Darwin's God: The Silent Yawn

Darwin's God: The Silent Yawn:

A culture’s creation narrative is foundational, for it forms the template for everything else. One of the consequences of evolution—the belief that the world spontaneously arose by itself—is that it underwrites moral relativism, which is not to say there is no right and wrong but rather that right and wrong is something that we decide. And since evolution is true, it is to evolution that we go for our rights. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” proclaims the Declaration of Independence, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But with evolution there is no such endowment, for there is no such Creator. Not that evolution derives from atheism, it does not. Evolution derives from a different kind of theism, a kind where we decide what is right.

One of the rights evolutionists decided we did not have is the right to Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. In the twentieth century eugenics movement evolutionary science was used to mutilate and institutionalize those whom evolutionists decided were not deserving of these rights. This was no backwater operation. It was a nationwide movement backed up by Supreme Court decisions. (Emphasis added)

There are theological "panda's thumb" type reasons that evolution was and is essentially imagined and created based on disputes among Christians or those so heavily influenced by Christian theology that they were or are not aware of their own assumptions. After all, there's no real reason to imagine things about the past in a similar or sequential and gradual way if nature based "paganism" is true. So how about a little mystery religion or some quantum woo with some more cyclical patterns thrown in? It might be a long way from Darwin's projection of capitalism and gradualism onto nature. Although maybe he was right to try to explain nature and other organisms in terms of human economics given that he was trying to explain everything in terms of ignorant processes and mechanisms. After all, if you're interested in explaining everything (including your own brain events) in terms of ignorance then what better candidates for such a psychological projection (I mean, purely scientific project... cough.) are there than economists and their equally great works of "knowledge"?