The View From 1776

§ American Traditions

§ People and Ideas

§ Decline of Western Civilization: a Snapshot

§ Books to Read


Liberal_Jihad_Cover.jpg Forward USA

Friday, December 03, 2004

Darwinian Evolution Undermines the Constitution

The Constitution assumed a moral and religious population.  Darwinian evolution preaches atheistic materialism in a world dominated by savage struggle for survival.

The following is a rejoinder to an email in which my replies are interspersed in brackets:

Th emailer writes:

Atheists need not prove god does not exist. ?

[My reply:  Why not?  Atheists have no reservations about declaring belief in God to be nothing more than ignorance.  Unless one is required to accept the word of atheists without question, atheists must be able to justify an attack on the very substance of Western civilization, which is wholly a product of Greek philosophy and the Judeo-Christian religions, both of which postulate the existence of a God from Whom a higher code of morality and civic virtue derives. 

In denying the existence of God, we are not dealing with a simple matter of personal life style.  To deny God is to deny natural law, which is the basis of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution.  To say that belief in God is ignorance is to dismiss as incompetents the colonists who fought the War of Independence and the statesmen who crafted the Constitution. 

If you fall back on the liberal “mainstream” argument that the meaning of the Constitution evolves with increasing hedonism and social disintegration, that reduces the Constitution to meaninglessness, to no more than public opinion of the moment, to Tocqueville’s tyranny of the masses.

Darwinian evolution is quite obviously a secular and materialistic dogma.  Darwin’s great champion Thomas Huxley delighted in saying that evolution proves there is no sin or morality; just the struggle for survival.  Huxley’s Darwinian thesis saw its full flower in National Socialist Germany and the USSR.]

You say atheists dismiss christians because they cannot prove the existence of god. ?Yet christians dismiss atheists precisely for the same reason?atheists cannot prove the non-existence of god. ?Absence of evidence of non-existence is not evidence of existence. ?We went through that with WMD in Iraq. ?Absence of evidence of existence likewise is exactly that?absence of evidence. ??Science and logic rest on evidence., such as the fossil record. ?

[My reply:  If the evidence for Darwinian evolution is the fossil record, you are in irrecoverable difficulty.  Darwin predicted, and his hypothesis requires, that there be many thousands of intermediate life forms, as a species is modified by natural selection and gradually becomes a new species.  Nothing like that is to be found in the fossil record.  In fact, the actual evidence of the fossil record is so catastrophically the opposite that Stephen Jay Gould had to conjecture something called punctuated evolution.  According to the late Professor Gould, for utterly inexplicable reasons, random chance in the form of genetic mutations coupled with environmental conditions, militates that evolution must for tens of thousands of years fail to respond at all via natural selection, than make mighty leaps forward into much more complex life forms, without any intermediate evolutionary steps.

This is just one of the manifold “Ptolemaic epicycles” that must be conjectured to make evolution “work.”  Darwinian evolution figuratively is the complicated Ptolemaic view of the cosmos, compared to the Copernican intelligent design.]

Evidence is not relevant to religion. ?Faith supplies the predicate to all arguments. ?

[My reply:  That is not factual.  History, I suppose you will admit, is admissable evidence.  Historically, religions arose from observation of nature and mankind’s attempts to understand nature and man’s relationship to the overwhelming forces of nature.  Artifacts of this range from Stonehenge and the Behistun inscription to the civilizations of ancient Egypt, Babylonia, and Persia.

When this is manifested in American Indian cultures, Boomer secularists fall all over themselves in admiration.  It was alone religious faith in God, until the virtual disappearance of the Jewish religion (as opposed to simple ethnicity) in Western Europe and the United States, that preserved the Jewish people over the millennia. 

There has never been any tribe, society, or nation that did not have a religion that explained who its people were and what their relationship to nature was.  For ancient peoples, apart from the tribes of Israel, it wasn’t a matter of personal faith.  People simply passed tradition down through the generations to explain their existence and their relationship with their rulers.

In the ecumenic age, from Alexander the Great to the Roman Empire, when these local religions were effectually obliterated by vast conquering and unifying political states, the universal religion of Christianity arose to make it possible for all peoples everywhere, under foreign conquerors or enslaved, to relate to God directly, as individuals, without the intervention of a godlike temporal ruler.

Every law code, beginning with Hammurabi,  derives from an understanding of Divine authority that sets boundaries of right and wrong conduct.  Empirical experience in the 20th century demonstrates that public acceptance of and adherence to the law are more freely given when the law is based on religious understandings of morally right conduct.

As I stated in earlier exchanges, socialism is a religion, albeit a secular and materialist one, of which Darwinian evolution is a supporting dogma.  The Soviet Union is an example of a Darwinian society in which passive resistance to the law qua secular social justice led to disintegration of the political state.]

