Harvard Professor Tells Us that We’ve Evolved to “Need Coercion”

For a number of years I have written on the ethical implications of evolution. If evolution is true, the atheistic variety, there are no moral absolutes. This is not to say that atheistic evolutionists are not moral. Many of them are just as moral as non-atheists. While they may be moral and espouse a moral worldview, they cannot account for the validity of their moral choices or even what constitutes morality considering that “for hundreds of millions of years, multicelled animals have been emerging, competing, fighting, killing, parasitizing, torturing, suffering, and going extinct.”1

Were these actions by multicelled animals morally wrong in their struggle for survival? If they weren’t then, then why are they morally wrong now? It’s a simple question that deserves an answer that atheistic evolutionists cannot give without a great deal of borrowing from a theistic worldview.

Now we learn from Harvard professor of human evolutionary biology Daniel E. Lieberman, in an opinion piece published in the New York Times, that “We have evolved to need coercion.” Dr. Lieberman wrote came to this conclusion in support of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban on sugary drinks.

As a product of mindless, directionless, amoral, blind pitiless indifferent DNA, as Richard Dawkins describes the process of evolution, Dr. Lieberman doesn’t have the slightest idea what we have evolved to need. And given the unknowable route evolution will take us in the future, no one can say that today’s rise of cannibalism in America is not a direction that are genes are taking us. Not that the tapping on a keyboard by Richard Dawkins, himself a product of “blind pitiless indifference,” means anything, there is no way within the evolution orbit to condemn today’s cannibals:

“In the universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won’t find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”2

There is no way to know if Adolf Hitler was a head of his time, one of evolution’s “hopeful monsters” that the not-so-evolved human race at that did not appreciate, or whether he was evil incarnate. An evolutionist cannot say.

Once the moral claim of government coercion is accepted bused on what is said to be a scientific fact, then who’s to say where it should and can stop. With Mayor Bloomberg it began with trans fats and salt and has “evolved” to sugary drinks and movie pop corn. What’s frightening about all of this is that more than 40 percent of New Yorkers approve of the coercion.

Because evolution is said to be a scientific fact like gravity is a scientific fact, we are now at the mercy of anyone who can argue for coercion in the name of science. Dennis Prager understands the political “evolution” of liberalism:

Whereas until now, the democratic left has attempted to persuade humanity that left-wing policies are inherently progressive, this Harvard professor has gone a huge step further. Left-wing policies are scientifically based. This is exactly how the Soviet Communists defended their totalitarian system. Everything they advocated was naoochni, “scientific.”

Scientism is the god of modern man. It’s a religion, and a very bad one, that is being forced on all of us in the name of an enlightened worldview.

  1. William A. Dembski, The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2009), 49. []
  2. Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (New York: HarperCollins/BasicBooks, 1995), 133. []



  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NLORN6B3ZNGCAJTFHWWFUUEY4Q jong

    More liberal stupidity in this case literally. His premise is that we need coercion to do what is good for us. Maybe he knows a lot of people that put their hands in a open flame but, as a conservative I do not. Evolution because of the left wing is at a stand still. They are and allow other destructive behavior (such as homosexuals) to survive through technology were in a natural world they would have died out long ago.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JOKVBG3UZKBOZODJ33L26MCJKQ FatMan45

      Not to mention how they believe the rest of the non-human, "natural" (I'm natural!) world should be frozen exactly as it is today (think the Endangered Species Act, etc.). If that isn't hypocrisy...

  • Ray

    Just because a bunch of New York liberals go along with taking other peoples freedoms, doesn't mean it's a standard. That's why so many people don't live in city's like that. Liberalism is a contradiction all by itself & they know it, that's why they're so fruity thinking!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Barrus/100003813708373 Jim Barrus

    Everything is based on choice. You have the choice to be free or the choice to live under absolute rule. If you chose the latter you have no more choice. If you choose to live free you can make all other choices. Coercion is not evolution. It has been used to have their own way. If you want someone to take your path convince them. If you force them they will leave as soon as they can.

  • Breezeyguy

    This is nuts. How can an inherently amoral structure "need" anything? If it's amoral, then nothing matters. If the world were destroyed tomorrow, it wouldn't matter. Or if all the babies were murdered and all the women raped tomorrow, it wouldn't matter. That's the logic of atheistic material dogmatism. So for this nut job to say a collection of 10^x elements "need" anything laughable on the face of it.

    The fact is, God exists and matters, spirit exists and matters, individuals exist and matter, morals exist and matter, evils exists and matters. That is precisely why something can logically be "needed".

    • Mark_OneTwo

      Perfect !

