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

StephenB, I see we're getting nowhere. I'm a Christian, yes, and I'm an evolutionist, but I'm not a "Darwinist," because I don't think that term is really meaningful. Nobody is a "Darwinist" today in the sense Darwin was. I'm not even a "neo-Darwinist," in the sense of adhering to a strict version of the Modern Synthesis. I'm probably more of a Gould/Lewontin type -- multiple mechanisms, of which natural selection is one. Thanks for telling me what information I'm allowed to read. I'll keep that in mind while you continue to question my faith. I hope you'll be comforted to know that I've read a fair amount of ID literature too, including two books of Dembski, Wells's Icons of Evolution, and Behe's Darwin's Black Box. I've even read Of Pandas and People. So I've been trying to come to terms with ID for a long time. To my knowledge, I haven't made a single argument that's anti-Christian. Find one and I'll retract it. As for Curtsinger, he's a bit sloppy by concentrating on that phrase. But you're being sloppier, and if you read later in Curtsinger, you'll see why. Darwin is not "saying that only man is stupid enough to breed badly." He's saying that denying such sympathy would lead to "the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature." In other words, he's not saying that we're too stupid to follow the narrow dictates of that line of reasoning; he's saying that we're too noble. In other words, we're better than that. Ending sympathy demonstrates our nobility, not our stupidity. So Curtsinger is being inelegant by focusing on West's willful distortion of Darwin's text. But his basic point is correct, and West is wrong. West is the one who distorts the plain sense of the text.larrynormanfan_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

StephenB said, in part: You can begin your research with John Dewey, the man who secularized and revolutionized education. If you don’t think there is a secularist agenda in education, then you are simply misinformed. If you don’t think that secularists have cheated blacks out of an education and set them up for failure, then you are further misinformed. If you don’t think they promote racial conflict then you are, once again, misinformed. I have generally found this to be the case. Don't know if its that intentional, but I think a better phrase would be that government as nanny-state via secularist ideas always fails in its much bandied claims of altruism. This might be why many secularists hate religion and tend (TEND) to be on the LEFTER side of the political spectrum. I collect the quotes of these educrat "remolders" of children for fun. And whether its Dewey, or Paul Blanchard, or Richard Rorty, or M. Sanger, EO Wilson, Dawkins, Stephen Weinberg, William Provine, or numerous others who see or saw their sacred secularist mission to use education as the anvil upon which to smash "superstition"--they are numerous. And go well beyond Dewey in personal hatred and nastiness to religion.S Wakefield Tolbert_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

In our first encounter, you insisted that you were a Christian and that you were not a Darwinist. You are free to be anything you wish to be, of course, but all your arguments are anti-Christian and pro-Darwin. I wouldn't put it past an atheist or a Darwinist to fake being a Christian or an IDer on the web just to make Christians and IDers look bad or as a way to sneak into a discussion under false pretenses. We should all be fully cognizant of the fact that the enemy is vicious and has no moral backbone.Mapou_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

larrynormanfan: You can begin your research with John Dewey, the man who secularized and revolutionized education. If you don't think there is a secularist agenda in education, then you are simply misinformed. If you don't think that secularists have cheated blacks out of an education and set them up for failure, then you are further misinformed. If you don't think they promote racial conflict then you are, once again, misinformed. Also, you may not be aware of it, but John West is not the first author to show a link show a link between Darwin and eugenics, nor is Richard Weikert. Didn't you know Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a big fan of Darwin’s theory? Didn't you know that Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin, systemized eugenic philosophy? Why would I pay attention to any of your sources if they don't know that? Here is an example of the Curtsingers slopping reading: He offers this quote from Darwin: "No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." Curtsinger then says this: “West and his actor leave out 'EXCEPTING IN THE CASE OF MAN HIMSELF.' Re-read the quotation with and without that phrase to see how much difference it makes to the perception of Darwin’s role in eugenics. DARWIN EXPLICITLY EXEMPTS HUMANS FROM THE BREEDING PRESCRIPTION, BUT THAT DOESN’T FIT WEST’S AGENDA.” (emphasis mine) Darwin is doing no such thing here. He is saying that only man is stupid enough to breed badly. Surely, you can see that. This is not even close. I would appreciate it if you would stop googling anti-ID websites for support. Most of them are not dependable. Just make your case. In our first encounter, you insisted that you were a Christian and that you were not a Darwinist. You are free to be anything you wish to be, of course, but all your arguments are anti-Christian and pro-Darwin. Whether you are pro ID or not I don't know; it doubt it. Again, you are free to be whatever you choose, but you certainly appear to be something other than what you claim to be. Where exactly are you coming from anyway?StephenB_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Larry, Links are fine, but I wish those two articles had their hypertext markup a little more solidly shored up. That was painful. Elsewhere, while I'm quite sure there are numerous articles purporting to have Darwin disavow (or his adherents) any connection real or imagined from the brave new world of eugenics, it is fact that he himself made many remarks about minorities that today would only ordinarily be taken as offensive. Others later, like Haekel, followed up with some charming racial insights of their own. As did Margaret Sanger in her day with notions about the unfit of the world needing to be culled back to make room for the strong. So while I'm sure the authors are correct in their intentions that Darwinism explains only the "facts, Ma'am", it is fascinating to see how others reacted. We have this even today with men like the above mentioned Singer who has another version of eugenics in his noggin and accuses Christianity with all its prohibitions on killing the feeble as halting our progress. Simliar notions are hurled at believers over embryonic stem cell research being not federally funded yet, etc. The point is not that ALL Darwinists say this or that about eugenics or other racial or squeamish topics, but that the philosphical and hostile (to faith and traditional morals) climate created by Darwinian and/or atheistic thought allows for much of this.S Wakefield Tolbert_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

