Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwinian Conservatism: An Evolutionary Dead End (Book Review)
Intellectual Conservative ^ | October 11, 2006 | Seth Cooper

Posted on 10/17/2006 9:47:15 AM PDT by Heartlander

October 11, 2006

Darwinian Conservatism: An Evolutionary Dead End

By

Seth Cooper |

 Yo mamaIn his recent book, Carson Holloway demonstrates the inability of neo-Darwinian theory to undergird the moral framework that is essential to a liberal democracy's survival. A review of The Right Darwin: Evolution, Religion and the Future of Democracy.

The Right Darwin: Evolution, Religion and the Future of Democracy
by Carson Holloway
Spence Publishing Company (January 30, 2006)
Hdbk., 209 pgs.
ISBN: 1890626619

Darwinists often insist there are no scientific challenges to neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory; only moral or religious objections to it. Equating neo-Darwinian theory with science itself, leading public relations and policy proponents of Darwinism thereby posit that science deals with facts, whereas morality and religion are about personal feelings or the personal meaning that one gives to things. This is not an honest attempt by Darwinists to keep personal feelings from interfering with the scientific process, but is instead a criterion used to insulate neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory from any scientific criticism. This stated position is clearly contradicted by the contents of peer-reviewed and other mainstream scientific publications that challenge key aspects of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. The advance of scientific progress is impeded in any climate that eschews serious evaluation of the evidence.

The overly simple science/ethics dichotomy provided by many Darwinists is flatly contradicted by notable hyper-Darwinists who forthrightly proclaim a metaphysical message based on neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. In his book The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design, Richard Dawkins observed that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." Said Tufts University professor Daniel Dennett in his book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Darwinism is to be praised as a "universal acid" that destroys "just about every traditional concept" of religion and morality.

The popular refrain that neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is separate and irrelevant to morality or religion is further belied by a crop of prominent political scientists who have articulated an understanding of traditionalism and moral understanding based upon the theory. Noted scholars, such as Francis Fukuyama, James Q. Wilson and Larry Arnhart, have advanced a brand of "conservatism" based on neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory's insights into nature and into humanity.

It is precisely this kind of Darwinian "conservatism" that Carson Holloway tackles in The Right Darwin: Evolution, Religion and the Future of Democracy (Spence Publishing: 2006). A political scientist at the University of Nebraska (Omaha), Holloway examines and evaluates the arguments and underlying premises of Darwinian "conservatism." Through careful analysis, Holloway demonstrates that Darwinian conservatism cannot supply the moral and ethical foundation necessary for the continuing vitality of a democracy. Holloway goes on to show that Darwinian conservatism suffers from an internal incoherence that leaves it unable to provide a basis for universal human rights and unable to affirm the inherent dignity of humans in the face of biotechnological prospects to re-engineer a post-human race.

French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville and his early 19th-Century masterpiece Democracy in America provide a lens through which Holloway evaluates Darwinian conservatism. Notes Holloway, Tocqueville's praises of the new American republic were tempered by his warnings of liberal democracy's excesses. The problem for liberal democracy is not an inclination towards rampant criminality and anarchy. Instead, liberal democracy is prone to an overly individualistic, material-driven selfishness. According to Tocqueville, the antidote to this problem is to be found in the ethical restraints and moral obligations that democratic citizens draw from religion. (An additional but related solvent cited by Tocqueville is in the flourishing of free associations found in America.)

At best, argues Holloway, Darwinian conservatism can only purport to provide an account of the "decent materialism" that Tocqueville observes is typical of America's liberal democracy. This decent materialism includes human sociability and reciprocity, with an underlying respect for some kind of public order. But Tocqueville insisted that a sustained democracy needs more if it is to prevent a collapse into a selfish, radical individualism; decent materialism is not enough.

