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.
... Today, “morals” are defined by a religious pagan philosophy based on esoteric hobgoblins. Transfiguration is a pantheon of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics and enemies will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law. ...OK, it's time: You're doing a Sokal on us, aren't you?
Thank you for your kind words. Hanging around won't be a problem as I am on PH's pro-evo ping list (and I am pro-evo). I have some things to get to, but hopefully I'll find some time to respond to your post sometime today.
Apples and oranges. We're not talking about the origin of life.
Perhaps not--at our current level of technology. :) However, if the spiritual world has an objective reality, perhaps within a hyperdimensional universe, then we should not rule out the possibility that science and religion will eventually overlap a priori, which is the current trend.
Until it's scientifically provable, it does not belong in science class. Period.
I agree. Look at my first couple of posts on this thread. Personally, I don't care if ID is taught per se (not because I don't think that it's scientific, but because I recognize that it's in its infancy), I just want certain known lies about evolution to be removed from the textbooks, and I want an honest admission given to the students that there is currently no viable theory for how abiogenesis could have come about by accident or natural law. As it stands, the primordial soup nonsense is still being taught as fact as of this year.
Evolution does not address the origin of life. It only states that all life evolved from a common ancestor.
If the evolutionist side of this debate were completely honest in the classrooms about what they do and do not know and about what they can and cannot prove, teaching ID as a counter-point wouldn't be an issue.
Evolution does not address orign of life.
ID says there is no evolution, only creation.
ID cannot be a counterpoint to evolution because they deal with two different aspects.
In fact, ID, as I understand it, says that animals do not and did not evolve. It says that all animals were created by God with absolutley no changes to their physiology between the time of their creation and now.
What Are Creationists Afraid Of?And no, I didn't pull those out of the air. Those are actually in the high school biology text book being used in 2006 here in the metro Atlanta area.That the Evolutionists will continue to sell discredited theories (the primordial soup) and outright frauds (the peppered-moth photos, Haekel's long-ago debunked drawings, Piltdown Man, etc.) to our children in schools paid for with our tax dollars rather than simply teach them the truth: That evolution has no viable theory of abiogenesis and that many of the supposed proofs for evolution that they've been taught all their lives don't actually exist.
So now, you tell me: What are evolutionists so afraid of that they continue to tell outright lies to children in biology class?
Personally, I think my side is missing the boat; they just need to sue the textbook industry for promoting provable lies and known hoaxes.
As far as I can tell we are discussing the ToE and the observation of evolution in action.
How a typically idiotic Ad Hominen argument is supposed to provide evidence against 'Darwinism' or 'Neo-Darwinism' as the Creatinoids so ineloquently put it, is beyond the believable. If you have this much trouble separating the putative use of the observed variation in species to commit atrocities from the scientific use of the theory and process perhaps you should refrain from participating in any argument.
I hear an overabundance of estrogen will do the same thing.
That the Evolutionists will continue to sell discredited theories (the primordial soup) and outright frauds (the peppered-moth photos, Haekel's long-ago debunked drawings, Piltdown Man, etc.) to our children in schools paid for with our tax dollars rather than simply teach them the truth: That evolution has no viable theory of abiogenesis and that many of the supposed proofs for evolution that they've been taught all their lives don't actually exist.
Couple problems there.
Piltdown Man is not being taught in classrooms. Neither is Haekel. The peppered-moth photos were an experiment in predation, and only creationists claim that it was somehow a faked experiement. It also is not being taught in schools.
My question was: What is being taught in the classrooms that is not honest? And in which classrooms?
I'd like some specifics to back up your charge of dishonesty, please.
If the evolutionist side of this debate were completely honest in the classrooms about what they do and do not know and about what they can and cannot prove, teaching ID as a counter-point wouldn't be an issue.
That's what I would like some specifics on. What is being taught in the classrooms that is not honest, and in which classrooms?
Specific examples, please.
Then you should perhaps flame your fellow "racism" obsessed Evofanatic who changed the subject long before my arrival?
Actually the ToE cannot address abiogenesis. Much of the content of the ToE consists of mechanisms such as allele variation and various types of selection on those alleles. Because we do not yet know what occurred at the beginning we have no idea how those mechanisms could be applied. Why would the ToE try to address something beyond its current range? If science finds that it can be applied, then it will be included.
I like your list. Here's one you might like: Timothy Sandefur's blog (unfortunately dormant now). He's an Objectivist attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, & an occasional contributor to the Panda's Thumb.
Why don't creationists whinge about Gravitational Theory? It doesn't address the origins of matter, after all.
If they were intellectually honest, they would fight as hard to deny the work of Einstein as they do the work of Darwin.
That they do not tells us much about their agenda.
Interesting that you would make this point. I have made it on many occasions; but you miss a few valid points.
If A is wrong, A is wrong.
If 'A' is wrong; 'B', 'C', 'D', or ... must be right
Assume evolution = A, and ID/creation = B
If A is wrong, then B, C, D, or ... must be right.
B would be right if there are no other views that could be denoted as C, D, ...
