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.

Mammal-Like Reptiles

As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).

M. Eyes = ?

Nose = ?

Teeth incisors = ?

K. Eyes = ?

Nose = pointy

Teeth incisors = small

J. Eyes = Medium

Nose = stubby

Teeth incisors = BIG

I. Eyes = Medium

Nose = less stubby

Teeth incisors = big

H. Eyes = smaller

Nose = more blunt

Teeth incisors = smaller

G. Eyes = SMALL

Nose = Pointer

Teeth incisors = Skinny

F. Eyes = BIG

Nose = Blunt

Teeth incisors = Thin

E. Eyes = HUGE!

Nose = pointy, again

Teeth incisors = Bigger

D. Eyes = Smaller

Nose = Getting wider

Teeth incisors = Bigger: two!

C. Eyes = Huge, again!

Nose = broader

Teeth incisors = very small

B. Eyes = less huge

Nose = less broad

Teeth incisors = ??

A. Eyes = bigger again

Nose = rounded

Teeth incisors = small

Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals; left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw. Hylonomus modified from Carroll (1964, Figs. 2,6; 1968, Figs. 10-2, 10-5; note that Hylonomus is a protorothyrod, not a synapsid). Archaeothyris modified from Reisz (1972, Fig. 2). Haptodus modified from Currie (1977, Figs, 1a, 1b; 1979, Figs. 5a, 5b). Sphenacodo n modified from Romer & Price (1940, Fig. 4f), Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 16);note: Dimetrodon substituted for top view; modified from Romer & Price, 1940, pl. 10. Biarmosuchus modified from Ivakhnenko et al. (1997, pl. 65, Figs. 1a, 1B, 2); Alin & Hopson (1992; Fig. 28.4c); Sigogneau & Tchudinov (1972, Figs. 1, 15). Eoarctops modified from Broom (1932, Fig. 35a); Boonstra (1969, Fig. 18). Pristerognathus modified from Broom (1932, Figs 17a, b,c); Boonstra (1963, Fig. 5d). Procynosuchus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4e); Hopson (1987, Fig. 5c); Brink (1963, Fig. 10a); Kemp (1979, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 14). Thrinaxodon modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4f);Parrington (1946, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 13). Probainognathus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4g); Romer (1970, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 12). Morga nucodon modified from Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney (1981, Figs. 95, 99a; 1973, Fig. 7a); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 11). Asioryctes modified from Carroll (1988, Fig. 20-3b). Abbreviations: ag = angular; ar = articular; cp = coronoid process; d = dentary; f = lateral temporal fenestra; j = jugal; mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles; o = eye socket; po = post orbital; q = quadrate; rl = reflected lamina; sq = squamosal; ty = tympanic. .

Are you convinced yet?

Oscillating eye sizes,

head shapes that shift back and forth,

teeth that are large, then small, then large again.

Yeah; I believe this stuff!

Because to support ID, you must also accept the possibility that the intelligence behind the design could be something other than the God of The Bible. In other words, you must be willing to put aside your belief in Biblical Creation and include acceptance of the possibility of exoevolution, which by definition is part of the possibilities included in the idea of Intelligence Design.

In terms of support for pure ID, that is correct, and I'm willing to hold that argument in my mind as I support the theory. However, I think the Designer is most likely the being we call God for a couple of reasons:

1) Positing an alien lifeform as the Designer does not ultimately solve the question of origins, since one must then explain how alien life complex enough to evolve intellegence enough to design what we see in our cells could have arisen on its own.
2) The anthropic principle is not explained by positing alien life as the Designer. Since our very universe seems to be designed to be perfect for supporting life, I (as a matter of philosophy, admittedly) believe that this points to an ultimate Designer outside of our universe. Of course, either an infinite number of universes in which the other infinity-1 are hostile to life would force me to change my position, and I also have to cede the possibility that the universe and earthly life have different designers.

None of this bothers me, because I am able to separate what can be demonstrated purely scientifically and what must be taken on faith. I take on faith that the Bible really is the Word of God on the basis that Yeshua HaMashiach, Jesus Christ, put His stamp of approval on it. I trust that He really was the Son of God who rose from the grave on the basis that I don't see several dozen followers making up such an absurd idea and being willing to suffer persecution and death for something they knew to be a lie. Nor do I see Christianity catching on so firmly in the one city in the world, Jerusalem, where it would be the easiest thing in the world for the leadership to disprove it, unless it had the benefit of being true.

That of course is the super-brief rundown of why I believe in Yeshua the Messiah, and somewhat to the side of our main argument. If you want to try to punch holes in that, I would ask that I be given the chance to flesh my arguments out first.

In any case, the truth or not of the Gospel is a matter of historical evidences, not of biological science. The fact that I believe that Genesis is true, giving room for the possibility that the yamim ("days") are not 24-hour periods, adds to my belief in ID. However, even if I did not believe that Genesis was "literally" true, I would still believe in ID, simply because there is currently no rational, scientific alternative to the abiogenesis problem. Likewise, I would still be critical of post-abiogenesis evolution for other reasons, including a lack of smooth transitions in the fossil record--a lack that is evidenced in the very need of Gould and others to posit punctuated equillibriam to explain it, for example.

The funny thing is, that believing in the theory of evolution does not conflict with beliefs in Biblical Creation, as evolution seeks to explain how, not who, so, if evolution is ever proven to be right beyond a shadow of a doubt, it would be our interpretation of Scripture that would be wrong, not the Scriptures themselves.

Agreed. Nor do evolution and ID conflict; the former attempts to explain how life developed once it got going, while the latter posits how life and perhaps certain organ systems and morphologies got started. That's why I find the attacks of evolutionists on ID so perplexing and vexing; on the one hand, the evos will claim that evolution doesn't address the abiogenesis problem, while on the other, they'll treat ID as a competator.

The real issue, and the reason that this is such a hot discussion, is that for well over a century, non-theists of varying stripes have crowed that evolution disproves the Bible and disproves the need for God. Take Richard Dawkins, for example:

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.
--The Blind Watchmaker, p. 6

The "primordial soup" argument, despite being sheer speculation that is largely disproved, is still presented in high school along with the theory of evolution; I know this because I've had some of the kids in my youth group come ask me about it recently. If evolution were presented as separate from abiogenesis, and if the kids were honestly taught that there was currently no naturalistic theory to explain abiogenesis, very few would see evolution as the enemy. They might still disagree with it for various reasons, but there wouldn't be this level of vitriol or the insistance that ID be taught as a counterpoint in the classrooms at this early stage of its development.

You who believe in evolution really need to reign in some on your side who are using evolution to advance their religion/metaphysical assumptions (atheism) and attack people of faith. And that includes a lot of published scientists. It is because of them that we rightly insist that evolution has become more of a religion than a scientific theory, as well as because of the backlash against scientists who refuse to spout the right statements of faith, as it were.

And now, I must run off again. I may not have a chance to get on for a couple of days, but I'm enjoying our discussion and wouldn't mind continuing it when I can. In the meantime, God bless.

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.