Evolutionary Biology Does Not Explain Morality

By on 3.19.14 | 3:43PM

David Brooks rightly holds that the evolutionary picture of human nature is inadequate:

[The] strictly evolutionary view of human nature sells humanity short. It leaves the impression that we are just slightly higher animals — thousands of years of evolutionary processes capped by a thin layer of rationality. It lops off entire regions of human possibility.

According to Brooks, evolutionary biologists have reduced human nature to two distinct systems, one “to procreate or strut or think in certain ways” and another focused on reason and consciousness. Although biology depicts this dual nature, Brooks recognizes that morality mostly consists of reason ordering our more animalistic impulses:

Deep down we are mammals with unconscious instincts and drives. Up top there’s a relatively recent layer of rationality. Yet in conversation when we say someone is deep, that they have a deep mind or a deep heart, we don’t mean that they are animalistic or impulsive. We mean the opposite.

Ken Ham, Bill Nye, and Defining Terms

By on 2.6.14 | 11:29AM

Creationist Ken Ham urged Bill Nye “to define terms correctly” in their recent debate over evolution. Here is Ham’s problem with the current terms:

[Evolutionists] use the same word science for observation and historical science. They arbitrarily define science as naturalism and outlaw the supernatural. They are imposing the religion of naturalism/atheism on generations of students.

Science, according to Ham, concerns itself with what is observable. “Historical sciences,” which are not presently observable, should be distinguished from the sciences that are. Not being present to witness species evolve and watch billions of years pass, a scientist cannot conclude, based on present data, that evolution occurred or that the earth is billions of years old.

“We’ve only got the present,” Ham asserts. But, following Ham’s rigid guidelines for science, do we even have that?