Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What Creationists Hate Is That We Emerged by Accident
Charles Darwin would probably love the fact that the 200th anniversary of his birth is being celebrated with radio shows, documentaries and exhibitions, but he might not have enjoyed the way that furious Christians still despise his theories and try to prove the Bible is more reliable.
For example, the Discovery Institute has announced that: "We want students everywhere to speak out... for the right to debate the evidence against evolution and turn 'Darwin Day' into 'Academic Freedom Day'."
But they're lucky Darwin isn't forced on us the way religion has been, otherwise the national anthem would start: "Our Gracious Queen will be saved or not according to a series of factors that are sod-all to do with God," and once a week school assemblies would start with everyone singing: "All things biological/ All matter sweet or frightening/ Are Godless, real and logical/ See – where's the bleeding lightning?"
The creationists demand that biblical theories are taught alongside Darwin's theories of natural selection, which might sound reasonable except that creationism depends not on evidence but on faith. If all theories are given equal status, teachers could say: "Your essays on the cause of tornadoes were very good. Nathan's piece detailing the impact of warm moist air colliding with cool air, with original sources from the Colorado Weather Bureau, contained some splendid detail. But Samatha's piece that went "Because God is cross" was just as good so you all get a B+."
To improve their standing the anti-Darwin lobby have changed their tactics, so now instead of arguing for creationism they call their theory "intelligent design".
Mostly this consists of trying to illustrate how species are too complex to have been formed by nature. But then they can't help themselves, so you get articles such as the one by prominent advocate of intelligent design, David Berlinski, that starts: "Charles Darwin says, 'In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals.' Another man, Adolf Hitler says 'Let us kill all the Jews of Europe.' Is there a connection? Yes is the obvious answer." So there we are – study the differences between finches and you're half way to organising a holocaust.
The founders of intelligent design are nearly all creationists, and one of their books, Of Pandas and People, is identical to a book used by creationists. Except that, after a ruling in the US Supreme Court that creationism couldn't be taught in schools, the word "creationist" was deleted throughout, and replaced with "intelligent design".
The new theory, where it is new, states there are many species that can't have become the way they are through gradual evolution, because if you remove any one part of them the whole structure would collapse. So they must have been created whole, as they are now, without changing. But this ignores the beauty of Darwin's discovery, which is that species change not because they're on a march towards perfection but by accident.
What may be ideal for survival one day is no good once the environment has changed. For example if it gets colder, or the colour of the surroundings changes, the individuals in a species best suited to the new conditions will be the ones to last, and the species becomes altered.
Survival of the fittest means those accidentally matching the requirements of a new situation, not the creatures most prone to winning a scrap. Otherwise by now the only hamsters to survive would be those ones who could pick up the wheel and smash it over their mate's head, and the only surviving parrots would be the ones squawking: "Who wants some? Who wants some?"
And this dominance of the accidental is the most damning argument against intelligent design, because if all species were designed, it was hardly done by someone intelligent. If it was, how do you account for the parasitic wasp that lays eggs on its prey so they hatch and eat its victim while it's still alive?
More to the point, why are your most sensitive nerves at the end of your toe, where they're most likely to get walloped? Why are men's nuts in such a vulnerable location, ay? Bloody vindictive design that is. Why do dogs do the squashiest, most unpleasant turds that hide in the grass and spread themselves in the indentations on the bottom of your shoe, but don't start smelling until you get indoors and then render the place uninhabitable until you've left every window open for a month? Why, why, why?
Come on intelligent design people, the questions you have to answer have barely begun.
102 Comments so far
Show AllWhy, if God is so cross with the people who argue that evolution is how we came to be, hasn't god struck dead those who do not believe in the creationist agenda?
Because, the answer goes, God has created us to be free agents. The risk with such a move is that the free agents may entertain all kinds of belief that the Creator would not countenance.
Occam's Razor would suggest that there is no god.
We evolved to form into creatures that are capable of being slaves or free agents, god is not required. Has never been required, except to enrich those who would be priests at the expense of the rubes who gladly pay them today for a hamburger on tuesday...
And this dominance of the accidental is the most damning argument against intelligent design, because if all species were designed, it was hardly done by someone intelligent. If it was, how do you account for the parasitic wasp that lays eggs on its prey so they hatch and eat its victim while it's still alive?
Those parasitic wasps (white anglo saxon protestants) are the Republicans who have eaten this nation and all of us from the inside while we're still alive. According to the "dog eat dog and the first bite counts" philosophy of the Republicans (and Demorats), this truly is "Intelligent Design".
