In the discourse of the modern culture war, there seems to be a chronic breakdown in communication. It is partly because of the fact that it is the nature of
reasoned discourse to abhor misleading argumentation, while it is the aim of
faith invocation to use such sophistry as a rhetorical tool as often as possible. But in so much as the supporters of intelligent design seek honestly to engage in a rational discussion, it seems to me that this is the main point that is made by those who mean well:
Disbelief in an intelligent creator is a way for people to skirt ultimate moral judgement
or
Humanity without religion is incapable of ethical civilization
This does not concern itself with the science of biology at all. By fighting on the scientific front only, I think that we are missing a point that may be more convincing...
The conclusions of contemporary science are that
ethics and
morality were actually selected for in the humans species because they offered strategies of survival that were favored in nature.
Survival of the Moral is synonymous with Survival of the Fittest
It is the pragmatic and selfish gene that made us the way that we are in a ruthless struggle of self-replication at all costs. This is true, and it sounds bad on the surface to someone who jumps to a direct translation of this gene-mind paradigm to its application on the level of self preservation of the individual animal -- you.
In fact, the gene could care less about you too. As long as you, or people who chance to have 1/4 of DNA in common with you, have had babies, you are not so important at all to the genes you are hosting.
This is the next Copernican revolution.
It is just being born right now, but it is a further shattering of our instinctual egocentric view of nature and the universe.
Just as sight and hearing are evolutionary endowments...
Altruism is an evolutionary endowment.
Love is an evolutionary endowment.
Peace is an evolutionary endowment.
Sharing is an evolutionary endowment.
Trust is an evolutionary endowment.
Empathy is an evolutionary endowment.
Kindness is an evolutionary endowment.
Fidelity is an evolutionary endowment.
Surely it is not in the interest of any gene to propogate a culture of global warfare that threatens the existence of life on this planet, or the health of the biosphere that sustains us. It is valid to talk in terms of this level of self-preservation when speaking of global political policy.
Ironically, the argument against aquiescent diplomacy assumes that not only is survival of the fittest a truism, but that it falsely applies not only to the interests of the gene, but to the more diverse and subtle interests of its host animals.
Here, though they may not be not aware of it, religious extremists of either side would actually inappropriately invoke the concept of kinship theory: "They hate us for our freedom" is really just code for "they hate us for our racial (apparent genetic) make-up". It is true that a strategy for gene propogation that manifested itself in cultural evolution is to favor your altruistic energies to those who look most like you. This was a valid strategy in time when geographic isolationism kept the gene pools distinct, but it no longer valid at all and is a cruel vestige of our biological history. In fact, our outward appearance is only 0.01% of our genetic make-up and I may share more genes in common with a stranger in Afghanistan than I do with my Protestant American bowling teammate.
But, just as sight and hearing are evolutionary endowments...
Anger is an evolutionary endowment.
Vengeance is an evolutionary endowment.
Jingoism is an evolutionary endowment.
Bigotry is an evolutionary endowment.
Nepotism is an evolutionary endowment.
Jealosy is an evolutionary endowment.
Disloyalty is an evolutionary endowment.
And these less fortunate traits of behavior that are also determined by evolution and natural selection are not easily overcome by cultural education and teaching tolerance.
In fact, a very powerful tool to overcome this difficulty is the use of myth, religion, and the cultivation of a belief in a higher power that sits in judgement of our earthly actions. There is no reason that parents should not teach these lessons to their children if they choose to. No one is saying that. But it the duty of public institutions of learning to present only facts and science, because there is certainly no good reason that teaching a child moral science is not equally as valid a tool to accomplish this same ambition of tolerance and ethical behavior.
It is my opinion that secular science is actually a superior morality, since the belief in an eternal life after this one is too often used by those who profess moral superiority to excuse behavior in this life that is forgiven through the invocation of their particular sacrements.
If one beleives that this is the only life we've got -- there is no afterlife -- one is forced to squeeze a little bit of heaven out of each day on earth, and the application of the golden rule becomes ever so much more valuable a tool for this purpose.
Two books that read well together in this regard:
How the Mind Works, by Stephen Pinker
and
Nonzero, by Robert Wright