I was going to watch "The Genius of Charles Darwin", a documentary film hosted by Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins. But I just can't, and the reason is that the first few minutes gave me a taste of the sort of people Dawkins was going to deal with throughout the three-part series. It's just too annoying. One sneering creationist, exhibiting all the swaggering confidence that can be expected of those who know fuck-all about a topic, tells the biologist, "We haven't seen it happen, so can we please stop calling it a fact?" Good on you, moron. Wilful ignorance is one of my ultimate peeves, and often I have virtually no sympathy for those who harbour it. How anyone can live in the 21st century and still deny the most thoroughly scrutinised theory in the whole of science never fails to stagger me, though of course I have a glimmer of the sorts of reasons why such things prevail (socio-economic factors that feed onto one another, primarily. Maybe I'll write about this later on, but not now). But damn, it's annoying. Watching creationist loud-mouths embarrassing themselves brings out the worst in me, so it's best I not subject myself to it. My hat goes off to those who can stomach science teachers who think that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and who think this perfectly acceptable and legitimate. Well, it's not acceptable and legitimate, and anyone who thinks otherwise is, to paraphrase Dawkins, either ignorant, stupid, or wicked (notice the "or" in there. Someone can be a creationist for no other reason that they happen to be ignorant of certain facts that they could easily come around to accepting if someone showed them. That's fine; the creationists that provoke my ire are those who spread falsehoods and crude caricatures about evolution in the hope of showing that it's a "theory in crisis". This crisis would be news to biologists, incidentally, but creationist propagandists - brandishing nothing but lies and distortions - have contributed absolutely nothing with their "model". These fence-sitters are too busy sniping at real science and real scientists to do anything valuable).
The objection raised by the aforementioned ignoramus - that we haven't seen evolution - does have an answer, and it's this: actually, we have seen evolution. That evolution goes on all the time is common knowledge to anyone who works in pathology and disease control, and agriculture, to name just two fields where evolutionary theory is applied and where the results of evolution are all too apparent. So the notion that evolution is something that we can only discern by looking at fossils is flat-out nonsense. And what's more, it's a filthy lie. But I digress. Evolution has practical implications that are vitally important to the continued health of millions of people. We need to understand how entities like viruses, bacteria and crop-eating insects evolve in order to be able to deal with them effectively. This, in turn, has implications for creationism - moral implications. If creationists wish to push their narrow, dogmatic world view onto children at the expense of actual science, then they should be made responsible for the consequences of undermining the latter. Personally, I'm not willing to wait around to let creationism kill people when an epidemic spreads and we lack the tools to respond to it, or when an important food source is decimated because of a parasite that couldn't be counteracted effectively because we didn't know how it was responding to (read: evolving as a response to) insecticides. Do you see what I mean? If you're a creationist, ask yourself this: are you willing to compromise the safety of millions just so that you can continue to ignore reality? Does it make you feel superior to bad-mouth evolution as an "evil myth" while also jeopardising the safety of your fellow human beings in the furtherance of your revealed dogmas? If the answer is yes, then ask yourself in what sense your stance is a moral one (I put it to you that it's thoroughly immoral, and I hope you realise that I am your enemy, and that as long as people like you are spreading lies and smokescreens to perpetuate barbaric ignorance, people like me will continue to ruthlessly expose your lies). If the answer is no, then the divine imperative that you see yourself as trying to fulfil - the cause of truth - should compel you to think long and hard about an uncomfortable fact: that your world view forces you to accept falsehoods that are not only demonstrably wrong, but actually dangerous.
7 comments:
Bravo! well said!
Thanks buddy. Much appreciated.
Even the most die-hard Creationists I know (or know of) do not deny the observable [micro-]evolution that you mention. They deny "macro-evolution" (gradual change from one species to another), which, in fact, is not observable.
So, while denial of micro-evolution (of viruses, bacteria, etc) would indeed be dangerous, you can take comfort in the fact that no one is ultimately denying it.
If you want to argue that disbelief in macro-evolution is dangerous and should therefore be abandoned, you might want to note that Darwinism provided the scientific rationale for Communism, which has a higher corpse count than all religions combined.
So, if you truly desire to dissuade people from embracing dangerous ideologies, you may want to scratch Darwin off your list of heroes.
Just sayin's all.
Humans were killing each other off for silly reasons long before Darwin--who had nothing to do with Communism, much as you would like to make such a casual and flippant connection--wrote his theories of evolution to paper...
Micro-evolution is no different than macro-evolution, which indeed IS observable and has been documented many times over!
“Darwin, by the way, whom I'm reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that has yet to be demolished, and that has how been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in Nature, and certainly never to such good effect. One does, of course, have to put up with the crude English method.”
-Written from Engles to Marx, December 12, 1860
"In my times of trial [illness] during the last four weeks -I have read all sorts of things. Among others, Darwin's book on Natural Selection. Although it is developed in a crude English way, this is the book that contains the natural-history foundation of our view point.”
