Talulah

I came across this article the other day and it made me so mad that I wrote an article critiqing it. Comments and suggestions are welcome.


Critique of the article: ‘Morals— Handed Down by Evolution, or by God?&#8217 by Brad Harrub, Ph. D. – printed in the March 2002 edition of ‘Reason and Revelation,’ a church of Christ publication.

This article, judging from the title, purports to be proof that morals are from God alone and did not evolve over time with society. Instead of taking both positions and examining the evidences for each, the author uses a ‘poisoning the well’ tactic, by taking a sensitive subject, rape, and suggesting to the reader that evolutionists would have them to believe that rape is merely a normal biological drive. He uses this quote to show how: ‘If we allow these ludicrous seeds to be planted in the hearts of men and women, then responsibility for every abominable act will soon succumb to our alleged “animal ancestry.”’

I suspect his intent was to shock his readers with how immoral evolutionists are then provide an alternative to this horrifying immorality; God. If the intent was to shock, he certainly succeeded, because I was indeed shocked at such blatant manipulation of readership. Instead of using legitimate arguments, or taking the time to produce research that is fair to believers of evolution, he takes the route of telling his readers that all evolutionists are evil and will try to make us all believe that rape is natural.

All in all, what I found was shameless bashing of the competition, and the only ‘evidence’ for the fact that morals come from God, a mere paragraph of scripture at the bottom of the article and the assertion that “God Himself is the unchanging standard of moral law.”

No doubt that Dr. Harrub would feel the same way I felt after reading his article if he read an article I wrote in which I claimed that the Ku Klux Klan was an appropriate source to get a feel for his moral beliefs, or if I said that the Flat Earth Society was indicative of all fundamentalist believers opinions.

As with most Christian ‘evidence’ articles, I have found this one to be no different, in that it seems to be solely for the benefit and ego boosting of the Christian. First he tells his readers that their opponents are evil and then he lets them pat themselves on the back for being so moral. As an unbeliever reading it, I was first amused, then digusted by his attempt to shock and convince his readers of something so absurd, then my thoughts turned to the treatment of rape in the book he claims is the solution to the problem of immorality, and the ‘proof’ that he uses that morals didn’t evolve.

A Look at Treatment of Rape in the Bible-bible text is RSV

Genesis 19:8 - Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.

Lot, described as ‘righteous’ in II Peter 2:7, refuses to give up his angels to the mob, but offers his two virgin daughters to be used instead. What would we think of a man today who would make such an offer? The ‘inspired word of God’ has nothing ill to say of the offer.

Deuteronomy 21:11-14 - When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hands, and you take them captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall put off her captive's garb, and shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. Then, if you have no delight in her, you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

If you see a pretty woman among the captives of war and would like her for a wife, then just bring her home. It is obvious she doesn’t have to agree, because number one, you have captured her against her will and that is ok (and obviously encouraged), number two, permission is given to ‘go in to her’ with or without her consent and number 3, if you find she doesn’t live up to your expectations in bed, you can’t make her a slave because you have ‘humiliated her.’ What high moral development indeed.


Deuteronomy 22:28-30 - If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days.

In these evil modern times we know that a woman who has been raped has been traumatized. We have sympathy for such a woman, and seek to get her medical attention, counseling, and advise her to try and prosecute her attacker if she wishes. In the bible, a woman who is not betrothed (engaged) must marry her rapist. I shudder to think of the pain a woman in such a situation would have had to endure the rest of her life, as the result of such a ‘moral’ law.

Second Samuel 13:12-22 (paraphrased for brevity) …he took hold of her, and said to her, "Come, lie with me, my sister. "She answered him, "No, my brother, do not force me; for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this wanton folly. As for me, where could I carry my shame? Now therefore, I pray you, speak to the king; for he will not withhold me from you." But he would not listen to her; and being stronger than she, he forced her, and lay with her. And Amnon said to her, "Arise, be gone." But she said to him, "No, my brother; for this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other which you did to me." But he would not listen to her. So Tamar dwelt, a desolate woman, in her brother Ab'salom's house. When King David heard of all these things, he was very angry. But Ab'salom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad; for Ab'salom hated Amnon, because he had forced his sister Tamar.


