I Get Spanked by Creationists for Accepting Reality and being a "Darwinist"
Creationist Website Disputes Column on HItler and Darwin.
I Get Spanked by Creationists for Accepting Reality and being a "Darwinist"
Why is it that to creationists label everyone who accepts current biology as a “Darwinist”? It's as if scientific knowelged equates to some kind of political ideology. We don’t call physicists “Einsteinists” or astronomers “Hubbleites”. In this critique of my last column, Richard Weikart asserts that if I accept evolution, I must also accept that I can’t criticize Hitler. This is published on a site called "Evolution News and Views" which looks suspiciously like a creationist/intelligent design website.
She concludes her article by asking, "If our lives really did hinge on countless accidents, couldn't that notion make life ever more precious?" Again, she is smuggling ideas into her argument that are fundamentally incompatible with her worldview. "Precious" implies that something has value, meaning, and significance; indeed it means that something has more value than other things. However, a naturalistic understanding of Darwinism cannot sustain the notion that life is precious, because everything, not just life, is the product of chance and would be equally valuable, making life no more precious than anything else in the cosmos. A lump of coal or a dung heap is every bit as much the product of countless accidents as you are. Does that make them precious? Many Darwinists today, such as Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, reject the idea that human life is special and has any meaning or purpose.
I'm not sure Coyne or Dawkins ever said anything like that. Weikart gives no references there. As Scott Gilbert so eloquently put it in this follow-up post, we endow life with meaning and purpose.
My view is that our exploration of the universe tells us that we are the products of natural processes and chance. How can we progress in science if we throw out every finding that makes us struggle? Weikart seems to think we can decide what aspects of reality to accept.
On the other hand maybe "it should be up to the American People to Decide What's True," as stated by a host on the Daily Show last night in a spoof of anti-science rhetoric. Republican strategist Noelle Nickpour called this common sense, though she might be kidding.
Comments (27)
Well, you know, if you play with monkeys, you're bound to get some sh** thrown at you...
I think what these guys don't seem to get is the concept of "point of view." If the universe had a point of view--which it presumably doesn't, since we have no reason to think the universe is conscious--then, sure, maybe the universe would find dung heaps equally valuable and worthy of attention as it found humans. But, of course, the point of view we are all concerned with is the human point of view, and to humans, human life and values, freedom, beauty, et cetera--these are all things we do value. We value them whether we believe we were pooped into existence by an incontinent sky-fairy or whether we believe that science holds the key to understanding our origins. We value them even if we believe that, at bottom, biology is reducible to chemistry and chemistry is reducible to physics. We couldn't choose not to value them if we tried, and that's because each one of us has a subjective experience of the world which is, whatever else it might be, a human experience.
Evolution describes how things are and how they got this way. It doesn't describe why we like some things, or care about some things, and not others--though it can sometimes yield surprising insights into those things, too. It is ridiculous to say that biology deprives our lives of purpose and meaning. Heck, does chemistry deprive it of purpose and meaning? Does physics? Does math? Does it really have to be the case that learning how things actually work strips our lives of meaning? Of course not; not only is there no reason in principle why it should, but in practice people who value reason and evidence are no less purposeful--and certainly no less moral--than those who do not.— kurtdenke- Your closing remarks hit it on the head. I wish I could say it that well. You show us that it is not necessary to be blind to science in order to find a moral grounding and purpose in life. — Jim Mauch
- I regret that in my last comment I did level a personal attack at the Discovery Institute that I feel was too strident. Never-the-less it still is necessary to explain what is going on here.
Over the years The Discovery Institute and the other creationist groups have given the same arguments long ago proven false and their reputations have long been discredited. Yet today, they are as happy as a lark because they are getting the media coverage they desire.