Good turn there with parasitic wasp, hahahahahahahahaha...
Why if God says humans are better than other species, do they get affected by lava flows and gravity and sharks dont get paralysis if they try to bite a human swimmer?
The title of the article is great-but what really galls creationists--and many evolutionists for that matter, is the idea that humans are not better than other species.
This is why people took Darwinism(who was a christian himself and advocated vivisection which had been vilified before his time) and used it to justify all sorts of oppression(against humans and non humans).
Christians just called it the Great Chain of being.
You never see Buddhists debating evolution or creationism--because like finches, they know its irrelevant to how one lives.
You never see Buddhists debating evolution or creationism--because like finches, they know its irrelevant to how one lives.
Hear Hear! The Buddhists will tell you that asking "why?" is not useful.
Not useful?
Those people then die a painful and early death due to the horrible diseases they thought it wasn't worth the time to research...
These questions are important.
All I meant to imply is this: There is no answer to the origin of Creation, to the meaning of our lives, or if they have any meaning at all. We're just human beings and those answers are permanently beyond us. There are certainly Buddhists who will tell you that you can drive yourself crazy with frustration looking for a definitive answer.
You are correct. There is no meaning to life. It is just survival; there is nothing else. There is certainly nothing after death.
A serious Buddhist will NEVER 'tell you that asking "why?" is not useful'. :)
Buddhism itself came about because Buddha was not satisfied by the 'traditional' answers he got for his questions on life and suffering. He wanted to find out for himself, to understand the causes of suffering and whether it can end in the here and now - not after you are dead and gone. What he found,he couldn't help teaching others - and his teachings later evolved into Buddhism. Questioning and finding out for oneself is very much part of the Buddhist philosophy.
Highintel: Can we do better?
Another cause for the belief in 'unintelligent design' is simply people's need to have answers, even to the most complicated and complex questions imaginable. Rather than being able to live in doubt, simple people need simple answers.
"God did it". Amen.
I am not a creationist. I am a vortex of matter functioning in a luminous, fractal, nonlocal (in both time and space) field of consciousness which permeates everything . . . this will make no sense until you begin to grok the essence of spatial AND temporal nonlocality . . .
Brilliant...!
And I am a holographic co-creator in a feedback loop with all of creation...
conscious of conscience and consciousness...
In the "I" of the storm just like every other sentient being...
Don't take the brown acid dude...
The so-called "creationists" love to punish and persecute people, especially young children, who actually think and are creative and innovative and I've seen the rise in failing students, suspending, or even expelling those non-violent kids as a result while school bullies especially those who bring guns to schools face no punishment unless they're "non-white". And if that's not enough, they like it when the corporate interests do everything in their power to crush innovative and creative ideas and inventions through phoney patents and frivolous lawsuits. No wonder everything truly knew comes from other countries and rarely America. And if that's not enough, they love economic darwinism of "free market" and "free trade".
Although I harbor little sympathy for creationism and its buddy intelligent design, I find this article superficial (nearly flippant, in fact) and unhelpful in making the profound ideas of Darwin more widely understood, something which they are unfortunately not.
I doubt I am going to be able to address all the things I find objectionable in the article. I'll start, though. Maybe I'll do it over several posts.
All my references to "On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Sruggle for Life" are to:
Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species," A Facsimile of the First Edition (Harvard University Press, 1964; this edition is constantly being reprinted).
1. Darwin himself did not rule out creationism on the ground that it is not scientific, as one all too often hears said in our time. On the contrary, Darwin argued with and against the creationists of his day: in the "long argument" (p. 459) that Darwin deemed "On the Origin of Species" to be, he is constantly arguing his case against various objections, and, in particular, against the thesis of the independent creation by the Creator of fixed and immnutable species.
Darwin does not sneer at his opponents; he treats them seriously and dicusses matters at length and repeatedly, drawing on empirical observations, logical considerations, and even a priori principles such as the principle of the uniformity of nature (chap. 4, p. 113), or the principle that nature does not take any leaps ("natura non facit saltum," pp. 194 and 206, chap. 6). In fact, he considers creationism to be a theory no less than his own account: see, for example, chapter 6, p. 194: "Why, on the theory of Creation, should this be so?" As for his considering his own account as a theory, see, for instance, chapter 6, p. 189: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Chapter 6 of "On the Origin of Species" is particularly engaged with creationism, as in it Darwin addresses "difficulties that will have occurred to the reader" (p. 171) up to this point.
