 Flying fish |
 Red herring |
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.
No, it doesn't. Evolution claims to be precisely about how the variety of life came to be. Darwin's book was titled The Origin of Species, not The Description of Species.
" No, it doesn't. Evolution claims to be precisely about how the variety of life came to be. Darwin's book was titled The Origin of Species, not The Description of Species."
Exactly wrong. The book was NOT about the origin of life. Anybody who actually read it would not have made such an egregious error.
Who determines what is supernatural and what is not? The statement "The supernatural is not subject to the scientific method." is a presumption in and of itself.
It's not just that there aren't any transitional species, there ought to be millions of them! If species come from the gradual change of earlier species, then the very appearance of the "family tree" of species should be entirely different than it is. There should not just be a few, rare, possibly related "transitional" fossils, there should always be transitional fossils found!
Where there are two species, A and C, for which evolutionists claim A was the "father species" of C, there should always be species B which is the transitional species. Otherwise, evolutionists must claim that species C evolved into being where evidence of transitional species B is found, but magically sprang into existence everywhere else.
For there to be a few, rare fossils which have the appearance of being transitional (itself a questionable term: Why transitional? It should be superior to the previous species, due to "survival of the fittest", and probably replace the inferior, previous species. No?) is evidence in and of itself that inter-species evolution simply does not occur.
If the process of inter-species evolution is, in fact, a gradual one, the process described by Darwin, then the fossil record should reflect that. It does not. A hundred nor a thousand more years of digging will not change it. If the process occurs, it should be evidenced everywhere, not just in isolated examples. Otherwise, different species arose from some process other than evolution in most cases, and evolution in a few, isolated cases. Evolution does not claim that.
They require no leaps of faith at all. It requires reason and the scientific method on the empirical evidence, which is obviously present.
" Possibilities and probabilities of intelligent design also require inferential leaps of faith when organized matter that performs specific functions is recognized. "
The hypothesis has no support. It also contradicts the scientific theory that does have support.
"Neither common descent nor intelligent design are, in the strict sense, empirical science. They only make use of empirical science, from which they make reasonable conjecture.
Common descent is, ID is not. ID is an abandonment of science and the scientific method to pursue arbitrary constructions.
"
The problem is, those who find the fossil evidence lacking are not the scientists who have studied the subject; they are almost always laymen who hold a particular religious viewpoint.
Does this help you understand why scientists are not impressed?
Speak for yourself
No, it's a scientific fact, not a presumption. To date there is no evidence of the supernatural. If you have some that's amenable to the scientific method, have it published. A Nobel prize awaits.
Unsubstantiated assertion.
No, it is truth. Granted, the tools of science do not substantiate it, but then they could not substantiate the existence of X-rays until Rotengen in 1895. However, X-rays did exist before 1895.
Science refusing to recognize the techniques used to learn the truth of the Creator does not disprove Him.
"Man has always been man; apes have always been apes."
We ARE apes.
If we are apes, we are also plants. Man also shares about 50% of their DNA with bananas.
And fossil genetic fragments called ERV's demonstrate the common ancestor we share with other apes.
...and our common banana ancestor too, no doubt.
Speciation has been observed. What has NEVER been shown is the genetic stop sign that creationists claim exists that would prevent a population from continuing to diverge from the parent species.
Nobody has found a problem with raising successive generations of a plant that becomes an animal? Really? I want to see that one.
I'll admit, I have used the term "species" a bit too loosely. Where the devision is between a species, a phylum, an order, etc. are all mortal constructs. I have no problem with speciation. A dingo and a wolf could evolve from a parent species, and I would have no problem with that. There are a huge variety of dog breeds which show the differences that can occur.
What I'm looking for is the big stuff. I want to see the transition from fish to bird. I want to see the evidence, which should be abundant, of species transitioning from plant to animal. If this kind of gradual change has happened, why isn't it happening now? Why aren't there oodles of "in-between" creatures?
Where is the fish-bird? If there was an evolution from ape to man, where is the transitional species? By definition, it would have to be more fit for survival than the ape, and so should be abundant.
Fossils are rare, and those which exist are rarely found. Yet, in the absence of extinction, all species are transitional. You might find this of some help: Micro-evolution, Macro-evolution, and Speciation.
|
Flying fish |
Red herring |
So have agnostics and athiests. Many of whom, share your views and desire to advance them using the natural sciences, knowing full well that the intrinsic value in the Creation Theory is that faith is required.
From The List-O-Links:
Ichneumon's legendary post 52. More evidence than you can handle.
Post 661: Ichneumon's stunning post on transitionals.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Yes, macro-evolution.
Nice attempt. How's the DNA of that fish? Part way between fish and bird? I'm guessing not.
Big fins != wings for flying. Many fish have proportionally large fins.
transitional placemarker
I'll take a shot. Perhaps you both could answer my question?
I was once an atheist and an evolutionist.
You write that you used to be an evolutionist? Does this mean that you no longer believe that evolution is valid?
If so, do you believe that all (and I mean ALL) animals were created by God in their present form with absolutely no changes whatsoever between the time they were created and now?
IOW, do you believe that animals do not evolve?
Are you saying that only canines evolve?
What about cats?
Birds?
Apes?
Reptiles?
Fish?
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.