To its credit, Darwinian conservatism tries to take seriously a natural, biological basis for differences between the sexes. By attributing inclinations and attributes of humanity to its basic biology, the Darwinian conservatism would eschew the post-modern proclivity to treat sex differences as the product of mere social construction. Yet, nothing in neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory renders human sex differences inevitable or permanent. Instead, sex differences only arose because they offered survival advantage, and entirely different human sexual dynamics may provide superior survival capabilities in the future. Darwinian conservatism is thereby unable to escape the relativism that it seeks to supplant.

Observing that the Darwinian understanding of human nature holds that morality "emerged to promote success in the conflicts between groups that prevailed during the period that our nature evolved," Holloway concludes that Darwinism contravenes any universal moral standards rooted in human nature. Since the Darwinian account of humankind maintains that moral obligations arise through desires and feelings we've obtained via undirected evolution, there is no basis for preferring a mere feeling of common humanity over a desire to oppress others to achieve gain for one's self or for one's family. The lack of any clear recognition of universal moral standards renders problematic any international order respecting human rights. It also undermines the demands of justice in any large domestic order.  There is always the prospect of tyranny by the majority, and a Darwinian account of morality leaves no reliable basis for the minority to assert their own rights.

Domestic order is further undermined by the fact that Darwinian conservatism's endorsement of the family falls woefully short. Tocqueville asserted that beyond our biological nature, moral obligation grounded in religion improved the prospects for fidelity and lasting family commitments. But Darwinian conservatism does not countenance any moral restraints arising from religion, but instead relies upon biological drives alone. Writes Holloway: "There is little reason to suppose that the biological good at which the conjugal union aims would require parents to remain together longer than is necessary to raise children to an age at which they no longer require intensive parental care." He goes on to assert that, "If the Darwinian account of human nature does not support the notion of permanent marital commitment, neither does it point to a very strict standard of mutual commitment while a marriage lasts."

This new Darwinian political theory is entirely lacking in the moral resources necessary for mankind to prevent its own abolition in the face of a biotechnological Brave New World. Today, advances in science and medicine present us with the possibility of re-designing the basic biology of human beings to create a post-human race. Technological advances also entail a dark downside requiring extensive use and harvesting of human life as raw materials and for experimentation. Human cloning, animal-human hybrids, fetal farming and the like are all on the table for our society to deal with. As Holloway notes, some of the leading proponents of Darwinian conservatism, such as Francis Fukuyama, write of their own deep concerns about the re-engineering of the human race and all of the attending consequences. But because of Darwinism's rejection of inherent purpose in humanness itself, we can rely upon no principled basis for defending human dignity and resisting eugenic experimentation and commoditization of human life. Holloway points to liberal democracies' strong preoccupation with the using technology to provide ease and comfort, and to minimize suffering. And so he writes that, "In the absence of some cosmic teleology that can account for the ultimate goodness of our hard condition, Darwinism can only offer prudential arguments against such modification." Given a Darwinian understanding that our species is the result of purposeless evolution, why should we recognize any limits to the aims of biotechnology? Only a strong moral account of human dignity can offer a satisfactory answer to whether we should steer advances in biotechnology in ethical directions or whether we should accept that Brave New World is simply the next stage of an undirected evolutionary process.

Holloway's analysis appears to take for granted the sufficiency of the scientific evidence for neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. No question is ever raised about whether extant empirical evidence more strongly supports neo-Darwinian theory or its emerging competitor: the theory of intelligent design. In recent years, a growing minority of scientists have proposed that the intricacy and specified complexity of molecular machines and other nanotechnology inside living cells may be better explained by an intelligent cause, rather than the undirected causes (natural selection operating on random genetic mutation) posited by neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. But ultimately, The Right Darwin is not a book about the Darwin vs. design debate. On its own terms, Holloway simply shows the inability of neo-Darwinian theory to undergird the moral framework that is essential to a liberal democracy's survival.



Seth Cooper is an attorney and former law and policy analyst for the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture.


