The Intelligent Design Network Talks Sense - Pt 5

My final post on the Intelligent Design Network Statement of Objectives concerns the role one’s view of origins plays in shaping values.  

The statement says:

"A society’s view of its origins will ultimately impact its social behavior and the values it places upon certain behaviors. Institutional establishment of only one of two possible biases or assumptions with respect to origins can be expected to promote logically-consistent views regarding Religion, ethics, morality, government and politics. The implicit or explicit imposition of such views will offend many and restrict the freedom to embrace and promote alternative viewpoints."

That this is a reasonable truth is clear from the similar statements from those on the other side of the issue.  Again quoting Humanist Manifesto I:

"Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values."

I am repeating myself perhaps, but this is true and chilling.  Never mind that many object to this by saying lots of people who do not believe in God have moral standards.  That begs the question.  The question is where do moral standards that individuals hold come from?  Is there a moral law that is part of the fabric of the universe in the same way that there are physical laws like gravity or inertia.  Clearly, the writers of Humanist Manifesto I say there are no such universal values and their basis for making that claim is grounded in the “scientific” view of “nature” proposed in the modern era – undeniably Darwinian.

 Humanist Manifesto 2 continues:  

"Traditional moral codes and newer irrational cults both fail to meet the pressing needs of today and tomorrow…"  

Clearly this is implying that moral codes must change to fit differing times and cultures.

" …Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction."  

Ethics that are “autonomous” and “situational” have no basis in anything firm and lasting.  Such ethics can be changed from right to left, from black to white, from east to west at any time and changed back again.  What is right today may be wrong tomorrow and what is wrong today can be right tomorrow.  This is another way of saying that moral values are arbitrary.  As such, values are never final and are always imposed by someone on someone else.

"…We reject all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality. We believe in maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility."

One has to read between the  lines a bit to fully translate those two lines.  But given the above statements, it is a fair question to ask how “individual autonomy” can be consonant with “social responsibility” when the stated assertion that there are no “guaranteed” values makes the word “responsibility” meaningless.  “Social responsibility” means nothing more than what the current social norms happen to be, which essentially puts “individual autonomy” in the position of being potentially completely at odds with the current arbitrary values of society.  Oddly, if the values society chooses are not grounded in a higher law, then imposing those values arbitrarily is almost certain to do the things the manifesto decries by denigrating the individual and suppressing freedom.  This is the usual effect of atheistic totalitarian regimes.

The issue of sexuality has to come into play:

"In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered "evil." Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one. Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire. We wish to cultivate the development of a responsible attitude toward sexuality, in which humans are not exploited as sexual objects, and in which intimacy, sensitivity, respect, and honesty in interpersonal relations are encouraged. Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity."

How is “moral education” possible if there are no cosmic guarantees of moral values?  How is moral education possible if ethics are autonomous and situational?  If moral values are autonomous, isn’t “moral education” merely a process of telling children and adults “choose your own morality?”  What’s the point?

My point is simply this.  

If one accepts the notion that “the cosmos is all there ever was and all there ever will be”, an idea implicit in the assumptions of naturalism, then assertions similar to those stated in Humanist Manifestos I and II naturally follow.  It is impossible to assert a purely naturalistic universe without also altering moral viewpoints.  Those who believe the universe was designed with a purpose generally tend to believe that purpose includes some moral laws alongside the physical laws.  Those who believe the universe developed by natural cause and effect alone downplay purpose and in doing so, downplay the believe that values are lasting and part of the fabric of the universe.  Teaching evolution through natural causes has clear and real implications for moral behavior.  So it is not true to say that teaching evolution as “science” is neutral toward other aspects of education, particularly moral education.