PanerabreadAlpha :-) I'm attracted to the idea of intelligent design. I've read a fair amount about it and don't dismiss it, but I'm still on the evolution side. I'm a Christian, so maybe that would make me a theistic evolutionist. I'm trying to figure out how ID fits with how I understand science. Also, I'm trying to figure out why we come to believe what we believe, as far as historical events go. Most of my arguments here have not been about ID, but about politics. Not the major subject of the blog, but hey -- I didn't start the political discussions. I've just been drawn into that. Probably I should have resisted the temptation. It distracts me, and at the end I'll get labeled as some sort of pinko.larrynormanfan_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

larrydavidfan, if you don't like intelligent design, why do you come to uncommon descent? just to argue?PannenbergOmega_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

Also on West, here's a response by population geneticist James W. Curtsinger.larrynormanfan_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

StephenB, a couple of things. No, I don't think ID advocates as such want to institute a theocracy. Some probably do, but it's not like it's part of ID. John West. Here is a takedown of West by historian of science Mark Borrello. On the history of race, the whole paragraph beginning "First, they created the conditions for violence through race baiting" makes no sense. "They" seems to refer to "secularists" throughout the passage. What in the world? In what sense could this possibly even be meaningful, much less true? The paragraph doesn't get any better after that. I don't really care whether that's from Thomas Sowell, who is a fine economist (within the limits of a certain school) but a lousy historian. Frankly, I can't imagine Sowell writing something that strange.larrynormanfan_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT}

-----Atom: "I’m sorry, but study after study shows that racism is STILL a very deeply-rooted problem in the US. And again, I doubt that “race-baiters” or “black privilege” (whatever that is!) are responsible." Why does everyone always miss the point. I am well aware that racism is still with us. Why are you implying that I disagree with that. The point is, that racism is not the reason that blacks are flunking out of school. The other point is that special preferences INCREASE RACISM. Even Bill Cosby is wise enough to know that if you blame all your failures on racism in this culture, you are doomed to poverty. The larger point is that it is secularists that are encouraging blacks to USE racism as an excuse not to give their best.StephenB_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT}

"we want to usher in some kind of theocracy undergirded by Biblical Law" I agree with you StephenB. I think statements like the this are attempts by the Darwinist community to slander ID. This may be speaking out of turn, but I think that at most, you might say that there is a hint of social conservatism in the Discovery Institute. So what though? It's not like ID equals Theonomy.PannenbergOmega_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

-----larrynormanfan: "StephenB, this is the second time in a few days that I’ve seen a completely whacko version of racial history in America. The first was by another commenter, who explained the freakish worldview of an old girlfriend’s father. The second is yours. What’s in the UD water these days? Holy cow." Well, what exactly did I say that you disagree with? Are you forever content to criticize without providing substantive examples? Good grief. I can't provide a whole history in two paragraphs. I was simply talking about some of the tricks that secularists use to foment violence. If you disagree with my assessment, then take it up with Thomas Sowell, because he is the expert I am drawing from. Which expert are you drawing from?StephenB_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

