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.
I have linked to that thread on two occasions. The guy there says that there is no fossil record supporting evolution; and he's an evolutionist.
So, is there or is there not a fossil record that supports evolution? Junior said the was a mountain of fossil record evidence. Is he wrong?
Placemarker
I am not in the Seattle area; and I am not affiliated with them in any way. No one there would know me or of me unless there is someone associated with DI who reads these threads. If there is such a person, I don't know who s/he might be.
I couldn't say it better myself.
Please don't whine about your failings, buddy.
As you have already been told a hundred times, for the pictures, you Creatard.
Another entry in the Museum of the Absurd!
Kelso, is that you?
Yes, but he won't be here long enough to justify the fame.
So, is there or is there not a fossil record that supports evolution? Junior said the was a mountain of fossil record evidence. Is he wrong?
There is a mountain of evidence.
What evolutionary scientists are arguing about are the fine details, not the overall picture. Creationists, ever looking to grab a supposed loose thread, think this is proof of ID, creation, or whatever. It is not.
The greater the degree of long periods of little change followed by short periods of large change, the fewer fossils will be found with true intermediate traits.
Now, when you claim the researcher on the thread "says that there is no fossil record supporting evolution; and he's an evolutionist" I tend not to believe you. Misquotes are rampant on your side of the argument. Perhaps this quote is closer:
Schwartz hearkens back to earlier theories that suggest that the Darwinian model of evolution as continual and gradual adaptation to the environment glosses over gaps in the fossil record by assuming the intervening fossils simply have not been found yet. Rather, Schwartz argues, they have not been found because they don't exist, since evolution is not necessarily gradual but often sudden, dramatic expressions of change that began on the cellular level because of radical environmental stressors-like extreme heat, cold, or crowding-years earlier.
So, you are saying he states "there is no fossil record supporting evolution; and he's an evolutionist" while he is actually saying "they have not been found because [the intervening fossils] don't exist, since evolution is not necessarily gradual but often sudden."
See the difference?
Your claim: there is no fossil record supporting evolution.
The original article: they [the intervening fossils] have not been found because they don't exist, since evolution is not necessarily gradual but often sudden.
I think you have mischaracterized the original article. And no, Junior is not wrong.
My question to you in post #757 is still unanswered: 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.)
I've done a fair amount of reading. In addition to that, I am quite skilled at pointing out inconsistencies in arguments. When it comes to inconsistencies in the various arguments in favor of evolution, it is a target-rich environment.
O the irony! Placemarker.
Science is not like lawyering. With science you actually have to learn something, and it often takes many years of study to reach competence in a field. A brief study of a case, and the gift of gab, as lawyers are wont to try, won't cut it in a real science.
The "inconsistencies" you point out are superficial, and seem to reflect the views of you and other religious activists. I have seen similar viewpoints on the creation websites. They are not shared by working scientists in the field.
In my opinion, you are not arguing from a scientific viewpoint, you are arguing from a religious viewpoint.
The two fields are quite different. What constitutes evidence in one frequently has no standing in the other.
“Morality and all of those *associated ideals* are entirely rooted in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.”
Don't snivel, and then quote me out of context as you did, TEST it using a truth table or Venn diagram... [*associated ideals,* i.e., ethics, right, wrong, good, evil, etc., etc., ad nausea...]
Why do you assume all atheists to be socialists?
Balrog666 signup date 2000-7-20
sha2006 signup date 2006-1-26
What a laugh. Pay your dues, newbie, before you start running the place.
Unless you're a retread? If so, what was your old screen name?
To evolve does not mean to be created, it means to change.
In science class, discuss scientific theories, and in Church discuss theology.
While the minister discusses Genesis, should he be compelled to explain that Creation is not the only viable explanation of life?
Absolutely not.
And neither should a science teacher be compelled to discuss theology.
And let's for a moment imagine that your wildest dreams have come true, and teachers are now compelled to explain to students alternatives to conventional evolution.
How do you feel about exoevolution being offered as an alternative to both evolution and Creation?
Exoevolution would certainly qualify as Intelligent Design.
By the way, you claimed that there were only two options, I already proved that to be a false statement by offering up two more options: both "A" and "B" being right, and both being wrong.
Exoevolution is the fifth possible option, with "we don't know yet" being the sixth.
So, you original claim that if the theory of evolution is wrong then Genesis must be right, is now completely debunked.
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.