  |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
Claim
CP&E001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview. Source: Moon, Rev. Sun Myung, 1990 (27 Mar.). Parents day and I. http://www.unification.net/1990/900327.html One should be careful about where one gets his sources. The Moonies are a non-Christian cult. To the knowledge of this author, no creationists have claimed this, though if they have, they should have said that ultimately sin leads to an immoral worldview, but evolution provided the excuse for people to abandon or ignore the Christian faith and worldview. Talk.Origins’ Response: 1. Evolution is descriptive. It can be immoral only if attempting to accurately describe nature is immoral. Evolution is not descriptive of reality if TO is using the General Theoy of Evolution, which states: “the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form,”[1] since it blatantly false. However, it is more likely that TO is using one of their equivocated and illogical definitions, which have been amply rebutted on this site (See ‘New Definition of Evolution?’). 2. Any morals derived from evolution would have to recognize the fact that humans have evolved to be social animals. In a social setting, cooperation and even altruism lead to better [Rotblat, Joseph, 1999. A Hippocratic Oath for scientists. Science 286: 1475.]. Evolution leads naturally to ethical principles such as the Golden Rule. What is interesting here is that TO is claiming that ‘morals [are] derived from evolution.’ This would be consistant with a philosophical and religious worldview, as opposed to emperical science as it claims to be. Additionally, if evolution is true then there is no absolutes and thus nothing keeping people from amoral behavior, and when we consider that laws are designed in order to enforce such law-keeping and people still break them on whims, we see the folly of expecting people to conform to some naive notion that ‘cooperation and even altruism lead to better fitness.’ Sadly, because of the Total Depravity of man into the bondage of sin, governmental laws are necessary in order to keep society from degenerating into absolute anarchy. Only through the belief in the Deity and Holiness of Jesus Christ can we be set free from this bondage and are able to ‘keep the law.’ Furthermore, the redicious notion that ‘evolution leads naturally to ethical principles such as the Golden Rule’ is ever so much tripe; unless one’s Golden Rule is “Red in tooth and claw,” and “survival of the fittest.” 3. Some bad morals, such as eugenics and Social Darwinism, are based on misunderstandings of evolution. Therefore, it is important that evolution be taught well to negate such misunderstandings. Upon what evolutionary, non-absolutist basis do you determine bad morals? Rather than misunderstandings, eugenics and Social Darwinism are the ultimate logical conclusion of evolution when applied to human societies. 4. Despite claims otherwise, creationism has its own problems. For one thing, it is founded on religious bigotry, so the foundation of creationism, by most standards, is immoral. The implication of the accusation that creationism is founded on religious bigotry is that being opposed to something (in this case, evolution) is wrong, which is of itself both a moral judgement (on what basis do you determine right and wrong?) and that we should accept things which other people believe. But the accusation itself is bigoted against creationists, and therefore, using TO’s own definition, by most standards, immoral itself. Thus they violate their own premise. 5. Probably the most effective weapon against bad morals is exposure and publicity. Evolution (and science in general) is based on a culture of making information public. And I quote: “In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory... What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory’s supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles. ... Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding. ... Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry. ... Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory,” [2]. Why should evolutionary theory be exempt from this natural human tendency? This statement was made by a secular scientist, and it was signed initially by 33 secular scientists. Since that time one hundred and forty-eight additional scientists have lent their signatures to the statement. And second, the most effective weapon against bad morals is the clear teachings of Scripture. 6. Scientists are their own harshest critics. They have developed codes of ethical behavior for several circumstances, and they have begun to talk about a general ethics [Wedekind, C. and M. Milinski, 2000. Cooperation through image scoring in humans. Science 288: 850-852. See also Nowak, M. A. and K. Sigmund, 2000. Shrewd investments. Science 288: 819-820.]. Creationists have nothing similar. Regardless of general ethics, as long as evolution is considered fact there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to conform to any ethical code, because its survival of the fittest, baby! 7. Some people feel better about themselves by demonizing others. Those people who are truly interested in morals begin with looking for immorality within themselves, not others. Yes, some people do feel better by demonizing and belittling others. That idea strikes me as being familiar, somehow. What was it....Oh! Yes, now I remember: “America has a new bigotry. Traces of it have been around for a long time, glimpsed only fleetingly and in widely-scattered places. But in 1983, it assumed nationwide proportions. This is bigotry against evangelicals. Two things are particularly frightening about this bigotry. Few recognized it, and nobody … [has so far done] anything about it. It is difficult to say which is more disturbing. Any religious group that defies public opinion and practices nonconformity runs the risk of ridicule and rejection. This can quickly turn to persecution in time of crisis, particularly if such persecution is advantageous of those in power,” [3] “anyone holding the creationist viewpoint must be illogical, backward, subversive, uneducated, and stubborn,” [4] “[all] creationists are stupid, lying people who are not to be trusted in any way. And that all of their ‘points are equally stupid, except where the creationists are outrightly lying,” [5] “those … who call themselves “scientific creationists”, by that very self-designation and all that goes with it, demonstrate incompetence [and therefore should not be hired],” [6] Is that enough for you? There’s more, if you need it. References [1] Kerhut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960. He continued: , “the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.” [2] Lerner, E., “Bucking the big bang”, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004 [3] Roberts, J.E., “Bigots attack fundamentalists”, Pulse, p. 8, March 1985 [4] Bolyanatz, A.H., “The creation/evolutionary controversy … more heat than light”, Anthropology Newsletter 25(7):I and II, 1984 [5] Asimov, L., “Is Big Brother watching?” The Humanist 44(4):6–10, 1984. [6] Fezer, K.D., "Would you hire a creationist?" Creation–Evolution Newsletter 4(4):22, 1984. |
|||||||||||
| Design copyright 2004 Justin Dunlap | ||||||||||||