2. The category of accident or chance in Darwin's account is stricly epistemological; it is not ontological, as evidenced by the opening sentences of chapter 5: "I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations -- so common and mutliform in organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree in those in a state of nature -- had been due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation" (p. 131). And p. 132: "... there must some cause for each deviation of structure, however, slight."
As I said, I may comment further later.
At any rate, I can only recommend to those of you who have not done so, to read Darwin, instead of reading secondary materials about him. It is guaranteed to be a most rewarding experience.
"Darwin does not sneer at his opponents"
Indeed, but that was because Darwin did not spend his life dealing with fanatical religious fruitcakes of all persuasions; WASPS, Christian Fundamentalists, Islamo-facists, Snake Charmers, ad nauseum. I once saw a bumper-sticker that read "Lord, protect me from your followers".
Today, however, religious fruitcakes are constantly in our face, usually declaring war, f*cking with our Constitutionally-mandated secular Government, justifying murder and torture, and basically proving Nietzsche's thesis that Christ was the last Christian.
Believe me, I am aware of the situation that you are describing; I face it as much as you do or anyone on this thread does. Nonetheless, I believe that Darwin's modus operandi is the correct one. How else do you just suggest we proceed in communicating with each other? Perhaps you consider the attempt to communicate with certain people impossible or futile?
Tiny point: it's 'ad nauseam', not 'ad nauseum'.
'Tiny point: it's 'ad nauseam', not 'ad nauseum'.'
Thanks. I bet my misspelling wanted to make you chunder.
Ding, ding, ding, we have another winner! It's amazing to me that the mass of people seem to be getting less rational and wise the further we move into the information age with more knowlodge at our fingertips than ever. This is a paradox I have never understood... :(
BTW anyone who wants to can go ahead and call that elitist or whatever, I call them exactly as I seem them, the unvarnished truth.
For God's sake its a newspaper article with a single idea expressed in the title that creationists hate the idea that we emerged by accident. Its written by a comedian who seems to me to understand and clearly explain his argument:
"Survival of the fittest means those accidentally matching the requirements of a new situation, not the creatures most prone to winning a scrap. Otherwise by now the only hamsters to survive would be those ones who could pick up the wheel and smash it over their mate's head, and the only surviving parrots would be the ones squawking: "Who wants some? Who wants some?"
For God's sake, read my post and use your brain for a change, instead of reacting thoughtlessly: one of its points is precisely that one need not be a creationist (one need not even believe in God) to think that it is not certain at all that we emerged by accident, and that such a thought is perfectly compatible with Darwin's thought.
I am glad our comedian seems to you "to understand and clearly explain his argument": it would be a shame if he did not understand his own argument, wouldn't it?
Even if you are right that our comedian understands what he is saying, it still does not follow from that, that he understands Darwin or explains correctly what Darwin thought about the status of the emergence of human beings.
I've always thought Darwinists and creationists deserve each other. I'm glad to see only ten comments here. It's perhaps a sign that people are growing as weary of this bogus debate as I am.
By now, it may be a boring debate to you and many other folks (it certainly is largely so in Europe, where people do not quite understand why folks in the States get all worked up about this), but it is not a spurious debate, and Darwin certainly did not think so, as I showed in my previous post, below.
I am in no way a Christian...I am in no way religious at all...I define myself (because seemingly I must) as a devout agnostic. Coming to this path began at a very young, highly contrarian age, with the blessings of a family who-while holding their own beliefs-demanded that I approach all of life with a skeptical, open attitude. That said, I have read the texts of the major religions, and though I do not concur with the mysticism therein, I do see the value that faith can possess. The commonality throughout the religions boils down to the Golden Rule; if one accepts that principle as the bedrock for faith (or non-faith) then the goodness possible in said beliefs manifests.
What puzzles me is why evolution cannot be compatible with the idea of a higher power. In fact, most people of faith that I know accept this duality; that the gradual changes visible in any organized system do not preclude a guiding force. If one is to accept the notion of an all-knowing being, then why must there be an asterisk next to the paragraph outlining our origins? I find this to be not only intellectually bankrupt, but a blasphemous presumption. Could not the creator simply design life to grow and evolve? This does not equate to the creations as inferior, but rather dynamic.
This seems to be little more than manufactured outrage given a disproportionate voice in the debate.
History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
~Mark Twain
Science doesn't preclude a creator or creative intelligent creative force. It precludes any thing that isn't testable by the scientific method. Central to religion is faith in a super natural force. Science is the study of nature so the super natural is outside of it's scope.
