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? 

Destroy All Creationists

[I came across a business card sitting in a shop that provided the reader with a link to a movie about how evolution fails as a theory. Naturally, I swiped the card so that no one else would be annoyed with this bullshit. The documentary – and I use that term loosely – Evolution vs. God can be watched here. If you have a high tolerance for stupidity, please watch. This blog is a reaction to this movie.]

“Science has proof without any certainty, Creationists have certainty without any proof.” Ashley Montague

What is evolution? Evolution is the genetic adaptation of organisms to their environments that results in heritable changes over time. Organisms that have unfavorable genetic adaptations eventually die off never to be seen again and/or are displaced by those with favorable mutations which may come to be regarded as different species. This is a reliable scientific theory (stronger than a hypothesis) pulled together from not just one field of science but from many fields of biological research. Though we have no direct evidence of one animal becoming another animal, we do know for certain that our planetary life forms do adapt to their environments. It is why bugs become resistant to exterminating chemicals in much the same way followers of organized religion have grown immune to logic. The construction of evolution as a factual concept is about as close to fact as an idea can be without direct evidence, so you'd think the idea of evolution would be no big deal.

The controversy surrounding the idea of evolution stems from the insistence of Western religious fundamentalists (whom I sometimes lovingly refer to as Fundies) that the origin of life on Earth is the product of divine intervention, as literally (or near literally) described in the Bible. Apparently, Fundies are upset over the idea that man evolved out of some primordial muck, while mysteriously being okay with the idea that God made humans from dirt. It seems to upset them to think of mankind as glorified apes, which I think we'll all agree are smarter than dirt. Still, their panties bunch up real tight when you mention evolution.

As everyone knows, or should know, the trouble really started in 1859 when Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species." Even though Charles was an agnostic, the Fundies felt his theory left no room for the divine creation of human beings. They began to worry that such a theory may then be applied to the entire universe. Understandably, the Fundies went ape-shit.

A few things have changed since 1859 and the 1925 Scopes Trial that convicted John T. Scopes of teaching evolution to his students. The problem faced by Fundies in those subsequent years was that science marched on, gathering more and more evidence to support Darwin's claim. Many creationists came to abandon Bible literalism in the following years in order to reconcile faith and science, what with the science being so damn overwhelming and all. Unfortunately, the less rational Bible literalists who were traditionally drunk with power over the ignorant prior to 1859 would eventually find a way to regain some of its former glory.

In recent years, the battle over evolution versus creationism has begun anew. A breed of creation "scientists" have evolved from the ashes of defeat who are attempting to use scientific findings to support their claims of God's direct creation of the universe and human beings, or at the very least provide an educated rebuttal to evolution such as it stands. Whereas they formerly despised science for revealing how the world works and possibly denying the existence of a god, they now want to use their former enemy as proof for what they've been claiming all along. Fundies seem to have adopted and adapted the attitude that if they can't beat 'em, join 'em. It's as if they're now saying, "Look! Look! See how complex and incredible the universe is? It had to be designed by (our) God. We told you so!" That's right. The universe is so incredible that only a super-powerful and vain pugilist could have caused them to lose their simian minds.

I will grant that evolutionary science is not yet complete and has not yet answered how life began or provided us with a direct glimpse of one species becoming another. It is possible that certain ideas within the field of evolutionary science are incorrect. But that's the great thing about science. Once we find out what doesn't work, we're that much closer to figuring out what does work. Because of this, the scientists who wish to believe in a god while also believing in such ideas as evolution are by-and-large Deists or agnostic. Scientists who wish to remain theistic also turn towards the notion that evolution is in fact true, but that evolution is guided by God’s hand. Heck, even Pope John Paul II admitted as much as does the current pope, Pope Francis. The Fundies on the other hand are just looking for facts to support their views and disregard everything else.

The position of these new creation scientists is untenable on a number of grounds: First, the appearance of complexity in the universe does not necessarily mean it is complex. Complexity is only relative to one's degree of understanding. [I take a lot of flack for this assertion, but it’s true.] Two, the possibility that life arose by chance only points to the possibility that an extraordinary event has taken place. In the event that the cosmos was designed by a being or beings more intelligent than we are only tells us exactly that. Evidence of design does not indicate the level of power or knowledge the creator or creators possess, nor their degree of "goodness." Also, if someone did create a universe just right for sustaining life, then it stands to reason that life is quite possibly the rule and not the exception. Even if evolution were false, it still would not mean we arrived here by the hand of any god.

