Creation: The Modern View Stepping Backward I
A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.
Two Approaches to Darwinism
I was really looking forward to getting into Information Theory and the laws, paradigms, and theorems governing Information. But recent events have opened my eyes to something. Some of my recent detractors have very obviously demonstrated that they are thoroughly ignorant of the actual claims made by modern Darwinists. This struck me as odd until it occurred to me that many people who profess to be practicing Christians have never actually read the Bible, beyond a verse here and there at Summer Camp, and are often shocked when confronted with the religious beliefs to which Christians are supposed to adhere. These people are known as immature Christians. It occurred to me that some spiritually immature Darwinists visiting here might be in the same boat.
“I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.” Charles Darwin writing about the religion of Darwinism
Since I really hate to repeat myself over and over and over, in an effort to head that off for now and in the future, I realize there is a simple need, here, that I can fulfill. I simply need to explain exactly what it is that Darwinists actually believe in order to alleviate a great deal of the bald ignorance recently displayed with respect to the actual claims made by modern Darwinists, and the religious tenets to which Darwinists are supposed to adhere and staunchly defend.
I determined that the easiest way to explain these beliefs is via a two-pronged approach. In today’s post, I will begin to examine the modern Darwinist beliefs and step all the way back to the first nanosecond in the life of the entire universe. Once completed, I will examine the birth of Darwinism (which preceded Charles Darwin by a number of years) what Darwin himself actually believed, and how the religion of Darwinism “evolved” into its present state of crisis.
Hopefully, when I have finished outlining the Darwinian bible, I can get back into the Information related material which I find simply fascinating.
The Modern View Stepping Backward: Evil Philosophical Bias?
To state the obvious and at risk of sounding redundant, the modern Darwinist believes in the Darwinian model of Evolution. The Darwinist doesn’t just think evolution is an interesting ideal His unshakable belief in the Darwinian evolutionary model amounts to a PHILOSPHY. The practice of that philosophy is what has been called, since about 1877, Social Darwinism of the variety practiced by such notables as Thomas Huxley, Herbert Spencer, Friedrich Nietzsche, Thomas Malthus, Francis Galton the father of Eugenics, and of course — Adolph Hitler despite all of his modern Darwinian apologists’ objections to that fact.
In the Social Darwinist’s heart and mind, the Darwinist has an unshakable faith that some kind of “evolution” can explain the existence of absolutely everything, and every kind of observed “evolution” is fallaciously and absent any logic or empirical science, equivocated with every kind of unobserved, envisioned, fictional, and theorized “evolution.” And every action of man and beast is then strained through the very restrictive colander of the Darwinian evolutionary model. Based on that foundational assumption, logic leaves the building, and Darwinists beg the question from there.
For the Darwinist, absolutely everything that takes place in nature, has ever possibly taken place, or could possibly take place in the future — including feelings, thoughts, dreams, desires, and emotions — everything is somehow dependent upon some kind of “evolution” or other. The word “evolution” must be tacked on to the end of common phrases and otherwise adequate nomenclature that describes all of nature and all of human activity and the Darwinist labels everything from common everyday happenings to imaginary mathematical models as this-or-that type of “evolution.”
Here’s a mild example of the absence of objectivity and logic to which the Darwinian worldview leads. A middle school textbook asks students, “Do you think human beings are still evolving?” Okay. Let me ask you a question. Are you still beating your children? In other words, this is a complex question fallacy that immediately begs the question. Do you see the complete lack of logic and objectivity this question demonstrates?
The Social Darwinist believes in survival of the fittest in the context of natural selection. Therefore, the male Darwinists understands that he must fight for and win copulations with as many possible suitable mates, and he must do so by any available means. It is all about survival of the fittest. Darwinists understand that the female Darwinist looks for traditionally masculine men (“cads”) during the most fertile times of her menstrual cycle, and relatively feminine men (“dads”) during the remainder of her cycle. While infidelity is the baseline for Darwinian males competing to rut with as many females in a lifetime as possible, these assumptions have led Darwinists to the conclusion that infidelity is also the natural state of women, and evolutionarily advantageous on the grounds that infidelity enables her to secure both the best genes from the “cads” and the best caregiver in the “dads” for her offspring. This Darwinian behavior is called the “sexy son hypothesis” and, no, I am not making ANY of this up.
“In a society where males compete with each other to be chosen as he-men by females, one of the best things a mother can do for her genes is to make a son who will turn out in his turn to be an attractive he-man. If she can ensure that her son is one of the fortunate few males who wins most of the copulations in the society when he grows up, she will have an enormous number of grandchildren.” Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
If the Darwinist doesn’t think he has a lot going for him by way of “fitness cost,” he is then permitted — based on Darwinian evolutionary principles — to use any environmental or personal advantage at hand, and may simply need to fall back to sexual coercion which Darwinists emphatically state is simply biologically driven and perfectly natural. You may know that better as “rape.” In the modern lexicon, this is also often referred to as “date-rape” depending upon the circumstances under which the rape takes place, as if making the violent act of rape sound more cute means it doesn’t really count as real rape.
“The males of most species—including humans—are usually more eager to mate than the females, and this enables females to choose among males who are competing with one another for access to them. But getting chosen is not the only way to gain sexual access to females. In rape, the male circumvents the female’s choice.” University of New Mexico biology professor Randy Thornhill and Colorado anthropologist Craig T. Palmer in their seminal work, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion, which takes the position that rape is a complex sexual act with strong roots in human evolution, emphasis added
Available environmental tools such as wealth, alcohol, and drugs can potentially supply the male Darwinist with a higher “fitness cost” than his competitors. Drugging his intended mate with Rohypnol, Ketamine, GHB, or some other “date-rape” drug such as very high doses of alcohol — any of which effectively remove his prospective mate’s cognitive ability to judge and discern that he is really just a “big loser” on the evolutionary scale — can assist him to come out on top as the most fit in the survival of the fittest model in the competition to rut.
The notion of rape as a Darwnian evolutionary imperative is accepted in evolutionary psychology and well documented in such works as A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion by Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, The Evolution Of Desire by David M. Buss, Sex, Power, Conflict: Evolutionary and Feminist Perspectives edited by Neil Malamuth, and is validated in articles like the very recent Slate piece: Darwin’s Rape Whistle: Have women evolved to protect themselves from sexual assault?
As you might suspect, I believe that people who hold to a Christian world view do not rape other human beings, nor do they “date-rape” them or any other “cutsie” nomenclature used as a euphemism to fallaciously equivocate the act of rape. In short, God says that causing human suffering is wrong — specifically sinful — and rape causes a great deal of human suffering. Someone who commits rape is, by definition and pretty elementary exclusive logical elimination, not practicing Christian principles.
Likewise, someone — husband or wife — who is sexually unfaithful to his or her spouse is committing what God categorizes as sin as well. While human beings are certainly sinful, and while Christians are certainly human beings, we can choose not to sin. We are often tempted, enticed, even encouraged to sin but we are almost never forced, coerced, or entrapped into committing sin. We almost always have a choice.
