[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
It’s been brought to my attention that a significant portion of the American public does not believe in evolution. I’m not sure what this statement means, exactly, but I would love it if some of the individuals who hold this position could explain it to me.
If you don’t believe in evolution, please tell me what that means to you, why you don’t believe in it, and what your alternate belief is.
For the pro-evolution folks, I would really appreciate it if you could avoid insulting anyone that may respond. The purpose of this thread is for me to understand other people’s position, not to insult them. Therefore, if you have nothing constructive to add, please don’t reply to this thread.[/quote]
Truthfully, I think we tend to look at the polar extremes of opinion on this issue. Even though I do not consider myself to be religious, I don’t buy the theory of evolution in it’s strict sense. While I do feel that “natural selection” is a viable theory to explain some adaptative changes that we see in animals around us, classical Darwinism is less a scientific theory than it is a dogmatic belief. Science you see also engages in some of the same behaviors that they criticize religious people for. Can you imagine what would happen to a scientist who questions the “theory” of evolution? This would be tantamount to career suicide for such a person, and we must ask ourselves why that is. After all, if science is about constantly challenging what we know and adding to our knowledge, why would it be viewed negatively when someone questions the validity of a theory, as long as they are prepared to back up their ideas with a logical argument, grounded in fact that can be demonstrated and quantified.
The answer is that science is an institution, just as religions are, and institutions do not like non-conformists or those who challenge the prevailing orthodoxy. Institutions are made up of human beings, and their structure is inevitably hierarchical, thus keeping the “rank and file” in line is necessary to the institution, which defines itself by it’s beliefs. Thus whether you are talking about science or religion, the message is clear, that all members of that institution must adhere to the prevailing orthodoxy in terms of what they profess to believe.
In point of fact, some religions are actually more open-minded than the scientists are. Recently Pope Benedict publicly stated that the Catholic Church does not dispute the theory of evolution. This certainly does not indicate the alleged close mindedness of all religious institutions regarding evolution, rather it indicates a willingness to look at the Bible less as historical fact than as allegorical scripture.
My own view is that our modern interpretation of Darwinism is flawed in part because it’s adherents have taken the argument far beyond Darwin’s observations and created a scientific dogma that precludes any other explanation for humanity’s origins.
There are still gaps in the fossil record that cannot be explained away. As well the sudden emergence of civilization in the Neolithic period indicates an acceleration of social and cultural evolution, which is not explainable using the tenants of classical Darwinism. Take for example the fact that modern man is so ill adapted to survive in the wild. Unlike other primate species, which are covered by hair and thus can exist in a far wider temperature band, we are the proverbial “naked ape,” which needs shelter to survive in sub tropical or temperate climates. While it is alleged that our superior brain gives us an advantage, why would we have evolved such a complex brain, when more simple adaptations would have ensured our survival?
My own personal view is something called “intervention theory.” I propose that the Biblical accounts in Genesis of man’s beginnings are more accurate than most people imagine, however to understand why you have to “think outside the box.” The Genesis story in the Bible was actually a retelling of Sumerian myths that were already over a thousand years old in Mesopotamia. The Sumerians were the very first recorded civilization and interestingly enough were located close to where the alleged Garden of Eden was supposed to have existed. This to me suggest more than myth. Rather I believe the ancient Sumerians spoke of gods that walked among them and from whom they learned the things that enabled them to embark upon the road to civilization. For instance an examination of their cuneiform writing on stone cylinder scrolls indicated they had knowledge of the solar system only recently acquired by modern man. Given the fact that they had no modern telescopes or other instruments with which to observe the heavens, they could not have known about the existence of the outer planets that cannot be seen with the naked eye. Where did they acquire this knowledge? The only explanation is that it came from some sort of advanced beings that interacted with early humans. It makes perfect sense that early humans would have perceived beings with advanced technology as ?gods?, and so the myths of these early humans were quite likely not myths at all, but attempts to explain things they saw but could not fully comprehend.
I contend that the rapid social, cultural, and technological advancement of humans during the Neolithic period is more readily explainable by genetic ?tinkering? if you will with the early pre human species which resulted in modern man with our naked hairless bodies, advanced brains, and power of speech. Incidentally, primates of today no matter how close in intelligence to humans cannot speak, as they lack the proper anatomical structure in the throat to do so. Darwinism does not explain these things, because it cannot account for these developments occurring in such a relatively short time frame. Also, the transitional species between pre human and modern human has not been found in the fossil record, and I contend never will!
The last issue I will address is what I believe to be real reason why this issue Darwinism vs Creationism/Intelligent Design is being fought over so ferociously in terms of what is being taught in schools. Ideas have great power, because they are what really inspire human beings. You will remember that famous saying ?The pen is mightier than the sword!? This is very true. Ideas are central to shaping public opinion in the interest of advancing certain social or political agendas. Our country was founded upon principles of freedom and natural rights which are anchored in the concept of ?creation.? Our inalienable rights are thus not rights granted to us by secular government, rather they are ?birthrights? bequeathed to us by our ?creator,? whoever or whatever you conceive that to be. The Founding Fathers established this concept and anchored it in what I like to refer to as ?philosophical bedrock.? What I mean is this. If you believe that humanity is nothing more than a chance combining of amino acids in some primordial stew, then the ultimate power and authority becomes the governments that mankind establishes. Thus the ?state? becomes the grantor of all rights. This is more in line with socialism, whose adherents like to view themselves as progressives. With the state as the origin of all rights, people come to view the state as their source of sustenance, and salvation, becoming all things to them and requiring of them total acquiescence and allegiance.
The concept of humanity as a ?creation? thus becomes a bit of a problem. If humans were in fact ?created? by an intelligence greater than our own, then the idea of intent comes into play. It appeared entirely logical to the Founding Fathers, that mankind in all of its complexity, diversity, and ability simply had to be the result of deliberate and intelligent processes. This being true they reasoned that our abilities, temperaments, and talents wide ranging and diverse as they are, were meant to be developed to their true potential, and to prevent any person from pursuing the development of their innate potential was an affront to natural law, an undermining of the very purpose of creation and by extension, the author of that creation. Even though when first written these ideas were applied to white males, the founders made no effort to be specific about this, leaving the door open to challenge the institution of slavery which both Washington and Jefferson felt were a blight on the moral landscape and must eventually be eliminated.
The Founders also indicated a deep distrust toward government, which they viewed as at best a necessary evil to be held in check lest it usurp the natural rights of the citizens. Thus you can see how this idea of ?creation? presents a problem for government, the natural tendency of which is to try and exert more and more control over those it governs.
Even as we speak our Constitution is under assault from these ?progressives? who profess to believe that the idea of natural rights espoused in our founding documents is outdated. Instead they would opt for a reinterpretation of our rights and proper relationship to government. Anyone want to guess what that interpretation might be?
For those who believe that I am reading far too much into this controversy, ask yourselves why this issue is being fought over so vigorously. Many great thinkers down throughout history made enormous contributions to our knowledge of science without ever having had the benefit of exposure to Darwinism. If the belief in evolution delineates the ignorant from the enlightened, then how do we explain the contributions of an Aristotle, Newton, DaVinci, and all the other greats minds that lived and died before the theory of evolution was established?
Intelligent people will disagree, sometimes vehemently. However when they are totally unwilling to even entertain that they might be incorrect or mistaken in their ideas, then how is true learning possible? When we define ourselves by a dogmatic adherence to an idea and call this attitude enlightened or progressive, then we truly reveal our ignorance.
