Posted on 12/29/2001 12:09:43 AM PST by Starmaker
While Ayn Rand, the author of Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and essays on politics, culture and philosophy, was a great advocate of free market capitalism and a significant anti-communist, she also made mistakes in her thinking which are presently being slavishly parroted by her devout coterie of followers at the Ayn Rand Institute. While Rand publicly championed the individual, she privately insisted, according to former close associates, on a high degree of conformity within her inner circle. This is reflected today in her followers, who call themselves Objectivists, and who tend to spout her dogma and mimic her mannerisms in a fashion that is at times positive and at times unbecoming.
A case in point is the recent article "Why Christmas Should be More Commercial" by Dr. Leonard Peikoff who referrers to himself as the foremost authority on Objectivism and is the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute. While Peikoff revels in the commercial aspects of Christmas, he sneers at "assorted Nativity tales and altruist injunctions (e.g., love thy neighbor) that no one takes seriously." I would beg to differ. Most of us, to varying degrees, enjoy the commercial aspect of Christmas and gift giving and see no contradiction between this and the religious aspect. In this season this year, which comes on the tail of hijackers crashing planes into buildings, thousands of grieving families, friends, and a grieving nation, and anthrax in the mail, thinking about G-d, and loving thy neighbor contributes greatly to a more significant sense of meaning and purpose in life, certainly more so than a mere commercial transaction. I don´t agree with Peikoff and his extreme atheism, I think people do take these things very seriously.
The Objectivists hold to the irrational theory of evolution which is that man somehow evolved from the primordial ooze. They dismiss as a superstition the more rational idea, in my opinion, that the creation of life, with all of its incredible facets, had to involve a supernatural and divine aspect. They reject the theory of creation not because it is irrational but because the Atheist Ayn Rand rejected it. As an admirer of reason, I find the creation theory to be much more rational while at the same time providing a varied and nuance sense of life, certainly more so than the morally neutral idea that man somehow miraculously evolved out of the mud.
In his Christmas article, Peikoff asserts "America´s tragedy is that its intellectual leaders have typically tried to replace happiness with guilt by insisting that the spiritual meaning of Christmas is religion and self sacrifice for Tiny Tim or his equivalent." Unless I´m missing something, America´s "intellectual leaders" haven´t insisted on religion any time recently but rather an atheistic, morally neutral, scientific socialist culture that claims to be based on "reason." As far as American religion being an advocate of "self sacrifice," this is just nonsense. Self-sacrifice is a policy of the abovementioned intellectual leaders who have no intention of sacrificing anything themselves, only the fruit of the labor of others. Religion tends to advocate voluntary tithing for the needy and private charities.
Peikoff wants to "take the Christ out of Christmas, and turn the holiday into a guiltlessly egotistic, pro-reason, this-worldly, commercial celebration." His utopian idea of happiness seems to be a world where man is not fettered by such obstacles as guilt or worry about anything but the here and now. Much of the article venerates earth-worshipping paganism, which is where many Atheists, hungering for meaning and purpose, seem to end up. Ayn Rand and the Objectivists made great contributions to capitalism, freedom and individual rights but, unfortunately, that contribution is somewhat eclipsed by a darker side. Perhaps Rand was more influenced by her own Stalinist high school and College education than she realized. Either way, it´s a shame that such glaring mistakes threaten to discredit such important work.
Of course, nobody in their right mind believes that a modern animal cell sprang fully-formed from random amino acids - just like Microsoft didn't start out as a 20,000 person strong multinational corporation. (IIRC, it was originally a spare bedroom in a motel suite!)As calculated, the astronomical odds for a simple one cell animal being generated by random processes is is 1 in 10 to the power of 57,800; ie 10^57800 !!! This is from a paper by Don Batten at the site below.
I once calculated the odds of life forming spontaneously as 1.2 in 10 to the power of 3!
Anyway, Richard Carrier has deconstructed a dozen or so of the most popular "impossible odds" claims that creationists have made & keep quoting. He doesn't cover Batten, but I'm sure you'll recognize several similar popular creatioist arguments here.
WOW! I wish I'd heard of this book before Christmas - it'd be at the top of my wishlist! Just take a look at this Amazon.com review:
Amazon.com
"If there were something like a guidebook for living creatures, I think the first line would read like a biblical commandment: Make thy information larger. And next would come the guidelines for colonizing, in good imperialist fashion, the biggest chunk of negative entropy around."Werner Loewenstein, a cell biologist at Woods Hole Biological Laboratories, has written a remarkably engaging book tying together information theory, thermodynamics, molecular biology, and the structure of cells. The subject is not one to which the human brain is well suited, but with Loewenstein's guidance you may get a better grasp on concepts like entropy than you've ever had before.
Loewenstein describes life as a circus: "Flowing in from the cosmos, information loops back onto itself to produce the circular information complex we call Life.... To those who are inside the Circus, it will always seem the greatest show on Earth, though I can't speak for the One who is outside it."
The Touchstone of Life covers some of the ground surveyed in Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach and Kauffman's At Home in the Universe, but with an even stronger sense of the physical realities constraining the "Circus." It should prove fascinating for anyone interested in biology, consciousness, physics, or the future of computing. --Mary Ellen Curtin
Also Amazon reproduces 23 pages, including the Table of Contents. Just reading the entries there made my heart go pitter-patter. I get the feeling that if enough of us creation/evolution regulars here ever read this book, some real progress would be made in "the eternal thread".
(I'll have to wait. First I have to finish Taliban, Why I Am Not A Muslim, The Skeptical Environmentalist, and Designing Web Usability!)
It's for those more versed in the faith than I to answer, but I seem to recall two telling passages about Satan and his accomplices fooling men--something about comparing what is said by the being in question to Scripture and judging men by the fruits of their words and deeds to know them.
