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.
Black bird carrying a cluster of berries placemarker
You're literally talking with yourself.
What do you believe is the origin of the Genesis stories?
Absolute rubbish. Up to your usual standards of careful thought... ;)
Maybe you should try to acquire at least one of those things before pontificating further. At the moment you are just posting a list of bad, endlessly debunked, moronic, dishonest arguments against evolution. They aren't science, and they aren't even good theology.
So the only thing that stops you from behaving like a wild beast is your religious faith? Maybe you should warn your local police department to gun you down if ever you get a crisis of faith.
You believe in science, but you reject pretty much the whole of physics, biology, zoology, genetics, paleontology, plate tectonics, geology, astronomy, cosmology, and hydrology, amongst others. Nothing in science would be left standing if the world is less than 12,000 years old. And you have the chutzpah to type your idiocies onto a PC keyboard, attached to the internet...
I'm hoping you can clarify a couple of points for me before I answer.
You seem to disagree with the author's statement that morality is man's creation, since you say that it "has to be based on something objective." Do you believe then, that the source of morality is our human nature?
I'm also curious about this statement.
The purpose of having a moral code is to sustain the kind of society where you can flourish.
Could you expand on this?
Sure, few of our laws (at least early on) contradict the Commandments. But neither do they contradict the Code of Hammurabi or the laws of Ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, etc.
Murder, theft, rape, treason, and so forth are condemned by all moral and legal codes, whether they claim Divine origin or not.
But IMO the unique genius of the Constitution owes practically nothing to the Bible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anything there about separation of power, limited terms in office, a federation of states with a clearly-defined role for the central government, or a bicameral Legislature.
Trial by jury is from our Germanic roots, and common law is English. Regular elections are from Greece and Rome.
In fact, the Bible is the basis for the King claiming his divine right to rule.
You're making the same mistake a lot of CRIDers do - forgetting that we are social animals, and part of the environment we adapt to is other people.
The strongest, least inhibited man, in isolation, is nothing compared to organized society.
"United we stand, divided we fall"
Think of a tribe of egocentric liars, and another tribe of people who cooperate with each other. The cooperators will win the war between them; it's happened many times in history.
In summary, "fittest" for human beings includes the ability to cooperate with others.
When I posted about the Constitution and Bible above, I mentioned that murder, theft, etc are illegal under all systems; they all condemn lying as well.
Well, not all systems condemn lying. Creation/IDism and socialism all support lying for the "greater good".
Amusing, wasn't it? When someone is desperately trying to pretend that he knows some really big words, the result almost always looks like that.
This is your brain on creationism!
Since I'm already on JamesP81's list
From his FR homepage:
James P's Corrolary to Godwin's Law: If, in the course of a debate about evolution, you compare your ideological opponent to Islamic Fascists, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or terrorists in general, due to your opponents religious convictions, then the argument is over, and you lost.
(I was added for saying that teaching the ToE is illegal in Saudi Arabia)
I may as well add
And don't forget Taqiyah
Excellent. I had once known about that date for Gibbon (the first volume), but it got forgotten along the way.
From the Wiki article you linked to:
Because the Roman Church had a virtual monopoly on its own history, its own Latin interpretations were considered sacrosanct, and as a result the Church's writings had rarely been questioned before. For Gibbon, however, the Church writings were secondary sources, and he eschewed them in favour of primary sources contemporary to the period he was chronicling
[snip]
Gibbon proved that the early Church's custom of bestowing the title of martyr on all confessors of faith grossly inflated the actual numbers. [my emph.]
[asbestos and kevlar in place]
Can you imagine what theology, especially apologetics (remember that "creation science" was originally described as a branch of apologetics), would be like if it adhered to the same standards as science: get caught lying once, you're out.
I read the "Decline and Fall" in its entirety off and on over the last three or so years. Extremely well written, but it drags in places; there's no way to make 1000 years of Byzantine emperors very interesting.
Very highly recommended. (Especially if you have a Latin dictionary handy to figure out the footnotes.)
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.