Comment #19873

Posted by Russell on March 13, 2005 02:07 PM (e) (s)

From the article:

“Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins,” hasn’t been updated since 1993, and other publications have moved to the forefront of the intelligent-design movement.

And from oP&P “producer” Buell:

“If they would have contacted me, I would not have encouraged the people in Dover to use it because of other tools that are more up-to-date,” he said. “The idea of intelligent design and the evidence that supports it has gotten extraordinarily more strong than when it was originally printed.”

But they forgot to mention what these new updated materials are! Behe’s book? Dembski’s? Wells’? If so, Designer help us!

Comment #19907

Posted by Dan S. on March 13, 2005 05:07 PM (e) (s)

From the article
” In the chapter on “Biochemical Similarities,” the book points out that biochemical analysis of the bullfrog and the horse show that they are the same distance on the evolutionary ladder from the carp.
The book says this shows a flaw in Darwinism because the bullfrog should be more closely related to the fish.
But Miller said that’s an inaccurate interpretation of Darwinism.
“Are these guys intentionally distorting this to mislead readers?” he said. “Or do they just not get it?””

Good question.  That’s really bizarre.
This sort of stuff really bugs me.  There’s a religious radio station here that has a “Creation Moment” providing outdated, wildly inaccurate attacks on evolution.  Same kind of nonsense.  For me, it represents either ignorance or a complete lack of respect for both truth and their audience.  Bad policy, too - what happens if someone who believed you finds out what kind of shoddy arguments you’ve used?  And what does it say when you have to buttress your belief with bs?  Although I think ignorance (unwilling or willing) is usually the more accurate explanation.  I almost respect the AiG page (is that who has it) listing arguments NOT to use - except it really is just arguments not to use - strategic moves.  Geez.

Comment #19911

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 13, 2005 05:23 PM (e) (s)

Nic wrote:

Michael Behe was also quoted.  The fact that Behe wrote part of the 1993 Pandas — several years before Darwin’s Black Box was published — may be news to some people:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought DBB was published in 1996.  That would make 1993 edition of Pandas three years before DBB.

Comment #19913

Posted by Ken Shackleton on March 13, 2005 05:26 PM (e) (s)

Dan S. wrote:

In the chapter on “Biochemical Similarities,” the book points out that biochemical analysis of the bullfrog and the horse show that they are the same distance on the evolutionary ladder from the carp.
The book says this shows a flaw in Darwinism because the bullfrog should be more closely related to the fish.
But Miller said that’s an inaccurate interpretation of Darwinism.

What am I missing here? First of all….there is no ladder, and since the bullfrog and horse would share a common ancestor, and that ancient common ancestor would then have a common ancestor with the carp….would not the horse and bullfrog be expected to be equa-distant from the carp according to Common Descent?

Help me out here…

Comment #19914

Posted by scott pilutik on March 13, 2005 05:36 PM (e) (s)

The York Daily Record really is doing a fine job. If anyone wants to read the judge’s order in this, I have it here. I’ll warn that it’s mostly dense legalese. I’m struck by the thoroughness of the judge - he was probably a bit more thorough than necessary in dismissing both motions. Which is a good thing, because the law is on the plaintiffs’ side not only as to the above motions, but the merits of the case.

I’ll guess that the parents who attempted to intervene will appeal this court’s decision, because the point of the attempted intervention, in my opinion, was to weigh down the ACLU with both cost and time. Remember that the DI was not thrilled with the timing of this case - ideally, it would arrive at a ‘friendlier’ Supreme Court than the present one. Federal cases move through the system much more deliberately too than in state court (read: slower) - so delay could be part of the overall strategy here. Even under optimal conditions, any contentious federal case would take at the bare minimum one year to reach the Supremes.

I don’t know what the defendants will do as to the motion to dismiss (wrt an appeal), but I don’t think they even thought that it had a chance of succeeding.

Comment #19924

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 13, 2005 07:15 PM (e) (s)

Ken Shackleton wrote:

What am I missing here? First of all….there is no ladder, and since the bullfrog and horse would share a common ancestor, and that ancient common ancestor would then have a common ancestor with the carp….would not the horse and bullfrog be expected to be equa-distant from the carp according to Common Descent?

Help me out here…

You’re 100% correct.  Rough equidistance in this case is what common descent predicts.  In this example, bullfrog and horse are sister taxa and carp is the outgroup.  Just as two brothers are equally related to a common cousin, bullfrog and horse should be equally related to the carp.

This particular error seems to have been started by Michael Denton in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.  It really demonstrates a woeful lack of understanding concerning the very basics of evolution.  Denton later repudiated his mistake, but it didn’t stop every creationist under the sun (including the ID crowd) from repeating it.

Comment #19928

Posted by Henry J on March 13, 2005 07:57 PM (e) (s)

Re “there is no ladder, and since the bullfrog and horse would share a common ancestor, and that ancient common ancestor would then have a common ancestor with the carp….would not the horse and bullfrog be expected to be equa-distant from the carp according to Common Descent?”

That agrees with my take as well. The argument was simply fishy. (Pun fully intended.)

Henry

Comment #19932

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on March 13, 2005 08:06 PM (e) (s)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought DBB was published in 1996.  That would make 1993 edition of Pandas three years before DBB.

That’s what I said, I think…

Comment #19934

Posted by coturnix on March 13, 2005 08:16 PM (e) (s)

Has anyone commented on these yet:

http://www.greatestpursuits.us/gp/weblog/comments/vox_apolog…
http://www.greatestpursuits.us/gp/weblog/comments/vox_apolog…

Comment #19942

Posted by Dan S. on March 13, 2005 08:51 PM (e) (s)

It really sounds like they are assuming evolution says:

mammal
^
reptile
^
frog
^
fish
^
worm (or something)
^
blobby thing

and therefore froggies should be closer to fishies then horsies.

If we just wait long enough, creationists will start attacking *modern* evolutionary theory.  That is, if we don’t die of old age first … 

You know, if they win, it’s like we got attacked by tiny helpless babies and lost.  Of course,that would be tiny helpless babies with a very good grasp of pr and instant support because lots of people *want* to believe in tiny helpless babies … plus they can cry really loud.

Comment #19943

Posted by Dan S. on March 13, 2005 09:00 PM (e) (s)

“Has anyone commented on these yet:

http://www.greatestpursuits.us/gp/weblog/comments/vox_apolog……
http://www.greatestpursuits.us/gp/weblog/comments/vox_apolog……”

Oy vey.  So far, same old same old.  Just read one that said - evolution says might makes right!Nazis!reproduction instead of marriage!!God is good!!I don’t understand either evolutionary theory or the idea that it’s a scientific theory, not a moral primer (let alone the concept that because I don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s wrong!!!!!) 

Sigh.

Comment #19994

Posted by Chip Hogg on March 14, 2005 06:58 AM (e) (s)

Dan S. wrote:

Bad policy, too - what happens if someone who believed you finds out what kind of shoddy arguments you’ve used?

I’ll tell you what happens.  That person becomes shocked, and undertakes a thorough search for good arguments for creationism.  Finding none, a crisis of faith occurs and that person ends up being a lifelong evolutionist, who only returns to Christianity some time later if at all.

Comment #20002

Posted by Katarina on March 14, 2005 08:34 AM (e) (s)

Has anyone commented on these yet:

http://www.greatestpursuits.us/gp/weblog/comments/vox_apolog……
http://www.greatestpursuits.us/gp/weblog/comments/vox_apolog……

Yes, I checked out the first link which led me to “C v E - What’s the Fuss?” I posted a comment under the name “hybrid,” but what I want to point out here is that the author of this post, R. Stewart, seems to be onto something. I tried to put up the direct link for the post but for some reason the rules prevented me from posting it, so if you are interested just go through the first link above and find the title.

