Progress became a theme in European thought in about 1750. The thinkers of the Enlightenment wanted to replace the Biblical account of time (Genesis, Creation, Fall, Redemption) with a myth which put Man, not God, at the centre of the story. The narrative of human progress was understood to be both a material and a moral process; not just changing our technologies, but altering our instincts, and for the better.

We now live in ironic, anti-heroic times. Do we still believe in the story of progress? It sits in the attic of our minds like a glorious Victorian antique, as magnificent as a stuffed moose head and just as useless. Perhaps worse than useless. Modern political correctness has lodged a suspicion in our mind about the Ascent of Man. What do you mean, Man? What about Woman? And which Man? Surely not the European conquerors? And Ascent? Surely you're not implying that western civilization is superior to everything that's gone before? And so on. The Ascent of Man may be an idea we had better do without.

1. The author mentions the thinkers of the Enlightenment in order to:

A. assert that the Bible was an impediment in the way of progress.
B. demonstrate that Man is superior to God.
C. affirm that human progress is akin to mastery over the world.
D. illustrate the transformation in man's approach towards the concept of 'progress'.
E. conclude that the Ascent of Man is an obsolete idea.


2. Select the sentence in the passage that highlights the primary difference between the Modern and the Biblical accounts of time.