top of page

A Moral Argument Against Darwinism

1. If Darwinism is an adequate account of the biosphere, then human beings have no essential nature, since they physically evolved without design into their present forms.


1a. Therefore, humans have no essential nature.


2. If (1a), then various races of humans are more adaptively fit than are other races. Darwin himself states this in The Descent of Man.


2a. Therefore, various races of humans are more adaptively fit than other races.


3. If (2a), there is nothing intrinsically valuable about the human race as a whole. That is, some races may prevail upon other races given their selective advantages due to their unique evolutionary path.


3a. Therefore, some races may prevail upon other races given their selective advantages due to their unique evolutionary path


4. If (3a), then there is no philosophical basis for the claim that humans qua humans have objective and universal human rights.


4a. Therefore, there is no philosophical basis for the claim that humans qua humans have objective and universal human rights.


5. But (4a) is false. Our moral intuitions and the history of Western law treat every human being, irrespective of race, as possessing intrinsic human dignity and must be treated as such. The United Nation’s statement on human rights affirms this, for example, as does The United States Declaration of Independence: “All men are created equal.”


5a. Therefore, humans do possess a nature and have human rights qua humans.


6. Further, if (4a) is true, then we have no objective basis to morally condemn the enslavement or even eradication of the “less favored races” (Darwin’s term).


6a. then we have no objective basis to morally condemn the enslavement or even eradication of the “less favored races” (Darwin’s term).


7. But (4a) is false, because of (5a).


8. Therefore (6a) is false because of (5a).



9. Therefore, (1)—Darwinism—is false. This is reasoned by modus tollens, which in this case is a reductio ad absurdum (reduce the claim to absurdity).


Note: modus tollens (or denying the consequent):


a. If p (Darwinism, then q (no unique value to humans).

b. Not-q (humans do have unique value).

c. Therefore, not-p (Darwinism is false).

465 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page