R. Stewart, though mistaken on many points, has a good main point. From a Christian perspective, there are more important things to do than pursue the evolution witch hunt.

Comment #20004

Posted by Katarina on March 14, 2005 08:39 AM (e) (s)

Wait a minute, something funny happened, if you click on the link within the quote from my comment, it takes you somewhere different than clicking on the same link on cutornix’s comment. Sorry, I don’t know what happened, but please click on the first link in cutornix’s original comment to get to the page.

Comment #20005

Posted by Katarina on March 14, 2005 08:42 AM (e) (s)

Wait a minute, something funny happened, if you click on the link within the quote from my comment, it takes you somewhere different than clicking on the same link on cutornix’s comment. Sorry, I don’t know what happened.

http://www.greatestpursuits.us/gp/weblog/comments/vox_apologia_7/
should be right

Comment #20010

Posted by renae on March 14, 2005 09:21 AM (e) (s)

Does anyone know a good grade school level book that explains the basics of evolution?  Great schools where I live but they do side step evolution so I teach it to my kids myself.  renae

Comment #20019

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 14, 2005 09:48 AM (e) (s)

Nic wrote:

That’s what I said, I think…

Well, you said “several” years, which I usually take to mean more than 3.  I’m just being nitpicky.

Comment #20022

Posted by Les Lane on March 14, 2005 10:09 AM (e) (s)

While you’re learning about education in the York area you should also check out entertainment -

http://www.yorkdispatch.com/Stories/0,1413,138~10023~2753171…

Comment #20023

Posted by DaveScot on March 14, 2005 10:14 AM (e) (s)

Dan S wrote:

And what does it say when you have to buttress your belief with bs?

Are you talking about Piltdown man, peppered moths, or Haeckel’s embryo drawings perchance?

It doesn’t say anything good would be the answer.

What says something even worse is when your bs beliefs are so obviously flawed that criticism of it in 9th grade public school classrooms has to be censored through legal chicanery.

Comment #20026

Posted by mark on March 14, 2005 10:41 AM (e) (s)

Note that one of the newly-appointed Dover school bored members is one of those parents who tried to enter the lawsuit on the side of the school board.  I forget if he is one that used to home-school his kids. 

Although the article mentioned Buckingham’s “stand up for Jesus” quote, it did not mention his convenient amnesia regarding that quote when he gave deposition.  The article did mention him saying he wanted to balance the normal (mentioning evolution) text with a creationist text.

Comment #20029

Posted by Ed Darrell on March 14, 2005 10:48 AM (e) (s)

DaveScot, do you allege there is some problem with the peppered moth as an example of natural selection in action, in real time, in our time?

That’s the problem with with creationists, a problem I had hoped you wouldn’t fall for.  Simply calling something a problem doesn’t make it a problem.  Calling something a hoax doesn’t make it a hoax.

There is no scientist working with moths, or especially with peppered moths, who disagrees that peppered moths are a fine example of natural selection in action.  There are those who wonder about exactly what the selecting agent is (Kettlewell did his field experiments where titmice were the chief predators, but apparently the moth is not the principal prey of any titmouse). 

Interstingly, there is also not a single scientist working on that problem who is not misquoted by Jonathan Wells.  Judith Hooper wrote in Of Moths and Men that some creationist, bent on distorting the truth, would no doubt claim her book questions evolution, though it does not in any way (see pages 308 through 312).  True to form, within weeks, Jonathan Wells had edited his diatribe against Kettlewell to cite Hooper as a scientist who claims the moths don’t show natural selection.

So is that your claim, that Kettlewell was wrong?  By all deities, such repeated excremental argument is maddening.

Comment #20036

Posted by RBH on March 14, 2005 11:36 AM (e) (s)

Ed Darrell wrote

Interstingly, there is also not a single scientist working on that problem who is not misquoted by Jonathan Wells.  Judith Hooper wrote in Of Moths and Men that some creationist, bent on distorting the truth, would no doubt claim her book questions evolution, though it does not in any way (see pages 308 through 312).  True to form, within weeks, Jonathan Wells had edited his diatribe against Kettlewell to cite Hooper as a scientist who claims the moths don’t show natural selection.

Did Wells really cite Hooper (who is a journalist) as a scientist?  Do you have a reference?

RBH

Comment #20037

Posted by Les Lane on March 14, 2005 11:49 AM (e) (s)

Summary of moth situation (From Nature)-

http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/biston.html…

Comment #20039

Posted by Michael Finley on March 14, 2005 12:09 PM (e) (s)

This question is somewhat off topic, and I apologize for that. The relevant topic could appear tomorrow or never, so better (for me) to briefly hijack a thread in the same neighborhood.

As far as I can tell, the evidence (i.e., confirmed predictions) for common descent all concern one type of structural similarity or other, e.g., similarity in cell structure, organ structure, body structure, etc.

Suppose a creationist were to claim that structural similarities are logically implied (predicted) by creation, i.e., the products of a single hand (so to speak) are expected to be similar to each other.

A reasonable reply would be that any biological fact, similarity or no, could follow from creation (i.e., the creator “works in mysterious ways”), and therefore, structural similarity is not an implication of creation any more than dissimilarity. I grant that this argument would have to be countered, and I’m not sure it can.

Nevertheless, assuming that similarity is a prediction of creationism, are there any predictions that follow from common descent that do not also follow from creationism?

Comment #20040

Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on March 14, 2005 12:14 PM (e) (s)

The discussion of the bio-chemical transitional comes out of Michael Denton’s chapter “Biochemical Echo of Typology”.

The original hope by the Darwinist (prior to the bio-chemical revolution after Crick) was we would find a TRANSITIONAL architectures at the molecular versus a typological or HIERARCHICAL architecture.  The Darwinists, prior ot the explosion of biochemistry, were quietly hoping for a transitional architecture in the molecular structures.  The Darwinists actually, according to Denton anyway, did a 180 in the face of overwhelming evidence of a hierarchical architecture. The Darwinists went from saying the transitional architecture affirmed Darwinism to saying the HIERARCHICAL architecture affirmed Darwinism.

Let me illustrate crudely with toy alphabetic polymers, the following examples of  a transitional architecture with toy alphabetic polymers:

B B B A A A A A

A B B B A A A A

A A B B B A A A

A A A B B B A A

A A A A B B B A

A A A A A B B B

or

A A A A  A A A A

A A A A  A A A B

A A A A  A A B B

A A A A  A B B B

A A A A  B B B B

A A A B  B B B B

A A B B  B B B B

A B B B  B B B B

B B B B  B B B B

The hope was we would get a nice smooth transition going from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal as somewhat illustrated (however imperfectly) by the toy polymers above.

However, the empirically observed architecture in cytochrome-c is more akin to the HIERACHICAL architecture:

A A A A B B D H

A A A A B B D I

A A A A B B E J

A A A A B B E K

A A A A C C F L

A A A A C C F M

A A A A C C G N

A A A A C C G O

Douglas Theobald and Edward Max touts such “evidence” as proof of Darwinism, when actually such an architecture is suggestive of common design.  The issue of the molecular clock hypothesis has bearing on these issues.  The ability of Darwinism to achieve hierarchical architectures over many many generations is in doubt.  Hierachies are generated for sure in the short term (as evidenced by the ability to conduct things like paternity tests, the inferences of common ancestors like mito-chondrial Eve, and intra-species lineage tracing as seen in bacterial population tracking).  However, it is severely in doubt whether hierarchical architectures should be erased over long time spans.

Hence, IDists will argue that the Dayhoff Diagram argues for common design rather than Darwinism.  We have an intersting situation in that both IDists and Darwinists claim the Dayhoff Diagram as evidence for their respective theories.

