Evolving Thought

Doug has written a classic Gibbs (tm) secular humanists will destroy you screed. It's perfect because it makes a very common argument seen from creationists and theocrats, and it makes many arguments which are demonstrably false. It's perfect in being wrong in virtually every way.. not just because I say it's wrong.. but because the foundation of his argument is flawed by any standard you wish to apply.

I'm going to do a shred treatment for it, because it goes to the core philosophy of secular humanism versus theism. I'll skip his introduction and start quoting at the 9th paragraph, as his setup is more or less meaningless. You can read the entire thing here.

(Side note.. notice that I'm linking and quoting because I'm not a coward, unable to substantiate my arguments)

But to stay on point, the whole idea that humanity is progressing to perfection is a product of the Theory of Evolution. This movement, coincidentally, is populated by people who are also anti-Christian. The idea of progression to perfection is hardly compatible with the Biblical idea that we are all sinners and unworthy of God's love.

To begin, people who hold the view that biology is an evolving process have no opinion of religion based on their understanding of the science. The science proposes explanations and models based on observable data. That's all.. nothing else. At it's core, science has nothing to do with religion.

The religious views of a broader group of people who base their world view on actual sceintific evidence probably are less religiously stringent than people who believe in Biblical texts, but that's simply because of what the individual values (real vs. "faith"). There is no rule that says a person who agrees with Darwin's findings by definition is an atheist. I'm not an atheist, though I can appreciate that some people are. One thing doesn't have anything to do with the other, except to the obvious point that if one is true, the other must be false... which is what this is all about. That's why religious dogma must attack science. If the scientific theories are correct (which all the evidence supports), then the narrative of the Bible is obviously a work of fiction.

Just because someone does agree with Darwin and is an atheist does not mean that they are "anti-Christian". They may be completely ambivalent. Again, one has nothing to do with the other. It's like saying.. because somebody likes their toast with jam, they like the color green.

I am "anti-Christian", or more accurately "anti-religion". I make no bones about that. I base it on the historical evidence of what religion has done in the world, not based on any superstition. I do nothing based on superstition. My view of Christianity has nothing to do with my view that Darwin's findings are scientifically valid. One has nothing to do with the other.. other than that I'd imagine, again, that people who base their views on evidence will typically be less religiously inclined simply because the typical response to the Bible is "you want me to believe what?"

Doug also seems to believe that Secular Humanists (which is an over-broad term in my opinion) have an agenda. That agenda is a "new enlightenment", with a goal of "human perfection".. of "humans as God".

Actually.. I think the old enlightenment was just fine. However, Doug takes the basic ideas of "selection", "adaptation", and "evolution", and extrapolates them into an agenda, as if those concepts are simply made up to fit a desired condition, rather than an explanation of the observed condition. It's extreme anti-science propaganda.

There is no "Secular Humanist" church. There is no world wide organization, like you find in religion. There is no grand conspiracy to usher in the worship of humanity. There is no desire to make humanity into something that it is not, or is incapable of. Evolution is simply an explanation of the observable data. That's it.. nothing more. Science does NOT have an agenda.

I'm going to side track for a moment, but it's relevant. I posted a Deep Thought yesterday about humanity's understanding of the universe. Can you imagine that it wasn't until the 1920's that anyone knew the universe was bigger than our galaxy? I was watching a biography of Albert Einstein when they mentioned that. I was floored.

Know why that is? Because the telescopes did not have a high enough quality to resolve images beyond our galaxy. Other galaxies were simply smudges and the astronomers had no evidence of what they were.

Until Galileo, humanity thought the earth was the center of a rather small universe. It wasn't until roughly 90 years ago that science demonstrated that we're just on a planet in a solar system of a rather ordinary galaxy that is just one of innumerable galaxies.

Similarly, in Einsteins Theory of General Relativity, he wrote equations that made predictions about the effects of gravity. These predictions were extremely precise, and could be measured by photographing a total solar eclipse. The eclipse would reveal stars very close to the plane of the sun, and General Relativity predicted how much the Sun and moon would bend the light. It wasn't until nearly 20 years after the theory's publication that precise photos could be taken, and the measurements matched the predictions exactly. Newton's gravity was dead. Long live the new gravity.. or.. the more precise defintion of gravity (which might just be improved in the future).

The point is, most creationists misunderstand what a scientific theory is. Theories are based on evidence, and make predictions that can be tested for validity. Evolution is just such a theory, and is as much a science as mathematics and physics.