There is so much wrong with this situation it is hard to even know where to begin. First of all, Tamar acknowledges that she would be given to Amnon (her half-brother) if he would only ask. Next, the text indicates that her real shame is being taken and then put away, not being raped. Then, David does nothing, doesn’t even say anything to his son when he finds out what he has done. The only good thing is that Ab’salom, portrayed else were as a rapist himself, seeks to avenge his sister. It is unclear if he too, he only upset about the fact that Amnon has refused to marry Tamar after raping her.


Jeremiah 13:22- And if you say in your heart, 'Why have these things come upon me?' it is for the greatness of your iniquity that your skirts are lifted up, and you suffer violence. Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil. I will scatter you like chaff driven by the wind from the desert. This is your lot, the portion I have measured out to you, says the LORD, because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies. I myself will lift up your skirts over your face, and your shame will be seen. I have seen your abominations, your adulteries and neighings, your lewd harlotries, on the hills in the field. Woe to you, O Jerusalem! How long will it be before you are made clean?

God compares the destruction of Jerusalem to the shame, and/or rape of a woman who deserves to be shamed because she has sinned. Verse 22 is sometimes translated as, ‘her heels are made bare,’ as in the KJV. This phrase, translated only one time (in this instance) as ‘heels made bare,’ actually in Hebrew is translated as, among other things, "are violently handled." Even the translators are uneasy with this verse. Some commentaries say that this has to be figuratively meant, because it is ‘indecorous’ or ‘improbable.’ In my research, I decided that it was very probable that the Hebrew text was indicating rape. In the very least, it refers to a sort of shameful sexual violence in retaliation for previous [sexual] sins. The point is that God is saying that he is doing this himself, in retaliation for sins. No matter that it is figurative for punishment for the erring children of God, the issue is the appropriateness and morality of the symbolism of rape being used to convey the message.

In conclusion, I have seen no better proof for morals having evolved over time than the bible. What other book is so widely available, printed in so many languages, and studied with so much seriousness? A study of history also reveals this fact, but many more people are familiar with and read the bible than are willing to study history in any depth.

More Poisoning of the Well

Dr. Harrub then goes on to provide another example of the evil that he says evolutionists would have us believe.

Perhaps the good Dr Harrub could have provided some evidence that people who don’t accept the bible as a standard for morality also accept these antidotes that he has provided. I suppose he could have talked to a believer in evolution (since that seems to be his focus) and asked them as to their moral beliefs, but then he wouldn’t have gotten to shock good and gullible Christians with these horrible stories, and he would have had to portray us fairly.

Dr Harrub has taken two radical thinkers, who happen to believe in evolution and used them to prove that departure from the bible causes gross immorality. With such manipulation being used, clothed with terms like ‘reason’ how can we expect the majority of Christians to be able to see the absurdity in these arguments?

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Talulah ]
[edited to fix formatting corrupted by bad UBB import]

babelfish

Hi Talulah!

Great critique! I liked all the quotes from the Bible in reference to rape, and I agree 100% with this:

It's a shame to waste this piece on us here at the IIDB. Do you have any plans to get it published anywhere?

Talulah

Thanks bablefish!

For any interested, I have revamped the critique and posted the <a href="http://talulah.twistedpair.net/critique.htm" target="_blank">new and improved version</a> on my web site.


Talulah

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Talulah ]</p>

seebs

When I was in college, one of my profs told the story of a former colleague who had been working on a book which argued that, by the definition of marriage, it was *meaningless* to speak of rape within marriage.

I propose to find that guy, and the guy who wrote the article you cite, and put them in a room together.