I believe the IDists will ultimately prevail in their claim that the Dayhoff Diagram is evidence against Darwinism, not for it.

Salvador

Comment #20042

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant on March 14, 2005 12:47 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

Nevertheless, assuming that similarity is a prediction of creationism, are there any predictions that follow from common descent that do not also follow from creationism?

Convergent evolution
Genetic/genomic comparisons
The relation of anatomical similiarities to what is seen in the fossil record
Biogeography

Probably I missed a few…

Comment #20056

Posted by Frank J on March 14, 2005 01:46 PM (e) (s)

To Michael Finley and Bayesian Bouffant:

You both have fallen for one of the oldest tricks in the anti-evolution book. That is, inferring two different meanings from an anti-evolutionist weasel word (“creation,” aka “special creation,” “common design” etc.). A fence-sitter might interpret your disagreement as another weakness of “Darwinism.”

Fact is that, designer or not, the alternative to common descent (CD) of any two species is independent abiogenesis (IA) of them. Until anti-evolutionists clear up what they mean, and propose even a sketchy mechanism for it (I’d love to see their proposed mechanism for abiogenesis of a multicellualar eukaryote), there is nothing that can falsify it. As it stands, we cannot even rule out that they still mean common descent but won’t dare call it that. Note that they rarely challenge CD directly, but rather “macroevolution.” It’s all a scam to play on common public misconceptions and confusion of terms (they have a field day with “theory”).

Granted, most of what follows from CD, given the theory we have , would not necessarily follow from IA - or even from saltation, which would still be CD. But the onus is on anti-evolutionists to come up with something positive rather than the same stale old arguments from incredulity.

Comment #20057

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 14, 2005 01:49 PM (e) (s)

Salvador wrote:

The hope was we would get a nice smooth transition going from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal as somewhat illustrated (however imperfectly) by the toy polymers above.

Salvador, what on Earth gives you this idea?  As has already been explained (repeatedly, I might add), it would be contrary to common descent to see what you describe as a “transitional” pattern.  Such a pattern might be expected from a “great chain of being” evolutionary scheme, in which “higher” organisms evolved from present-day “lower” organisms.  But it’s definitely not what we’d expect to see from common descent, where all present-day organisms have been evolving since they last shared a common ancestor.  Given common descent, we expect to see a hierarchical pattern, which is what we see.

Your musings on why “Darwinism”, whatever you mean by that term, wouldn’t maintain a hierarchical pattern are nonsensical.  It’s true that you’ll lose a phylogenetic signal after a period of time in some cases (such as with rapidly evolving mtDNA), but it’s not true that this should occur under any and all circumstances.  The fact that we can still see a hierarchy is a good indication that not all signals (be they morphological or molecular) have been wiped out.  Moreover, even if we did expect them all to get wiped out (which we don’t) the fact that they still exist isn’t evidence against common descent.  At most, it would just be an unexplained phenomenon.

And finally, your assertion that the presence of hierarchies is indicative of  “common design” is just plain silly.  From an ID perspective (assuming independent creation here) there is no expectation of a relationship at all.  Indeed, how do you predict a relationship when they’re not related!  Since for any given protein, most observed differences in sequence are not functionally significant, there is no reason why an Intelligent Designer would bother making them different at all.  If they are different, there’s no reason why they should differ from each other in any manner other than randomly.  A nested hierarchy is the last thing I’d expect if some Intelligent Designer independently created all living organisms.

Comment #20060

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 14, 2005 01:55 PM (e) (s)

Michale Finely wrote:

Nevertheless, assuming that similarity is a prediction of creationism, are there any predictions that follow from common descent that do not also follow from creationism?

A nested hierarchy is one. 

But as we see here, even this fairly straight-forward prediction doesn’t stop some creationists from claiming, bizarrely, that creationism predicts it too.

Comment #20064

Posted by TimI on March 14, 2005 02:26 PM (e) (s)

Salvador writes:
“The discussion of the bio-chemical transitional comes out of Michael Denton’s chapter “Biochemical Echo of Typology”.”

All of my colleagues with whom I’ve discussed this believe Denton totally missed the boat on that issue. I can’t imagine why people are still parading that corpse of an argument around.

“Douglas Theobald and Edward Max touts such “evidence” as proof of Darwinism, when actually such an architecture is suggestive of common design.”

It’s not an either/or argument. Common descent *is* a particular case of common design (specifically, common descent is modification of “designs” over time). What’s the beef with that?

Comment #20072

Posted by Paul Flocken on March 14, 2005 03:29 PM (e) (s)

Comment #20010

Posted by renae on March 14, 2005 09:21 AM

Does anyone know a good grade school level book that explains the basics of evolution?  Great schools where I live but they do side step evolution so I teach it to my kids myself.  renae

Here is a book suitable for grade school.
Publisher:  Dorling Kindersley/Eyewitness Books
Title:  Evolution
Author:  Linda Gamlin
ISBN:  0789467194
Cover Price:  19.99
Illustrated/Hardcover/64pgs
Any bookstore should be able to order it, or try Amazon.  I work in a bookstore and would be glad to help.  If you like let me know and will give you a phone number to help out.  Total price would actually be less than the cover price, including shipping.
Sincerely, Paul

Comment #20073

Posted by D. Stump on March 14, 2005 03:33 PM (e) (s)

A strong piece of evidence for common design is that the nested hierarchies of similarity are found even when looking at neutral markers (DNA sites that do not affect the phenotype of an organism).  In the absence of common descent, there would be no reason for these neutral markers to not be completely random. 

Frank J, you make a very good point about the mushiness of the language of ID/Creationism, but we need to understand that this is deliberate on their part.  If someone like Behe or Dembski were to formulate an “Intelligent Design View of the History of Life on Earth” with any kind of specifics, they’d be sunk.  If it suggested that the world were any older than 6000 years, or incorporated any type of common descent, the YECists who make up the grassroots of the ID political movement (and without whom nobody would be talking about ID) would toss them overboard in a second.  On the other hand, if they didn’t include these things, it would just be the same old creationism that the Supreme Court has already ruled to be unconstitutional.  For this movement, not including any specifics is a tactic, not a weakness.

That isn’t to say that we shouldn’t constantly point out that they haven’t come up with anything positive, or press them for specifics, we just shouldn’t be surprised when they don’t, indeed their strategy is not to. 

In that vein:

Salvador, when do you think these various cytochrome oxidase designs you propose were implemented?  Were they implemented in newly created species, or were they added to already existing species?  How many different cytochrome oxidase designs do you think there are?

If ID was science, someone would be trying to answer questions like these.

Comment #20074

Posted by Paul Flocken on March 14, 2005 03:36 PM (e) (s)

There is a story behind that book, and my posting it on PT (costing me my lurker status), that may amuse blog regulars, but I will put it on the Bathroom wall rather than further contaminate this threadline.
Sincerely, Paul

Comment #20076

Posted by Ed "What the" Heckman on March 14, 2005 04:13 PM (e) (s)

Dan S. wrote:

Oy vey.  So far, same old same old.  Just read one that said - evolution says might makes right!Nazis!reproduction instead of marriage!!God is good!!I don’t understand either evolutionary theory or the idea that it’s a scientific theory, not a moral primer (let alone the concept that because I don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s wrong!!!!!)

It sounds like you might have read my entry. You are correct when you state that the theory of evolution isn’t a moral primer. That was my point. If evolution is true, then there is no such thing as a “gold standard” of morality. There is only what we can get away with.

Let me put it another way. If this life I am living is all there is, then why should I care about the future of the species? Why should I care about what other people in the future think of me? Why should I care if my actions destroy the planet after I’m gone? Why should I care who I hurt as long as they can’t hurt me?