I believe I was divinely directed to meet the woman I love and who loves me. She believes that God brought us together through a really long chain of events that led to us meet each other at a very specific time in our lives and not one second sooner. The first time we ever held hands was to pray together and ask for a blessing for the first meal we ever shared. We got to know each other over the course of the coming days and we mutually verified that we were committed to the same life goals. We married, and we will stay married and completely in love with each other, and committed to each other and our children, for the rest of our natural lives.
These foundational disputes are just a few of the manifestations of the ultimate results that demonstrate the stark differences in the world views we practice in our diverse faiths.
“The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory, is it then a science or faith?” Charles Darwin writing about the religion of Darwinism
Darwinists believe in the Darwinian Evolutionary model at the cost of any open minded observation or investigation. Like Darwin himself, they believe “evolution” is a fact and — also like Darwin himself — they believe this based entirely on faith. They observe every observation and decide every decision based on a prejudicial philosophical bias, a preconceived notion that any and all evidence will ultimately support the Darwinian Evolutionary model. It is an a priori adherence to materialism, to naturalism, to Darwinism. It is a religious belief in only the natural world, that there is nothing outside of nature, nothing outside of the material, even though Darwinism relies upon evolutionary “magic” at it’s foundation and the mechanisms for any change rely upon immaterial elements.
The rigorous enforcement of any kind of investigation, scientific or otherwise, that methodically rules out any but material causes is rightly known as Methodological Naturalism or Methodological Materialism. It follows that since this principle does not allow for the supernatural, it is a world view that automatically excludes any kind of supernatural being. Therefore, Darwinists very often adopt a a very secular (read: agnostic) and very humanist (read: atheistic) religious attitude. The two very often go hand in hand. Many Darwinist scientist claim allegiance to Christianity but do not adhere to Christian principles in their thoughts. In reality, they are religiously agnostic. In short, the philosophical bias of Darwinism is an extremely closed-minded, illogical, conflicted, and limited way of perceiving the universe which practically eliminates any kind of objectivity when problem solving, and precludes an individual ability to think critically.
There exist evangelical Darwinists. These are Darwinists who believe a certain way and want others to embrace and adopt those beliefs. They proselytize and preach the religious dogma of Darwinism. A role model for this activity is Richard Dawkins who can only be described as an evangelical atheist and staunch defender of Darwinism.
Practically every book Dawkins writes, like The God Delusion, concerns the God in Whom he allegedly does not believe. This further demonstrates the mental conflict Darwinists suffer. Personally, I do not believe in, say, the Tooth Fairy. But I do not energetically make it my life’s mission to write weekly blog posts explaining why no one should believe in the Tooth Fairy and why anyone who does is simply an ignoramus. I have to ask if Dawkins really doesn’t believe in God, and believes God is a fiction, why can’t he ever seem to shut up about Him?
The late Carl Sagan was another evangelical, in his case an evangelical secular humanist, who probably most succinctly summed up philosophical bias of Darwinism:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.” Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, 1997 (Emphasis in the original)
Darwinism is the philosophical bias that has adversely affected science and culture for over 150 years. Its legacy includes such medical atrocities as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment that ended prematurely and only after public exposure in 1971. It adds problems to such medical fairy tales as vestigial organs which are still touted in 2011 as having validity even in allegedly educated circles.
“For the most part, doctors and civil servants simply did their jobs. Some merely followed orders, others worked for the glory of science.” Dr John Heller, Director of the Public Health Service’s Division of Venereal Diseases on the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
Darwinism is the sexist, racist philosophical bias that is the foundation for such social movements as the near extermination of Tasmanian native tribes by germ warfare and simple slaughter; Nazism, which resulted in the near extermination of an entire subculture of humanity with millions tortured, mutilated in obscene experiments, or outright mass murdered; and Eugenics, which recorded more than 64,000 forced sterilizations in the US alone, the last official state sanctioned forced sterilization taking place in 1981.
While a philosophy intrinsically cannot be characterized as evil, a philosophical bias certainly can be. Certainly the collected interpretations, conclusions, and rationalizations which are deftly wielded as the default whenever justification or rationalization is wanted for performing evil acts upon mankind — the so-called “Aboriginal” tribes who obviously “evolved separately” from the “original” and presumably favored races, and were therefore dangerous “sub-humans” closer to apes than man, a common pestilence like rats or other vermin — the so-called “final solution” to what the Nazis called the “Jewish Problem” because, as can be clearly seen, the Jews were sub-human filthy apes as stated directly in the Nazi propaganda of the day — or the understanding as recently as the 197o’s that black men in Alabama intentionally not treated for syphilis for over 40 years were not “patients” needing medical care but rather “subjects” in a health study of cases who were very close to actual humans, and therefore absent any rights afforded to “patients” — certainly that philosophical bias can and ought to be characterized as evil. History has shown that Social Darwinism often leads to unbelievable acts of evil on a grand scale, after all.
To judge it evil, one must have a moralistic frame of reference, and it is that morality that is absent in a relativistic worldview since morality is handed down by God. What I deem evil based on absolute truth a relativist sees is evil for me. What I deem good is good for me, but those are morally relative terms. A Social Darwinist might interpret acts that I deem as evil as biologically necessary, or perfectly natural and therefore somehow understandable in his framework and “right” and even required if you take things to extremes in the creation of a Malthusian worker class, or Hitler’s master race, or Nietzsche’s superman, or Galton’s purified genetic ancestors. A Social Darwinist, creating his own morality based on relative truth, would probably find my morality weak in the context of the survival of the fittest model.
Meanwhile, my personal history proves that removing the philosophical bias of Darwinism freed not only my mind to seek and learn and know and embrace real physical and metaphysical truth, but also freed my heart from the evil chains with which that bias bound it. I no longer find murder acceptable or necessary. I no longer believe that criminals who commit heinous crimes should be tortured. I no longer believe that life is cheap. I no longer believe that sex is an often pleasant biological function somewhere between a yawn and a belch. I am no longer limited in my quest for knowledge, being able to freely explore philosophies without bias even if they contradict my own such as the political essays of Ayn Rand or the philosophies of Bertrand Russell. I can consider their perspectives in a very open minded and free way that I could not before within the constraints of Darwinism.
Micro-evolution! Why is this called “evolution” in the first place?
Within the framework of the foundational philosophy, there are 6 tenets of Darwinism. The first and only tenet that is observed and confirmed by operational science is labeled “micro-evolution.” Darwinists believe that a series of biological imperatives driven by as yet unknown or unidentified “evolutionary forces” whatever that means — and it could have something to do with Dawkins’ utterly fictitious yet fully envisioned selfish-gene — will cause he and his mate to rut and possibly even reproduce; that the product of any successful reproduction is simply the result of something called “micro-evolution” which term presumably lends a great deal of Scientific sounding Authority and perhaps even some Weight to Darwinism as a whole, you see, because, in strict accordance with the Darwinian philosophical bias, absolutely everything is dependent upon some kind of “evolution” or another.