Do you think if Christianity were practiced by everyone as commanded by Jesus and in accord with the Law of the God of Abraham, would that bring about a world in which we could say, "truly, we are blessed with all the good things of this earthly life?" Of course, this is the least important way of understanding the truth of a faith in God, but I ask just to know what you think at this level.
You need to head back to Sunday School or Catechism before you start talking about things like this, I think.
As far as this goes, I would answer Romans 2:12-29: "For as many as have sinned without law shall perish also without law; and as many as have sinned under law shall be judged by law, (for not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when [those of the] nations, which have no law, practise by nature the things of the law, these, having no law, are a law to themselves; who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts accusing or else excusing themselves between themselves;) in [the] day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my glad tidings, by Jesus Christ. But if thou art named a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast in God, and knowest the will, and discerningly approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; and hast confidence that thou thyself art a leader of the blind, a light of those who [are] in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and of truth in the law: thou then that teachest another, dost thou not teach thyself? thou that preachest not to steal, dost thou steal? thou that sayest [man should] not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? thou who boastest in law, dost thou by transgression of the law dishonour God? For the name of God is blasphemed on your account among the nations, according as it is written. For circumcision indeed profits if thou keep [the] law; but if thou be a law-transgressor, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision. If therefore the uncircumcision keep the requirements of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision, and uncircumcision by nature, fulfilling the law, judge thee, who, with letter and circumcision, [art] a law-transgressor? For he is not a Jew who [is] one outwardly, neither that circumcision which is outward in flesh; but he [is] a Jew [who is so] inwardly; and circumcision, of the heart, in spirit, not in letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God."
during my prison time, I find and really discover the light of Jesus. I become baptized and pray every day and accept Jesus as my lord and savior. All the girls die without being baptized or believing in Jesus. Who goes to Hell, who goes to Heaven?
About the baptism I can't say. If Jesus is what He said, then without Him they can't be saved.
Excellent site. One of the biggest fallacies in the "odds" arguments is the presumption of uniqueness for the combining atoms. If I calculate the alleged "odds" for any particular molecule of water being formed, out of all the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in the universe, the water molecule seems to be virtually impossible. But the key fact is that any old hydrogen atoms will do the job, and will combine eagerly with any oxygen atom. Each molecule of water is identical to all others, regardless of the imagined "uniqueness" of its component atoms. Once it's understood that all the parts are perfectly interchangeable, the "odds" start to look a whole lot better. (And I still like your old example of a "unique" sequence for of a deck of cards, where some of the cards have velcro on them.)
Evolution? Natural Selection perhaps but where is the evolution?
Someone else gave an excellent answer to my question earlier, but let me rephrase it slightly.
What do you think is the difference?
I asked for an example and you offered Granny Smith apple. Who observed the Granny Smith evolving? I have an orchard. I have lots of apple trees including Grans. I have never observed them evolving. So can you describe what you mean?
Maria Ann Smith, an Australian grandmother.
I have an orchard. I have lots of apple trees including Grans. I have never observed them evolving. So can you describe what you mean?
Granny Smith apples didn't exist before the 1860's. A chance mutation was discovered in the backyard of Mrs. Smith in 1868, and it has since become one of the most popular apples in the world.
I have read of this type of thing happening with various plants. Several relatives developed many new types of dahlia, mums and other flowers. But in the mutations and in the hybrid flowers, the original type of thing (e.g., tree, flower) remained. In my admittedly unscientific opinion, no data yet developed can support a theory that the apple tree or the dahlia will ever become an orchid or a hill of beans, regardless of selection or variation. In other words, while large ears might improve hearing and make humans possessing them more aware and thus safer, it will not make a human into an elephant. Ever. Even if he does like peanuts and hay.
Exactly. Evolution demands that that be so.
In my admittedly unscientific opinion, no data yet developed can support a theory that the apple tree or the dahlia will ever become an orchid or a hill of beans, regardless of selection or variation.
But you see, it's only your own misconception of evolution that you are debunking. Were an apple tree to become an orchid or an elephant, it would be a disproof of evolution!
Every organism is a refinement of what came before. Mice and rats are more specialized variations of a previous organism. Likewise, rabbits and hares are more specialized variations of an ancestral lagomorph. The ancestral rodent and lagomorph are more specialized variations of a common ancestor, which--along with, say, ancestral primates, or weasels, or canines--are more specialized variations of an ancestral mammal. All are still mammals, as will be all their descendants.
The ancestral mammal that is common to all these creatures is but a more specialized quadrupedal vertebrate, as are the ancestors of today's reptiles. The ancestral quadrupeds, in turn, are but specialized versions of vertebrates, which are more specialized animals, which are more specialized eukaryotes, as are plants, and even yeast.
Eukaryotes and prokaryotes--the bacteria--are more specialized versions of cellular organisms, but we can go even further back, and include viruses.
So you see, at every stage, evolution refines and subdivides the species from previous generations. That's all it can do and all it has ever done. At some level, every form of life is the same "kind".
I have a few more questions if you don't mind my asking. You wrote that Every organism is a refinement of what came before. How is a Granny Smith a "refinement" of another apple, or a "more specialized version" if you will. Did it turn green and crunchy in order to make better pies? Or was it just trying to outshine the Red Romes and the Golden Delicious? Will it stop associating with its unrefined pollinator?
Concerning various mammals, you wrote that All are still mammals, as will be all their descendants.
How can this be? And if it is, how did mammals evolve from non-mammalian creatures? And why can't the descendants of mammals become non-mammalian greeblestorphs or colupbregs if they manage to find happiness in "variation," "selection" and become a "more specialized version?" Is there not a contradiction?
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.