You're probably expecting a clever line about the debate I'd want them to have. Nah. I just want them out of the gene pool.

catman

Talulah (love your user name), you try to say too much in your writing and it comes off very dull. For instance:

I'm glad you didn't start that sentence off with a subject--but did you have to use "poisoning the well tactic?" It's ok--but it makes the sentence bulky from the start--which is ok, but it gets much too bulky later on. Maybe I am just being too critical, but your writing has no rythm and your cadence is too slow (I wanted to say that the cadence was "too sluggish" but I realized that the modifier there would have looked too sluggish in the sentence at that point). And look! I like wordy sentences--I just don't like them when they change direction more than once.

By the way, try to use fragments in your writing. I don't care what your seventh grade english teacher told you--fragments are great. They make the cadence fast and snappy. Use them. Or you'll go straight to hell.

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: catman ]</p>

babelfish

LOL, catman, you're not an English teacher by any chance, are you?

I'm curious, if you could only get past her horrible writing style, what did you think of the actual substance of Talulah's critique?

Talulah

Thanks for the responses.

Catman, I will read over the piece with your suggestions in mind.

lpetrich

There is first the problem of whether one can derive an "ought" from an "is".

Also, the idea that one can derive morals from evolution depends on the premise that what is successful is what is right -- deriving an "ought" from an "is".

I don't feel competent to handle the ought-from-is question, so I will consider the question of what is "successful" in evolution.

The idea of evolution by natural selection is often presumed to imply a might-makes-right ethic, on the ground that having the most "might" makes one the most successful. This is sometimes called "Social Darwinism", though Darwin himself disliked the idea.

But it turns out that a variety of strategies can be successful, strategies other than the stereotype of being the biggest bully. However, these strategies fit into the Darwinian paradigm by adopting a broader interpretation than the Social-Darwinist view.

The evolution of cooperation and altruism (self-sacrificing behavior) has long been a conundrum for Darwinism; Darwin himself had recognized it in his Origin of Species. Self-sacrificing means lack of representation in future generations, which makes one wonder how Darwinism can account for it.

Self-sacrifice is very widespread, especially at the level of the cells of a multicellular organism. Most of them die when the organism dies; many of them die before that. Trees are a big example -- they are mostly dead, and their wood consists of dead cells. So why do cells so readily commit hara-kiri?

And at the organism level, social insects and Naked Mole Rats have non-reproducing individuals; why are their workers not trying to get representation in future generations? Worker honeybees are kamikaze stingers; their stingers stick in their victims, and the bee dies a few hours later from pulled-out guts.

The solution here is "kin selection"; an organism's death assists others that have copies of its genes. Thus, a tree-trunk cell will die because its skeleton will help its identical-twin cells live and grow and reproduce. Worker insects and NMR's will help their parents reproduce, thus producing lots of brothers and sisters. And a worker honeybee who dies has done so as a result of giving an extra-powerful sting; a hive can afford to lose some workers here and there. However, queen honeybees must survive the stings they administer, otherwise, they will not reproduce; thus, they have smooth stingers.

So even if one tries to derive an "ought" from an "is", one does not necessarily derive a strategy of being the biggest bully.

Primal

Great critique Talulah. I especially like it how you turned the article on it head as well. In any event I don't even see why rape would make darwinian sense in the first place; at least for humans. That's because human males must put a lot of rescources and care into each offspring. Obviously then raping a woman and then dumping her would give one no darwinian advantage(the offspring's chances of survival would be very low), for this to work one would have to rape her and then keep her around as well as care for the offspring, this would be too costly to be common.(not to mention the costs and risks involved in rape itself) Also there is far more to it then that, the article was simplistic as hell. Stuff like social disorder,empathy etc enter the picture. Human nature involves the phenotype, not just genotype. As well as the fact that humans are naturally monogamous and partners do not like cheating. Inside bands I doubt rape would be common at all and may even be chastedized as disruptive(as members are tightly nit and related oft times) thus it must happen only in cases of invasion and such. Even then it would not make darwinian sense mind you unless they took the women home and were either the dominant males(which sometimes had small harems) or had no wife. Something much harder to justify in this day and age where the line between "us" and "them" is becoming more and more blurred. As a government that treats all citizens as equal before the law seems to have many more advantages then one that practices such favoritism, and as rape has such terrible consqeuences.