TOPICS: Books/Literature
KEYWORDS: buchananlovesdarwin; darwinistwhiners
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-97 next last
To: Zionist Conspirator
"I notice you didn't read my post."

No I didn't. My post was meant for wideawake. I accidently pinged you to it. Sorry.

41 posted on 10/17/2006 4:50:30 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (To have no voice in the Party that always sides with America's enemies is a badge of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
This has enormous implications for what we need to do and avoid doing to create a life-affirming world instead of a life-destroying world.

However, it fails to address the question of why we should bother to create a world that affirms life instead of destroys it. What's to be gained? Chemistry is chemistry, whether it's conscious or not. You can't just strike your intellect against the ground and declare that your existence has meaning simply because you say so. That makes you conscious chemistry with hubris.

That's one of the most excellent points I've seen made on the subject under discussion.

42 posted on 10/17/2006 4:52:34 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Berei'shit bara' 'Eloqim 'et HaShamayim ve'et Ha'Aretz.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: orionblamblam
How about the Theory of Relativity? The Laws of Thermodynamics? Quantum Theory? The Germ Theory of disease?

Attacking a scientific theory because it does not provide a "moral framework" is stupid and dishonest, and any conservative should be ashamed and apalled to be associated with such a ridiculous effort.

I hope you noticed that I specifically rejected the "utilitarian" argument altogether. To argue that G-d doesn't really exist but we must pretend He does so for utilitarian social reasons is no different from the argument that we should dispense with belief in G-d because we don't "need" him to for society to function smoothly.

So far as I know, the other theories you cite are theories about how the world works in the present. Evolution is retrojected into the distant past in order to explain how everything came into existence. That's a little different.

I'm still waiting to hear how the "big bang" could be a purely natural phenomenon when "nature" was not in existence until afterwards. Are you really saying that it was caused by its result? How is this logical?

43 posted on 10/17/2006 5:00:53 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Berei'shit bara' 'Eloqim 'et HaShamayim ve'et Ha'Aretz.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oberon
But I could ask you: Why should we bother to try to please God?

You can only posit that question because you think of God as an intellectual construct, equivalent to the intellectual construct of meaning in a naturalistic universe.

If you actually thought of God as being real, rather than theoretical, the question would answer itself.

No, by that logic only atheists are capable of sinning. Which means that Adam & Eve & Lucifer, to name just three people who definitely were believers, did not sin. Since we all have free will, believers certainly can make the decision to go against God or not, knowing full well what the religious dogma says will happen to us if we do it.

And sure, not everybody wants what's in their long-term best interest, and not everybody cares about people other than themselves or their immediate loved ones or their countrymen. The best situation is if everyone feels empathy towards everyone who's capable of experiencing the same. The best situation is also where everyone is capable of thinking things through to see the long-term effects of possible actions.

But luckily for us, this innate sense of morality is pervasive enough that we've learned to build up governmental institutions that enforce the basic rules of conduct that keep us all in a positive-sum game of cooperation that keeps civilization possible. (What the article dismisses as "decent materialism".)

44 posted on 10/17/2006 5:17:49 PM PDT by jennyp (There's ALWAYS time for jibber jabber!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
I like you, ZC. You're like an antagonist in a Rand novel: You very cogently explain your utterly wrong views. I respect that. :-)

That's one of the most excellent points I've seen made on the subject under discussion.

Then let me as you the same question I asked Oberon: Why should you, a believer, bother to work to create a world that affirms life instead of destroying it? Ultimately you want to live a long & happy life just as much as I do - you just think that there's an infinitely long, infinitely happy life awaiting you in some supernatural realm if only you can keep obeying certain commandments in this life. Right?

45 posted on 10/17/2006 5:22:53 PM PDT by jennyp (There's ALWAYS time for jibber jabber!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Why should you, a believer, bother to work to create a world that affirms life instead of destroying it?

There is a commnad that you love your neighbor.

