Future of Conservatism: Darwin or Design? [Human Events goes with ID]

Human Events ^ | 12 December 2005 | Casey Luskin

[Coyoteman]

You throw around the term Marxism pretty freely, tarring everyone you can. Here are a few definitions from google to ponder:

Marxism is a term used to refer to a hugely diverse set of social, economic, historical, philosophical and cultural theories, only some of them derived from the thought of German philosopher Karl Marx. Broadly speaking, marxist theories focus upon the inequalities of wealth which the capitalist economic system brings, and point to the effects of this exploitative system upon people and cultures. ...

Believes that the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary in the period between ousting Capitalism and the final development of Communism.

A theory of of socialism which states that the oppression of the working class by the "nobility" will eventually lead to a revolt by the workers and the establishment of a classless society.

the philosophical and sociological approach of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and their followers. History is seen as basically a series of class struggles, with classes being defined in terms of their relation to the means of production. He viewed the struggle of workers as a continuation of historical forces that would one day lead to communism. This would occur in three stages. The first stage was capitalism, in which the proletariat (workers) are exploited by capitalists (business owners). ...

a form of socialism and mode of analysis derived from the teachings of Karl Marx (1818–83). Marxism regards capitalism as an inherently unjust system with the capitalists (those who own the means of production) exploiting the proletariat (those who must sell their labour in order to live). It aims to replace capitalism with a fairer system, socialism maturing into communism.

Funny, I don't see evolution mentioned anywhere. Maybe I should go back and find some more definitions. Or maybe you could point some out?

[Pete]

Let me get this straight: do you really believe--or think that evolutionists believe--that people's ideas, opinions, values, morals, etc. are encoded in their genes?

Encoded in their genes? If you mean they are the result of nothing more than progressively mutated chemistry then I will asked, if not chemistry, where?

[DX10]

Thanks.

[Pete]

Evolution and morality coexist because morality developed through evolutionary mechanisms. Why should morality need to be more than an evolutionary advantage to coexist with evolution?

Morality that is nothing more than evolutionary advantage is no morality at all. It is illusion. As the article says,

"Ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed on us by our genes to get us to cooperate.”

[antiRepublicrat]

You seem to be suggesting that we are not hard-wired to do everything for the benefit of society.

We are hard-wired for procreation, and it adaptation. I do not think that genetics has caught up with the capabilities of our brains to make more nuanced values and morals judgements, or the societal structures we've put in place.

For example, "one man, one woman" is the societal norm in most places, but that is definitely not the structure for maximum procreation.

[PreciousLiberty]

Because it's possible to believe in evolution and morals at the same time.

"The only way this can be a consistent worldview is to believe that evolution is the tool of an intelligent creator. Is that your position?"

Nonsense. Many view morality as a mechanism for flawed humans to coexist peacefully, which has *evolved* over time to its present form. Similar basic morals have been developed by many disparate cultures and religions, which would seem to argue against any particular religion or culture being particularly insightful or "chosen", yours included.

[Coyoteman]

So, you don't think a debate would be in order? I would be interested in the tested hypotheses.

Please take a look through PatrickHenry's List-O-Links. When you are up to speed maybe we can discuss things a little better. You could also take a look at some of the past threads on this issue if you have not already done so.

I am not interested in going over the same things time after time, so if you could come up with something new...?

[Physicist]

If you mean they are the result of nothing more than progressively mutated chemistry then I will asked, if not chemistry, where?

You were talking about mutations, which has to do with genetics. Now you're talking about thought, which has to do with neurology. They are two completely separate mechanisms, but you've managed to conflate the two, somehow.

How can anyone take your questions seriously? You really are in a muddle.

[Pete]

The only relevance I see is that evolution endowed us with a strong survival instinct which we should apply at the personal, national, and global level. If this is truly done with "enlightened self interest" we'll see a real golden age dawn.

Don't you see that everything you are talking about is nothing more than a strong survival instinct that we have because of undirected natural selection? Don't you see that?!? You claim we have meaning at the personal, national and global level and then turn right around and in the next breath credit it all to a strong survival instinct via evolution.

On the other hand, I suppose you're hoping for such an event to fulfull your religious beliefs. How sad.

Now even your insults are becoming random. What religion hopes for the complete distruction of the human race? Weird.

[antiRepublicrat]

If Marxism is not a religion then what is it?..

A political philosophy.

[ml1954]

It will be, if articles like this continue. And I will leave the conservative base over it. I refuse to support scientific lies, and that's what ID is.

You won't be alone.

[MRMEAN]

One smarmy creationist lawyer's lie after another. For example, Casey Luskin writes:

In addition, Krauthammer’s understanding is in direct opposition to the portrayal of evolution in biology textbooks. Says Douglas Futuyma in the textbook Evolutionary Biology:
“By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”3
Thus when Krauthammer thrashes the Kansas State Board of Education for calling Neo-Darwinian evolution “undirected,” it seems that it is Kansas -- not Krauthammer -- who has been reading the actual textbooks.

But here's what Krauthammer really said:

The school board thinks it is indicting evolution by branding it an "unguided process" with no "discernible direction or goal." This is as ridiculous as indicting Newtonian mechanics for positing an "unguided process" by which Earth is pulled around the sun every year without discernible purpose. What is chemistry if not an "unguided process" of molecular interactions without "purpose"? Or are we to teach children that God is behind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis?

Krauthammer criticized the school board for indicting evolution by branding it an "unguided process," Krauthammer didn't "thrash" the school board for "calling" evolution unguided--Luskin wants the rubes to think that Krauthammer doesn't understand that evolutionary variation is "unguided" but anybody who bothers to go back and read Krauthammer’s column would see that he does and is making the point that it is absurd to criticize evolutionary theory by calling it "unguided," because:

This is as ridiculous as indicting Newtonian mechanics for positing an "unguided process" by which Earth is pulled around the sun every year without discernible purpose. What is chemistry if not an "unguided process" of molecular interactions without "purpose"? Or are we to teach children that God is behind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis?

Luskin is counting on readers not bothering to go back and read Krauthammer's original column and discovering that Krauthammer is said exactly the opposite of what Luskin wants the reader to think Krauthhammer said. This is so dishonest that it is shameful that Human Events did not require Luskin to correct this before publication; or at least put in a footnote clarifying exactly what Krauthammer actually said.

[Junior]

Several years ago on the Johnny Carson show and in Time Magazine Dr. Carl Sagan stated unequivocally that evolution was no longer a theory, but a fact, and that he would be willing to debate anyone on the matter.

I call BS on this. Sagan knew that theories never become facts. Theories are the frameworks that explain facts. It is a fact that populations of organisms change over time. The theory of evolution explains that change.

[Flint Hills]

Basic morality, at least with regard to theft, assault, fraud , lies, etc. is common throughout human cultures, regardless of any particular faith. Any claims that morality descends solely from the Judeo/Christian God is laughable.

G-d designed evolution.

God is chuckling...

[Just mythoughts]

P I N G!!!!!

[PreciousLiberty]

"OK, here's a prediction which, "if false, will discredit the idea." No macroevolution will ever be observed in the lab (or even in nature, for that matter)."

First of all, your "prediction" is not a prediction made by ID which is experimentally verifiable - it is a negative prediction about evolution regarding an event that might take thousands to millions of years to observe (other than the numerous obvious examples trapped in the fossil record, which you apparently discount). By the way this "prediction" is scientifically worthless, since you could always wait longer for the event to occur. Bad experiment.

How about trying for a truly ID based prediction, such as 'if ID is correct, we will observe X, Y and Z about flagella, which would not be the case under the evolutionary theory.'

THAT would be a scientific, testable ID prediction. I've not seen any so far, nor do I expect to.

[b_sharp]

If you want a debate, I suggest you ask at either the talk.origins usenet forum or Panda's Thumb blog. It would have to be a written debate rather than a verbal debate to enable full explanations of the science behind the ToE to counter the typical 30 second sound bites creationists use in place of science.

"The theory is not observable;

Except both in the lab and in nature.

"it is not demonstrable in the laboratory;

The effects of allele variation and selection have both been observed in the lab.

" and it is not falsifiable.

Find a mammal fossil in Precambrian strata.

"In the opinion of many it violates the second law of thermodynamics,

Of course the 'many' are not well versed in both the 2LoT and biology. In fact they are probably not well versed in either.

"the mathematical law of population statistics,

The 'law' of population statistics? Make sure any calculations you are basing this on are recent.

" and certainly the biological law of biogenesis.

I assume you mean 'life only comes from life'. This is in regard to highly complex life. Abiogenesis is researching a sequence from simple non-life to simple life. Besides, at this point evolution has little to do with abiogenesis. Until research into abiogenesis can develop something that is subject to imperfect replication and selection, the mechanisms of ToE cannot be applied.

"However, I would leave these and arguments concerning irreducible complexity etc. to the debate rather than this thread."

Try a written debate. Far to easy for verbal debates to be determined by crowd demographics and baseless unscientific one liners.

[DX10]

Been lurking for quite a while. I would just prefer to have the experts discuss this subject in a formal setting rather than just back and forth on this thread with no particular results. If I ask you how natural selection produced valves in the venous system but not in in the arterial system, and you reply, what does that get us? Later.

[RussP]

I'm getting very tired of all the semantic quibbling and obfuscation around this issue.

Here's a prediction that, if proved false, would discredit ID theory: No scientist will ever reproduce Neo-Darwinian evolution from a single-celled organism to a vertibrate, nor will such macroevolution ever be directly observed in nature.

OK, there you have it. Now, you can quibble that scientists simply don't have enough time to wait for such macroevolution to happen, but that is a completely different issue than whether this is a prediction that, if falsified, would discredit ID theory. If a scientist ever reproduced such neo-Darwinian macroevolution, it would clearly discredit ID theory. And by the way, reproducibility is one of the cornerstones of a scientific theory, but that's another matter.

I used an example of macroevolution from single-celled organism to vertibrate, but you can choose many other examples, such as amphibian to mammal.

So are you guys going to finally wake up and quit making ridiculous claims about ID theory? Ya, that'll be the day!

[donh]

So, if you or a champion of your choosing would consider such a debate just let me know.

How will you ever get a wider audience than you have right here, where you have all the time in the world to frame your responses? Here's your big chance--argue away.

Let me suggest to you, however, that you try some material that hasn't been under the gun here already, countless times. None of which I saw in your original entry.

And, I am new, so flame away.

The level of courtesy you offer, will probably be about the level of couresy you will receive.

And, if someone will let me know what all the abbreviations mean I would appreciate

What abbreviations?