Further, if atheists must prove god does not exist, then christians must prove god exists. ?This they have yet to do. ?Making leap of faith from absence of evidence of non-existence to proof of existence is not enough, at least for rational minds. ?If it?s faith, then don?t dilute it by draping it in rational science. ?Doing so degrades faith.

[My reply:  Perhaps you should examine what rational minds, as the only guide to morality and civic virtue have actually produced.  The rational mind as the sole guide has produced a far greater, and disastrously wrong, leap of faith.

The quintessence of the rational mind that denied the existence of God is the secular religious philosophy of Auguste Comte.  Comte was the principal creator of the mind-set sweeping England in the mid-1800s, when Darwin published, along with Karl Marx and the Utilitarians (Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill). 

Comte declared that there is a force within history itself (as did Hegel contemporaneously) that directs human social and political development along an evolutionary path.  Comte believed that he had discovered the Immutable Law of History, as he called it.  Unlike Darwin’s random chance, however, Comte’s law of history mandated the new age of science and the passing of spiritual religious faith. 

What was the new object of Comte’s self-styled Religion of Humanity? Mankind itself was the great be-all and end-all, the true object of human veneration.  The human intellect was henceforward to be supreme in the universe, the only source of legitimacy.  Darwin, Thomas Huxley, J. S. Mill, and increasing numbers of British and American intellectuals accepted this idea of social Progress as the new gospel.

How did it work out?  Comte confidently predicted that he and his disciples would become the focus and direction of a world-wide movement toward The Religion of Humanity that would end aggression, crime, and war, because it was the product of the rational mind. 

Within less than a century after Comte’s rational mind became accepted as the sole source of legitimacy, political societies unrestrained by belief in God and religious morality produced the horrors of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.]
As for Prof. Morowitz: ?There seem to be more than one. ?I would guess you refer to the professor of molecular biophysics and biochemistry at Yale University. ?He recently testified in McLean v. Arkansas, and addressed your probalistic argument:

In general in the creation science literature, they start out by assuming, by making statements about the complexity of living systems. ?These will generally be fairly accurate statements about the complexity of living systems.

They then proceed on the basis of probabilistic calculations to ask, what is the probability that such a complex system will come about by random. ?When you do that, you get a vanishingly small probability, and they then assert that therefore life by natural processes is impossible. ?But the fact of the matter is, we do not know the processes by which life has come about in detail. ?To do the probabilistic calculations, we would have to know all the kinetic and mechanistic details by which the processes have come about, and, therefore, we would then be able to do the calculations. ?We are simply lacking the information to do the calculations now, so to present them on the basis of the random model is somewhat deceptive.

[My reply: My earlier references were to writings by Professor Morowitz (one and the same) concluding that the likelihood of accidental generation of life from inorganic chemicals was so small that the estimated five-billion-year existence of the cosmos would have allowed insufficient time for it to have occurred.? There is no inconsistency between the two.? One relates to the origin of life, the other to presumed evolution of all life forms.? In both cases, Professor Morowitz is saying that probabilities are not in favor of the Darwinian hypothesis.

I direct your attention to a critical part of Professor Morowitz’s statement above:

?But the fact of the matter is, we do not know the processes by which life has come about in detail.?

In other words, Darwin?s hypothesis about the origin, and therefore the development of life forms, is not based on knowledge.? It is simply an interesting speculation.? It?s entirely conjecture, no more than, ?could have been,? or ?might have happened this way.?

It should also be pointed out that Professor Moritz’s testimony in McLean v. Arkansas related specifically to a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis in what is known as creation science.  It did not relate specifically to intelligent design, which what I am asserting.]

The ?vast preponderance of evidence? does not support the existence of god. ?Mathematical theorems can be proven scientifically, and many have (e.g., Fermat?s Last Theorem). 

[My reply: Please forgive a quibble.  In fact, the complex 1993 and and 1994 proofs by British mathematician Andrew Wiles of Fermat’s Last Theorem have still not been fully accepted by his peers as a final proof.

But let’s return to the substance of the matter.  I assert that the scientifically observable laws of physics governing the entire cosmos are sufficient to constitute a ?vast preponderance of evidence.?

What is a principle of math?  It isn’t something that evolved, nor is it something invented by a mathematician.  Mathematical propositions have been implicit in the structure of the universe for as long as there has been a universe. Advocates of the Big Bang theory have to assume that these laws existed at the very inception of the universe. 

The question that Darwinian atheists cannot answer is where did the structure of mathematics, the laws of physics, and the observed complexities of bio-chemistry at the most basic evidences of life come from? 

