Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why we [should] care about Darwin wars
Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | 1/19/'06 | David Klinghoffer

Posted on 01/19/2006 2:12:48 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator

We can expect more battles about Darwin before school boards across the country. But who cares? Impatient by now with the legal and religious debate around intelligent design, many of us may wonder just that. In fact we all need to care -- Darwinian theory has practical ramifications beyond the narrow question of what mechanism drives evolution.

Darwinists say the evolutionary mechanism must be purely material. ID theorists find evidence in nature of an intelligent purpose shaping life's history. Which view we convey to our children may affect their adult lives.

The scientific impact: Consider our country's role as the leading exporter of scientific ideas. Modern science from its start has been fueled by religious wonder. In his new book, "The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success," sociologist Rodney Stark points out that real science arose only once. That was in Europe at the hands of devoutly Christian scholars: "medieval scholastics, sustained by that uniquely Christian 12th-century invention, the university."

Unlike the ancient Greeks who believed the universe had no beginning and thus no designer, Christians and Jews read the opening chapters of Genesis as an affirmation that nature is God's handiwork. To understand Him, it helps to understand His creation. Writes Stark, "Newton, Kepler and Galileo regarded the creation itself as a book that was to be read and comprehended."

In erasing God's role from the history of biological existence, Darwinism erases a primary motivation to pursue scientific discovery.

The economic impact: In formulating his theory of natural selection, Darwin said he drew inspiration from the work of Thomas Malthus, the 18th-century political economist. Malthus portrayed life as a "struggle for existence," pitting animal against animal. Darwin added that organisms maximized their chances of survival if they possessed favorable variations (later explained as genetic mutations).

In economics, Malthus's view leads to the dismal belief that people are merely consumers, competing with one another for scarce resources. Similarly, Darwin's theory teaches us to think of life as a fierce struggle against others. It thus subtly undercuts the healthy belief that seeking wealth means providing a service to people rather than a way of robbing them. As my friend Rabbi Daniel Lapin points out, humans do best in careers they consider morally commendable. If we want our children to enjoy affluence as we do, it matters what we teach them about the nobility of creating wealth.

The moral impact: In "The Descent of Man" (1871), Darwin spells out the moral implications of his theory, notably that unguided evolution produced the moral laws as much as it did the plants and animals. Such laws could have turned out differently, as the animals could have turned out differently had chance variations led life's history down a different path.

So there is nothing absolute about our ideas of right and wrong. Wrote Darwin, "We may, therefore, reject the belief, lately insisted on by some writers, that the abhorrence of incest is due to our possessing a special God-implanted conscience." If ethics has no such secure foundation, there can be nothing sacred about doing the right thing.

No, I am not saying that Darwinism necessarily leads to scientific, economic and moral breakdown.

On the other hand, one can hardly deny the sad coarsening of our culture. Whatever its merits as science, Darwinism as a philosophy is far from uplifting or ennobling. Today when young Americans could use a little uplift and an appreciation for what's noble, letting them know about intelligent design, an alternative scientific theory with none of Darwin's drawbacks, couldn't hurt and might help.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; crevolist; darwin; education; evolution; id; idiocy; idisfraud; ignoranceisstrength; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-273 next last
To: x5452
What concerns me is the teachers who use darwin as an excuse to preach the ideals of athiesm in the classroom.
I agree with you completely, especially since these days preaching the ideals of atheism means preaching socialism and RAT politics in the same breath.
21 posted on 01/19/2006 2:34:12 PM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
In erasing God's role from the history of biological existence, Darwinism erases a primary motivation to pursue scientific discovery.

That's just bunk. God had just as much a role in creating biology on earth as He did in creating hurricane Katrina. Which means you can believe that God created both, or neither, take your pick.

But if God created the biosphere and all creatures in it, then He did it with a very elegant creation we call "Evolution". The evidence, particularly in the microbiological information trail between species, says that's what occured.

22 posted on 01/19/2006 2:35:27 PM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
Speaking as someone who knows more about economics than science, I have to agree. Darwinism holds as barren a future as the radical homosexual agenda, or the big government control freak agenda, or the Islamofascist agenda.

You must hate Hayek & his theory of "spontaneous order". I say economics only makes sense in the light of evolution-like transformations of industries & economies.

Christensen's theories of disruptive innovation alone strike me as having an eerie similarity to Gould's punctuated equilibrium.

23 posted on 01/19/2006 2:36:33 PM PST by jennyp (WWJBD?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: x5452
What concerns me is the teachers who use darwin as an excuse to preach the ideals of athiesm in the classroom.

They are abusing science if they do. But the real problem are the handful of Christian denominations (*not* including the Catholics) who claim a literal interpretation of the Bible that excludes evolution. They have the power to disarm the athiests exactly the same way the Catholics have done. By acknowledging that Genesis is not a scientific text, and interpret it in a way that allows for the reality of an old earth and evolution.

24 posted on 01/19/2006 2:38:29 PM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest
The whole purpose of Darwinism, which, I assume, is synonymous with the term evolution, is to remove man from any relationship to God, especially accountability.

"Darwinism" is an invention of the creationists who need a boogyman to demonize. It's no different than the Islamics who demonize the "infidels" to fire up the friday prayer meetings.

There is no scientific field of study called "Darwinism".

25 posted on 01/19/2006 2:41:39 PM PST by narby (Hillary! The Wicked Witch of the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
The moral impact: In "The Descent of Man" (1871), Darwin spells out the moral implications of his theory, notably that unguided evolution produced the moral laws as much as it did the plants and animals. Such laws could have turned out differently, as the animals could have turned out differently had chance variations led life's history down a different path.
If things had been different, then things would be different. Yeah, I can see how if THAT ever got out, it would undermine society's moral fiber!
So there is nothing absolute about our ideas of right and wrong. Wrote Darwin, "We may, therefore, reject the belief, lately insisted on by some writers, that the abhorrence of incest is due to our possessing a special God-implanted conscience."

