In the Beginning of Creationism vs Evolution

I’ve met an alarming number of creationists lately with whom – due to circumstances – I am unable to debate publicly. On one hand, I largely do not care what people believe as long as they’re not jerks or insist on foisting their beliefs on others. On the other hand, people are so unreasonable, it boggles reasonable minds and something must be said about their erroneous beliefs that they do want to foist upon others. Of course, the belief in creationism over evolution as an explanation for how life may have begun fits the bill.

While evolution doesn’t really explain how life began, people of many faiths and denominations of those faith take this to mean they should devise an explanation that is supernatural. What has long bothered me about creationism as an explanation for life’s origins is this – a believer, probably unknown to themselves because they do no critical analysis of their beliefs, is in essence saying that it is more likely that some divine being took a lump of clay and breathed life into said clay to create a man than molecules could spontaneously come together and at some point begin replicating themselves. The believer believes this despite ample evidence that the universe often displays self-organizing behavior; the formation of galactic clusters, galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets and the elements all of those things are made of to say nothing of the laws of physics that keeps everything stable enough for long enough in order for things to organize. Granted, this doesn’t speak directly to the origin of life, but indirectly speaking it seems plausible that a molecule – possibly RNA according to biologists current theories – might start copying itself or make other molecules due to natural chemical reactions and just might organize themselves into a larger system. As I said, the universe is not without a few examples, examples that are even prior to known life.

Moreover, the explanatory power of evolution is much greater than that of creationism whose powers of explanation do not go beyond the initiation of life. For the creationist who wishes to have their cake and eat it too, meaning they believe in creationism which is guided by evolution thereafter, they are merely shorting the process of evolution by one step. Why not just accept the first step as well or simply admit that one does not know how life began? Evolutionists – at least the ones who know what they’re talking about – will always say that the theory of evolution does not (yet) explain the origin of life, though from what they have inferred from the process thus far, it seems more likely that some molecule in prehistory began the evolution of life rather than submitting the explanation that an invisible and supposedly benevolent force made life simply pop into existence. In short, questions about the origin of life boils down to this: Is it more plausible that life suddenly popped into existence thanks to an invisible force that is sentient or that life began by some simple molecules organizing themselves? Maybe the answer depends upon how much one understands chemistry and biology, and maybe even physics.

As is always worth noting as well is that the very premise of life having a supernatural origin while the originator itself has no creator is completely nonsensical and arbitrary. If a creationist is going to be arbitrary in their beliefs or even claim evidence for their beliefs, why is it wrong for an evolutionist to be arbitrary in their beliefs or claim they have evidence for their beliefs? In actuality, both groups of ‘believers’ have life originating from non-life. Better to have something rather than nothing in common one supposes. Only, why something rather than nothing? 

Was The Human Body Designed?

The Argument from Life – particularly human life – is one of the go-to arguments for a theist’s insistence that a ‘designer’ exists. (Naturally, their own designer; never anyone else’s.) Teaching A&P and human anatomy such as I do, it is quite apparent that if anyone did design the human body, they did a piss poor job of it. When you consider all the things that can go wrong with the human body, to say nothing of the malfunctions that afflict the supposedly wondrous brain alone, and it seems odd to me that anyone would consider the human body designed. Sure, how the kidneys balance bodily fluids and monitor blood pressure is amazing, but the process is so convoluted that kidneys actually seem to have arisen by chance. Being undersigned, the human body is the biological equivalent of a ’71 Ford Pinto, a vehicle that would burst into flames if you happened to tap it with a feather.

As always, one should have evidence for their assertions. Fortunately, a lot of this work has been done for me. Allow me to point you in the direction of some articles that lament the failure of God’s design:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/watchmaker.htm (Funniest)

http://io9.com/the-most-unfortunate-design-flaws-in-the-human-body-1518242787 (Simple)

http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/top-10-design-flaws-in-the-human-body (Simple)

https://www.quora.com/Science-of-Everyday-Life/What-are-the-greatest-flaws-of-the-human-body (Includes a section with comments from many biologists)

Granted, many of the articles speak of the same design flaws, and this is because the design flaws are so egregious that they can’t possibly go unnoticed. All of this points to the opposite of the Argument from Life, the Argument from Poor Design, indicating there is no designer.

