Friday, December 12, 2014

Evolution: Garbage In, Garbage Out

Man’s Imagination

Evolutionary thinking did not begin with Darwin, but it did receive a substantial boost when the Sage of Kent published his theory in 1859. It is often said that evolution is the most influential scientific theory in areas outside of science. That certainly is true, though with the caveat that evolution is hardly a scientific theory. Demarcating just what is and isn’t science is notoriously difficult, but when advocates are dead certain their idea is an undeniable fact because their metaphysics requires it, in spite of overwhelming empirical contradictions, you can be sure we are nowhere close to that Baconian ideal of natural philosophy. Evolution isn’t merely about mutations and fossils. It is an overarching creation story with deep metaphysics that has spread throughout the world. As such it has enormous influence.

Evolutionary thinking goes back centuries and it deals with the fundamental question of origins. Tell me where you think you came from, it is said, and I’ll tell you everything else you believe—at least everything that is important. The answer for evolutionists is that we are the product of happenstance. The world arose by itself, the result of chance and necessity—random events driven by blind natural laws while the Creator, like Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover, meditates on a distant Mount Olympus.

That idea, in the history of thought, is highly unfortunate. Yes it is scientifically unlikely (I’m being kind), but that is only the beginning. Ideas have consequences and in a chilling anticipation of what was to come, the early critic Adam Sedgwick lamented to Darwin that with evolution humanity would suffer damage that “might brutalize it” and sink the human race “into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen”:

Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.

If only Sedgwick could have read Nietzsche’s warning that it was the sick, the oppressed, the broken and the weak, rather than evil men, who were the greatest threat to humanity. If only Sedgwick could have seen the onset of eugenics, the Holocaust, abortion, and other forms of genocide. Sedgwick correctly foresaw the terrible consequences of the modern day resurrection of the Epicurean idea that something, and in fact everything, came from nothing.

Unfortunately these are hardly the only influences of evolutionary thought. We are, for example, awash in pornography which is incredibly demeaning of women. No, pornography is not a healthy, artful expression as many evolutionists argue.

The evolutionist’s support of such ills as eugenics, abortion and pornography is telling. It reveals once again that ideas have consequences. Not only did evolutionary thought lead historically to a host of downfalls, today’s evolutionists readily confirm the link.

Sedgwick warned that Darwin had made claims well beyond the limits of science. Darwin had issued truths that were not likely ever to be found anywhere “but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.” Unfortunately that is precisely where it counts.

15 comments:

  1. Abortion, pornography and the persecution and massacre of Jews all existed for centuries before Darwin published his work. His only contribution was to provide people like you with a scapegoat on which they could hang the blame for human failings which Christianity had not only signally failed to eradicate but in which, in the case of persecution of the Jews, they participated enthusiastically.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So Ian, would you say abortion is wrong? Is pornography wrong?

      Delete
    2. So Spedding, how do you think Darwin's speculations
      affected social attitudes towards "abortion, pornography and the persecution and massacre of Jews" after the "centuries before Darwin published his work" ("work" equals unsubstantiated conjecture, speculation out of sheer ignorance, and simplistic conclusions derived from totally deplete information taking what is now known to be required in order to come to competent conclusions regarding the issues involved.) Your ideas are such dead philosophy. You really need to educate yourself with science in order to be taken seriously here. Oh, by the way, since the world is "over populated" why don't you lead the charge and eradicate yourself as part of your alleged remedy? Which in your mind would do your grand children a favor.

      Delete
    3. Cornelius Hunter So Ian, would you say abortion is wrong? Is pornography wrong?

      I'm opposed to abortion on the grounds that I think the right to life should apply to the whole of an individual's existence, from conception to 'croak'.. I'd allow medical exemptions, though.

      Pornography, dare I say it, covers a multitude of sins. There are paintings in the Sistine Chapel that are arguably pornographic, certainly, many classical works. I don't see those as wrong. In any event, what goes on between consenting adults in any age is nobody's business but theirs. The coerced exploitation of the vulnerable and powerless is wrong, so is the involvement of children under any circumstances.

      Delete
  2. It's often been a common claim that this is a casual link between Darwin's theory of evolution and eugenics and the holocaust.

