Where does disbelief in Darwin lead?

_{February 13, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

A commenter to my article about John McCain supporting the teaching of ID in public schools replies that he won’t vote for McCain because of it. The stated reason is the United States is falling behind other industrialized countries in science literacy.

Piffle! The notion that science literacy in the U.S. is substandard is rooted in the results of science surveys that include questions about evolution. Without doubt a much larger fraction of the US populace doesn’t believe in mud to man evolution than compared to any other industrialized nation. So in those surveys they give the “incorrect” answer to questions about the origin of life. In all other category of science questions Americans score as well as or better than non-Americans. But the weight of the “wrong” answers about evolution pulls down the average and makes it appear a few other countries are doing a better job of science education.

Be that as it may I’m a results oriented guy. Instead of presuming that “poorer” science education leads to poorer scientific output I instead look at what America actually produces in the way of science and engineering. Without question America’s output in science and engineering leads the world. Not just a little but a lot. We don’t steal nuclear technology secrets from China, they steal ours. We don’t use European GPS satellites for navigation, they use ours. The list can go on and on. We put a man on the moon 40 years ago while to this day no one else has. America has almost 3 times the number of Nobel prize winners as the next closest nation. That doesn’t support the notion that disbelief in Darwin is causing any problems. In fact it supports just the opposite. Disbelief in evolution makes a country into a superpower – militarily, economically, and yes even scientifically.

Education in America is working just fine, thank you, judging by the fruits of American science and engineering. Disbelief in Darwinian evolution, if anything, leads to greater technological achievements not lesser. If it isn’t broken, don’t try to fix it.

Comments

jerry, Gould (nor I) expect life to appear at all, that it has in no way presupposes that it has to. The fact is, the constants are what they are. As we have no idea how a universe forms, we have no idea as to the values they are able to take. Nor do we know whether this is the only universe or our type of life the only possible. Therefore, if one is to draw a conclusion between the universe being created by an intelligent designer or not, the reasonable answer is that we don't know and we have nothing to base conclusion on. However, if I was forced to make a choice, I would say that no designer is simpler choice. StephenB, In the same vein, why must the causeless cause be the designer (or something deeper into the regress), why not the universe itself? Furthermore, our laws of cause and effect apply in this universe, but do we know that they apply outside? Adding a designing cause seems to me to be adding a further layer of complexity to a situation so complex that it is already far outside our sphere of knowledge. Furthermore, it seems a way of projecting human traits and experiences to a circumstance that shows no need nor reason to have them.leo_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

leo: I think Jerry is right about atheism being intellectually bankrupt. To his point about fine tuning, I would add the problem of "infinite regress." It's an old philosophical problem that dates all the way back to Aristotle and his "prime mover" argument. As we reflect on the reality of causal chains, we come to understand that the chain cannot go on to infinity. There must be a causeless cause. I don't know any way out of that. Do you?StephenB_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

leo, It is not just Barrow and Tippler. I said nothing about the Anthropic Principle. Forget about them and follow the arguments that small changes in any of several key constants leads to absolute chaos in the universe. Gould's statement is incredibly naive given a universe of just a few elements that is rapidly expanding or rapidly collapsing as the result of these changes. He expects life to appear naturalistically in such a condition? What a sad commentary. What Gould said and I assume you are correct, defies reason but is explained by the mind of an ideologue and not one governed by reason. You claim that reason will win the day but when atheists base their conclusions on ideology and not reason they are not to be trusted in anything they conclude.jerry_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Jerry, I am surprised that you would relegate an idea to ‘intellectual bankruptcy’ based on Barrow and Tipler’s SAP (among other adaptations). I know that there are many varied responses to said point of view, but I think the most straightforward and easiest to understand would be that all evidence points to life adapting to physics, not physics to life. The sausage was not made to fit the bun, in the words of Dr. Gould. I find it to be a rather weak argument in all truthfulness. As for multiple universes, I see no evidence for that either. Though they may exist and/or there may be an Intelligence at work in creation, until I see any real evidence, not tautology, I will refrain from commitment to the cause. If the current body of evidence and arguments convinces you, and you believe fully in the choice you have made, more power to you. But, believe me, I’m quite sure that I have heard all that you have and I am not prepared to follow down your path, at least not yet, maybe never.leo_{February 18, 2008
February
02
Feb
18
18
2008
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

leo, Why atheism is intellectually bankrupt has to do with the fine tuning of the universe. Such a thing could not happen by any means of chance and must be directed by an intelligence. The laws of nature are extremely precise and any small variation from them leads to chaos. No other explanation except an intelligent designer makes sense. If you are not aware of this argument you should look into it and see what explanation you buy into. The fine tuning says nothing about the nature of the designer(s) but only that an immense intelligence must exist to cause the universe to exist as it is. If one invokes a multiple universe scenario, then one runs into another roadblock in the origin of life. So the atheist must subscribe to one implausible fairy tale after another to maintain their position. Yes it is intellectually bankrupt.jerry_{February 17, 2008
February
02
Feb
17
17
2008
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

bililiad, Thank you, I appreciate that.leo_{February 17, 2008
February
02
Feb
17
17
2008
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

