Ahem…okay, I’m going to tip toe in here ever so softly and comment a bit on some of the fallout from one of Sal’s previous posts (most recently, Ed Brayton’s comments). I’m going to try to choose my words wisely, but I realize regardless of what I say or how I say it, I’ll take a beating…

{takes a deep breath, and exhales very slowly…}

Okay…

I won’t defend Sal, but I would like to point out that his reasoning, albeit provocative and over exaggerated (which was obviously his intent), has *some* merit, IMHO.

Personally, I’m not one to make much of the ills of social Darwinism because from where I’m standing, it seems to me that people can certainly abuse and twist Christianity to support bizarre behavior as well. But, from an authentic Christian perspective, we should be playing by a set of “commands” that Christ ultimately made and followed. As part of the designing team (so to say), He provided us with guidelines which would best benefit His creation.

When considering an atheist perspective in regard to where morals evolved from, one will instinctively consider the subject from a Darwinian viewpoint. It would seem to follow that morals are entirely relative.

Now, most atheists I know seem to hold that Christian values are pretty much in line with their own, whether they care to admit it or not. They merely believe that those Biblical morals were the result of behavior that became socially accepted or socially abhorred by our ancestors for whatever evolutionary reasons throughout the early history of man.

But, if atheists are honest, they have to admit that from a Darwinian stand point, almost any form of what many of us consider perverse could very well be acceptable for some and perhaps for all in the future. Porn, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, just to name a few societal ills, may only be considered perverse and problematic at the moment due to the social stigma that is felt *today*. There would are no absolute morals from an atheist standpoint, so these “perversions” may become acceptable behavior in the future.

Now, let’s let this play out…

I really hate to pick on PZ again, but he is the prime example of the village militant atheist. Like Ed (who, to be clear, is not an atheist), he continually blasts those who suggest that Darwinism has an ill affect on social behavior or society in general. Yet, when we consider the views of PZ’s daughter, Skatje, who has been brought up with this type of Darwinian ideology, her views seem to fall in line with what Sal and I are concerned about and would consider a slippery slope toward the acceptance of behavior that, while obviously biblically immoral, would seem to be immoral to even the majority of atheists I know.  I’d argue that this is because, athough we are provided with a set of God given guidelines to follow, we have been created to instinctively recognize what is and is not morally just regardless as to whether we care to accept it or not.  

But, from an atheist’s standpoint, due to our supposed evolutionary origins, there are no clear cut reasons as to why certain behavior is deemed immoral. This seems to me to make it impossible, IMO, to disagree with Skatje if one is an atheist or even an agnostic for that matter.

From past conversations with Skatje, her Darwinian and atheist beliefs and upbringing have led to very strong opinions in regard to issues such as ultimate human existence, late term abortion, incest and bestiality.

From a Darwinian standpoint, her belief is that humans are little more than animals:

Someone commented to Skatje that:

“You then render humans as little better than animals.”

Her reply was:

“Did you not pass biology class? Humans are animals, sweetie.”

As for bestiality (which was the point of Sal‘s post), her views are that it is acceptable if you enjoy that type of a relationship.

From her post on the topic…

…Not all cases of bestiality are this way though. Animals can approach humans for sexual reasons too. Ever owned a dog? They’ll come right up to you and start poking at your crotch. What if you don’t have pants on at the time? And what if you maybe enjoy a little complication-free oral sex? You go to jail for it? It’s not like you shoved your meat into their face and raped them. The animal isn’t hurt, so animal abuse doesn’t apply.

The second argument against zoophilia is that animals are unable to consent to have sex. That’s complete crap. Animals understand what sex is and they CAN communicate it. Not in words, of course, but in action.
…

Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets. Obviously they can’t obtain the same level a deep human-to-human relationship, but loving your pets isn’t anything unusual. People care for their pets, talk to them, spoil them, feel relaxed in their company, and mourn them when they die. This relationship is so underestimated. Why does it come as a surprise that when someone feels a deep connection to their pet, they might be interesting in doing something more expressive and intimate like we do in human-to-human relationships?

She does draw the line at pedophilia due to her feeling that a human child cannot understand the full meaning of sex nor are they capable of giving consent…

I think it’s incorrect to equate an animal with a human child. We’d agree that a young human could not understand the full meaning of what sex is and is incapable of giving consent for an adult to engage in it with them. While an animal is maybe about as smart (or less than) as a very young human, that has no bearing on its understanding of sex. Unless the zoophile is trying to engage in sex with a baby animal (which probably isn’t a good idea anyway), the animal is sexually mature. Unlike a human child.

…although, I‘d argue that that would depend upon the age and maturity of the child. Some victims of this type of sexual abuse feel guilty for enjoying the act. From a Darwinian view, perhaps if the stigma were lifted, the child would feel free to engage in the act without the guilt? In some countries this type of behavior is closer to being acceptable than we might imagine.

In comment 29 of that same post on zoophilia, Skatje writes in regard to incest:

“Of course adults should be allowed to engage in incest. I just personally think breeding would be very bad idea, for obvious reasons.”

And, again, being that we are mere animals, Skatje didn’t see a problem with late-term abortion:

“I don’t see people’s problems with late-term abortions. Nothing has changed except it looks more like a human. That’s not reason enough to ban late-term abortions.”

…

“I see no reason why late-term abortions should be banned. The only justification I see people giving for why they shouldn’t be done is because you can take the baby out and it’ll live. But we’ve already discussed the problems with this. Taking the baby out instead of late-term abortion is not a viable solution. Thus abortion must continue.

The REASON she has a late-term abortion is irrelevant, be it because she couldn’t get one earlier, health reasons, family reasons, or because she just changed her mind.”

Although Skatje’s opinions on these matters did not surprise me, as I read her views it solidified my concerns in regard how Darwin’s theory gave way to “intellectual atheism”, and at the same time has had a drastic affect on morality as we have fallen heavily into moral relativism. What is morally just for the atheist? For the Christian, we have guidelines that we believe God has provided for us to live by which will best serve us in the world He created. For the atheist, these moral guidelines are based upon popular acceptance due to evolutionary happenstance.  I find this a tad unsettling.

So, although I do not agree with the way in which Sal broached this subject, I think there is a point to be made here and that is the question of what the repercussions are of social relativism and the part Darwinism plays in the equation.

Okay, I’m done for now. I’d also like to comment on Ed’s response to what Sal wrote about Madalyn Murray O’Hair, but I‘ll leave that for another post.