What Are Creationists Afraid Of?

The New Individualist ^ | 1/2006 | Ed Hudgins

[jennyp]

...

Third, complexity does not imply “design.” One of Adam Smith’s most powerful insights, developed further by Friedrich Hayek, is that incredible complexity can emerge in society without a designer or planner, through “spontaneous order.” Hayek showed how in a free market the complex processes of producing and distributing goods and services to millions of individuals do not require socialist planners. Rather, individuals pursuing their own self-interest in a system governed by a few basic rules—property rights, voluntary exchange by contract—have produced all the vast riches of the Western world.

Many creationists who are on the political Right understand the logic of this insight with respect to economic complexity. Why, then, is it such a stretch for them to appreciate that the complexity we find in the physical world—the optic nerve, for example—can emerge over millions of years under the rule of natural laws that govern genetic mutations and the adaptability of life forms to changing environments? It is certainly curious that many conservative creationists do not appreciate that the same insights that show the futility of a state-designed economy also show the irrelevance of an “intelligently designed” universe.

...

Evolution: A Communist Plot?

Yet another fear causes creationists to reject the findings of science.

Many early proponents of science and evolution were on the political Left. For example, the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 affirmed support for evolution and the scientific approach. But its article fourteen stated: “The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible.”

Subsequent humanist manifestos in 1973 and 2000 went lighter on the explicit socialism but still endorsed, along with a critical approach to knowledge, the kind of welfare-state democracy and internationalism rejected by conservatives. The unfortunate historical association of science and socialism is based in part on the erroneous conviction that if humans can use scientific knowledge to design machines and technology, why not an entire economy?

Further, many supporters of evolution were or appeared to be value-relativists or subjectivists. For example, Clarence Darrow, who defended Scopes in the “monkey trial” eight decades ago, also defended Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. These two young amoralists pictured themselves as supermen above conventional morality; they decided to commit the perfect crime and killed a fourteen-year-old boy. Darrow offered the jury the standard liberal excuses for the atrocity. He argued that the killers were under the influence of Nietzschean philosophy, and that to give them the death penalty would hurt their surviving families. “I am pleading for life, understanding, charity, kindness, and the infinite mercy that considers all,” he said. “I am pleading that we overcome cruelty with kindness and hatred with love.” This is the sort of abrogation of personal responsibility, denial of moral culpability, and rejection of the principle of justice that offends religious conservatives—in fact, every moral individual, religious or atheist.

In addition, nearly all agnostics and atheists accept the validity of evolution. Creationists, as religious fundamentalists, therefore see evolution and atheism tied together to destroy the basis of morality. For one thing, evolution seems to erase the distinction between humans and animals. Animals are driven by instincts; they are not responsible for their actions. So we don’t blame cats for killing mice, lions for killing antelope, or orca whales for killing seals. It’s what they do. They follow instincts to satisfy urges to eat and procreate. But if human beings evolved from lower animals, then we might be merely animals—and so there would be no basis for morality. In which case, anything goes.

To religious fundamentalists, then, agnostics and atheists must be value-relativists and subjectivists. Whether they accept evolution because they reject a belief in God, or reject a belief in God because they accept evolution, is immaterial: the two beliefs are associated, just as are creationism and theism. By this view, the only firm basis for morality is the divine edicts of a god.

This reflects the creationists’ fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of morality.

Morality from Man’s Nature

We humans are what we are today regardless of whether we evolved, were created, or were intelligently designed. We have certain characteristics that define our nature.

We are Homo sapiens. Unlike lower animals, we have a rational capacity, an ability to fully, conceptually understand the world around us. We are self-conscious. We are the animal that knows—and knows that he knows. We do not survive automatically, by instinct, but must exercise the virtue of rationality. We must think. We must discover how to acquire food—through hunting or planting—how to make shelters, how to invent medicines. And to acquire such knowledge, we must adopt a rational methodology: science.

Furthermore, our thinking does not occur automatically. We have free will and must choose to think, to focus our minds, to be honest rather than to evade facts that make us uncomfortable—evolution, for example—because reality is what it is, whether we like it or acknowledge it or not.

But we humans do not exercise our minds and our wills for mere physical survival. We have a capacity for a joy and flourishing far beyond the mere sensual pleasures experienced by lower animals. Such happiness comes from planning our long-term goals, challenging ourselves, calling on the best within us, and achieving those goals—whether we seek to nurture a business to profitability or a child to adulthood, whether we seek to create a poem or a business plan, whether we seek to design a building or to lay the bricks for its foundation.

But our most important creation is our moral character, the habits and attitudes that govern our actions. A good character helps us to be happy, a bad one guarantees us misery. And what guides us in creating such a character? What tells us how we should deal with our fellow humans?

A code of values, derived from our nature and requirements as rational, responsible creatures possessing free will.

We need not fear that with evolution, or without a god, there is no basis for ethics. There is an objective basis for ethics, but it does not reside in the heavens. It arises from our own human nature and its objective requirements.

Creationists and advocates of intelligent design come to their beliefs in part through honest errors and in part from evasions of facts and close-minded dogmatism. But we should appreciate that one of their motivations might be a proper rejection of value-relativism, and a mistaken belief that acceptance of divine revelation is the only moral alternative.

If we can demonstrate to them that the basis for ethics lies in our nature as rational, volitional creatures, then perhaps we can also reassure them that men can indeed have morality—yet never fear to use that wondrous capacity which allows us to understand our own origins, the world around us, and the moral nature within us.

Edward Hudgins is the Executive Director of The Objectivist Center.

[furball4paws]

You'd better talk to Pat. The new ones are quite spiffy, with an embedded microchip and all.

[mlc9852]

We have quite a few flightless birds that lives in all sorts of places. Ever think maybe there always have been flightless birds? And there are birds that can fly but aren't very good at it. I wonder why?

[Thatcherite]

Evolutionists keep hoping all those missing "in between" fossils will show up eventually. ;-)

They showed up long ago. But some people like to hide under the blankets and pretend that they don't exist.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Uh, that's a plane. And it doesn't have feathers. But thanks anyway.

Flying squirrels don't have feathers, yet they fly.

How is this possible?

[Dimensio]

What does evolution predict?

It predicts that precambrian rabbit fossils will never be found. It predicts that if identical ERV insertions are found in humans and gorillas, it will also be found in chimpanzees. If identical ERV insertions are found in chimpanzees and orangutangs, it will also be found in humans and gorillas.

What will we look like in 10,000 years?

Without knowing what mutations will occur and what environmental selective pressures will exist over the next 10,000 years, it is impossible to make such a prediction.

How do you test it?

Dig for fossils, look at DNA.

Evolution Theory is not science.

Yes it is.

[TChris]

I believe God set up a universe, where chaos, time, and chance allowed complexity to occur. I suspect there are some ID-generated nudges in evolution, here and there, by God or some other intelligence, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. It's in the creation of the universe as a place capable of generating and supporting intelligence that I see God's hand, more than in the evolution of specifically human intelligence.

I believe you are partly correct. Those powers are His tools. However, there had to be more than "nudges" to set things up in order to explain where we currently are.

Statisticians have calculated the necessary probabilities for life to have evolved to this point, and they don't fit anywhere near the timeframes accepted as the age of the universe. For the diversity and complexity of life which we can readily observe to have evolved in even billions of years is mathematically impossible.

[Strategerist]

As always, if there are two fossils or a fossil and a currently living life form and evolutionists theorize that due to some similarities the more recent life form evolved from the older one, the creationists SCREAM bloody murder about the absence of a transitional form.

Then when that transitional fossil is found, that's a bit like the oldest fossil and a bit like the newer fossil or the current animal, they then scream bloody murder about the TWO "missing links" that are now found between the oldest fossil and the middle fossil and the middle fossil and the newest fossil.

Then if THOSE two fossils are found, there are now FOUR "missing links" to the creationist :-)

[parsifal]

Some people are afraid that if they admit the bible is not infallible, in any degree, it renders the book as less than the absolute word of god. If the bible is not god's holy word, then how do we mere people know where to draw the line.

If the Noah story isn't true, then how do we know the stone tablets on Mount Sinai story also isn't true.

parsy, who likes graven images.

[narby]

What does evolution predict?

It predicts that the fossil record will appear to be changed over time. With "modern" creatures never found below "old" creatures.

If creationists could find a bona fide example where that fact does not hold true, then evolution would be swept aside. Yet out of millions of fossils found, over a 150 year time scale, no creationist has done so, despite several very well funded efforts.

Now, what does "intelligent design" predict? How can it be tested? What observations would falsify it in a manner I've described for evolution above?

[ThinkDifferent]

They showed up long ago. But some people like to hide under the blankets and pretend that they don't exist.