I have read several times, right here on the crevo threads, creationists defend the rampant incest in Adam & Eve's family because at that time human bodies were still nearly perfect, and so the real-world biological consequences of incest were infinitesimal. IOW, creationists here were defending incest precisely on physical, biological grounds.

If ethics has no such secure foundation, there can be nothing sacred about doing the right thing.

This is like complaining that 32 ft/sec/sec isn't so secure a foundation for physics, because it only applies on the Earth. Sheesh!

26 posted on 01/19/2006 2:45:56 PM PST by jennyp (WWJBD?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narby

IMHO,
I think God used evolution to create biological life as we know it by the ignition of the universe singularity, thus creating earth. And then at some point, endowed a highly evolved man creature with self-awareness and intellect to understand and accept His rules. This became the God-fearing man that we are today. Problem is, when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life (i.e. discovered human sexuality, this resulted in perpetuation of the new, human state by pregnancy, new responsibilities then occurred, and the subsequent humanly pursuits of desire and greed. Other tribes continued to evolve but they were primitive and animalistic. And then, when the new human continued to get off track, God saw that it was imperative to manifest a representation of Himself on earth in the form of Christ. Christ's mission was to show us how to live on earth while on earth, and thus move on after death into a different state (heaven) per the second law of thermodynamics.

I have no problem at all of reconciling the two. You just can't get caught up in the battle between the two views.


27 posted on 01/19/2006 2:48:28 PM PST by Tulsa Ramjet ("We've run out of ballots." -- Iraqi election official)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
And now the piling on by the atheists, libertarians, Randians, age-of-reason addicts, worshippers of progress, economical absolutists, and various other misfits will begin. No ping necessary!

And perhaps comments by evolutionary scientists too? Did you forget us? (And who you callin' a misfit?)

28 posted on 01/19/2006 2:50:56 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

bookmark for later reading


29 posted on 01/19/2006 2:51:25 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #30 Removed by Moderator

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past; ohioWfan; Tribune7; Tolkien; GrandEagle; Right in Wisconsin; Dataman; ..
We can expect more battles about Darwin before school boards across the country. But who cares?


Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

31 posted on 01/19/2006 2:52:36 PM PST by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest
The whole purpose of Darwinism, which, I assume, is synonymous with the term evolution...

"Darwinism" is not synonymous with the term "evolution." It is used on these threads as a pejorative almost exclusively by those opposing evolution.

Scientists don't tend to use the term, preferring things like evolutionary biologist, paleontologist, geologist, etc.

32 posted on 01/19/2006 2:55:47 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

Check back to see if thread evolves.


33 posted on 01/19/2006 3:03:19 PM PST by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
"ID theorists find evidence in nature of an intelligent purpose shaping life's history."

Evidence? Really? Are you sure? Care to post any of it?

34 posted on 01/19/2006 3:10:50 PM PST by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
I was never really aware of it (atheist darwinism) as a large issue until I saw it here.

I knew darwinsistc atheists etc through years, and ignored their positions, blew it off. But now it is the manifestations of their agenda and of the ACLU that need to be addressed.

America needs to wake up. That's always the problem, America is asleep at the wheel till we are hit right between the eyes with it. It seems that is what it takes to mobilzie the mass population.

Wolf
35 posted on 01/19/2006 3:12:41 PM PST by RunningWolf (Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest

As others have said, there is no scientific discipline called "Darwinism". Scientific disciplines such as biology, geology, and physics use the theory of evolution to explain various observed phenomena.

Creationists/ID'ers are to the term "Darwinism" as Islamic extremists are to the term "Infidels".


36 posted on 01/19/2006 3:26:57 PM PST by 2nsdammit (By definition it's hard to get suicide bombers with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: narby

Sorry, I paraphrased your point. That's what I get for responding before reading.....


37 posted on 01/19/2006 3:31:34 PM PST by 2nsdammit (By definition it's hard to get suicide bombers with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Syncretic
Today's question for Darwinists: Do you have a soul?

'Darwinists'?

Ain't nobody here but us scientists.

That might detract from the image you are trying to project as humane, caring, and sexy dudes.

Don't need to project.

38 posted on 01/19/2006 3:41:32 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Today when young Americans could use a little uplift and an appreciation for what's noble, letting them know about intelligent design, an alternative scientific theory with none of Darwin's drawbacks, couldn't hurt and might help.

1. ID is not a scientific theory.

2. There is nothing particularly noble about trying to sell something as a true scientific theory when its not actually one but a list of complaints about a real scientific theory.

3. The purpose of a scientific theory is to determine the truth, not be palatable to this or that existing philosphy (as he puts it avoid "Darwin's drawbacks.") A theory's value is not a function of how well it uplifts the spirit or avoids drawbacks but how well it helps us explain observed phenomena. On this count, neo-Darwinism has endured for decades. ID is hardly its peer. I'm still waiting for these folks to propose some falsifiable hypotheses, test them, and publish the data with analyses.

4. Persons who prefer to surround themselves with uplifting thoughts and to avoid those that have "Darwin's drawbacks" have that option. They should not become life scientists. However, they should not ask that the life sciences remake themselves in their image. The cost to society would be huge.

39 posted on 01/19/2006 3:49:06 PM PST by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

"If you're going to post stupid, provocative material, of course people are going to respond."

Touch a nerve?


40 posted on 01/19/2006 3:52:49 PM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-273 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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