Morality is an often debated topic between Jesus and his pals and evolutionists. I’ve always found the debate to be a rather tedious and misapplied.

On one side we have the claim that you needs the Jesus to be moral.  They quickly point to social Darwinism, eugenics, and the Shoah (a more proper name for the Holocaust). Mind you that Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwin’s theories.  The closest Darwin could come is that he was a bit of a misogynist.

My bigger problem in this debate, surprisingly enough, is with the evolutionist argument.  In reply to the religious objection of Social Darwinism the evolutionists are seemingly quick to point to the Inquisition and Crusades.   The problem is that these examples are not in the same vein as Social Darwinism.

Oddly enough, Marx can be a bit of a help here.  Think of Social Darwinism as a product of class structure.  Social Darwinism was the new ideology adopted by the bourgeoisie to justify their status in light of the enlightenment and industrial revolution.  Democracy and capitalism, in which any man can theoretically rise to the top doesn’t mesh well with old hegemonic ideologies.   I’ll return to this in a moment, but first I’d like to discuss the old ideologies.

Prior to this period, and even into the age of Darwin and the debates on evolution the prevailing idea was a lot closer to the Divine Right of Kings.  Of course, there weren’t as many true kings –in the sense that they had absolute power– and so the idea was stretched a bit.  Rather than explain this view myself, I’d like to use a quote from Pat Shipman’s book on Eugene Dubois.

Most people in Europe believe life –particularly human life– is largely preordained and that the order of society is static.  Those with power and wealth guide the workings of the world because they are inherently superior.  That inherent superiority, the privilege of the privileged classes, derives from God, who has created all creatures in their appropriate and perfect places (Shipman 14).

Pat Shipman – The Man Who Found the Missing Link

One of the first problems with this ideology is that the world at the time was far from being static.  Democracy and the industrial revolution were quickly mixing the old class orders.  With the new mobility afforded to all classes, at least in theory, it could no longer be said that God had preordained a static class structure.

The second problem is that the hegemonic ideology has to serve at least two functions.  The ideology has to justify the ruling class and it must keep the proletariat content with the class structure.  The religious ideology fails on the second point.  If there is no chance at class mobility, then there is no reason for the proletariat to work hard to achieve a  higher status.  Meanwhile, Social Darwinism implies that the ruling class is the ruling class because they are the most fit.  Thus, for the proletariat, their exists a chance within this ideology for class mobility so long as they’re fit enough.  I.E. hard work will actually pay off.

In conclusion, the real answer to the religious claims about morality based on social darwinism are not the crusades and inquisition, but rather divine right.  Otherwise the argument turns to Stalin and derails itself further and further from the the proper conclusion that should end somewhere around memetic evolution.