What Are Creationists Afraid Of?

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps market is the wrong word then.

I was assuming the market is a system that emerges as a result of many people wanting to buy and sell with each other. Throw in a few thousand people and the system becomes very complex and chaotic. Order forms - there appears to be an overall direction and purpose, and the assumption might be that a super intelligence would be necessary to control something that complex. But there is noone guiding the direction of the overall system, and it has no purpose. It wanders of its own accord. What appears intelligently design is simply a consequence of lots of "dummies" trading with each other.

If I were to throw my hands up at the sheer complexity of the world markets I might assume there must be some higher intelligence guiding it. I'd be wrong though.

But it is an Intellligently driven process, isn't it? It is not random. It is PURPOSE DRIVEN^®.

Did the keyboard that you are typing on just appear out of thin air? Or did someone design it? Did someone manufacture it? Did someone find a buyer for it? Did someone ship it to a distribution center where it was distributed to a retail store where you found it?

I was just looking at the instant oatmeal box on my desk. It probably took the efforts of 150 people to get that oatmeal on the store shelve. It is not a random process. It is an intelligently driven process with dozens of independent intelligent decisions bringing it about.

To compare the market to evolution is to admit that "evolution" (such as it is) is an intelligently driven process. Are you willing to admit that FACT?

" That the Evolutionists will continue to sell discredited theories (the primordial soup)"

The origins of life are not part of the ToE.

"and outright frauds (the peppered-moth photos, Haekel's long-ago debunked drawings, Piltdown Man, etc.)"

The moth pictures were accurate (one picture had two moths glued to a tree to show the difference in coloration; the rest of the pictures were from the field and showed moths singly on tree trunks), Haeckel's drawings haven't been taught for decades, and Piltdown Man is the about the only real hoax in paleontology.

"That evolution has no viable theory of abiogenesis..."

Nor does germ theory. So what?

"Hayek neglects to mention that within that system are millions of micro-systems, each of which does have one or more intellegent designers controling it and responding to events: CEOs, accountants, inventors, coders, assembly-line workers, project managers, etc."

And there is no possible way for any one person to know the whole system, or even a fraction of it. The system itself is undirected, though the individual units are.

" Prove that it did. Don't demand that I take the "scientific" theory of evolution on faith."

Science doesn't deal in *proof*; proof is for math and whiskey.

" The day that the evo-inquisition pitched a hissy fit and ruined Richard Sternberg's career for his daring to allow a peer-reviewed article by Stephen Meyer supporting ID to appear in the pages of the Smithsonian, never mind that it passed all the standard hurdles for publication, they forever surrendered their scientific "high ground" and put themselves in the position of ardent religionists defending a dogma."

Horse manure.
http://danielmorgan.blogspot.com/2005/12/sternberg-saga-continues.html

"And that's why I don't bother to debate this issue the way I used to; it became obvious long ago that I was not engaged in a scientific discussion..."

Yes, I agree. :)

(before you say it I already know I cut your statement off)

Hayek neglects to mention that within that system are millions of micro-systems, each of which does have one or more intellegent designers controling it and responding to events:

The "designers" controlling evolution are the rules of chemistry. Untold billions of particles, all acting according to a set of rules. When each human in Hayek's system act according to their needs, an efficient economy evolves. When each atom in evolution's system acts according to it's rules, life evolves.

Prove that it did. Don't demand that I take the "scientific" theory of evolution on faith.

Prove a designer did it. Don't demand that I put my children in a public school and teach them one particular ancient faith with no greater reliability than hundreds of other ancient faiths.

A cute way to bias the argument. "Oooh, those eeeeeevil, stoooooopid fundamentalists."

And I suppose you've never thrown around the term "Darwinist".

But there are also plenty of Creationists who are willing to grant a 15 billion year old universe

Then you admit that Genesis is not literal. So what *other* parts of Genesis are not literal? The development of man perhaps?

And that's why I don't bother to debate this issue the way I used to; it became obvious long ago that I was not engaged in a scientific discussion, but a religious discussion with someone who isn't honest enough to admit it.

You're funny.

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Without God, yes. With God, no.

Depending on the nature of the "God" in question. Of course, there's also the question of whether or not God's defined morality is his own arbitrary choice.

But without faith in something, there would be no logical reason for you not to do it should you, like Saddam Hussein or Mao Zedong or Stalin, find yourself in a position where mass murder would benefit you.

Are you saying that Saddam Hussein is an atheist?

It's not difficult to justify mass murder for the same reason for a theist. Simply claim that God doesn't frown upon such actions. How can you prove that wrong?