We should not give these people media coverage even to even to prove their claims false once again. As discredited as they are there is no need to give them any media coverage at all. If they desire legitimacy they can do so simply by being serious scientists presenting solid scientific studies to their peers rather than marketers selling a dubious product.— Jim Mauch - Actually, Dawkins does not make the argument that life has no meaning or purpose. He argues that the very fact there is anything at all should give us a profound sense of awe, and it is in this awe that we find our meaning and purpose. I believe in evolution, yet I don't necessarily believe that God doesn't exist. However, I feel that people like Dawkins have great insights into seeing the universe in a different way. The great problem with the creationists and the intelligent design people is that they just want to dismiss the science because they feel their faith can't hold up to it. Therefore, they are not in the business of learning anything, which is the main purpose of science. They want scientists to take their arguments seriously, but scientists can only deal with the evidence at hand, and there is, like it or not, loads of evidence in nature that evolution is a fact. If scientists were to start taking every single non-verifiable bit of information seriously, they may as well go out and search for big-foots riding unicorns.— Hemingway
- Hemingway wrote: "They want scientists to take their arguments seriously, but scientists can only deal with the evidence at hand, and there is, like it or not, loads of evidence in nature that evolution is a fact."
Please list 4 or 5 pieces of evidence that shows evolution is a fact. And by evolution I mean vertical evolution (information-building evolution).— dab - dab, first, this weird expression "information-building evolution" shows that you have been reading the works of complete crackpots. Yes, evolution builds information, but that's not primarily how anyone connected with biology talks about it; it's the language of that fraud William Dembski.
It is of course not really possible to sum up the evidence for evolution in a few words without glossing over quite a lot. But consider, if you want a list of four or five things, (1) biogeography, (2) the stratigraphic column, (3) homologies, (4) the reflection in the fossil record of divergence in homologous structures (e.g., the shift from the compound reptilian jaw to the dentary mammalian jaw as one move from synapsids through therapsids), and (5) genetics. All of these lines of evidence converge on one conclusion, and it ain't creationism.— kurtdenke - Biology had moved into the information age. Our genetic makeup is, quite literally, our biological software. As much was said by the premiere bio-engineer alive today, Dr. Craig Venter. Microsoft has an entire department dedicated to biology. It's the present and the future of biology.
That you and your like-minded brethren refuse to accept this inconvenient truth, choosing to live in scientific denialism, proves my point about Darwinists looking to keep biology stuck in 1859, when Darwin's argument-from-ignorance wasn't the laughingstock that it is today.— IDRevolution - If the concern is about how naturalistic theories call into question our worth as individuals, then one ought to worry about the scientific study of reproduction and development. Genetics, for example, tells us that the genetic makeup of each of us has a random component. Evolution, by contrast, is not about individuals, but collectives (populations, species, "kinds"). How does the origins of the structure of the vertebrate eye, which we share with lots of other animals, relate to my personal relationship with my Creator and Redeemer?— thoms
- Hemingway mentions "the shift from the compound reptilian jaw to the dentary mammalian jaw as one move from synapsids through therapsids" as one his evidences for evolution.
Read "Dental fossils and the fossil record" by Don Moeller
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_118-127.pdf
Ian Taylor addresses the stratigraphic (geologic) column, homologies, etc. in "Teaching Evolution: Is There a Better Way?"
http://www.creationmoments.com/content/teaching-evolution-there-better-way
Finally, read: "Objectivity of Science Undermined" by Creation-Evolution Headlines blogger blogger David Coppedge:
http://crev.info/content/111024-objectivity_of_science_undermined
— dab - "This is published on a site called "Evolution News and Views" which looks suspiciously like a creationist/intelligent design website."
---
FYI, "Evolution News and Views" is most definitely a creationist/intelligent design website. It is run by the Discovery Institute. Note they do not allow comments.— IDWatcher - Evolution News & Views is perhaps the premiere blog on the net for wading through the lies for Darwin being spewed by the irreligiously motivated 21st century biology-denialists.