Well, every intermediate fossil just creates two more gaps...

[jw777]

in the context of this discussion it is presented to me that Evolution excludes the existence of God. I do not dispute that species have evolved. Only that the origination of the matter or whatever, COULD have been created by God or an Intelligent design.

I simply argue to have both matters presented and allow the reader to decide.

[jwalsh07]

Three questions for you Jebby.

1. What is the purpose of markets?

2. What is the purpose of evolution?

3. Who or what directs each of those?

[Coyoteman]

That's the interpretation of some, not all. I'm still waiting for them to find the famous "ape-like creature".

Mlc, meet Mrs. Ples. Mrs. Ples, meet mlc.

---

Fossil: Sts 5 Site: Sterkfontein Cave South Africa (1)

Discovered By: R. Broom & J. Robinson 1947 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.5 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, floral & faunal data (1, 4)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 2)

Gender: Male (based on CAT scan of wisdom teeth roots) (1, 30) Female (original interpretation) (4)

Cranial Capacity: 485 cc (2, 4)

Information: No tools found in same layer (4)

Interpretation: Erect posture (based on forward facing foramen magnum) (8)

Nickname: Mrs. Ples (1)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=24

[TChris]

There are plenty of transitionals, a number of species to species transitionals. Scientists have observed speciation. And ERV's are essentially genetic fossils that have clinched the case for common descent. Creationists are going to be very disappointed in the next one hundred years. :)

They have been saying so for the past one hundred years. :-)

Where are today's transitionals? The environment is rich with opportunity for transitional species, but they can't be found. By definition, such transitionals would be better suited to their environments than previous species, so they should have the advantage and abound in nature.

[Jessarah]

"...over time the descendants lost the ability to fly because in the ecological niche they find themselves flight isn't that big an advantage."

I get lost at this point. How does a bird gradually loose its ability to do something like that? If humans began using wheelchairs all the time, would they gradually be born without the ability to walk? I guess I'm asking what is it inside of them that changes?
I know I didn't form this question very well, so forgive me if you can't figure out what I'm saying :-)

[Dimensio]

It proposes that animals and plants have their origin in preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

That's part of it. There's also the environmental selection pressure. That's also extremely important to shaping which organisms end up existing.

That has nothing to do with things appearing out of nothing, though.

What is the origin of those preexisting types?

Since the process that caused imperfect replicators to exist in the first place had to require, in at least one step, a time when no imperfect replicators existed at all, that origin is outside of the explanatory scope of the theory of evolution. That is to say that the mechanism that caused the first life forms to exist has no bearing on the mechanism by which those imperfect replicators branched off into diverse species, or, in clearer terms, evolution doesn't depend on life originating from any specific method.

You have yet to demonstrate that evolution makes any claims regarding "something or everything" appearing out of nothing.

[mlc9852]

"Have you ever wondered how a flying squirrel flies, it doesn't have wings, it's not a bird, so how can it fly? Well, the truth is, it doesn't fly, it glides, sort of like an eagle except it never has to flap any wings. There are blanket-like membranes of skin between its wrists and hindlegs that give it the ability to glide far distances. The flying squirrels have dense, and soft fur. It's brown on their backs and white underneath. They have long, flattened tails that are used to guide their glides. They have large eyes, or "bug eyes", I like to call them. Flying squirrels are nocturnal rodents, which means they feed at night on fruits, nuts, buds, and insects. They nest in hollow trees, deserted buildings, and birdhouses. These gregarious mammals seldom descend to the ground."

http://worldkids.net/critters/mammals/squirrel.htm

So you can see they don't actually fly. But nice try.

[ThinkDifferent]

I believe you are partly correct. Those powers are His tools. However, there had to be more than "nudges" to set things up in order to explain where we currently are.

So God couldn't have set up the initial conditions and physical laws of the universe in such a way that life would naturally arise and evolve? I thought he was supposed to be omnipotent.

[jwalsh07]

Or is the only reason you haven't gone on a killing spree because God says not to?

The fact that he hasn't gone on a killing spree is neither here nor there. The question is if he did go on a killing spree for whatever reason, why is that wrong if his prime directive is to do what pleases him and killing pleases him?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Statisticians have calculated the necessary probabilities for life to have evolved to this point, and they don't fit anywhere near the timeframes accepted as the age of the universe."

And they had to pull the *calculations* out of their posteriors because it isn't POSSIBLE to make such calculations without knowing what the processes they claim to represent are.