And another thing
Thursday, January 29th, 2009A point I try to make sometimes but possibly not as clearly as I should: Creationism is not just patently stupid on an intellectual level; it is also abhorrent on a moral and emotional level. Let me explain why I feel this way:
Both Creationists and evolutionists (I use the term begrudgingly) acknowledge…
- Our DNA determines what we are as humans more than any other factor— If you replace the DNA in a human zygote with that from a different species (and manage to get a viable embryo) the resultant organism will not be human.
- A person’s DNA is inherited directly from their mother and father, 23 chromosomes from the mother and 23 from the father.
- DNA experiences mutations, randomly as well as through environmental factors.
From this point on, opinions differ…
- Evolutionists know that mutations are not always bad, and that without them we would never have progressed beyond the primordial ooze. Through accidental duplication of DNA and horizontal gene transfer new material can be added, and in turn this can lead to new forms and new functionality.
- Creationists assert that mutations can never add new information, and will always lead to degradation of the organism.
Therefore…
- Evolutionists believe that humans, like any other species, are capable of adapting over time to fit their environment, that we are effectively always "improving" ourselves, by the simple fact that organisms better suited to their environment have a higher chance of survival and are more likely to produce viable offspring.
- Creationists believe that Man was created in his ideal form, that all of our genetic material originated within Adam and Eve, and that it has been deteriorating and degrading ever since. They don’t accept that random change could improve on God’s handiwork. From this it follows that every generation must be more corrupt, more degenerate than the last— in essence there is only de-volution.
I bring this up not as evidence in support of the fact of evolution, but as a rebuttal to the common appeal to emotion offered by Creationists— that an evolutionary view is somehow ugly and without hope. I counter with the question: is it really more hopeless than the idea that we are doomed to be eternally inferior to our forebears, who committed some kind of symbolic sin against a selfish and wrathful God? This view of humanity as a species doomed to rot fits quite well with Christian doctrine, in that men of the Old Testament routinely lived many hundreds of years, remaining strong and producing children for most of their extraordinarily long lives, and were closer to God than anyone today.
Creationists often try to blame evolutionary theory for the unimaginable evil of the Nazi Holocaust, even though the engine of evolution thrives on diversity, and recogizes purity as at best a meaningless concept, and at worst a dead end. On the other hand, if you believe that you are descended from some mythically superior race, it makes a lot more sense to strive for some kind of fantastical racial purity.
Creationism taken to its logical conclusion offers an extraordinarily pessimistic and self-hating view of humanity, and it deserves to be scorned. The evolutionary view is by contrast rather optimistic— how incredible that we could come so far! Life appears to have limitless potential, filling every available niche and boggling the imagination with its variety and tenacity. And it belongs to no one. It is beholden to no one. According to evolution, the future is not written, and we as a species are truly free to find our own purpose, and be the authors of our own destiny.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Surely you’re over-thinking this? Do everyday creationists ever make it as far as “mutations are only ever destructive”? I get the idea of debating with the “best” (or at least the logical conclusion) of a phenomenon, but the social root of such thinking doesn’t have much to do with such examples at all.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
It is a pretty standard argument, popularized by the ID movement. Sometimes the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy increases) is invoked in support of the idea. Everyday creationists probably don’t think much about DNA, but then they don’t try to argue their case against biologists either. My post is a largely a reaction against those kinds of creationists, who try to squeeze creationism into science classes.
http://www.layevangelism.com/advtxbk/sections/sect-10/sec10-4.htm
http://www.truthwatch.info/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=79
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php?git=makale&makale_id=1623
“But the fact is that mutations always harm organisms, rather than improving them, and cannot bestow any new characteristics on them (such as wings, or lungs). They either kill or cripple them. To claim that mutations develop living things and bestow new features on them is like claiming that an earthquake made a city more modern and advanced, or that when a computer is hit with a hammer the result is an even more advanced model. In fact, no mutation has ever been observed to enhance genetic information.”
January 30th, 2009 at 2:12 am
Quick point, I don’t think (and I’ll admit it’s a while since my biology A level) we get 23 chromosomes from each parent, it’s more like 46 half chromosomes from each, ie half of chromosome 1 from mum, half from dad etc. rather than 1 from dad, 2 from mum etc.
Also, you realise if you keep trying to point out all the logical inconsistencies in religious views you’re going to go mad? Don’t give them the respect of engaging with them on an intellectual level, just point and laugh, that’s all they deserve…
Don’t let them get to you!
January 30th, 2009 at 2:25 am
There are 23 pairs, with the pair determining sex being rather special because it can consist of two different chromosomes (X and Y), whereas all the other pairs match.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome
Also I do realize that it can be maddening trying to argue with Creationists, but I guess I just have that glimmer of faith in humanity that I might plant a seed of doubt in someone’s mind, and this particular post is really more about questioning the “goodness” of the belief rather than the belief itself.
My next post will not be about religion… I think I may be finally burned out on this topic (for a while)
January 30th, 2009 at 5:59 am
“the future is not written” is why i am far happier as an atheist than i ever was as a theist.
i now go toward the future with both hands outstretched in anticipation, because, hey, the future’s the only place we’re going anyway, so i may as well enjoy the ride.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:11 am
I think you’re focusing way too much on original sin and the garden of Eden. I think a better argument may lie in the fact that “the only precepts unique to religion are those telling us not to question their dogma” (to quote Victor J. Stenger). Essentially, Creationists like to claim the moral high ground because their ethics come from on high, when in reality, there is nothing unique about a religious person’s ethics; they come from us as humans, not from god. Every moral principle that has developed in a religion has been borrowed from principles that already existed.
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
and I thought it was only the Americans who really had a problem with evolution…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism
March 17th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
A creationist who is not afraid of following his worldview to its logical conclusion:
http://www.dglobe.com/articles/index.cfm?id=19970§ion=Opinion
April 4th, 2009 at 6:24 am
I think you have a very narrow view of creationism. Personally, I believe God loves diversity in almost all its’ forms, and human frailty and fragility are part of that. I can speak only for myself, but the scriptures don’t tell us much about the actual techniques of the creation at all. Trying to convert symbolic references in Genesis to scientific hypothesis is silly. And so is trying to support a evolutionary theory by contrast with some silly opposing hypothesis. The parts of the theory of evolution that are true will stand the test of time, as will the parts of some particular religious belief system. One problem is that the particulars of the theory of evolution and the pseudoreligious/scientific opposition to it are changing all the time. It’s not worth your energy trying to refute something patently silly, and it weakens your ground. Cheer up! Don’t take someone’s ideas so seriously! We were all taught many things in school that have were false, but you turned out all right, didn’t ya? Allow others the same chance. :)