Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design (A Libertarian Agnostic's View)

I am an agnostic when it comes to explaining the origin of life. I don’t believe yet in evolution, creationism or intelligent design. I can see flaws in all three. I just simply don’t know and frankly don’t think it matters whether we know or not.

My main conflict with the evolutionists is that they wish to assert their theory as fact and to employ government power to ban discussion of creationism and intelligent design on the grounds that they are unscientific or, worse from their point of view, religious. I am against banning any idea, theory, speculation or body of guesses. Human history shows us to be far too error-prone to go around eliminating dissent by majority vote of one of the more ignorant classes in our society, namely politicians.

Science has been itching to replace religion in Western culture for some time. You can see for yourself how science assumes the characteristics of religion. There is the priesthood (scientists, or at least those who call themselves scientists) and laity, which is the rest of us. Theory becomes dogma. Dissenters are persecuted. The high priests of science want the government not only to fund them, but to enforce their dogmas with the power of the law.

I believe in the separation of church and state. I also believe in the separation of science and state. In fact, I believe in the separation of practically all aspects of life from the state, which should basically tote the mail and guard the coast.

We, as mortals with short life spans, would not even be concerned about the origins of life, except the evolutionists wish to use their theory to destroy religion, and religious people want to use their theory to defend religion.

True science means simply the search for truth, but a search conducted with an open mind and tolerance for dissent. There is nothing wrong with a person believing that a dinosaur evolved into a canary, but there is also nothing wrong with someone believing that God created the first man and woman. I’ve never seen any physical evidence to support either belief, and one is no more improbable than the other. The only fact is that some beliefs have to be accepted on the basis of faith, and that goes for evolution as well as creationism.

The trouble is that both science and religion provide a person with a worldview, and unconsciously the person begins to evaluate everything he or she sees or hears or thinks up in accordance with the worldview. I see no reason to include any discussion of evolution or creationism in secondary schools. There is a large volume of facts biology students need to learn without wasting their time on theories that have no practical value. It’s like teaching molecular physics to students studying auto mechanics.

There is always more to learn than there is time to learn it, so we should be more practical in designing our school curricula. Not every student needs to read Shakespeare or learn calculus. I’ve had no occasion to solve a quadratic equation since I left high school. Students should be taught only what will be useful to them. Survey courses – giving them a taste of what is on the large menu of learning – are useful. Practical courses, such as personal finance or typing, are useful. Teaching all children a second language would be extremely useful, as would be music and drawing.

We should try to keep ideological and political disputes out of the public schools. We have to recognize that fanatics and ideologues will try to inject their materials into the public schools, and we should guard against that. I truly despise people who try to use children in adult conflicts. We should also guard against the state imposing its views on the students. The best way to do that is to abolish public education, a great idea whose time I hope will come one day.

In the meantime, just remember that facts are scarcer than theories, speculation, assumptions and guesses.

“Why are the great discoveries not until the time of Christ and later?” ...................... Because everything was concentrated around the Mediterranean? They may not have been aware of the great civilizations established in other areas of the globe (that they believed was flat)? There were great discoveries before Christ, electricity, the wheel, the water wheel for irrigation, and I’m sure there are many others posters can come up with. I don’t think Jesus had much to do with the advancement of science. If anything he indirectly interfered with it through early Christianity. The church was not kind to scientists in its early stages. Nor were they tolerant of other civilizations beliefs and discoveries. (i.e.the Mayans for one.)

Good point Dr. lew.

Intelligent design “assumes” complexity. How do we know how “complex,” or “simple,” the world is? Compared to WHAT? We only know what we know. So to assert it is “complex,” is to beg the question.

I am a conservative (believe in freedom & free markets are morally just), but am an atheist. I have no interest in religious speculation (speculations about a God). However, I don’t object to religion, and view religion and science as two distinct areas of investigation.

Science looks at “local” (observable) cause & effect relations, or correlations between events.

Religion looks into the “First” cause ...of everything.

Since scientists are greedy to push back the origins of life and the world, we will never be satisfied if told we have found the “final” cause or origination of matter & life. If we saw an angel in space above earth, a scientist would want to know “what it’s made of” — and would send a probe up to clip off a piece of hem from the angel’s dress, to analyze it. Where is it from? What’s it made of? Is it an alien life form? etc.

There is no reason why one cannot study local correlations as a biologist, during the week (Monday - Friday), and speculate about the “first” cause of everything, on Sunday, as a religious person.

These two types of hypothesizing are two, distinct areas of speculation or understanding.

I just have no interest in speculating about theological issues. Don’t have a religious bone in my body - was born without that gene, I guess.... (no pun intended).

I hope this helps. I see absolutely nothing wrong with speculating about “creation.” I’m just not interested personally but others are free to do this, if they wish.

"I think the YEC was invented to support premillennialism, and premillennialism is basically numerology with some Bible verses thrown in."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your statements are, indeed curious. I am in an intense (going on two year) small group study of eschatology, yet I've never seen that "requisite link" between YEC and a pre-millennial return of our Lord.

FWIW, I'm also a physical chemist, and the evidence against YEC is overwhelming. Most "YECers" with whom I have discussed creation are totally unaware that we can now study thousands of views of God's Universe like this recent "APOD" view of a Universe with more galaxies than the number of stars that Moses could see from his pitifully-limited, naked-eye, northern hemisphere view of the heavens...

IMHO, insisting on limiting one's view of Creation to what the (earth-bound) recorder of Genesis was able to see (and comprehend) is terribly (?sinfully?) disrespectful of our Creator and His creation...

(FYI, I place numerology on the same brain-dead plane as astrology, geocentrism -- and YEC...)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sorry, but I don't see how a misinterpretation of the beginning is required to obtain a clear view of the end...

You’re complaining because we haven’t carried out a 3 billion year experiment in the past 150 years? Doesn’t that seem a little unrealistic?

You misunderstand the way science works. We don’t have to go back and rerun an evolutionary step in order to know that it occurred. We have genetic evidence that is consistent, we have fossil evidence that is consistent, and we have mechanisms for genetic change that are sufficient. All of the data works together to produce a coherent whole.

I am an atheist, so obviously am not a creationist. I cannot see any “intelligence” in a “design” that fails most of the time. I cannot buy the fairy tales of evolutionist who make wild statements, like this from Rutgers:

“Evolutionary Biology has unequivocally established that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor over the last 3.5 billion years;”

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html

They know no such thing and they know they don’t. It’s a flat out lie.

If life could come into existence spontaneously (from non-life) once, there is nothing in science or reason that says it could not happen more than once, or even hundreds or millions of times.

How did we get here? I don’t know, the evolutionists don’t know, noboby knows. Maybe we’ll never know, but it doesn’t make any difference. I’m not going to accept something that is obvious balderdash because there is not another explanation. None’s needed. It’s obvious we got, how doesn’t really matter, only where we going matters.

Hank

You’re complaining because we haven’t carried out a 3 billion year experiment in the past 150 years? Doesn’t that seem a little unrealistic?

As I've been indicating in my posts, a much better word is impossible concering being able to verify macroevolution "facts" by means of proper scientific experimentation, as opposed to just being a little unrealistic. And evolution "scientists" should have thought of this before making claims about macroevolution. But the reality of the situation is that evolution scientists are Christian-bashers as opposed to actually having a sincere interest in science in the first place.

If I remember correctly, a National Geographic documentary spilled the beans about the evidence that you're talking about. Did you know that the entire collection human fossils that evolution "scientists" are basing their conclusions about human evolution on couldn't fill the back of a small pickup truck? As I complained about in my previous post, evolution scientists are using their God-given imaginations to fill in the gaps concerning this limited evidence about the evolution of man.

Also, regarding limited evolution evidence, evolution "scientists" long ago faced the reality that there was no way that they could verify their evolution claims by means of proper scientific experimentation. So they put on their lawyer's hats, resorting to courtroom drama techniques to try to sell the "jury," that's people like you and me, on their limited, inconclusive evolution evidence. And they were able to pull this off because the schools are evidently failing to teach our children about the importance of scientific method experimentation in verifying scientific facts.

...I cannot buy the fairy tales of evolutionist who make wild statements, like this from Rutgers:
“Evolutionary Biology has unequivocally established that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor over the last 3.5 billion years;”

They know no such thing and they know they don’t. It’s a flat out lie.

Let's not get hysterical. You're obviously free to demur, but this is neither a "fairy tale", nor a "wild statement", nor a "flat out lie".