If we are to believe that there is a sort of law of nature under the rubric of natural selection, where did that presumably universal process come from?  If we credit natural selection as the only agency for varying life forms, and if we base it on random chance, why then might we not expect the presumed laws of natural selection to change randomly, so that the process might cease to work, or begin to work in totally different ways from Darwin’s hypothesis? 

The bottom line is that Darwinians can’t have it both ways: that there are laws of nature, yet everything is pure randomness.]

?I can draw a triangle accurately enough to confirm the sum of the interior angles always equals 180 degrees. ?Ancient Greeks did not need spiritual intuition to notice this, any more than today?s bond traders use spiritual intuition to notice correlation between equities and fixed-income instruments increase as volatility increases. ?

The resulting capital structure arbitrage trades taking advantage of this are simply the result of cold-blooded observation followed by rigorous mathematical analysis. ?Belief in god is different. ?It cannot, and never has been, proven by science. ?This is why courts are entirely correct in rejecting attempts at religious indoctrination in public schools, whether through school prayer or pseudo-scientific theories such as ?intelligent design.? ?

[My reply:  Whether intelligent design is a pseudo-scientific theory or not, the essence of the scientific mind is an openness to questioning today’s orthodoxy when countervailing evidence comes to light.  Darwinian biologists are the opposite, acting as high priests of the once-and-forever revealed truth conceived in the mind of Charles Darwin. 

Thomas Kuhn has pointed out that the normal pattern in the scientific community, since scientists are as human as the rest of us, is to fight tooth and nail against anything that challenges their orthodoxy.  After all, their academic standings and their research grants depend upon it. 

One example that comes to mind was research evidence that pyloric bacteria caused stomach ulcers.  For more than a decade the researcher who found the evidence was hooted down by peer review boards and scientific journals, because everyone KNEW that bacteria couldn’t possibly survive in gastric acids.  In the same way, Pasteur had to endure dismissal as a quack by the established medical authorities of his day.

If, as you assert, intelligent design is pseudo-science, wouldn’t presenting students with a full picture of evidence on both sides be the surest way to discredit it?  Darwinian’s, however, are too fearful to do that, because the foundation of their orthodoxy is riddled with rotten timbers.  There are just too many inconsistencies within the Darwinian hypothesis, and the evidence of DNA research and biochemistry render it unconvincing, if not flatly wrong.] 

Do religious societies treat people better than others? ?The commercial revolution following the Renaissance began when governments dropped religious persecution and got down to business. ?Witness Holland after expelling the oh-so-catholic Hapsburgs. ?Recognizing religion as a private matter allows scientific and commercial advancement. ?Truly religious societies?those in which a single orthodoxy, whether catholic, protestant, muslim, or jewish, enforces total obedience to that orthodoxy on pain of death?have always been the ultimate police states. ?Ask the hugenots of 16th century France, the jews of 16th century Spain, the christians of the present-day middle east, the ba?hai of Iran. ?That is why the USA is so dominant. ?We allow religious diversity, even though some now find it abhorrent to their absolute faith in their particular god.

[My reply:  I certainly agree with you that misuse of spiritual religion has created very bad political conditions.  The operative word, however, is misuse, not religion.  ?When European political states maintained Roman Catholicism as the established church, too often the spiritual leaders became corrupted participants in secular rule, as in the examples you give.

But misuse of religion doesn’t of itself discredit religion any more than a corrupt police department invalidates the concept of law enforcement.

The Roman Catholic Church was alone the preserver of what remained of Roman civilization after the final fall of the Western Empire, all the way into the 16th and 17th centuries age of religious wars that justifiably upset Voltaire.  The Church was the sole guardian of libraries and education, of the Roman codex in canon law, and it was the sole unifying agency for all of Western Europe through the Middle Ages.  It operated the hospitals and the charitable agencies.  It was the Church, principally in the person of St. Thomas Aquinas, that restored knowledge of Aristotle to European scholars. It was Catholic priest Erasmus who most embodied the spirit of Renaissance humanism, and it was Erasmus whose consuming passion was translation of original Greek versions of the Gospel in order to return the Church to the simplicity of its original worship.

To imply that the United States is dominant because it rejects religion (you don’t say that exactly, but the suggestion is there) gets it backwards.  The United States is dominant because it embraces the Judeo-Christian ethic of individualism that requires individual responsibility and personal morality.  And, because of that individuality, the founders firmly embraced spiritual religion and faith in God, but rejected the imposition of a European-style established church as an arm of political rule. 

They believed that political liberty could not be preserved in a society in which individuals were not restrained by morality and faith in God as the Supreme Arbiter of human conduct, an assertion that has been documented with hundreds of pages of quotations from almost every important statesman of that day.

The bottom line: the Greek and Judeo-Christian religious and philosophical tradition created Western civilization; the secular materialism characteristic of Darwinian evolution has gone far to destroy it.]