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.
Actually, the "theory of evolution" per se does not address origins - only speciation. Thus it does not speak to the question of abiogenesis v biogenesis. The Intelligent Design hypothesis is not a theory of origins either, BTW.
However, the general term "evolution" applies to all forms of gradual change over time and thus includes stellar evolution, abiogenesis, social changes, etc.
For this reason - on the crevo threads for the last couple of years - we've been careful to make the distinction between the theory of evolution and the concept of evolution - and try to raise abiogenesis v. biogenesis as a separate topic.
Evolution and empiricism both have limits. Data and theories alone do not make science. For most people a heliocentric solar system is known only through faith and inference, and not through empirical proofs. In fact, it cannot be empirically proven that the earth revolves around the sun simply because all descriptions of motion are subject the the point from which motion is observed.
That people act in their own self interest, creating a capitalistic trade system does not equate to "evolution". People have the God given gift of intelligence (except democrats). Small communities bartered. When populations grew in many places, bartering became more difficult, so money was invented. The advances in capitalism come from individuals making informed decisions about how best to bring comfort and joy to their lives. Others see the examples of the smart guys and emulate it. Over time, it became a complex world trading and finance system. So capitalism is designed. Designed by trial and error of individuals over the centuries. Without intelligence behind it, intelligence to see what works and what does not, people would still live in caves and only trade with their next cave neighbor.
It might be that they imagine themselves to be legal guardians over the name and practice of science so that, when a point of view contrary to their own is mentioned or spoken, their imagined legal authority is threatened.
A list, or perhaps some examples, of this evidence would be helpful.
Do you believe that all (and I mean ALL!) animals were created by God with absolutely no changes to their physiology between the time of their creation and now?
Did you parents plan your birth or were you an 'accident'?
What are the atheist evilutionists afraid of? Why won't they allow equal time for Creation in science class? (Free Republic)
What is George Bush afraid of? Why won't he allow equal time for Helen Thomas in press conferences? (Democratic Underground)
It's not a matter of fear - some viewponts are simply beneath consideration
Explain how the pattern of ERV distribution points to ID
Yeah. Chemistry is just faith.
There is no law of chemistry which provides that random elements will come together to form living cells, your declaration of faith notwithstanding.
Ahem.
There is no known law...
150 years ago, there was no known law that would allow man to build and successfully operate a heavier-than-air vehicle.
Ditto for radio, television, etc.
Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].
Science is more than facts and theories. From specific to general it consists of data, theories, and shaping principles. Baconian inductivism, hypothetico-deductivism, and Popperian falsification each have their weaknesses. Furthermore there is no clear-cut method to determine the degree to which evidence may or may not confirm a scientific theory. Is it an empirical fact that the law of parsimony always applies? If not, then when do we know for certain we are choosing the correct theory?
The debate over evolutionism vs. creationism is the result of investing inferences on a non-empirical basis. Because science is, as far as we know, only undertaken by the human species, there is a subjective propensity to fill in the blanks when reasoning from the specific to the general when there may be little or no objective continuity.
How is this different than the Christian putting his faith in an unseen God? And why should your faith be taught in schools paid for with my taxes?
Someone forgot to tell Pope John Paul.
[N]ew knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [... de nouvelles connaissances conduisent a reconnaitre dans la theorie de l'evolution plus qu'une hypothese.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.Pope John Paul II, 1996
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.