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.
maybe it would be helpful to discuss this in class??
Is this really a think piece? What kind of argument can you make for or against creationism of for or against intelligent quoting two people who designed systems of trade and commerce?
Regardless what is written after these quotes the writer is deluded to think that anyone with common sense is going to bit on this kind of premise
Only Loonie Libs talk drag out hollywood starlets to talk about the danger of Alar
This is like getting someone who makes spaghetti strands to give a lecture and demonstrate gene splicing
Years ago I managed an auto parts store and one day this korean called "On the phone he said "Hello my name kim." and he said nothing else so I hung up He called back a minute later and said Hello my name kims mo-bla I need parts and there was another long pause he as for socks and brakie shooz -- this man called himself a master mechanic his experiance as it turned out driving a round a junkyard buggy and cutting off car and truck parts with a cutting torch. In my estimation old Kim was closer to the real thing than this liberal wannabe thunker
NUFF SAID
The complex, sophisticated results of a vibrant economy are the result of intelligent, voluntary participation in transactions viewed as beneficial by all involved parties.
Score one for intelligent design.
Exactamundo. Can you believe this idiot published this piece without it ever dawning on him that his argument actually works against him? Unbelievable!
That's the whole point, science has not even come close to proving the theory of evolution, so they teach it doctrinally as a big, fat LIE. Darwin himself said that evolution could never be proven unless the linking fossils or the transitional forms could be found. So far neither have been found.
There have been, however, some elaborate hoaxes and imaginary 'discoveries' by the Darwinists in their zeal to shoot down Biblical references to creation and lift Darwin up in its place. So Christians don't really 'fear' evolution, (as the lying title insists), they just love the Truth and loathe satanic lies.
He doesn't seem very objective to me. Perhaps a presentation of thoughts in the market place of ideas would be better served with a positive presentation rather than an attempt to demonize others...but hey, that's just me.
Huh? I don't get the connection between the literal and not you are implying here.
|
The objective basis for ethics in man is the same one that causes me to avoid some very dark alleyways. The writer's argument for replacing heavenly based ethics with those of man falls very short here.
Muleteam1
Fear drives most men. Only thought can overcome fear.
Wrong. The Bible marked the birth of creationism.
Why don't we have fur? Surely fur would make more sense to protect us from the elements. The apes we supposedly evolved from have it. Why would nature have us get rid of fur? Survival of the fittest? Did we evolve to need clothes for protection? Why don't we have feathers? No protection from the rain? We are the highest lifeforms on the planet, what gives?
Usually when one side wants to present all the evidence and have a debate, and the other side wants to shut the doors and close down the discussion, it is the 2nd group that is questioned as to what they are afraid of.
Just an observation, about nothing in particular.
Wonder if next time some person running for office will have the guts to stand up and say, "Of course I'm not going to debate my opponent, he has nothing to say, and you should ask him why is so afraid that he wants to debate me about anything."
We are afraid of precisely what has happened! The dogma of inter-species evolution is taught to our children as settled fact, which it definitely is not, and, perhaps worse, as good science. It is an affront to good principles of science and serves as forced indoctrination into atheism and denial of Christ.
Evolution, as it is currently taught, is antithetical to the deeply-held beliefs, faith and religious experience of the majority of mankind. It is a direct assault on the very existence and power of God.
"A good character helps us to be happy, a bad one guarantees us misery."
And just what is a "good" character? Nietsche's definition or a Christian definition? They are not the same, in fact, are complete opposites.
So which is it eh?
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.