All this aside, Fundies wish to assert that they know their god was responsible for the world. This stems from a desire to claim special knowledge and assert power over other people, which is what this whole issue is really about. Fundies want their thoughts of our origins taught in public school either as an opposing theory to evolution or in place of evolution while completely ignoring the competing creation accounts from other religions. For Fundies who are trying to establish dominion inAmerica, this issue is critical to their success. The "evolution vs. creationism" debate is an artificial argument created by those who want to spread their own religion. There is no objectivity in their views or science that backs up their claim. This is the logical outcome when the truth is not what Fundies are actually after. Organized religion isn't nearly as much about knowing the truth as it is about people trying to control one another and you don’t need to be a psychologist to figure that out. Would people like Osama bin Laden and Bush Jr. need to invoke God's name to make their cases for war if this weren't the case? Fundies know that getting their religion into public schools will bring them closer to turning America into a theocracy, having access to and indoctrinating a wide base of impressionable youths. As history has shown, theocracies have been nothing but fun for the whole family. (Of course, by “the whole family,” I mean just the men seeing how women are nothing more than cattle.)

Very unfortunately Fundie creation scientists have built a certain measure of clout, for instance, once being able to persuade the Kansas State Board of Education (KSBE) to hold “science meetings” to determine whether or not creationism should be taught alongside evolution or to perhaps throw out evolution altogether. During these particular proceedings Fundies will only point out which scientific facts appear to support their beliefs while ignoring what other evidences there might be of any other god or of evolution. History has shown this to be a step in a very dark direction. In fact, the last time this happened, Europe was drenched in the blood of non-believers. What does not seem obvious to the KSBE is that creationism is simply bad science devoid of any testable data and not open to peer review in scientific journals. As it is, America is falling behind as a leader in scientific advancement and will come to suffer dearly in the global economy if religion is allowed to assert its influence in the classroom. Teaching mysticism as science fact will only exacerbate America’s fall from scientific leadership.

If the Fundies want creationism taught in school, I really am fine with that. All they have to do is prove that the conclusions about life on Earth – conclusions drawn from facts over multiple disciplines – is completely wrong and that their evidences do not point to the existence of any other god(s). Oh, I would also ask them to provide evidence for a man and woman spontaneously popping into existence.

How life began on Earth, how it got here is an interesting question but not an important one. We need to deal with the fact that we are here so that we can all figure out where we're going – if we're going anywhere – and how to get there without causing our own extinction. Too bad religion tries to answer the question of how we got here in order to explain why we are here, and thus try to control everyone. Problem is, the why of life is a rhetorical question as asking why we are here implies some intelligence behind our existence. If you’ve even seen Keeping Up With The Kardashians, you know there is no intelligence behind our existence.  

So the next time you run into a creationist, make sure you're driving a bus. As they lie wounded and bleeding and they ask you why you would do such a thing, be creative. Tell them that you running them over would help make the world a better place but that you have no evidence to support your claim. They will gladly croak having identified with your special brand of reasoning. But take heart; the facts do take precedence on some stages, most importantly in court. That’s basically what happened in Dover, Pennsylvania in 2005 where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled in a court ordered challenge to evolution that the Intelligent Design “theory” was in fact not science. That which makes more sense to you, evolution or creationism, will depend upon objectivity, not faith.

What follows is a link to the closing arguments delivered by Pedro Irigonegaray, an attorney for the proponents of evolution, to the Kansas State Board of Education in May 2005 during a modern day Scopes trial. I applaud the science coalition who held these hearings in contempt. I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Iregonegaray words. (It’s lengthy but worth it.) 

The Kansas State Board of Education gets owned.

