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.
"No ping necessary!"
LOL! That is for sure!
I always enjoy David Klinghoffer's writing. Let me bump this thread with thanks for posting a really interesting piece, from the Seattle P-I even, WHO SAYS THERE ARE NO MIRACLES?
No more so than usual. Wanton, deliberate stupidity offends me. It's a College Professor thang. There are so many people who can't help being dumb, so I have a special dislike for those who adopt dumbness voluntarily.
And Klinghoffer certainly is one of those.
Every belief system has a core deep logical conclusion. It is the foundation upon which it ultimately exists, even if many of it’s proponents are not aware of it, it is still what their belief “boils down to”. Many do get it, and embrace this foundational belief and it’s implications on life, the universe and everything. Such is the case with most mature Christians regarding their core foundational belief.
It seldom happens with atheists for they are a living contradiction to theirs. And what is their foundational “logical conclusion”? It is summed up in two words: Nothing matters.
This is why nobody really is a true atheist, except maybe the lead fictional character in the movie “Natural Born Killers”. He was living the atheist dream.
With the biggest losers being the Libertarians, both politically as well as spiritually.
I must be dumb - at least according to you. That's ok though, On DU, a lot of us here are consdered dumb. I've learned to be totally non-plussed by the opinions others harbor regarding me, unless of course I respect their knowledge base from which to form such an opinion.
The filter of the three "P's" always shape peoples responses to articles such as this one. They are what cause you to attempt to disrespect it, and cause me to applaud it. Neither of us is the final word of course.
Although I fall heavily on the "if" side of the debate...I'll hedge my bet by saying I do like this description.
That is utter C.S.
Only a sociopath, who doesn't have the capability to feel empathy for others, could possibly become a nihilist because of accepting atheism. But a sociopath wouldn't be affected by any love of God, either! So there is no way your claim about atheism implying nihilism could be correct.
It's an intelligence 'thang'. You wouldn't understand ; )
BTW, when you speak about ‘stupid, provocative material’, I hope you include Dawkins - et al.
> He was living the atheist dream.
No. He was living the *psychopath* dream. Many theists see psychopathic behavior as the result of what *they* would do if they were atheists. But the fact is, atheists are under-represented in the penal system. So, what the theists who see atheism = psychopathology are actually sayign is that *they* are psychopaths, only held in check by fear of damnation.
I've known quite a number of happy atheists who would not dream of violent behavior. i've known many theists who would commit acts of violence at the drop fo a hat if they thought God wouldn't punish them for it. So... the character was in fact livign a *theist* dream, not an atheist one.
This sort of theist is the kind of person who makes me glad that someobdy once came up with the idea of damnation. The sort of peopel who honestly believe that atheism equates to 'nothing matters" are *exactly* the sort of people who society needs to have some sort of control over.
>>>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.
Don't you mean Burdachism, Hessism, and Newtonism. 8^)
Economies are not the result of random chance and fortune. They are a result of intention and directed energy, and the willingness of various parties to trade for advantage.
Unless you believe in terms such as 'winners of life's lottery', a term used by Gephardt to explain the success of the wealthy, or the 'less fortunate', as if the poor just aren't 'lucky'.
While I'm generally a fan of Hayek, but I don't buy that spontaneous order crap for a second. My business didn't happen by accident. Neither did the rest of this economy.
And I hired an assistant for a good reason- to intelligently order the 'spontaneity' that I have a tendency to create.
In keeping with the anti-Evo tradition of mendacity, the poster of this article failed to include the disclaimer/attribution notice at the end of the original article:
David Klinghoffer is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and the author of "Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History"" (Doubleday).
IOW, the author of this "guest editorial" is one of the usual dorks at the UnDiscovery Institute, which has been running away from the Federal Court ruling in the Dover case as fast as their Press Releases can carry them.
Until, of course, someone else comes along who feels the need to restrain the sort of people who honestly believe the way you do.
Too bad for you, and that someone else, we have the Constitution to stop both of you at your words.
I understand all too well.
When liberals promote racial preferences, they insist as part of the package an element of doublethink; not only must we prefer the less well qualified over the better qualified, but we must deny, preferably to ourselves, what we are doing. Because, after all, to admit that someone needs preferences to succeed is not 'uplifting', it's 'disempowering'. And that piece of elemental dishonesty is more corrupting than the preferences themselves.
Klinghoffer is advocating a similar level of dishonesty. Although he admits the evolutionary theory of origin of species may be correct, he thinks we should teach an incorrect theory that would be more 'uplifting'. The truth is no more important to him than it is to an AA advocate. What matters is the subjective, emotional feeling of 'uplift'.
Postmodernism disguised as conservatism, in other words.
You use the word nonplussed. I do not think it means what you think it means.
I'd like to buy the world a home and furnish it with love,
Grow apple trees and honey bees, and snow white turtle doves.
I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony,
I'd like to buy the world a Coke and keep it company.
Group hug, everyone!
Now you've gone and made me cry.
I was trying to be humorously superficial but… Alright, let’s talk truth. Do you still ‘believe’ human consciousness ultimately comes from mindlessness?
I don't think you quite followed orionblamblam's point.
Some theists (just like some of many groups) are psychopaths or sociopaths, and have their urges held in check only by fear of inevitably going to hell after death.
They tend to self identify by adamantly insisting that everyone would behave in a psychopathic/sociopathic manner if it weren't for the religious certainty of "hell to pay." They just plain don't get it that normal folk don't want to run around raping, stealing, killing etc.
You may want to drill a small hole in your monitor to keep excess sap from accumulating :)
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.