    But pornography? That's a new one!! As Ian points out above pornography has been around for probably thousands of years (Pompei has some very explicit erotic art for example).

    I am wondering Cornelius if this is your example of "man's imagination"? Or maybe you can provide empirical data as to why evolution is now apparently responsible for pornography too? Please explain how.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JD:

      As Ian points out above pornography has been around for probably thousands of years

      It appears that by your logic an idea can have influence only if it caused something for the first time.

      Delete
    2. JDRick
      So what impact on can you imagine that Darwins specjaculations had on individual belief systems that would allow expansion and perpetuation of concepts such as "pornography" in society, particularly in light of the information age that we experience? A better question is, on what basis do you even "bite" on Cornelius's implication that somehow pornography may be something objectionable?
      And then you have the gall to request "empirical evidence", when you are in full support of vast conjecture behind nde without a shred of sufficient empirical evidence to support your conjecture

      Delete
  3. CH: It appears that by your logic an idea can have influence only if it caused something for the first time.

    You made the claim, not me. I'm just trying to understand YOUR logic in linking evolution to pornography. Either provide some real evidence for this claim, or admit it's just a bit of gratuitous hand-waving without any foundation. Again, please provide the evidence for your claim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JD:

      You made the claim, not me. I'm just trying to understand YOUR logic

      No, you argued against a link, using the flawed logic that pornography predates Darwin.


      please provide the evidence for your claim

      That is not a difficult task. You can look at major influences, such as Margeret Sanger and Hugh Hefner. You need to be careful with Sanger because there were some different ideas in her day. She opposed some social and economic Darwinism ideas which she felt impinged on women’s sexual freedoms. So at times she opposes “evolutionists,” but it is in a different sense than what that would mean today. She definitely was influenced by Darwinism, the biological version. As for Hefner, he says it was “Freud and Darwin” that impacted him the most when he was young (and of course Freud was influenced by Darwin). His Hugh M. Hefner Foundation, for example, gave its annual “Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award” to evolution advocate Zack Kopplin. Today you find sympathy for pornography amongst evolutionists but not creationists.

      Delete
    2. CH: "No, you argued against a link, using the flawed logic that pornography predates Darwin."

      Huh? What link? So pornography doesn't predate Darwin then? So you're an expert now in pornography now too?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_erotic_depictions

      Maybe the reason pornography exists is for the simple reason that human beings are perpetually horny.

      So is evolution also to blame for prostitution too?

      Well, the reason creationists don't like pornography is nothing to do with science but because of their religious believes. I mean God and sex never really have done well together have they?

      Delete
    3. JD:

      So pornography doesn't predate Darwin then?

      Except I didn't say that. I pointed out that it appears that by your logic an idea can have influence only if it caused something for the first time.

      Maybe the reason pornography exists is for the simple reason that human beings are perpetually horny. ... Well, the reason creationists don't like pornography is nothing to do with science but because of their religious believes.

      So once again, the evolutionist defends pornography.

      Delete
    4. CH: "Except I didn't say that."

      You kind of did..but never mind...whatever.

      I'm not defending pornography at all, just trying to offer a different viewpoint as to why it exists. I have made no value statement either way. You inserted that yourself.

      Delete
    5. JD:

      I'm not defending pornography at all, just trying to offer a different viewpoint as to why it exists.

      Actually you suggested opposition to it is driven by uptight religious sentiment.

      Delete
  4. bpgramatic: And then you have the gall to request "empirical evidence", when you are in full support of vast conjecture behind nde without a shred of sufficient empirical evidence to support your conjecture.

    Wow, that's a lot of conjecture on your part there. I actually haven't said anything about what I think about pornography one way or the other. Cornelius made a claim linking evolution to pornography with absolutely no reasoning or evidence to back up his claim. I'm just asking him to connect the dots, otherwise I'm just going to assume it's more fire and brimstone from the CH pulpit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No, pornography is not a healthy, artful expression as many evolutionists argue.

    This claim could be interesting, but, as usual, you don't have any evidence to support your intuition. Prove me wrong:

    Who are these persons and what do they say?

    ReplyDelete