Creationism VS. Darwinism debate II

After I posted the first portion of this article in a forum (I love Philosophy.com), a fellow philosopher responded:

"The theory of Evolution, on the other hand, gives scientific support to the belief that we are all related. That is, all humans come from the same pair, and all of life comes from the same primordial seed."

Until that hi-lited word becomes "absolute proof", I doubt the possibility of being on the same page about our existence will come to fruition. The word 'theory' leaves room for doubt just as the word 'faith' leaves doubt in the mind of the secular community for different religious affectations.

Unless both factions seriously explore the other's beliefs with equal interest and intent, it is doubtful the twain shall meld. For as both contend they are qualifiably viable in their own right, contentiousness make them polar to one another.

I replied:
I have studied both sides objectively, and as regards this contention, I see a crucial difference between the two sides:

The Creationist side begins with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2; an interpretation which many (perhaps most) well respected and well grounded theologians (such as Augustine) reject; an interpretation which is, in itself, a theory about what the Creator intended to communicate through those chapters. While you refer to your belief in this theoretical interpretation as Faith, it seems to be really more of a commitment to agree with the doctrine which your particular denomination promulgates. From the basis of that predetermined, theoretical interpretation of scripture, only that portion of the scientific evidence and deduction which supports that interpretation is accepted, while other evidence and the implications thereof is ignored.

The Evolution side begins with evidence, painstakingly accumulated and recorded. Observations of God's creation were made in detail by Darwin, an ordained minister himself, and those observations led him inevitably to the conclusion that the physical characteristics of earthly organisms came to be through the God-given process of natural selection. This theory was the only logical framework that could explain his data and observations. His faith in God was not shattered by this revelation, rather his awe and astonishment at the subtlety of God's creation was increased. His understanding of human foibles and failings, however, prevented him from publishing his work until another scientist (Wallace) made an new set of observations and came, independently, to the same conclusions.

Regarding the theologians of Creationism: Read Mathew 7: 15 - 20 which has as its theme "You shall know them by their fruits." If the fruits of Creationism are discord amongst Christians, the rejection of Christianity by the Scientific community, the rejection of science by a large potion of the Christian community, the atheists making a plaything of religion, and the followers of Creationism becoming blindly loyal followers of their clergy and tithers of their church to the detriment of their willingness to reason, then who will say that these are good fruits?

Creationism VS. Darwinism debate

I have been researching the history of the Creationism VS. Darwinism debate, and it appears that one strong impetus for opposition to Darwinian theory in general was the rise of Social Darwinism. One particular force for the development of this controversy in the U.S. was William Jennings Brian, who opposed the theory of evolution, and actively campaigned against, it for two reasons. First, he believed that what he considered a materialistic account of the descent of man through evolution undermined the Bible. (One might assume that he preferred a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2.) Second, he saw neo-Darwinism or Social Darwinism, which tends to support forcefulness and aggressiveness over loving kindness and meekness, as a great evil force in the world promoting hatreds and conflicts, especially the World War.*

In The Literal Meaning of Genesis Saint Augustine argued that Genesis should be interpreted as God forming the Earth and life from pre-existing matter and allowed for an allegorical interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that Christians should be willing to change their minds about it as new information comes up. He also warned believers not to rashly interpret things literally that might be allegorical, as it would discredit the faith. *

The entire Creationism vs. Evolution debate has been a real source of contention and conflict in this country. It has polarized the scientific community in opposition to the religious community to the extent that scientists have become embarrassed to confess their belief in religion and many Christians have come to distrust science. (There is even some thought that the distrust engendered by this debate has been used by greedy industrialists in their efforts to discredit scientific evidence for global warming.) There is evidence in the arguments made on the Creationist side that ignorance of the nature of scientific research and theory-building is not only prevalent but valued. There is also evidence that atheists see this vocal Creationism movement as representative of all religion and use it as a strong argument for their position.

