Monthly Archives: March 2017

Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.1 --Richard Dawkins

Evolution is "deceptively simple yet utterly profound in its implications,"2 the first of which is that living creatures "differ from one another, and those variations arise at random, without a plan or purpose."3 Evolution must be without plan or purpose because its core tenet is the natural selection of the fittest, produced by random copying errors called mutations. Darwin "was keenly aware that admitting any purposefulness whatsoever to the question of the origin of species would put his theory of natural selection on a very slippery slope."4 Pulitzer Prize author Edward Humes wrote that the fact of evolution was obvious but "few could see it, so trapped were they by the humandesire to find design and purpose in the world." He concluded:

Darwin's brilliance was in seeing beyond the appearance of design, and understanding the purposeless, merciless process of natural selection, of life and death in the wild, and how it culled all but the most successful organisms from the tree of life, thereby creating the illusion that a master intellect had designed the world. But close inspection of the watchlike "perfection" of honeybees' combs or ant trailsreveals that they are a product of random, repetitive, unconscious behaviors, not conscious design.5

The fact that evolution teaches that life has no purpose beyond perpetuating its own survival is not lost on teachers. One testified that teaching evolution "impacted their consciences" because it moved teachers away from the "idea that they were born for a purpose something completely counter to their mindset and beliefs."6

In a study on why children resist accepting evolution, Yale psychologists Bloom and Weisberg concluded that the evolutionary way of viewing the world, which the authors call "promiscuous teleology," makes it difficult for them to accept evolution. Children "naturally see the world in terms of design and purpose."7 The ultimate purposelessness of evolution, and thus of the life that it produces, was eloquently expressed by Professor Lawrence Krauss as follows: "We're just a bit of pollution. If you got rid of usthe universe would be largely the same. We're completely irrelevant."8

The Textbooks

To determine what schools are teaching about religious questions such as the purpose of life, I surveyed current science textbooks and found that they tend to teach the view that evolution is both nihilistic and atheistic. One of today's most widely-used textbooks stated that "evolution works without either plan or purpose. Evolution is random and undirected."9 Another text by the same authors added that Darwin knew his theory "required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its byproducts." The authors continued:

Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless--a process in which...nature ruthlessly eliminates the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.10

Another text taught that humans are just "a tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life" and the belief that a "progressive, guiding force, consistently pushing evolution to move in a single direction" is now known to be "misguided."11 Many texts teach that evolution is purposeless and has no goal except to achieve brute survival: the "idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal or state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself."12 One major text openly teaches that humans were created by a blind, deaf, and dumb watchmaker--namely natural selection, which is "totally blind to the future."

Humans...came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and our brains. Natural selectionexplainsthe whole of life, the diversity of life, the complexity of life, |and| the apparent design in life."13

The Implications

Many texts are very open about the implications of Darwinism for theism. One teaches that Darwin's immeasurably important contribution to science was to show that, despite life's apparent evidence of design and purpose, mechanistic causes explain all biological phenomena. The text adds that by coupling "undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."14 The author concludes by noting that "it was Darwin's theory of Evolution that provided a crucial plank to the platform of mechanisms and materialismthat has been the stage of most western thought."15 Another text even stated directly that humans were created by a random process, not a loving, purposeful God, and:

The real difficulty in accepting Darwin's theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. |Evolution| asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.16

These texts are all clearly teaching religious ideas, not science. An excellent example is a text that openly ruled out not only theistic evolution, but any role for God in nature, and demonstrated that Darwinism threatened theism by showing that humans and all life "could be explained by natural selection without the intervention of a god." Evolutionary "randomness and uncertainty had replaced a deity having conscious, purposeful, human characteristics."