The theory of evolution is based on the idea that humans exist only by mere chance. If there is no reason why humans exist, there the answer to those questions is simply, “There is no reason why.”

Comment #20078

Posted by Flint on March 14, 2005 04:28 PM (e) (s)

Let me put it another way. If this life I am living is all there is, then why should I care about the future of the species? Why should I care about what other people in the future think of me? Why should I care if my actions destroy the planet after I’m gone? Why should I care who I hurt as long as they can’t hurt me?

The theory of evolution is based on the idea that humans exist only by mere chance. If there is no reason why humans exist, there the answer to those questions is simply, “There is no reason why.”

I will never understand this attitude. Morality does not need to be tied to magic!

You should care about the future of the species if you care about your children, and if they care about their children. Hey, I’m childless and I STILL care about our children. I admit I don’t much care about what people in the future might think of me, but I certainly DO care what those who know me think of me. And I try not to hurt anyone because doing so DOES hurt me, often deeply. I don’t need any invisible magicians in the sky telling me how to be human.

Evolution only explains HOW we got here, not why. If you want a why, any reason you find persuasive should work fine for you. If you wish to conjecture one or more gods, and pretend they have a good reason, that’s fine. Go for it. Even if you find correct biological explanations unacceptable and wish to pretend it all got POOFED into existence by magic, you still have the problem that the reason we’re hear is someone else’s reason and not yours. Why not think one up on your own?

Comment #20081

Posted by Scott Davidson on March 14, 2005 04:54 PM (e) (s)

Ed “What the” Heckman wrote:

It sounds like you might have read my entry. You are correct when you state that the theory of evolution isn’t a moral primer. That was my point. If evolution is true, then there is no such thing as a “gold standard” of morality. There is only what we can get away with.

You’re right, evolution, like all the sciences is amoral.  Science has nothing to say about morality.  It says nothing about what is good or what is bad.  None of the sciences do.  Morality and ethics have always been human constructs.  It doesn’t require a religion to come up with the “golden rule.” Nor does a godless existeence dosen’t remove purpose.  It just means that we need to find our own way.

Besides which, has there ever been a gold standard of morality anyway?

Comment #20082

Posted by Jim Harrison on March 14, 2005 04:54 PM (e) (s)

Many Christians believe that the basic rules of morality are or should be evident to unaided human reason so it would be unjust to blame the entire religion for the irrational voluntarism of some of the Fundamentalists. Still, it makes me very nervous to think that there are lots of folks for whom murder and lying are only wrong because of the Will of God.

Theology is full of baroque notions that are vague and ambiguous when they aren’t just science fiction. Morality, on the other hand, is mostly commonsensical. Basing your behavior on religion is like building the foundations of a house out of balsa wood.

Comment #20084

Posted by bcpmoon on March 14, 2005 05:03 PM (e) (s)

Let me put it another way. If this life I am living is all there is, then why should I care about the future of the species? Why should I care about what other people in the future think of me? Why should I care if my actions destroy the planet after I’m gone? Why should I care who I hurt as long as they can’t hurt me?

The theory of evolution is based on the idea that humans exist only by mere chance. If there is no reason why humans exist, there the answer to those questions is simply, “There is no reason why.”

It seems that religious people have quite a negative opinion of man. Man is evil, unless religion and a book orders him to do otherwise. What a dismal way of thinking…
And, by the way, why should I care about what other people in the future think of me, if I am only interested in my salvation? Religion is the easy way out.

Comment #20086

Posted by Ed "What the" Heckman on March 14, 2005 05:14 PM (e) (s)

Flint wrote:

You should care about the future of the species if you care about your children, and if they care about their children.

But what logical reason is there to care about your children beyond the fact that they will probably have some power over you before you die? Or why even have children in the first place? Having and raising children demands a sacrifice. (I should know. I have three of them.) What is there in evolution which makes such a sacrifice worthwhile to the individual making that sacrifice?

Flint wrote:

I certainly DO care what those who know me think of me. And I try not to hurt anyone because doing so DOES hurt me, often deeply.

Why should you care about what others think of you beyond the impact of how their views affect your life? If you can appear as a choir boy to those who can hurt you while running a slavery operation on the side, what is there in evolution to prevent you from doing so? What logical reason in evolution prevents you from causing harm when you can get away with it?

Flint wrote:

Evolution only explains HOW we got here, not why.

If evolution is actually true, is any answer to the question of why other than “Pure Chance” even possible?

Comment #20091

Posted by DaveScot on March 14, 2005 05:36 PM (e) (s)

Flint wrote:

Hey, I’m childless and I STILL care about our children.

Just like the overwhelming appearance of design is an illusion, the overwhelming appearance of altruism is also an illusion.  Natural selection doens’t give a fig about anything except the individual reproducing with more success than the individual next to it. Just ask Richard Dawkins if you don’t believe me.

Comment #20093

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 14, 2005 05:41 PM (e) (s)

The discussion of the bio-chemical transitional comes out of Michael Denton’s chapter “Biochemical Echo of Typology”.

Perhaps you should read Denton’s latest book, where he acknowledges that his previous anti-evolution books were baloney.

Comment #20095

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 14, 2005 05:44 PM (e) (s)

Still, it makes me very nervous to think that there are lots of folks for whom murder and lying are only wrong because of the Will of God.

Heck, *I* am more nervous about the lots of folks for whom murder and lying are NOT wrong because of the Will of God.

Just look at what happened to the Amalekites.

Comment #20096

Posted by Frank J on March 14, 2005 05:45 PM (e) (s)

D. Stump wrote:

Frank J, you make a very good point about the mushiness of the language of ID/Creationism, but we need to understand that this is deliberate on their part.

I have no doubt that it is deliberate on the part of ID leaders. The “choir,” however, mostly just parrots the sound bites without thinking about the implications.

D. Stump wrote:

If someone like Behe or Dembski were to formulate an “Intelligent Design View of the History of Life on Earth” with any kind of specifics, they’d be sunk.

Behe at least speculated on a timeline and rough model. And guess what? It was old earth, common descent and essentially evolution, save for a “front loaded” first cell. That was 1996, though, but instead of testing his idea as any good scientist would he has been backpedaling and saying that he didn’t really take it seriously. But Dembski possibly renders it all moot when he admitted in 2001 that ID can accommodate all the “results” of “Darwinism.” The quotes are mine, and intend to suggest that the words were probably used to obfuscate rather than inform.

D. Stump wrote:

If it suggested that the world were any older than 6000 years, or incorporated any type of common descent, the YECists who make up the grassroots of the ID political movement (and without whom nobody would be talking about ID) would toss them overboard in a second.

I’m not so sure. AIUI, before Henry Morris and “scientific creationism,” creationists got along well with OEC (if not common descent) and even reconciled it with Genesis, just as their predecessors did when they abandoned flat-earthism and geocentrism. One point I (and few if any others) keep making  is that if there were even the slightest promise to any of the mutually contradictory creationisms (progressive OEC without common decent seems to be the one that IDers hint at most) IDers would latch on to it, and most YECs would go along, if grudgingly, even if it weren’t YEC. And as long as the designer’s identity was omitted, it would have some chance at getting around “Edwards v. Aguillard.” Besides, a positive statement of an alternative model, even if flawed, would probably draw less criticism than the negative, “don’t ask, don’t tell,” approach that is nothing more than “equal time for misrepresentation.” IDers wish that they had even a long shot potential alternative theory, but they know they don’t, so it’s “big tent” all the way.

Comment #20097

Posted by Michael Finley on March 14, 2005 05:48 PM (e) (s)

Frank J wrote:

Fact is that, designer or not, the alternative to common descent (CD) of any two species is independent abiogenesis (IA) of them. Until anti-evolutionists clear up what they mean, and propose even a sketchy mechanism for it (I’d love to see their proposed mechanism for abiogenesis of a multicellualar eukaryote), there is nothing that can falsify it.