Genetic Philosophy

As I mentioned in a previous blog, “A New Paradigm?,” philosophy in general rarely seems to go anywhere or solve any problems because there is no well-defined starting place from which philosophy begins nor do we know where it is supposed to end. It is often asked, “How should I (or we) live?” which seeks a moral foundation for living while completely ignoring both the beginning and ending points of our nature.

While we might say that we do philosophy for the sake of examining our own lives, pursuing the truth (whatever that means, nevermind what the truth is alleged to do for us), or inoculating ourselves against bad ideas, whatever reason any of us have for doing philosophy is ancillary to our very existence. So, might it be a good idea to at least begin philosophy from the question “How did I (or we) get here?” and end it by answering the question, “Where am I (or we) going?” At first glance, it may seem a bit arbitrary to pick these as starting and ending points for philosophy, but I do not think there are better points to begin working from, for doing philosophy from these points is at least based upon something concrete; our existence. [Or at least one’s own existence since we cannot prove others exist. But I digress…]

To once again paraphrase Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, our genes use us, not the other way around. In the old Nature vs. Nurture debate (which shapes our lives more?), being nurtured is secondary to our Nature, our existence, so I don’t see how Nurture could shape our lives more than our Nature. Even the most rational person, nurtured to believe in logic and nothing else, is prone to bouts of irrationality. How could this be? Because we do not have conscious control over the entire world, much less ourselves, and this is due to the expression of our genes: Emotions are chemically driven and underwritten by the very way we are built. Realizing the power our genes have over us in attempting to get themselves into the next generation presents great explanatory power over otherwise seemingly irrational behavior. People who declare themselves rational constantly bicker over ideas because of the lack of a philosophical starting point and finishing line, but by agreeing with Dawkins about the goal of our genes gives philosophy a place to start from and finish. (And, of course, all rational people – or at least rational atheists – agree with Dawkins.)

Take, for example, how problematic devising an ethical system is. There is no flawless ethical system because there is no starting or ending point for ethical conundrums. In cases where those points are defined, such points betray what the person arguing for any given idea favors, revealing how they think the world should operate because it suits them. If an ethical system is, say, devised such that our actions should not cause physical harm to others, what is often revealed is that this is simply the preference of the person advocating such a position who, when pressed, can’t really express why they have taken such a position. What’s revealed is that the advocate’s position is actually rooted in their emotions and not so much in reason, with emotions being rooted in our biology to a greater degree than our capacity to be rational. Meta-ethics has failed to answer where ethics arise from because most meta-ethical hypotheses place ethical origins in some mythical, ethereal, or mental world and not in our own bodies. Meta-ethics has failed because it has failed to focus on the question “Why be ethical?” from the point of view of our genes’ survival (Evolutionary Psychology notwithstanding). Why ought we not physically harm others if it helps advance our genes or the best genes of our species into the next generation? [By ‘best,’ I mean two things: Genes that manifest the most favorable traits in a given environment and gives us the genetic variety necessary to withstand a disease that would otherwise wipe out the species.] Of course, maybe the belief that we shouldn’t physically harm others helps stabilize communities (read: tribes) which in turn gives us access to more mates and resources that aid survival.

These points considered, it is perhaps best to start philosophy from the point of “I (or we) exist” (having previously countered counters to Descartes’ initially false assertion). For now, since there are more pressing questions, we’ll have to regulate to the background how our parents genes got us where we are in order to focus on the question of how we’re going to live given that our genes are going to express themselves over the course of our lives. How will they make us behave? What problems will we encounter simply because we exist and how will we attempt to fix those problems?

Although not meant to be an exhaustive list, I have (as have others) identified several key obstacles regarding an individual’s existence. They are:

One is trying to overcome death (the most basic biological imperative).

One is trying not to be hungry (so as to overcome death and be fit for mating).

One is trying to avoid illness (so as to overcome death and be fit for mating).

One is trying to overcome fear (so they can take risks necessary to find food, mates, etc.).

One is trying to live without being controlled (so they can take risks necessary to find food, mates, etc.). 

One is trying to reproduce (or may have sexual urges based on a biological imperative…which is meant to overcome death through the passing on of genes.)