Ultimately you want to live a long & happy life

If you belive that all there is is here then you are not going to live a very long life compared to time that has past.

As far as happiness goes, what is the point as to why we are here? To survive until procreation?

46 posted on 10/17/2006 5:36:56 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Jenny,

Don’t patronize me…

We operate in a universe whose laws of nature are fixed (as far as we've ever been able to tell), and we have free will. This has enormous implications for what we need to do and avoid doing to create a life-affirming world instead of a life-destroying world.

Why do we have this ‘world’? Is it truly your ‘belief’ that it is all ultimately a result of mindless happenstance? If this were true, all moral constructs become merely imaginary.

47 posted on 10/17/2006 5:40:00 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Design Theorists' (teleology) have been around for a very long time and some came to the ‘design’ theory absent of theism. It is only recent in scientific history that ‘design’ is absent which should cause one to question why. Why was the (teleological) baby thrown out with the bathwater and did a new world view form due to this?

Let me now try to summarize Darwin’s contributions to the thinking of modern men. He was responsible for the replacement of a world view based on Christian dogma by a strictly secular world view. Fur thermore, his writings led to the rejection of several previously dominant world views such as essentialism, finalism, determinism, and of Newtonian laws for the explanation of evolution. He replaced these refuted concepts with a number of new ones of wide- reaching importance, also outside of biology, such as biopopulation, natural selection, the importance of chance and contingency, the explan atory importance of the time factor (historical narratives), and the importance of the social group for the origin of ethics. Almost every component in modern man’s belief system is somehow affected by one or another of Darwin’s conceptual contributions. His opus as a whole is the foundation of a rapidly developing new philosophy of biology. There can be no doubt that the thinking of every modern Western man has been profoundly affected by Darwin’s philosophical thought.
- Mayr

I quote Mayr only to show the crux of the problem as admittedly, I see it… To put it bluntly, if Darwinism is now assumed as the new paradigm for science it must account for intelligence and morality which is a new stomping ground for science. Hard science has always been a study of nature but now it is assumed that nature accounts for intelligence, morality, and hard science without teleology. This is what causes the conflict between Darwinism as opposed to other scientific theories in regard to theism or telic thought. This, in my opinion, is the heart of the problem. But if you wish to continue stating purely natural laws account for the basis for mankind’s morality, go ahead.

48 posted on 10/17/2006 5:46:30 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jennyp; orionblamblam; wideawake
JennyP wrote:

Seth Cooper (& presumably the book he's reviewing) assumes that the only way there can be a secure basis for morality is if we're all marionettes. The only alternative they can think of is absolute moral chaos: nihilism.

But two facts explain the third option: We operate in a universe whose laws of nature are fixed (as far as we've ever been able to tell), and we have free will. This has enormous implications for what we need to do and avoid doing to create a life-affirming world instead of a life-destroying world.

Please don't fear the world of adulthood. We have to figure out how to live to ensure the long-term flourishing of ourselves & everyone else in this world who we value, instead of blindly following some uber-parent in the sky. And yet, our free will gives us the ability to do exactly that. We are up to the challenge. There's no need to pine for the artificial surety of childhood!

* * *

John Smith murders 4 innocent people, so he's hanged. But if John Smith hadn't murdered those people, then we wouldn't have hanged him. So therefore, our concept of crime & punishment is relative! We need an "objective" morality that would order us to hang John Smith even if he hadn't murdered anybody.

Do you begin to see, people, how utterly misguided is this quest for an arbitrary morality that's unconnected to its effect on people's actual lives here in the real world?

* * *

Obviously we both instinctively respond to our respective questions: Because I want to live long & be happy!

Our desire to live long & happy lives is part of our nature as living beings. Our desire to see other people also live long & happy lives is part of our human nature. These are givens, and are axiomatic. All moral questions dissolve into absurdity if we don't assume that our fundamental goal is to live long & prosper & to see our loved ones do the same.

I can appreciate a certain amount of honesty in the posts of you two that not all evolutionists possess. You seem to be saying that G-d is silly and unnecessary and He should be dispensed with. While I disagree with this, I see the logic in it (except that, as a Theonomic positivist, I reject all non-Theistic moralities or "reasons for living"). What I don't understand are your numerous brethren who loudly and constantly proclaim that one may be an evolutionist, of even the Darwinian type (as opposed to the ID Theistic evolutionist, who claims that G-d's guidance of the evolutionary process is scientifically observable), and still retain one's beliefs in such things as the miracles of the Exodus, or (lehavdil), the chr*stian incarnation or resurrection or transubstantiation. Why do such otherwise honest and consistent types not argue with this never-ending chorus? Patrick Henry even invokes the late Pope John Paul II, who (whatever his views on origins) most certainly did not believe that the universe is a self-contained system of causes and effects with which G-d never interfered. So far the anti-creation, anti-ID side seems to be one big happy family, even though different sectors of the community are preaching diametrically opposed things (religion may be retained intact once Genesis is dispensed with; religion is silly and we would all be much better without it).

But I wish to point out something else which I find of interest. The traditional argument against G-d was that He has too many rules; once we get rid of Him we will be "free." Now conservative evolutionists are arguing that one need not fear rejecting G-d because all the rules are still there and still valid. So which is it? Will rejecting G-d set us free from all those stuffy old morals or will we be left with them? It is as if you are saying that it is not the rules but the mere existence of G-d that you find so constricting. If we're still going to hang John Smith for murdering, how does the non-existence of G-d set John Smith free? Does he die happy knowing that he is merely part of a self-contained unit of causes and effects?

Which brings me to another interesting point, jennyp. If I recall correctly, you quote my remark about the Mashiach and his blade on your home page to prove how constricting and tyrannical G-d is. Yet, as you just pointed out, you have no objections to using the "blade" yourself. In fact, there is nothing that can be justified by G-d that cannot be justified by "reason" as well, if "reason" is made the basis of morality. Your unfortunate Mr. Smith is but one example. Alan Dershowitz' defense of torture of Guantanamo detainees for the perfectly "rational" reason that this may save countless innocent lives is another.

The simple fact that is that both the Theist and non-Theist "free-thinker" believe that acknowledgement of reality as such is obligatory. The atheist no more believes that one should be free to dissent from "reality" than the Theist. Both believe that "error has no rights." So how is the atheist any freer than the Theist? Each is bound to think correctly, to acknowledge "the truth." Once again it seems that the very non-existence of G-d is held to be inherently liberating, in spite of the fact that the rules are still there, that people are still going to be hanged (or caged like animals while other inmates rape them), and that we are still obligated to eschew falsehood and cleave to the truth. How can the mere existence of G-d in this world (in which moral obligations exist and "error has no rights" regardless) be such a burden that His abolition alone sets everyone "free?"

Actually, your argument about morality and life itself being based on surface concerns rather than Ultimate Things is the very stuff of Hellenism. The ancient Greeks were obsessed with the physical, with the surface, and relegated religion to philosophical speculation which was quite independent of the purely rational surface concerns that governed everyday life. And contrary to what most people think, the Greeks were a very low civilization. It is stated that Greek civilization was nothing other than the return to the primordial darkness that existed before G-d said "Yehi 'or!" ("Let there be light!"). Which is one reason that, as one rabbi stated, the Jews are still here while nothing remains of the Greeks but their books.

A final point to be made against the dismissal of religion is that, if there has indeed been an objective supernatural Revelation by G-d (including information about the creation of the world), then this objective, historical information must be taken into consideration right along with the cosmogony that is based on naturalism and on the uniformitarian assumption. In fact, this is the point that many Theistic evolutionists (including those who join you in condemning people like me even as they ignore your pleas for consistency and continue to believe that the G-d Who created the universe without directly interfering with it immediately began to do so once the creation was complete) completely miss, probably because they are chr*stians. The natural world (and, if it is objectively true, supernatural Revelation) both give us knowledge about the world. So what happens when the information in one seems to contradict the information in the other? Non-literalists say that the Torah must be interpreted allegorically otherwise G-d is a liar. But they don't seem to see that doing this merely makes G-d a liar in the Torah, G-d forbid. And what chr*stians don't realize is that there is a principal of interpretation that solves this problem. Halakhically, it is forbidden to interrupt one's Torah study in order to say "what a beautiful tree that is!" or "what a beautiful field that is!" for the simple reason that the natural world gives us only an indirect knowledge of G-d, whereas the Torah gives us a direct knowledge of G-d. How could anything be any more straightforward?

Of course I am aware that you dismiss all claims of supernatural revelation as utter nonsense (probably without ever having evaluated any of them), so that saves you the trouble of having to evaluate claims. But this is intellectual laziness, not sophistication.

BTW, Ayn Rand was wrong . . . you do need a warrant for your existence. And you need a warrant to hang "John Smith" as well, however many people he has killed.

49 posted on 10/17/2006 5:51:01 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Berei'shit bara' 'Eloqim 'et HaShamayim ve'et Ha'Aretz.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Why should you, a believer, bother to work to create a world that affirms life instead of destroying it?

There is a commnad that you love your neighbor.

Boy, I sincerely hope that's not the only reason why you work to create a better world. What a joyless obligation that must feel like. Day after day, doing the right thing only because some Authority Figure commanded you to do it, when you'd rather be doing bad things to people. I'd be filled with resentment against this Authority Figure and against all those other people whose welfare I've been commanded to worry about. Grimly telling myself: "Just a few more years, and I'll be in Heaven & this'll all be over... grrrrr... stay... the... course... be... nice... to... these... losers..."
Ultimately you want to live a long & happy life

If you belive that all there is is here then you are not going to live a very long life compared to time that has past.

So? Are you really saying that all I have to do to live a long life is to believe I will live a long life?
As far as happiness goes, what is the point as to why we are here? To survive until procreation?
Being humans, we generally have more forward-thinking life goals than simply procreating. My adult life has been full of joy, terror, fulfillment, boredom, and everything in between. I want it to last as long as possible, hopefully with more fulfillment & joy and less terror & boredom.

(Sure, I'd prefer live forever. But since all evidence points to that not being an option, the proper comparison is to never having been born in the first place, IMO.)

50 posted on 10/17/2006 5:53:35 PM PDT by jennyp (There's ALWAYS time for jibber jabber!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
A lawyer critiquing science...and creationists are surprised we don't take them seriously!

So you're a "Theistic evolutionist" then? This must mean you believe in "Intelligent Design!" After all, "ID" merely says that G-d guided evolution, which is apparently what you yourself believe.

51 posted on 10/17/2006 5:53:37 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Berei'shit bara' 'Eloqim 'et HaShamayim ve'et Ha'Aretz.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
So you're a "Theistic evolutionist" then?

No. I'm a theist, as a believer. I also accept evolution and modern science (what's an "evolutionist"?). But I am not a "theistic evolutionist." The Darwinian model is still the best.

52 posted on 10/17/2006 5:57:55 PM PDT by Alter Kaker ("Whatever tears one sheds, in the end one always blows one's nose." - Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

orionblamblam is unable to answer you as he/she is banned or suspended.


53 posted on 10/17/2006 6:07:56 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
You set up a condition. I give you an answer that objectively fullfills your condition then you criticise my answer.

Why do you as a disbeliever work to create a world that affirms life instead of destroying it? I mean that makes you a pretty unusual disbeliever. Most of the disbelievers I know are pro-abortion and quite self-centered materialist -- looking out for number 1 and all that.

