Just 6 days prior to this writing our nation marked the 232nd anniversary of its declared independence from
Jones’ Newsweek article was stale and felt purposeless (perhaps interesting only to a fledging English major), but what struck me was the juxtaposition of Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin. While Jones ponders the relative greatness of these two 19th century men he unwittingly exposes a fundamental problem that he fails to elucidate thereby leaving the casual reader unaware.
Jones quotes from
Jones meanders back and forth between Lincoln and Darwin throughout the article. Even with
Regarding our nation’s independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
In reality, democracy in a system of relative ethics does not happen. Governments establish laws in accord with the ethos of people in a position to make those laws. We can all point to autocratic foreign governments as an example of such undemocratic processes, but the system of law in the
More importantly, our judicial branch provides a particularly undemocratic element to the determination of ethics by virtue of legal precedence. When a determination of right or wrong is ruled on by the courts (in particular the Supreme Court) the outcome of such ruling is the based upon the opinions of the appointed justices who represent a minute portion of our total population. Barring a change in the law by an act of Congress, that ruling stands. If the justices have no objectively determined ethos then they must rely upon their own views and opinions; in effect, we would be ethically bound by the whims of 9 individuals.
We have come full circle. The parallel is the recognition by our founding fathers, and its reaffirmation by
Thus the point of contemplation: if we accept the Darwinian position that there is no God, then what of objective truth, good, and evil? Our legislative and judicial branches of government have been ardently rejecting religious doctrine citing the notion of “separation of church and state.” Yet without the Creator morality has only a subjective basis; after all, we would then accept that we came into existence not through divinity and righteousness but by death, destruction, and survival of the fittest. Based upon
In conclusion, our government’s irreverence towards our Creator, in the form of constitutional interpretation, and the continuing trend of “intellectuals” towards neo-Darwinism is eroding the objective basis upon which ethics and truth can be defended. The human race is disowning its creator and with it Truth and endowed Freedom. Without our Creator freedom does not exist.