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.
When I was a kid, that rainbow got to me.
Had optics not worked before the Flood?
If I recall, the little Mac with its mouse was laughed at when it first came out. Then folks stole everything they could from its design and operation!
At least get a scroll wheel mouse. They are pretty good.
The winters aren't so bad. It can get cold, but there's not a lot of snow.
besides there's absolutely no need for air conditioning. I can't remember any night when the temperature didn't get down to at least the mid 50's.
I've read Gibbon and it took a long time, but it's not hard to see why it was controversial at the time. His description of the early church was quite objective and therefore rather uncomplimentary.
BTW, it's still very much worth reading. It's full of facts, so probably not for some of the crowd.
Find a whipping boy. It doesn't change reality, but makes the liberals (CR/IDers) feel better.
And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and smote them with the edge of the sword, and he utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD commanded.Albigensian crusade, St Bartholomew day massacre. Witch hunts. Spanish Inquisition
Attila the hun, the Mongol hordes, millions of executions at the hands of the spreaders of Islam, Christianity (Aztecs, Incas) etc. etc. etc.
Darwin had a perverse effect on the whole world, everywhere and at every time before he was even a twinkle in his parent's eyes.
By gad, he must be the great Satan!!
I own it (of course) in three volumes, but I've only read portions of it. The first volume is the best, in my always humble opinion. I agree with an earlier poster that the tag-end of the empire is pretty dreary reading, although it's an amazing catalog of horrible government. He's not very complimentary about the role of Christianity. Will Durant (yeah, I've got that whole set) is probably even more harsh in his opinions.
I don't care what you say. I didn't descend from a Gibbon.
So did you ask how the empire managed to survive as long as it did. I've come to the conclusion that it was so partly out of a power vacuum elsewhere and that when things got real bad, they would luck out and find an emperor who wasn't so bad, long enough to patch up the old rusty bucket. Of course they'd kill him and the cycle would start over again.
I'm still amazed it lasted as long as it did.
I have noticed there is a distinct difference between Gibbons and Ostriches.
19th century liberalism more or less opposed war, destructiveness, and bigotry and there was a feeling that such things were in decline at that time. The vogue of violence and tyranny in the early 20th century was connected with the popularized Darwinism of the day.
Darwinism certainly wasn't the only cause, but it was very much a part of the mix. Does anyone seriously dispute that? At a time when religion was adapting to peace and liberty, a crude evolutionism was becoming a vehicle for war and domination. Couldn't that happen again?
I said "I haven't made up my mind about the question, but right now I trust the scientific chauvinists less than the religious ones." I still haven't, but keep working on me, you may convince me completely that you guys are wrong. Some of you are the worst enemies of your cause.
But those people were committing the naturalistic fallacy. The Theory of Evolution, like any other theory in science, is descriptive and not prescriptive.
The other problem with this "argument" against the ToE are the creationists themselves. Even the most hardcore creationist nowadays accepts micro-evolution but this is absolutely sufficient to be an ardent eugenicist, racist or even a Nazi.
There is nothing in the Darwinian Theory of Evolution with its acceptance of common descent of all species (-> nested hierarchy) and macro-evolution which makes the above more plausible than the mere acceptance of micro-evolution and created "kinds".
That's what the creationists and supporters of intelligent design are worried about.
Well, we figured out a long time ago that their main "argument" is a long and contrived appeal to consequences.
Also, there seem to be quite a lot of "Lady Ashley"-type creationists and ID'ers who simply don't want the ToE to be true but even if it is true it should nevertheless be regarded as false.
Lady Ashley when she first heard of the Theory of Evolution: "Let's hope that it's not true; but if it is true, let's hope that it doesn't become widely known." (thanks to Senator Bedfellow for this ;-)
I think it was mostly because they had no important rivals. The Persian empire had been tamed several centuries earlier, by Alexander. The Roman Republic took over the Greeks, wiped out Carthage, and absorbed Egypt (which was a Greek-ruled shadow of its ancient self). Rome was the only superpower in its part of the world when the once-virtuous Republic was devoured by the Imperial form of government.
At that point, regardless of Rome's government, it could pretty much coast along, as I think it did, until it was finally unable to defeat the barbarians, who were actually lesser powers than those that had been conquered by the Republic. (Were the Goths, etc. any more formidable than the Gauls that Caesar conquered?) I don't think Christianity made Rome any stronger, or any weaker. The Western Empire didn't last all that long after Constantine (only from the early 300s to about 475).
The Eastern Empire held out for nearly another 1,000 years, until Islam destroyed Constantinople. But that historical rump of the old Empire wasn't much more than a well-defended city-state. Or so it seems to me.
Quoting: "Darwinism certainly wasn't the only cause, but it was very much a part of the mix. Does anyone seriously dispute that? At a time when religion was adapting to peace and liberty, a crude evolutionism was becoming a vehicle for war and domination. "
I, for one, seriously dispute that! World War I was primarily Christian nations warring with each other, each side praying fervently to a god for victory for their side. WWII was similar. Fine examples of 'peace and liberty', wouldn't you agree? Neither war had anything to do with Darwin or evolution. In fact, I can't recall when "evolutionists" ever fielded an army. Nor even a navy.
While you attempt to lay all manner of social evils against Darwin and the objective evidence behind the Theory of Evolution, in fact, humanity was making some strides. The curse of slavery was ended in the Western World. Women were given equal rights to vote and participate as full humans in democratic processes in the USA. Children were given new protections. Medicine made great strides with the discovery of antibiotics. Physics made huge advances with the understanding of elementary particles and quantum mechanics.
Evolution and rational thinking MAY have played a slight role in women gaining political equality and in recognizing blacks as humans and ending slavery, and if so, Hoorah for Darwin!
What your opponents would say is that a belief in "microevolution" can still be constrained by moral or religious principles. A more extensive theory of evolution may damage those principles. Darwin may or may not be responsible for the bad ideas people had, but one could make a case that his concepts weakened the resolve of good people to fight back.
I don't have a dog in this fight. I simply point out that for some of us these debates have a familiar ring. After WWII thinkers went to some effort to restore ideas of human dignity that had been lost in an earlier, more mechanistic, materialistic, and relativistic generation. To people who remember those days, it sometimes looks like scientists are anxious to take the same wrong turns once again.
Were the violence and tyranny of German National Socialism "connected" to Christianity?
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
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.