The Darwinian view that present-type organisms were not created spontaneously but formed in a succession of selective events that occurred in the past, contradicted the common religious view that there could be no design, biological or otherwise, without an intelligent designer. In this scheme a god of design and purpose is not necessary. Religion has been bolstered by the comforting idea that humanity was created in the image of a god to rule over the world and its creatures. Religion provided emotional solace, a set of ethical and moral values. Nevertheless, faith in religious dogma has been eroded by natural explanations of its mysteries. The positions of the creationists and the scientific world appear irreconcilable."17

Darwin himself taught a totally atheistic, naturalistic view of origins. He even once said, "I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent."18 John Alcock, an evolutionary biologist, therefore concluded that "we exist solely to propagate the genes within us."19

Leading Darwin scholar Janet Browne makes it very clear that Darwin's goal was the "arduous task of reorienting the way Victorians looked at nature." To do this Darwin had to convince the world that "ideas about a benevolent, nearly perfect natural world" and those that believe "beauty was given to things for a purpose, were wrong--that the idea of a loving God who created all living things and brought men and women into existence wasa fable."

The worldsteeped in moral meaning which helped mankind seek out higher goals in life, was not Darwin's. Darwin's view of nature was dark--black. Where most men and women generally believed in some kind of design in nature--some kind of plan and order--and felt a deep-seated, mostly inexpressible belief that their existence had meaning, Darwin wanted them to see all life as empty of any divine purpose.20

Darwin knew how difficult it was to abandon such a view, but realized that for evolution to work, nature must ultimately be "governed entirely by chance." Browne concludes:

The pleasant outward face of nature was precisely that--only an outward face. Underneath was perpetual struggle, species against species, individual against individual. Life was ruled by death...destruction was the key to reproductive success. All the theological meaning was thus stripped out by Darwin and replaced by the concept of competition. All the telos, the purpose, on which natural theologians based their ideas of perfect adaptation was redirected into Malthusian--Darwinian--struggle. What most people saw as God-given design he saw as mere adaptations to circumstance, adaptations that were meaningless except for the way in which they helped an animal or plant to survive.21

Neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins recognized the purposelessness of such a system:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.22

How widely is this view held by scientists? One study of 149 leading biologists found that 89.9 percent believed that evolution has no ultimate purpose or goal except survival, and we are just a cosmic accident existing at the whim of time and chance. A mere six percent believed that evolution has a purpose.23 Almost all of those who believed that evolution had no purpose were atheists. This is only one example that Sommers and Rosenberg call the "destructive power of Darwinian theory."24

Purpose and Christianity

Christianity teaches that God made the universe as a home for humans. If the universe evolved purely by natural means, then it just exists and any "purpose" for its existence can only be that which humans themselves attribute to it. But our own experience and intellectual attainments argue against this. The similarity of human-constructed machines and the orderly functioning of the universe is the basis of the design argument. Just as a machine requires a designer and a builder, so too the universe that we see requires a designer and a builder.

Determining the purpose of something depends on the observer's worldview. To a nontheist the question "What is the purpose of a living organism's structure?" means only "How does this structure aid survival?" Eyesight and legs would therefore have nothing to do with enjoyment of life; they are merely an unintended byproduct of evolution. Biologists consistently explain everything from coloration to sexual habits solely on the basis of survival. Orthodox neo-Darwinism views everything as either an unfortunate or a fortuitous event resulting from the outworking of natural law and random, naturally-selected mutations. Conversely, creationists interpret all reality according to beliefs about God's purpose for humans. Evolutionists can usually explain even contradictory behavior, but creationists look beyond this and try to determine what role it plays in God's plan.

Conclusions

Orthodox evolution teaches that the living world has no plan or purpose except survival, is random, undirected, and heartless. Humans live in a world that cares nothing for us, our minds are simply masses of meat, and no divine plan exists to guide us. These teachings are hardly neutral, but rather openly teach religion--the religion of atheism and nihilism. The courts have consistently approved teaching this anti-Christian religion in public schools and have blocked all attempts to neutralize these clearly religious ideas.

As the Word of God states, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

References

* Dr. Bergman is Professor of Biology at Northwest State College in Ohio.