Suppose we back up a little. Is there any group of modern organisms which you would agree have been unequivocally established to have evolved from a common ancestor? I have in mind the fungus gnats, for starters. How about them?

“Is there any group of modern organisms which you would agree have been unequivocally established to have evolved from a common ancestor?”

No. Here’s one equivocation for example. If one does not assume evolution, there is no reason to assume genetic similarities are indicative of anything other than that. One cannot assume that one thing came from another based on genetics. Only so many genetic combinations can work. That there are similarities means only that and nothing more without baseless assumptions. Evolution proceeds almost entirely by means of the logical fallacy call, “begging the question.” It begins by assuming the thing that needs to be proved.

I’m not arguing against the possibility that someday someone might demonstrate that evolution is possible, but no one has yet. It is no more valid than the phlogiston hypothesis for combustion was. It was held on the very same grounds that evolution is. “It’s the best explanation we’ve got.” But it was totally wrong, which Lavoisier neatly proved. There was much better evidence for the phlogiston hypothesis than there is for the evolutionary hypothesis, by the way.

Hank

Well, first - what name calling?
Second, here is your statement:

If God made everything so intelligent for millions of years, how come man did not get smart until Christ?

Why are the great discoveries not until the time of Christ and later?

It is your statement that does not make sense. I really do not know what you are talking about: people not getting smart until Christ.

I honestly don't get what you are trying to say here. I mean how could people build the pyramids, shipping vessels, medicines etc before Christ if they were stupid.

“such as fire, domestication of animals, farming technologies and a few other things that predate Jesus. “

Well you are right about that “few” part.

So tell me, how can you possibly compare the 2000 years prior to Christ compared to the 2000 years after Christ.

I think the former is fairly characterized as going from small piles of rocks to large ones.

The latter is characterized by going from large piles of rocks to men on the moon, nuclear power, the internet, and the miracles of modern medicine.

“I don’t think Jesus had much to do with the advancement of science.”

You have been reading too much leftist propaganda.

Christ and the Holy Spirit gave each of us light. We no longer had to follow the numerous rules of the past.

For the first time, each of us could aspire to heavenly perfection and that grand opening of our conceptual horizons lead to vast leaps in science, arts, and culture (until the marxists turned things upside down).

For instance, Galileo was funded by the church and even while he was “persecuted”, he was housed in a grand palace where he continued to publish his work.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2007/11/26/debunking_the_galileo_myth

“I mean how could people build the pyramids, shipping vessels, medicines etc before Christ if they were stupid.”

I think the 2000 years prior to Christ is characterized by progressing from small piles of rocks to large ones.

The last 2000 years is characterized by progressing from large piles of rocks to nuclear power, men on the moon, the internet, miracle medicines - you name it.

“Every bit of knowledge is built on some knowledge before - foundations of knowledge.”

Yes but why the lack of development in the 2000 years BC and why the incredible gains 2000 years AD?

The answer is obvious, isnt it?

And why is everybody talking about ID when the big news is IC.

What are you talking about? Perhaps you've never heard of Euclid (300 B.C.), or Pythagoras (about 580 B.C.), or Aristotle (384 to 322 B.C.), or Archimedes (287 to 212 B.C.). If you know anything at all about the progress of Western Civilization it is the Greeks who made all the greatest ancient contributions to it, and those contributions were all made before the advent Christ.

On the other hand, if you are going to give the credit for the events of the modern world to Jesus, than you also have to credit Him for the bloodiest century in the history of the world, the 20th. You can't have it both ways, though.

Please do not misunderstand. I am an atheist, but I'm not opposing your religion. I'm appalled at those atheists who want to take away people's religion. They've been pretty successful with that in Europe, and the result is a society comprised of people who believe nothing, and live for nothing except the pleasure of the moment which is properly called subjectivist hedonism. One reason I am opposed to evolution, at least in its present manifestation, is because it is being used to push all the collectivist nihilism that now dominates Europe. I do not want to see that happen to America. I do not believe in God, but I'd defend to the death your right to believe whatever you choose, and your right to believe it without harassment. I am opposed to you or anyone else using your personal faith as an argument about subjects which must be settled purely on an objective basis, however.

Hank

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.