It seems a great pity that such a destructive controversy as this might have arisen from a mistaken belief that the biological/historical theory of The Evolution of Species by Natural Selection leads inevitably to disbelief in God or to a belief that “might makes right.” The theory of evolution works both as an explanation for the known data about the nature of life and as a means for predicting other observations and forming testable hypotheses. Theories of social Darwinism, while predicting that a better armed country will win a war and that a bully will get his way on the playground, do not provide any basis for morality. Indeed, moral decisions that come from such theories could lead to the destruction of civilization and the end of life on Earth. The theory of Evolution, on the other hand, gives scientific support to the belief that we are all related. That is, all humans come from the same pair, and all of life comes from the same primordial seed. It would be better for Christianity if all Christians would graciously accept Evolution of Species, just as the Christian community finally accepted that the earth revolved around the sun.

*[Paragraph contains quotes from articles in Wikipedia]

Religion and Society 2

The question student-of-life asks below is related to the classic "Problem of Evil". My response is of the class of theodicy called "spiritual development." The Baha'i Faith emphasises the nobility of mankind, rather than the fall of man. That spiritual truth which is expressed through the Christian doctrine of Original sin is expressed in the Baha'i writings as man's "animal nature." This concept is similar to the Id of Freudian psychology, but is also expressible in terms of evolution theory as those characteristics that we have in common with other primates. Having been endowed with "the knowledge of good and evil", which I compare to our high creative function, those drives need to be kept in check by spiritual virtues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by student-of-life
If god knowing the end of things, at the time of the beginning, created me the way I am, then are not all of my faults his doing? I did not ask to be created. And even if I have free will to do as I please, did he not create me to will the things that I will? If you made a cake from scratch and the cake didn't taste the way you wanted, would you blame the cake. If you created by some means, a computer that achieved its own intelligence, and that computer didn't act the way you wanted, wouldn't it still be your doing?

"The reality of man is spiritual." This world, this life, is part of a journey that each of us is on. The journey itself is as important as the end, but the goal (unattainable though it is) is personal, spiritual perfection, or, in other words, the knowledge of God. Part of our movement toward that goal is achieved through our choosing to strengthen our spiritual (ie moral/ethical) nature in its control over our animal nature. When people act ethically toward one another, they get along better and civilization progresses. Again, for a Being (God) who is outside of the constraints of time, our "journey" or progress toward perfection is what is important, not putting us at the end of that journey by creating us in a way that you would consider "perfect". Your animal nature is constrained to follow the laws of stimulus and response (refer the school of psychology called Behaviorism). Your spiritual nature gives you free will and allows you to use your intellect to overcome Pavlovian response.

Besides preparing us for spiritual life after the death of our bodies, following the laws of God improves this life: It is by many people together having faith in God and His laws (in this case, just consider the Golden Rule: treat others as you would wish to be treated) that these laws can show their effect of improving society. If only half of the people try to obey the golden rule, and the rest of the people just take advantage of them, then there is little immediate social improvement. But if, despite these difficulties, the believers continue to be firm in their faith and to follow the golden rule, there are spiritual effects that will cause others to embrace the golden rule. These days, even many atheists state some version of the golden rule as an obvious necessity for the functioning of society. That is, obeying the golden rule (to the extent that one's spiritual nature has tamed his self-serving animal nature) is in one's ultimate self-interest because in a society ruled by that law people need not be afraid of one another, they help each other, and the resulting cooperation makes it possible for all members to have a better quality of life.

O SON OF SPIRIT! Noble have I created thee, yet thou hast abased thyself. Rise then unto that for which thou wast created.

- Baha'u'llah

The power of technology

I wish to respond to these questions which were asked in the Philosophy Forum http://tinyurl.com/yl75lf5, "Is it conceivable to become too technologically advanced? Has the techno-gizmo world evolved too rapidly for its makers? Is there a point where technology does us more harm than good?"

Technology is the embodiment - the practical manifestation - of the power of the human intellect to discover the secrets of nature through scientific investigation and reasoning. The products of technology, including tools, toys and techniques, are the means to augment our power to do many things that we can do without technology: Walking is augmented by riding, driving, and flying. Food production and preparation are augmented and accessorized by a staggering variety of machines and products, from the farm to packaging, to the kitchen and to our bodies. The ability to clean is augmented with a slew of chemical cleaners (some not so safe), rags and mops, disposable or long lasting, and machines that get clothes, dishes, carpets, you name it, clean with ... well, maybe its less work, sometimes.