-----larrynormanfan: "I don’t know anything about Paul’s work. But pretty much all these charges have been made about prominent ID proponents. If I substitute “Darwin’s” for “Christianity’s,” “Darwin” for “pope Pius XII,” and “religious” for “secularist” and “anti-religious,” I see a pretty good image of John G. West. I don’t see a lot of “distinterested research” from any angle." LNF: the true history of Pope Pius XII is easy to verify and the false histories are easy to refute. He was very helpful to the Jews and he certainly was an opponent to Hitler. With regard to John G. West, I am not sure what you mean. Clearly, he has a strong point of view, but that doesn't mean his research is dishonest. The standards for reliability and accuracy are the same for everyone. Do you have any particular study in mind that you think may not have been conducted in a professional manner? The Darwinist academy says a great many things about ID advocates that are not true. My favorite example is the ridiculous notion that we want to usher in some kind of theocracy undergirded by Biblical Law. Surely, you don't believe that one. And if you don't, then why do you take those who do believe it seriously when they make up other things?StephenB_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

Hey Larry David Fan.... Isn't this blog supposed to be about Intelligent Design. Yes, race and ethnicity issues are still problems in the USA.PannenbergOmega_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

Some gems from the article:
How many have heard that persons with "white sounding names," according to a massive national study, are fifty percent more likely to be called back for a job interview than those with "black sounding" names, even when all other credentials are the same (5)? How many know that white men with a criminal record are slightly more likely to be called back for a job interview than black men without one, even when the men are equally qualified, and present themselves to potential employers in an identical fashion (6)? How many have heard that according to the Justice Department, Black and Latino males are three times more likely than white males to have their vehicles stopped and searched by police, even though white males are over four times more likely to have illegal contraband in our cars on the occasions when we are searched (7)?
Atom_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

I know that racism was once a horrific problem
I'm sorry, but study after study shows that racism is STILL a very deeply-rooted problem in the US. And again, I doubt that "race-baiters" or "black privilege" (whatever that is!) are responsible. Some reading: What Kind of Card is Race? Atom_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

StephenB, this is the second time in a few days that I've seen a completely whacko version of racial history in America. The first was by another commenter, who explained the freakish worldview of an old girlfriend's father. The second is yours. What's in the UD water these days? Holy cow.larrynormanfan_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

-----Atom: "Yeah, because historically whites have never been known to harass blacks without just cause…" Well, sure. Vice looks bad from any angle. Do you think I am not aware of the other extreme? I know that racism was once a horrific problem, and that we still have some of it with us. But that doesn't excuse race baiting by demagogues.StephenB_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
Gregory Paul has been pushing his secularist agenda for years, and it is evident that he always stacks the deck when he does his research. He tries to pass himself off as a disinterested researcher, but he clearly has his own ax to grind, and oh how he grinds it. He writes about Christianity’s role in the rise of Hitler, slanders pope Pius XII, and regularly stumps for anti-religious causes. Most important, he has been debunked many times for his proclivity to draw his conclusions before the research begins.
I don't know anything about Paul's work. But pretty much all these charges have been made about prominent ID proponents. If I substitute "Darwin's" for "Christianity's," "Darwin" for "pope Pius XII," and "religious" for "secularist" and "anti-religious," I see a pretty good image of John G. West. I don't see a lot of "distinterested research" from any angle.larrynormanfan_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

Parmenides, racism is bad. You know it was us religious types were involved in the American Civil Rights Movement. It was religious people who were involved in the abolitionist movement in both Britain and America. The claim that we must somehow drop our 'traditional' views to fit into a changing world is absurd, and dangerous. I'm what you might call a Burkean Conservative, and I think it is not wise to mess around with the 'pillars' of our society. Namely religion and the family.PannenbergOmega_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

Have any of you guys read the Design of Life yet? If not, you should. In the first chapter, which I believe you can read online for free, it describes how our cooperative nature, intellectual and moral abilities seperate us from apes. This is true.PannenbergOmega_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

Education is not the problem in the U.S., it's the glut of entertainment and lack of parental management of their kids' progress.mike1962_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

Atom, if you think racism is a bad thing, surely you must be an "anti-evolutionist". Evolution is a religious belief which is intrinsically racist. Darwin said that Black people were little more intelligent than Chimpanzees and because of their inherant inferiority we should look forward to their extinction. This tenant was taken up by world Socialism. See Orwelle's 1984, where the three great superpowers were fighting over the slave labor in Africa.Parmenides_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

