“A Moral Argument Against Darwinism”
There’s evidence FOR evolution.
It would be dishonest NOT to accept the science.
Any other moral connotation is a strawman attack on the science.
“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.”
You think that evolution is godless. That’s not true, thus #1 is a nonstarter. We accept that evolution happened. We cannot say whether or not it happened as part of any god’s plan.
“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.”
#1 is not true, and #2 is a fucking lie. Humans are all the same species, so ‘more evolved’ is an oxymoron.
“3. If (2), there is nothing intrinsically valuable about the human race as a whole.”
NOt true.
I mean, besides 2 not being true, and 1 not being true, either.
We’re social animals and value our own gene pool. That’s what ‘social’ means. YOU are trying to say that without a god, there’s no EXTERNAL value applied to humans. Meh.
“4. If (3),”
Just a continuous chain of fail, huh?
But 4 is correct without depending on 1, 2, 3.
We assign rights to ourselves, we don’t find any objective source of 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.”
You’re skipping right over all the cultures that had different laws for citizens and slaves, and those that had different laws for different races.
Ever see a segregated shitter? That’s not dignity.
“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).”
Darwin’s term refers to breeds or species, not human races you ignorant twat.
And, no, there’s no ‘objective’ basis to our morality.
“7. But (4) is false, because of (5).”
Then shouldn’t 4 have come AFTER 5?
“8. Therefore (6) is false because of (5)”
Yep.
“9. Therefore, (1)—Darwinism—is false.”
Except ‘darwinism’ is a creationist term for evolution and a number of emotional connotations that aren’t actually part of the science. So, sure, make your own invention false, who gives a shit?