By the way, I find the idea that we're "unworthy of God's love" to be a very Catholic idea. You've got your original sin, that you did nothing to earn but be born, and you need religion to fix it for you. Religion is based on no evidence what-so-ever, but is evidently how we must supplicate ourselves in order to be worthy. Nah.. that doesn't scream "scam".

Moving on, and I'm going to break these pieces down;

Progression to perfection makes sense on the surface. After all, we seem to become more advanced as a species with each generation.

Not "more advanced", but simply that which is contradictory to our survival is demphasized for that which encourages survival. That's simply selection and adaptation, and is why our species has not died out due to illness, disease, or simply being eaten by something bigger and meaner. Yeah for big brains!

It's also worth noting that some species have been pretty much the same for very long periods of time. Some species of sharks demonstrate that. That's simply a result of environmental pressures, or lack of pressures that cause change over time.

I just can't get over Doug's ignorance of very basic science concepts that they teach in high school.. or at least should teach.

Our understanding of the world, and universe around us, increases with the passing of each cycle. So, with such constant progression, it would seem logical that eventually we will progress to a god-like state.

This, again, is a willful misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. Maybe Doug isn't as ignorant as he demonstrates, and it's simply a result of his religious agenda. In any case, Evolution does not predict any "perfection", but simply predicts that change will occur based on environmental conditions over time. For example, if the Sun starts getting more intense, humans will, on average, develop darker pigmentation to respond to the change in environment.

Evolution does NOT predict that we will become psychic.. or be able to fly.. or move objects with our minds.. or ward off every disease naturally. The evolutionary path does NOT end with Superman. It's simply a very gradual process which shapes biological functions.

I'd also point out that Doug leaps from "our understanding increases" to "we will progress to being gods" without explaining how one has anything to do with the other. Of course we understand things around us better as time moves forward. That is why I can type on this keyboard and post these words to the Internet. It's why there is language to begin with. That does NOT make any predictions or assumptions about the capability of humanity in the future, other than we will continue to increase our understanding.

The Earth is not the center of the universe. The Milky Way is not the universe, etc. See how that works?

And with that kind of thinking, it would seem that since Christians are diametrically opposed to such a human-centered ideology, those that support progressivism would see it as a necessity to eliminate the obstacle to human advancement towards perfection. Specifically, Christianity, and religion as a whole, would be seen as a hindrance to humanity's evolution - especially those that dare to believe in a Christian God.

And there's the rub.

Secular Humanism values the real.. human beings.. human welfare and progress. It has no need for worship of made up idols. It has no agenda other than to improve the condition of humanity. That's all.. nothing else.

I simply don't understand how Doug believes that a human philosophy, which is what Humanism is, has a human agenda, akin to a political agenda. Doug's personality forces him to see conspiracies around every corner, and threats to his very existence because religion itself is based on martyrdom. There is always a boogeyman out there, waiting to destroy all that is held dear. Doug uses that "elimination" phrasing simply as a scare tactic. From my point of view, it's comical, but then I don't base my entire being on a trip through fantasy land.

Science doesn't care about Christianity. Secular Humanism doesn't care about Christianity. Individuals care about religion because of it's actual actions - but Humanism makes no real statement about religion at all.

Ultimately, it would be up to the science of sociology to create models to describe the future religiosity of humanity. My lay perspective is that as goes economic conditions, so goes religion. Truly, people cling to God and guns when times are tough. It's why religion is more dominant in the third world, and why Europe is abandoning it. If science education is emphasized, and economic conditions improve, then we will see a much more Secular world. I'd also note that with better economic conditions, we'll see much less warfare. Despite the existential threat of teh terraists.. wars are always about economics.

The next paragraph is stunning;

In physics there is the Chaos Theory which says in the most simplistic terms that whenever something is left alone it will have the tendency to move toward a condition of chaos, rather than order. Progressive evolution, however, proclaims the opposite. The liberal idea of human evolution progressing toward perfection is essentially saying that our species is moving from chaos to order. But if naturally we tend to go from order to chaos, isn't the idea of progression toward perfection in complete opposition to the logic of science?

Where on Gorak's green Earth did Doug come up with idea that evolution is a "Liberal" idea? That's one of the most remarkable things I've ever seen from a creationist, but is yet another in a long list of astonishingly wrong claims from Doug.

I will say this very simply;

Evolution is no more a "Liberal idea" than General Relativity is a "Liberal idea". Evolution is simply a component of the science of biology. It does NOT have a political agenda. Holy cow.. that's just dumb beyond belief.

Doug makes another mistake extremely common in creation arguments. Doug takes it even further though, by not only being wrong about the principle, but being wrong on what it's called.

