The philosophical fears of the creationists, and how this fear drives them to self-righteously defend such bad scientific arguments, is something that many of us evolution-accepting freepers have been trying to explain to the creationist-freepers for years.
When the Discovery Institute started their crusade for ID, I was taken aback at their stated aims to defeat naturalism in favor of supernaturalism in the scientific arena - in order to save society from nihilism. Yikes!
Their fundamental premise is that the natural world gives us no objective criteria by which to decide an act is "good" or "bad". IOW, they accept large parts of the left-postmodernist view of reality, where truth is merely a social construction. In this kind of subjectivist world, the major moral struggles are between interest groups, all of whom are driven by a belief in self-serving arguments which reality will never judge to be true or false. In such a world, the victors will always be simply whichever interest group was most ruthless in pursuing its goals.
So I can understand their fears - given their premises. But in fact the world is governed by objective reality, and reality serves as the final, objective judge for which moral system is best for us to follow. (Otherwise, nobody could ever learn anything from history!)
For the first two whole years of the DI's intelligent design project, they were quite proud & upfront about their motivations. The blistering prologue to the infamous Wedge Document was lifted whole from their about page, for example.
In your article you have this exchange:
We must note that at least in the USA, there are two quite different branches of conservatism, one espousing religious fundamentalism and the other classical economic liberalism. They have almost nothing in common intellectually and are simply politically linked by historical events. Arnhart does not stress this point.So, when exactly did the traditionalist strain of the conservative movement go off the deep end into what seems like right-wing postmodernism?There surely is a tension between the libertarian conservatism that begins with Smith and the traditionalist conservatism that begins with Burke, a tension that fuels much debate among conservatives. But in my book, I argue for a fundamental agreement between libertarianism and traditionalism, which is suggested by the intellectual friendship between Smith and Burke. Libertarians and traditionalists generally agree on a realist view of human nature as imperfecti ble and on the need for the evolved, spontaneous orders of family life, private property, and limited government as the basis for ordered liberty. Darwinian science helps to explain how those spontaneous orders conform to the evolved nature of human beings.
The ping list needs to see this...
It's a result of Nixon's "Southern Strategy." Before, almost all creationists that I knew were Democrats; they became Republicans without changing any of their attitudes (anti-science, anti-business, pro-big government....)
But in fact the world is governed by objective reality, and reality serves as the final, objective judge for which moral system is best for us to follow. (Otherwise, nobody could ever learn anything from history!)
I see. For example, those stupid creationists believe that homosexuality is wrong, only because some old dusty book says so.
The elightened scientific community, however, after much study guided by Darwinian principles, has decided that homosexuality is probably hereditary, and pretending that a rectum serves the same purpose as a vagina is perfectly natural. It's obvious, of course, that homosexuals would be the "fittest" among society, and therefore reproduce and, oh nevermind.
The liberal view of morality is the predictable result of morality by politicized science. Purely objective science is an elusive ideal.
An interesting yet twisted view of reality. A fascinating attempt to turn the tables, much like the dems wailing about conservative judicial activists.
The truth, of course, is that "the left-postmodernist view of reality, where truth is merely a social construction" has tossed aside all traditional authority structures, and is based squarely on the "fundamental premise is that the natural world," rather than any religion or <gasp> "god," does in fact "give us objective criteria by which to decide an act is "good" or "bad"".
Predictably, as we "discover" these criteria, society contructs new definitions for "good" and "bad", and the two gradually switch places. The baby killer, the foul-mouthed thug, and the sexually perverse become "courageous moral trailblazers." Those who would dare point out the immorality of it all are "self-righteous, intolerant bigots."
Here's why I say it's predictable - it is, and always will be, the way of sinful man:
Isaiah 5:20-21The moral mess we are in today has been built by liberals boldly acting on the foundation of evolution and the denial of any God/lawgiver.
20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.
When they plead for a deus ex machina god to declare a "right" & a "wrong" for us, they strike me as people who agree with postmodernism, but merely wish it weren't true. They're in the "bargaining with God" stage of mourning over the loss of objective truth. (As an Objectivist I find this capitulation to subjectivism tragically foolish. :-/ )