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.
Quoting: "But God has a few words for such clever folks.
"How can you believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that comes from God only?" (the words of Jesus in The Gospel According to John 5:44)
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. (from Paul's first letter to the Church at Corinth, 1:20, 26-29)
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. (from Paul's second letter to Timothy 3:7)
For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.(from the book of Acts 17:21)
This is just a bunch of superstitious hooey to you, I'm sure, as it once was to me.
I pray that God will open your eyes and your heart. "
Reply:
This is the final refuge for lousy arguments. Quote an "authority". However, the Bible is not a scientific reference. Because you assert that "God tells me" is not a reasonable argument. God speaks to shizophrenics as well.
There are dozens of ancient texts saying this and that. Bible dozens of versions), Koran, Baghavad Vita, etc. Many anciently-rooted traditions, interpreted by various self-anointed priesthoods.
And more than 500 different creation myths. Why should Genesis be singled out as the "one true myth"? An account involving a rib from a male to make a female and a talking snake is particularly weird.
The Bible as science is full of internal contradictions and full of contradictions to observable facts. Demons do not cause disease, but microbes and viruses do. The earth is not the center of the solar system. The earth is actually 4.5 billion years old. Noah's flood never happened. The Bible as a source of moral 'truth' is equally sad. Murder, animal sacrifice, rape, killing of the unborn and infants, incest, promiscuity, slavery, ritual sexual mutilation are all supported there.
Not only are those things not in the Bible (which rarely mentions any government other than a monarchy), but those who wrote and defended the Constitution during the ratification process (Madison & Hamilton) never mentioned any scriptural connection in the Federalist Papers.
You can search the Federalist Papers on line (I have done this), but you'll find not one mention of the words "bible," "scripture," or "Jesus." The word "Christian" appears once, in a reference to an historical period. "Lord" appears 5 times, but always in reference to aristocracy or the House of Lords. "God" appears 3 times, respectively referring to demi-gods, pagan gods, and nature's god (a deist expression).
Don't take my word for it. Here's a search-able copy: The Federalist Papers.
The rise of evolutionary theory was accompanied with a vogue for eugenics, "the improvement of the race," "selective breeding," and "the elimination of the unfit." The consequences were disastrous. You can argue that not all the eugenicists were Darwinists, but there's no denying that the atmosphere of early Darwinism encouraged a decline in respect for human life. That's what the creationists and supporters of intelligent design are worried about. I haven't made up my mind about the question, but right now I trust the scientific chauvinists less than the religious ones.Just keep in mind: Eugenics was the attempt to intelligently design micro-evolutionary changes to our species. The eugenicists believed that we could do a much better job than evolution at improving the species, if we'd just use our intelligence. Also, AFAIK eugenicists were never interested in macro-evolutionary changes to create a new species; they just wanted to engineer micro-evolutionary changes to improve the existing species.
The moral: Scientific theories themselves are value-neutral. It's the dominant philosophy of an age or a society that determines what good or evil will come out of new scientific discoveries.
It is an 18th/19th Century Britishism. I have never heard the word used. My mother writes historical romances for Harlequin Mills&Boon and blackguard is the kind of word used to describe the villain. He would cheat at cards, sleep with other mens wives then dump them when they get clingy, and maybe even believe in the theory of evolution (no, wait, that's just ridiculous). You can't get much worse than blackguard. They all deserve a damn good horsewhipping. I think the guy who labelled me blackguard was American though.
Yeah, when God asked Moses to remind him what the Commandments were Moses forgot those. As well as "Thou shalt not wear both socks and sandals."
For an insight, check into Federal Science Research Funding prior to WWII. Most people are amazed to discover that the Feds weren't always the major source of funding. An example; if memory serves -- back around the time of the First World War, the US government had exactly one Chemist on the payroll (probably in the department of agriculture.) Another example: who built all the great Astronomical telescopes of the early to mid-20th century? Philanthropists like "Hale," that's who.
The twin evils of government tax increases and federal funding of science R&D has driven out most of the private money that used to finance almost all basic science research. Putting the Genie back in the bottle won't be easy, but as long as you have a single funding source controlling the purse strings, political influence is always a risk. The advantage of private philantropic funding is if you don't like the politics of one funding source, you are free to pursue others. If you don't like Rockefeller's strings on your research dollars, you could ask Carnegie, et al, for the money.
