They are a a one-trick, one-eyed pony.
And so, when faced with something like human dignity, and the curious fact that we endowed with an inborn, innate sense of it, the darwinist brings out his pony. In a previous post, it went like this:
"Are you so lacking in imagination that you cannot see how emotional states like dignity, honour, integrity, and the ability to evaluate those in others would provide a survival advantage to large-brained primates living in complex hierarchical cultures? Why is that so hard to get?"
In other words, I am the dense one.
First off, I think the darwinian survival-advantage argument is very weak when applied to the concept of an indwelling sense of intrinsic dignity. It is a subtle effect painted on the canvas of our psyche that you have to sometimes look for. And it is easy to either miss it or ignored it. It is sublime.
But, the greater question is how a weakly intelligent, scratch that, un-intelligent process, which wouldn't have the first clue what dignity was if it rose up and bit it in the kidneys, could conspire to produce, let's call it, "the dignity effect" in humans. I mean, is there a darwinist out there that has the first clue?
Just one huge, incredibly lucky tweak, maybe? Is there an article out there in the literature entitled "How To Create The Sensation Of Dignity In 1,012 Simple Biochemical Steps".
I'd like to read it.
And that's the way the Ball bounces.