Analysis: Creation or Evolution — Society’s Dramatic Shift
|
|
PZ Meyers challenged atheist bloggers to request the Good News Magazine booklet on evolution, and to write up an entry about … what we learned? Or, an entry tearing into little pieces — something like one of the two. Anyway, after we got the booklet, we were supposed to go through it.
I got the booklet on Friday, and it’s long enough to warrant several entries. This entry is about the first chapter called: Society’s Dramatic Shift. You can read the text for this section here.
If I want any hope of finishing, I have to pick and choose the pieces I’ll go after.
Section: Human reproduction argues against evolution
“If human beings are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process, how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific? If they can reproduce by far simpler methods, why can’t we? If evolution is true, what went wrong?”
Let’s start with the hypothetical statement at the beginning: “If human beings are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process…” Â You mean how evolution has been aiming for something that is the highest peak of awesome since the beginning of time — and that peak is humanity — right? It’s a nice thought, perhaps, but it’s not based off of the science of evolution. Now, I’m going to try and be careful, because I do not consider myself an expert on evolution. That being said, I think that I have a fair grasp of the basics (and gladly take correction if I make a misstep).
So, the condition statement is false — let’s analyze the consequent just for fun anyway. “… how is it that we have the disadvantage of requiring a member of the opposite sex to reproduce, when lower forms of life—such as bacteria, viruses and protozoa—are sexless and far more prolific?”
Good question. I recently read a book that addressed this topic specifically: The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley. I recommend the book if you are interested in the topic. I’d mention that I think Ridley does a fair job of being careful to separate the parts of the book that are well established from the more speculative parts. Another book that I recommend looks at human sexuality through an interesting conflict: Sperm Wars: Infidelity, Sexual Conflict, and Other Bedroom Battles by Robin Baker. In any case, the question of why sex instead of sexless is an interesting one, and manifestly not necsessarily a disadvantage in general.
“Regrettably, such obvious flaws in the theory are too often overlooked.”
The book moves from asking questions, to assuming the questions are unanswerable and flaws of the theory of evolution. The questions are not asked because the authors are curious and want to know whether they have been answered (they have); they are being asked to score rhetorical points without a care to the truth of the matter.
Section: A worldview with far-reaching implications
Now, the implications of a worldview have nothing to do with the factual claims being made by or within a worldview. The fact of the matter is a separate issue from the consequences of those facts.
“Now, almost a century and a half after the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, we can see where his thinking has led. In Europe in particular, belief in a personal God has plummeted.”
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Although I’ll give it to them, having a plausible naturalistic answer to the questions that previously had “god did it” as the most easily conceivable answer probably does play a role.
“In the United States, court decisions have interpreted constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion as freedom from religion—effectively banning public expression of religious beliefs and denying the country’s rich religious heritage.”
When I see statements like these in published works, I can’t decide if the writer is actively being deceptive, or if he is just a moron. It is a question for the ages.
Has the government shut down a church’s signs — effectively banning any church’s public expression of religious beliefs?
I would argue that the government should not be in the business of making theological decrees.
When the government started printing paper money with the words: In God We Trust on them for the first time in 1957, was the government acting within its rights to make a proclamation about God?
This question can go one of two ways: yes or no.
I would answer, no, the government was acting inappropriately by adding this proclamation.
If you would answer yes, then, they must not have a problem with the government changing the text in the future at some point to say, “God is Imaginary”. Â A statement that I also think would be inappropriate to add to the currency. I’ve had interesting conversations where a person actually starts to see how, with every transaction, the US government taking the time to remind both parties that God is not real is odd, presumptive and inappropriate. Â Often, the person has only considered just removing the words “In God We Trust” — and the government being neutral toward theological claims is interpreted as being pro-atheistic.
Truly pro-atheism slogans on money ought to make everyone as uncomfortable as pro-theism slogans on money.
“Meanwhile, the world languishes in the sorrow and suffering that results from rejecting absolute moral standards.”
Sigh. So many ways to respond to this one … how about I choose this way:
Absolute moral standards — all right, I’ll bite.
There are moral absolutes, like: genocide is wrong. I’m not some ‘moral relativist’. On this basis, I judge God to be immoral: 1 Sam. 15:2-3. If you are a Christian, do you condemn God as ordering immoral acts, or are you a ‘moral relativist’ that thinks that genocide is only sometimes wrong?
“What you believe does matter.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Supernatural faith-based religions create undue fears and worries in the minds of children and adults about terrors that don’t exist. Religion redirects time, money, resources and people wanting to do good into useless endeavors. Faith promotes magical and superstitious thinking. It gives respect and credence to religious leaders and religious ideas for no good reason other than blind faith – and often with terrible results.
It matters what you believe?
Yes, it is one of the main reasons why I engage in religious debate.
I’ll post about the later chapters in the coming weeks.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=3121f87e-c139-45b1-bce7-26ef209aae15)
I think you missed something right at the beginning, "If human beings are the pinnacle of the evolutionary process.." The assumpion that humans are somehow superior to all other lifeforms is burned into the brains of theoists so deeply they don't even question it. There's nothing to suggest the we are 'superior'. Over the years that have been many attempts at justifying our supposed superiority. Remember when they used to say, "humans are tool users", until they discovered the chimps use tools, as do Otters, Sea Gulls, to name a few. After that I think it was, "humans have language", until they discovered the Bees have a sort of language, as do Whales, and many others. Some have not given up but most scientiest don't even bother trying to rationalize an assumed 'superiority'.