Free markets = free minds. Multiple competetive sources of funding and multiple competetive research efforts vying for those funds would minimize political influence on research. I'm sure there will inevitably be drawbacks to this approach, such as increased uncertainty about future funding, but Utopia isn't an option.
I'm glad God found someone for ol' Gobucks to enjoy his sexual fantasies with. Otherwise he might spend more time here.
It does however, settle the Bible vs. evolution argument by proving Genesis wrong, as it would make us creations of the created, not creations of the Creator. It would also render the entire Old Testament worthless (other than the historical aspects) and cast serious doubts on the New Testament. Furthermore, as the question of our origins is then settled, the question of the creator's Creator become's someone else's question.
I guess my problem with ID is that no matter how you look at it, and from everything I've read about it, it is Judeochristianity attempting to insert itself into the public classrooms. ID supporters are not out there willing to include Babylonian, Norse, aborigine, Chinese, and all other creation stories into the discussion of how life evolved, ID supporters believe, almost to the last man and woman, in Biblical creation, and untimately, and as we clearly see in The Wedge Document, ID is a sociopolitical movement and not an expression of faith, insofar as it seeks to influence societal "evolution" by injecting Judeo-Christian theology into public school science classrooms.
I think it desingenous and disrespectful to try and "slide God in under the door" disguised as merely an intelligent creator, and it violates the Establishment clause in the Constitution by teaching Judeo-Christian creationism to the exclusivity of all others.
"You who believe in evolution really need to reign in some on your side who are using evolution to advance their religion/metaphysical assumptions."
"...truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict" -- Thomas Jefferson"God is truth." -- Unknown
Let the debate rage.
Let those who seek truth strive to find it, because all they can find is God.
Personally, I am not conflicted by the Creation vs. evolution debate, I believe in Creation, and accept the possibility of evolution. I don't make claims to understand the manner in which He went about the creation of everything, and do not believe that I ever will, but, and as I've said so many times in this forum...if there ever was some slime that produced an amoeba capable of evolving into a fish who could get itself out of the water, and become a reptile that evolved into an ape who eventually became a man, then God created that slime.
Quite right. From the gobucks postings you referenced:
"We Bible Thumpers, .... this single issue, that of sexual gratification and satisfaction, then this fight over evolution would be exposed for the trojan horse it really is.
... I'm one .... of Christians who quite simply say: the sex is better, ALOT BETTER, when Christ is the Lord of the marriage. Why? Because the Holy Spirit is involved in all aspects of life for obedient Christians, including that associated w/ the bonding of husband and wife. Thus, the acts of bonding go way beyond the physcial realm that these atheistic scientists are currently constrained by. And interestingly, they are not interested in evidence or reports, such as this one, to the contrary... I would find several of those reasons in my own bedroom.
This is a known feature of the applicable acquatic shellfish enviroments. When creationists wave it around as a "problem," they are trolling for suckers.
Quoting: "The moral: Scientific theories themselves are value-neutral. It's the dominant philosophy of an age or a society that determines what good or evil will come out of new scientific discoveries."
I agree. It is very weird that IDers and creationists attach no moral values to the Germ Theory of Disease. Indeed, the GTOD overturned much more than the TOE. GTOD denied that illness was a product of God's displeasure and punishment, and stated that there were naturalistic causes (microbes and viruses). The church objections to the GTOD quickly lost traction; theology was readjusted quite fast! Indeed, the desire to go to a fancied heaven was quickly replaced by a desire to live longer--recognizing that this life is the only one we really know of.
ID faith and internal contradictions go hand-in-hand.
Excellent point. I've never seen it put so well as that.
If you can light it, it's not CO2.
Blackguard is from black + guard. The term originally referred to the lowest kitchen servants of a court or of a nobleman's household. They had charge of pots and pans and kitchen other utensils, and rode in wagons conveying these during journeys from one residence to another. Being dirtied by this task, they were jocularly called the "black guard."Source: I gotcher source, right here.
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.