If the possibility of a designer is on the table (“designer or not”), there seem to be more alternatives. Each species of organism could (i.e., logical and physical possibility) be the product of extra-terrestrials. The mechanism, then, would be an unknown piece of technology. Let’s call this theory “alien design” (AD).

And if the predictions of CD and AD are, more or less, identical, what basis would there be to accept one and reject the other? (I’ll have to read up on nested hierarchies, etc. to know if such facts exclude AD as a scienfific explanation).

Comment #20102

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 14, 2005 05:52 PM (e) (s)

What the Heck wrote:

But what logical reason is there to care about your children beyond the fact that they will probably have some power over you before you die? Or why even have children in the first place? Having and raising children demands a sacrifice. (I should know. I have three of them.) What is there in evolution which makes such a sacrifice worthwhile to the individual making that sacrifice?

Please don’t tell me you haven’t even heard of kin selection.  According to evolutionary theory, sacrificing yourself for the sake of your children is exactly what you should be doing.  Some species go so far as to let their children eat them. 

What logical reason in evolution prevents you from causing harm when you can get away with it?

Nothing.  Evolutionary theory is not prescriptive — it cannot tell you what you should and shouldn’t do. 

If you actually need some sort of compelling reason not to hurt others, as opposed to simply accepting it as common sense, please don’t come near me.

Comment #20105

Posted by Salvador T. Cordova on March 14, 2005 05:57 PM (e) (s)

Steve asked:

Salvador, what on Earth gives you this idea?

Denton writes in “Bio-Chemical Echo of Typology”:

This new era of comparative biology illustrates just how erroneous is the assumption that advances in biological knowledge are continually confirming the traditional evolutionary story.  There is no avoiding the serious nature of the challenge to the whole evolutionary framework implicit in these findings.  For if the ancient representatives of groups such as amphibia, lungfish, cyclostomes and reptiles manufacured proteins similar to those manufactured by their living relatives today, and, and if, therefore, the isolation of the main divisions of nature was just the same in the past as it is today, if for example ancient lungfish and ancient amphhibia were as separate from each other as their present day descendants are, then the whole concept of evolution collapses.

That is to say these “living fossils” are within their hierarchical position from the onset, not as a result of evolution.  Or, alternatively, the newer forms magically filled out the hierarchy.  That’s a problem because fish are about as distant from plants (41%-44%) as mammals are from plants (39%-42%).  Did the living fossils  magically arise with the same amount of distance from plants that mammals would have hundreds of millions of years later?

I did a search on “tuna devonian” and got:

- Ray-finned fishes
Also evolved in the Devonian - include the modern trout, bass, herring, tuna.

That corresponds to Zuckerland, 1963, Scientific American:

Contemporary organisms that look much like ancient ancestral organisms probably contain a majority of polypeptide chains that resemble quite closely those of the ancient organisms.  In other words, certain animals said to be “living fossils”, such as cockroach, horseshoe crab, the shark and, among mammals, the lemur, probably manufacture a great many polypeptide molecules that differ only slightly from those manufactured by their ancestors millions of years ago.

The problem is worsened if one considers the fish which supposedly appeared in the Devonian at about 354-417 million years ago.  If the interspecific divergence (divergence within the species) is very low, that’s a problem.  Is anyone willing to speculate that an entire populations of fishes managed to coordinate the supposedly selection-neutral regions of it’s cytochrome-c sequences so that both it’s interspecific (within the same species) divergence is low and that the population fits snuggly in something like the Dayhoff Diagram? 

Interspecific divergence is governed by :

k = 2 mu t

k=divergence
mu= mutation rate
t = time

did the fish interspecific mutation rate magically shut down?  If so that puts another wrinkle in the Molecular Clock Hypothesis

Or taking the inference from Zuckerland, the hierarchy was “just so” from 354-417 million years ago.  That every species thereafter, evolved itself nicely into the hierarchy and equidistance, while fish cytochrome stayed the same? 

And to achieve this one needs molecular clocks ticking differently for each species and each protein to achieve the equidistance, not to mention the clocks have to be fine tuned to the fact that each species line has a different generation cycle (cicadas reproduce 400 slower than fruit flies).  One can’t help but be a tad skeptical.

Denton continues:

The only way to save evoluton in the face of these discoveries is to make the ad hoc assumption that the degree of biochemical isolation of the major groups was far less in the past, that ancient lungfish, for example, were far closer biochemically to ancient amphibia than to their present day descendants.  There is, however, absolutely no objective evidence that this assumption is correct.  The only justification for such an assumption would be if evolution is true, but this is precisely the question at issue!
…
Despite the fact that no convincing explanation of how random evolutionary processes could have resulted in such an ordered pattern of diversity, the idea of uniform rates of evolution [mediated by the molecular clock] is presented in the literature as if it were an empirical discovery. The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists.

Here is, perhaps, the most dramatic example of the principle that wherever we find significant empirical discontinuities in nature we invariably face great, if not insurmountable, conceptual problems in envisaging how the gaps could have been bridged in terms of gradual random processes.

What has been revealed as a result of the sequential comparisons of homologous proteins is an order as emphatic as that of the periodic table. Yet in the face of this extraordinary discovery the biological community seems content to offer explanations which are no more than apologetic tautologies.

Comment #20106

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 14, 2005 06:00 PM (e) (s)

What the Heck wrote:

You are correct when you state that the theory of evolution isn’t a moral primer. That was my point. If evolution is true, then there is no such thing as a “gold standard” of morality.

This simply doesn’t follow.  The fact that evolution isn’t a moral primer does not preculde the existence of moral primers. 

Let me put it another way. If this life I am living is all there is, then …why should I care who I hurt as long as they can’t hurt me?

So if someone proved to you tomorrow that evolution was true, would you go on a rampage and start hurting people?  Why or why not?

Comment #20109

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 14, 2005 06:17 PM (e) (s)

Salvador wrote:

That’s a problem because fish are about as distant from plants (41%-44%) as mammals are from plants (39%-42%).Did the living fossils  magically arise with the same amount of distance from plants that mammals would have hundreds of millions of years later?

Sal, let me see if I can explain the error of your ways.  So-called “living fossils” did not stop evolving hundreds of millions of years ago.  They kept evolving right along with the rest of us.  Sure, they didn’t change a great deal morphologically, but their protein and DNA sequences kept on mutating.  Hence, there should have been just as much sequence divergence in their lineage as there was in ours.  Hence, any two related taxa should be roughly equidistant from any outgroup.  It’s just that simple. 

The problem is that you (and Denton) are assuming that shark or horseshoe crab DNA somehow got frozen in time when their lineages split-off from the rest of us.  It just ain’t so.  Modern-day sharks and horseshoe crabs are, you know, modern.  They are not ancient.  If you were to go back in time hundreds of millions of years ago and sample some that actually were ancient, then we would expect them to be closer to the outgroup than their modern-day counterparts.

Comment #20110

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 14, 2005 06:36 PM (e) (s)

BTW, regarding that Zuckerland quote:  It doesn’t surprise me that you had to go all the way back to 1963 to find someone (besides the hapless Michael Denton) who had this impression.  My suspicion is that Zuckerland was being influenced by a “pan-selectionist” point of view (although I don’t think the term had been coined yet).  It was generally assumed prior to sequencing and mutagenesis technology that the entire length of a protein (or gene) would be selectively active.  That being the case, we would expect very little sequence divergence from organisms that hadn’t changed much phenotypically.  Natural selection would have greatly constrained the sequences. 