Leo: In a healthy culture, the core values endure while personality features change texture in a natural way. An unhealthy culture can be found at on either side of this “golden mean”-- two extremes--two ways of violating justice--either of which can lead to cultural death. If, on the one hand, the core values change, unity is lost and the culture dies from internal corruption. If, on the other hand, the personality features are not allowed to develop and change in a natural way, diversity is lost and the culture has all the life choked out ot it. At one extreme the, United States is being corrupted by too much diversity at the expense of unity. We have lost our core. At the other extreme, most Islamic countries are already corrupt from too much unity at the expense of diversity. They have no personality. The difference is that the United States has a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that was established just so these proper proportions could be maintained, and if need be, restored. The founding fathers established the “natural moral law” as a unifying core that allows for a healthy diversity, characterized by the phrase, “out of many one.” Islam imposes “Sharia law” on its citizens, strangling the culture and retarding its natrual development. They have the “one” but they don’t have the “many.” We have the “many,” but we have lost the “one.” The question is, then, is the United States going to continue dying from too much diversity, or is it going to restore its unity. If we do not gain control of our borders, language, and culture, we will die. It is as simple as that. In 1947, the Supreme Court abandoned the natural moral law and supplanted it with popular opinion as the standard for jurisprudential justice. What followed was a gradual cultural decline. Today, we are a divided nation with no moral core, and we are indeed dying. A few years ago, William J. Bennett, established what he calls the “index of cultural indicators.” It is an objective measure of our cultures overall health. I will not provide the numbers, but suffice it to say, we are falling fast. Unless we get back to and agree on our basic core values, we will soon be out of business. The only real question is, will our enemies destroy us before we commit suicide?StephenB_{February 17, 2008
February
02
Feb
17
17
2008
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

PannenbergOmega
My views vary on the 100% factuality of the Bible. Though, I am very willing to become more orthodox, if new evidence emerges.
I am glad to know that you will follow the evidence, where ever it may take you. I wonder, does this also mean you would become less orthodox? For my part, if ever I am convinced that the Christians, Jews, Hindus, Taoists, or whomever, are correct, than I think will find myself part of said group - not so much a desire to fit into that group, but because my thought's happen to place me there. I truly believe the Christianity and others do have great messages, I happen to think that those messages can be preserved in a form that does not promote division and does promote reasoned discourse.leo_{February 17, 2008
February
02
Feb
17
17
2008
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

jerry, Cultures never endure. Our culture (or the mix of cultures that is called "Western") is nothing like it was 100 years ago, nor 100 years before that, etc. It is related, it is similar, is is evolved from, but not the same. The myth of enduring cultures is a ploy to make history books easier to write. Do you really believe that the Chinese culture hasn't changed in 5000 years as is usually stated? Similarly, there was no one Roman culture, nor Greek, nor Christian. These ideas had influences on the culture, but they did not define them outright. Atheism has been an influential part of Western culture for over centuries, and far from corrupting it has lead/participated in significant upheavals that produced our present culture. To say that current thinking is defined only by power is to ignore the role that power played and still plays in history as a whole and religion specifically. Even those who strove most for the rights of men bought into the myth:
...the supreme lord of the universe has, in his wisdom, rendered the various conditions of mankind necessary to our individual happiness: some are rich, other poor-some are masters, and other servants,"
-Samuel Adams, The Complete Servant, 1825 but the Enlightenment undermined this myth eventually lead to a new culture. Certainly some of these men, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, John Locke, etc. were religious men, but it wasn't their religion that drove then is reject the divine right of kings or Great Chain of Being, it was their reason. Reason is an idea that a culture can be built upon. You say Atheism ignores the obvious: what is the obvious, for I must be ignoring it also? It certainly does not say there is nothing to believe in, and in no way does it lead to a culture based on power. Perhaps it will lead to one not based on power for once. And again, I have to disagree about you assertion that science points away from atheism/agnosticism, though I suppose it is best left to other threads to discuss this. As for the obligatory remark about communists, I will make the obligatory reply that communism was/is a religion, based no more on reasoned thought and evidenced based ideas than any other, certainly much less than some. History show us the religion is as tribal as any other idea. It can be used to increase the tribe, either violently or peacefully, but in doing so it requires servitude to the powerful. Reason requires servitude to no one and leads to respect and rights for all.leo_{February 17, 2008
February
02
Feb
17
17
2008
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

Now if ID turns out to be correct. Then the God revealed through Intelligent Design might not be the trinitarian God of the Bible. Maybe the Freemasons have the right idea about God. A non-denominational Great Architect of the Universe.. who is also personal.PannenbergOmega_{February 16, 2008
February
02
Feb
16
16
2008
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

But Christianity has a great message, and does alot of good in the world. Other religions too. I wish, we would see more people from other faiths on this blog.PannenbergOmega_{February 16, 2008
February
02
Feb
16
16
2008
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Leo, I understand what you are saying too. Let me assure that I am a religious believer, a Lutheran. My views vary on the 100% factuality of the Bible. Though, I am very willing to become more orthodox, if new evidence emerges. The same with my conservatism, I look more to Edmund Burke and Peter Verieck than to Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley. Though I love Ronald Reagan! If you, Leo, or anyone else is interested in a good read. Check this out. Conservative Thinkers: John Adams to Winston Churchill. http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Thinkers-Adams-Winston-Churchill/dp/1412805260PannenbergOmega_{February 16, 2008
February
02
Feb
16
16
2008
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

Hi guys, I think Jerry very eloquently conveys what I was trying to get across.PannenbergOmega_{February 16, 2008
February
02
Feb
16
16
2008
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT}

leo, For a culture to endure it must have a formal system which it shares and each in the culture must know what it is. Atheism or the just passing on what one thinks is moral does not pass the test. It has no basis in anything concrete. The formal system does not have to be religion but it has to be internalized and consistent over the culture and make sense to its members. Every Roman knew what it was to be a Roman even if they were recently conquered. The Greeks, even though there were several hundred city states knew what it was to be Greek. For over 1500 years Christianity served that purpose in the West. Quibbling over the origin of its prescriptions is a meaningless reply. Nothing is on the horizon that can replace it, certainly not just passing on "to do what is moral" which is changing like the wind these days. Up till a few years ago these morals were based on Christianity but there is no prescribed set to replace it. It is unlikely anything will coalesce to replace it and definitely not what is PC or correct at the moment which is determined purely by power and what is expedient at the moment for those in power. Atheism ignores the obvious and that is why it is intellectually bankrupt. It also says that there is nothing to believe in which is a prescription for a culture based on power. It makes up preposterous scientific claims to justify itself. That does not mean the evidence in science points to Christianity or any organized religion but science certainly obviates atheism. If by agnosticism you mean one who claims not to know the nature of the intelligence behind the universe, I can understand that. But if by agnosticism you mean one who claims there isn't information to determine if there is an intelligence behind the universe, then that is also intellectually bankrupt. Both this type of agnostic and the atheist are what Freud would call "in denial." If you do not believe there is an all out assault on the culture today, then I believe you are in denial too. When the glue that was Christian morals dissolves away there will be nothing to replace it. It has been tried in the 20th century as the communists implemented a system for about 25% of the world with such remarkable results. Oh, I actually believe there is a natural law that is inscribed in us. It will lead people generally in the same direction but no further than applying it to our own tribe. To go further than this, there is needed some formal explication of this inscribed predilections that extends pass our tribe to everyone and that is what religion does. As I said communism tried to do that in the 20th century but it essentially ignored these internal predilections.jerry_{February 16, 2008
February
02
Feb
16
16
2008
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

jerry, I have not doubt that most, likely the vast majority, of people who profess belief think that it is the truth. This includes not only theists but atheists as well. However, my response was meant to tackle the quote from PannenbergOmega which implies that (to my mind) even if it was shown not to be true, it is best to believe because it is good for you This is, of course, only my interpretation of the remark, but I think that is the worse kind of thinking, and can only lead to trouble. Who is anyone to impose on me their idea of good. I cannot agree with you when you state that lack of belief "cannot lead to anything positive" however. I also think the Christian morality you speak of is a cobbling together of the mores of many disparate people brought under the Christian umbrella over many years and not something inherent to the Christian system itself. To my mind these morals existed prior to the rise of Christianity and will persist if Christianity ever fades to myth. The "code of living" will go on, passed in another form. It was not passed to me in any religious connotation, simply in a moral one. I believe lack of religion can lead to something positive (and likely some negatives as well). I think there is nothing more important than the search for truth, whatever that truth may end up being. If it happens to lead to a lack of religion, than perhaps that is a system for unification as opposed to division. Can atheism or agnosticism may be the system, only time will tell. Certainly it will not lead to "intellectual bankruptcy" as you claim, evidenced by the wide and disparate writings, thoughts, ideas of past and current atheists. "So what will it be besides religion which is closer to the truth than non religion?" I don't know what is closer to the truth, I have my own ideas but what I think has no bearing on what the truth is. So I cannot tell you what it will be, whether this religion or that, or none at all. However, I can only hope that the system that remains allows people to question and pursue ideas, even if they deviate from the accepted dogma.leo_{February 16, 2008
February
02
Feb
16
16
2008
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT}

leo, People believe religion is truth. Maybe not all that profess believe, but most do. I am sure that there are some people who go through the motions because they think it is better for their family than any alternative but most believe. The one thing I am fairly sure of is that the lack of religion will not lead to anything positive. This is not to say that those who do not profess a religious belief lead immoral or purposeless lives. At this moment most of those in the West who do not profess a religious belief are living off Christian morality. We are essentially in the first generation of the abandonment of religion in the West by large numbers of people. After two or three generations of not passing any systematic way of living to their children the system will collapse, or religion will be reaffirmed or some other proscription will have to be implemented. The third options is unlikely as far as I believe. If it is the first scenario, then our society will be replaced by one that has a purpose and the only candidates around today are religious ones. Throughout history ti was not necessarily religion that has to be passed along, but a code of living such as found in Homer or Vergil or in other traditions. In the West Christianity has been that tradition that has been the glue for over 1500 years. When it is gone, there will be nothing formal to pass along and your children's children will be rudderless. Each will have a different view of life and that cannot last. It will have to be superseded by some system that will provide guidance. One thing for sure, atheism will not be the system. You complain about the truth but atheism is intellectual bankruptcy and leads no where. So what will it be besides religion which is closer to the truth than non religion?jerry_{February 15, 2008
February
02
Feb
15
15
2008
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT}

Religion, as Dave Scot pointed out earlier, may not be panacea, but it does provide a moral anchor in our confused society. It’s better than nothing.
Is it better than truth? Is this all you base your views on, that you believe it's better than nothing?leo_{February 15, 2008
February
02
Feb
15
15
2008
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

There is a quote by G.K. Chesterston, that from what I remember, goes like this.. "The doctrine of original sin, is the best evidence that Christianity is true" And I agree. I think Christianity, has a very realistic view of human nature, sin, right and wrong. To discard centuries of tradition (Judeo-Christian values), as people like Dawkins want to do. I feel is a bad idea, because an atheistic society feeds into man's baser impulses. Not sure, if you will agree with me. But like I said, I'm a conservative.PannenbergOmega_{February 15, 2008
February
02
Feb
15
15
2008
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

Hi vesf, "Fatal shootings like this tragedy are happening with an alarming frequency. I am almost terrified of reading the paper in the morning." I very much agree with you my friend. Hi S.W. Tolbert, Religion, as Dave Scot pointed out earlier, may not be panacea, but it does provide a moral anchor in our confused society. It's better than nothing. A system of ethics and meaning in life, that Darwinian theory just can't provide. Unless you count Social Darwinism.PannenbergOmega_{February 15, 2008
February
02
Feb
15
15
2008
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

PannenbergOmega said, in part: So when all you Darwinist Atheist types extol the virtues of non belief in God and attack Christians for outdated morality. First, how many Darwinist/Atheist types do you think hover here? I am not one for full disclosure, though I have some pointed questions for IDists. But for now, to be fair here, I don't personally know any atheists who extoll the virtues of death and killing. They might have some disagreeable notions on various topics, but advocacy of outright murder is not among them. Perhaps you mean the uncomfortably loose mores of men like Peter Singer? And they will be more than happy to point out that while many atheists lean to nihilism, most do not, and that compared to the God of the bible are not as bloodthirsty, don't wipe out entire peoples like the Amelekites or the Flood victims, advocacy for rape among Israel's victims in war, slavery, etc, etc. Now of course I know there is an historical context to all this that most will ignore. But just to get you prepped....S Wakefield Tolbert_{February 14, 2008
February
02
Feb
14
14
2008
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

Alas, Omega. It can be expected when atheist Lawyers remove any and all mention of our blessed Lord from schools. Sadly, this is an event that will probably repeat itself constantly, as long as materialist humanism is taught instead of principles based on real science and eternally held Truths. We now see where athiestic naturalism leads. We need to look closely at what colleges are teaching. Darwinism is nothing to embrace in a moral society. Surely at this time we take a few moments and offer our prayers to the families. Fatal shootings like this tragedy are happening with an alarming frequency. I am almost terrified of reading the paper in the morning.vesf_{February 14, 2008
February
02
Feb
14
14
2008
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

So when all you Darwinist Atheist types extol the virtues of non belief in God and attack Christians for outdated morality. I guess you can see where this leads to tragically.PannenbergOmega_{February 14, 2008
February
02
Feb
14
14
2008
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

I am sad to report that there has been another school schooting. This time in northern Illinois. I can't help but think, that this is a symptom of our secular-nihilistic culture. Where Darwinian theory had undervalued human life. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/14/university.shooting/index.htmlPannenbergOmega_{February 14, 2008
February
02
Feb
14
14
2008
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

DaveScot (136) you wrote: "What I want to highlight is Norway has a state Church and it’s a Christian church were everyone is born into it. A 17% disbelief in the supernatural is probably less than those with disbelief in the United States or at least comparable in any case. Interesting that Norway has a state Christian Church and also the highest standard of living the world, eh? Or maybe you don’t find that interesting at all. Probably not since it doesn’t support your belief about Christianity and high standards of living." In fact, there is no connection at all. Norway's high standard of living is primarily due to the fact that it has a very large income from its North Sea gas and oil fields - and as you are no doubt aware, the prices of these commodities have risen enormously these last few years. You might ask why Norway has such a high standard of living compared with other North Sea nations wil oil fields, such as Britain, but the simple answer is that Norway has a much smaller population (of the order of 5 million or so) compared with 60 million for Britain. So the real reason is that Norway has a very high per capita GDP because (a) it has high income from oil and gas, (b) it has a very small population to spread it around. It's Christianity doesn't enter into the equation. It's simple economics.Clarence_{February 14, 2008
February
02
Feb
14
14
2008
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

-----larrynormanfan: On your claim that Thomas Sowell “has examined this situation in far more detail than any other scholar,” I’ll see your Sowell and raise you John Hope Franklin. Well, you might be able to call my bet with Franklin, but I don't think you can afford to raise. He is certainly a voice that deserves to be heard, and he is incredibly prolific writer. Ideologically, he would not be compatible with Sowell, as you probably know. I would not concede that he knows more about American education as Sowell or Williams, but I would be open to someone making a case for it. I do know that he opposed the nomination of Clarence Thomas, another black, to the Supreme Court, so that pretty much tells you where he is coming from.StephenB_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Atom: You have made one point that I am willing to acknowledge: It is probably the case that an invocation of "white pride" is more likely to be racist than a call for "black pride." Quite often, those appeals are made from a Nazi-like mentality, in which racists use perceived black privilege as a PRETEXT for their racism. That, however, is not what I mean when I discuss what happens on college campuses. These reactions to affirmative action are not of that texture, although, in some cases, they can be and are exploited.StephenB_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

-----Atom: Anyway, the main beef that prompted my first reply was your mistaken assertion that “black privilege” was the casue of anti-black discrimination. You still have not withdrawn that point, hence why I keep pointing you to the evidence that you’re mistaken." I think we may be coming together a little bit on this, so that is a good thing. I do believe you are confused about something, though. I didn't say black privilege was THE cause of racism, obviously that would be ridiculous. I was saying that isolated cases of black affirmative action can be A cause of racism. Please don't oversimply. Are you denying the latter statement? If so, then check out some of the authors I gave you and get back to me.StephenB_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Mapou, I agree in general. But alas, we cannot go back to a state before the Fall.larrynormanfan_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

DaveScot: If I had my way marijuana use would be legal in the United States and alcohol would be prohibited instead, or in the spirit (pun intended) of libertarianism neither would be prohibited. I agree. And I don't think taxes should be used to manipulate or engineer, if you will, society's behavior. In fact, very few things should be prohibited and there should be very few laws. I would not mind living in a society where the only law is "think and do the the right thing". Citizens would be taught from an early age to respect the welfare of others by following society's established guidelines.Mapou_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

DaveScot, I'm with you on the legalization issue, though I would not prohibit alcohol: we've seen how well that went last time.larrynormanfan_{February 13, 2008
February
02
Feb
13
13
2008
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply