What Are Creationists Afraid Of?

The New Individualist ^ | 1/2006 | Ed Hudgins

[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.

[Retain Mike]

Just give me the link for the mathematical proof that it works for evolution. Rhetoric explains nothing.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Just give me the link for the mathematical proof that it works for evolution. Rhetoric explains nothing."

No theory in science is mathematically *proved*. What in the hell are you talking about?

[Dimensio]

The atheists are the ones trying to prove that there is no God.

The ones I've met don't. Theists posit various gods. They are the ones with the burden of proof. This is irrelevant, however, as the existence of any gods is not relevant to the theory of evolution, which is supposed to be the original topic of discussion.

[connectthedots]

The Theory of Evolution is a theory. (Disagreements are over small details, nothing for creationists to get excited about.)

The existence of 'mountains of fossil evidence' vs. "they don't exist" is hardly a small detail.

Neither is small gradual changes over long periods of time vs. punctuated equilibrium.

[Junior]

Are you being intentionally obtuse? Environmentalists do not deal with evolution -- they deal with the environment. Biologists and paleontologists deal with evolution. Like I asked, would you go to a lawyer for a medical checkup? And your link pointed to one of YOUR posts (#552) not one of PH's.

[connectthedots]

i meant to say evolutionists. It's been a long couple of days.

[Dimensio]

Actually, many atheists religiously assert that there is no God.

To which "God", out of the thousands of deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer and why do you specifically reference that one over all others?

It really takes a lot of faith to be an atheist.

Why?

If anyone, the burden of proof should be on them.

Why should they have the burden of proof of showing that every single claim of a deity ever made is false? You are the one presenting a claim of a deity; you and every other adherent of every theistic religion on the planet. Why can't you support your claims? Why are you such an intellectual coward that you demand that those who don't accept your claims prove you wrong?

[Retain Mike]

Wow! You made an outstanding post. Talk about throwing a rock in a herd of turkeys. I have never before seen 700 plus comments.

[Coyoteman]

The Theory of Evolution is a theory. (Disagreements are over small details, nothing for creationists to get excited about.)

The existence of 'mountains of fossil evidence' vs. "they don't exist" is hardly a small detail.

Neither is small gradual changes over long periods of time vs. punctuated equilibrium.

First, it is entirely likely that evolution occurred as long periods where nothing much happened separated by short periods of intense selection pressure. What's the big deal. That's not a show-stopper or "proof" for creationism. Posted below is one tiny part of the mountain. Note the fossil number. KNM stands for Kenya National Museum. WT is the West Turkana area. There are other areas.

The individual specimen is number 15,000. That means it is the 15,000th cataloged fossil from West Turkana (or was, when it was recorded; more now). Kenya is only one of the fossil-producing countries of Africa; Ethiopia and South Africa are also quite productive. This is what people mean by "mountains of fossil evidence."

Transitionals--we don't have every intermediate step, but we don't need every one. It's easy to see the pattern. Unless you're a creationist, in which case you would not believe it even if you saw it.

Now, here is a handsome young fellow for your viewing pleasure.

---

Fossil: KNM-WT 15000

Site: Nariokotome, West Turkana, Kenya (1)

Discovered By: K. Kimeu, 1984 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.6 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7, 10), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Male (based on pelvis, browridge) (1, 8, 9)

Cranial Capacity: 880 (909 as adult) cc (1)

Information: Most complete early hominid skeleton (80 bones and skull) (1, 8)

Interpretation: Hairless and dark pigmented body (based on environment, limb proportions) (7, 8, 9). Juvenile (9-12 based on 2nd molar eruption and unfused growth plates) (1, 3, 4, 7, 8). Juvenile (8 years old based on recent studies on tooth development) (27). Incapable of speech (based on narrowing of spinal canal in thoracic region) (1)

Nickname: Turkana Boy (1), Nariokotome Boy

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=38

[connectthedots]

First, it is entirely likely that evolution occurred as long periods where nothing much happened separated by short periods of intense selection pressure.

In other words, you are speculating.

[Dimensio]

The one that actually exists.

And out of the thousands worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, the one that actually exists is...?

To believe that the universe just randomly came about is strongly religious.

Strawman. Who said that it was "random"?

I shouldn't have to. Evidence for God is everywhere.

Yet you refuse to point out any.

[connectthedots]

Have you ever read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity? If not, you ought to read it. It is a very short book.

[Coyoteman]

First, it is entirely likely that evolution occurred as long periods where nothing much happened separated by short periods of intense selection pressure.

In other words, you are speculating.

Sure. I have not studied the subject intensely since my Ph.D. exams and that was a good while back. I have not read all the literature in the field since then, as my career is in a different area. But wasn't there a thread a couple of days ago on this same exact subject? And didn't it suggest the same thing I posted to you?

Speculation? At least I have some training in the field. And what is your expertise in the evolutionary sciences that allows you to come forth with such ringing pronouncements? (Other than the creationist websites, that is.)

Isn't the Discovery Institute in your general area? Are you affiliated?

[Dimensio]

Watch in the middle of the desert...

Non-sequitur.

[Wormwood]

Without an afterlife, everything is futile. You might as well be a mass murderer.

Um...there are plenty of mass murderers who truly believe in an afterlife (72 virgins included free with admission).

[Skywalk]

Um...there are plenty of mass murderers who truly believe in an afterlife (72 virgins included free with admission)

BURNED!