Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.
A Moral
Argument Against Darwinism
1.
If
Darwinism is an adequate account of the biosphere, then human beings have no
essential nature, since they evolved without design into their present forms.
2.
If
(1), then various races of humans may be more evolved (that is, more adaptively successful) than other races. Darwin
himself states this in The Descent of
Man.
3.
If
(2), 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.
4.
If
(3), then there is no philosophical basis for the claim that humans qua humans have objective and universal
human rights.
5.
But
(4) 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.”
6.
Further,
if (4) is true, then we have no objective basis to morally condemn the
enslavement or even eradication of the “less favored races” (Darwin ’s term).
7.
But
(4) is false, because of (5).
8.
Therefore
(6) is false because of (5)
9.
Therefore,
(1)—Darwinism—is false. This is 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, then q.
b.
Not-q.
c.
Therefore,
not-P.
Translated into Portuguese.
ReplyDeletehttp://pos-darwinista.blogspot.com.br/2013/04/um-caso-moral-contra-o-darwinismo.html