However, as things turned out, a large fraction of amino acids can be changed without affecting function, and large stretches of DNA are selectively neutral.  This being the case, there is lots of room for molecular divergence even in the absence of any changes in phenotype.  When we’re constructing phylogenies based on sequence divergence in homologous proteins, it’s basically the neutral changes that we get our data from.  Natural selection constrains some residues, but certainly not all.  In fact, if there is positive selection within some lineages, that can mess up your phylogeny.

Comment #20111

Posted by Ed "What the" Heckman on March 14, 2005 06:36 PM (e) (s)

Scott Davidson wrote:

Morality and ethics have always been human constructs.  It doesn’t require a religion to come up with the “golden rule.”

If a “golden rule” is merely a human construct, then there is nothing to enforce it. Nothing prevents any particular human from ignoring it when it gets in the way.

Scott Davidson wrote:

Nor does a godless existeence dosen’t remove purpose.  It just means that we need to find our own way.

In other words, a godless existence means there is no single “right way,” we are free to go whichever way seems right to us. If this is the case, how can any one human or group of humans tell any other human or group that they’re doing something wrong? If there is no right and wrong, then there are no absolute ideals to govern human interactions. There is only the exercise of power.

Scott Davidson wrote:

Besides which, has there ever been a gold standard of morality anyway?

If there is a God — and I am convinced there is — then He defines that gold standard, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.

Comment #20113

Posted by Dan S. on March 14, 2005 06:40 PM (e) (s)

*WARNING: OFF TOPIC* 

“It sounds like you might have read my entry”
Please forgive me, somewhat for my tone - I was feeling pretty sick, and took  out my aggravation online (since I was coughing too much to complain all that loudly in the real world.  Sorry.  I also wish you had used more original and accurate arguments.  You know how it feels when people argue religion is stupid because the whole idea of a big old guy with a long white beard in the sky is silly?  Yeah.

“If evolution is true, then there is no such thing as a “gold standard” of morality. There is only what we can get away with.”
While this is straying wildly off topic (*WARNING*), the view you express is one that I deeply dislike.  It may be an accurate description of your beliefs, or even your situation.  Objectively, it’s poppycock.  Balderdash. Bunkum. 

” If this life I am living is all there is, then why should I care about the future of the species? Why should I care about what other people in the future think of me? Why should I care if my actions destroy the planet after I’m gone? Why should I care who I hurt as long as they can’t hurt me?”

Where do I start?

1 )General confusion:  I think one of the problems (for many people expressing this view, at least I dunno ‘bout you) is that, imagining science to be opposed to religion, they assume it’s a mirror -image opposition. Religion provides people with morality, therefore science must do the same. If it doesn’t, then  “There is only what we can get away with.”  No.  No one uses science as a source of morality (at best, it provides information that can aid in some moral decisions).  People  who believe evolution is true have *other* sources of morality, *including* for many, belief in God.  (For many people the two are entirely consistent.  Silly Ed!)

2) Individual experience:  I believe in evolution.  Many of the people posting on this site believe in evolution! There are people all around you that believe in evolution!!!  Nevertheless, I’ve never thought the things you imagine to logically follow from this belief.  I doubt most of them have either. Nor do I act in this fashion.  In fact I deeply care about all these things, and try to act accordingly, as do many other evolutionists.  Your claims do not match reality.

3) History, etc.:  You seem to say that belief in evolution -> disbelief in God and Meaning ->without a Higher Purpose (and afterlife w/rewards&punishment?) people will have no morals, and we will all revert to a savage and lawless ‘every person for themselves and only the strong survive!’ existence. Building on 2, over time and across cultures, people have had a bewildering variety of beliefs regarding these issues. Nevertheless, while conditions have varied, there’s no record of this as the normal state of things anywhere.  You find something like this only under the most extreme conditions.  Indeed, watching History Channel last night about cannibalism, it’s amazing how well people hold up sometimes  … Regardless of the answer to that old question - are people naturally good or bad or what? - I don’t know, but we mostly seem to be wired/raised to function within a moral system involving others.  Complete exceptions are quite rare.  Unfortunately, large scale atrocities are not unique to modern, secular times, and often involve an Us/Them distinction that religion cannot reliably overcome, and sometimes fosters.  Overall, belief in more than mere chance has not been proven to be a foolproof moral  safeguard. 

Positive (ok, sentimental and ranty) argument: As an atheist, I don’t believe in God or Higher Purposes, etc.  But this *is* the only life I have! Why wouldn’t I want to make the best of it?  Expecting memory to vanish after death (along with consciousness) such selfish pleasures are merely fleeting; my only hope for ‘survival’ (of a sort) after death is in the good I’ve done, and in the memories of friends and loved ones.  (Additionally, my understanding of the astonishing process every individual of every species is a result of, the amazing weight of contingency, the marks of ancient kinship, supports my desire to preserve the environment and value individual living things, including my fellow people. C.S. Lewis has written, awesomely, of the sheer wonder of living in a world (as he believed) where our friends, lovers, co-workers, folks we pass in the street, are all immortals with unbelieveable potential for good or evil.  For me, this is a world where all life is an not-so-distant relative and co-traveler through the darkness, marvelously existing against hope or chance in the face of Entropy)  Me and my ilk are not amoral monsters in a savage world, but people raised in a web of relationships, expectations and values (many of which do derive from religiously-influenced morality, of course).  There are things with value in themselves (at least as experienced): sunrises and kittens and sloths and asters and friends and love and and and … Why on earth do you think I would think such things? Pardon me, my friend, but you have a lot of nerve!

Frankly, it has always seemed to me a rather joyless and despairing view that can’t even imagine any sufficient positive value to such things as truth/beauty/goodness in and of themselves

Lot more to say, but I’ve swerved far enough off topic, I think.  It is relevent to the e/c debate though, at least tangentially, in that many people seem to think this is an argument against evolution, at least in a certain  pragmatic sense.  Also, while I really should have refrained from replying, I see it as both a personal attack, however unintended, and a kind of anti-atheistism (since we are all soulless monsters, no?) Now returning this thread to its regularly scheduled broadcasting (um - is there a difference …?) 
. .

Comment #20118

Posted by Henry J on March 14, 2005 07:17 PM (e) (s)

Re “and therefore froggies should be closer to fishies then horsies.”

I suppose if we were able to compare descendant DNA to the latest common ancestral DNA of each group it would be. Do they think fish stopped evolving after amphibians appeared? That would be an easy mistake to make for somebody who hadn’t done much studying of the subject.

Henry

Comment #20119

Posted by Ed "What the" Heckman on March 14, 2005 07:21 PM (e) (s)

Jim Harrison wrote:

Many Christians believe that the basic rules of morality are or should be evident to unaided human reason so it would be unjust to blame the entire religion for the irrational voluntarism of some of the Fundamentalists. Still, it makes me very nervous to think that there are lots of folks for whom murder and lying are only wrong because of the Will of God.

According to the Bible, literally everything that exists does so because of the will of God. In a sense, that means that God is more real than matter itself. If even the very existence of matter relies on the Will of God, then why not more ephemeral details such as the nature and definition of right and wrong?

Jim Harrison wrote:

Morality, on the other hand, is mostly commonsensical.

If morality is so commonsensical, then why is politics so divisive? If morality truly is common sense, then it should be relatively easy to reach a consensus. Yet when I look at politics today, I see nearly every moral issue there is debated from every possible position. If anything, in the last 50-60 years, this country has moved further and further from a consensus due to the proliferation of positions, rather than closer to agreement.

Jim Harrison wrote:

Basing your behavior on religion is like building the foundations of a house out of balsa wood.