In a darker vein, imaginative games that children (and adults) can play with things in nature are augmented (often replaced) by electronic games. High-quality, long-lasting products, well presented, are replaced by cheap, mass-produced goods, cleverly advertised. The human ability to kill, destroy, and to force others to obey our will is augmented by the technology of weapons.

What does it mean to say, “the techno-gizmo has world evolved too rapidly for its makers”? What is it about us, the makers and consumers of technology, that needs to catch up? Could it be that money and marketing drive R & D? Could it be that we are influenced in our choices by the technology of advertising, so we spend what we earn on things that we really don't need? And what about those weapons? Could it be that we lack the wisdom and the understanding to pass beyond the need for weapons? Could it be that we do not know ourselves and what is actually good for us well enough to decide what technology is worth developing and worth using?

“With great power comes great responsibility.” Technology is power. What we are behind on is our sense of responsibility, and even our understanding of what it is we are responsible for. A teen uses his newly developing ability to drive by cruising and showing off in potentially dangerous ways. But he or she can mature into a parent who uses a car as transportation to work, to school, to shop, to vacation, etc. Right now we humans are, collectively, acting like that teenager. I pray to God that we will survive long enough to grow up and learn responsibility to our fellow humans and to all of life on earth. We are all connected, and what we do with the power we have learned to wield affects all of us.

Religion, Society and Civilization

There can be no doubt that religion has had a powerful effect on society. Some historians and historiographers have suggested that with the ascension of a new religion has come a renewal of civilization. Studies in the social sciences have suggested that religion facilitates cooperation among unrelated people, including strangers, within a culture or society (assuming that all or most members of the society are members of the same religion.) There have been cultures based around common religious belief and practice, theocratic states, and even theocratic empires. There have also been many conflicts caused by religious differences, including wars waged by the members of one religion against the members of another, the purging of heretics, and lesser conflicts in the form of verbal and social attacks.

IMHO, one of the central purposes and functions of religion is to unite people. We can look at this statement in two different ways:
1)The function of uniting people that religions have had in the evolution of social order. This would be the materialist view.
2)The purpose of uniting people that the founders of religions have had and that the Supreme Being has had in inspiring the revelation upon which each religion is founded. This would be the theist point of view.

Likewise, IMHO, the conflicts which religion has caused are due in part to the those tribal instincts which we share with our closest genetic relatives, the great apes. While religions have, through the ages, provided common identity, common goals, common moral laws, and cooperation within large groups of people, it has not eased competition and conflict between large groups with different religions. The tribal instinct is exacerbated by the human creativity of some clerics and pseudo-clerics who use the influence of religion for the promotion of their own power. It has been found in the villages of Pakistan and Afghanistan that education can strengthen a society against the influence of so called “fundamentalists”, who try to recruit terrorists by using lies about Islam. This is especially true when girls are educated the same as boys. (See the book "Three Cups of Tea" by Greg Mortenson.)

I believe that conflicts can be ended, and humankind's potential increased, by a religion which grows by its power to attract peoples hearts, which appeals to our highest aspirations and ideals while also satisfying our intellect, and which promulgates the oneness of humanity (that is, that expands the group to include all people everywhere, whatever their races, cultures, nationalities, or original religions), the oneness of religion, universal education, unity of nations and the development of a common world language and script.

Bahá’u’lláh says, “The fundamental purpose animating the Faith of God and His Religion is to safeguard the interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit of love and fellowship amongst men. Suffer it not to become a source of dissension and discord, of hate and enmity.” 'Abdu'l-Baha expands on this, saying, “if religious belief proves to be the cause of discord and dissension, its absence would be preferable; for religion was intended to be the divine remedy and panacea for the ailments of humanity, the healing balm for the wounds of mankind. If its misapprehension and defilement have brought about warfare and bloodshed instead of remedy and cure, the world would be better under irreligious conditions.”