Grimly telling myself: "Just a few more years, and I'll be in Heaven & this'll all be over... grrrrr... stay... the... course... be... nice... to... these... losers..."

You've had some pretty unusal experiences with religion.

Are you really saying that all I have to do to live a long life is to believe I will live a long life?

No.

Being humans, we generally have more forward-thinking life goals than simply procreating.

Why?

54 posted on 10/17/2006 6:08:36 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
Since when is a scientific theory's validity dependent on whether or not it under girds morality?

The theory of evolution (which in fact is little more than a philosophy of history) touches upon how mankind thinks of itself. Einstein, Galileo, et al were neither so bold nor so disingenuous as to pass off interpretations of evidence over the whole of history as if they were science. Their theories are more confined, refined, and defined, though not devoid of moral ramifications.

That being said, you need do define what you mean by the word "validity." Who can possibly verify the historic connection between apes a humans? Just because they have common characteristics does not mean they are common ancestors. Since such assertions cannot be verified, the validity of the theory suffers scientifically in the first place. How much more when folks like Dawkins use the theory to become "intellectually fulfilled" atheists, all the while proclaiming themselves as proponents of pure science?

If the philosophy of history known as evolution (in the wide sense) existed in a vacuum you might be justified in suggesting its moral ramifications in no way effect its validity. As it stands, however, evolution is not only invalid as pure science but also results in a disservice the public at large insofar as it undermines moral absolutes.

55 posted on 10/17/2006 6:09:15 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
We operate in a universe whose laws of nature are fixed (as far as we've ever been able to tell), and we have free will. This has enormous implications for what we need to do and avoid doing to create a life-affirming world instead of a life-destroying world.

Free will is incompatible with a causal deterministic view of life Jenny. Taken to its logical conclusion, neo Darwinism leaves you right where the likes of Dennet and Pinker say it does, you have no free will, you never had free will and you will never have free will.

You can thank God they're wrong! :-}

56 posted on 10/17/2006 6:09:45 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
So you're a "Theistic evolutionist" then? This must mean you believe in "Intelligent Design!" After all, "ID" merely says that G-d guided evolution, which is apparently what you yourself believe

Evolution happens. RM/NS/heritability is one mechanism that changes allele frequencies. Intelligent design is another mechanism that changes allele frequencies. These are facts, observable and repeatable.

It is also a fact that I am a Catholic who believes exactly what Genesis 1:1 states.

I prefer being called a creationist for that reason but I suppose "theistic evolutionist" might well describe my views if one does not conflate theism with deism.

57 posted on 10/17/2006 6:15:31 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
jp, you seem to be missing a very essential point, namely: At some level, one does not choose what one believes.

Let us say that you decide that you no longer want to believe in something that is common to your everyday experience...say for example your mother.

After a few weeks go by and the phone starts ringing because you haven't been in touch, will you sincerely wonder who it is who keeps calling you? No. You will, deep down, know that it's your mother, trying to get in touch with you.

It's the same with God. God is real to me, as your mother is real to you. I cannot stop believing in God simply because I decide to. I believe in God, whether I like it or not.

That being the case, I have to come to terms with the God I believe in. I have done so, just as you have.

58 posted on 10/17/2006 6:27:39 PM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
That's one of the most excellent points I've seen made on the subject under discussion.

Thanks...but the idea certainly isn't original with me. =]

59 posted on 10/17/2006 6:46:08 PM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
No. I'm a theist, as a believer. I also accept evolution and modern science (what's an "evolutionist"?). But I am not a "theistic evolutionist." The Darwinian model is still the best.

So you're believe in G-d but don't believe that He used evolution to create the world? Then you're saying G-d didn't create the world, since He neither created it as related in Berei'shit nor used evolution to create it?

The universe is eternal and uncreated perhaps?

60 posted on 10/17/2006 7:43:44 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Berei'shit bara' 'Eloqim 'et HaShamayim ve'et Ha'Aretz.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-97 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson