The article on the debate between Peter Singer and Dinesh D’Souza (Notebook , Jan. 29, 2009) states that D’Souza argued “the development of moral instincts in human beings can not be explained by evolution.” Why not? Many animals exhibit social structures of varying degrees of complexity, and codes of behavior toward other individuals of the same species. Why shouldn’t a moral sense evolve from societies readily observable in the animal world? D’Souza’s assertion seems to stem from a profound and perhaps willful ignorance of the natural world, an ignorance that is not only scientifically dismaying but, in my view, theologically unsound. If God created the earth, creationists ought to pay more attention to it.
It is an argument typical to creationists that various traits such as the panda’s “thumb,” the eye, the mitochondria, and human morality could not have evolved naturally. Of course, being creationists, they are not looking too assiduously for explanations of how, in fact, those traits could have evolved. When plausible scenarios – sometimes several – are offered by others, they tend not to listen, either.
The basic problem with what the article calls “the theory of intelligent design” is that there is not a single possible universe – including one created to facilitate the evolution of life, intelligence, and morality – that could not be explained by it. God can create whatever he wants, so nothing is precluded and nothing is predicted. You are therefore wrong to characterize such a vague idea as a “theory.”