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.
As you may be aware, there was a time I was a whole-hearted convert to the 'adoption' of the 'rational' way. But I discovered something. Being rational didn't satisfy.
Creationism in effect makes a higher demand on my sense of morality. My response to that demand, a thing 'we must adopt' to say it better, has been far more fulfilling. I have not been able to explain this 'rationally'. But it is true.
I discovered something else ....'reason' derives from the latin word 'ratio'.
The root sense of reason is 'to number'. I understand how to reason.
You know Jenny, I have decided that Objectivists believe only numeracy counts while literacy doesn't really. Illnumerate people are to be disparaged, but illiterate people, well, if they can submit to those who understand counting, fine. But have you noticed something? Numeracy, especially financial numeracy is pretty scarce.
I don't think that is an accident. And quite frankly, I think the Objectivist types like the world being that way. Illnumerate people are easy to manage.
Have you read the Bible much?
I would suggest the Trappist Order.
"How about starting with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?"
Not that one again. Please say that's a joke.
Uh, that's a plane. And it doesn't have feathers. But thanks anyway.
There's a fine line between hyperbole and lying.
I just thought that some things in the Bible are stories, parables, etc. Thus, the world being created in seven days being not literal.
The 10 Commandments are literal in their meaning.
Just seems like a leap to me.
And the more the anti-Evos think about it, the more they hate it. My hypothesis for this is that beneath the surface of virtually every belligerent anti-Evo I've ever seen, there lurks a raging Authoritarian just dying to get out and seize the levers of power, so that he can "control" the behavior, not of himself, but of everyone else, enabling him to make sure we do what he has decided is good, and forbid us from doing that which he has decided is "bad."
The success of unplanned, unregulated free markets argues against authoritarian intervention; the specter of undesigned self-organizing biological systems, operating on similar fundamental principles, is more than they can stand. The overarching Authoritarian paradigm of imposed order fails in the face of either. That is why the the responses to Jennyp's article are unusually strident, vociferous, and hysterical -- it exposes the authoritarianism of anti-Evo paradigm to scrutiny it cannot withstand.
Long live free markets and free minds.
I do?
There are no known movements anywhere in the US seeking to force Churches to promote evolution.
Then please explain why we have so many laws andrules against so many things of a religious nature.
I call it being wrong. If the odd person here or there continues to post something that it is obviously wrong, then it would correctly be deemed a lie. However, calling an entire group liars as a blanket statement is wrong. I won't call hard-core evolutionists a group of liars even though schoolchildren are still treated to Haeckel's drawings of embryos and fairy-tale stories of moths pinned to British trees.
Yes. I think Jesus was the world's first Surrealist.
parsy, the pious.
Creative story though, btw.
Okay, here it is: God CREATED evolution as His process for intelligent design. Accepting the steps it took for man to rise on this planet in no way compromises my ability to believe in a Supreme Creator who is Master of all things. I have no conflict with believing in both.
Nonsense. Some extremely immoral people have lived very happy lives. Mao was quite content in his life; he enjoyed his power and had no remorse for the millions he slaughtered.
Atheism carried to its logical extreme leads to nihilism. That's not to say that all athesits are ammoral. In fact, most are good people. They're just not being logically consistant, as they have faith in a moral code despite there being no more scientific evidence for such a code than there is scientific evidence for God.
This is, however, a completely seperate question from evolution, and IMHO the two should not be conflated.
Very poor article.
I don't have any dislike for randomness nor chaos. You misunderstand me.
I take issue with the idea that randomness and chaos are organizing forces. I deny that randomness and chaos are capable of raising matter into higher levels of organization and usefulness. As the second law of thermodynamics declares, when left to themselves, things deteriorate. You can't coast uphill in the long term.
Randomness and chaos most certainly do exist, and they are comprehended by the Creator. The variables are far too many for a man to deal with very well, but He has no problem with it.
Randomness and chaos do not create.
It was the only way we COULD adapt to flight. You seem to expect EVERY useful thing to be produced in the variation of a population or else evolution is bunk. It's a gross misunderstanding of the constraints of evolution. Not only do all the best adaptation not always happen, but sometimes adaptation isn't good enough and the species goers extinct.
I've no problem, let alone fear, of proclaiming the Holy Bible as the infallible, inspired word of God.
They see a slippery slope where if they admit the world was not created in 7 days, then the commandment against adultery is equally suspect.
What in the name of Yehudi are talking about here?!
jla, the believer
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.