If you’re talking about a false religion, I agree because such religions are based on a lie. I would say the same about evolution because it prevents any standard other than pure human reason which, as I’ve already argued, is insufficient because it’s unenforceable and easily ignored when it becomes inconvenient, not to mention that each person defines their own varying standards. On the other hand, if there truly is a real and living God who has defined the standards and will judge all of us based on them, then there is nothing more solid. Such standards are absolute, unwavering, and inescapable, even in death.

Comment #20120

Posted by Scott Davidson on March 14, 2005 07:21 PM (e) (s)

Ed “What the” Heckman wrote:

If this is the case, how can any one human or group of humans tell any other human or group that they’re doing something wrong? If there is no right and wrong, then there are no absolute ideals to govern human interactions.

I don’t believe that there are any absolutes, no black or white, only shades of grey, so to speak.  It’s wrong to kill, but what about in self defence?

There is only the exercise of power.

What about empathy?  Understanding?  All the human emotions? 
Personally I’m inclined to say that choosing a course of action to deliberately harm another person is wrong.  I think that’s common sense.  I hope that other people will treat me the same way. 

Evolutionary theory dosen’t tell me any of this.

Nor do I expect it to.
My morality and ethics don’t rely on science.  They are not based on fear of punishment, or because some authority figure on a pulpit declares some things to be good and others bad.  They have a lot more to do with my self respect as well as respect for others, empathy for other people, attempting to understand other people.  To treat other people as you would have them treat you is common sense.

If there is a God — and I am convinced there is — then He defines that gold standard

Why does god need to be good?  Why not an amoral god?  Some grand indifferent being?
:)

If a “golden rule” is merely a human construct, then there is nothing to enforce it

How about society?
To an extent we’ve all surrendered some freedoms to live in an ordered society as opposed to anarchy.

Comment #20121

Posted by Dan S. on March 14, 2005 07:23 PM (e) (s)

I should have just waited a few minutes instead of spewing, realizing that a bunch of great responses would quickly appear.  Oh well.  And now I’m going to keep talking.  Sorry.

“But what logical reason is there to care about your children beyond the fact that they will probably have some power over you before you die? “

Seriously, *have* you ever heard of kin selection?  But regardless of whether or not our feelings are the result of such a process, it doesn’t matter.  People. care. about. their. children.  Granted, not perfectly; sometimes they even do horrible things to them.  A woman down in South Philly just killed her two youngest children and then herself - Heck, since you presumably have faith in such things, could you pray for them, especially the surviving older child?  I have to find out if there will be some way to donate to a fund of some sort …  But mostly they love and care for them, as best they can.  What more do you need?  It’s not logical at all.  We don’t work that way. [Insert more evolutionary psych fun here.]

Was reading somewhere (Dispatches from the Culture Wars? Pharyngula?) about the claim that religious folks, left or right, really don’t get entirely secular folks *at all.*  This is an example, although a limited one; lots of also-religious folk think differently.  I think athies/agies generally have some advantage here, either from upbringing or general culture . .  .  Ed, do you really think our lives are so empty?  Man …

I’m starting to get very worried.  What happens if *we* do convince Ed that evolution is true and he goes on a crazed killing spree? Um … Ed?  We were just kidding.  Honest!  We just made it all up! 

Crap, I included a local reference in my post!  He knows where I live!  I gotta hide!!!  Help!!!! Help!!!  Blessed Darwin, protect me!! 

…. sorry, Ed.  It’s the cold medicine speaking,  Either that, or there is simply no right or wrong.

“If a “golden rule” is merely a human construct, then there is nothing to enforce it. Nothing prevents any particular human from ignoring it when it gets in the way.”

That’s it.  I’m going off to watch “Law and Order.”  Of course, I don’t know what those cops and legal people think they’re doing.  Or why I might pay attention when people criticize or praise me based on my behavior.  Or what my frontal lobes are for ….

I would write something informative and insightful about moral development theory (Kohlberg, etc), theology, and evolutionary psych, but now that you mention it, going out and randomly beating on people sounds like more fun, so,  toodles!

Comment #20122

Posted by Paul Flocken on March 14, 2005 07:35 PM (e) (s)

Comment #20086

Posted by Ed “What the” Heckman on March 14, 2005 05:14 PM

But what logical reason is there to care about your children beyond the fact that they will probably have some power over you before you die? Or why even have children in the first place? Having and raising children demands a sacrifice. (I should know. I have three of them.) What is there in evolution which makes such a sacrifice worthwhile to the individual making that sacrifice?

Why should you care about what others think of you beyond the impact of how their views affect your life? If you can appear as a choir boy to those who can hurt you while running a slavery operation on the side, what is there in evolution to prevent you from doing so? What logical reason in evolution prevents you from causing harm when you can get away with it?

If evolution is actually true, is any answer to the question of why other than “Pure Chance” even possible?

The context you are dropping in asking your questions is that of intelligence.  Prior to the advent of intelligence all life above the level of chromosomes was merely a tool of the chromosomes to make more chromosomes.  That’s all life is:  merely a way for DNA to make more DNA.  Ever more complex forms of life were ever better at surviving and making more DNA.  All life evolutionarily below the level of man simply doesn’t have a choice in the matter of acting in sacrificial ways to perpetuate the species.  They are manipulates of their DNA.  But then intelligence evolved and a new paradigm or a new context came into being.  Man DOES have the ability to act contrary to his genetic programming, and, in the ultimate act of homo-centricism, assumes this to be the norm rather than the exception.  Our ego understands the fatalism of it all and our arrogance refuses to accept it.  The resulting synthesis has been thousands of years of religious delusions.

We care about our children because (though not solely because) we are programmed to, but because we have free will and Natural Selection and genetically predetermined behavior are no longer NECESSARILY the dominant forces in our lives we don’t understand why.

As for ethics Jim Harrison nailed it.  For all it’s supposed power, religion hasn’t seemed to make the world more ethical.  Only Bloodier.

Sincerely,
Paul

Comment #20128

Posted by Gary on March 14, 2005 08:15 PM (e) (s)

Ed, I’m relatively new and a lurker here so I’m sure this has been brought up on PT somewhere at some point, but Plato addressed this question somewhere along these lines (and perhaps someone could point out the particular dialogue): Is something good because god says it is good, or does god say it is good because it IS good in and of itself?
  If the former, then that leaves us with dilemma that, since we cannot know god’s ways, we cannot know if he ever changes his mind: rape is now good, murder is now good, covet thy neighbor’s wife by all means. In light of the fact that the biblical god is terribly inconsistent and capricious and denies us free will to choose between good and bad, (e.g. hardening pharaoh’s heart against letting the children of Israel go, then decimating ALL of Egypt precisely because they did not let his people go. See Exodus 7, 1-4) And since many such examples abound, I cannot feel comfortable in submitting to that notion. Especially since I feel that particular episode is enough to convince me that god cannot even maintain a baseline morality that most sane humans, even we atheists, would never violate.
  If the latter, then that means that ALL of us are equally capable of finding the same “good” that many people feel is specifically the bailiwick of their own particular god and/or set of beliefs. And that includes those of us who hold NO god belief.
  I acknowledge that the “there’s no god therefore no good or bad, so let’s just run around killing each other” arguement is hypothetically concievable but since there are so many factors and variables, individual and social, that steer us to the moral path that I think it is practically irrational to fear it.
  Observe all the permutations of the Golden Rule that were around WEEELLL before Jesus made the scene: http://www.cyberdespot.com/home.html?thoughts/golden-rule.ht…
One of them was even formulated by that eminently moral atheist Confucius. So the bottom line is: believe what you want or need to believe, we’ll still always get along fine (for the most part). And never fear evolution. If many of us don’t need god to give us morals, you certainly needn’t fear evolution taking them away.
  Hope that helps a bit, Gary

Comment #20129

Posted by Ed "What the" Heckman on March 14, 2005 08:15 PM (e) (s)

Steve Reuland wrote:

According to evolutionary theory, sacrificing yourself for the sake of your children is exactly what you should be doing.  Some species go so far as to let their children eat them.

