I've been harping on this point in these parts for years. It's good to see a "real" Objectivist writer get the argument into print.
Nonsense. Some extremely immoral people have lived very happy lives. Mao was quite content in his life; he enjoyed his power and had no remorse for the millions he slaughtered.
Atheism carried to its logical extreme leads to nihilism. That's not to say that all athesits are ammoral. In fact, most are good people. They're just not being logically consistant, as they have faith in a moral code despite there being no more scientific evidence for such a code than there is scientific evidence for God.
This is, however, a completely seperate question from evolution, and IMHO the two should not be conflated.
Very poor article.
1. What is the purpose of markets?
2. What is the purpose of evolution?
3. Who or what directs each of those?
Their own nature?
Proof or "demonstration" in the natural sciences merely means that the theory is better supported by more empirically measurable data than alternative theories are supported by. Strictly speaking, it's not really demonstration, though the word is commonly applied to theories that enjoy widespread acceptance.
Demonstration or proof in the social sciences is roughly the same, though the data may involve less-measurable elements. In economics, most of the data are measurable, but . . .
So what did Hayek prove? He advanced a theory. A lot of people believe it to be a good theory that is supported by the data. Others disagree.
All that quite apart from the questions other posters have raised. This could have been a useful article if the author had actually thought about how explanatory models and theories work in mathematics, natural sciences, social sciences, philosophy, theology.
But that would require some complexity and perhaps even a tad bit of intelligent designing.
Besides, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" always struck me as the least convincing part of his system. It seemed like a cheap deus ex machina solution, just a tad bit like religious belief in providence, masquerading under "scientific analysis." Sort of like Newton's way of filling in the gaps he could not yet explain (for lack of sufficient data and sufficient analysis--sort of like an eye that has halfway evolved??).
This is almost laughable in its illogic.
This author is saying that individuals do not set up distribution channels and methods...that they came about "spontaneously."
ROTFLOL!
Tell that to your friendly neighborhood entrepreneurs. I'm sure they'll get a kick out of it.
The Objectivist Center is a group of hate spewing athiest communist Christian-hating Jew-hating monsters. 'nuff said.
That the Evolutionists will continue to sell discredited theories (the primordial soup) and outright frauds (the peppered-moth photos, Haekel's long-ago debunked drawings, Piltdown Man, etc.) to our children in schools paid for with our tax dollars rather than simply teach them the truth: That evolution has no viable theory of abiogenesis and that many of the supposed proofs for evolution that they've been taught all their lives don't actually exist.
So now, you tell me: What are evolutionists so afraid of that they continue to tell outright lies to children in biology class?
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.
Hayek neglects to mention that within that system are millions of micro-systems, each of which does have one or more intellegent designers controling it and responding to events: CEOs, accountants, inventors, coders, assembly-line workers, project managers, etc.
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?
Prove that it did. Don't demand that I take the "scientific" theory of evolution on faith.
Creationists, as religious fundamentalists . . .
A cute way to bias the argument. "Oooh, those eeeeeevil, stoooooopid fundamentalists." Of course, not all Creationists are fundamentalists by any stretch. Those who believe that the universe was created in six 24-hour days 6-10k years ago tend to be, of course. But there are also plenty of Creationists who are willing to grant a 15 billion year old universe--this by your own definitions, the one which you have advanced legally in court, which has every IDer as a Creationist. In fact, these "Creationists" make up the overwhelming majority of the people, both in America and around the world, and span the philosophical/theological range from deist to liberal Christian to fundamentalist Christian to Hindu to Muslim to any other belief system which believes in some manner of Creator.
Of course, this is a standard part of the evolutionist attack, which has been simply to confuse two separate, if co-operative arguments (ID and ex-nihilo Creation, or for that matter, Creationism vs. Young Earth Creationism) so as to make the false argument that one has to believe that the entire universe is only 6,000 years old in order to dispute that evolution is sufficient to explain the origin and development of life. This is a straw-man and a guilt-by-association tactic.
The day that the evo-inquisition pitched a hissy fit and ruined Richard Sternberg's career for his daring to allow a peer-reviewed article by Stephen Meyer supporting ID to appear in the pages of the Smithsonian, never mind that it passed all the standard hurdles for publication, they forever surrendered their scientific "high ground" and put themselves in the position of ardent religionists defending a dogma.
This article, full of logical fallacies and arguments that don't stand up to five seconds of thought, just further proves that.
Thus, it is the believers in evolution who come to their beliefs in part through honest errors and in part from evasions of facts and close-minded dogmatism. And that's why I don't bother to debate this issue the way I used to; it became obvious long ago that I was not engaged in a scientific discussion, but a religious discussion with someone who isn't honest enough to admit it.
"fear"? I know of not a single Creationist who is motivated by fear. Another "straw man" argument.
Much of our ethics stem from the genetic link to others of our species, our 'family' groups. If there is any difference between ourselves and Chimps it is our ability to include those outside of our immediate family in socially defined 'family' groups such as the evo group, the creo/ID group, the watering hole group, or any other group where the members are considered part of the 'family'. Once you get outside that family, our moral behaviour towards others resembles quite closely those of the Chimps.
The Chimp grouping is generally around 40 - 100 members where each member is part of the immediate or extended family grouping. Within that group children are taken care of by adults, arguments are mediated, and violence although frequent is generally non-life threatening. Chimps outside that group are treated quite differently. They are attacked, sometimes killed, even at times females are stolen. They may be taunted and if encountered alone tortured.
This behaviour is reflected in human grouping behaviour almost exactly. Our groups can encompass much larger numbers than those of chimps, such as Education level, City, State/Province, Country, Religion, Race, or even entire cultures such as our western culture which encompasses North America and Europe. We generally treat those of our group with respect while those belonging to outside groups can be treated quite differently. This occurs most noticeably during wars.