Normal people, those who are not influenced by an all-encompassing unargued philosophical bias call this phenomenon “parents having children.” But there is a little more to it, and the real gems are found in the field of “Evolutionary Psychology.”
So, the Darwinist believes that any unsuccessful reproduction effort can be discarded, preferably before coming to full term. The criteria for success is often a bit subjective, of course. Maybe the Darwinist wanted blond hair or blue eyes as was Hitler’s vision, but at the end of the day we aren’t talking about an actual human life anyway, we are merely talking about a potential “clever ape” since we are all, according to Darwinism, merely products of random chance and rearranged pond scum imbued with instinct.
Upon successful reproduction, the female Darwinist very often has no more use for the male Darwinist and does her level best to alienate him and separate him from his offspring, especially if he is a cad since she, at that point, needs a dad. The male Darwinist believes it is fitting to dispose of his mate and abandon any offspring to the female’s care while he goes about rutting with many more different mates. Unfortunately for him, the court system in our culture often hangs on to a significant portion of his wallet for any offspring. Come to think of it, this is probably another argument for pre-birth termination, in the mind of the male Darwinist.
I believe that my wife and I can cleave to one another and become “one” as in one flesh and one spirit. I believe that we can be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. I believe that we do not engage in “micro-evolution” but rather we have something called “children” who are often referred to as “blessings from God” and that they have absolutely NO more information in their genetic code than exactly half of my chromosomes and half of my wife’s chromosomes. NO additional complex biological information at all has been added to the human genome in this act of reproduction that has absolutely nothing to do with “evolution” or “micro-evolution” whatsoever. It is just parenting children. That’s all.
I believe that if there are complications during pregnancy and our child is born, say 12 weeks early, that we can anoint him with oil, lay hands on him, pray over him, and love him as only parents can love their child and that we would never, ever under any circumstances consider abortion as an option, because I believe that word is just a Scientific and Authoritative sounding synonym, rooted in a Darwinist world view, for simple murder. I believe that loving God, my spouse, and my children in that order for as long as I draw breath will result in better, smarter, happier, healthier human beings.
The Darwinist believes that when his parents begin to become a “drain on society” that they no longer serve a purpose and should therefore probably be euthenized. There is Darwinian precedent because, after all, if the surviving Darwinist inherits, this would probably give him an improved “fitness cost” in the whole survival of the fittest scheme of things. Certainly, it would prove to be an evolutionary advantage.
Not surprisingly, I believe that all life is precious. I believe that my parents — or yours for that matter — are owed honor, even in their declining years, and would never consider murdering my parents, or yours, whether such murder was sanctioned by fallible man or not.
Historically, a Darwinist is the ultimate racist and sexist. Simply put, he believes that inequalities can be drawn along racial lines and that males are categorically superior to females. The complete title of Darwin’s racist book is On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
For over 150 years, Darwinists have resorted to things like measuring skulls, brains, charting heredity, and analyzing skin tones — all with the primary goal of declaring that those of western and northern European descent have higher IQs than other whites and ANY people of color have much lower IQs.
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.” Charles Darwin writing on the lower races and the so-called “Aboriginal” tribes in Australia and Tasmania
Meanwhile, a plank of evolution is that bigger, stronger, hunter, fighter male is much more “evolved” than weaker, smaller, domestic, nurturing female who Darwin, at various times and in various ways in his writings, compared directly to stupid dogs, brainless sows, and mindless cows. Worse (from his point of view) he compared women to the “lower races.”
“It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man: but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization.” Charles Darwin expressing his egalitarian views of the fairer sex in The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 1896
In contrast, I personally believe that while Adam was God’s perfect creation, Eve was His masterpiece. Both men and women were created in the very image of God, meaning it takes both sexes to mirror His image. Being created in the image of God, a sincere woman represents everything a man wants and needs in a helper, comforter, and lifelong companion and a loving man represents everything a woman could desire for her spiritual, emotional, and physical well-being.
In scripture, we are informed that women repeatedly rescue Moses from death from the time he is a helpless infant. A woman was chosen to usher Jesus Christ, God’s only begotten Son, into our plane of existence when God could have easily manifested His Son some other way without involving anyone. The first witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection were women, showing that God intended women to be seen as trustworthy. 1 Corinthians 7:4 Reads, “Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does,” which gives women complete authority over a man’s body within the boundaries of holy matrimony (Note to Christian wives: remind your husband of that authority the next time he doesn’t want to go to the doctor!).
Furthermore, I believe that God created man, male and female created He them, in His image created He them. I don’t believe that the color of a person’s skin has anything to say about what Martin Luther King, Jr. called “the content of his character. ” In other words, I believe our bodies are mere temples for our immortal souls. I believe in ONE race, the HUMAN race, that we are ALL the sons and daughters of Adam, that God has made of ONE blood all nations of men.
The Truth
Darwinists might sneer at my so-called parochial ignorance and laugh at my naivety in not wanting to murder the unborn, the infirm, the ill, and the aged. They might feel that I have an overdeveloped sense of nobility in that I do not support the forced sterilization of anyone, regardless of their race, alleged IQ, or crimes. They might laugh behind their hands at the notion that I feel it is my duty here on earth to HELP those who may not have the same advantages with which I have been blessed, instead of trying my level best to bring them additional suffering in order to bring myself an additional advantage.
That’s fine with me.
While Darwinists may deceive themselves into believing that their philosophy leaves them enlightened and unfettered, I know that my philosophy is one of true enlightenment and freedom. The Darwinian evolutionary model espouses a philosophy of excess, injustice, cowardace, flight, selfishness, impatience, unkindness, and personal agrandizement. The Christian faith model is based on prudence, justice, restraint (chastity, temperance), courage, perseverance (fortitude, diligence), charity, patience (being slow to anger), kindness, and humility.
The philosophical bias of the Darwinian evolutionary model depends upon eschewing faith, an existence without hope of eternity, and self-gratification or self-love. This is counter to the Christian ethos of faith in the word of God, hope for eternal life, and loving others. Faith, Hope, and Love — these three — and the greatest of these is Love.
All of these higher and more noble characteristics are reflections of the nature of our Creator. And that Creator is the one who created everything by the power of His will. And that Designer is the one who killed me and resurrected me without any of the sins of my past, an absolutely new creation. And that almighty God, by the power of His word, took on human form and became a living sacrifice in atonement for my once very wicked ways. And that amazing Healer rose from the grave and sent a helper to live in the temple of my body. And that Redeemer can do the very same thing for you if you don’t know Him. He can do it RIGHT NOW because absolutely NOTHING is beyond His power.
I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.
God Bless you and yours.
Gregg
Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism
Pin It
oh dearie me.
I used to have one of those premature babies. Let me think what I did with it. Did I bring it home from the NICU? it doesn’t seem to be in the house anywhere.
.
Making observations of nature is not the same thing as thinking people are supposed to use the workings of nature as guides for human behavior.
Your idea of who a ‘Darwinist’ is and how he behaves and what he belives is made up by you and has nothing to do with actual people who think evolution is a reasonable explanation. there is no Darwinist religion or creed.
Yet that is the basis for Social Darwinism.
A great number of “Evolutionary Psychologists” and Sociologists who have studied Social Darwinism disagree with you and tend to produce rather lengthy books that stand in refutation of your position.
Having gone through the schooling for a psychology degree, I have to agree, there are plenty of people who have given their “creed” for their stance.
Is not a religion a belief that someone puts their faith in? In general, of course. So I tend to believe that Darwinism can in fact be a religion…
I’m not familiar with this area (psychological writings on social darwinism).
But it is clear to me that you can think evolution is true without being a social darwinist. (Are there still social darwinists?)
It’s also clear that whether evolution is true is unrelated to the use people make of their understanding of evolution.
It’s also clear to me that people in the past sometimes started with their own prejudices that existed long before Darwin and pasted their understanding of evolution onto their pre-existing prejudices.
It’s also clear that many times in history people have used religion, political ideas and self-interest to do many bad things to other people.
Gregg,
Brilliant! I made your post the star on my blog this week. When I find a great personal blog I usually copy one post, highlight the author, put the blog on my links and urge folks to go read it. So hopefully lots of new readers will come and read this blog. I am certainly impressed!
Kimbal aka radar
Gregg, “Social Darwinism” evolutionary theory.
Your pal Radar can verify that I’m an active defender of evolutionary theory, as will my website. And I don’t fit your imaginary ‘profile of a darwinist’ in any way.
Tell me in what ways you specifically differ, please. For example, do you believe that convicted murderers should sometimes be put to death? Do you believe abortion is sometimes necessary? Do you believe in a life-long monogamous relationship? If so, have you ever engaged in premarital or extramarital sexual activity? Do you believe that IQ is a valid measure of human intelligence? Do you believe that there is such a thing as absolute truth or can truth be relative? Do you believe in the supernatural or are you a strict materialist?
.
Thanks for your comment and God Bless.
Gregg
Kimbal,
.
Thank you for the recognition. I pray that my little missive amounts to a blessing for you and your loved ones as well as your readers whether they are supporters OR detractors.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The first part of this provision “Congress shall make no law” is known as the Establishment Clause, and the second part “the free exercise thereof” is known as the Free Exercise Clause.
.
Although the First Amendment only refers to Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses also binding on the states.
.
The US Supreme Court has never defined what a religion is, they have only ever defined what does NOT qualify as a religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman was the 1971 case that set this exclusionary precedent, and thus “test” to see if a belief must be disqualified as a religion, is called the “Lemon test.” The lemon test determines the constitutionality of any requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
This test is deemed valid even though there exists no reliable legal definition for religion. According to experts, there are two basic approaches to legally defining religion: a substantive approach, which focuses on the content of belief; and a functional approach, which focuses on what the belief system does for the individual or community.
.
.
The U.S. Supreme Court first cited Secular Humanism as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488) under the FREE EXERCISE clause. And while the Court has repeatedly upheld the precedent that Secular Humanism qualifies as a religioin under the FREE EXERCISE clause, they have never acknowledged it under the ESTABLISHMENT clause. For instance, why is secular humanism the default doctrine in public schools, but other mainstream religions are vigorously excluded?
.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
hd, you ask, “(Are there still social darwinists?)”
.
I would ASSUME that anyone who writes books explaining things like RAPE as a simple biological imperative on the basis of evolutionary theory, or anyone who writes articles suggesting that women are “still evolving to protect themselves from rape” would qualify as a Social Darwinist. I would ASSUME that anyone who believes that drugging someone in order to “date rape” her (or him as has happened recently in the military) is practicing a tenet of Social Darwinism. I would ASSUME that anyone who believes in sterilizing human beings to “improve the gene pool” ala Margaret Sanger would qualify as a Social Darwinist. I believe the founder and the committee responsible for the appropriately named “Darwin Awards” are practicing Social Darwinism.
.
These are just a few examples that spring immediately to mind.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
hd — you assert that my claims are “made up” and that “there is no Darwinist religion or creed.”
.
Are you really arguing that Darwinism is a faith system? I know that “bandwagon” isn’t a valid premise to conclude truth, but you do realize that I am not alone in my belief that it qualifies as a religion. In fact, I would say it beats the acid test more strongly than some mainstream belief structures that qualify as a religion in every recognized legal sense.
.
Okay. Try this.
.
Imagine a religion whose founder claimed to be scientific, its holy book is a treatise with a supposedly scientifically founded message, and its devotees are influential people who think of themselves as learned and/or enlightened. This religion has penetrated into almost every civilization, and is known in every school of thought and every ideology; its adherents allegedly number in the millions occupying every field of specialization – history, sociology, philosophy, psychology, biology, etc.
.
That “religion” is known as “Scientology” with it’s holy book, “Dianetics.” You probably don’t personally believe in the tenets preached by Scientology any more than I believe in the tenets preached by Modern Darwinism, but do you recognize Scientology as a religion?
.
Look at that paragraph where we are imagining Scientology as a religion. Now, imagine a religion whose founder claimed to be scientific, its holy book is a treatise with a supposedly scientifically founded message, and its devotees are influential people who think of themselves as learned and/or enlightened. This religion has penetrated into almost every civilization, and is known in every school of thought and every ideology; its adherents allegedly number in the (hundreds of) millions occupying every field of specialization – history, sociology, philosophy, psychology, biology, etc. and you have — Modern Darwinism.
.
What differentiates a religion from, say, science? Let’s assert post modernism and use the logic proposed by Kant. Let’s assert that Science is knowledge whereas religion is belief. Being that I am capable of critical thought, I am also capable of recognizing that “belief” is much more often supported by knowledge than delineated and excluded by it, but I will cede this point for the sake of argument. Now, what do we KNOW about “evolution” in general and what do we BELIEVE as supplicants or DISBELIEVE as Darwinian infidels?
.
What created the universe? Darwinists BELIEVE it was Cosmic Evolution — there is no scientific knowledge that this is true.
What formed the stars? Darwinists BELIEVE it was Stellar Evolution — there is no scientific knowledge that this is true.
What formed the heavier elements? Darwinists BELIEVE it was Chemical Evolution — there is no scientific knowledge that this is true.
What created life on earth? Darwinists BELIEVE it was Primordial Molecular Evolution — there is no scientific knowledge that this is true.
What led to every diverse form of life on earth? Darwinists BELIEVE it was Macro-Evolution — there is no scientific knowledge that this is true.
.
How do these belief structures NOT qualify as religious beliefs? They are explicitly absent of KNOWLEDGE are they not?
.