As a self-aware being, we are all able to choose our actions. Why should we choose self-sacrifice, especially if we never benefit from it? Actually, I think you answered this question with your next statement.

Steve Reuland wrote:

Evolutionary theory is not prescriptive — it cannot tell you what you should and shouldn’t do.

Exactly!

Steve Reuland wrote:

If you actually need some sort of compelling reason not to hurt others, as opposed to simply accepting it as common sense, please don’t come near me.

Who would you rather have near you? An evolutionist who believes there is no absolute standard of right and wrong? Or a christian who believes that God has given us an absolute standard of right and wrong (based on the golden rule), who sees what we do in secret, and who we will have to answer to?

Ed "What the" Heckman wrote:

You are correct when you state that the theory of evolution isn’t a moral primer. That was my point. If evolution is true, then there is no such thing as a “gold standard” of morality.

Steve Reuland wrote:

This simply doesn’t follow.  The fact that evolution isn’t a moral primer does not preculde the existence of moral primers.

I disagree. In order for a moral primer to be useful, it must supersede all personal standards. It is a basic tenant of evolution that we are nothing more than a coincidental arrangement of inert, amoral matter. Therefore we cannot find a moral primer in matter because there is none.

You have stated that there are moral primers. Can you point to any which apply to all persons equally?

Steve Reuland wrote:

So if someone proved to you tomorrow that evolution was true, would you go on a rampage and start hurting people?  Why or why not?

I probably wouldn’t go on a rampage, because it’s likely that I would be directly opposed and even killed. On the other hand, there would no longer be any reason to behave honorably when I would not be caught. All kinds of behaviors would become acceptable, such as theft (ID theft and other computer theft seems to be particularly easy to get away with), sleeping around, lying to everyone, cheating, and, well, just about anything else I thought I could get away with.

Comment #20131

Posted by Paul Flocken on March 14, 2005 08:19 PM (e) (s)

Comment #20111

Posted by Ed “What the” Heckman on March 14, 2005 06:36 PM

If a “golden rule” is merely a human construct, then there is nothing to enforce it. Nothing prevents any particular human from ignoring it when it gets in the way.

In other words, a godless existence means there is no single “right way,” we are free to go whichever way seems right to us. If this is the case, how can any one human or group of humans tell any other human or group that they’re doing something wrong? If there is no right and wrong, then there are no absolute ideals to govern human interactions. There is only the exercise of power.

The thing that religious moralists just don’t seem to get is that they are not living in their delusional “God said it so it must be so” world.

Ed what you just described above is the very world you are living in and it explains why there are such things as laws, police, courts, politicians, crime, armies, war, holocaust, and every other bad thing that has ever beset humanity.  But it can also explain every good thing that has ever favored humanity, and as much as my cynicism and knowledge of history place religion on the bad side I readily admit that it has equally been on the good side.  Such is the power and puzzle of free will.

Sincerely,
Paul

Comment #20134

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 14, 2005 09:02 PM (e) (s)

What the Heck wrote:

As a self-aware being, we are all able to choose our actions. Why should we choose self-sacrifice, especially if we never benefit from it?

We don’t choose our basic instincts.

Who would you rather have near you? An evolutionist who believes there is no absolute standard of right and wrong? Or a christian who believes that God has given us an absolute standard of right and wrong (based on the golden rule), who sees what we do in secret, and who we will have to answer to?

There is no reason why one can’t be both a Christian and an evolutionist.  But anyway, the kind of people I’d rather have near me are the ones who demonstrate good moral judgement, regardless of their religious beliefs.  The track record of most creationists leaves a lot to be desired, so absent any additional information, I’ll take the evolutionists.  As an added bonus, they throw better parties. 

It is a basic tenant of evolution that we are nothing more than a coincidental arrangement of inert, amoral matter.

I have a number of books on evolution, and nowhere do they say anything like that.  This is your interpretation, not a tenent of evolutionary theory.  (How biological molecules could be “inert” and actually work is beyond me.)

But anyway, the actual ontology of human beings is quite irrelevant to morality.  If you believe that where we come from has a serious bearing on right and wrong, then you’re quite the relativist. 

You have stated that there are moral primers. Can you point to any which apply to all persons equally?

All moral precepts are meant to apply to all persons equally, unless you’re a relativist, which I’m not.  Getting all people to agree to them is a different matter entirely.  Please note that self-proclaimed religious superiority doesn’t solve that problem. 

I probably wouldn’t go on a rampage, because it’s likely that I would be directly opposed and even killed. On the other hand, there would no longer be any reason to behave honorably when I would not be caught. All kinds of behaviors would become acceptable, such as theft (ID theft and other computer theft seems to be particularly easy to get away with), sleeping around, lying to everyone, cheating, and, well, just about anything else I thought I could get away with.

If the only reason you have for not doing heinous things is fear of retribution (whether in this life or the next), then I hate to break it to you, but you’re a moral degenerate.  I’m glad my standards are not so low as yours.

Comment #20135

Posted by Scott Davidson on March 14, 2005 09:03 PM (e) (s)

post #20129
Ed “What the” Heckman wrote:

Who would you rather have near you? An evolutionist who believes there is no absolute standard of right and wrong? Or a christian who believes that God has given us an absolute standard of right and wrong (based on the golden rule), who sees what we do in secret, and who we will have to answer to?

Would this be the same god that said:

For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
Exodus 20:5

Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger…Whoever is found will be thrust through and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes, their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.
Isaiah 13:9, 13:15

Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women…”
Ezekiel 9:5

Samar’ia shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.
Hosea 13:16

The particular quotes above don’t convince me that “God has given us an absolute standard of right and wrong.”  In fact these quotes are very very dark. 

So I’ll adjust (or correct if you will) my metaphor to say that in addition to black and white, there is a lot of grey in between and the position of the line will depend on current circumstances.  Some things are plainly wrong regardless of the context such as genocide, but other times right and wrong will depend on context.  It puts me in mind of the statue of the Greek goddess in some courts, blindfolded with scales and sword.  Justice is blind, tempered by mercy, with punishment in proportion to the crime.

Give me the evolutionist every time. 

Oh and I’ll admit freely that there are some good morals within the bible, I’m just using a few selective quotes to emphasize that it’s not always so.

Comment #20157

Posted by Jim Harrison on March 14, 2005 10:40 PM (e) (s)

A recurrent theme in this thread is the notion that morality has to be enforced in this world or the next in order to be valid.

I guess I’m naive. I wasn’t aware that people would generally go in for violence and fraud without the threat of sanctions in this world or the next. Which is not to say that some people really do need to be herded with real or imaginary cattle prods.

Well, you religous folks know your own black hearts. Maybe irrationalist religion has a special appeal for dangerous characters.

Comment #20170

Posted by jeff-perado on March 14, 2005 11:45 PM (e) (s)

Heckman wrote:
It sounds like you might have read my entry. You are correct when you state that the theory of evolution isn’t a moral primer. That was my point. If evolution is true, then there is no such thing as a “gold standard” of morality. There is only what we can get away with.
[…]
The theory of evolution is based on the idea that humans exist only by mere chance. If there is no reason why humans exist, there the answer to those questions is simply, “There is no reason why.”

Evolution is a science, just like gravity, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, etc…  Why does no one ponder the “moral ramifications” of ionizing radiation theory?  The reason is simple, it is irrelevant.  So, why then, do you think morals are relevant to evolution.  The theory of evolution does not destroy the theory of morality.

Now that I’ve explained myself, let me give you a different explanation.  Evolution is responsible for the characteristics of intelligence and reason in humans.  Humans used