NYT: Does Conservative Ideology Need Darwin?
posted at 6:51 pm on May 5, 2007 by see-dubya
I know Allah would link this if he were here. It’s a rundown* of a debate within conservatism–NR’s gloomy gus John Derbyshire on one side, and religious conservatives on the other–about what Darwinism means for the conservative movement.
I think it means something very, very bad. Conservative Darwinists would like us to believe that because scientific evolution of species occurs, we must account for it in our political thinking. Nonsense. In matters of physics I accept the Theory of Relativity; it doesn’t follow that I accept Moral Relativism.
Conservatives, atheist and religious alike, believe that human nature and human interactions are, to quote Thomas Hobbes, solitary, poor, treacherous, dumb, nasty, smelly, sleazy, sleepy, Doc, and grumpy. Technology may change, but we do not.** The extent of those flaws and the reasons for them may be up for a little debate, but none of us see humans as perfectible. That is the hubris of Progressivism–in which a Gnostic certainty prevails among the ‘enlightened’ about the proper direction of mankind’s journey from the mud to the stars–and about their special obligation to get us there whether we want to go or not.
It was also the hubris of the eugenics movement and their nightmarish progeny.***
There is a point to be made here about the serious nature of this debate, with fundamentalists on both sides. I see it every time this subject comes upon blogs, especially here, as comment threads quickly degenerate into “If you would just READ the FOSSIL RECORD…” shouted back and forth. I’m SO SICK OF IT and it’s alienating a lot of people who ought to be conservatives and the New York Times is pointing and laughing at us. So please just stop it. Please, try to figure out what unites us and what people who call themselves conservatives have in common.
That said, though, I don’t think a love of social Darwinism should be a part of it at all.
* This was a pretty good job by the NYT of covering conservative news, I thought. Usually their coverage of conservative issues (as with much of the MSM) has a “Gorillas in the Mist” quality to it. Ironically this one didn’t, and on an issue about which there is so much left-wing blue state contempt; reporter Patricia Cohen simply reports both sides of the debate. It is appreciated.
** Maybe we do change, slowly, infinitesimally. I doubt it. I think the flaws in our nature are spiritual and are therefore immune to the ministrations of technocracy.
*** If you just click on one of these links, click that one.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I’m torn on evolution/creation these days; my turning point came when I started reading debates between creationists and evolutionists.
Creationists came off as truthers – always moving the target and never actually answering anything. Evolutionists came with “facts” and “evidence” on their side.
How poorly the creationists performed in the debates I read stunned me and is really making me reconsider this issue.
lorien1973 on May 5, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Neither side of the political debate really requires Darwinism or Creation. However, the backbone of culture, the core element of culture, requires some kind of belief to help explain the unknown.
Some of us embrace a belief in religion. Some of us don’t. But in the abscence of religion to explain the unknown, many substitute their belief in science.
So, the problem we have in America with Darwinism vs Evolution isn’t really about the science, but about what we place our faith in. Do we place our faith in God and then interpret science, or do we place our faith in science and then interpret God?
My point is that the Darwinism in our politica arena is being applied less as scientific theory and more as religious belief.
Lawrence on May 5, 2007 at 7:03 PM
“……a co-called “Master Race.” sounds alot like what the Clintons did and are trying to do again. *
read “Unlimited Access” by Gary Aldrich-
and the “Clinton Body Count” on line here somewhere…search for it. Then this will make sense.
There was a line in the movie CONTACT where the pastor guy asks the athiest/agnostic scientist (Jody Foster),as they were talking about the existence of God and proof of the existence of God, a great question.
He asks “Did you love your dad” she responds “Yes” the pastor then says “Prove It”.
shooter on May 5, 2007 at 7:17 PM
I’ve rejected these realities and substituted my own.
I’m starting the “Idon’tknowist movement.”
I wasn’t there, I don’t know how God did it, but I’ll find out one day and that’s cool with me.
BTW, the PS3 beats the snot out of the Xbox 360, Mac users are insufferable fruitcakes, and Melinda Doolittle is going to win American Idol.
Got a beef with any of that?
Bring.
It.
On.
Vinnie on May 5, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Interesting articles. I didn’t realize that about the origins of eugenics. Pretty scary to be sure. Thanks for pointing it out.
As for the whole Darwinism debate you are right about the types of responses and opinions one is likely to see in regards to this. I read the junkyard post and found it very thoughtful.
My faith is influenced by the creationists but tempered with the knowledge that I wasn’t there and that some things are beyond human comprehension. Was it really seven days or is that a symbol for eons of time divided by 7? Who knows? More importantly who really cares is my view. Most of us learn our faith from our parents and are not likely to stray far from that. Does this make other religions evil? I don’t know and am comfortable enough with my faith that I trust God to make those calls and am not compelled to claim I have insight on how God will judge.
Anytime matters of faith and beliefs are rolled into the political arena chaos is almost guaranteed. Teaching Darwinism as a theory (which it is) is not going to destroy the mind of a child who has parents that teach the morals, religion and so on they need. If anything it prepares them for those issues that cannot be easily categorized or decided.
This is why I think that matters of ethics and morals must be pushed to the state and local level for the citizenry to determine and amend as appropriate.
Abortion is an easy example. Is conception life or not? Most people probably think it is but since it was politicized those who may not want to appear “intolerant” and are subject to decisions they have no real control or influence over anyway (nine people make the call on what is moral — brr). My sense is that once in the privacy of a voting booth people have to live with THEIR conscience and the choice they make. Because of this it has the potential impact of causing responsible legislation to be created. What are the limits? Only for saving the mother’s life and how is that defined? Parental notification yes or no? Rape or incest makes it okay? So many variables with no easy answer.
Even churches are politicized way beyond what I think Christ had in mind. The failure is in not banding together to tend to the needs of the community – gyms and elaborate sanctuaries built at great cost for that particular congregation are examples of where the church has gone off track. Imagine if you will that the church united in local communities across denominational and political lines to work together to identify and address needs of the community. There would be no better testament to the cause of faith and positive influence on young and old alike than for this to take place.
Bush jr and sr have the right idea about thousand points of light and compassionate conservatism but the implementation needs to be on a more community to community level rather than from a federal or national approach.
Which brings me to the real dilemma – who makes up these churches and congregations? We do. We allow the divisions and splits to occur and wear blinders in our view of what needs to be done, try to tie a faith to political parties, and generally dilute or corrupt the basic tenets of our faith.
Bradky on May 5, 2007 at 7:30 PM
The secret silliness of any approach to “Social Darwinism,” whatever the flavor, is that biological evolutionary evidence only shows that, under a myriad of environmental pressures, whatever is most survivable is what did prevail. In no way does it suggest what, in the future, will prevail. There is predictive power, but only as it relates to what we will learn about what has already transpired, not what yet hasn’t. Indeed, the circumstances of evolution, whether biological or social, are so complicated that they make weather prediction seem downright trivial.
From a strictly Darwinist perspective, “advanced” can mean “fragile” as much as it does “powerful.” Consider, on the biological side, the dinosaurs–specialized to the point of the exotic, yet nevertheless extinct–as opposed to, say, the reptillian crocodile–straighforward and brutish, unquestionably stupid, yet stunningly enduring.
Then, on the social side, ask yourself which will, in reality, ultimately prove more survivable: sohpisticated western liberalism, or rough medieval Islamism?
I, for one, genuinely don’t know.
