What Are Creationists Afraid Of?

The New Individualist ^ | 1/2006 | Ed Hudgins

[CobaltBlue]

If you think this outcome requires no intelligence, why don't growing, wealthy economies spring up from schools of fish, or swarms of bees?

You don't understand bees. Bees are intelligent. Not only that, bees actually create wealth. They build their hives from wax which is secreted on their thoraxes. They mix wax with pollen to form propolis, a glue which they use to seal the open spaces around the hives. They harvest nectar and turn it into honey by fanning it with their wings.

Funny thing about bees. We could talk all day about bees and there would never be one moment where I had to explain what bees do by saying "God did it."

Not to diss God or anything, it just wouldn't come up.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...one could ask what are Evolutionists afraid of in letting the Theory of ID and or Creation, be exhibited?"

You have every pulpit and every parochial school in the nation to advance your "theory", you have media and even the public square to advance it.

That does not seem enough to ID proponents, they now demand that publicly funded schools be forced to promote the religious belief of their choice.

[ThinkDifferent]

If there really is a God, then there are all kinds of uncomfortable moral implications which follow.

Not really. If there's a God, it might be a good idea to do what he wants in order to gain reward or avoid punishment. (Assuming it can be determined what he wants; there seems to be a bit of a global dispute over that). But doing something to get a reward or avoid punishment isn't a particularly lofty moral code. Murder and theft are wrong regardless of whether God exists and will punish me if I do them.

[furball4paws]

But the things with no legs are more llikely to do real damage, and I submit that the worst are two-legged.

[PatrickHenry]

No all-knowing, all-seeing "intellect" is required to plan, coordinate, or regulate the entire economic activity that is ultimately required to make a pencil.

I really like the analogy of biological evolution and free enterprise. The more I think about it the more striking it is.

[Dimensio]

Some may be wrong on some issues but they aren't liars.

When a creationist responds to an article about Antony Flew conceding that a "prime-mover" type God may have started the universe and also states that Flew still accepts Darwinian evolution by saying that Flew has "rejected" the theory of evolution, what is that? What about when the article is quoted directly to them and they insist that Flew rejects the theory. What about if later, the same creationist denies ever saying anything about Antony Flew in the first place, even in response to a link to their very own post?

If that isn't lying, what is it?

What is it when a creationist claims that it is a "historical fact" that Darwin's own children stated that he "recanted" his theories "on his deathbed", completely ignores references to articles that dispute the claim, claims that no one has provided references that dispute the claim (after said references are provided multiple times), later takes one quote from one of the references out of context and presents it as "proof" of his claim, even though the article that he quoted out of context comes to the opposite conclusion that he claims he has proven? What if this creationist also says that the article that he has quoted out of context is a "pro evolution story", even though it comes from Answers in Genesis? How about when the creationist later presents an article that says that a woman named "Lady Hope" might have visited Darwin several months before his death (well before he was on his "deathbed"), acknowledges that Darwin's children disputed the claim of his recanting and comes to the conclusion that "we cannot conclude either way" regarding Darwin becoming a Christian before his death as "absolute proof" of his previous claims (that Darwin's own children said that Darwin recanted on his deathbed)? If that isn't lying, then just what is it?

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Oh I would agree with you there.

Actually I was just being even handed. On the thread titled "What Are Evolutionists Afraid Of?" I put "High Taxes" as well.

I figure that is something every one is afraid of. :)

[Westbrook]

It's wonderful that you can enjoy your "objectivism" given so many subjective assumptions.

• Everything came from nothing out of nowhere for no apparent reason.

• Life is just a curious side-effect of an unknowing, uncaring cosmos.

• The best we can hope for is a life of self-gratification and a painless extinction.

• When you die, you are just so much compost.

What a delightful worldview.

It makes SIN so much easier to ignore.

And it has so many nice names with big, important-sounding words; Objectivism, Humanism, Existentialism.

It has some not-so-nice names, too; Hedonism, Nihilism, Materialism, Atheism.

But even the not-so-nice names still sound way more important and clever than Faith.

I was once an atheist and an evolutionist.

I laughed and scoffed at the Christians and their silly superstitions.

I was so very clever.

But when all seemed meaningless, when nothing made sense anymore, when the worship of intellect and cleverness and debate at the altar of La Déité de Raison could not deliver the satisfaction it promised, Jesus SAVED me.

We talk alot about Law in this forum.

What's the point of having ANY Laws at all if they are not based on absolutes?

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?

[jw777]

So you do you!

[TChris]

Though most evolutionists (particularly in this country) believe in a God, which throws a giant economy-size monkey wrench in your argument.

No, they really don't. They may have some fuzzy "spiritual" belief that requires no commitment nor definition. Yes, there are plenty of people who hold incompatible, inconsistent beliefs, but therin lies the problem.

If you claim to believe in God, yet believe that the universe and its inhabitants, in all their complexity, came to be through the workings of chaos, time and chance, then you're simply being dishonest with yourself.

I suppose one could claim to believe in the Holy Trinity of Chaos, Chance and Time. Are those the gods to which you refer?

[gobucks]

It's good to see a "real" Objectivist writer ....

Our Forgotten Goddess: Isabel Paterson and the Origins of Libertarianism.

I didn't know if you had seen this ...

[jw777]

When you can prove that something or everything, can simply appear out of nothing, then get back to me and we can discuss "scientific". Until then, they are all theory.

[Dimensio]

The complexities of economies do not spring up by random chance or in a vacuum.

No one claims that the complexities of the diversity of species on earth "sprung up" by "random chance or in a vacuum". That's a creationist strawman.

[jwalsh07]

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.

The guy makes an argument in the first three sentences and then refutes his own argument in the third sentence.

No reason for anybody else to participate in the debate, he's got all sides covered.

[furball4paws]

I think I've grown to the point where there is nothing I fear. I used to be afraid of dying - but after a couple of near misses, I don't fear it any more. I HATE the idea of dying, but it no longer strikes fear when I see it.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"If you claim to believe in God, yet believe that the universe and its inhabitants, in all their complexity, came to be through the workings of chaos, time and chance, then you're simply being dishonest with yourself."

And if you claim that that is what cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution say you are being dishonest with YOUR self.

" No, they really don't."

Actually, most evolutionists in the USA are Christian.

[connectthedots]

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.

While efficient economies do not require "socialist planners", one would be wrong to suggest that the order of a free economy is not designed. It's actually quite the opposite. There is a conscious design by the individuals who participate in it.

also, it is intellectually dishonest to compare biology and economics. They are not the same.

[Dimensio]

When you can prove that something or everything, can simply appear out of nothing, then get back to me and we can discuss "scientific".

Total non-sequitur. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with "something or everything" appearing out of nothing.

Until then, they are all theory.

What does "intelligent design" theory predict? How can it be tested? What hypothetical observation would falsify it?

If you cannot provide meaningful answers to those questions, then ID is not a theory.

"Creationism" is already disqualified as a theory because it invokes a supernatural element.

[TChris]

Not to diss God or anything, it just wouldn't come up.

That's because you're not trying to describe how bees came to be the way they are. Describing how something already is doesn't require much in the way of explaining its creator.

[mlc9852]

I've always wondered why we can't fly. It would be a major benefit I think. Why haven't we been able to adapt to flight?