So there you go. The premise is invalid which makes the rest of the argument pointless.
I totally agree — I agreed in my entry, too, "So, the condition statement is false — let’s analyze the consequent just for fun anyway."
The consequent is the piece of the argument that follows from the hypothetical statement. I may change "condition statement" to "hypothetical statement" because that terminology might be more familiar. The consequent is pointless, and hence, am analyzing it just for fun.
I agree with every thing else that you mentioned.
[...] Analysis: Creation or Evolution — Society's Dramatic Shift … [...]
What's faith got to do with it?
What is empirically true? How do we know that? And so what?
Fundies don’t ask Do you believe that evolution is true? They ask Do you believe in evolution?
I’m not being picky here. When I’m asked "Do you believe in evolution?" My answer is No, I do not believe in evolution, I know that modern evolutionary theory is true.
The difference is not mere semantics. But, if you find a detailed explanation too pedantic, stop reading now.
1. Fundies speak from an irrational, non-empirical context: faith-based supernaturalism
History matters. Distinctions in concepts matter. 'Belief in' or ‘Faith’ needs to be traced back to New Testament Greek before making sense of it. ‘Faith’ in English translates ‘fides’ in Latin. Biblical translators used ‘fides’ for ‘pistis’ in koiné Greek, “common Greek” of canonic xian texts. A direct translation of ‘pistis’ into English is ‘trust.’ For skeptical ancient Greeks, pistis was lowest on the scale of trustworthiness for claiming a statement to be true.
Having faith means my trusting that some belief is true. I trust not because I have any reliable evidence for that statement (of belief). I trust because I am someone who regards as authoritative some other person or written source which has claimed that the statement is true.
The so-called great monotheisms (judaism, xianity, and islam) are authoritarian — authoritarian in power (as in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Ameristan — the southern US). They are also authoritarian in matters of faith and morals (from infallible Benny16 to other monsters like James Dobson).
Having faith especially when contradicted by evidence far beyond a reasonable doubt still marks the inverted elitism of xians. Or, as early church “father” Tertullian says, “I believe because it is absurd.”
part one
What's faith got to do with it?
What is empirically true? How do we know that? And so what?
part 2
2. Empirical knowledge organized theoretically and refined by testing is the sole domain of scientific inquiry
With respect to science vs. near-eastern monotheisms, the victory falls to the sciences beyond any rational doubt. When talking about nature mythological discourse, which may be psychologically comforting, long ago gave way to empirico-conceptual discourse, setting comfort aside in order to determine what can be known empirically.
Science arbitrates which statements about the world, empirical statements, are or are not “known” — that is, are properly given the metalinguistic accolade, ‘is [empirically] true.’ Or as Tarski states it: ['p' is true if-and-only-if p]. (Search: Tarski’s semantic theory of truth)
Such statements are ‘methodologically fit’ according to the relevant testing procedures within science itself. (Note: Neither repeatability or quantifiability is a necessary or a sufficient requirement for hypothesis testing. See: Steve Gould. Wonderful Life)
Methodological fitness belongs to a 400 year old, yet unfinished shift — the scientific revolution. In whom is evaluative power vested? Who shall decide what is true about nature? And by what criteria is truth ascertained?
Neither ethical fitness as in Heraclitus and his Stoic followers nor theological fitness as in Plato and his xian followers is any longer considered a viable principle for assessing the truth of an empirical statement.
Methodologically, whenever so-called sacred writings make claims about the natural world, they are subject to exactly the same forces of potential refutation as any other empirical claim. There is no Executive Privilege for God.
3. Know the opposition
“Christianity is the practice of nihilism.” — Nietzsche
Fundie bible worshipers deliberately lie in their pseudo-scientific textbooks and they demand equal time for their lies in public education.
For 2,000 years one vile hallmark of xianity has remained its hatred of natural knowledge and skeptical philosophy. The Stoics and Epicureans of Athens laughed Paul of Tarsus off the Areopagus when he proclaimed Christ’s resurrection.
Paul’s quintessential, nihilistic rejoinder remains holy writ:
27-But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28-He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not— to nullify the things that are … 1Cor1:27-28 NIV* (emphasis mine)
In his “On the genealogy of morals” (1886), Nietzsche cites Paul’s revenge filled hatred as the non plus ultra of xian resentment giving birth to values completely antithetical to those of Hellenistic-Roman thought. It took 500 years of very lucky breaks, imperial anti-pagan mandates, and destruction of libraries before xians finally destroyed most vestiges of humanism for the next 1,000 years.
Xianity today still appeals to those who believe themselves mistreated. To those in whom resentment surges. To those masochists who must punish their guilty selves. To those sadists who must project that guilt onto others and into nature. (The whole of 1Cor1 deserves reading.)
Their death impulse directed inward, engenders hatred of self. Directed outward, hatred of others and the world. Know them by their fruits — they are revenge seekers acting on their fideistic falsehoods believed in as absolute truths.
the anti_supernaturalist
* ‘1Cor1:27-28 NIV’ is the accepted form for citation by book/chapter/verse(s)/translation for ‘1st Corinthians: Chapter 1: verses 27-28 New International Version of the New Testament’