So do you believe humans are still evolving, and if so, into what? Do you believe there are still sub-species of humans?

Everything is still evolving; look at "drug-resistent" bacteria. Evolution is how they got that way.

Evolving into what depends on selection pressure and environment. If humans begin to live and breed to space for some generations expect to see significant changes. Not sure what they would be.

As far as different sub-species of humans--no. Some anthropologists (such as Montague) question whether there are even human races. There are a lot of difference between and among groups, both in classical racial traits (skin color, hair color and form, etc.) as well as genetic traits (fingerprint patterns, blood types, etc.), but there are huge overlaps. Dark skin, for example, is a trait of hot climates and says little about descent.

All of these are fascinating studies!

But it is an Intellligently driven process, isn't it? It is not random. It is PURPOSE DRIVEN^®.

Obviously no analogy is perfect, and will break down on various points. But you're clearly missing and breezing right by the point on which the analogy here (between evolution and economic markets) is held to be most relevant.

Yes, individual (and corporate) agents in the market place have purposes, but those purposes are particular to the agents. There is no explicit design or intent on the part of the agents involved to build capability and complexity and new functions in the market. The latter happens "by itself," although because of the diverse and eclectic activities of the agents, but without their design.

IOW you're confusing two levels of analysis when you say it's "purpose driven". The agents have actual purposes, but their interactions create markets wich have different, higher level purposes (or apparent purposes).

The agents in evolution also have purposes. An individual organism has the purpose to survive and reproduce. An individual gene has the (effective) purpose to reproduce itself. If a single gene "could" get itself copied over and over again, taking up the entire genome, it readily would do so. Likewise if a single economic agent could monopolize the market place, it would so too. But neither can do that. They can only do what "works". What "works" is determined by the system, not the agents, but the agents create the system which both enables and limits them, even though they don't design to do so.

If you believe that they don't exist because you haven't seem them, then how can you be so sure that God exists?

I haven't seen China either but have enough evidence to believe it is a real place. As I also believe in God.

Can't same the same about the fossil record for evolution.
I just don't find it or the so called evidence for it believable.

I lump all liars into the same basket. There is no difference between a monkey/soup worshipper here telling me bold face lies like... "Evolution doesn't teach that man evolved from monkeys and life originated from chemical soup. That's not evolution" than a Marxist telling me..."No Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot weren't Communists. Communism has never been tried yet.". And Objectivists are in the same class as moonbat Marxists just different lies. All ideologues are slope-headed God-hating Satan worshippers.

If conservatives in the species Republicus conservati continue to debase each other regarding the place of religion in the American habitat, political evolutionary selection forces could conceivably select for another political species to move into the American leadership niche. Random selection forces such as disgust resulting from religious arguments could cause members of Republicus conservati to drift away from the Republican population leaving only communities containing the small number of individuals who can still share common conservative ideas. Within the current politecological environment, one political species appears ready to gain from this possible change in the American habitat. This is Democratus corrupti. Although in recent years the numbers and mental capacities of this nasty little species appear to have been decimated by abortion forces, this loss could be less than the emmigration forces adversely affecting Republicus conservati from their arguments over evolution/creation. One could conceive that as the population of Republicus conservati decreases, Democratus corrupti could move into American leadership roles. We should note that some intraspecific mating has been observed between these two species (Matalin-Carville). No DNA studies have yet confirmed how closely related these two species are but it has been observed in their discussions of religion that certain concepts are interspecific.

Further research is dependent upon future big bucks from my pending research grant applications.

Muleteam1

I assume that since all known humans can interbreed that they would be considered the same species, right?

Europeans proved this beginning about 1492, in a large-scale experiment.

Still, I'm fascinated with the Aborigines and Neanderthals. I really think the Neanderthals have been shortchanged. I wish I knew more about them.

I am too. I have read a bit about both groups but still would love to know more. I think the DNA testing is our best source of data. Bones told us a lot, but the things now being done with DNA are making old bones obsolete (was that a redundancy?).

The agents in evolution also have purposes. An individual organism has the purpose to survive and reproduce.

From whence did it derive it's "purpose"? If an individual organism is nothing but a rock in motion, then the existence of purpose is evidence of a supernatural design which is not present in the rock itself. The chemicals themselves obviously have no emotional attachment to each other that keeps them organized and driven to a purpose to stay in that particular state of organization.

To state that an organism has any inherent "purpose" is ludicrous from a purely naturalistic standpoint. Any purpose that an organism has is the result of that purpose being programmed into it. Now, where do you find the programmer?

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.