Saturday, November 13, 2010

Human Equality and Naturalism- Part 1

I find it extremely interesting that many naturalists promote human equality. Human equality is a Judeo-Christian concept that is foreign to any worldview that must rely upon naturalistic evolution to explain the existence of the human race. Here's what I mean:

One of the major pillars of naturalistic, evolution is "survival of the fittest". This simply means that the lifeforms most fit for a certain environment will propagate their offspring into the next generation; lifeforms that possess any feature that inhibits their survival, will eventually die off. Value is assigned based on this survivability.

Notice the superlative language of the pillar- "fittest". In order for a superlative to exist, there must exist another that it is superlative when compared to. If humans are the result of "survival of the fittest" and we are not the end of evolution (mutations are still taking place today, so I guess we're not), then some members of our species are superlative to others. The genes of the superlative humans will survive into the future.

So what? The implication is that not all humans are equal. Equality is a concept antagonistic to the naturalistic, evolutionary paradigm. Then how does the concept of "equality" exist? It was generated and propagated by the weaker members of the human species in an effort to undermine the superlative members. "Human equality" is the deception of members of our species that should otherwise be eliminated. Notice too, that I used the value-rich term "should". If value is based upon survivability, then it follows that those who promote "human equality" and hold to a naturalistic worldview, are standing in the way of nature and devaluing the truly valuable human beings by assigning the same value to where it does not belong. Nature will prove the equation to be incorrect, and the naturalist who holds to human equality has a protruding contradiction in their worldview- it cannot explain obvious observations in nature, thus one of the parts must be false (either naturalism or human equality).

On the contrary, the Christian worldview assigns the same intrinsic value to all human beings. It is not based on survivability, but on the fact that we are created in the image of the Being who's value is the highest in virtue of His nature. The fact that humans possess the Imago Dei is what assigns to all humans intrinsic value, and by virtue of the fact that we all possess it, we all have equal value.

Next week I will discuss intrinsic value and naturalism.


  1. evolution is descriptive not prescriptive.

  2. Samuel,
    What exactly do you mean by that?

  3. Value is assigned based on this survivability.

    Evolution is a descriptive theory. It is not normative.

  4. That does not help. What does that statement have to do with the post and what support do you have for saying that it is "descriptive" rather than "prescriptive" or "normative"? First, though, can you define those terms?

  5. In other words, the theory of evolution in biology has nothing to do with values. It doesn't "assign values." It simply describes what happens. If an organism has traits conducive to survival and reproduction in a given environment it is more likely to pass on its genes to the next generation in contrast to an organism with traits less conducive to survival and reproduction.

    I think you're conflating two meanings of equality. Human beings are not identical to one another. This is different from saying humans ought not to have equal rights.

  6. Then what does the naturalist base the idea that all humans should have equal rights on?

  7. Are those subjective, relative, or objective?


****Please read my UPDATED post Comments Now Open before posting a comment.****