Cite this article: Bergman, J. 2007. Darwinism: Survival without Purpose. Acts & Facts. 36 (11): 10.

Read more from the original source:

Darwinism: Survival without Purpose | The Institute for ...

Discovery Institute philosopher of biology Paul Nelson is a great explainer. He is always a pleasure to listen to. In a rich and lucid conversation for ID the Future with Center for Science & Culture research coordinator Brian Miller, Dr. Nelson elaborates on the challenge to Darwinian theory from so-called orphan genes.

These are DNA sequences coding for protein (in the context of this discussion) with no known genetic relatives. They exist in great numbers. They often serve in vital roles in organisms. Where did they come from? Darwinism assumes a relationship of cousinship not only among all creatures, past and present, but between gene sequences. Orphan genes defy the theory of cousinship.

The history of life, presumed to originate with LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor), doesnt afford enough time to generate these novelties, seemingly out of nowhere. On the other hand, a perspective open to intelligent design accommodates the possibility of generating absolutely new biological information as needed, at, so to speak, the designers pleasure. This information could occur anywhere at all in possible genetic sequence space.

Darwinism has its possible rationalizations of the orphan genes problem. Its always does. But rationalizations are all they are.

Orphan genes are another examplewhere predictions of standard evolutionary theory are defeatedby the evidence. Meanwhile ID takes the evidence in stride. As a scientific theory, Darwinian evolution is indeed testable, except that it fails its tests. Download this podcastepisode of ID the Futurehere.Or listen to it here.

And by the way, are you in the Greater Houston area? Meet Dr. Nelson in person at a premiere screening of the new Illustra Media documentary Origin: Design, Chance and the First Life on Earth.ThatsFriday, March 31, from 7 to 9 PM. More information is here.

Photo: Orphaned baby two-toed sloth, Jaguar Rescue Center, Puerto Viejo de Talamanca, Costa Rica, by Matt MacGillivray via Flickr.

Read the original post:

Pity the Unwanted Orphan Genes An Awkward Topic for Darwinism - Discovery Institute

In a world of more than 7 billion people, one might expect it to be difficult for the individual to feel terribly important, but that isn't a problem here in the United States. Our five percent of the world's human population seems to consider itself the most valuable of all the planet's creatures, human or otherwise. More than most countries, ours evinces an epidemic of national, factional, and personal narcissism. From kindergarten to the White House, tantrums are the common response to any parents, peers, public, or politicians who refuse the demands of those who deem themselves deserving by the sheer virtue of their existence.

The relative worth of the individual human life nevertheless strikes me as a matter of legitimate debate a proposition that horrifies the evangelists of what religious fundamentalists call secular humanism. The notion that humans are capable of moral behavior without the imagined surveillance of a supreme being soon spawned the belief that Homo sapiens actually is that supreme being, and merits unquestioning worship. That philosophical distortion generally betrays itself in the "if-it-saves-one-life" argument so popular at the more pedestrian levels of public debate. In hilarious irony, that simplistic appeal to the sanctity of human life is always deployed against any resort to the very capacity for reason that supposedly differentiates humans from what they consider lesser beings.

In light of such self-contradiction even among the more reflexive advocates of human exceptionalism, it hardly seems unreasonable to wonder what, if anything, really does distinguish us. For a species faced with the prescient predictions of Alvin Toffler's "Future Shock" and the realized pipedreams of Samuel Butler's "Erewhon," the evident answer is that humankind is no longer really so special at all. The heightened human sense of self-importance may, in fact, merely reflect a reaction to the recognition of our declining collective relevancenot to mention the dwindling significance of the individual.

A college professor of mine once remarked that the social urge to be noticed and remembered motivates such endeavors as having children, writing books, and planting trees. I chose writing books, and my attachment to place and time yielded a preoccupation with history, especially in one focused era. After a decade or two I began making connections that produced an occasional stir, at least within my limited fieldnot because I was endowed with any particular talent or intelligence, but from a simple combination of good memory and obsessive, concentrated research. From a trove of trivia I simply recognized and illuminated characters or concepts common to different episodes.

