On the moral consequences of evolution

Every time a Christian claims that evolution has the disastrously fascistic ethical implications of eugenics and ethnic cleansing, they achieve nothing but to endorse and perpetuate the disastrous atheistic myth that science can, on its own, give us moral truths.

Science can do nothing of the sort, and that it can is a myth born out of a naturalistic worldview as it bends over backwards to try to explain morality in the universe.

From a mere scientific, historical description of the manners in which species, including humanity, came to be as they are, one cannot derive any notions of how the human species ought to be or behave. Any arguments to the contrary utilise not reason, but a poetic sophistry of wordplay, treating connotation as definition, and emotion as logic.

Evolution entails neither good nor bad moral consequences. To use such an argument against evolution, is like saving a sinking boat by throwing out the passengers. For we should be much less worried about evolution, than about scientism.

To be a philosophical skeptic is, in a man of letters, the first and most essential step towards being a sound, believing Christian.

David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part XII (closing statement)

Hume, I believe you’ve hit the nail right on the head.

Nothing is demonstrable unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being whose existence is demonstrable.

David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part IX.

I have to say, Hume, you are absolutely right.