There are two possible objections to these many foolish ‘designs.’ One is that the designer or designers did not see fit to design the human body for optimum efficiency. Human beings are well known for creating things that perform sub-optimally, but this is always due to either a lack of knowledge or resources, or is done out of plain ol’ greed. If we are anything like our designer(s), this says something about them. If it’s the case that we just don’t know the reason why we were created for sub-optimal performance, there is no reason to assume any such designer(s) had noble intentions. Even if it were the case that the designer(s) had designed some non-optimal features to improve the overall quality of the human body, this might indicate the incompetence of the designer(s), being or beings that are often regarded as omniscient. The worst flaw of all, death, has always afflicted human beings, even Adam and Eve upon their very creation! If human beings were designed, they might as well have been iPhones, with their obsolescence built in.

The second objection is that human disease is the result of sin.* This is quite obviously ridiculous since babies who are baptized have their sins taken away but still may become sick at a moment’s notice (or are baptized when sick, and are still sick immediately thereafter). People are also noticeable sick after confession, which supposedly asks for the forgiveness of sins. Of course, the designer(s) could never have allowed for sin, which even the dumbest engineer would have agreed seemed like a good idea.

[* Speaking from a fundamentalist Christian perspective]

“Finally, from what we now know about the cosmos, to think that all this was created for just one species among the tens of millions of species who live on one planet circling one of a couple of hundred billion stars that are located in one galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies, all of which are in one universe among perhaps an infinite number of universes all nestled within a grand cosmic multiverse, is provincially insular and anthropocentrically blinkered. Which is more likely? That the universe was designed just for us, or that we see the universe as having been designed just for us?” Michael Shermer in Why Darwin Matters

Ah, yes, cognitive bias, one of the worst ‘design’ flaws of all.

The Problem With Humanism

Every time a New Atheist post something about humanism on atheism boards, I scoff. I scoff because this secular philosophy has no evidence to support its most basic assertions, in particular that each human being has some kind of inherent worth or value. More generally speaking, humanism supposedly bases ethical decisions on reason while trusting science when it comes to understanding the world. While the former sentence clearly has no evidence to support it, the latter sentence practically conflicts with itself as a philosophy that uses evidence and science to support certain beliefs abandons evidence and science in order to behave ethically, meaning, the ethics that are practiced are not evidence- or science-based. The ethics often used by New Atheists are supposedly arrived by reason.

 

For example, The Council for Secular Humanism maintains that they adhere to a consequentialist ethical system. Okay, great, but there is really no consensus among philosophers as to whether consequentialism is any better than, say, utilitarianism or deontology. Whether a particular brand of humanist subscribes to any ethical system has more to do with how the individual feels about the ethical system than the ethical system being a matter of reality. (I lean towards consequentialism myself, but this may change according to circumstance. More importantly, I recognize this. I’m a Realist like that.) Meanwhile, groups like the International Humanist and Ethical Union declare about their ethical system that, “Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations.” I’m not saying that this isn’t a nice sentiment, just that it cannot be arrived at by reason, much less by evidence. If you ask this philosopher – and I’m the only one worth asking - reasons should be based on some kind of evidence. This is to say that if anything, the evidence would indicate that human beings care little beyond the immediate futures of their next of kin. The divergence of ideas surrounding the basic tenets of humanism do not lend itself to credibility.