Blacklake on May 5, 2007 at 7:38 PM
in “The God Who is There” by Dr. Schaeffer, he tells a story of a debate he had with an intellectual atheist who beleives the “we are just molecules splashing around” theory and what we preceive isn’t real, etc. He said at the end of the night he asked him one final question, about his wife he clearly loved, “When you hug and kiss your wife at night, how do you know she’s real?”….since the guy was denying his own Humanity. needless to say the guy got pissed and admitted he couldn’t know if she was ‘real’
jp on May 5, 2007 at 7:39 PM
You are not going to get the kum-by-ah this is the family moment on this subject. Sorry but other then the ‘A’ argument this will turn into what it is……unsolvable.
Since I am throwing in the towel I will also throw in the monkey(forgive the pun) wrench. I am a Christian who has no problem what-so-ever with evolution or the big-bang. Sounds like something God would do to me.
I will proceed back to the bunker prepare my last will and testament now.
Limerick on May 5, 2007 at 7:49 PM
see-dubya, I can’t see how you thought this article made any sense. Every paragraph left me realing at how the author had no understanding of the issues. There are just too many examples.
“controversial issues such as sex education, partial-birth abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and global warming.”
Which one of these is not like the other? The fact that global warming is even on the list is because of the pseudo-religous convictions of the left, not the right.
The whole section page is dominated by Arnhart, whose contempt for conservatives is clear. And yet he says “having been so badly burned by social Darwinism, many conservatives today did not want “to get involved in these moral and political debates, and I think that’s evasive.”
Conservatives not involved in debates? No wonder the NYT is in the toilet. And that’s beside the whole concept of conservatives being burned by social Darwinism. The original concept of conservatism was not to discard institutions that had evolved and proved successful. They were social-Darwinists before Darwin was in diapers.
pedestrian on May 5, 2007 at 7:52 PM
If he was upset that simplistic of an ontological crisis, he wasn’t especially bright.
Obviously, one can’t produce evidence that one isn’t plugged into something like Robert Nozick’s “experience machine” (or, as the notion has been more popularly illustrated, the Wachowski brothers’ Matrix). But, lacking evidence that such was the case, one would still be inherently irrational to believe that one in fact was. While simple perception is clearly not infallible, it’s nevertheless a sufficient starting point for a coherent conceptual framework–hence, for instance, our shared ability to reliably find our coffee makers in the morning, and other similar cognitive wonders.
Blacklake on May 5, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Creation was a Jewish conspiracy, as creation is an illusion created by the Jewish God, which is revealed in secret Jewish manuscripts. This illusion world is dated six thousand years, all elaborately created to give the Jewish tribes Palestinian land and smite Egyptians.
Like that?
Typewriter King on May 5, 2007 at 7:59 PM
Yes, but how many evolutionists can dance on the head of a pin?
.
The Machine on May 5, 2007 at 8:01 PM
I’m a conservative, I believe in Darwin, I believe in the Old Testament, the Torah
I see no problem with mixing all three
Ow! Or more correctly…oy!
Defector01 on May 5, 2007 at 8:06 PM
I never thought that conservatism required a non-belief in G-d, but if it is so, then I don’t need conservatism.
I got over blind adherence to dogma when I grew out of socialism.
I thought that conservatism was best described as a belief in the individual. If I’m wrong, then I want no part of it.
Misha I on May 5, 2007 at 8:12 PM
I think Darwin reinforces and illuminates a lot of conservative tenets, while taking little if anything away.
As for religion and morality and whatnot: look, either Darwinism is true or it isn’t. Whatever, ahem, adaptations religion and metaphysics and morality will make in its wake, I doubt they’ll be as severe as, say, the upheavals in the wake of Jesus and Paul, or Muhammad, or Martin Luther.
Alex K on May 5, 2007 at 8:13 PM
Disclaimer – none of this to take away from the seriousness of the topic and the discussions. Still reading the links.
…and wherever you’ll be after it’s over, here, I’d like
to be in the vicinity because it won’t be boring :)
Ayn Rand
Where do you think she is? I often wonder, and wish she could be here now to write a book about New York, after 9/11/01, and about the Left of today, the NYT included.
Entelechy on May 5, 2007 at 8:18 PM
And now to complete the degeneration of this thread:
If you would just READ the FOSSIL RECORD…!
j/k :-)
seriously though, I see faith as the driving factor on both sides. That’s why it is called the theory of evolution. Just because more research has been done on one theory than the other doesn’t mean it is more valid. Maybe if scientists did research into creationism, than it could be taught in schools to.
sweetlipsbutterhoney on May 5, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Oh, I didn’t say it made any sense. I said it wasn’t condescending.
Baby steps.
see-dubya on May 5, 2007 at 8:30 PM
the combination to the steel door is 25-33-10.
Limerick on May 5, 2007 at 8:40 PM
No. Not quite like that. I’m talking in more the “dodging the point” and moving the goalpost sense; not the conspiracy sense.
lorien1973 on May 5, 2007 at 8:43 PM
I really don’t understand what the big deal is. Maybe it’s because I was raised Evangelical Baptist rather than Southern Baptist or Catholic, but I really don’t get the big argument.
Science teaches us the “how” That is, it is used to discover the facts and mechanisms of the world around us. Evolution is part of that. Many people often forget that Darwin was a devout Christian, and “Origin of Species” is written from that mindset.
Religion (Judeo-Christian religion in particular) teaches us the “why”. The reasons behind why the world around us is the way it is beyond the natural mechanisms. It’s purpose it to provide the fourth “Spiritual” dimension of our lives.
These two things DO NOT contradict one another! Science says that we humans evolved from single-celled organisms swimming around in the mud. Religion says that God reached down into the mud and made us. How do these things contradict each other? THEY DON’T! Science tells us HOW we were made. Religion tells us WHO did it. THAT IS ALL.
So yes, Conservatives can be BOTH religious and Scientific and not be in any way at odds with each other. If anything, I find the two systems to be highly complementary.
wearyman on May 5, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Gattaca
Kaptain Amerika on May 5, 2007 at 9:09 PM
Wouldn’t it have been great to be in the crowd on this day?I bet the eugenics quacks were like WTF! NOOOOOO!!!!! I saw the movie The Shining many years ago. I wonder if all the symbolism in that movie represented The Enlightened! It was a wicked movie with many powerful scenes. I think it could have been a serious jab at the rich and powerful more of an expose than a horror flick! I think it was Rockerfeller who financed the rebuilding of colonial Jamestown. Too bad we don’t get to heaven through good works. One of the many names for Jesus Christ is The Prince of Peace and the principles of compassion for the weak and infirmed as well as sinner and imprisoned,ect, are of paramount in a society to coexist. I hope the deep devisions between the Repubs and Dems can be healed . The country is being torn apart by extremist factions and egomaniacs on all fronts. I think its time to congeal as a society and move on to the future. Politics makes strange bed fellows. Just don’t hog the covers and I sleep with the lights ON thank you.
sonnyspats1 on May 5, 2007 at 9:16 PM
Why would anyone need something/someone that gets shakier and more suspect with each year?
Doghouse on May 5, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Nope.
thedecider on May 5, 2007 at 9:30 PM
>Evolutionists came with “facts” and “evidence” on their side.
It’s good that those two words are put inside quotation marks.
Doghouse on May 5, 2007 at 9:31 PM
I’m laughing twice over considering Thomas Hobbes was a renowned atheist and one of the founders of Liberal thought. And please source me an item where Progressives see people as perfect.
So you don’t want to debate the facts and instead want us all to “get along.”
Seriously, this was one of the arguments Marx used to rebut Hegel. Just an aside.