It is because of human nature that an institution such as religion is needed to unite and facilitate cooperation among large groups of unrelated people. Human nature includes many characteristics that we share with chimps, bonobos and other great apes. Among these characteristics is a sort of tribal instinct. Tribes of great apes usually consist of 20 to 50 individuals. There is coherence and cooperation within each tribe, as well as a limited degree of competition. There is competition, between tribes, and inter-tribal warfare has even been observed. Human nature also includes a degree of creativity and individual expression far beyond that of the great ape. This creativity and ability to act outside of cultural norms and constraints is, I believe, what the book of Genesis refers to as “knowledge of good and evil”. Our creativity has also led us to form cooperative groups (societies, states, cultures, etc.) much larger than the tribe.

Cooperation in these larger groups requires shared identity, trust gained through a shared moral code, and shared allegiance to leaders who are perceived to have a strong claim to authority. All of these are provided by religion, along with guidance on how to practice being a good member of society and motivation (in the form of promised reward and punishment in the afterlife) for behaving within the norms. From a theist point of view, one sees that God, having created us and the universe in which we live, has given us religion to guide us along the path He has set for us. In the scriptures of most religions, we are urged and guided to strive toward the goal or purpose for which we were created. In the Christianity, Islam, and the Bahá’í Faith, that purpose has been stated in different, but compatible, ways. One of them is, “to know and worship God.” Also in those scriptures we are told that to knowledge of God is knowledge of our true selves. In the Bahá’í Writings we are told:

“The heights which, through the most gracious favor of God, mortal man can attain, in this Day, are as yet unrevealed to his sight. The world of being hath never had, nor doth it yet possess the capacity for such a revelation. The day, however, is approaching when the potentialities of so great a favor will, by virtue of His behest, be manifested unto men. ... All men have been created to carry forward an ever-advancing civilization. The Almighty beareth Me witness: To act like the beasts of the field is unworthy of man. Those virtues that befit his dignity are forbearance, mercy, compassion and loving-kindness towards all the peoples and kindreds of the earth.”

The academic philosopher in me

An argument, called “The Problem of Evil” was presented by an atheist. That argument is presented below in a clear and rigorous form, along with my rebuttal to that argument. Please pardon me if this reads like an academic paper. I wrote it in an academic spirit, and I feel that it is well reasoned.

The Argument:
“We wish to test the validity of the following proposition (proposition X) about which we disagree:

X: There exists a Supreme Entity, Whom we will call “God”, Who has the following attributes:

1. God is the Sole Creator of the universe, and has created this universe with full knowledge and understanding of all aspects of that creation.
2. God is All Powerful, meaning that He can do whatever he pleases with His creation. Among the things which He can do: He can cause whatever change in it He desires, including changing the mental and physical characteristics of the creatures, the laws of physics, the relative densities of specific substances, the operation and severity of the weather. etc.)
3.God is All Loving. He loves each of His creatures, and most certainly us humans.

We are going to test the logical validity of proposition X against the following propositions, A, B, and C, which we either all agree upon, or which are clear and evident to any reasonable and observant person:

A. In this world, which God is said to have created according to #1, we all agree that there is human suffering.

I.We also agree that some of that suffering is caused by evil actions of humans.
II. We also agree that events, such as earthquakes, and severe weather, which are caused by physical circumstances that seem to be part of this world, also cause suffering.

B. According to X - 2 above, God is All Powerful, and therefore He is capable of preventing human suffering of both kinds if He wished to. [I believe that most of us can agree on this.]
C. A Loving God would not allow his beloved human creatures to suffer if He could prevent it.

[Proposition C is a key point on which, I believe, the theists and and atheists disagree.]
If C is true, then we must conclude one of the following:

I.That if there exists an Entity Who is the Sole Creator of the universe and is All Loving, He is NOT All Powerful. OR
II.That if there exists an Entity Who is the Sole Creator of the universe and is All Powerful, then He is NOT All Loving OR
III.That there exists NO Entity Who is the Sole Creator of the universe.