"Chaos Theory" is NOT what Doug thinks it is. He's using the wrong term. Chaos Theory relates to perturbations in systems.. or randomness. The meaning is the opposite of what Doug thinks it is;

Systems that exhibit mathematical chaos are deterministic and thus orderly in some sense; this technical use of the word chaos is at odds with common parlance, which suggests complete disorder.

I know I often say that Doug is wrong.. I often call him dumb.. but I should also call him lazy, because he doesn't even verify whether or not what he's saying is true. In this case, he's just regurgitating creationist propaganda without actually doing any research.

What Doug is actually referring to is the second law of thermodynamics.. or "entropy". The second law states that in a closed system, things tend toward greater disorder.

Doug misuses (and misnames) that principle by insisting that entropy is uniform in the universe. This is very typical creationist propaganda and is complete misrepresentation of the physics.

For that matter, isn't the entire theory of Evolution itself in direct opposition to the Chaos Theory? And if we are indeed moving from order to chaos as physics would profess, how did things begin in a state of order in the first place?

For many, the logical conclusion is that there was a creator, a designer, a blueprinter, who set everything in motion in perfect order. However, since that creation, we have been slowly progressing, or should I say "regressing," toward a state of chaos. Toward confusion. Toward disorder.

Instead of my re-writing it, I'll have physics explain it.

...

Some religious people argue that because the universe and life are so orderly, that a god must be required who could violate this law.

The universe does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The universe started with the maximum amount of disorder possible for its size. Then, as the universe expanded, this allowed for more disorder to occur, and, in fact, it is occurring.

Despite the fact that the overall disorder is increasing in the system called the universe, increasing order is allowed in subsystems, such as galaxies, solar systems, and life – so long as the net effect to the entire universe is increased disorder.

...

In other words, entropy is not uniform. High disorder in one place allows high order in other places, so long as the net effect is disorder. Indeed, it's only been recently that physicists and astronomers have shown that the universe appears to be expanding unchecked, with an ultimate fate of ultimate disorder.

When Doug says "For many, the logical conclusion is that there was a creator", it must be said that the "many" do not even understand the basic principle they are referencing, and it's exasperating to the rest of us who do.

Creationists should never reference scientific theories in order to attempt to discredit other scientific theories, because they don't understand how science works in the first place. People like me will point out how they are fundamentally wrong by definition.

In this case, Doug thinks he's discrediting science, when all he's doing is demonstrating that he shouldn't even be commenting on it because he doesn't understand it.

Anarchy, when standards and morals and order are abandoned, is often the result of such a deterioration.

Without order, without standards, humanity has the tendency to do the wrong thing - "naturally" the wrong thing.

That is another argument that is required to be true, otherwise religion is irrelevant. Doug is arguing, and quite bravely I might add.. because most religious types will not admit it.. that human beings are naturally immoral. It's in stark contrast to Humanism, and for very good reason.

How does a human being know the difference between right and wrong? Where do our ethics come from? Religion argues they come from God, and absent a belief in God and adherence to religious principles, the "natural" result will be immoral behavior.

I find that idea incredibly horrifying, as any sane human being should.. however, when you consider the necessity for religion to place itself above humanity.. to be the "giver of ethics".. it's hard to not see why it's such an important concept.

Doug, as a person, is the definition of religion. Without me going into another tirade about the evils of religion, I'll just point out that the entire foundation is one giant scare tactic. Believe this or go to hell.. Follow the Bible or you will naturally do the wrong thing.

And that's where Doug gets the idea that the Muslims are going to start a Red Dawn Jihad in the streets of the United States. Doug is religion.. frightened.. paranoid.. supplicant.

Are human beings naturally conditioned by evolution to have ethics and values? Is it a part of biology, or is it a learned behavior, or both? An interesting expanded review of the topic from a professor of bioethics, here.

I have a very solid ethical and moral foundation - and it's not based on religion. It's based on biology and sociology.. learned behavior and intrinsic instincts that evolution has instilled in me.

I do not have the qualifications to make the scientific determination on the origins of ethics. I can only speak for myself, and generalize what I see from other people. I believe that a human being knows the difference between right and wrong intrinsically.. just as surely as a child will react in shame when they know they've done something wrong.. just as surely as you see the empathy for other human beings as a basic tenant of Humanism. That's it's entire foundation.

Only a sociopath could think that moral behavior comes from religion - which is my basic argument about the danger of religion. When it's thought through, Doug is arguing that he has no natural morals as being just a human being. He learns it from religion - which is THE definition of sociopathy.

