The article by Charles Thaxton and Stephen Meyer (Opinion, Dec. 27) was well-written and thought provoking, though not wholly accurate.
Thaxton and Meyer write that the concept of inalienable human rights developed from Judeo-Christian philosophy and therefore suppose that human rights rise and fall with the rise and fall of Western religious belief. The concept of human rights outlined by our forefathers was not an interpretation of the Bible or the past but a consensus as to what should be, which is after all the purpose of a political declaration. The forefathers were not interpreting history, they were making it. In this way, neither they nor we are bound by any religious belief in our affirmation of rights.
Thaxton and Meyer correctly write that science has brought into question the veracity of theology. However, the product of this questioning has been a broader--not narrower--interpretation of human rights. When Thaxton and Meyer write: "This loss of what is distinctively human will in time require either promoting animals to the human estate, or more likely, relegating man to the level of animals," they reveal a pessimism that does not match many current events. The rights of women, the protection of endangered animals and environments, the rights of all people in the Third World, the rights of all products of nature on this planet arise from a broader view of life and God than that circumscribed in traditional Western religious thought. And paradoxically, science has helped bring this about.