ID proponents claim that they are studying science but insist that an undefinable intelligence is behind life. But of course definition is the whole purpose of science. If you have an unanswered question it is certainly easy to cry "eurika, it is the will of God!" but that doesn't make it so and is not science. If you want to claim God as a theory (theo in there, hmm) you must provide proof. So far that has eluded proof.
That said, lack of proof is not proof of lack. God bless all you honest agnostics. Let's keep scratching our heads.
"If you have an unanswered question it is certainly easy to cry "eurika, it is the will of God!" but that doesn't make it so and is not science."
Indeed. I often find it amusing that mere mortals sometimes proclaim to know the mind of their "gods". This strikes me as a somewhat arrogant stance, often taken by priests, rabbis, mullahs, "born agains" and their ilk as they attempt to control their "flocks" through fear and intimidation.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
But you didn't shoot the dog who left that surprise package in the grass, did you? That would make squishey turds a real hinderance to effective gene spreading. That's the touble with all us bleeding heart, secularists. A creationist would have offed the mangey cur (or moose) knowing in his heart that it is the will of God. And also that he was just pissed. That's what they really mean by intelligent design.
p.s. High quality dog food makes for smaller and neater poopies. That's why my doggies seem to live to ripe old age. Also I don't own a gun.
Off-topic comment. Agreed that high-quality dog food produces low-volume waste. But have you noticed the increased cancer rates in dogs over the past 30 years? Today it seems like one in four elderly dogs have fatty tumors or worse. I NEVER saw this stuff 30 years ago.
Humans are apes, get over it.
Agreed. But, did apes evolve from ancestors, or were they created by a "god".
I believe we are only a few years away from being able to combine raw chemicals into genes and chromosomes which will allow the artificial creation of living organisms. If that occurs, does that make those involved into "gods"?
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
That's the 64 million dollar question.
And even my question shows evidence that I am locked into a certain paradigm. Why does life have to be based on any kind of genetic structure. Why couldn't there be other forms of life that depend on processes we can't begin to fathom? Getting a bit too "Star Trekky" here ...
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
Life doesn't have to be based on any kind of genetic structure. Life is informed by frequency. That is what informs our physicality and what informs the nonphysical existence of the 'non-existent spirits' referenced in an above post. There is such a thing as plasma entities. Remember, we exist in a 'frequency soup' but can only access the small portion of those frequencies available to our five-sense system. Lots of other frequencies out there, many of which we take for granted now as ways to communicate ! Such as this. Lots more we cannot directly access in any way, shape or form. Doesn't mean they don't exist.
There is zero evidence for your assertions, sorry but that's the cold hard truth. For example
"Remember, we exist in a 'frequency soup' but can only access the small portion of those frequencies available to our five-sense system."
How would we know about them if aren't accessible though our senses which the only way we have to gain knowledge about the world? The human body has been mapped down to the molecular level and there is zero evidence we have any other ability to have epistemological knowledge other than though the 5 senses. Yes hallucinations happen but they are subjective delusions in the mind of the person having them only that say nothing about the external world.
Next!
Your comment belittles apes.
Sorry, but humans are Great Apes in the animal kingdom sense (probably much to the discomfort of our Chimp, Gorilla and Orang cousins). Or maybe humans are "Not-so-great apes".
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!
The way I see it, it's not Creationists vs. Darwinists. It's Old Testament believers vs. Critical Thinkers. Actually, it's common sense and decency vs. Old Testament Bible believers.
Until Old Testament Bible believers quit embarrasing themselves (and the rest of us) with that hateful, warmongering god, there will be no solutions - or even compromises.
Humans within human societies have been creating gods for many millenia. Sometimes the gods have been the humans themselves; sometimes they have been other manifestations of life; sometimes they have been invisible beings. Defined, higher powers work the best at controlling the masses.
And Bible-believing persons are in a class by themselves (which is where they want to be). Certainly there are (and have been) greater gods than theirs. For example, what kind of sorry-ass god would say this: "I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments"?
Exodus 20: 1-17 and Deuteronomy 5: 6-21
So my great-grandchildren will be punished for MY disobedience? Not only that, but there is another logic missing here. Let's say someone in the 562nd generation screws up. That means generations 563 through 566 are screwed. But generation 567 gets a new lease on life, and the cycle begins again.
How can this poor excuse for a god "show love to a thousand generations" with interruptions like this? And you know that - humans being humans - 1,000 generations will not be happening continuously without intermittent screw-ups. There are many other examples, and this trashy book is available for everyone to read.
Do you think that the mess in Middle East will ever be resolved as long as people believe in this crap?:
"When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoils, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you."
Deuteronomy 20: 10-14.
There are two gods of the old testament...
the angry jealous Jehovah that the Jews borrowed from the Babalonian war god...
and YHWH, the androgenous Ein Soph, who created everything, even Jehovah...
although Jehovah tries to convince the Israelites that he is the only god...
Folks, lets keep in mind that both the old and new testaments were edited and certain books omitted in order for it to suit the power structures of the day, whether it was Kings of Judah or the Roman Empire... hence all the pro-war, nationalistic exceptionalism that can be found in it...
How about we just can all these delusional superstitions including all 3 monotheistic religions and the New Agers* who rave on incoherently about energies and the "goddess" or whatever, and start fresh with a secular humanistic non racist, non sexist, non homophobic, cooperative ethics that respects the ecological integrity of the only planet we have to live on? IMO all our so called "spiritual" needs can be fulfilled by good art, and our need for knowledge by science, and our need for good behavior by secular ethics, time to kick it up to the next level and leave our superstitious childhood behind IMO. That doesn't mean we can't can't read religious texts and appreciate their beauty in spots and life lessons (even Dawkins allows for that) but to hew to their beliefs in non existent spirits or killing gay people "just because" is way beyond foolish at this stage in our history.
Whatever happened to John Lennon's "Imagine no religion?
I give Zen Buddhists a break as Buddhism in its purest form seems more like an ethical system than a religious framework calling for belief in non existent vaporous spiritual "energies."
Your humanist utopia sounds exactly like the "brotherhood of man" and the "New Jerusalem" and the "Universal Wisdom" that various spiritual traditions have espoused throughout the millenia...
people who view reality from a materialistic point of view tend to lump all religious beliefs into one heaping pile of meaninglessness...
To compensate for not being able to differentiate between the original message and what it has been perverted into...
Atheism is a religion just like any other belief system...
Otherwise why would atheists spend so much time arguing the non-existence of Spirit...?
Not believing in god, goddesses or spirits is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby. You do understand not collecting stamps isn't a hobby, right?
Just saying atheism is a religion is one of those things theists trot out without THINKING bout words actually mean.
BTW you have offended my non deity the flying spaghetti monster, how could you be so insensitive and cruel? I demand equal time for Pastfarianism in your churches and schools, to do other wise would show you are closed minded wouldn't it?
Hilarious...!
Even if your analogy is recycled from a previous post...
But seriously... all any religion ever was is a "system of beliefs" , deity or no deity, based on ethical principles or not, as a means to make sense of the world... think about the meaning of those words...
As far as not collecting stamps... zen Buddhists would say that it is the best hobby of them all... and like meditation, it leads to the state of Satori...
The stamp thing isn't mine I'm afraid, I picked it up on a skeptic forum somewhere, maybe here?
http://richarddawkins.net/
"As far as not collecting stamps... zen Buddhists would say that it is the best hobby of them all... and like meditation, it leads to the state of Satori..."
It's that sort of humerous logical puzzle is why I give Zen Buddhits a break, their non- theistic (religion?) with a sense of humor is OK by me. :)
"Otherwise why would atheists spend so much time arguing the non-existence of Spirit...?"
1. Because religious zealots do so much real damage to the world from Zionist settlers stubbornly holding on to land that is not theirs to Muslims blowing themselves up for "Allah," it is all counterproductive and religion is probably the most powerful force to indoctrinate people to do stupid things.
2. Because it isn't true, yes truth is important once it is undermined a 1984 type world becomes much easier to implement. No matter how much "faith" I have 2 + 2 does not equal 5.
3. Because it is a distractionary waste of time, every second some one "prays for peace," or joins in a world wide OM or whatever is time a person could be doing real concrete activism, or spending time with friends or family, or writing a poem all concrete things with real results and not just wishful thinking like prayer and projecting thoughts and other hokum is.
Um, there is one of your 'non-existent spirits' in my life which was conceived in intercourse between my father in law and his gay lover. Nonphysical to be sure, but an extraordinarily potent entity nonetheless. Not particularly nice, either. Just sayin. . .
We should not dismiss phenomena just because we are incapable of directly perceiving what informs a given situation. The
Inuit have a word for this, it translates roughly into our rather clumsy English language as "the wake of unseen objects". We
may not be able to perceive the object (or spirit) itself, but we should discipline ourselves to sense its wake . . .
It sounds more like you have unresolved issues with homosexuality and its playing out in weird ways in your psyche projected as "spirits," I suggest seeing a shrink and no I don't mean that in a mean way but a serious way to help you figure out where your head is at.
And what an accident it was!