Religion may have some use after all if it keeps the people that depend on it from misbehaving. On the other hand, religion has historically granted moral excuses for the most horrific actions of it's adherents.

The natural tendency of humans to do the wrong thing is confirmed, from a Christian standpoint, in the New Testament Book of Romans. Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Humanity, however, does not want to accept that. Humanity does not desire to accept the fact that we are a flawed being headed towards catastrophe should we abandon the standards of order given to us in the form of Godly morals and principles. We would prefer, it seems, to be arrogant and believe that we are able to move in the opposite direction of nature, move in the opposite direction of science, and move in the opposite direction of common sense - that we are somehow progressing toward perfection, and a god-like state, in an opportunity as a species to be, well, more like God.

That's a nice argument which makes my point. I often say that Doug is a gift from Gorak because he helps make my arguments easier..

Doug basis his claim that humans are naturally immoral on Biblical scripture. There is zero evidence that is true. Just because a book says it's so.. does not mean it's so.. just as I often say that just because Doug says it's so.. does not make it so.

Doug then goes on to make a typical strawman argument, and I honestly don't think he knows he's doing it. He speaks for "humanity". He knows what "humanity" wants. He insists that humanity doesn't want to accept that we're "flawed". In fact, the exact opposite is what Huminism is all about.. based on... you guessed it.. biology and evolution.

By definition.. evolution expresses that we are flawed. That is the point of selection. I'm baffled why Doug misses that point. That biology changes, discards less helpful traits in favor or more helpful traits.. BY DEFINITION that means we are flawed as human beings.. in biology, emotionally, and morally. We have much room to improve.

Doug thinks Humanism is moving opposite to nature.. opposite to science.. opposite to "common sense" because he doesn't understand nature.. or science.. or the theories and principles that they imply. As I've shown, he's basing all of it on a flawed understanding of entropy... It's not "arrogance".. It is not an attempt to "move" anything. It is what it is. It's science!

And that is why Humanism is demonstrably superior to religion.

I'll paste more whack-a-loon insanity here just so everyone can giggle a little;

As a species we have become so dead-set on our evolution toward perfection that agendas have been created to ensure it happens. These political agendas are designed to control you, herd you, and point you in the direction of progressivism - as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom would say, "Whether you like it, or not."

But as I said earlier, there is only one thing that stands in the way of this agenda: Religion - and more often than not, Christianity. In order to become more like God, they must eliminate the belief in the true God. In a sense, the secular humanists are attempting to eliminate the competition.

I do agree with one thing.. evolution happens.. whether anyone likes it or not... and that's a good thing!

We can just snicker at the lunatics that think there is some grand conspiracy to "eliminate" them. It must be weird to be that paranoid all the time though.

And for those of you that are religious, but are not necessarily Christian, understand this: The desire of the liberal left secular humanists to eliminate, subdue, or control Christianity will not stop at Christianity. You, my friends, will be next.

The fate of one will eventually become the fate of all.

Secular Humanism, the religion of humanity, is on the rise. The agenda? Perfection. Order. And the elimination of anybody that gets in the way.

Kyle Reese: Listen, and understand. That Humanist is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

*** Correction

In this post, I claimed that I wrote a "Deep Thought" about humanity's understanding of the universe. In reality, I wrote it but did not post it. I posted one about Jews and Christmas music instead. I had intended to post the other thought at a future date.

Apollogies for the error.

/update

Not surprisingly, Doug deleted the comment on his blog where I simply pointed out his factual errors. I think the "accident" that he often refers to in his youth left him without any testicles.

An additional point. I argue that Christianity is exactly the same as Islam.. They are both vile and evil institutions. It is not surprising that Muslims also reject science.

...although the last couple of decades have seen an increasing confrontation over the teaching of evolution in the United States, the next major battle over evolution is likely to take place in the Muslim world (i.e., predominantly Islamic countries, as well as in countries where there are large Muslim populations). Relatively poor education standards, in combination with frequent misinformation about evolutionary ideas, make the Muslim world a fertile ground for rejection of the theory. In addition, there already exists a growing and highly influential Islamic creationist movement (1). Biological evolution is still a relatively new concept for a majority of Muslims, and a serious debate over its religious compatibility has not yet taken place. It is likely that public opinion on this issue will be shaped in the next decade or so because of rising education levels in the Muslim world and the increasing importance of biological sciences.

It does bother me, this rampant ignorance.. even willful disregard for truth. However, it is true that the world is a much less competative place because of the very stupid people.