As for your claim about them not allowing comments: For most entries, no, however, they will allow comments for a select few. The reasoning is that they simply do not have the staff to moderate comments for all of their entries they post. As we all know, besides attempting to keep biology stuck in 19th century ignorance, Darwinists are also well known for their hateful, irrational, uncivilized behavior. Opening the flood gates at ENV would be a disaster of epic proportions due to the number of trolls they would attract.— IDRevolution - Good thing Faye, the evil "Darwinist", allows comments on her blog, else you would not be able to troll here and engage in your own version of "hateful, irrational, uncivilized behavior".
— IDWatcher - Evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman. See http://www.lifescienceprize.org/ for a list of bluffing evolutionists.— insectman
- That was very funny! Someone put a lot of effort into a parody website. — GalapagosPete
- dab, heminway didn't say that, I did. IDWatcher is right. If you're reading from the Discovery Institute you're not getting the science. On this, read Donald Prothero's excellent book, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters, which treats the subject from the scientific, rather than the creationist, point of view. But, you know, if you refuse to read the work of actual biologists and actual paleontologists, you really have nothing to contribute to the discussion. I regularly read creationist works; how about you return the favor and read some actual science?— kurtdenke
- Oh, and by way of further comment, dab: the article you cite is about dental fossils. It has absolutely nothing to do with the reptile-to-mammal jaw hinge and structure transition. Again: read some actual science, or you will always be in the dark on this.— kurtdenke
- Are you referring to the paper in Nature (March 15, 2007) by Zhe-Xi Luo, Peiji Chen, Gang Li, and Meng Chen, “A new eutriconodont mammal and evolutionary development in early mammals,” Nature 446, 288-293
Read:
Missing Link, or Just Jawboning About Ear Evolution?
http://crev.info/content/missing_link_or_just_jawboning_about_ear_evolution
— dab - Question for dab... how old is the earth? We have to know what kind of creationist you are before we start debunking all your "facts".
Also I would love to hear your thoughts on how humans came to exist.— Aquanerd09 - I'll go with "What is a YEC?" for 50O Aqua. — IDWatcher
- No, of course I'm not. The homology involved here was observed decades before the Origin of Species, and there is a lot written on the topic. But, plainly, you have read none of it.— kurtdenke
- I'd like to take this opportunity to say Hi to Casey Luskin over on EVN. I know you are watching Casey. Please tell us why EVN does not allow comments yet uses its own blog to post replies to other blogs that permit comments. What are you afraid of?— IDWatcher
- I would love to see what scientific basis you have for accusing others of being unscientific. As it is right now, it seems that the accusation is levelled simply because you do not agree with someone. The actual scientific evidence is decidedly NOT in the favour of evolution. There are no transitional fossils, no actual evolution series, no vestigial organs, ERVs have important functions, JunkDNA is a thing of the past almost - thankfully evolution didn't keep us in the 19th century on that one. There is absolutely no actual evidence for this theory when it comes to common ancestry. The part representing variation in already existing organisms is fact, but boring and obvious. The macroevolutionary claims that people keep saying is "accepting reality" do not match the evidence. You are basically showing yourself as a tool if you think you have solid grounding on that. If you wish, show me your scientific evidence. The whale sequence is supposed to be one of the best, yet its lacking fossil evidence and is entirely made up. Then there are lies constantly used in textbooks to indoctrinate children. Lies that some people want to keep in books because it supposedly shows a "fact" of history. Obviously the belief in evolution comes before the evidence and in spite of it.
["This is published on a site called "Evolution News and Views" which looks suspiciously like a creationist/intelligent design website.""]
What is with this? Do you not see the inherent bias in your comment? Should we not trust sites about evolution then? Since you throw away information (that is usually well sourced and factual) just because of a stereotype aimed at avoiding proper debate.— semitope - Goodness. Where to start?
Transitional fossils: tons of 'em. You saying there aren't any doesn't make you look right, it makes you look ignorant.
