Check out this guy’s funny response to their silly banana-proof of god’s existence:
http://www.godlessbastard.com/GotLogic.html

The main point I wanted to make was that teaching evolution does not cause atheism, and that atheism does not cause nihilism or amorality. The way Cameron put it, he made it sound as if violence was a self-evident outcome of teaching evolution. That’s beyond absurd. It’s sick. And, by the way, I still haven’t had the chance to watch the debate. My computer is refusing to play video streams. I’m having hardware issues, so I think it’s time to buy a new machine.

You seem to be referring to the philosophical implications of science, particularly those generated by evolution, and how they might undermine the sense of meaning and connectedness provided by spirituality. There are a number of points I can make on this matter. For one, to think humans are “merely” animals is first an insult to animals, and second it is ignorant of the vast differences between humanity and the remainder of living beings. Only humans have culture. We are the most social and diverse species. And we are the most intelligent (at least by our own standards) with cognitive, symbolic, and technological capacities far more sophisticated than all other known lifeforms. To say that’s not enough, that we also need a special divine status, appears quite unnecessary and vain.

I don’t think science-based outlooks necessarily lessen the importance or meaning of life. Rather, I think spirit-based outlooks often have a flavor of narcissism that props believers up by shoving nonbelievers and nonhuman animals down an imaginary ladder of holiness. Darwinism indeed has the power to enlighten us to our kinship with each other and with all of life. But a widespread rejection of evolution has divided people, fueling conflict and slowing the maturation of a Darwinian worldview. With Kirk Cameron in mind, I’d call these challenges to the expansion of Darwinism “growing pains.” I have no doubt that evolution will emerge victorious in the end as a robust explanation of life’s collective unity and variety.

As for “all ends must be chosen nonrationally,” I see no evidence for that statement. And who’s to decide what is ultimately rational?

But I think there is a philosophical discussion here that is important. With your indulgence, here is an excerpt from Hans Jonas’ Phenomenon of Life:

‘19th century evolutionism is an ..apocryphal ancestor of existentialism . The latter’s encounter with “nothingness” springs from the denial of “essence” which blocked the recourse to an ideal “nature” of man, once offered in his classical definition by reason (homo animale rationale), or in the Biblical one by the creation in the image of God. The “image,” in the absence of creation, had vanished with the original; and reason had been reduced to a means among means, to be judged by the efficiency of its instrumental role in the survival issue…it does not set but serve aims. if there is a “life of reason” for man (as distinct from the mere use of reason), it can be chosen only nonrationally, as all ends must be chosen nonrationally ..But use of reason as a means is compatible with any ends, no matter how irrational. This is the nihilistic implication in man’s losing a “being” transcending the flux of becoming. Nietzsche’s nihilism and his attempts to overcome it are demonstrably connected with the impact of Darwinism.’

Now, I’m not saying one has to agree with that but it does, to my mind at least, suggest that the matter is more complex than one might initially conclude.

To put it simply, three things undermined western man’s confidence in reason at the beginning of the last century: the trenches, Freud, and Darwinism. Instead of the latter leading to a spiritually enlightened view of our kinship with nature it has, I think, led to the view that we are ‘merely’ animals or beasts, with our instincts only barely made tolerable by the thin veneer of civilisation.

On evolution..er..as one of the “delusional” I guess I better keep a low profile :)

Salaams,

K.

Leading by example seems to have been eclipsed by leading by the media!