Sunday, October 10, 2004

Dawkins, Darwin and Double Standards

An interesting article from First Things on the latest book by Richard Dawkins that points up his lack of consistency in the beliefs he derives from Darwinism.

But haven’t we forgotten something? Dawkins has already told us that he is passionately anti-Darwinian when it comes to how we should conduct our human affairs. Indeed. But why should that be? Do we detect here an unthinking speciesist double standard? Why should bovine affairs be conducted on a Darwinian basis, and not human affairs? Cows do not seek to minimize our suffering; why should we seek to minimize theirs? Is it because we alone have the “blessed gift of understanding”? We do, but so what? What is there to understand when it comes to morality? Are there objective moral standards existing somewhere, out there, for our understanding to latch on to? Not on Dawkins’ premises. Indeed, he explicitly admits that “science has no methods for deciding what is ethical.”

It's an interesting article that shows that despite efforts to the contrary, Darwinists throw the baby out with the bathwater. If Darwin means one can get rid of God, then morals and ethics have to go too.