So, I am watching Life on the Discovery Channel on my HDTV, and it’s so cool. Sometimes the narrator slips into saying things likes “this plant evolved such-and-such behavior” which of course is a mere homage to the dull Darwinian orthodoxy. I mean, suppose you replace “evolved” with “were created 6,000 years ago with” or simply something meaningless like “cleepsed their behavior.” Would that explain anything? I mean, come on, if you say that the plant has evolved, then you must be prepared to supply the relevant details: when it obtained its present nature; from what it evolved; through what intermediate stages; how long each evolutionary thrust took; which genetic mutations occurred when and in what sequence; how each feature of the plant evolved; what happened on each level of the plant from organs (roots, leaves) to biochemical and physical events within cells in all their mechanical specified complexity; and a hundred other things. No such explanation is even attempted. So, who cares? I suggest that a far more fascinating and, yes, fruitful approach is to treat these life forms as divine engineering. Were I a biologist, I’d think of the objects of my studies as exactly that.
Slavery, they say, is wrong. But can you prove it? I can, and do, in this book, as a small part of building a metaethical system. You will learn what is good -- or rather what good is; why murder is wrong; how morality motivates; and a whole lot of cool things in this vein.