Does Darwinism support a central dogma? Well, yes. Francis Crick first used the term “central dogma” to describe molecular evolution because it was a widely accepted idea for which there was very little real supporting evidence… kind of like how it remains today. If you recall, The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed transfer of sequential information, essentially asserting that information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid. If true, this presents some rather irrefutable and insurmountable road blocks to the BELIEF in some kind of materialistic Abiogenesis, does it not? And when one is able to take it on FAITH that it happened anyway, how is that not FAITH in some kind of supernatural/natural event?
.
Does Darwinism have a creed? Yes. It is that everything in nature can be explained by materialism, is it not?
.
Academics who study religion divide them into three broad categories: world religions, a term which refers to transcultural, international faiths, indigenous religions, which refers to smaller, culture-specific religious groups, and new religious movements, which refers to recently developed faiths. I would logically classify Darwinism as a world religion since it claims exclusive understanding of all origins and exclusive hold over all truth for all people.
.
The study of comparative religion shows that a large number of superstitious religions have been influenced by one another, and many similarities can be detected in their beliefs and doctrines. There are monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and there are polytheisms such as Shinto and Hindu. There are pagan religions that worship nature like Wicca and Druidism. I would logically classify Darwinism as a pagan religion since it holds nature exclusively and the material world only as supreme in understanding all knowledge.
.
On what basis do you feel Darwinism does not constitute a world view, a belief system, and therefore a religion? Does acceptance of these facts present too many obstacles that you simply wish not to recognize for personal or political reasons?
.
God Bless,
Gregg
You said that I “made up” the notion that Darwinism was a religion. Let’s assume that that isn’t simply an ad hominem fallacy, and look at your actual point. An argument should be critiqued based on it’s conclusions, after all, not based on who stated the conclusions. The question at hand then becomes, “Does Darwinism qualify as a religion?”
.
In order to answer that question, it is first necessary to determine what qualifies anything as a religion. Therefore, let’s agree on our terms.
.
I think at a very high level, any pluralist might have to identify aspects of religion as follows:
.
Any practice to which someone or some group is seriously devoted.
Any ongoing ideological practice in which one engages in order to shape his or her character or improve personality traits.
A collection of practices, based on beliefs, and teachings, all of which are highly valued or considered sacred or sacrosanct to its adherents and practitioners.
.
Note: I do not wish to speak for you inappropriately, so please correct me if my assumptions are out of line or incorrect in general or in detail.
.
That said, I think you and I can mutually agree that these pluralist observations are “aspects” of both Christianity and Darwinism.
.
A more specific look at aspects of the religions under discussion (or in question, in your case):
.
A set of beliefs (a belief structure) concerning the cause, nature, and/or purpose of the universe, especially when considering the creation of or purpose for reality as perceived by human beings whether that creation was or was not the result of supernatural activity, and usually involving devotional and/or ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs that is the logical result of coming to conclusions based on those beliefs.
.
I am pretty sure we can GENERALLY agree that these observations apply equally to Christianity and Darwinism, although you might take me to task on the “moral code” aspect of this definition. I could cite Social Darwinists in history and in the modern day to support my point and I am not sure we would ever agree in sum, but likely in spirit. It could be that you will object to my use of the word “moral” followed by code. Please give me whatever input you feel is appropriate.
.
Regardless, here are some conclusions based on the above set of premises:
.
Based on my religious understanding, I can fully believe in the Biblical account of creation, and the purpose for all life and everything in the universe. I mark this understanding by engaging in devotional activity (prayer, singing, worship, regular attendance at religious gatherings), and live according to a moral code that involves loving my Creator above all else, practising stewardship of that which has been given to me as my responsibility, and loving my neighbors as myself. I have the hope that when my material body dies, my immortal soul will live on eternally in the supernatural plane that supercedes this material plane and that I will be in the presence of the supernatural being I know as God. I was created to fulfill the purposes that God has in mind for me and I have been granted the free will to accept or reject that purpose and my ultimate destiny in consequence.
.
By contrast, a Darwinist can take an almost polarized opposing view. Based on his religious understanding, can BELIEVE that the universe just happened randomly, that life just happened randomly, that there is no God, that there is no purpose to existence, and that there are no goal-directed forces of any kind. He observes his religion by acts of devotion including appending the word “evolution” to common everyday occurrences. He often creates or admires spectacular artwork, multimedia presentations, and summarizing icons that find their way into every possible media channel from museums to cable outlets to textbooks to the web. These icons do not exist in nature, have never been observed to have existed in all of history, and have never been shown demonstrated by operational or empirical science. Yet they form the foundation of “truth claims” in Darwinism. The Darwinist can believe that when he dies, he will simply be dead and his body will rot in the dirt. He can believe, therefore, that there is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life of any kind, and no free will because there is only randomness in the universe with no overarching supernatural being handing down morality or legislating how we behave toward one another.
.
This last part essentially paraphrases Dr. William B. Provine, Ph. D. of Cornell University who said, “There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.”
.
I have to note that the naturalistic worldview has not actually been demonstrated by the empirical evidence. It has been assumed from the beginning, as a premise, biasing the final interpretation of any evidence. For me, and many others, there is no compelling reason to believe naturalism. It is, after all, ultimately not based on the empirical evidence. It has presumed its conclusion in its premise.
.
In summary, the Neo-Darwinian conclusion about the process of what Darwinists always generically refer to as “evolution” is based on a premise of “metaphysical” naturalism. That is a religious belief: that there are no causes except matter in mindless motion.
.
In your opinion, is this conclusion true?
.
I have already described the “Lemon test” employed by the Supreme Court to disqualify something as a religion. A cursory examination of the facts at hand and the three pronged approach of the Lemon test demonstrates that the US Supreme Court would not exclude Darwinism as a religion.
.
In your opinion, what disqualifies Darwinism as a religion?
.
God Bless,
Gregg
“How do these belief structures NOT qualify as religious beliefs? They are explicitly absent of KNOWLEDGE are they not?”
.
As I understand it, they are what could be called “informed guesses”. They are arrived it by the process of induction, based on what is observable today. They tend to be clearly labeled as theories, seeing as in the absence of a time machine, we can not go back and see for ourselves first-hand what actually happened.
.
They do differ from religious beliefs, though, in that they proceed from observable evidence and do not add revealed knowledge.
“In your opinion, what disqualifies Darwinism as a religion?”
.
Could you please define what you understand Darwinism to be? It’s used to describe a certain understanding of evolution, but you seem to on the one hand equate Darwinism with all atheism and/or all metaphysical naturalism and on the other hand with some rather extreme views that are, in my experience, extremely uncommon among atheists.
.
“In summary, the Neo-Darwinian conclusion about the process of what Darwinists always generically refer to as “evolution” is based on a premise of “metaphysical” naturalism. That is a religious belief: that there are no causes except matter in mindless motion.”
.