An interesting aspect of human ethical behaviour is our ability to create not just one group but multiple groups within groups, our interaction with the members dependent on the context, what is important to us in relation to the group identity. We expand or condense our ethical interaction, even our moral identity, with the members of each group contingent on how the actions of members in the larger group affect the members of the inner group.
For example, if you, the other Freepers, were to threaten my family I would react violently. My internal image of you would be as outsiders that I would have no compunction against putting out of my misery. I suspect each and every one of us would react the same. However, if you did not threaten my immediate family I would, as I do, accept you as part of my group, - as belonging in my inner sanctum - so to speak. If we as freepers were threatened by outsiders, such as those nasty little Democrats, I would immediately include all freepers as family and react against the outsiders by pummeling their pointy little heads. Again I suspect the rest of you would do the same. This expansion of group member inclusion, depending on the threat context, could eventually encompass all of humanity and beyond.
Even though chimps do not do this to the extent we upper apes do they do have the initial base of ethical treatment down pat. Family group not only matters to a great extent, but indeed determines the interaction between any number of individuals.
I guess what I'm trying to say in this mind addled mess is that we ain't so different from the other apes in our development of ethics.
It also means that our ethics will not be different whether we believe in a God or not. The religious absolute morals contained in so many religious texts are morals that were condensed from our natural behaviour and our cultural needs. The basic human ethic will always be part of our psyche with only slight culturally driven modifications.
By the by, the only reason culture influences our basic human ethic is population size. The larger and more anonymous the culture the more the society needs to modify and control the moral behaviour of its residents. Laws, laws, laws....
I now have a throbbing headache.
You're not being really objective about this are you?
Wow, you started a heck of a thread.
What the writer notices is that change doesn't need a central planner, it can come about by distributed intelligence, the global equivalent of parallel processing.
This is, of course, true, and it is Von Mise's point, and Hayek's point as well. An economy progresses more intelligently without a central planner, because it takes advantage of a billion minds loosely connected in parallel.
What does any of that have to do with evolution? Not a lot, necessarily. It does suggest a line of reasoning that he almost sees, if he doesn't let himself get caught up in his effort to use this insight to pummel his opponents in another argument.
The remarkable thing about the universe is that, exactly as the writer notes, intelligence has been pushed out to the periphery, to the point of the spear, or maybe better said, to the point of contact. The universe, especially the living universe, acts like a kind of rough, full-contact computer, as various alternatives are tried, some discarded, some built upon and further developed.
He notices this, he realizes that the living world seems to be information-rich, its separate pieces seem to have built-in a means of adapting over time to changing circumstances.
This is evolution in a nutshell. If you are not a believer, you will probably marvel at the rich complexity of the world, you will probably marvel at the strange way in which code gets transferred from one organism to its progeny, and at the astonishing ingeniousness of the moving parts that make up any living organism. You won't assume a supernatural creator, but you will marvel just the same. I think this is what drives any scientist, a sense of wonder at what he sees, and a hunger to get to the "how" and "why" of it.
If you are a believer, and you notice the same things, you agree that the living universe has the ability to adapt itself over time, then you would probably be an "intelligent design" proponent. If you believe in God, and you believe in evolution, the two beliefs combined together pretty much equal "intelligent design". For an evolutionist, if he's paying attention, "intelligent design" means that he has won the argument, because God-believers agree with him. If the argument is only about how the living world has developed and adapted, then he should be happy to know that there is no argument.
But if the argument is about something else, if he was hoping to prove that God does not exist, then it might frustrate him to find God-believers marvelling at the sheer cleverness of the creation. The holy grail for programmers is code that can adapt itself; if you believe in God and evolution both, then you see precisely that, code adapting itself, and you can't help but marvel at the God who is behind it.
Beyond the 'hook' of creationism in the title...and the falacy of comparing millions of intelligences competing to non-intelligence evolving...(and a certain order arising from both), Hudgin's main point is that atheists are able to be just as "moral" as believers.
In certain individual cases...externally, surely he's right. However, in the big picture, you really don't find many atheist doctors slaving away in mission hospitals in the developing world. I've never heard of an atheist (or even agnostic) Mother Theresa type character. In history, show me a truly great atheist leader.
Christian belief is certainly no guarantee of good and loving character...but look at the most sacrificially loving people in the world--and by golly there's very (very) few atheists.
Europe probably has the highest concentration of atheists in the world...and their voluntary contributions in charitable causes both within their countries and without are significantly less than places with more believers. Atheism really does seem to breed socialism and apathy...(and vica versa) and Objectivists (atheists devoted to free markets) are truly rare.
The Mother of Objectivism herself, Ayn Rand, did not exibit a morally upright lifestyle...those morals arising simply from human nature always tend to corrupt and run downhill--and good minds (like Hudgins) are easily able to rationalize away selfishness and avarice--or all kinds of evil, especially (unlike Objectivists) if they have a utopian vision. Show me someone who is convinced they are ultimately under no other authority than themselves...and I'll show you someone with serious flaws in character...every time.
Ethics, morality and all of those associated ideals, etc., etc., ad nausea, ...are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Examine my statement for logic (categorical or propositional). It will test true as a syllogism or true if tested in a Venn diagram using Aristotle's logic.
Objectivists don't know how to use it.
If you think this is a scholarly essay, you should start listening to Air America political commentary. I don't think the creationists are afraid of anything; it's the evolutionists who sould about as rabid as the Democratic Party.
One thing Cs are not afraid of is Bird Flu.
Nurse Rached has taken over the night shift at the hospice, I see.
It's all a guess. They don't know crap
1. God
2. Our wives
3. Keyser Soze
(OK, OK, spouses, fine, but 'wives' is funnier if you read it out loud...)