The Gradual Illumination of the Mind [Evolution]

Scientific American ^ | February 2002 issue | Michael Shermer

[xm177e2]

"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."
. . .
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)

I guess if there's no good or evil, you can compare anything to Holocaust denial.

[xm177e2]

When an evolutionist looks at a 747 he tries to explain it in terms of a causal chain of physical events (which he can if he is detailed enough). However he misses the true explaination for the existence of the 747 which is the minds of the engineer and machinists who created it.

For an example of something that has order without design, look at the development of languages. No one individual say down and designed the languages, they developed over time as they were used, and there is no one correct version of any language. An exception is obviously computer programming languages, those were designed to be logically rigorous. But compare the logic of C++ to the illogic of English.

[xm177e2]

Theory is determined culturally.

Theory does not stand or fall on "evidence."

Rather, the culture that believes in a theory will stand or fall if belief in that theory increases or decreases that culture's ability to survive.

But, as your screen name implies (I think), we live in an age of reason, and our culture values logic and evidence. And scientific culture is separate from mainstream culture, it will probably always value evidence more than the public.

[xm177e2]

According to Dawkins, neither good nor bad exists, but he didn't say there wasn't an objective truth.

[Hank Kerchief]

And the universe could have arranged itself in so many more ways, so as to not support any life at all, yet it did. Right from the very beginnng.

I am not an evolutionist, but this assumption is false. It assumes that this universe with life must the first and only attempt. Actually, there may have been an indefinite number previous attempts, without life, which could not have been known, then, finally this one, which we are amazed happened the "first time."

Hank

[Dialup Llama]

>Fair enough, but if someone tried to suggest that the 747 was created in seven days by an invisible man who lived in the sky, I don't think we'd take him seriously.

Is that really what it says? Anyway for a being with the power to create a universe- 7 seconds, 7 days, 7 gazillion years it makes no difference. I don't think the point was the days, but the creator. Playing around with the time doesn't make one theory or the other more or less acceptable. The point is that the origin of the universe was an act of creation.

[VadeRetro]

(From Genesis:) Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me."

A strangely non-omniscient and non-omnipresent LORD in that passage. I'm not sure what it means to me. Hmmm.

[IncPen]

To counter the nefarious influence of the ID creationists, we need to employ a proactive strategy of science education and evolution explanation.

In other words, this is a battle of politics, not empirical science.

Trash.

[beckett]

Either you are mistaken about Jim Rob's opinion...

I am not mistaken. Ask him yourself.

[VadeRetro]

Ask him yourself.

Nah! That would be a violation of the "If you don't want to hear the answer . . ." principle.

[Physicist]

But why in the world should they be disturbing if "at bottom," there is, "no purpose, no evil and no good?"

Because of the crucial difference between the physical universe and human society. When Dawkins says that there is "no purpose, no evil and no good", he obviously is referring to the physical universe. "Purpose", "good" and "evil" are human terms that describe human actions, and it is a characteristically human mistake to anthropomorphize the natural processes of the universe by applying such words to them.

Widespread belief in any flavor of mysticism is disturbing precisely because "purpose", "good" and "evil" do demonstrably exist within the sphere of human interaction.

[PatrickHenry]

FreeRepublic has a "Guidelines" section which you can locate by hitting the "help" button. Among the guidelines provided for us by Jim Robinson is this one:

While Free Republic is not edited or censored, it does reserve the right to remove any postings that are considered inappropriate. Examples of inappropriate posts are those that are off-subject or contain advertising, pornography, obscene material, racist material, Nazi (or other hate group) material, materials promoting violence, threats or illegal acts, etc.

Observe that evolution is not mentioned. When Jim Robinson tells us not to post threads such as this, we will abide by his wishes. Until then, you might consider this, which is also from the guidelines:

Don't be a whiner - If you really, really find Free Republic not to your liking, let the webmaster know directly (jimrob@psnw.com), learn to live with it, or move along.

[Physicist]

Jim Robinson has told me by Freepmail that he regards evolution threads as contrary to FR's mission.

