...and hence, thanks to 
and/or 
thermodynamics tells us nothing about evolution in a broad brush stroke.
Posted on 01/26/2006 1:47:10 PM PST by jennyp
...
Third, complexity does not imply “design.” One of Adam Smith’s most powerful insights, developed further by Friedrich Hayek, is that incredible complexity can emerge in society without a designer or planner, through “spontaneous order.” Hayek showed how in a free market the complex processes of producing and distributing goods and services to millions of individuals do not require socialist planners. Rather, individuals pursuing their own self-interest in a system governed by a few basic rules—property rights, voluntary exchange by contract—have produced all the vast riches of the Western world.
Many creationists who are on the political Right understand the logic of this insight with respect to economic complexity. Why, then, is it such a stretch for them to appreciate that the complexity we find in the physical world—the optic nerve, for example—can emerge over millions of years under the rule of natural laws that govern genetic mutations and the adaptability of life forms to changing environments? It is certainly curious that many conservative creationists do not appreciate that the same insights that show the futility of a state-designed economy also show the irrelevance of an “intelligently designed” universe.
...
Evolution: A Communist Plot?
Yet another fear causes creationists to reject the findings of science.
Many early proponents of science and evolution were on the political Left. For example, the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 affirmed support for evolution and the scientific approach. But its article fourteen stated: “The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible.”
Subsequent humanist manifestos in 1973 and 2000 went lighter on the explicit socialism but still endorsed, along with a critical approach to knowledge, the kind of welfare-state democracy and internationalism rejected by conservatives. The unfortunate historical association of science and socialism is based in part on the erroneous conviction that if humans can use scientific knowledge to design machines and technology, why not an entire economy?
Further, many supporters of evolution were or appeared to be value-relativists or subjectivists. For example, Clarence Darrow, who defended Scopes in the “monkey trial” eight decades ago, also defended Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. These two young amoralists pictured themselves as supermen above conventional morality; they decided to commit the perfect crime and killed a fourteen-year-old boy. Darrow offered the jury the standard liberal excuses for the atrocity. He argued that the killers were under the influence of Nietzschean philosophy, and that to give them the death penalty would hurt their surviving families. “I am pleading for life, understanding, charity, kindness, and the infinite mercy that considers all,” he said. “I am pleading that we overcome cruelty with kindness and hatred with love.” This is the sort of abrogation of personal responsibility, denial of moral culpability, and rejection of the principle of justice that offends religious conservatives—in fact, every moral individual, religious or atheist.
In addition, nearly all agnostics and atheists accept the validity of evolution. Creationists, as religious fundamentalists, therefore see evolution and atheism tied together to destroy the basis of morality. For one thing, evolution seems to erase the distinction between humans and animals. Animals are driven by instincts; they are not responsible for their actions. So we don’t blame cats for killing mice, lions for killing antelope, or orca whales for killing seals. It’s what they do. They follow instincts to satisfy urges to eat and procreate. But if human beings evolved from lower animals, then we might be merely animals—and so there would be no basis for morality. In which case, anything goes.
To religious fundamentalists, then, agnostics and atheists must be value-relativists and subjectivists. Whether they accept evolution because they reject a belief in God, or reject a belief in God because they accept evolution, is immaterial: the two beliefs are associated, just as are creationism and theism. By this view, the only firm basis for morality is the divine edicts of a god.
This reflects the creationists’ fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of morality.
Morality from Man’s Nature
We humans are what we are today regardless of whether we evolved, were created, or were intelligently designed. We have certain characteristics that define our nature.
We are Homo sapiens. Unlike lower animals, we have a rational capacity, an ability to fully, conceptually understand the world around us. We are self-conscious. We are the animal that knows—and knows that he knows. We do not survive automatically, by instinct, but must exercise the virtue of rationality. We must think. We must discover how to acquire food—through hunting or planting—how to make shelters, how to invent medicines. And to acquire such knowledge, we must adopt a rational methodology: science.
Furthermore, our thinking does not occur automatically. We have free will and must choose to think, to focus our minds, to be honest rather than to evade facts that make us uncomfortable—evolution, for example—because reality is what it is, whether we like it or acknowledge it or not.
But we humans do not exercise our minds and our wills for mere physical survival. We have a capacity for a joy and flourishing far beyond the mere sensual pleasures experienced by lower animals. Such happiness comes from planning our long-term goals, challenging ourselves, calling on the best within us, and achieving those goals—whether we seek to nurture a business to profitability or a child to adulthood, whether we seek to create a poem or a business plan, whether we seek to design a building or to lay the bricks for its foundation.
But our most important creation is our moral character, the habits and attitudes that govern our actions. A good character helps us to be happy, a bad one guarantees us misery. And what guides us in creating such a character? What tells us how we should deal with our fellow humans?
A code of values, derived from our nature and requirements as rational, responsible creatures possessing free will.
