It says you’re a Fundamentalist Christian. You don’t sound much like a fundamentalist Christian to me. In your last post, you have a section called “No God Either” and you’re talking about how human life has no value. What’s going on here?

(As I’m getting no comments at the moment (original date: November 10th, 2004), I thought I’d supply my own.)

Because I understand that some people would be confused about what I’ve been saying the past couple of posts. I am a fundamentalist Christian, but I also am a self-styled philosopher. I say in a previous post, that it is easy for me to believe in value, because I believe that value is set by the Objective Observer, God.

It requires no additional maneuvers to add belief in value to belief in God—in fact it coincides with what we understand as the details of value. Value is an opinion of worth that lives in the beholder.

What I try to outline in my second-to-last post is that constructing objective value for the unbeliever is harder, because using similar rules to (and dodges of) atheism, we can construct an Invincible Ignorance argument which denies value based on lack of evidence and wide disagreement.

For the progressive in our society, evolution is a simple fact. I’m not talking about firmness of belief, or whether they are willing to question it. I’m talking about the simplicity with which they take it into their worldview. It is, to some degree, compartmentalized.

If we are primates, what is the nature of primates? If we are animals, what is the nature of social animals?

Do not the males of a social species vie for dominant status? Yet, the progressive thinks dominance and status something to be rooted out. And he or she thinks that showy male behavior is a backward trait. It’s just silly, something we need to root out.

Is it not one of the distinctives about primates that they are sexually dimorphic? Yet the progressive thinks that we should rise above the sexism of brutes. “There is no gender” says one type of progressive.

Are not many animals territorial? Is it not true that the “sweet song” of the birds in the trees is simply the refrain of, “Get out of here! This area is mine! Don’t make me come over there! You’ve been warned! Get out of my yard!” Yet the progressive says “property is theft” without stopping to consider how deeply ingrained in us that “theft” is.

And yet it is the progressive who is most likely to say that others are absurd for not being able to embrace the fact of their animal nature. Who are they fooling? They can’t even look the beast in the eyes.

Faced with the items on the menu, they want to ask for another menu. “No thank you, I’d like a different human nature, please.”

So let me get back the main point of this post: I want to illustrate to people the evolution that they forget so easily in their narrative of Ascendant Man v2.0. Cultural “evolution” was furthered the most by transcendent, catholic faiths, which in the face of the visible inequality of man asserted the theoretical equality of man, consistent of their view of overcoming the flesh. Today’s progressive has co-opted the course of overcoming the flesh, without even an understanding of how or why, and a partial doubt that it can be done.

Meanwhile, the atheist communists have killed 100 million of our species throughout the 20th century, because fellow humans refused to de-stratify themselves and surrender property to the group, as if that could be expected of any animal. This is not a general charge against atheists. Just because I have an atheist living next to me, does not mean that I need to fear being dragged to a re-education camp or purged. All I mean it to say is that some atheists are drastically naive about their own worldview.

One note, I should make here is that some view evolution in harmony God. I am not really challenging this view. I deal with the concept of creator-redundant evolution, or evolution that makes any creator redundant.

Next: The Black Box Brain