[In truth, we really only need I or II, but III is the conclusion that the atheists believe and the belief to which they wish us all to convert.] ;- D

My Rebuttal:
Now, as ____ has complained, all of us “traditional” theists are quite attached to proposition X, which he wishes to test. (Some “modern” or “untraditional” theists are not so convinced about many aspects of proposition X, but we will set that aside for now.) Because we theists take proposition X on faith, and believe that it “Must be True”, we are ready to seek ways to give good cause for rejecting proposition C. In other words, we feel compelled to demonstrate why a Loving God would, in fact, allow the human suffering that we see in the world, even though He could prevent it. There are several arguments, which theists consider conclusive, for rejecting C. If the theists and the atheists cannot or will not agree upon the validity of C, then we are at an impasse.

I believe the atheist argument in support of C is as follows:
C – 1 “Any reasonable person will agree that if one person loves another, they would gladly do [nearly] anything to prevent the ones they love from suffering.”

There is a second part of this argument which I have not seen stated, but that is necessary to completing the logical support of C. That is:

C – 2 “God is a person, or enough like a person, (and God's relationship to us humans is enough like the relationship between a person who loves other persons) that statement C – 1 also applies to God.”

Assertion C – 1 is supportable and verifiable as far as human persons (and many other living creatures, particularly mammals and marsupials) are concerned, but the question is, whether it is reasonable to extend this assertion and apply it to the God whose nature and existence we are testing. I will conclude with my own arguments why we cannot extend this generalization about persons to God; that is, why C – 2 is not acceptable. (Understand that this is an argument specifically regarding why proposition C cannot be reasonably applied to the being described in proposition X):

God is fundamentally different from human persons in that (according to X) He created the universe and has full knowledge and understanding of all of its aspects, whereas humans are creations of His and have only very limited knowledge of the universe. But the question still remains whether this difference is sufficient to reject C – 2.

Part of human knowledge of the nature of the universe is explained by the theory of Evolution, which provides a framework for explaining aspects of the anatomy, physiology, and behavior of all living beings in terms of the efficacy of those aspects for assuring the survival of the species. It can easily be shown that physical sensations of the body, which result from stimuli impinging on the sensory organs, have evolved because they (pleasurable sensations) tend to attract us towards things that are beneficial, or they (pain and other unpleasant sensations) tend to repel us from things that are detrimental. Likewise, we can show that most mammals feel compelled to intervene on behalf of a member of the same species when that other expresses pain or appears to be in peril. This is particularly true in the case of two individuals whose lives are closely conjoined, as in a familial relationship. Thus, the scientific explanation for the fact of C – 1 is that this is a response that has evolved because it has contributed to the survival of the species. Any reasonable person will have this tendency, will feel sympathetic pain, will do what they can to prevent or alleviate the pain of another because it is in our genes. We value this tendency and call it an expression of “love” for good reason: it preserves our species, and particularly those individual members of our species who are closest to us genetically.
God, on the other hand, does not have such a need, as He is not part of any species, but has created all species and the balance of forces that supports them and causes them to evolve and advance. Therefore, it is unreasonable to say that God is enough like a "person" that statement C - 1 applies to God.

QED

God shows His love by providing guidance to our human species, whom he has endowed with capacity far beyond that of all other species. His guidance is the surest means to ensure the advancement of the species with a minimum of pain and suffering. We will be able to use observation of the decrease in the pain and suffering in the world as one small measure of how well we are following His guidance:

“O CHILDREN OF MEN! Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other. Ponder at all times in your hearts how ye were created. Since We have created you all from one same substance it is incumbent on you to be even as one soul, to walk with the same feet, eat with the same mouth and dwell in the same land, that from your inmost being, by your deeds and actions, the signs of oneness and the essence of detachment may be made manifest. Such is My counsel to you, O concourse of light! Heed ye this counsel that ye may obtain the fruit of holiness from the tree of wondrous glory.”

What makes humans different?