We need not fear that with evolution, or without a god, there is no basis for ethics. There is an objective basis for ethics, but it does not reside in the heavens. It arises from our own human nature and its objective requirements.
Creationists and advocates of intelligent design come to their beliefs in part through honest errors and in part from evasions of facts and close-minded dogmatism. But we should appreciate that one of their motivations might be a proper rejection of value-relativism, and a mistaken belief that acceptance of divine revelation is the only moral alternative.
If we can demonstrate to them that the basis for ethics lies in our nature as rational, volitional creatures, then perhaps we can also reassure them that men can indeed have morality—yet never fear to use that wondrous capacity which allows us to understand our own origins, the world around us, and the moral nature within us.
Edward Hudgins is the Executive Director of The Objectivist Center.
Yes, some parts are more deranged than others.
Whether it is a crystal like metalic iron or a complex organic molicule like firewood the spontaneous reaction results in net work or heat produced and the products are part of the soil as rust or ash. To get back to metalic iron or to build a tree requires the system to be pushed or pumped with a net energy input.
Entropy and Physical Chemistry
Classical entropy plays a role in chemical reactions, and that role is exemplified in equation 4 below.
S = (H - F)/T
Equation 4
Of course, this looks just like equation 3 with different letters, and so it is. Here, we are not much interested in the physicists approach of describing the state of a "static" system, as does equation 1. The real interest for the chemist, is to predict whether or not a given chemical reaction will go. In equation 4, H is the enthalpy, and F is the free energy (also known as the Gibb's free energy). Likewise, H and F are incremental variations of those quantities, and S is an incremental change in the entropy of the chemical system, in the event of a chemical reaction.
A little algebra, leading to equation 5, will maybe make things just a little easier to see.
F = H - TS
Equation 5
The significance of this equation is that it is the value of F which tells you whether any give chemical reaction will go forward spontaneously, or whether it needs to be pumped. The enthalpy, H, is the heat content of the system, and so the change in enthalpy, H, is the change in heat content of the system. If that value is smaller than TS, then F will be negative, and the reaction will proceed spontaneously; the TS term represents the ability to do the work required to make the reaction happen. However, if F is positive, such that H is greater than TS, then the reaction will not happen spontaneously; we still need at least F worth of energy to make it happen.
Note that a positive free energy does not mean that the reaction will not happen, only that it will not happen spontaneously in the given environment. It can still be pushed or pumped into happening by adding energy, or setting the reaction in a higher temperature environment, making T larger as well as TS, and perhaps driving it far enough to make F negative.
Maybe I missed something, but I could not find an entry numbered 634 in any category, neither could I find a category titled "Creationist Lies."
Perhaps we can regard your post as Evolutionist Hyperbole.
It was my post, and yes, it was hyperbole. I frequently greet false claims with "Creationist Lie #xxx". I suppose some day I should organize them to give them consistency, but I am excessively lazy.
"Maybe I missed something, but I could not find an entry numbered 634 in any category, neither could I find a category titled "Creationist Lies."
The entire list was only creationist lies.
The current theory of evolution is ‘undirected and without purpose’ which should apply to the universe - otherwise direction would be a given per the anthropic principle towards biology.
Thank you for the intellectually honest answer, and without as much vituperation and invective as is evident in so many of the other evolutionist responses.
However, I still submit that in the response that began with "Creationist Lie #634", you were putting words in my mouth to set up a straw man. :)
...and hence, thanks to
and/or
thermodynamics tells us nothing about evolution in a broad brush stroke.
Good science relies on observations, measurements and derivations called proofs. The pictures I have seen of evolution debates have been of two people at podiums. I have not seen a chalk board as a professor might use to explain measurements or formulas for a physics or chemistry lecture. Critics say String Theory fails at the other end of the spectrum, because all they can offer is mathematical proofs that are not subject to measurement or observation. Again rhetoric even when it uses the word "hell" doesn't cut it. Where are the articles where one side or both uses measurement or mathematics to explain how the primordial stew can turn into dogs?
Unfortunately science only allows for a house of ‘would‘ (no bricks will follow).
-Heartlander
Once again, your tagline fits the pic.
"Critics say String Theory fails at the other end of the spectrum, because all they can offer is mathematical proofs that are not subject to measurement or observation."
I love it when anti-evolution types bring up string theory. IDers can't understand simple things about the age of the earth, and yet they wish to critique string theory without being able to name any 10 elementary particles.
I bet you don't have a clue as to what string theory is trying to explain.
"Good science relies on observations, measurements and derivations called proofs."
No, science never deals in proofs. Proof is for math and whiskey.
"Where are the articles where one side or both uses measurement or mathematics to explain how the primordial stew can turn into dogs?"
The origin of life is outside evolutionary theory.
You are not making much sense; if you have a point please make it.
Quoting: "Well let’s try this - Do you ‘believe’ that human consciousness ultimately comes from mindlessness?"
Do you believe that "colorless green ideas sleep furiously?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.