Evolution series: well, cladistics has changed how evolutionary trees are graphically represented, and it's true that one can never definitively say that one species is known to be the ancestor of another, but with those qualifications, yeah, there are lots of evolutionary series, including fish-to-amphibian-to-amniote-to-mammal, among others.
ERVs: what the heck your argument is here, nobody knows, and it's probably just as good as your others.
Junk DNA: Who the heck cares? So there is a disagreement, between actual biologists, concerning how much junk DNA we have. Nobody on any side of that disagreement thinks evolution didn't happen.
Common ancestry: did you know that there is exactly one biological sciences professor with tenure at a respected institution who believes in intelligent design creationism? And did you know that in his latest book, The Edge of Evolution, he concedes common ancestry? I bet you didn't, because I'll bet that in addition to not reading books by real biologists, you don't bother reading the works of creationists, either.
Evolution News and Views is published by the Discovery Institute. Those familiar with this issue know that the Discovery Institute is a pack of liars with a religious agenda. But then, you probably haven't read the "Wedge Document" either.
Read something for a change.— kurtdenke - The discovery institute is not a pack of liars with an agenda. You simply do not like their position so you criticize them without actually addressing their points. They are civil and do good work.
ERVs aren't what they were thought to be. They serve important funtions.
JunkDNA is not junk.
These are 2 of the biggest points for your theory.
The fossil record has no transitionals. The only reason you are able to call the fully functional and designed creatures transitionals is because they are extinct. The logical conclusion would be that it was an extinct animal but with evolutionary assumptions, they turn into transitionals. They dont even fit that description in morphology
So... Behe doesn't dispute the supposed common ancestry. How is this evidence for it?
yes there are proposed evolution series, but where is the evidence for those series?— semitope - My goodness. Read something. Read something that isn't written by the clowns at the DI or one of their pals. You are unfit to participate in a discussion like this. Your assumptions about the evidence the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection rests upon are so inaccurate that you just look like a fool, dribbling on yourself. Read something. Honestly, read something, and this time let it be something by an actual biologist.
— kurtdenke - The common attitude towards opposition by an idiot with no actual support for his position. You must be living in the 19th century when the cell was a blob. They aren't assumptions, it is quite clear that the evidence is not there. Read your post again and try to claim you said something more than I did. Your evidence for common descent is that Behe is ok with it for petes sake. Your point for JunkDNA? Oh right... NONE. ERVs? NONE again. Evolution series? You admit they are made up. Transitional fossils? "tons of 'em" Name one and prove it is. You like to bash on people who don't agree with you when your position is simply weak at best. Should we all just take it on faith and join your little religion? — semitope
- Kurt... they're are trolling and you biting...— Aquanerd09
1
Popular Posts
About this blog
Faye Flam - writer
In pursuit of her stories, writer Faye Flam has weathered storms in Greenland, gotten frost nip at the South Pole, and floated weightless aboard NASA’s zero-g plane. She has a degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology and started her writing career with the Economist. She later took on the particle physics and cosmology beat at Science Magazine before coming to the Inquirer in 1995. Her previous science column, “Carnal Knowledge,” ran from 2005 to 2008. Her new column and blog, Planet of the Apes, explores the topic of evolution and runs here and in the Inquirer’s health section each Monday. Email Faye at fflam@phillynews.com.
Reach Planet of the at fflam@phillynews.com.
Planet of the Apes
In pursuit of her stories, writer Faye Flam has weathered storms in Greenland, gotten frost nip at the South Pole, and floated weightless aboard NASA’s zero-g plane. She has a degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology and started her writing career with the Economist. She later took on the particle physics and cosmology beat at Science Magazine before coming to the Inquirer in 1995. Her previous science column, “Carnal Knowledge,” ran from 2005 to 2008. Her new column and blog, Planet of the Apes, explores the topic of evolution and runs here and in the Inquirer’s health section each Monday. Email Faye at fflam@phillynews.com.
Reach Planet of the at fflam@phillynews.com.
Search this blog:
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: