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.
See, the thing about Straussian professors is that you have to ask yourself, is this person feeding me the enlightened truth, or the noble lie? What does a "B" translate to? ;)
"B" translates to a then immature mind, that just didn't fully grasp it all. Today, in a flight of hubris, I think I would get a "A." Strauss was a pessimist at heart. He thought the end game was entropy, as did Cropsey I now realize. One could delay the bad end, but not defeat it. But that point of view emmananeted from an age with horrific outcomes, outcomes generated by the highly educated and advanced, as then defined. It was a very pessimistic time, and shaped both.
I'd like you to explain why my son and daughter were being taught that life originated from chemical soup in their biology classes. I don't care what you call the various branches of your theology..cladistics, macroevolution, abiogenesis, eschatology, whatever. I'd like to know why your ORIGINS myth is being force fed as fact in a biology class. Don't lie and say it's not being taught either. I have the damn books here to prove that it is indeed being taught.
And since it's pure speculation, why are the soup nazis so afraid of a friggin' one sentence warning on a damn biology book. I know the answers. Same reason there's a rainbow fag flag flying in the school.
There can only be one theory. That theory is the hypothesis supported by evidence gathered by the scientific method.
"Certain folks like Judge Jones, however, take it upon themselves to let us all know "empirically" what to think."
Science determined that the theory of evolution is supported by ALL the evidence gathered, and it did so by using the scientific method. Judge Jones simply acknowledged the hypothesis of the defendants was entirely unsupported, and noted that the motivations of those promoting the unsupported hypothesis of ID was entirely religious. Further more the defendants attempted to hide their motivations with deception, fraud and prescription drugs.
And how can we have an absolute if we don't have an external, transcendent TRUTH that's true whether you like it our not, whether you believe it or not, whether you even KNOW it or not?
And what is that truth or absolute?
Not only is this statement untrue by virtue of the fact there are thousands of theories, but also by virtue of the fact there are no empirical rules for determining which of two theories capable of interpreting and applying the data is more worthy of certitude.
To infer intelligent design from the presence of organized matter performing a specific function is not "entirely religious." Such an inference does not lead to the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church or even the Christian Church of Organized Matter. It may have religious implications for a good many people, but so what? Is it an absolute necessity for science to discard data just because it might have religious implications? Not if science is going to be objective.
If you want multiple pictures of something, try models (see definition of theory and model, below). Models can be essentially throw-away thought experiments; you can say If A, then B, then C, then D and test for D. If D is found, that supports the model and maybe it's worth more effort. Who knows, it might grow up to be a theory some day!
There is no limit to the number of models which can be used; they can range from ridiculously simple to more complex. Think of them as tools for exploration, while a theory is more of a well-tested and robust explanation.
Definitions (from a google search):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Model: a simplified framework designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process
You haven't a clue regarding anything in science. You haven't even made it past the first step.
Tell her to fix me a toasted cheese sammich, I could use a midnight snack.
I keep seeing complaints that the estimates offered by IDers are too high; I have yet to see any of you offer odds of your own.
I would have to have been offered an intellectual argument to make an intellectual retreat. I simply refuse to waste time better spent elsewhere writing a response to someone who starts off with childish insults.
Yeah, and that's even worse! They created drawings based on Haeckel's drawings. That would be like me publishing -- in a textbook on cartography -- a modern map of the US based on Columbus's drawings. So much for the careful critique of information.
Since it's in the Smoky Backroom, I'll defer on any major replies (invisible to many Lurkers).
LOL!! Good one.
Oh well, who knows, maybe we should heed their advice and pretend that evolution is a lie and the earth is really 6000 years old, after all... it's for the cheeeldrun!
So, g'night folks ;-)
"Who knows, it might grow up to be a theory some day!"
In that case, one is modelling a test for a hypothesis. The model won't beocme theory, the hypothesis will. In general, models are based on both theory and law.
The fact is that any number of scientists have run their own calculations on the odds, and as it turns out, 1 in 10^300 is on the low side.
So please, since you don't like the odds IDers calculate, come up with your own.
Or just make some wild-a**ed guesses and state them up front. Matter of fact, since you have no way of knowing how accurate your assumptions are, that's all you really start out with - wild-a**ed guesses, which are why all those sorts of calculations are absolutely worthless.
It's an irrational fear of the truth and a classic example of the Fallacy of The False Dilemma -- if "A" is wrong, then "B" must be right.
ID claims that something which isn't fully understood, is proof of the existence of a Greater Power.
"Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself." -- Jefferson
Yeah. I've heard it before. Every time certain objective realities contradict the opinion of others outside myself. Do you just throw up your hands and say you haven't got a clue every time there is organized matter that performs specific functions? Or do you suddenly get religious about it?
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.