I'd be interested in what you would consider to be reasonable alternatives to A or B. Do you know of any?
It is not a "Fallacy of The False Dilemma" to say B is right if A is wrong and there are only two possible answers.
That you think you are all that intelligent really irritates those of us who actually are.
Why would anyone waste their time 'testing' your ability to construct formal syllogisms when the obvious problem with your logic is your premise?
And that is exactly why the TOE must fail. If evolutionists recognize that their theory cannot account for the origin of life, how can they possibly simply dismiss creation/ID when they can offer no explanation for the origin of life?
The failure of evolutionists to offer any explanation for the origin of life concedes Behe's conclusions related to irreducible complexity.
Good heavens! Talk about the "hand-waving". I read at least as much "you're an idiot because you don't agree with me" contention from the evolutionist side as the other. You yourself are quite a case of "look at my HUGE postings! You don't stand a chance!" masquerading as honest intellecutal discussion.
Tautologies are put forth as proof. Evidence which comfortably fits evolution and creation equally well is declared proof of evolution. The definitions of terms are changed when the data doesn't work out. Anomolies are either insufficiently explained, or simply discarded. Outright fraud has been perpetuated.
How can evolution even be considered scientific, when the bedrock scientific principles of observability, measureability and repeatability are, by definition, lacking in evolutionary theory? Nobody can create laboratory experiments demonstrating macro (mega) evolution. The data used are interpretations of historical events.
And, because the theory is so magnificently flexible, it is practically impossible to disprove. There is no conceivable discovery that would cause evolutionists to say, "Wow, we were wrong!" That is the hallmark of a solid theory, that it can be disproven.
As for your reeking arrogance, please tell me who is worthy of your time? I submit that nobody but a fellow believer in megaevolution would qualify in your book. Obviously, those scientists who argue against it are bumbling, buck-toothed, knuckle-dragging dolts who couldn't reason their way out of a wet paper sack. Am I right?
And the difference is what?
The ToE has no more to do with the origin of life than Gravitational Theory has to do with the origin of matter.
Why don't you fight so hard against the work of Einstein, if you think origins must be addressed by the theories?
Then you're not even paying attention to my posts, since that's been all I've talked about since I first posted on this thread.
Evolution does not address the origin of life.
Technically correct, but political baloney. The fact is that the supposed origin of life--in particular, the rather amusing myth about the primordial soup--is taught as part of evolution in current high school textbooks. The fact is further that evolutionists of a non-theistic bent believe and have promoted natural abiogenesis as part and parcel of evolution. Many of the evos here on FR have done the same. You only started making a distinction when you started getting killed in origin of life debates, as I also addressed up-thread.
Further, if evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, why do the evolutionists constantly paint the theory as being at odds with ID? ID does not discount a certain amount of evolution--it is concerned primarily with abiogenesis and with the development of certain organ structures that do not appear to be able to be constructed piecemail while still being useful to the organism.
Richard Dawkins is quite honest about what he thinks evolution is about:
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.Obviously, Dawkins expects to find in Darwinist Evolution an origin for life that does not include God, and he makes no distinction between Darwinist Evolution and the question of abiogenesis. Ergo, once again, those on the evolutionist side are being disingenuous, trying to have their cake and eat it too.
--The Blind Watchmaker, p. 6
ID says there is no evolution, only creation. . . In fact, ID, as I understand it, says that animals do not and did not evolve. It says that all animals were created by God with absolutley no changes to their physiology between the time of their creation and now.
You are either too uninformed to have this conversation with, or are being deceitful. What you are describing is Genesis-based Creationism, not ID. ID posits only that abiogenesis and perhaps the advent of certain organ structures requires a Designer; many IDers believe that after the first life forms or perhaps after the Cambrian explosion that natural evolution took over from there.
The two theories are actually entirely compatible and complimentary, dealing with the origins of life and the development of life respectively. Mind you, I'm still not an evolutionist as you would define it, but I don't ask that Genesis be taught in a science class either.
What I do require is that evolutionists be utterly transparent and honest about what they can prove and what they cannot if they're going to use my money to teach their current, admittedly prevailing scientific theory in the classroom instead of teaching known hoaxes or even unproven suppositions as proven fact. That means no drawings from Haeckel, no peppered-moth photos, no "missing links" invented from the discovery of a tooth that turned out to be from a pig, and no glossing over the problem of abiogenesis by telling the kids a nice myth about the primordial soup and a bolt of lightning.
Fairy tales about bolts of lightning creating life belong in the literature class under the heading of Mary Shelley, not in the science class.
There are more than two possible answers.
And arguing that there are only two possible answers is the false dilema that you continue to push.
"We don't know yet", or "we don't fully understand it yet."
There's your actual answer.
Not knowing or not understanding at this point does not mean that there is a Higher Power involved; insanity was thought to be demonic possession until we were able to understand what it truly was.
Man could not fly until he both understood the dynamics of flight, and the technology was available.
There is also the possibility of both "A" (evolution) and "B" (Creation) being right.
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.