There seem to be plenty of reasons to believe that we humans are significantly different from all other creatures on earth. There is the evidence of our technology; there is the body of our written and spoken communications, musings, conversations; there are our many governments, and forms of government, the expanding levels of cooperation in governments and religions. There is also our our growing influence on the other forms of life on earth, as well as our awareness of those lifeforms and of (some of) our affects on them. But I consider all of these things to be evidences of our difference, not the difference itself, and I have been thinking about what that actual difference might be.

I look at this question from a sort of evolutionary perspective: In many ways, we are just like other mammals, and especially like certain apes. All of God's creatures including us, have evolved. "Natural selection" is the force that has led to there being constant strengthening of species, and to the various creatures staying in balance with one another.

A definition from Wikipedia: "Natural selection is the process by which those heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations."

Some of those "heritable traits" seem to be behavioral as well as anatomical and physiological. So, we have inherited from our distant ansestors various anatomical, physiological, and behavioral traits that, in the context where they developed, contributed to the survival of the species. Primate studies have shown that in the great apes, our nearest biological relatives, individuals have personalities, and between groups there are variations in culture.

But where we humans differ is in what some call our "intellect" but which I believe is more our "creativity". We are able to conceive of things to create, and of new courses of action to follow that are far outside the norms for our "tribe" or culture. We are not hardwired to act mainly in ways that tend to promote the survival of the species. Our arts, our complex spoken and written language, our science and technology, the many different groups and associations that we form, and all that I mentioned at the top of the page are made possible by this creative spark. But this creativity also make possible such things as worry, torture, wars, and weapons of war, pollution, destruction of habitats and biomes, and other acts and activities that are decidedly counter to the survival of our species and of the rest of life on earth.

We are still influenced by our inherited, primate, "animal" drives (hunger, fear, lust, desire for power, anger, envy, etc.), and we develop many automatic ways of dealing with various situations. We act as humans to the extent that we creatively apply our intellects to overcome our instincts and habits when some other behavior would be better. Most of the time most people do not even realize that they have a choice to act differently than "they always have." But we do have choices about how to react when something happens: something like a bad day, or an insult, or an impending car crash, or a loved one dying, or your house catching fire, or your city being shaken to pieces by an earthquake. What will motivate and guide you when you make these choices?

And if you are in a position of power or leadership: head of household, business owner, head of research and development, CEO, president of the United States, or the Catholic Pope, what will guide the choices and decisions that you will make?

In passage CXXII from "Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh" we read:

"Man is the supreme Talisman. Lack of a proper education hath, however, deprived him of that which he doth inherently possess. Through a word proceeding out of the mouth of God he was called into being; by one word more he was guided to recognize the Source of his education; by yet another word his station and destiny were safeguarded. The Great Being saith: Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable value. Education can, alone, cause it to reveal its treasures, and enable mankind to benefit therefrom. If any man were to meditate on that which the Scriptures, sent down from the heaven of God’s holy Will, have revealed, he would readily recognize that their purpose is that all men shall be regarded as one soul, so that the seal bearing the words “The Kingdom shall be God’s” may be stamped on every heart, and the light of Divine bounty, of grace, and mercy may envelop all mankind."

All from the same dust...

My favorite quotation regarding the oneness of mankind is #68 form the "The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh". In the English translation form the Arabic, it says:

"O CHILDREN OF MEN! Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other. Ponder at all times in your hearts how ye were created. Since We have created you all from one same substance it is incumbent on you to be even as one soul, to walk with the same feet, eat with the same mouth and dwell in the same land, that from your inmost being, by your deeds and actions, the signs of oneness and the essence of detachment may be made manifest. Such is My counsel to you, O concourse of light! Heed ye this counsel that ye may obtain the fruit of holiness from the tree of wondrous glory."

There is a wealth of wisdom in this one quotation, and much to ponder. If one begins to read the writings of Bahá’u’lláh with the attitude that He knew exactly what He was saying, and then try to understand what He meant by what He said, you glean a bounty of knowledge and wisdom. If you start from a negative attitude, you will come away with little. It is up to you whether you want to seek the gems that lie hidden in his words, or if instead, you choose to spurn His wisdom.