  • WallyW

    Let's evolve to accept the fact that socialism doesn't work. The one-size-fits-all mentality and ignorance of history suggests to me that more evolution is required for some of us.

  • wbliss

    We were created with inalienable rights. We were created to wish for "liberty or death." We were created to develop a government of checks and balances and with a greatly limited central Federal government. And just what scientific evidence does this obviously pseudo-scientist have that is concrete, unbiased and produced using the scientific method? You know, the method that I use to develop serological diagnostic tests to detect virus diseases in plants? Yes I am an R&D scientist in a lab.

    • samtman

      Not a word in the Bible about " created with inalienable rights" or democracy, liberty, freedom of speech. Those are secular Ideas first developed by the pagan Greeks and Early Romans.

  • Chameleon751

    The one comment that is missing here is that 'evolution' is nothing more than a theory. It has never been proven. If real freedom of information was allowed it would be found that there is more 'scientific' information against evolution than there is for it.
    Those who wish to believe they came from some formless mass, which by all scientific evidence, could not have produced life to begin with - that is their right, their choice.
    What is not their right is to try to 'make' everyone else accept their line of thinking. They need to practice what they 'think' they preach and leave people "free" to choose their own life values and what they would believe.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Buster-Gibson/100000893089909 Buster Gibson

      There prbly is various info out there re: Evolution, BUT, I guess, is being suppressed, b/c "Somebody" or group doesnt want info to get out. Example: who built the Egyptain pyramids? Various answrs, from smart to nutty, but ya havta look for the "interesting" answrs. Thus are gently being suppressed. Good thing Ya'll like to read/research!

    • StephenFR

      Chameleon, That evolution exists is a proven fact. What is not proven is how it all came into being and where various forms of life evolved from. That is, you can exert external stimuli on a fruit fly and over a period of generations cause it to evolve. It has been done and proven. All life is subject to external stimuli and therefore must evolve. Now the question is, what did we evolve from? That is, even if it could be proven that man evolved out of a different species, which has not been proven. Who or what created the spark that we refer to as intelligence. My guess is that it was God. I have a 12 year old that confronts his teachers (whom I feel sorry for some times as he is smarter than they are) in the following ways.
      "You say that the world is 4.5 billion years old as we measure it, and I can accept that. May I ask you what constitutes a day to and eternal being? After all, even within our own solar system, different planets have different lengths to their day. On our planet different species have different active to rest cycles. So to God what appears to be 7 days could to us be 5.5 billion years."
      "If the Big Bang created the Universe, what created the Big Bang? Could it not have been God?"
      As I said, I feel sorry for his teachers, particularly those without some kind of a theological and scientific background.

      • marlio

        I feel sorry for YOU who appear to be an atheist, and do not believe in God. YOu will have no place in Gods Paradise if you do not accept Jesus into your life. YOu have to accept God on Faith, he cannot be proven. But if you want to believe you evolved from an amoeba go ahead but I dont!

        • StephenFR

          marlio, you need to learn to read beyond the first sentence. I AM a Christian with a strong belief in God. I am also a logical, rational being who does not dismiss the facts that are around him, but also looks to see if he can glean an understanding between my Christian beliefs and what I observe. I observe that mankind has grown from an average height of 4 feet tall in the 13 & 1400's to almost 6 feet tall now. Why, evolution, which means the genetic reaction of a species to external stimuli. It does not mean a changing of species necessarily. The question becomes, what were the external stimuli and what brought those stimuli about? I would postulate that the stimuli are the workings of God, either directly or by original design. It is still God running the show.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JOKVBG3UZKBOZODJ33L26MCJKQ FatMan45

        If evolution is a proven fact, then please name me just ONE example of a species that has evolved directly into another species, i.e., no "missing link". Darwin himself said that if no such evidence was found within 50-100 years then his THEORY wouldn't hold up. But until such evidence (proof, if you will) is found, it remains just a theory, and so far an unproven one.

        • StephenFR

          To evolve does not necessarily mean to change from one species into another. Darwin, who postulated the theory never made that argument. The theory basically states that through natural genetic manipulation brought on by external influence mutations will occur. Some of these mutations will be to the advantage of a species. These advantages will allow the possessors a greater ability to pass on the new genetic code. I would postulate that the external influences are brought about by the manipulation of our environment by the design of God. Thus, that species evolve is a fact. That they evolve into a new species is yet to be demonstrated. That God, either directly or by original design is responsible is a matter of faith, which I hold.

      • gramps

        what is often construed as evolution, is merrly adaptation.

        • StephenFR

          They are really the same thing. They both denote change. Evolve has just been cooped.