No, the conclusion is based on methodological naturalism, not metaphysical naturalism, as it does not exclude the possibility of the existence of anything supernatural. Perhaps you are aware that there are also many people who believe in some kind of divine being who also accept the theory of evolution as the most likely scientific explanation for the origin of species.
How does one delineate an unreasonable and fanatical FAITH that a conclusion reached entirely by inductive reasoning is TRUTH from a tenet of a religious dogma?
.
I’m sorry, and really this is not meant to be hostile or confrontational, but Darwinism proceeds from observable evidence? Like “We observe that the universe exists, therefore it must have evolved!” Like that kind of observation?
.
That somehow does not qualify as a religious belief as opposed to something like, “We observe that the universe exists, therefore it must have created by a supernatural being.”
.
Is your litmus test of a religious tenet the belief — or lack of one — in the supernatural?
.
If that is the case, then like the US Supreme Court which deems Secular Humanism a valid religion, I must disagree with your premise and restate that the naturalistic worldview has not been demonstrated by the empirical evidence. It has been assumed from the beginning, as a premise, biasing the final interpretation of any evidence. For me, and many others, there is no compelling reason to believe naturalism. It is, after all, ultimately not based on the empirical evidence. It has presumed its conclusion in its premise.
.
It is not scientific, and the Darwinian bias is completely irrelevant to operational science. It is a philosophical belief structure based on a secular and naturalistic assumption that amounts to a religious belief since it largely lacks evidence.
.
Allow me to mirror it. I wasn’t present at the time of creation. I assume God exists based on evidence that I recognize as valid. I therefore assume God created the universe.
.
None of what you said disqualifies Darwinism as a religion. In fact, it supports it.
.
Thank you for your comment and God Bless,
Gregg
You: “Could you please define what you understand Darwinism to be?”
.
I feel I have done a fairly good job of doing that in the last several hundred thousand words over the last year and a half. What do you think I think it is? What is your bone of contention with what you feel my definition or understanding is?
.
You: “No, the conclusion is based on methodological naturalism, not metaphysical naturalism, as it does not exclude the possibility of the existence of anything supernatural.”
.
Perhaps I am unclear on the current definition of methodological naturalism. It is my understanding that methodological naturalism (aka methodological materialism) methodically EXCLUDES any but natural and material causes. That would definitively exclude any supernatural causes.
.
Thank you for your comment and God Bless,
Gregg
“What is your bone of contention with what you feel my definition or understanding is?
.
It seems to me – and perhaps I’m wrong in this – that the hypothetical Darwinist you describe here is rather poorly represented in the actual population, if he exists at all. When you write something like “The Social Darwinist believes in survival of the fittest in the context of natural selection. Therefore, the male Darwinists understands that he must fight for and win copulations with as many possible suitable mates, and he must do so by any available means.”, you run the risk of posing a strawman argument.
.
“Perhaps I am unclear on the current definition of methodological naturalism. It is my understanding that methodological naturalism (aka methodological materialism) methodically EXCLUDES any but natural and material causes. That would definitively exclude any supernatural causes.”
.
I don’t think the definition has changed, really. Methodological naturalism limits itself to the examination of natural phenomena, while metaphysical naturalism expresses the belief that the only thing that exists anywhere at all is what is natural, i.e. that the supernatural categorically does not exist. The theory of evolution is the result of methodological naturalism, but makes no claim to metaphysical naturalism, i.e. that the supernatural does not or can not exist.
.
As a result, it is possible to accept the theory of evolution as an explanation of certain natural phenomena without subscribing to metaphysical naturalism, which indeed many do.
.
P.S. Thank you for fixing the formatting in my comment. Hope it works this time.
“How does one delineate an unreasonable and fanatical FAITH that a conclusion reached entirely by inductive reasoning is TRUTH from a tenet of a religious dogma?”
.
First of all, for the purposes of a rational discussion, it would be very helpful if you left descriptors like “unreasonable and fanatical” by the wayside.
.
If by Darwinism you mean some mixture of atheism and an acceptance of the theory of evolution, it is not a conclusion reached entirely by inductive reasoning. The induction part referred to your statements re. ultimate origins.
.
“I’m sorry, and really this is not meant to be hostile or confrontational, but Darwinism proceeds from observable evidence?”
.
You’re not being hostile or confrontational. It’s a simple question. But since “Darwinism” seems to be a rather flexible term, I’d rather just say that (a) the theory of evolution is based on observable evidence, and (b) atheism itself does not stray outside of observable evidence.
.
“Like “We observe that the universe exists, therefore it must have evolved!” Like that kind of observation?”
.
No, since that would be a strawman argument. More like observations like “the universe is expanding, therefore it must have been smaller in the past”. That kind of observation.
.
“That somehow does not qualify as a religious belief as opposed to something like, “We observe that the universe exists, therefore it must have created by a supernatural being.””
.
Exactly. Observing that the Universe is expanding and tracking this backwards using observable evidence to calculate that, given current evidence, X number of years ago all matter in the universe was in a single location is a very different thing from the non sequitur that you propose here. I’m assuming that you’re trying to put religion in a good light here, but the observation that the universe exists does not lead to the logical conclusion that a supernatural being created it. (Which doesn’t mean that that’s NOT the case, it just means that it’s not a logical conclusion.)
.
“Is your litmus test of a religious tenet the belief — or lack of one — in the supernatural?”
.
As I said in my previous comment, it’s the addition of revealed knowledge.
.
“If that is the case, then like the US Supreme Court which deems Secular Humanism a valid religion, I must disagree with your premise and restate that the naturalistic worldview has not been demonstrated by the empirical evidence. It has been assumed from the beginning, as a premise, biasing the final interpretation of any evidence. For me, and many others, there is no compelling reason to believe naturalism. It is, after all, ultimately not based on the empirical evidence. It has presumed its conclusion in its premise.”
.
1. Since that was not the case (see the beginning of the paragraph), then you seem to be replying to a different premise.
.
2. What do you think metaphysical naturalism is based on, if not empirical evidence?
.
“It is not scientific,”
.
Metaphysical naturalism is philosophical. Methodological naturalism is scientific – actually, it’s the basis of all science as practiced by people of all faiths or of no faith.
.
“and the Darwinian bias is completely irrelevant to operational science. It is a philosophical belief structure based on a secular and naturalistic assumption that amounts to a religious belief since it largely lacks evidence.”
.
The theory of evolution itself lacks no evidence. Is evolution used in operational science? I’ve seen the principles used in genetic algorithms, for one.
.
“Allow me to mirror it. I wasn’t present at the time of creation. I assume God exists based on evidence that I recognize as valid. I therefore assume God created the universe.”
.
1. What is the evidence you mention?
.
2. Your logic appears to be faulty here. You’re stating two assumptions in a row, with a “therefore” in the second one. I realize you’re trying to mirror an opposing viewpoint, perhaps in an attempt to caricature it or show how it doesn’t work. But it’s not an accurate reflection.
.
“None of what you said disqualifies Darwinism as a religion. In fact, it supports it.””
.
Again, I’m not 100% sure of how you define “Darwinism”, but from what you’ve said so far I don’t see how Darwinism features revealed knowledge. If you want to broaden the definition of religion to include any belief system (say, in democracy, communism etc.), then you can do so, but it would simply make the term “religion” less meaningful.
You: “[In] the hypothetical Darwinist you describe…you run the risk of posing a strawman argument.”
.
This is not a position I made up to burn in effigy. The very next paragraph from the one you reference is a direct, word for word quote from Richard Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene in which he summarizes and encapsulates the philosophy I describe.
.
You: “…metaphysical naturalism expresses the belief that the only thing that exists anywhere at all is what is natural, i.e. that the supernatural categorically does not exist.”
.
Yet the requirement to believe that a secular guess is a fact is present. Believing in something entirely on faith is something I simply must describe as religion. That would be a belief in the metaphysical and it follows that to believe this article of faith occurred naturally is metaphysical naturalism.
.
You: “…it is possible to accept the theory of evolution as an explanation of certain natural phenomena without subscribing to metaphysical naturalism…”
.
Are you describing what I can only now describe as agnostic naturalism? If so, what alternatives are open-mindedly held in focus should naturalism not ultimately satisfy?
.
Thanks again for your comments and God bless,
Gregg
If what you deem as “revealed knowledge” is your litmus test for what is and is not a religion, then we can never agree.
“This is not a position I made up to burn in effigy. The very next paragraph from the one you reference is a direct, word for word quote from Richard Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene in which he summarizes and encapsulates the philosophy I describe.”
.
Since you term it a “philosophy” here, I suspect that the confusion arises between Dawkins describing an aspect of evolution and you seeing it as him prescribing a certain behavior. Presenting a description of something that occurs in nature as a moral prescription is a kind of strawman argument, as you’re pretending something is being said that isn’t in fact being said and then arguing against it.
.
“Yet the requirement to believe that a secular guess is a fact is present.”
.
How is that present as a requirement? And what is the secular guess you’re referring to?
.
“Believing in something entirely on faith is something I simply must describe as religion.”
.
What is it in metaphysical naturalism that is believed entirely on faith?
.
“Are you describing what I can only now describe as agnostic naturalism?”
.
No, theistic evolution.
.
Incidentally, I can’t respond to your last comment in our conversation upthread as there is no reply button in your post. Is that because the maximum depth of the comments has been reached?
I have no way to ask Mr. Dawkins about his comments. My interpretation of them is that they are prescriptive..
.
“In a society where males compete with each other to be chosen as he-men by females, one of the best things a mother can do for her genes is to make a son who will turn out in his turn to be an attractive he-man. If she can ensure that her son is one of the fortunate few males who wins most of the copulations in the society when he grows up, she will have an enormous number of grandchildren.” Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
.
That doesn’t seem like he is talking about the animal kingdom since he is specifically discussing a “society” and thus this is a prescription in Social Darwinism which is the bint of his book, really. The emphasized words are the basis of my interpretation as “should” and “ought” and you can also do an internet search on “the sexy son hypothesis” for more information that lends my position credence.
.
Darwinism is rife with secular guesses about how miraculous events could have taken place naturally. The secular guesses for the creation event of the universe include things like quantum fluctuations, infinite universes (and a few collided forming ours), and so forth. There is nothing that is KNOWN but there is an absolute and unshakable FAITH that it was not a supernatural event. Secular guesses about the creation of heavy chemicals, the formation of stars, the creation of life on tis planet. You get the picture.
.
Tell me about the model for a theistic evolutionist, please.
.
And yes, the depth is 6 comments deep, I think before there is no more room.
Gregg, may I ask where you obtained this particular quote? I copied one of the sentences and searched for it on Google, and was quickly rewarded with a generous excerpt on Google Books. This makes it easy to look at the quote in context.
.
“I have no way to ask Mr. Dawkins about his comments. My interpretation of them is that they are prescriptive..”
.
I don’t know how much you know about “The Selfish Gene”, but it is not a moral treatise on Social Darwinism. It is about biology, first and foremost, and it is very much descriptive, not prescriptive.
.
“That doesn’t seem like he is talking about the animal kingdom since he is specifically discussing a “society””
.
If you look at his quote in context, you’ll see that it is in a biological context. The word “society” has a distinct meaning in biology: “a closely integrated group of social organisms of the same species exhibiting division of labor” (dictionary.com). So the use of the word “society” here doesn’t automatically denote human society, and when you look at the context, it clearly doesn’t.
.
It’s perfectly understandable that you haven’t run across this use of the word “society” before – it’s rare that it’s used this way, of course, but when you look at “The Selfish Gene”, it’s consistently used like this. Can you see how your interpretation that he was talking about human society may have led you to a mistaken assumption about the context of the quote?
.
“The emphasized words are the basis of my interpretation as “should” and “ought” and you can also do an internet search on “the sexy son hypothesis” for more information that lends my position credence”
.
I’ve looked up “sexy son hypothesis”, but I don’t see any reference that supports its interpretation as a moral ideal. Did you have a specific link in mind?
.
“Darwinism is rife with secular guesses about how miraculous events could have taken place naturally.”
It’s not exactly fair to put Darwin’s name on something that has very little to do with what he was talking about. Darwin’s theory of evolution followed the process of forming a hypothesis and then seeking confirmation. Darwin and other scientists have followed this process, which is what over the course of time has led to what we now know as the modern synthesis (the theory of evolution as it’s understood today).
.
The reason I call the association to what you’re talking about here “unfair” is because you’re talking about origins, which are not the subject of Darwin’s work (other than the origin of species, of course).
.
But to explore what you’re saying: you’re talking about “secular guesses about how miraculous events could have taken place naturally”. You’re using two somewhat loaded words here: “guesses” and “miraculous”.
.
I’ll deal with the second one first, and the first in my response below. When you call the events in question “miraculous”, you are in effect begging the question, i.e. taking the unproven assumption that these events are miracles (by which I assume you mean an event with a supernatural cause, right?) as a foregone conclusion. Since you’ll hopefully agree that such begging of the question would be a logical fallacy, I’d appreciate it if we could remove said fallacy and have the phrase read “how events could have taken place naturally”.
.
“The secular guesses for the creation event of the universe include things like quantum fluctuations, infinite universes (and a few collided forming ours), and so forth. ”
.
“Creation event” is another instance of begging the question, so it would be best – in the interest of not including logical fallacies in our discussion – to exclude this.
.
Now, “secular guesses”: I think it’s fair to say that nothing is KNOWN about the origin of the universe (if indeed it did have an origin). The same would go, say, for the origin of chemicals, if one wants to propose such a thing, etc. It’s something that we, as humans, simply don’t (and can’t) ultimately KNOW.
.
And yet mankind is filled with curiosity about this. It sparks our imagination and our interest. I would call the origin narrative posed in Genesis an early attempt at an explanation for origins – of all kinds of things: the world, life, light, darkness, animals, plants, the sexes, the reason childbirth is painful etc. This explanation was posed by humans who weren’t necessarily less intelligent than you or I, but who had considerably less scientific knowledge to build on. Given that the person who allegedly wrote Genesis (Moses) had no direct evidence of this, we can call this a “guess” of sorts on his part (though I’m sure it was part of the folklore of the time).
.
Now let’s move on to what you call “secular guesses”: these propositions are perhaps guesses to the extent that we don’t always have direct ways to test them, given the inconvenient lack of a time machine or similar device. They are, however, consistent with and in some cases extrapolated from the observable evidence we have in front of us today. So they’re not exactly the same as an actual “guess” in the sense of simply naming a number at random, for example.
.
They’re very much an educated guess in that they need to fit in with all the information we have available. Information that wasn’t available to our ancestors long ago. Note also that if these guesses/theories/hypotheses contradict data currently available, another scientist will most likely come along and propose another theory that will fit in with the data at some point. We can’t pretend to have an understanding of the universe yet – as it turns out, the more we know, the more questions we have. But the “guesses” we have line up more and more with the evidence over time.
.
As for them being “secular”, I suppose this gets to a part of the discussion that you may not like, and I apologize for that in advance since I don’t want to make you uncomfortable (if that is indeed the case). There shouldn’t be any need for discomfort, however. The fact of the matter is that science can not explore or include any supernatural input simply because it is unobservable.
.
Like these “secular guesses” you mention, the supernatural can not be tested, but unlike the “secular guesses”, there is no actual observable data supplied by the supernatural that can be included in such projections in the first place.
.
“There is nothing that is KNOWN but there is an absolute and unshakable FAITH that it was not a supernatural event.”
.
Well, there is the knowledge that there is no empirical evidence that, say, the origin of the universe (if there was such a thing) was a supernatural event. It’s not unreasonable to conclude from a lack of evidence for X that X does not exist. I wouldn’t exactly park that under “faith”, since it is a logical conclusion.
.
“Tell me about the model for a theistic evolutionist, please.”
.
I’m not sure I understand the question. A model for a theistic evolutionist? I roughly know what their beliefs are, but I don’t know if I can define it as a model. I have however recently run across a devout Christian who is what I would call a theistic evolutionist. This guy..
.
Thanks for clarifying about the level of depths of the comments.
I’m glad a more articulate person than I am has joined the discussion. These particular topics are not my favorites and I get swamped by all the points raised at one time.
.
I do want to make a point. You mentioned the phrase ‘date-rape’ as being cutesy. I think that is a misunderstanding. The phrase is in one sense simply a descriptive term, but in another sense it is the opposite of cutesy. It acknowledges that rape can happen even in the context of a date. Without this context, a woman might have felt her claim of rape might not have been taken seriously if it had happened when she had chosen to go out with someone. I think this dismissal did happen to some women in the past.
.
I don’t think the men who used drugs to coerce women were motivated by their concerns about the future of the human gene pool, and I don’t think you do either.
Gregg,
do you understand that some of what you describe here as “Darwinist” beliefs are not beliefs shared by atheists or secular humanists as such? You seem to be extrapolating what you think the moral beliefs of “Darwinists” should be, based on your own (perhaps somewhat biased) understanding of, say, atheism or the theory of evolution or metaphysical naturalism, and if that’s what you want to label “Darwinism”, then that is your prerogative. However, these creatures you describe may actually not exist, and your description tells us nothing about what secular humanists or atheists actually believe.
Sincerely,
John Starsky
After taking sufficient time to consider your apology for Dawkins and his reference to society, and attempting to defer his remarks entirely to the animal kingdom, the non sequiter finally occurred to me. In Darwinism, there is really no delimiter between man and animal. We are, according to the Darwinist model, only “smart apes.” Just a collection of highly evolved mammals.
.
In light of that fact, I would like to better understand how you can separate human beings from animals. Believers in the biblical account of creation do this on the basis that human beings are created in God’s image and therefore have a soul, or supernatural nature, created as eternal beings. That we are able to, therefore, reason and connect on a spiritual level with others and with our Creator.
.
Why are you SO offended that Dawkins stated very concisely what seems to be a very common tenet of Darwinism and includes all “evolved mammals” presumably inclusive of human beings?
.
Thanks again for comment,
Gregg
I respect your opinion and acknowledge that it is YOUR opinion.
.
Thanks for your input in this forum.
Gregg
“After taking sufficient time to consider your apology for Dawkins and his reference to society, and attempting to defer his remarks entirely to the animal kingdom,”
.
It was neither an apology for Dawkins nor an attempt to defer anything. I’m sure you don’t want to accuse the dictionary of being evasive. You weren’t aware of that use of the word in a biological context, and you hadn’t read Dawkins’ book. Neither is anything to be ashamed of and nobody will hold it against you.
.
“the non sequiter finally occurred to me.”
.
Are you referring to the non-sequiturs I mentioned in the other discussion? In that case, it wasn’t what you said in the rest of your response here.
.
“In Darwinism, there is really no delimiter between man and animal. We are, according to the Darwinist model, only “smart apes.” Just a collection of highly evolved mammals.”
.
True, and I’m surprised that this should be such a revelation. Yes, we are “smart apes” but by quite a margin. Highly evolved mammals indeed.
.
“In light of that fact, I would like to better understand how you can separate human beings from animals. Believers in the biblical account of creation do this on the basis that human beings are created in God’s image and therefore have a soul, or supernatural nature, created as eternal beings. That we are able to, therefore, reason and connect on a spiritual level with others and with our Creator.”
.
Correct. This is sometimes referred to as dualism.
.
How do we separate human beings from animals? Almost entirely through the development of the mind, which was aided by some anatomical advantages (e.g. upright stance led to freeing the hands, opposable thumbs led to better use of tools). Man evolved the mental capacity for symbolic/logical/conceptual thinking, which offered some survival advantages (designing more and more advanced tools), and in turn later led to the ability to write, speculate, create religions etc.
.
“Why are you SO offended that Dawkins stated very concisely what seems to be a very common tenet of Darwinism and includes all “evolved mammals” presumably inclusive of human beings?”
.
1. What makes you think I’m (a) offended by your claim at all and (b) SO offended by your claim? I’m just pointing out that your claim is unfounded.
.
2. Re. “what seems to be a very common tenet of Darwinism and includes all “evolved mammals” presumably inclusive of human beings”
.
Again, you would benefit from reading the actual book to make claims about what it says. You’re making presumptions on the book’s content based on biased sources without having actually read the book, or even the excerpt to which I guided you. The section you refer to does not reference “all “evolved mammals””.
You didn’t really answer the question.
.
Why should a “society” only refer to the animal kingdom in outlining actions that we human beings find abhorrent if the premise, according to the Darwinist model, is that human beings are PART of the animal kingdom?
.
There really isn’t a basis for the distinction.