Such minor research coups were the only achievements by which historians can distinguish themselves, but as history turns more quantitative those discoveries are frequently the products of computer analysis. Teams of practitioners who betray more interest in their tools than in their craft input endless streams of data, regurgitating computations with lightning speed and formulating conclusions faster than the academy can absorb them. The sources can be mined and sifted before a plodding archive rat can transcribe his research notes, and his interpretations may be superseded before they are fully developed.

This winter, I thought I had found another project for which I could claim a useful combination of qualifications. Having learned that a coveted historical journal in a private French manuscript library had been published, I ordered a copy and began translating segments of it. As usual, I sent relevant portions to some friends who are working on similar subjects. Their surprise that I could read it suggested that the traditional expectation of fluency in two foreign languages (customarily French and German) is no longer required for doctoral-level Civil War specialists. Thanks to machine translators, it may never be required again, either. Now anyone, including someone completely unfamiliar with either French or English, could translate that entire 600-page journal by just typing it in. Even the archaic idioms that my 1890-vintage Larousse helps me decipher may soon be available for automatic translation. I might as well have spent those six years of French classes watching television.

Almost no human occupation seems exempt from substitution by a machine, including the job of building and programming the machines. With the added ingredient of artificial intelligence, the threat to humanity only escalates. Scientists who see no ethical limits to their ambitions strive to create human life in the laboratory, trying to reduce reproduction to machinelike replication. Meanwhile, engineers work to design machines with ever-more human skills and the ability to reason. Time alone separates the machine from becoming the supreme being, and reproducing its own creator for utilitarian purposes as it was once used. Skeptics often draw the obvious analogy that those involved in robotics are actually developing their own replacements, but it might be equally apt to suggest that they are forging their own chains.

Read more:

Bill Marvel: Mechanical Darwinism - Conway Daily Sun

See statements below by on Trumps proposed budget-from-Hell.

Rep. Donald McEachin (VA-04):

The Presidents fiscal year 2018 budget demonstrates clearly how much this Administration does not care about hardworking families.

The programs and funding that middle class, minority and low income communities rely on most were stripped or not adequately funded in the Presidents budget. Hardworking families in urban, suburban and rural communities will suffer if we fail to protect public education, housing, and the social safety net. If this budget were signed into law, it would place more fiscal burden on those who can least afford it, that is, our most vulnerable communities. History has shown that when Americas richest receive more tax breaks at the expense of everyone else, our country suffers.

While I support dedicating needed resources to help our brave men and women in the military, those funds should not come at the expense of critical, basic and needed programs. Debilitating cuts in climate change and alternative energy programs as well as the elimination of Chesapeake Bay federal funding are unacceptable. These cuts endanger public health now and for future generations. The Chesapeake Bay is a source of jobs, transportation, income, food, and recreation for countless Virginians. We have finally made some gains with the Bay, but this budget will reverse our gains.

It appears that this budget will simply make Americas richest even richer, while middle class and low income Americans will find themselves struggling even more to try to make ends meet. Congress is responsible for enacting the budget. I call on my colleagues to reject these draconian cuts and urge that we work together to create a budget that actually works for all Americans not the select few. This is not the budget that will make America great again.

Rep. Bobby Scott (VA-03):

If is serious about the budget, he should look to which has produced a morally & fiscally responsible budget for yrs budget makes investments in programs that support working families,students,seniors & the most vulnerable in our communitiesCongress must pass a budget that helps all Americans.

Be sure to read my op-ed on the Congressional Black Caucus budget. Based on what we are learning about President Trumps first budget, Americans of all races, colors and creeds should be concerned. If the President is serious about moving the African American community and the rest of the nation forward, he need only to look to the alternative budget developed by the CBC.

