« A Pro-Science Article with a Purpose
Main
Where is the Content? »
August 27, 2005
Relativism: for Creationists, Sometimes it's Good and Sometimes it's Bad
The Baptist Press carried an article, "Evolution & Christianity 'incompatible,' Mohler says in NPR forum" in its August 24th online edition. Here is the heart of Mohler's thesis:
Moreover, evolutionary theory stands at the base of moral relativism and the rejection of traditional morality. If human beings are not made in the image of God, and if the entire cosmos is nothing more than a freakish accident, morality is nothing but a mirage, and human beings -- cosmic accidents that we are -- are free to negotiate whatever moral arrangement seems best to us at any given time. Human life has no inherent dignity, morality has no objective basis, and we are alone in the universe to eat, drink and be merry before our bones join the fossil record and we pass from existence.
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. made these remarks for the August 8th edition of NPR's "Taking Issue" forum. Mohler is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Mohler's claim is false on at least three classes of the evidence. First, there is the idiosyncratic evidence. I find modern evolutionary theory to be by far the most compelling account of the diversity of life including human life and I am far from a moral relativist. If I am correct about my own views then they are sufficient to discredit Mohler's. But I may be delusional or lying. In which case there is a second and much stronger class of evidence to draw upon. Christian biologists, in overwhelming numbers, accept evolution. It appears that they maintain their Christian beliefs and moral anchors without sacrificing their scientific integrity. His remarks about moral relativism and evolution are part of Mohler's larger thesis that Christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive. I cite the following list of Christian and theistic scholars from an Ed Brayton post on The Panda's Thumb:
Howard Van Till, Ken Miller, Glenn Morton, Charles Austerberry, Keith Miller, Davis Young, Wes Elsberry, Rob Pennock, Wes Elsberry, Josephine Borgeson, Phil Spieth
The above list is a very small sample that, if complete, would contain many thousands of names of Christian biologists and millions of names of non-professional Christians, including the previous Pope and perhaps the current one, who also find the scientific account acceptable within the context of Christianity.
And then there is the third set of evidence: the millions of people throughout the world who are not Christians and are also not moral relativists (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus to name the major groups and, yes even, atheists, agnostics, and deists). Among these groups, the vast majority are not moral relativists in any sense of the word.
If a great many Christians can accept science and a great many non-Christians are not moral relativists then, I must conclude that Mohler's position is false.
Now some may think that Mohler's claim for Christianity is a little stronger than I have portrayed it. For example, he may believe that it is because Christianity is alive in the world relativism is not pervasive. The argument against this view is that in places where Christianity was previously unknown relativism was not the norm. As far as there is evidence of the moral beliefs of pre-Christian peoples, and there is a lot of it, relativism is not a significant part of any of those moral systems or traditions. Giving the evidence of this would require a more lengthy post than anyone who has gotten this far would want to read.
I thought Mohler's claim of moral relativism particularly laughable in the light of William Dembski's recent protest about my critique of a New York Times article on Intelligent Design creationism. Dembski, favorably paraphrased Rorty as saying,
Truth is what you can get away with
What is so funny about all this is that back on September 16th of 2004 Mohler announced that Dembski would be heading up the Center for Science and Theology at Mohler's seminary. You can also read about it on the Baptist Press website. And he is still on their faculty listed as Professor of Science and Theology.
So, on the one hand, Mohler condemns evolutionary theory out of fear that it will result in moral relativism, while on the other hand, his Professor of Science and Theology is clinging to "Truth is what you can get away with" in support of both his science and his theology.
On a related subject, PZ Myers, Arthur Silber and Gary Farber all comment on an article in the Los Angeles Times on how those giant roadside dinosaur attractions and other such "toys" are being exploited by young earth creationists. The three of them cover the bases on this issue.
Posted by Duane Smith at August 27, 2005 3:08 PM | Read more on Religion |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1330
Comments
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.