-Marx's response to Engels, December 19, 1860
“Darwin's work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle. One does, of course, have to put up with the clumsy English style of argument. Despite all its shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, 'teleology' in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained.”
-Marx to Ferdinand Lasalle, January 16, 1861
--
I never claimed people didn't kill each other (for silly reasons) before Darwin. I simply said what Marx says above: that Darwin provided the scientific rationale for Communism-an ideology that led to the death and imprisonment of millions.
I've also been studying Communism for a year and half, reading accounts of those who survived their barbaric "re-education" gulags. The political prisoners weren't exactly being indoctrinated with "Young Earth Creationism."
Finally, how can one go about observing one species changing into another?
The problem with saying "Darwinism" is at fault, or at least "the scientific rationale for Communism-an ideology" is it's not only a mis-directed blame-ology, it is a false argument at it's core. It would be much like trying to say it's the bible's fault that people have used scripture as the basis for some of the bloodiest and deadliest wars in all of recorded history. Just because Marx was able to twist Darwin's writings on natural selection as a way of building a government system with which to subjugate and control most of a continent isn't Darwin's fault, and it certainly isn't evolutions fault--it's Marx's fault! And you, Richard Ramsey, are making the same misplaced logic that Marx was at fault for using! You just have a different goal for misreading evolutionary theory! (not to say that the misreading is entirely "on purpose," but it is nonetheless twisted and misread on your part...)
And while it may be nice, even a worthy goal, to read up and study Communism's faults, foibles, and history upon earth as it relates to human history and such, it is still a very bad casual connection to say Darwin and evolutionary theory are somehow to blame for Communism's brutal and bloody reign. The bible, and the wars fought on it's behalf (or, if you will, the beliefs held by those who have read and misread it for eons) have caused just as much misery, pain, torture as Marx--more, if truth be entirely told. And while it is easy to see how Marx could misread and use evolutionary theory to build a governmental system meant for subjugating a people, the fault lies in that, instead of seeing how Marx misread the writings of Darwin, but that you think Marx read them correctly and thus it must be Darwin's fault (or at the very least evolution's fault!) means that you think Marx's misreading and misapplication must have been the only true and accurate way of reading Darwin's material in the first place!
I am hoping you see the distinction here, but if you think I'm not being entirely clear here on the distinction, let me know and I can try to figure out another way to phrase or illustrate my point...
Now, onto your second point, "how can one go about observing one species changing into another?"
First, I suggest you read up on how micro- and macroevoltion are the exact same thing. (You can see my 29 posts about the topic of evolution and it's impact on all our lives, or if you do a simple Google search on macroevolution and find many reputable, scientific articles, sources, and facts about macroevolution and its many proofs). Of course, none of this will mean a pile of dingo's kidneys if you refuse to look at any of it with any type of critical thinking (so many refuse to engage in critical thinking when it comes to these topics of "creationism V evolution") but I like to think most people keep an open mind when considering any point of view or reading any new material... :)
I’m going to revert to my initial point, hopefully with more clarity this time.
Lui’s blog post essentially argues that a culture in which Darwinism was rejected would be significantly less advanced, enlightened, progressive, and humane than cultures in which Darwinism is embraced.
This is false. Communist countries, whose moral atrocities and economic, medical, and political failures are legion, embraced and propagated Darwinism wholeheartedly. So, we can consider Lui’s argument easily and repeatedly disproved.
America, on the other hand, for all its faults and past ills, has enjoyed unprecedented peace, freedom, and prosperity. Most Americans don’t believe in Darwinian Evolution. (The vast majority of those who do believe in Evolution -common descent-, are still theists: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml)
Liu’s post also argues that the embrace of Creationism could be, or is, dangerous. The same could be said of Evolution. Eric Harris didn’t stalk through the halls of Columbine wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the words, “Man’s Made In God’s Image.” It said, “Natural Selection.”
The info above doesn't prove Creationism, but it certainly doesn't help Lui's simplistic meta-narrative of Creationism:bad, Darwinism:good.
Based on your last post about "blameology," I think we're in agreement on this.
And, for the sake of clarification…
The issue isn't that Marx took natural selection and twisted it to apply to economics or government. Engels and Marx actually feared that Darwin’s inclusion of Malthusian economic principals into biology would further justify capitalism.
What Marx and Engels loved about Darwin required no twisting: they believed he was giving the intellectual deathblow to theism.
Marx, Engels, and the Communists weren’t scheming to create an oppressive dictatorship-quite the opposite. They naively believed that the toppling of theism would eventually give rise to a remarkably better place, if not a utopian society, characterized by peace, progress, and prosperity. The exact opposite occurred.
The same would happen if the “New-Atheists” fantasy were to ever came true. One would hope the lesson’s been learned. Apparently, it hasn’t.
I'll do the google search on macroevolution. You're blog link just lead me to...well, you're blog in general.
Post a Comment