 

Since New Atheists have hammered theist about having evidence for their beliefs – and rightly so – I believe that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. So it seems rather odd that there should be so much ambiguity between the declarations of various humanist organizations to say nothing of there being various humanist organizations. A quick Google of the question “What is humanism?” yields various answers from many humanist organizations; enough answers to categorize each organization according to the varying beliefs they hold. The Council for Secular Humanism, the American Humanist Association, the British Humanist Association, and the International Humanist and Ethical Union (for starters) all give different answers to the question. To be fair, each organization is similar enough in their answers to fall under a general philosophy we can call ‘humanism.’ Still, a philosophy arrived at by reason should not have as much ambiguity as humanism displays.

 

While I would say many of these brands of humanism are a more positive philosophy than their non-secular counterparts (at least more positive for one’s self-esteem, if nothing else), I do think that New Atheist humanists should be honest about their reasoning for committing to this philosophy. Since New Atheists demand so much honesty in debates, they should be honest here and admit that humanism has little to no evidential support. That, or go find the support for their ‘intuitions’ in biology or evolutionary psychology.

 

If one is going to demand that others ground their beliefs in evidence and science, they should do the same as well. Otherwise, it seems reasonable to say that two people who act alike must be alike. And this is reasonable because the evidence dictates that if it looks like a rat, walks like a rat and smells like a rat, it’s probably a rat. 

The Irrationality of Procreation

A recent article asked the question, “Is modern life making us irrational?” My first thought and subsequent post related that people are irrational by nature and that the desire for children is an indication of this. Predictably, I was lambasted for such a comment. “WHAT’S IRRATIONAL ABOUT WANTING CHILDREN?” and this was coming from so-called rational people (they being the target audience of the article). In order to defend myself, let’s take a woman in her mid-30s as our example: When a woman starts to feel as though her biological clock is ticking, that time is running out to have children, this is not a feeling based on any rationality; it’s a matter of biological urgency. A feeling, an internal longing or desire, or what have you, is the opposite of being rational. This is not just a matter of semantics; this is simply the way it is.

Basically, I’ve never met anyone who has given a rational reason for having children. Of course, we might ask what a rational reason would be for having children, and the answers I can think of are few: Perhaps children are necessary to have someone to care for us in our old age or to have a potential organ or blood donor should an organ or blood need replacing or replenishing. Or, perhaps children are more entertaining than a dog or cat, although I would not agree with that sentiment.

Usually, though, like the woman running out of time to have a child, the reasons for having children are irrational. When someone says they want children, it is because that is what society or culture demands of its participants or because someone wants to raise a human being to be better than they ever were or have more than they ever had. I’m not saying having irrational reasons are wrong or immoral, just that such reasons are based in biology, or, has psychological underpinnings. So-called rational people never admit they are irrational, though, for that would undermine their belief that they are, ahem, rational people.

For the most part, I have never wanted children. In the rare cases I would have consented to having children was due to either the fact that my partner at the time wanted children and I thought they’d be a fit parent (meaning they’d be better at raising a child than me) or because I believed – irrationally so – that the combined genetic make-up of our offspring would somehow, ambiguously, be ‘superior.’ But when I see how difficult children can be, the headaches they cause both figuratively and literally, I see no reason to want children. When I see how much time is dedicated to raising a child, weighed against my desire for free time, I see no reason to want children. And when looking at the cost of raising a child, well, do you have any idea how many cases of good beer I could buy instead? At least my desire NOT to have children is rationally based.

It is often claimed that the desire not to have children is selfish, though this assertion is clearly illogical given that the desire not to have children is no more selfish than anyone whose goal it is to have children. Of course, by not having children I am robbing the world of my exceptionally good-looking offspring whose good looks really amount to nothing more than bullying, or, robbing the world of my exceptionally intelligent offspring who the exceptionally good-looking kids would beat up in school. Either way, it’s a no-win situation, so why waste endure the headache, waste the time, and subject myself to large quantities of cheap beer? Because if I’m not already an alcoholic, I would be after having a child. Sparing my liver seems quite reasonable to me.

It takes brains not to have children, once again pointing out that rational people are usually nothing of the sort.