One of the main arguments by young-earth creationists against evolution actually has nothing to do with either creation or evolution. The argumant goes like this:
With evolution there is no need for a god.
The study of evolution therefore leads to atheism.
Since God is the arbiter of right and wrong, disbelief in God removes any perceived need for a moral filter a person might have.
Therefore, evolution is wrong because it leads to amorality.
While this is just so wrong on so many levels – akin to “Your research is completely false because I dislike your sweater” – there is something even more. It turns out that it is belief in god that leads to a wandering moral compass.
A recent study, described in New Scientist, shows that people map their own beliefs on what they think God believes. In other words, people presume God’s beliefs based on their own, rather than the other way around. Thus, as people’s beliefs change, so does their presumption of God’s beliefs.
This means that there is no absolute and permanent recognition of what God believes, and thus there is no definitive moral compass imposed by the Almighty. Even worse, it says that whatever a person believes, if they are a believer, they will tend to think that their personal beliefs are shared by God, and therefore just.
As an argument, this does not, of course, demonstrate the validity of evolution (there is plenty of that elsewhere) any more than the original argument refutes it. It does, however, suggest that creationists should not throw stones. Or, to take it a step further, maybe it suggests that evolution should be taught because it removes the wandering moral compass, leading to greater morality.
A recent article in New Scientist is a perfect illustration of how mutations can be beneficial, how beneficial genes can spread rapidly, and how humans are still evolving.
The mutation is a single amino acid change that appears to provide complete resistance to kuru, a prion disease similar to CJD or mad cow disease. Kuru was passed on through ritual cannibalism in Papua New Guinea, when family members ate the brain of the dead out of respect. Of course, once the disease began to spread, more funerals would lead to more cannibalism, which lead to more disease.
The protective gene is thought to have arisen within the last 200 years, and spread rapidly due to the selective pressure of kuru on the community.
As reported in Science Daily, Dr. Joe Thornton at the University of Oregon has reconstructed an evolutionary sequence of an “irreducibly complex” system – alosterone and its receptor.
“Our work demonstrates a fundamental error in the current challenges to Darwinism,” said Thornton. “New techniques allowed us to see how ancient genes and their functions evolved hundreds of millions of years ago. We found that complexity evolved piecemeal through a process of Molecular Exploitation — old genes, constrained by selection for entirely different functions, have been recruited by evolution to participate in new interactions and new functions.”
This story from New Scientist illustrates the power behind the complexity of living things. It was once thought that all new genes had to come from modifications of existing genes. This is of course great fodder for creationists, who then ask “where did the first genes come from?” A few years ago, de novo genes – genes that arose from scratch from previously non-coding DNA – were found in fruit flies. It now turns out that humans, too, carry de novo genes. Three genes carried by humans, but no other primates, appear to be the result of mutations in nonsense, or non-coding sequences of DNA. The fact that these genes are active in all sequenced human genomes implies that they do perform a beneficial function, though what that is, is as yet unknown.
For a while there I got right into the arguments with Dawkinswatch, but eventually I realized that nothing I said ever actually sunk in. In fact it barely registered. DW kept applying non-sequitors and changing the subject by way of argument, and I realized that all I was doing was increasing traffic to his nonsense. So I dropped it, in hopes that maybe ignoring the stupidity would decrease the attention it was getting.
And then he posts this, blathering on, once again, about how evolution is just racism.
In reply to this, I have little recourse but to draw on the wisdon of lolcats:
For much of it’s history, the discovery institute has been pushing for the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools, claiming that the reason is scientific and not religious. Evidence, such as the Wedge Document, has been dismissed by the DI as a smear campaign and an urban legend.
The Discovery Institute has maintained all along that their focus on Intelligent Design is a viable, scientific alternative to “Darwinism”, and is not based on a religious viewpoint. The DI has a branch called the Center for Science and Culture, which in turn has a division called Faith + Evolution. This site comes right out and explains that the reason for ID research is that evolution and faith are incompatible, and of course faith is correct, and thus evolution is not. In other words, the Discovery institute, in a round about sort of way, is coming out and finally admitting that their science-bashing is religiously motivated.
Ironically, it seems that their incentive for this claim of incompatibility is a response to BioLogos, a Christian website promoting evolution (it is not the only one, by the way. There is also the ASA). So now we have the Christian motivation of the DI out in the open, in an effort to put down another Christian organization, presumably for not being “christian enough” to ignore the evidence for evolution.
In the movie Expelled, as well as a number of other sources, it is repeated over and over that Hitler’s eugenic and antisemitic views were influenced by Darwin, and thus Darwin and his work on Natural Selection are inherently evil.
Allow me to illustrate with an example of a made up scheme of Social Newtonism:
According to Newton’s law of gravitation, tall people have more potential energy than short people. Now, everyone knows that having potential is a good thing, and having energy is a good thing, so clearly any tall person – with greater potential energy – is superiorto any short person. As such, it could be suggested that only tall people should be allowed to reproduce, in order to ensure the future improvement of the human race. And because this is so clearly based on physical laws, I will call this Newtonics, or Social Newtonism.
Now, should the response to this be:
Since Social Newtonism is clearly misguided and evil, we will call Newton the Antichrist, and stop teaching Physics in school.
or:
So called “social Newtonism” has nothing to do with Newton’s laws other than hijacking his name, is a complete misrepresentation of physics, is merely an excuse to promote prejudice, and should be exposed as such. Newton’s laws should be taught more and better, to ensure this type of gross misrepresentation should never happen again.
Which is the correct response? Clearly not the first. So please tell me why it is that this is precisely what is happening with Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection? I understand the motivation (discredit Darwinism so fundamentalist Christianity can be rammed into the school system to indoctrinate children when they are young and susceptible), I mean why are people letting it happen?
To put it plain and simple, blaming Darwin for Hitler is a lie. Isn’t there something in the bible about not telling those?
David Quammen on his book, The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: an Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution.
Dr. Steve Jones on his latest book Darwin’s Island, The Galapagos in the Garden of England.
Dr. Olivia Judson on Darwin’s insights into the operations of the natural world, and how they raised questions that scientists are still exploring today.
Although falling short of removing or muzzling these topics in the classroom, it impacts not only Science classes, but Phys-Ed, Health, Geography, and Social Science as well. Some of these may be compulsory courses.
It seems to me, as an educator, that closed-minded prejudice should be all the more reason to take those courses and learn more about the concepts, rather than an excuse to ignore them and continue misunderstanding them.
What’s next, exemption from History class that discusses Sumerian civilization (7400 years ago), or the settling of the Americas (>10,000 years ago)? Or exemption from a course that discusses the Moon landings?
If you don’t like reality that’s your problem. But government approval to turn a blind eye to it – that’s just not right.
Posted by Bipedal Tetrapod 
Posted by Bipedal Tetrapod 
Posted by Bipedal Tetrapod 
