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.
A rather curious position to take for someone who himself makes blatantly racist posts. Review posts 153 and 186 at your leisure, and see if the racism thing isn't maybe just a little bit of projection.
Central planning and unguided are not synonomous. You ever owned and operated a business? Ever marketed anything? Sold anything? Built anything? All those processes are directed intelligently by individuals with purpose and planning aforethought. Your analogy sucks.
Have you even taken any biology classes?
DNA polymerases have known error rates (even with proofreading enzymes available). From this error rate and the changes in the DNA sequence of a gene betwen two organisms, their interrelatedness and the time back to a common ancestor can be determined.
Genes that code for histones, proteins that the DNA wraps around to compact itself into chromosomes are among the most conserved genes found. Their basic function was set billions of years ago and mutations that disrupt this function are removed from the population because the organism cannot reproduce.
These errors in polymerase function are what allow us to determine identity by DNA profiling. Your DNA is NOT identical to anyone else's, even your identical twin. You have accumulated mutations in your germ cells while growing up.
Please read up on it .
Markets at their base are two individuals, one wanting to sell something and one wanting to buy that something. The purpose of that transaction is to profit the buyer and the seller. Markets in the macro sense, if you insist, are individulas and corporations doing exactly what the other two guys are doing. All done with a purpose, that purpose to profit from the transaction. To that purpose planning, complexity and direction are applied by those individuals and corporations.
So the market at large is the sum of all those planning, little intelligent, busy as a bee capitalists. Now take away the intelligence, the indivdual, the planning, the direction and the complexity. What happens to the larger market?
Beyond the 'hook' of creationism in the title...and the falacy of comparing millions of intelligences competing to non-intelligence evolving...(and a certain order arising from both), Hudgin's main point is that atheists are able to be just as "moral" as believers.
In certain individual cases...externally, surely he's right. However, in the big picture, you really don't find many atheist doctors slaving away in mission hospitals in the developing world. I've never heard of an atheist (or even agnostic) Mother Theresa type character. In history, show me a truly great atheist leader.
Christian belief is certainly no guarantee of good and loving character...but look at the most sacrificially loving people in the world--and by golly there's very (very) few atheists.
Europe probably has the highest concentration of atheists in the world...and their voluntary contributions in charitable causes both within their countries and without are significantly less than places with more believers. Atheism really does seem to breed socialism and apathy...(and vica versa) and Objectivists (atheists devoted to free markets) are truly rare.
The Mother of Objectivism herself, Ayn Rand, did not exibit a morally upright lifestyle...those morals arising simply from human nature always tend to corrupt and run downhill--and good minds (like Hudgins) are easily able to rationalize away selfishness and avarice--or all kinds of evil, especially (unlike Objectivists) if they have a utopian vision. Show me someone who is convinced they are ultimately under no other authority than themselves...and I'll show you someone with serious flaws in character...every time.
Just a guess. How does it "fly" as it were? :)
Ethics, morality and all of those associated ideals, etc., etc., ad nausea, ...are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Examine my statement for logic (categorical or propositional). It will test true as a syllogism or true if tested in a Venn diagram using Aristotle's logic.
Objectivists don't know how to use it.
Man, you were fed a whole lot of slow hanging curve balls on this thread! LOL.
Thanks for your post. I agree with you. I have noticed that atheism is itself a belief system that also relies on faith...although many who hold that faith deny it.
Nonsense. The vast majority of human beings in history existed in societies that did not recognize natural rights, other that, I suppose, the right of the strong to lord over the week.
Ethics are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Examine my statement for logic (categorical or propositional). It will test true as a syllogism or true if tested in a Venn diagram using Aristotle's logic.
Objectivists don't know how to use it.
It's fascinating to see how many creationists are missing the point here. With the economy, every economic actor does intelligently design their own part of the economy. I control much of my little company's actions, such as what products we develop, how we will market them, and how they're designed. Though even here, what finally gets sold often looks a lot different, and comes out on a different timetable, than what we initially planned for.
But when you look at the economy as a whole, compared to the little part of the economy that is an individual employee or entrepreneur, there's no comparison. The economy as a whole is staggeringly more complex than the individual person's economic life.
Spontaneous order describes what happens when a collection of self-interested actors get to interact according to a given set of rules. The overall order is more complex than the actors themselves are able to comprehend or control.
In abiogenesis it's the individual (totally unintelligent) biochemicals coming together in mutually-catalytic combinations to produce self-sustaining entities that can propagate themselves. In biology it's the (somewhat intelligent) individual cells & (more intelligent) organisms interacting to create species & ecosystems. In economics, it's highly intelligent employees & entrepreneurs forming companies, industries, & economies.
Each of these higher-order entities feature competition & cooperation, success & starvation, innovation & extinction - all within the context of the rules of the game and the particular circumstances they find themselves in. But in each case it's the same: The individual actors did not design the order within which they operate.
Morality and all of those associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Examine my statement for logic (categorical or propositional). It will test true as a syllogism or true if tested in a Venn diagram using Aristotle's logic.
Objectivists don't know how to use logic.
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.