This isn’t even an argument; just about everything in science is called a theory. Plate tectonics is called the theory of plate tectonics, but are we going to doubt that too because it has the word theory in it? Earthquakes are really caused when God shakes the ground, right?
The question of “why” is artificial. Why are people here? Scientists can answer that, but religious people don’t really want to know the “why” of the subject, they want to know what ulterior meaning could there be to their existence. Science has an answer, religious people just don’t like it.
The ancient Greek gods explained the “how” and the “why” of just about everything – how the sun rose and set and why the sun rose and set, but it doesn’t mean that their belief is true or even testable; same as the Judeo-Christian belief.
Normally I wouldn’t take the time to tell someone they are misinterpreting the process of evolution on Earth, but I’ll make an exception here.
First religion invents a “who” and then tells us who that “who” is. I admire your want to combine religion and science, but it doesn’t make you any more right.
Nonfactor on May 5, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Darwin was not a Christian.
Anyways, did the NY Times also include a story on whether a belief in a global war on terror was an important belief for the Executive to have?
Which makes more difference in a President, a belief in evolution or a belief in terrorism?
JohnJ on May 5, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Are you telling me some people don’t believe in terrorism? I believe in drugs, but I don’t believe the War on Drugs is just. If you are referring to the show of hands question in the Democratic debate–it was a stupid question. People may have been confused. I believe there is a Global War on Terrorism (simply because that’s what we have called it), but I don’t believe it is the proper title for what we are doing.
Nonfactor on May 5, 2007 at 10:06 PM
>Why are people here? Scientists can answer that
Hahahahaha! Since when?
Doghouse on May 5, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Don’t you know the Constitution is a living, breathing document?
Look where that has brought us.
Valiant on May 5, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Atheists always call religious people on circular logic, but never seem to notice how often they partake in it themselves:
Step 1: Assume materialism.
Step 2: Dismiss religion by referring to step 1.
Step 3: Repeat ad infinitum.
It’s an atheist version of “Lather. Rinse. Repeat.”
John on May 5, 2007 at 10:23 PM
I had a long discussion with another teacher at my school regarding evolution. She believes in God and is a Christian but still maintains a belief in evolution. I told her that the positions of creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive, ie; you can’t hold both diametrically opposed positions simultaneously. If God creates and maintains the universe then, even if it looks like evolution, you can’t authentically call it evolution. If God is involved in any way then it’s not really evolution at all and shouldn’t be called as such. (That was my position.)
If God created the universe is there any such thing as evolution?
Mojave Mark on May 5, 2007 at 10:24 PM
Did anyone else hear about the latest case of evolutionists forcing contradictory evidence back in to their theory, rather than questioning it’s assumed “billions of years”? As always, evolutionary dogma won’t allow questioning of dates of planets, even when evidence points to them being younger than they are assumed to be.
Instead of reporting the new evidence and leaving open questions, they take wild guesses as to how the new evidence can still fit in to the billions of years time line, despite a lack of evidence to support that claim.
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200705.htm#20070504a
RightWinged on May 5, 2007 at 10:32 PM
the problem here is that “moral relativity” is a reactionary misnomer for the “counter-hegemonic” deconstructionism demanded by marxism.
“moral relativists” do not practice moral relativism. their morality in fact follows a tidyer line towards a very specificly defined (perfect, as you aptly described it on your blog) notion of “good”.
there’s nothing relativistic in saying that an accusation of rape of a black woman against a white man should be prosecuted and an accusation of rape of a white woman against a black man should be forgiven regardless of verity. it’s a clean line pointing in one direction. so it is with the progressive tendency to excuse non-western human rights abuses while prosecuting and often inventing western abuses. same for the progressive wars against sobriety, responsibility, and social custom. everything which exists must be targetted and destroyed – the human surface must be sterilized of reactionary custom – for the marxist experiment to produce the intended result. and if even empiricism and scientific method return non-marxist results, they too have to be revised.
what is understood to conservatives as “moral relitivism” is simply the rote inversion and subversion of all intuitive, natural and traditionally aqquired custom as a route toward a perverted and counter-intuitive vision of heaven on earth as prescribed in 19th century pseudoscience via a strategy devised a couple decades later.there are no grey hats either in the pages of “social text” or at the world social forum. progressives recognize only “us” and “them”. if you are skeptical of what’s written in social text, you’re “them”. simple as that. nothing “relative” about it.
so, that part probably a bit over-enunciated, i’ve found nothing in science which cannot be reconciled in a political text to conservatism. take for instance the phospho-lipid bi-layer. the structure of living cells is practicly an analogue to the wealth of nations and the prince. the theory of general reletivity doesn’t say “any thing goes”. it says this thing will act in this way under these conditions, and that if it goes far and fast enough in this direction, it becomes something distinguishly different.
jummy on May 5, 2007 at 10:36 PM
I disagree. There are a lot of levels of uncertainty that prevent evolution from being much more than a general description, and so you can’t really distinguish between evolution and God sustaining life (Job 12:10) in a way that happens to accord with physical laws. Among the uncertainties are limited fossil record, chaotic behavior, and quantum uncertainty. Faith is central to the Old and New Testaments, and without the ambiguity of evolution, faith would not be possible.
pedestrian on May 5, 2007 at 10:37 PM
if pizza is made of granite then sausage chunks are stones.
jummy on May 5, 2007 at 10:56 PM
nonfactor, conservatives are liberals. they are not monarchists.
jummy on May 5, 2007 at 10:59 PM
If you are referring to the show of hands question in the Democratic debate–it was a stupid question People may have been confused Nonfactor on May 5, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Gee. thanks for clearing that up.
sonnyspats1 on May 5, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Continuing to beat this dead horse of a debate is SO passe.
If you REALLY want to know what’s going on (the cutting edge in science), you need to take a look at the groundbreaking work that is being done in recent years in the area of human genetics/DNA research. Without hesitation, I would urge all HotAir participants (theist and atheist alike) to get a copy of National Geographic’s DVD entitled “The Journey of Man” which presents the work of Spencer Wells and his (and other researcher’s) efforts to unravel the history of human DNA. Wells’work focuses on the study of markers on the Y-chromosome, while his rival (Oppenheimer et. al.) have focused on mitochrondrial DNA. There may be others as well (I am not an expert in this field of study).
The results of these researchers’ work have far-reaching implications, and the conclusions that they are drawing shock BOTH the creationist camp AND the fanatics of the high priesthood of evolution (just had to get that one dig in there — sorry). Wells estimates, based on his findings of the inheritance of flaws on the Y-chromosome (which he calls “markers”), that humans, in their current DNA configuration, have existed for no more than 2000 generations. Based on that number, he estimates that what we know as humans have only been in existence for 60,000 years — a human hsitory that starts just preceding the last ice-age. If you think that this is shocking news to the creationists, you should have seen how the evolutionist camp reacted (who, of course, insist that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions of years).
Whether you are an atheist (like AllahPundit), or whether you subscribe to story of creation in Genesis, the MOST important conclusion to come from the work of Dr. Wells is inescapable. And it is as simple as this: No matter what race you are, no matter what continent you live on, no matter what language you speak, and no matter what rung of the economic ladder that you find yourself on, ALL of us humans (without exception) came from the SAME small group (probably numbering less than two dozen) that most likely originated in Africa some 60,000 years ago. Whether you believe in the Bible or not, science is proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are ALL brothers and sisters, and that we ALL come from the same family of humans — and not THAT long ago, either.
CyberCipher on May 5, 2007 at 11:22 PM
Here is something I put together a couple years ago during a similar discussion:
“Question: How does the non-changeability of the laws of nature lead one to the conclusion that Intelligent Design is behind the present reality?”
Whatever or whomever wrote the laws of physics is the “Intelligent Designer”. Those laws of physics are the intelligent design. All you see, all that is, or all that can ever be is a result of the interactions of the forces, elements, and time. Are we as beings the result of those laws of physics or were the laws of physics written to accommodate beings such as us? No matter how you look at it, we could not exist at all without how those elements, forces, and time interact.
We could look like something entirely different, but we would still be in accord with those laws.
“In point of fact, Intelligent Design, if I understand it correctly, posits that at certain points the Designer intervened into the natural order of selection to bring into being certain features – the ability to see and distinguish light from darkness for example – culminating in bi-focal sight which natural selection is incapable to explain.”
…is incapable to explain – YET! Be it “natural selection” or “Divine or intelligent being” intervention, bi-focal vision fits into and operates in accordance with the laws of physics.
I can tell you that along with bifocal vision we have bifocal hearing as well. They give us depth perception and direction to the source capabilities. Was that by accident, intent, out of necessity, or merely due to a physical law we are as yet unaware of?
We have bicameral brains, too. Is that a requisite for intelligence, or, as a result of that same elusive law of physics, do we have intelligence because of our bicameral brains? It could be that the interactions of the elements and forces of nature are mirrored in our bicameral brains, making something higher than the sum of the parts. Logic on one side, emotion on the other, interacting like heat(energy) varying the states of water(elemental) from a solid to a gaseous state. Throw in an environment(gravity and an atmosphere) and you can have water in a liquid state. Throw us into an environment, and – well – who knows to what extent we can evolve! But, it all started somewhere, with the elements, energy, and time, all interacting in accordance with the laws of physics. That seems like there was a plan in the beginning to me.
Are we arrogant to even consider it was all planned simply so we could exist? It really doesn’t matter in my view. We exist. We have the capability to make of it what we will. What we make of it does not change the fact that we are here.
Woody
woodcdi on May 5, 2007 at 11:24 PM
But why would god create all this and not allow it evolve? I guess if you really wnat to pin it down, a religious person would say god is perfect and wouldn’t need his creation to evolve, but I just can’t see it that way.
SouthernGent on May 5, 2007 at 11:32 PM
I think that’s the coolest thing. Knowing that every single person has a relative that stretches all the way back to the beginning of humanity.
Nonfactor on May 5, 2007 at 11:33 PM
I am fascinated with science and animals and I am also a Christian. I could accept evolution fitting in with Christianity if I felt God created evolution. However, the problem I run into is the evidence for evolution is very weak (being nice here). I do not see how it is considered a Scientific Theory when based on what can be tested it is merely a hypothesis.
Furthermore, when you factor in some of the scientific evidence that refutes evolution like birds knowing to fly south, no transitional animals, flowers depending on higher life forms for pollination (bees)etc. There is no explanation for these problems or at least the ones given are silly and unprovable. Finally, factor in all of the young Earth evidence like our strong magnetic field, lack of minerals that should be present after millions of years of comet bombardment, Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock, and we may arrive at the same conclusion: God gave us all the evidence we need to prove someone made all of this happen but if you don’t want that to be true you will never see it.
Accountability to a higher power isn’t something most people want and so theorizing other possibilities, no matter how far out there they are (evolution), is the only comforting alternative.
Maybe aliens created us if that makes you feel better because that makes more sense than evolution.
sirmyth on May 5, 2007 at 11:42 PM
Well that, or Wells and his colleagues are mistaken. There is no such thing as science that is “beyond a shadow of a doubt” (indeed, that’s kind of the whole idea, and one of the reason that science advances at all).
Not that, if such is the case, it’s necessarily the Genographic Project’s fault. They’ve apparently run into (not surprisingly, I suppose) political opposition from a number of quarters, with certain ethnic groups and governments refusing to cooperate for what seem to be reasons tied to identity politics. This might be having an adverse affect on their sampling.
Or, more fundamentally, there could simply be things about mitochondrial DNA that are not yet understood (and, indeed, there are).
At any rate, in terms of this discussion, it hardly matters. Whether homo sapiens (or, perhaps more accurately, the current surviving strain of homo sapiens) emerged 60,000 years ago or 600,000 years ago, it’s clear we’re “related” in the sense that we’re all genetically compatible. But this does nothing to enhance any sense of “brotherhood,” in either direction, between myself and, say, an Islamist who’d want to remove my head for opining that Mohammed simply made up the Koran.
Blacklake on May 6, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Here We go again.
Has Science ever found those “missing” links?
From the Origin of Species, CHAPTER VI – DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY
Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree…………..Charles Darwin
An Article: The Bible and Science
I do
HopePray all of You find the Truth and the Light Jesus is LordGOD Bless you All
abinitioadinfinitum on May 6, 2007 at 12:23 AM
I’ve never been a literalist but I can’t buy into evolution as the hardcore darwinist preach it. (and teach it in our public schools) Of course, in the end, Darwin didn’t buy it either. Show me all of the transitional forms, the forever sought “missing link”. There should be litterally thousands of them in the fosil records and to date they have identified a grand total of …….Zero! Nada, zip, zilche, etc., etc.
Read Ann Coulters book “Godless” A good portion of it deals with the evolution myth.
conservativecaveman on May 6, 2007 at 12:38 AM
If the geneticists are making you uncomfortable by proving that you share essentially the same genetic code as Osama Bin Ladin, then I can’t imagine how badly that you must feel when the Christians introduce you to the doctrine that “we are ALL sinners and equally guilty in the sight of God.” We’d ALL like to believe that we could never be like Osama (or any other notorious person of memory), but unfortunately, both science AND history seem to keep telling us that neither the human genetic code, nor human nature has changed significantly in the past 60,000 years.
CyberCipher on May 6, 2007 at 12:56 AM
Of course the TOE has no place in political theory. Genes don’t form ideas; but it is ideas, not our genes, that form human institutions and which shape every aspect of our lives from birth to death. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the biological diversity of life over a grand time scale. No morality can be gleaned from it. It doesn’t explain why Leftists appease Islamists, or why the application of Communism has resulted in the destruction of millions of lives. It has nothing to say about what makes the U.S. a country of wealth and prosperity compared to those to the South, nor does determine whether you become rich or poor, a capitalist or a Communist, wise or dense, a free man or a slave. The TOE is not any kind of philosophy nor religion. It’s a scientific theory. That’s it. Case closed.
“Conservatives, atheist and religious alike, believe that human nature and human interactions are, to quote Thomas Hobbes, solitary, poor, treacherous, dumb, nasty, smelly, sleazy, sleepy, Doc, and grumpy. Technology may change, but we do not.**”
Speak for yourself. I’m not religious nor am I a Leftist and so I don’t believe that crock of shit. Human nature offers only potentials. It gives us the capacity to be good or evil. How the individual utilizes his nature is up to him. Don’t blame human nature for the rotten behaviour some people choose to engage in.
FierceGuppy on May 6, 2007 at 1:13 AM
I don’t care if you are theist, atheist, conservative, or liberal. I don’t see how you can POSSIBLY hold this position of yours and still reconcile it with recorded human history.
If human nature offers ONLY potentials (as you say), then how do you explain the innummerable and consistent atrocities that humans have commited against each other for the past 10,000 years. Osama Bin Ladin and his ilk have always been there throughout recorded human history. The rottenness of the human species has been more constant, more consistent, and more pervasive and ubiquitous than Newton’s law of gravity. Einstein showed that even the rate of the passage of time itself dilates, and is not a constant (depending on one’s frame of reference). Nothing is so constant in the universe as the rotteness of human nature. It is rivaled ONLY by the speed of light in a vacuum — which MAY be the only other universal constant worth talking about.
CyberCipher on May 6, 2007 at 1:28 AM
I saw a special on National Geographic (of all places) a couple years ago on the subject of the origins of man . I was suprised what it had to say, I guess this is the new hypothesis. I am A Christian I can’t explain evolution But I question the ability to carbon date anything with accuracy. Here is proof that the scientists can’t either. These numbers are more in line with Biblical figures.
sonnyspats1 on May 6, 2007 at 1:40 AM
Well, I suggest you all head on over to the Rediscovery Institute. It’s brilliant satire. These guys have taken the arguments of IDers and applied them to other sciences, such as chemistry.
Man, I enjoy stuff like this. Quite frankly, if one is willing to abandon the Theory of Evolution because it doesn’t mesh with the Bible, then one must do the same with all the applied sciences.
Krydor on May 6, 2007 at 2:20 AM
we’re getting pretty far into LOOK AT THE FOSSIL RECORD territory here.
see-dubya on May 6, 2007 at 2:27 AM
What I find even more absurd than people doubting evolution is people doubting the dating process of radioactive isotopes. It’s very often misunderstood (everyone says “carbon dating” when carbon-14 is simply one of the isotopes that can be used to determine the date of an object) and it is really a simple process. People who doubt the dating of isotopes are doubting the very principle of half-lifes–it’s like doubting the existence of gravity, seriously, that isn’t hyperbole.
Nonfactor on May 6, 2007 at 2:40 AM
mmm smell that hyperbole
sirmyth on May 6, 2007 at 2:46 AM
Of course they are still talking as though carbon dating were the only radioactive isotope we have dated. Secondly there is no reason or evidence at all to believe that the constant rate of decay would change, and what exactly do they mean by “unobservable past”?
The principle of half-lives are mathematical just like the principles of addition and subtraction. Not only do we know the half-lives of certain isotopes because we’ve observed them, we know them because there is a mathematic principle that backs up this observation. We know the half-life of Uranium-238 (the time it takes to decay into Lead-206) is 4.5 billion years because we’ve observed the Zicron crystals. It doesn’t get anymore cut and dry than that.
Nonfactor on May 6, 2007 at 3:20 AM
The most important word used in the post was hubris.
Neither side can escape it.
unamused on May 6, 2007 at 3:22 AM
When any presidential candidate raises their hand during a debate and says he does not believe in evolution, I mean this is BASIC fourth grade science – do you creationists have any idea how ridiculous that makes republicans look?
triple on May 6, 2007 at 3:39 AM
Actually, Creationists do work on evidence to prove their case, but are rather ignored.
Thousands Not Billions
One scientist wrote a work making the case for short time forming of the Grand Canyon during the Flood. He still hasn’t gotten his work peer reviewed on that.
He did get his masters on rapid erosion of a canyon at Mt. St. Helens.
Here is an over view of the case that was made.
Tim Burton on May 6, 2007 at 3:42 AM
Nope.
RightWinged on May 6, 2007 at 3:47 AM
Creationists embarrass the party. You’re our cindy sheehan. Congrats.
triple on May 6, 2007 at 3:49 AM
Tim, you might be interested in this (if you missed my comment earlier). It’s just one in thousands of examples, but one of the latest and most entertaining. Evolutionists see that Mercury presenting evidence contradictory to what was assumed and used as evidence for it’s billions of years.
Though no evidence supported their old universe assumptions, they felt the need to take wild guesses about how they could fit the new contradictory evidence fit with the billions of years assumptions. They do this crap all the time, but this was one of the more pathetic. They just can’t allow the evidence to speak for itself, evolutionary dogma forbids that. You can’t question the building blogs of their theories, no matter how much contradictory evidence we find. Instead, they always guess (without evidence) how they can keep their overall theory and make a few edits to force the evidence to fit the theory.
Somewhere on the planet right now a scientists is studying an animal fossil and realizing that something on it contradicts the preset time line. Instead of allowing questioning for the time line, the scientist will report “it shows the ability to XYZ evolved differently/quicker than we had thought” or “evidence for convergent evolution”. When in reality it’s simply one fossil that says nothing about evolution, other than that it destroys previously held beliefs. This happens with seemingly daily.
RightWinged on May 6, 2007 at 3:56 AM
And you’re our flat-Earthers.
RightWinged on May 6, 2007 at 3:57 AM
BUT THE FOSSIL RECORD CLEARLY SHOWS
see-dubya on May 6, 2007 at 4:01 AM
Conservatism needs Darwin like a fish needs a bicycle.
Maxx on May 6, 2007 at 4:24 AM
RE (link):You don’t need a molten core to have a magnetic field. Just look at Jupiter. And you do realize that stars create every single atom on the Periodic Table, and when they explode they are released into the universe. The reason there is sulfur (or carbon or oxygen etc.) in our Solar System is because somewhere a star went nova and the accretion process took place, forming our Sun, planets, moons, and asteroids.
This isn’t even an argument; it’s just one big hypothetical situation–a straw man.
Nonfactor on May 6, 2007 at 4:25 AM
CyberCipher on May 6, 2007 at 1:28 AM, wrote:
Perhaps that is because all you choose to see is human failure. I wonder if Hobbes was a Catholic. The superstitious pap Catholics call a religion condeems Man as inherently evil because of “Original Sin”, so their view of humanity will not be anything other than dark. It’s the way they’ve been brainwashed. In any case, I also see a string successes that have given rise to free and prosperous nations. There are many genuinely good, benevolent, and just people about if you’d only bother to look.
FierceGuppy on May 6, 2007 at 4:29 AM
Nonfactor, regarding the first part, I’m not making any claim… it’s the scientists themselves who found the contradictory evidence and didn’t prove how it’s not contradictory, other than to wildly speculate.
Keep in mind it was written in Science (not by a scary creationist):
According to age ASSUMPTIONS, this shouldn’t have been possible. The age isn’t questioned however. Yeah, that’s science (/sarcasm)
I’ve actually provided a number of examples of this in the past, it happens all the time so it’s not like I need to bring some big smoking gun. Though if necessary, I’ll dig one up for you.
RightWinged on May 6, 2007 at 4:33 AM
I’ll second that pedestrain. The article was liberal claptrap from beginning to end, designed to drive a wedge between conservatives. Now, look at this thread and how well it worked !! If the Times was laughing at us before, they must be rolling on the floor now.
What a silly question !! Its the kind of thing only a liberal would ponder. You can be a conservative and believe in evolution or not believe in evolution, Darwin its moot. The tenets of conservatism don’t speak to evolution one way or the other.
Maxx on May 6, 2007 at 5:05 AM
You know what, creationists, you can have your beliefs. Im not out to criticize someone else’s religion. Just keep it the hell away from the political field. Don’t make it a political issue.
You know why chris matthews asked about evolution? Because he was trying to paint republicans as being overly concerned with religion in the face of scientific fact.
It doesn’t bode well for us.
Unless of course you guys want a democrat in office. Then talk about creationism all you freaking want.
triple on May 6, 2007 at 5:45 AM
You sound awfully piss for someone who is claiming to not care. As you noted it was the leftist Matthews who asked the stupid question. Is your position that those who don’t buy evolution (which isn’t “scientific fact” by the way, especially considering that virtually every aspect of it has been and likely will be changed again. Old assumptions are regularly tossed out the window, yet were considered fact just days ago.) shouldn’t answer the question honestly?
Chill out guy… You claim not to care what we think, while whining as if we’re pushing it in to the political arena. Are there groups of creationists picketing in front of a presidential candidate’s house somewhere and I didn’t hear about it?
RightWinged on May 6, 2007 at 6:25 AM
Oh and by the way triple, you want to act like creationists are some fringe nutty group… You do realize that in every poll ever done on the issue, the vast majority of the public agrees with us, right? I’m not saying it should we should inject it in to politics (going back to your strawman). Sure, most don’t call themselves “creationists”, but when asked if they believe we evolved from single celled organisms over millions of years or whether they believe God created us pretty much how we are about 10,000 years ago, the public always answers the same way.
RightWinged on May 6, 2007 at 7:47 AM
The evidence for a young Earth age has been growing exponentially during the last several decades, in spite of all attempts from the believers in Darwinism to hush it up.
Among the more significant bits that never make it into a public school text is the Earth’s magnetic field. Anyone who has operated or maintained Magnetic Anomaly Detection (MAD) systems, commonly used to locate or track submarines, is aware that the Earth’s magnetic flux has been mapped in great detail. In such detail that a metal object just a few hundred feet long disturbs the flux field enough, that our equipment can read the difference compared to the “map”, and identify a non-organic object.
In ensuring that this mapping has been kept up-to-date, researchers have proven (yes, REALLY PROVEN, unlike Darwinian suppositions) a consistent and linear weakening of the magnetic field strength.
In fact, since the primary benefit of our magnetic field (besides navigation) is shielding from the radiation bombardment of the solar wind, it is this weakening, more than any supposed anthropogenic cause, that allows increased UV radiation to reach the Earth’s surface.
But never discount the Darwinist’s ability to confound any issue. They will tell you that the Earth has experienced magnetic polarity reversals or “flips” many times, the most recent occuring 780,000 years ago. This number is quoted consistently anywhere you choose to look regarding this subject, but not one iota of supporting evidence for the derivation of this number exists anywhere. It is absolutely arbitrary and based on presumption on top of presumption. But the real purpose of telling you that the magnetic flux field is so “flippant” is to head off at the pass the scientific, and inescapable conclusion of the linear weakening of the field strength. That extrapolating backwards doesn’t allow an Earth age greater than 25,000 years at the outside.
The certainty is that if the Earth’s magnetic field weakened enough to allow a reversal of polarity, the unimpeded impact of solar radation on the surface would destroy all life.
Freelancer on May 6, 2007 at 7:50 AM
Hmm… Let us contrast Darwinism vs. Evolution.
Darwins original theories are about natural selection within species. Not so much about one species becoming a new species.
What Darwin proved is that environmental factors influence how species grows over time. Different species thrive in different environments in different ways, often expressing unique physical characteristics.
However neither Darwin, nor anyone else, have ever proven that species evolve into new species over time. We know that species become extinct over time, but there is no evidence of new species (eg: genetic coding) emerging over time. (ie: The fossil record proves extinction, not evolution).
And regarding genetics… genetics has proven that new genes and/or gene codes do not magically appear in a species in a manner that allows it to become a new species. The only codes that are given from parents to children are those that the parents already had. (ie: A new species can not develop if there is no mechanism for new genes and codes to appear which where not received from the parent.)
So if we really want to talk about proof then the study of human genetics proves that evolution of species, wherein species develop new genetic characteristics over time, can’t happen.
And, if life did begin by accident by some primordial miracle, it would have to have occurred by accident billions of times to account for each and every genetically unique animal, bird, insect, virus, bacteria, and plant. Funny thing is, the Genesis account says exactly this. Billions of life forms suddenly and miraculously appear, but not just life forms appear, time and space suddenly appear. So not only does the Bible teach that God creates life, God also creates the time and space in which life thrives.
Lawrence on May 6, 2007 at 8:15 AM
I’m another conservative who is quite content to live with Darwin, Hawking, evolution, and the big bang–in fact cosmology is a fascinating subject to me. My conservatism stems from the thought of such men as Edmund Burke, Samuel Johnson, and other such wise individuals. To me, conservatism means, as Edmund Burke so correctly stated, that we in this generation must remember that we are part of a chain extending back to our ancestors and forward to our descendants. When we embark on any course of action that could affect the structure of our society and/or its institutions, we have to be very careful to take into account not only how it would effect us now, but also what our ancestors would think about us tinkering with what they’ve given us and how our changes would affect our progeny–something progressives, in their smug belief that they know what is best for all of us, don’t take into account as they rush headlong into the abyss.
The true nature of conservatism isn’t the belief or disbelief in evolution, or the Big Bang, it’s the belief that we have an obligation to the past to cherish what our forefathers have given us through their blood and hard work and to pass that legacy on to our progeny. That is conservatism.
Matt Helm on May 6, 2007 at 9:00 AM
And the question Matthews asked was one of NBC’s famaous “raise your hands” tricks where the candidates have to stipulate to an answer even if the question is something that can’t be stipulated to or says one thing but means another.
For the Democrats, the question was “is there a war on terror”. The taken meaning of the question was “are you for (up) or against(down)” the war. Candidates could raise their hand at that time and later say they are opposed to the war by claiming that they were merely acknowledging the existence of the war for which they are opposed.
For the Republicans, they were forced to either endorse the Darwin religion or stipulate that nothing has ever evolved, even though it’s obvious that selective breeding and survival of the fittest occurrs in nature.
The candidates should set a “no show of hands” rule to end this media weaselness.
Perchant on May 6, 2007 at 9:16 AM
TO sweetlipsbutterhoney, this is a common and misleading statement.EVERYTHING science put’sforward is only a theory. Gravity is only a theory, but I doubt we’ll fall off the Earth any time soon just because the bible doesn’t mention it. Science does not research cretionism or intelligent design because IT IS NOT SCIENCE. Unless something can be proven false, it is not science. It is often said by creationists/id’ers/believers etc. that atheists have no valid argument because they can’t explain where everything came from. Well, we readily admit that, but then we go out looking for answers. We don’t sit back in all our arrogant glory claiming that if I can’t explain it, then it must be God.
I also hear people say that because everything looks so well designed, there must be a creator. Eyes are given as an example. Well if eyes are so perfect, why are they upside down and backwards. Or nipples. If we’re all so perfect and special, and not just pre-fab molds from nature, then why do men, who don’t lactate and have no need for them, have nipples.
Now think about the universe. The Whole Universe It’s all just for us? Right.
That said, I don’t believe in moral relativism either.Of course there are always different circumstances, but that doesn’t negate personal accountibility.As conservatives, we need to realise that the world will change. We can’t stop that. But if we are willing to accept that, then we can work to influence. I mean come on, obviously moral’s and acceptable conduct change. We don’t stone or crucify people anymore( in America at least). And remember that the biggest problem with fundamentalsm Islam is that they are trying to force people to accept an agrarian lifestyle that we moved beyond centuries ago. So as long as we know this, we can direct which way we go, and which changes we will allow, and which we won’t.
The biggest thing to remember is that science and religion are separate spheres. That’s why we separate church and state, and why we don’t teach creationism in school. If you want your children to learn magic instead of science, then send them to private school. I learned morals at private grade school, and science at public higher institutions. I mean we wouldn’t base weapons production or the space program on the hope of miracles, right?
Social Darwinism is invalid, because we have the ability to change our cultural destiny to an extant.And by the way, anyone who is fully educated on the processes and tools of evolution, and THE FOSSIL RECORD, yet refuses to believe in evolution is being purposely obtuse, or is mentally deficient.
Robert Hackman on May 6, 2007 at 9:20 AM
The problem with evolution theory is not really what apparently happened in the past, it’s the degenerative effect this thinking has on history, science and social contracts. Communism is heavily based on evolutionary concepts. “New Man” “New Class” all have their origins in evolutionary theory. Eugenics, embraced by Margaret Sanger and Hilter appealed to ridding humanity of “weaker” elements so that humans could progress to higher levels of perfection. Evolution theory created the concept of “race” with some “races” arbitrarily above others. It has not been a benign influence, but a terribly destructive one,
Lysencho’s rise to power in Soviet Agriculture in the first half of this century was evolution theory against classical plant genetics, and plant biology. Those scientists who challenged him and refused to accept Lysencho’s attempts to force an evolutionary shift in crops, specifically wheat, were destroyed professionally and in several cases jailed. Dispensing in this manner with scientific opposition, Lysencho went on to destroy Soviet agriculture by the forced application of his theories to agriculture practices. Russia went from breadbasket to basketcase.
The worse thing that has come out of the current debates is the freedom to call “creationists” stupid, ignorant, idiotic, and so forth. It should be sufficient to simply disagree, but the denigration of people who are being labelled “backward” is dangerous.
Just up there is the “mentally deficient” label. What happens when that “mentally deficient” person has a problem? Who then will care to stand up and defend them when their rights are taken away?
There are no deadly consequences from people who believe in creation theory. They can be excused easily with a smile and an agree to disagree. More importantly for society, if they believe in creation, then they believe the corollaries, that people are important, that the individual has intrinsic value bestowed on them by God, beyond what society arbitrarily decides to give them. These people would argue for and defend the individual against oppression. Governments that trample on human rights do not like to hear dissenting voices that state that they are wrong.
This is where the battle lines are really drawn, not 2.5 million years ago. Today. If a man or woman has no intrinsic worth, then they are completely expendable. The French Revolution brought in “New Man.” Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot all, ALL believed that the individual was a product of evolution, had no value apart from what the State determined. There were no restraining commandments – religion, belief in God in any manner was a threat to be destroyed.
If one wants to adhere to evolution, that’s an individual choice. But applying evolutionary thinking to one’s neighbor to make them petty in one’s eyes and less worthy of a basic level of respect is wrong. The moment “stupid” “”pea-brained” “mentally deficient” or any other other labels comes to the tongue should give people who think of themselves as decent, pause. Name-calling usually appears when arguments are weak. Normally, if one is secure in one’s positions, no name-calling is required. It has a slow, steady, corrosive effect over time and turns a society against its own members.
naliaka on May 6, 2007 at 10:38 AM
Thanks for the *** link, See-Dubya; that was news to me.
Spirit of 1776 on May 6, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Go back to those debates and watch carefully. If you pay attention you will see the old “bait and switch” trick. The evolutionist will take the facts and proof supporting micro-evolution, which the creationist fully agrees with and say “see….macro-evolution happened”. The creationist can only show a lack of proof for one species turning into another, but the evolutionist will go on and on about micro-evolution anyway.
jjjen on May 6, 2007 at 11:24 AM
I believe God used evolution to create man.
csdeven on May 6, 2007 at 11:25 AM
I agree that there have been individuals throughout history that have lived exemplary lives. These people had their personal flaws, just like the rest of us (they weren’t perfect), but their efforts are and have been noteworthy.
I don’t see how that supports your premise, however.
If human nature offers ONLY potentials (as you say),
the statistical sciences say that the probability that Shangrai-La exists somewhere on the planet is almost a certainty. But the facts say otherwise. No where on the planet, and at no time in history has a social group of humans built even a localized utopia.
If human nature was basically good, as the humantists all claim, then Karl Marx SHOULD HAVE been correct. It SHOULD be possible to evolve into a communistic society where crime disappears and every man “receives his reward according to the caliber of his work.” Throughout history there have been PLENTY of isolated groups of humans(socially/geographically/genetically). This is how were ended up with so many languages and so many races. And yet, in no instance has any race, any culture, any society, on any continent EVER built a utopian society (in all of recorded history). It has NEVER happened. Murderers, and thieves, and liars, con-men/snake-oil salesmen, and even politicians, yuck (oops, I let that one slip) have ALWAYS been with us — no matter when or where you go.
The evidence that there is something fundamentally flawed and evil about human nature is overwhelming.
You said that the Catholics are superstitious. I don’t see them that way. I see them as my Christian brethren. Some people are uneasy that we share genetic code with radical Islamists and/or Sean Penn. I see them as my misguided or insane or evil human brethren. The differences between you and me and them is only a matter of degree. If we had an evil-O-meter (that behaves sort of like a thermometer), each of us would register on the scale somewhere. Some of us high, some of us low — but all of us would register, even Mahatma Ghandi. IMHO, Jesus of Nazerath is the ONLY human in existence that wouldn’t register on such a device.
CyberCipher on May 6, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Exactly. Now toss in some racism, totalitarianism, humanism, and a WHOLE LOT of anger and hate, and you have the definition of a liberal.
CyberCipher on May 6, 2007 at 12:25 PM
naliaka on May 6, 2007 at 10:38 AM Thank you for your contribution on the subject. I agree with you that it is a dangerous path where a whole belief system is discounted as being dedunked or not true. We can go round and round on the subjects of creation/evolution as they say the proof is in the taste of the pudding. People argue about what the founding fathers really believed. Does it matter what a few men believed compared to millions of people believing in Christianity over the course of two hundred years. It’s what was taught in our schools until recently. The huddled masses were held together by their beliefs and they are the ones who’s blood sweat and tears made this country what it is today. Also the beleif in the intrinsic worth of a person s life and human rights cannot be abandoned for to do so could open the door to unthinkable horrors. I can see it now Al Gore’s final solution to global warming,or the new world order vote or die bumper stickers.
sonnyspats1 on May 6, 2007 at 12:40 PM
The problem is, they are many people that call themselves scientists that are CONSTANTLY publishing journal articles that violate exactly this rule. They expect us to accept their ideas as “science” when there is no mechanism or hope of constructing a control experiment that is capable of disproving their theories. This is why were are frequently in a quandry. There are things being peddled as “science” that are, in truth, religion or meta-physics.
Time to weigh-in on see-dubya’s original topic.
Evolution is theory — and not a very good one. The evidence supporting it is weak.
It has every bit as much chance to be disproved as
1) string theory (sub-atomic particle physics),
2) dark matter (astronomy),
3) dark energy (astronomy).
IMHO, NONE of this stuff is good science. Most of people peddling this stuff should be in the un-employment lines, Sorta’ like Sean Penn.
CyberCipher on May 6, 2007 at 12:40 PM
It’s interesting that this exact same debate is going on in the pages of the latest Mensa magazine.
JohnJ on May 6, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Anything can be used to justify anything. Simply because Darwin has been used wrong-headedly doesn’t mean it has never or can never be used right-headedly.
The core question is whether we think science (for example, evolutionary psychology) can inform some of our underlying political concepts (such as the nature of man), and hence influence our political ideology.
I would hope we conservatives would answer overwhelmingly ‘yes’.
petefrt on May 6, 2007 at 12:49 PM
naliaka on May 6, 2007 at 10:38 AM
That’s the problem with every science known to man. Nuclear power can blow up a city, or provide that same city with cheap energy. Physics can land a man on the moon or launch an ICBM. Chemistry can heal or poison.
I can use a hammer to build a house or smash someone’s head in. I don’t know what the use of tools has to do with the tools themselves. Besides, corrupt ideologies were busily creating wars and enslaving people long before Darwin, using all kinds of asinine reasoning to do so.
Krydor on May 6, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Evolution is theory — and not a very good one. The evidence supporting it is weak.
It has every bit as much chance to be disproved as
1) string theory (sub-atomic particle physics),
2) dark matter (astronomy),
3) dark energy (astronomy).
CyberCipher
no where near as weak as the Bible… which is the only evidence the religious have… and most of those “Theories” you quote have some pretty substantial catches to them… such as the universe weighs to much not to be full of dark matter… or matter we can’t see…
then there is the telescopic evidence
look at this image of 1 little bitty bitty spec of the sky, and tell me that the Bible took this into account and didn’t ignorantly leave out proper explanation of the solar system, much less the Galaxy, and even to lesser extent the universe… do bible thumpers even have a real grasp on the size of the universe? or even our galaxy… I lose any intellectual respect for anyone who says this is the center of the universe, God made us and only us… if you sit down, read the bible and believe that we are it, in this whole universe and god had omnipotent knowledge of the whole plan from start to finish… then God is a Masochist, plain and simple… and you my friend are a Sadist.
Kaptain Amerika on May 6, 2007 at 1:04 PM
that’s 1 BIG LINK huh?… sorry
Kaptain Amerika on May 6, 2007 at 1:05 PM
and what exactly do they mean by “unobservable past”?
We know the half-life of Uranium-238 (the time it takes to decay into Lead-206) is 4.5 billion years because we’ve observed the Zicron crystals. It doesn’t get anymore cut and dry than that.
Nonfactor on May 6, 2007 at 3:20 AM
I believe you have answered your own question. ie: without having been alive 4.5 billion years ago how could I observe a particular phenomenon hence the term ‘unobservable past’. Unless you are willing to assess that evolutionists have special powers and abilities to time travel and witness these events then your THEORY requires a certian degree of FAITH as being true.
sonnyspats1 on May 6, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Nope!
And you can talk about drawbacks to carbon dating all you want, but there are other dating methods, and they come up with the same time frames. Which is one of many reasons why, when they discover Mercury has a magnetic field and a partially molten core, they throw out their assumption that the core was solid (contrary to evidence), but don’t throw out age of the universe (supported by evidence). But these crackpots are so much more knowledgable about science than actual, you know, scientists, they think we should just throw nuclear physics out the window.
dorkafork on May 6, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Wow. As an agnostic (that means I believe in God, but not (any existing) religion), I find this topic… amusing.
First, learn what “theory” means in scientific language. It doesn’t mean “hypothesis”. The Law of Gravity was the theory of gravity until 1969.
The specious question in “Contact” can be met with other specious questions, like “do you still beat your wife?” and “If God created the universe, what created God, and what’s His address?” At which point I find better ways to waste my time.
Evolution does happen on the micro and macro scale. So what? Maybe the next great leap in evolution will occur when we’re all replaced by robots. As I’m fond of saying, God made the universe to His purposes, doesn’t matter what I *want* to believe.
Man is not flawed; he behaves according to his nature. Even bigotry serves a survival purpose. I’m currently rereading the “Midshipman’s Hope” series of books (I shouldn’t; too darn depressing) wherein the main character believes God required him to be perfect, which he can’t be. If God wanted him perfect, He’d have made him that way.
Human nature is neither good nor bad, it just is. When a pit bull mauls a kid, is “dog nature” good or evil? Neither. Pit bulls have been bred for their behavior. Sorry, I am not a cardboard cutout; I contain within me the seeds of great goodness and great evil. The choice is purely mine.
I have advocated exterminating the Iraqi population. Is that evil? I don’t desire to do so, but I perceive it to be in the best interest to the survival ofmy people. Surely protecting and providing for my own is a good thing? When a pack of wolves track down and kill a single deer, are they evil? Are they cowards? Or are they trying to survive? The savagery that is hated in a serial killer should be loved in one of our soldiers in Iraq. It’s not moral relativism; in CONTEXT. The vast majority of moral questions can be clarified by placing them in context.
There is one man and one woman left on Earth; the man is 35, the woman is 15. Would it be evil for him to have sex with her? No, because the species would come to an end otherwise. There’s a series of stories called “Masters of the Fist”, wherein all men have become sterile except one. In order to maintain morality and yet keep the species going, that man is made into a tyrant, who exercises his traditional right of first night with the bride. The reason for this tradition is only known to the handful of people who came up with the solution. The village is happy, there are children playing, everyone has parents, one of his unknown bastards is fertile as well… totally immoral… yet totally good… IN CONTEXT.
I’m sorry, but I get annoyed at this “man is basically flawed” crap. That IS what the liberals believe, so that they, the elite, can mold us into their view of perfection. We have done so much with so little in such a short period of time, I’m darned PROUD of what we’ve accomplished.
If I can dig it up, I’m going to post a letter-to-the-editor I wrote long ago about “arrogance” and “hubris”.
If God loves me, and I’m fundamentally flawed… what’s that say about God? If God made me, and I’m fundamentally flawed, what does that say about God? Nope, mankind is as God needs us to be to fulfill some purpose of His.
Hiraghm on May 6, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Tim Blair points out that the liberal ideology doesn’t need Darwin either.
JohnJ on May 6, 2007 at 1:12 PM
You don’t need to see a full half-life to determine the rate of decay. Isotopes as a principle decay at the same rate forever. So by “unobservable past” they (or you) mean to say “recorded human history,” correct? As if we humans cannot account for things, based on evidence, before we knew how to write.
You do not need to witness an event to know that it happened–this sentence, if left alone, would sound a lot like a sentence religious people use, but I will expand where the religious do not. We have evidence of what happens inside a star to cause it to supernova, we know that these stars are powerhouses of all the atoms in the universe, we know that planets form via accretion–we have not witnessed any of these things, but through the use of logic and evidence we are able to know what happened.
Nonfactor on May 6, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Descended into name calling, have we? Sorta’ proves my point about human nature, donchathink? Perhaps you should hang-out at Daily KOS instead of HotAir. They are experts at name calling, ya’know.
CyberCipher on May 6, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Personally, I believe in Zig’thor, creator of the Christian God. Zig’thor in his ultimate knowledge has a plan — the plan is to get the people of Earth to worship his creation — Zig’thor has accomplished his goal.
Nonfactor on May 6, 2007 at 1:19 PM
I think the Darwinist vs. Creationist debate is so big right now is because it speaks to our purpose and significance in life.
If there is no God and we all appeared after some big unexplained explosion, then all of life, including human life, is a big cosmic joke. The universe is just waiting to cool off and all that is, melts into oblivion. Any seeming purpose in our lives is artificial and capricious. We are forced to merely “feel” like we have significance and purpose instead of actually having any.
If there is a God, then He has created us with a profound significance and purpose in life. The believer has hope and meaning in life whereas the unbeliever has only self declared “reasons” for existing which disintegrate upon his death. In the end I believe that the Darwin/Creation debate is really a debate about hope and meaning vs. hopelessness and meaninglessness.
Mojave Mark on May 6, 2007 at 1:20 PM
Now’s my chance to may EVERYONE at HotAir mad at me.
Some people say “God doesn’t make junk.”
Based on the evidence, as near as I can tell,
that is ALL that He makes (exclusively). Case in point:
Sean Penn.
Deal with it.
CyberCipher on May 6, 2007 at 1:20 PM
The problem with your philosophy on human nature is that you never define “good” or “bad” or even “human nature” for that matter. Good according the the Christian God or the Muslim God? Bad according the the Austrian society or the Chinese society?
Nonfactor on May 6, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »