Atheist bigots can’t think straight

After a little rant about Francis Collins being made head of the NIH, Myers delivers some standard boilerplate attempting to derive Ought from Is via evolutionary handwaving. Myers declares that he knows right from wrong:

Not because a god has whispered a rule into my head, but because I know that the successful relationships that build a cooperative network within the framework of my society are all formed on mutual trust, and that is a violation. We test these bonds of mutual support all the time, we rely on them, and we know from history that their loss contributes to social decay.

Just as though this explains something. Of course, what this all rests on is the great big Transcendent Ought: Society ought to be preserved. Mutual trust ought to reign. Social decay ought to be discouraged. Why? Because some evolutionary imperative for survival ought to be obeyed. It would be, ‘ow you say?, “wrong” to ignore it. Why? Because our genes say so.

Of course, our genes also tell us to have blue eyes and lots of children, but I’ll bet Myers has no problem ignoring that genetic imperative if somebody want to wear brown contacts and practice contraception.

The whole “evolution tells us to be good and we have a moral obligation to listen to evolution” line of BS is pure rubbish. I can buy the proposition “God is love and therefore we who are in his image are called to love.” This is coherent, albeit mysterious. But “You are nothing but molecules and you have a moral obligation to obey your molecules” is nonsense. Still more is the proposition, “We create our own meaning!” followed by “But it’s horrible to say that you find meaning in a universe created by God.” If it’s all about creating your own meaning, then what’s the problem with theists who are, by atheist lights, doing exactly what atheists are doing: inventing meaning? One gets the distinct impression that a scam is being pulled.