Posted on 01/20/2002 12:07:19 PM PST by PatrickHenry
In one of the most existentially penetrating statements ever made by a scientist, Richard Dawkins concluded that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so"; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process"; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."
In a forced binary choice between the "theory of creationism" and the "theory of evolution," 57 percent chose creationism against only 33 percent for evolution (10 percent said that they were "unsure"). One explanation for these findings can be seen in additional results showing that just 34 percent considered themselves to be "very informed" about evolution.
Although such findings are disturbing, truth in science is not determined democratically. It does not matter what percentage of the public believes a theory. It must stand or fall on the evidence, and there are few theories in science that are more robust than the theory of evolution. The preponderance of evidence from numerous converging lines of inquiry (geology, paleontology, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, genetics, biogeography, and so on) points to the same conclusion--evolution is real. The 19th-century philosopher of science William Whewell called this process of independent lines of inquiry converging together to a conclusion a "consilience of inductions." I call it a "convergence of evidence." Whatever you call it, it is how historical events are proved.
The reason we are experiencing this peculiarly American phenomenon of evolution denial (the doppelgnäger of Holocaust denial, using the same techniques of rhetoric and debate) is that a small but vocal minority of religious fundamentalists misread the theory of evolution as a challenge to their deeply held religious convictions. Given this misunderstanding, their response is to attack the theory. It is no coincidence that most evolution deniers are Christians who believe that if God did not personally create life, then they have no basis for belief, morality and the meaning of life. Clearly for some, much is at stake in the findings of science.
Because the Constitution prohibits public schools from promoting any brand of religion, this has led to the oxymoronic movement known as "creation science" or, in its more recent incarnation, "intelligent design" (ID). ID (aka God) miraculously intervenes just in the places where science has yet to offer a comprehensive explanation for a particular phenomenon. (ID used to control the weather, but now that we understand it, He has moved on to more difficult problems, such as the origins of DNA and cellular life. Once these problems are mastered, then ID will no doubt find even more intractable conundrums.) Thus, IDers would have us teach children nonthreatening theories of science, but when it comes to the origins of life and certain aspects of evolution, children are to learn that "ID did it." I fail to see how this is science--or what, exactly, ID-ers hope will be taught in these public schools. "ID did it" makes for a rather short semester.
To counter the nefarious influence of the ID creationists, we need to employ a proactive strategy of science education and evolution explanation. It is not enough to argue that creationism is wrong; we must also show that evolution is right. The theory's founder, Charles Darwin, knew this when he reflected: "It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science."
Michael Shermer [the author] is founding publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com) and author of The Borderlands of Science.
Virtue is predicated on reason.
Whoops.... You forgot to say "Simon sez"....
Back to the end of the line.
Only in utopia.
The reason we are experiencing this peculiarly American phenomenon of evolution denial (the doppelgnäger of Holocaust denial, using the same techniques of rhetoric and debate) is that a small but vocal minority of religious fundamentalists misread the theory of evolution as a challenge to their deeply held religious convictions.
These two sentences contradict each other.
Actually the opposite is true. When a creationist looks at a 747 he tries to explain the astronomical odds of the chain of physical events that took place to create the 747 and concludes that the odds against the 747 being built by man are so great that it is like winning the lottery a thousand times in a row...therefore God Must Have Created the 747!
Only in utopia.
Virtue is predicated on reason, everywhere.
And it also requires free will, everywhere.
In the absence of the power to reason, and the ability to act in accordance with one's own mind.... the concept of virtue has no meaning.
Its an old idea. The particular priority to reason that OWK et. al. insists on is no longer viable to account for the universe--as had been so optimistically held. The only way to hold onto it is to ignore whatever falls outside of the scope of reason. If that is what is claimed as the basis for government, it shows that we can't learn from the experience of European history. It's an old idea, from the 18th century. Perhaps someday the there will be catch-up time for the laggers. They don't call it the post-modern age for nothing.
Indeed. A dog that is trained to act a certain way or he'll be punished is not virtuous when he behaves properly. He's just well-trained.
In the same way that vice is.
There is no conflict between believing in supreme being and evolution. It does depend on which type of creationism you're talking about. The young-earth Bible literalists definitely have a conflict (they might also want to tell the Chinese they were wiped out in a flood a couple thousand+ years ago).
At the other end, many believe God is guiding evolution according to his own plan. There is no conflict in this model.
As opposed to inventing phantasms and supernatural booger-men to explain whatever falls outside the scope of reason?
And predicating government on that?
In spite of the fact that there are thousands of confliciting and irreconcilable phantasms and supernatural booger-men which men assert as "truth" in the absence of any objective support?
That's precisely why virtue is an impossibility, in the absence of the free-will opportunity to choose vice.
Exactly. And that is the only way "conservative" can have any meaning. Conservativism looks to resume the original character that has been lost at large. It is historical or it is nothing. I don't know what the prospects are for those who hope for this, although even the dimmest view should not be cause for apathy if their endeavors have any worth. In any case, word-plays (conscious and unconscious) are symptomatic of other diseases, and my concern here gave the impetus for my response to Mr. Physicist.
Maybe I got posts mixed up, but someone brought up that Darwin was a failed divinity student. That has no bearing on the veracity of evolution theory.
I sure wish you could effectively communicate this to individuals choosing to claim the mantle of conservatism.
By definition, conservatism seeks to conserve against a tide of motion. Hence the goal moves along with the tide.
Conservatism has no foundations.
It is adrift.
There is a lot of that on FR.
I remind you that the invention of these things is attributed to imagination. Imagination is not the only faculty outside of the logicism of reason. Imagination is probably the most powerful faculty of our mind; its phantasms pass away, its creations remain.
A disruptor chant?
I'm no theologian, but it seems to me that if I had the option of interpreting Genesis either literally or as metaphor, and one option put me at odds with the observed world, while the other was consistent with observed reality, it would seem perverse to choose the interpretation which unnecessarily created the conflict. The metaphorical interpretation is usually chosen when scripture talks about the four corners of the world, or the pillars of the earth, etc. I see no problem in reading scripture so that it conforms to our understanding of the world. Indeed, I see no reason to read scripture otherwise, unless one is spoiling for a foolish conflict.
It is adrift by definition.
You said so yourself.
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.