      • mack.hewitt

        It is indisputable that evolution occurs. What is certainly disputable, and has never in fact been proven, is inter-species evolution, that is, one species becoming another distinct species. The fact that this part of the evolutionary theory continues to contain a huge void in no way influences the confirmed atheistic evolutionists that their theory may need to be reconsidered. It is a phenomenon that is all too common in the political left, to whom atheistic beliefs are especially precious. Consider the church of global warming/climate change. Even though anthropologic climate change has been shown to be the least likely scenario the left clings to it as if it were their religioni - which it is.

        • StephenFR

          Mack, Yep, I have to agree. Evolve merely denotes change with the implication that those changes that benefit the species get passed along more readily as they give the species some advantage. The real question is, who or what control the external stimuli that propagate the changes and is it through original design or by direct intervention? Either way it demonstrates the existence of God.

      • Tout

        Right. We know, nothing comes from 'nothing'. Yet so many try to explain how 'something' started from nothing. But they are unable to explain how something started from 'nothing'. 'Nothing' can never produce anything. Knowing this, there is only one other answer: 'Something' had no beginning, existed always, will exist always. That will sound strange to many, who do not understand it as being possible. Yet there are other truths that are accepted, with us knowing that we will never know 'why', never will understand. A 'LIVE', that created (brought fort) everything that exists. That 'LIVE' must have 'brains', for it made eveything work so well; we call it GOD. Even creating Adam and Eve. Regretably those disobeyed their Creator. Were punished. Luckily Jesus opened Heaven again to those who are worthy to enter. One can refuse to enter. That's up to you. Better get smart on where you want to end up in eternity. Do some serious thinking.

    • gramps

      If I believed evolution, I would say it is going the other direction. Man was once superior, but as time progresses he is appearing more and more like the pimevel slime he was supposed to have originated from. This is especially true for the politicians .

    • BJ

      If evolution "is only a theory" HOW do you explain the FACT that scientists are finding more and more anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria? They have to keep developing more new anti-biotics because the existing ones no longer kill the "bugs".

      • RD

        selective breeding (regardless of human involvment) is only a form of evolution, the 'evolution' most people are objecting to is the one that claims all life forms have a common accidential source. Which at best is a tenent of a faith, the commonality between life forms can be explained with other methods. For example computer programs share a lot of similarities - did they happen by random chance? Was the unicycle the first wheeled device or did it make itself?

  • B Webb

    Good article, but please Godather Politics proofread your work - both grammatical and spelling errors here.

  • Esteban Cafe

    Were I a true acolyte of Evolution, would not doctrines like "Survival of the Fittest" allow me to kill my liberal neighbor and take his wife? Post-birth abortion notions would allow me to dispense with his off-spring, too. The moral underpinnings that argue against such action do not come from Evolutionary doctrines, they are Judeo-Christian. The Darkest of all ages will be ruled by Evolutionary forces--there is no "Right or Wrong" only "What Works." And a .45acp works very well indeed.

    Evolutionists' Hi-jacking of Christian teachings such as "turn the other cheek" and "forgive others" are delaying our natural progression and evolution. Seems like they'd be into the 'short and brutish' life style caused by evolution.

    • Mark_OneTwo

      According to jack-Ass Liebermans’ premise, this is perfectly logical.
      Libs live in a constant state of narcissistic hypocrisy and delusion.

    • gramps

      Like the bible says: ...men shall have a form of godliness, but deny its existence . This applies to the religions of atheism, evolution, liberalism, communism and any other isms. They claim one thing but apply another.

  • Glay

    We should all evolve out of liberalism and eliminate it completely.

  • flaphil

    What do you expect a atheist liberal to write? Reading the NY Times is like reading the Communist Manifesto also.

  • hongryhawg

    I don't see any bans proposed for 44 oz. malt liquor. Why don't we start there? If the history is available, I certain we would find more costs incurred from the readily available malt liquor than large sodas. If you've convinced yourself that coercion is necessary, then apply it where it will do some good. Large sodas? Seriously? It would be funny if it wasn't so stupid.

  • blaineiac

    No, it is that we have been forcibly "devolved" into little docile brainless "sheeple" by our government's "liberal" behavior modification indoctrination centers' application of "progressive eduucation". It is "testing time" for us, and we are being evaluated to see how much we will put up with. Stupidity raises its' own, and this liberal "professor" is smoking gun proof that stupidity goes all the way to the top.

  • Mark_OneTwo

    If he would follow his own advise by cleaning the gene pool and having himself coerced off a cliff, then Id agree that he might have a point.