Rep. Don Beyer (VA-08):

Well fight tooth & nail against draconian cuts to feds, which will hurt clean air & water, public health, veterans services & so much more.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (VA-11):

Trumps budget doubles down on social Darwinism. Draconian cuts to the State Department, foreign assistance, and EPA threaten American security and public health.

Sen. Mark Warner:

This budget proposal from President Trump does not reflect a balanced approach. Instead, it includes many short-sighted choices that if implemented could actually harm our countrys strength and long-term growth. The Trump budget proposes to dramatically slash public investments in programs like early childhood education, job training, scientific research, and the protection of economic and natural resources like the Chesapeake Bay. We should be serious about addressing the fiscal issues in our country and work together to address the impact that the across-the-board spending cuts have had on the military and our national security. However, the roadmap the President has laid out does not meet those goals. I urge him to commit to working with Congress to take a more responsible, businesslike approach one that also respects the role of smart investments in our nations economic future.

Sen. Tim Kaine:

Budgets show us a Presidents priorities, and based on what President Trump released today, Im concerned that hes continuing to push policies that would hurt Virginians. While I support the Administrations commitment to investments in defense, deep cuts to the State Department jeopardize our national security. Despite President Trumps promises that Mexico would pay for a border wall, this budget shows hes trying to force American taxpayers to pick up the tab for a wall that wont make us safer.

While the budget is short on details, the drastic cuts threaten programs that help ensure Virginians have clean water, safe roads and bridges, well-funded public schools, and quality, affordable health care. The budget also shows President Trump intends to keep treating federal employees as a punching bag, while in reality these workers are patriotic Americans who keep our government running. Just weeks after President Trump promised us clean water and air in his joint address to Congress, he released a budget that completely eliminates the Chesapeake Bay Program and radically cuts funding for the agency that protects water resources like the James River and monitoring sea level rise in in Hampton Roads. And Im disappointed that President Trumps promises to fix our crumbling infrastructure so far havent amounted to any action to fix the roads and bridges of Virginia.

There is already bipartisan agreement that President Trumps harmful budget will be a nonstarter in Congress. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will work across the aisle on a budget that charts a different roadmap, which makes the investments to help Virginia families get ahead that are absent from President Trumps budget proposal.

Below is a list of potential impacts Donald Trumps budget cuts could have on Virginians:

$2.6 billion (31%) cut to the Environmental Protection Agency could jeopardize:

Slashing the federal workforce

$2.4 billion (13%) cut to the Department of Transportation could jeopardize:

$1.5 billion (12%) cut to the Department of the Interior could jeopardize:

$4.7 billion (21%) cut to the Department of Agriculture could jeopardize:

$9 billion (13.5%) cut to the Department of Education could jeopardize:

$10.1 billion (28%) cut to the State Department and USAID which could jeopardize:

$15 Billion (17.9%) cut to Department of Health and Human Services could jeopardize:

$2.8 billion (6.8%) increase to the Department of Homeland Security, primarily to pay for border wall construction and immigration enforcement. Proposed cuts could jeopardize:

$100 Million (1%) cut to NASA could jeopardize:

$1.1 billion (3.8%) cut to the Department of Justice could jeopardize:

$6.2 billion (13%) cut to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) could jeopardize:

o HOME Investment Partnerships

o Choice Neighborhoods

o Self-help Homeownership Opportunity Program

o Section 4 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing

$9.6 billion (21%) cut to the Department of Labor could jeopardize:

$519 million (4.1%) in cuts to the Department of the Treasury

President Trump has also proposed eliminating these federal agencies that benefit and employ Virginians: Appalachian Regional Commission; Chemical Safety Board; Corporation for Public Broadcasting; Corporation for National and Community Service; National Endowment for the Arts; National Endowment for the Humanities; Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation; and United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.

Read this article:

Reps. McEachin, Scott, Beyer, Connolly; Sens. Kaine, Warner Blast Trump's Draconian, Social Darwinism Budget ... - Blue Virginia (press release)...