According to the article, Pearcey believes ID vs. evolution should be viewed as philosophy vs. philosophy, rather than religion against science.

Wrong. Evolution is science, and ID is religiously based (as I noted in my Wednesday column) so science vs. religion pretty much sums it up.

Then come the usual arguments that if behavior is based on evolution, immoral acts are not immoral they’re hardwired into us, and with “true Darwinism there can be no room for free will, love or human dignity.” (this is phrasing from the article and may not be a direct quote from Pearcey).

Tommy rot. In the first place, while there are evolutionary theories for much of human behavior, many of them are also hotly contested. Pearcey mentions, for instance, the idea men rape because it’s an efficient way to spread their genes, but that’s always struck me as a feeble argument since it ignores the many nonreproductive rapes: Anal, oral, rape with blunt instruments, homosexual rape, rape of children, rape of post-menopausal women, spousal rape, rape-murder. That’s not much of a reproductive strategy (it does serve conservatives who want to imagine that rape is caused by women dressing too sexy, going out to bars and generally stimulating the male’s uncontrollable lust, but that’s a topic for another day).

And even if we were biologically programmed for rape, that wouldn’t mean the impulse was uncontrollable. It is controllable: That’s why rapists wait until their victim is alone. That’s why most men don’t rape at all. We have a choice about rape, just as we have a choice about where we urinate and whether we steal food when we’re hungry, and if we can choose, we can make moral choices. There is nothing about evolution that negates free will or morality.

And if we’re going to go with a “by their fruits you will know them” argument — evolution has to be wrong because the implications are unpleasant — I could just as easily argue that Christianity has to be wrong because it condemns virtuous non-Christians to eternal damnation. Or because it has led to Christians committing discrimination, pogroms, holy wars, genocide and other abominations, and has had more blood on its hands than any other belief system. I wouldn’t make that argument — the truth of Jesus’ words doesn’t depend on whether his followers actually paid attention to “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek” — but it’s certainly comparable with Pearcey’s line of reasoning.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.