Now let’s attempt to ask a simple question – “How should I (or we) live?” – and see if Genetic Philosophy can give us a less complex answer and less hoops than traditional philosophy. Rationally, we know we cannot overcome death; our genes are programmed to die at some point. We have few options in overcoming death: either ensure that our name goes down in history (a short term solution, but potentially long if you’re a Greek philosopher or insane dictator), get our genes into the next generation through reproduction (potentially a long term solution so long as our offspring keep reproducing), or both. [Let’s rule out some mad scientist being able to manipulate our biology and make us live forever since none of us can outlive the universe. Would we even want to? Is immortality worth it? Ah, so many questions…]

Among our choices, trying to get your name to go down in history is fraught with difficulties; in fact, almost all of the most famous people in history weren’t even attempting to be famous and are instead famous because of others’ fascination with whatever they did. Moreover, assuming one rises to prominence does not mean they are going to enjoy their fame after they have died. I might also add that becoming a historical figure will only last as long as the species or the Earth is around. The only practical solution to overcoming death then is to get our genes into the next generation, and hope that our decedents pass the genes on, so on and so forth. This becomes our starting point in answering the question, “How should I (or we) live?” [Assuming one doesn’t want to have children, one can still examine the question from the ‘genetic’ point of view since our biology commands us in other ways.]

If it seems like the next logical thing to say once we’ve accepted the desire to get our genes into the next generation is that we should do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal, one is oversimplifying the situation. [While we are trying to have Genetic Philosophy give us simple answers, we mustn’t oversimplify.] If we thought clubbing a woman over the head and dragging her back to our home was the best way to get our genes into the next generation, we have to accept all the risks that go along with such behavior. The biggest problem is that we’d have to accept that violence may be done to us in competing for a mate which goes against our primary instincts to survive. Second, our offspring would be locked in a never-ending battle over resources which would reduce their chances of getting their genes (and ours) passed on. Collectively, we do not want that and how (Western) societies are set up reflects this.

Western society, as it has evolved (so to speak) appears to have unconsciously adopted genetic philosophy and created societies geared towards equality for all because that appears to offer everyone the best chance of accomplishing the goal of producing offspring. Certainly racial tensions and a tribal mindset still exist, but such base desires are really a manifestation of resource competitions. If recognized for what they are, racism and tribalism can become something of a vestigial appendix of the human mind. (I hope, anyway.) The problem entering the equation comes in when we do not consciously considered how our biology inclines us to act. Naturally, ancient Scandinavians and ancient Polynesians are going to differ wildly in their behaviors and values as the environment each evolved in has had a dramatic effect on their biology, and hence, also each one’s behavior and values.

So, when asking a question such as “How should I (or we) live?” should be answered every step of the way in accordance with our biological needs and desires. Or, supposing we don’t want a child for some reason undoubtedly based upon our biology, how our biology affects us. For example, I know that if I allow the slow driver in front of me to anger me, that raises the levels of cortisol (the stress hormone) in my bloodstream and elevated levels of cortisol in my bloodstream is damaging to my body over time. Being aware of my biology helps me become aware of my situation and allows me to take a moment to analyze the situation. That sure sounds deceptively simple but it is not: If I know the biological cost of anger, I might be inclined to find ways of managing my emotions so as to avoid anger.

Any good philosopher should have or be thinking of objections to my so-called Genetic Philosophy by now. For example, one might ask: Could Genetic Philosophy be used to enslave people, say, women? My answer would be, it shouldn’t, for two reasons. First, as a species we should seek genetic variety because this helps prevent a species from being wiped out by a single disease. Second, at least in part, genetic variety leads to a differing of cultures which may be a potential source of alternate or competing ideas when trying to problem-solve. Having different genders and cultures allows for different ideas, and a diversity of ideas is necessary for long-term survival. As you can see, a simple question with a simple answer (that I may have oversimplified).

I believe that Genetic Philosophy, as I like to call it, has the potential to solve ages old debates such as whether abortion or capital punishment should be permissible, how should I (or we) live, what the meaning of life is, and – due to the nature of doing philosophy from a genetic point of view – whether or not it is okay to be irrational. My hopes for Genetic Philosophy may be misplaced as I have yet to thorough test a single issue just mentioned using this new paradigm. But, I will get around to it as soon as my genes will allow.