If that's what he believes, then he's wrong. By debating evolution, we are, in point of fact, contending for the philosophical soul of the conservative movement.

It is my belief that conservatism should be based upon objective moral principles rather than upon any received wisdom, and should not be tied to any particular religious dogma, especially when certain peripheral claims of that dogma conflict with established scientific fact.

That is not to say that conservatives should not be Christians, or even primarily Christians. What it means is that when conservatism comes into open (and so unnecessary!) conflict with science, it discredits itself in the minds of educated people, for reasons having nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of its moral philosophy. Conservatism, in my opinion, needs to break itself of such self-destructive indulgences as creationism, or it will marginalize itself utterly, to our nation's peril.

[longshadow]

Conservatism, in my opinion, needs to break itself of such self-destructive indulgences as creationism, or it will marginalize itself utterly, to our nation's peril. [emphasis added]

So well said that it deserves a bump.

[John Locke]

But according to Dawkins, death is neither good nor bad.

Rest easy, Dawkins never said that. What he did say is much more subtle, and can be found in his book, The Extended Phenotype.

[cornelis]

The idea that conservatives are atheist is revolutionary.

While I was in America, a witness called . . . declared that he did not believe in the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to allow him to be sworn in, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all possible confidence in his testimony. Newspapers reported the fact without comment.

For the Americans the ideas of Christianity and liberty are so completely mingled that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive of the one without the other . . .

I have met rich New Englanders who left their native land in order to establish the fundamentals of Christianity and of liberty by the banks of the Missouri or on the pairies of Illinois...You will be mistaken if you think that such men are guided only by thoughts of the future life; eternity is only one of the things that concern them. "There is a solidarity between all the American republics," they will tell you; "if the republics of the West were to fall into anarchy or be mastered by a despot, the republican institutions now flourishing on the Atlantic coast would be in great dangers; we therefore have an interest in seeing that the new states are religious so that they may allow us to remain free."

That is what the Americans think, but our pendants find it an obvious mistake; constantly they prove to me that all is fine in America except just that religious spirit which I admire; I am informed that on the other side of the ocean freedom and human happiness lack nothing but Spinoza's belief in the ternity of the World and Cabanis' contention that thought is a secretion of the brain. To that I have really no answer to give, except that those who talk like that have never been in America and have never seen either religious peoples or free ones.

--de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

[cornelis]

Et tu Brutus?

[John Locke]

Richard Dawkins is not even close to being a "nihilist", as is abundantly clear from his essays, collected in the book Unweaving the Rainbow. And he does not "dabble" in education, he is Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford University.

He is a first-rate scientist, a fine writer, and in public debate unfailingly courteous. In contrast to the typical Creationist.

[PatrickHenry]

This is from something I posted nearly 2 years ago about the usefulness of these evolution threads, about why I think these threads are important, and why they contribute to the overall purpose of the Free Republic site.

I don't expect to "convert" anyone into believing in evolution. It's not conversion that I'm after. That's a religious activity, getting folks to swap one set of dogmas for another.

I want people to think for themselves, not to recite what they've been brainwashed to believe. I can't change anyone's mind. People change their own minds, if they have the information and if they are willing to think.

Those who are curious and rational-minded will find this information useful; those who are not won't, which is fine with me. I don't want to force my opinions on anyone. But I agree with Thomas Jefferson, that free debate and the use of reason is the best way to resolve these matters. Of course for some, free debate and reason are just to horrible to contemplate, and should be stiffled. I understand this point of view, and I oppose it.

As far as the issues which unite all of us (taxes and freedom and the US Constitution and all that good stuff) I'd much rather have a well-reasoned position than a well-rehearsed litany. We are stronger when we think. I'm really not thrilled to have someone support the Constitution or the free enterprise system on blind faith, or because some preacher told him to, because that kind of person can get "converted." Why? Because he's not thinking. Such people can be manipulated, and it's not healthy. Not for them, not for the republic. Democracy can't work unless the people can think things through for themselves. That is why these threads are far more important than the specific subject matter we debate about. People who cannot think cannot live in freedom. Not for long.