  • samtman

    Blah Blah Blah. Its very simple in evolutlion. Every species tries to find the best way to survive. Cattle have found that by eating grass, they can survive better than hunting for other animals. Tigers and Lions have found that they can survive better by hunting grazing animals. Humans have found that they can survive better by cooporation with each other instead of killing and competing within a grouping of humans. Morality grew out of this cooporation and became a necessary part of survival in the evolutlion and developement of mankind. Some of the first moral codes and laws were written some 800 years befor the ten commandments by the Hebrews , called the Code Of Hamurabi, a middle eastern King of Babylonia Its amazing how similar the 10 commandmetns and the Code Of Hamurabi is. Wonder if they copied them.

  • http://pumping-irony.livejournal.com/ Bonfire of the Idiocies

    Of course, when some non-progressive idiot is running things, we will then be told "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" again.

  • nmleon

    The Theory of Evolution says that one species evolves into another through genetic mutation. In order to be classified as a separate species the members of that species must be able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.
    Does Lieberman seriously propose that homo sapiens has genetically mutated into another species?

  • FormerNYer

    Yeah, let's examine their lives, habits, and diets...guessing there'd be a whole lot of "Do as I say, not as I do" going on there.....such morons! I love NY, too bad they've ruined it...San Fran too!

  • ezekiel22

    There is nothing new here. All it is is a rehashing of the theory of evolution. Basically the religion of humanism which glorifies man needs evolution as its Book of Genesis. If one was to read the Humanist manifestoes one and two you would see it. Besides if you notice Marxism and its appellate sects are based on humanism.

  • Blair

    Coercion, unfortunately, works.

  • StandsWithTruth

    Without God's wisdom, we suffer under man's knowledge...

  • marlio

    Humans were made by God; we did not evolve. WE are perfect and in Gods Image.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alan-Knabenbauer/1413177248 Alan Knabenbauer

    the gov of NY can pry my large ice cold drink from my dead cold hands
    this guy is SO FAR out of this planets orbit that I think he's a zoombie in the making
    bloomberg hello bloomberg earth calling

    • Miss Kathleen Craigie

      AMEN, Alan.... I will NEVER bow down to any of FOOD FASCIST garbage from Bloomberg or michelle obama...... They can take that garbage and ...................put it where the sun won't shine!!

  • richbrat

    It's the way we treat the weakest members of society that defines us as Christians. Evolution, defining survival of the fittest, is patently anti- Christian, as are many rich people who call poor people "useless eaters." The fact is every earthling has some karmic reason why s/he is here, either a past mistake or just a general learning process. Life is very fragile. You can be a fit, aggressive iron-pumping specimen today and be dead in a week from some flesh-eating bacteria. That's why Darwinism is so much B.S.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4ZQ6I2GKBRIL2CZAWZZO44HWQY Doc

    More leftist elitism's from the most leftist college in America.

  • stlrsbabe

    One of Obama's goons. they think the can run government, they can: Into the river or ravine.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IBPI63ABT264USBDALCN4F7UKY billy2

    liberalism IS A MENTAL DISORDER, and we definitely have a cannibal in our oval office, let's get rid of this evil filth that is trying to destroy our AMERICA.

  • ConservaDave

    40% of New Yorkers approve of becoming Bloomberg's slaves? No wonder they have elected Chuck the scmuck Schumer twice. Talk about going blindly into the trap with your eyes wide open. Man, are we Americans in trouble, so distant from our noble heritage...

  • pablo descartes

    Was Trayvon Martin on bath salts that night?

  • purplewings

    IMHO -This is about EGO. Someone who believes they are smarter & more advanced than others and It's his right to force the idiots to rise? I really believe all humans are born with everything that's needed to live a great life. Everyone is advanced in specific areas and we need to believe it and search within. We are all a piece of the puzzle. Together we can complete it. Life/superiority should not be about finding a way to rob hard working people without them realizing they're being robbed. And if anyone was meant to be the ruler of all men, earth would have been destroyed in war long ago, because the rest of us have ego too. Majority rules. That's as it should be. It's the only way to fit the pieces together for harmony and justice.

  • Eddie

    What makes the rantings of Harvard professors worthwhile? Will we ever learn?

    I am reminded of the musings of Stephen Leacock, a Canadian humorist, essayist and teacher...
    When asked how he would go about building a university, he said the first thing he would do is set up a cafeteria, for that is where most of the real learning is done--with students exchanging ideas and discussing lectures with someone to whom they can relate. Next, if he still had money, he would establish a library, where students could learn to investigate and draw their own conclusions from the wealth of writings. Lastly, if he still had money left over, HE WOULD HIRE PROFESSORS!!!

  • gnafuasusual

    This Professor Lieberman has been smoking too much pot.