put, morality works. In the first
instance, we only exist in cooperation, on both biological and social
levels. This isn't religion. Frankly, I don't need a supernatural
carrot and stick. I find them everyday, in real life, in human

I find it kind of amusing that you hold up sociobiology and the
conservative Christian movement as somehow mutually exclusive. In my
view, they are obvious bedfellows. The one finds humanity determined
in the Word of God, the other in the theories of Darwin. Both find
natural man nasty and brutish. Both inherently say that things are
(or have been) as they must be. And both dismiss the HUMAN basis of
moral and ethical systems.

By human, I mean based in THIS world, on common social, historical,
and, yes, biological experience. Ethics aren't something absolute and
owned by Pat Robertson (or GOD), but something constructed and
struggled for. Sure, this pales next to a lightening bolt from
heaven. And it's not very good for beating political opponents over
the head with. But, in my opinion, it's all we've got.

When conservative Christians claim to have a corner on morality, it
makes me gag. When they base their claim upon supernatural forces, it
makes me laugh. That being said, when they gain political power, it
makes me scared.

> your anti-war protester,
> fjk

Scott Sellers