The Idea of Man Under Materialism

Evolution News and Views ^ | September 18, 2013 | David Klinghoffer

[Heartlander]

The Idea of Man Under Materialism

Of all the lies that are told about advocates of intelligent design, the one that has had the most success in diverting the debate on life's origins holds that ID is simply about contesting the age of the earth in favor of Scriptural literalism. See, for example, Kevin D. Williamson's grossly ignorant or dishonest, not to mention arrogant and bigoted, diatribe at National Review Online the other day.

Not only is ID not about that, it actually is about issues that are far more profound -- and relevant to NRO's readers, you would think.

Like what issues? Well, Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer had a rich and fruitful discussion with Michael Medved on the radio yesterday. The topic under examination was the picture of a human being assumed by our country's system of limited, Constitutional government -- and the very different, indeed profoundly alien picture of a human being under materialist assumptions.

I thought it would be helpful to list briefly the key points as Meyer conveyed them. The Constitution assumes:

• Free will, hence the capacity for self-governance.
• Moral responsibility hence accountability under the law.
• Intrinsic dignity of the human being, hence inalienable human rights.
• Unchanging moral principles and a stable human nature, making possible a stable system of Constitutional law.

In contrast, under the materialistic picture of reality pervasive in our culture, you get this:

• Not free will, but determinism.
• Since moral ideas evolve and are instinctive rather than a matter of choice, moral responsibility and accountability are undermined.
• No conception of a design or purpose behind life, therefore the erosion of the concepts of human dignity and inalienable rights.
• Since human nature evolves and moral law evolves, the supreme law governing our political system is also infinitely malleable.

The clash of these conceptions of man and morality raises the question of whether the American system can survive the triumphant dissemination of Darwinian materialism -- that is, if the way of thinking about human nature that gave rise to that system in the first place has been widely rejected.

[tacticalogic]

I made an observation about what appears to be a serious flaw in the author’s arguments. How can that be “off topic”?

[Heartlander]

I had to explain why ID can be an alternative to materialism (obvious to anyone) – why ID is not the same as creationism (even though the first sentence of the article stated they are not the same) – and then you refuse to answer a question that is clearly related to the subject.
I've allowed you to waste far too much of my time...

[tacticalogic]

I had to explain why ID can be an alternative to materialism (obvious to anyone)

You tried to remove all the possibilities from ID except theological creationism, and maintain that you can still call it ID.

If you mean "creationism", then say "creationism".

[Heartlander]

Again, ID is not Creationism and not a Christian movement (for example David Berlinski is a secular Jew). It's an evidential approach that basically tries to answer the question of what is designed, - not who, when, why, where and how. Which is why the movement is not Christian. Because the Bible does tell us who, why, when, where and how. And so while there are Christians within the intelligent-design movement, the movement itself is not Christian.

Now answer my question - Do you believe your mind ultimately came from mindlessness (lack of any intelligence)?

[tacticalogic]

Now answer my question - Do you believe your mind ultimately came from mindlessness (lack of any intelligence)?

No.

Do you belive yours was designed by someone else and stuck into your head?

[Heartlander]

If you believe your mind ultimately came from intelligence - that would fall under ID. As the article states:

In contrast, under the materialistic picture of reality pervasive in our culture, you get this:

• Not free will, but determinism.
• Since moral ideas evolve and are instinctive rather than a matter of choice, moral responsibility and accountability are undermined.
• No conception of a design or purpose behind life, therefore the erosion of the concepts of human dignity and inalienable rights.
• Since human nature evolves and moral law evolves, the supreme law governing our political system is also infinitely malleable.

Now, these things still could apply under ID - but it is necessary under materialism.

If we were built by a process which did not have us in mind but is merely tuned for survival, then, like it or not, there must be a Darwinian explanation for our thoughts and behavior. Put another way, one cannot claim that Darwinism made our brains but has no bearing on the brain's contents. Even Darwin had his doubts:

“Nevertheless you have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance. But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”
– Charles Darwin

[Heartlander]

Oh, and by the way, since you don’t believe your mind ultimately came from mindlessness - does that make you a creationist? Obviously not...

[tacticalogic]

Oh, and by the way, since you don’t believe your mind ultimately came from mindlessness - does that make you a creationist?

I notice that you ask questions and berate people for not answering them, but ignore their questions to you.

[Heartlander]

This question?

Do you belive yours was designed by someone else and stuck into your head?

I personally believe God is the 'designer' of all but I'm not dogmatic about how.

[tacticalogic]

I personally believe God is the 'designer' of all but I'm not dogmatic about how.

Any chance there might be some chemical processes involved?

[Heartlander]

This was a rhetorical question that I answered for you - Oh, and by the way, since you don’t believe your mind ultimately came from mindlessness - does that make you a creationist? Obviously not...

[Heartlander]

There are still chemical processes involved.

[tacticalogic]

This was a rhetorical question that I answered for you

It appears other people are redundant in your debates.