Tolbert, "why are the secularists living better lives...etc." This seems like a prime example of the unexamined life fallacy. How interesting that that ethics, properly understood by real thinkers as proceeding from an underlying metaphysical foundation, should turn out to be so utterly simplistic. Is peace an unmitigated Good, especially at any price? Is the low crime rate a product of superior virtue or the fact that "Big brother is watching you!"? What about the socialistic, de facto, reintroduction of serfdom and in some instances, slavery(read Hayak)? What about the birth rates of 1.1 to 1.5? The last time I checked, the DoDo Bird was dead. I'm not sure the muslims need to aggressively take over, why don't they just wait for European self extinction?Parmenides_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

Meant to also add: http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2007/05/atheists-wont-save-europe.html Which flows nicely with StephenBs commentary on W. Europe.S Wakefield Tolbert_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

John, thanks for Verum link. Most interesting. I suspected as much and my instincts usually serve me, but that was some good insight on stat crunching there. StephenB: Your commentary on the "what else" in Western Europe is suspected by others. And then there is the ultimate laugh in Darwinian terms for secular hedonism: EXTINCTION: http://wakepedia.blogspot.com/2006/03/liberals-doomed-to-extinction-darwin.htmlS Wakefield Tolbert_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

They aggravated the problem by offering special privileges to blacks, enraging whites and causing unnecessary resentment, unnatural rage that would not have been there without the meddling.
Yeah, because historically whites have never been known to harass blacks without just cause...Atom_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

S Wakefield Tolbert: "I just wanted to see what would happen if I posted the Paul thesis. Ya got me pardner. But it was a good thought stimulator.StephenB_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

-----SWT: "The main point of Paul’s study seems relatively intact: -----"If religion makes us better–why are the secularists living better lives with fewer social malaise and malignant welfare roles?" You can't be serious. Paul's judgment call on the quality of life is based on his quantitative data. If the numbers can't be trusted, then the qualitative interpretation that follows can't be trusted. As I pointed out earlier, he is a fierce anti-ID opponent who is ready to cook the books to get the results he wants. Our own culture has been studied thoroughly through what has been known as "the index of cultural indicators," publicized years ago by Bill Bennett. Our decline can be traced very easily. We weren't like this 50 years ago when children were praying in school. What is missing here is what is called “lag time.” It takes a long time for a cultures behavior to catch up to the ideologies that are imposed on them. Our secularist chickens are coming home to roost. There is simply no doubt that we are less religious and more secular than we were fifty years ago. That is because of the vertical assault of the anti-religious barbarians. It began when secularists took hold of all the important institutions and convinced too many of our children that they were nothing but animals. Before long all too many of them started acting like animals. First, they created the conditions for violence through race baiting. They cheated blacks out of a decent education even as they provide in them a false sense of self esteem. Then when urban blacks arrived at the university unprepared, these same race baiters told them that racist white educators were giving them low grades because of the color of their skin. But it didn’t stop there. They aggravated the problem by offering special privileges to blacks, enraging whites and causing unnecessary resentment, unnatural rage that would not have been there without the meddling. That doesn't come from religion; that comes from secularism. It's the same problem with the young and their problems with sex. Secularists have convinced them that sexual activity is for sport. They ridicule and lampoon religious leaders who insist that sex has a nobler purpose. Then they tell the young that the motive of the religious educators is to cheat them out of the good time that they are “entitled to.” That doesn’t come from religion; that comes from secularism. I know. I watched it happen. I suspect that one of the reasons that things are so peaceful in some parts of Europe is because secularism has taken all the fight out of its citizens. Steeped in moral relativism, they no longer think that anything is worth fighting for---not even their own culture. That is why they are just sitting around waiting for the Muslims to impose Sharia law on them. If you want to get a taste of the negative effects of religion, just wait until that dreary little scenario plays out.StephenB_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

I have to come clean here, StephenB and Pannen: I just wanted to see what would happen if I posted the Paul thesis. Glad to see you stepped up to the plate. touche on Singer. But very few people sing the praises of Singer. He's a nut. Though interestingly unlike many of religion's detractors he dosen't take the tack that religion has BAD morals from some mean deity. He simply criticizes (contradicting their take on things, it might seem) Christianity for bequeathing to us morals that are too numerous and invalid for a changing world. Like....well...our "outdated" notions of human and individualist rights and "dignity."S Wakefield Tolbert_{February 12, 2008
February
02
Feb
12
12
2008
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply