Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design
by Charley Reese
May 5, 2008
LewRockwell.com
© 2008 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.

In my evaluation, this is an outstanding article. It is only a collection of opinions based on observation. There are no graphs, quotes from learned sources, demonized targets on one side or the other, examples that try to prove that one side is good and the other evil, etc., not even any sarcasm or mocking. There are only opinions.

I don't know the work of Mr. Resse, either, so I cannot say whether this is typical of his thinking or an anomaly. I do know that it is op-ed kind of writing at its best. (I mean by this the general overview with opinion kind of writing.)

The epistemological method is not to accept a false dichotomy, but to stay within the bounds of the known and leave the unknown open to be learned. This resounded strongly in me because this is the system I used to overcome my Randroidism and crack addiction at the same time. I think using this system is the true start of self-approval (in terms of being certain about what you think) and nowadays I cannot imagine using any other.

Here are a few quotes that I endorse. They spoke to me on a deep level. I did not quote all the passages, since that would have meant reproducing the entire essay.

As to evolution, ID, etc., I lean more toward evolution than anything else, but I am not expert enough in the subject to issue anything more than a semi-educated opinion. I am not afraid to say it, either.


This might rankle some people and collide with their serenity or beliefs, but I think it is eloquently stated. I could not have said it better myself. I look at those words and see myself as if in a mirror.

I am happy in my ignorance when I truly don't know something because I know that someday I might learn it. It is good to know that I am not sabotaging my mind thinking that speculation is fact. That is true certainty and it feels damn good. This anchors the best form of curiosity and delight in existence. It is my intellectual motor.

If I can keep that intact and never ever lose it now that I have found it at great cost, I know I will not need anything else to get along in life—not any specific book, prophet, theory or body of knowledge, for as helpful as they may otherwise be. I know I will be living to my highest potential regardless of context.

I think with my own mind.

Michael

Reese:
>> [...] My main conflict with the evolutionists is that they wish to assert their theory as fact and to employ government power to ban discussion of creationism and intelligent design on the grounds that they are unscientific or, worse from their point of view, religious. I am against banning any idea, theory, speculation or body of guesses. Human history shows us to be far too error-prone to go around eliminating dissent by majority vote of one of the more ignorant classes in our society, namely politicians. <<

MSK:
> This might rankle some people and collide with their serenity or beliefs, but I think it is eloquently stated. I could not have said it better myself. [...] <

Well, this is a twist, though hardly a very interesting one.

I agree with Reese's general point, although his smearing of "the evolutionists" as a group is hardly accurate, as many in and out of professional science do not support the suppression of any such debate in government schools. The root problem, as ever, is with the government schools and their coerced support, as many (libertarians and not) have repeatedly pointed out.

My surprise is with Michael accepting Reese's point here, when he resisted it in regard to anthropogenetic global warming.

Some of us repeatedly brought up how nearly all of the vocal, tax-paid shills for AGW — again, in and out of professional science — have openly called for some degree of using force to suppress opposing views. Certainly, starting in the shaping of government-school curricula, but for some, up to and including Nuremberg-style trials and mass executions of scientists opposed to it.

Michael wasn't at all fazed by this. (At the very least, if he ever saw this as being improper, it wasn't in response to any post of mine about it, nor was it within any discussion I read in that torrent of verbiage on all sides.)

Which is it, Michael? Do you oppose, as such, the active suppression of dissent on any issue by government entities and their employees and grantees? Or don't you?

Are you going to stand on principle, one way or the other?

... here we go again ...

"My main conflict with the evolutionists is that they wish to assert their theory as fact and to employ government power to ban discussion of creationism and intelligent design on the grounds that they are unscientific or, worse from their point of view, religious."

That is precisely why discussion of evolution alternatives should certainly be banned - in schools. Outside of schools, discuss to your heart's content but the basic concept of schools should include at least include some degree of academic merit of the subject matter. Evolution alternatives have no academic merit and have no place in education. Asserting it as 'fact' is irrelevant. It's by far the best theory we have, and until and if there's a better model, then it should damn well be asserted.

FWIW, my formal education is a Medicice/Biology/Physics combination called Medical Biophysics and for me to read something like:

"The only fact is that some beliefs have to be accepted on the basis of faith, and that goes for evolution as well as creationism."

strikes me as totally preposterous. Utter nonsense.

So what I'm saying is that if you've studied evolution, most would agree it's a very strong, evidence-based theory. What's next, is it OK not to 'believe' in mathematics? Do we need to accept Chemistry on faith?

Bob

There are a couple of telling quotes from the article, though I would encourage people to read it in its entirety to see just how horrific it is! This guy is ignorant of science and seems to be very proud of the fact.

On the origin of life: "I just simply don't know and frankly don't think it matters whether we know or not."

On belief: "...there is also nothing wrong with someone believing that God created the first man and woman."

There are several very bad implications from these statements.

The author implies that beliefs of this type are on equal footing with scientific knowledge, just because the author is ignorant of the facts.

He also implies that those who try to learn the facts of reality are not engaging in a noble pursuit, since it's just as valid to believe a fairy tale you were taught as a child.

He also implies that it is not important to learn the truth. This reflects a naive view that scientific discoveries have no practical applications - that they fundamentally don't matter. It's sort of like the child who complains that he's never gonna use algebra so why does he have to learn it. (It's telling that the author actually makes this complaint in his article!)

Would the author also agree that "there is also nothing wrong with someone believing that he can flap his arms while jumping off a cliff and live to tell about it" or "there is also nothing wrong with someone believing that he can build a skyscraper out of 2x4s and it will be just as sturdy as one made with steel beams"?

Ayn Rand opposed the idea that philosophy was just a parlor game. She taught that philosophical ideas have a profound effect on mankind's well-being. This author is implying that even science is just a parlor game. I think it's disgusting.

Let me just say that I applaud the above sentiment. But Evolution vs ID are not worthy adversaries in any sense and that's the only thing I object to....

Steve,

I suggest you reread the threads. I was against all governement involvement. Still am.

I also came to the conclusion that all the yelling and intimidation back and forth were because scientists wanted a slice of the government money pie—on both sides. The debate conjures up an image in my mind of dogs fighting over bones while pretending the issue is another.

That is still my position. All you have to do is read and you will see it.

Michael

Laure,

Which facts? I didn't get the impression that the author was ignorant of the facts at all, nor even the theories. Granted, he did not discuss them, but that does not mean he was ignorant of them. On what do you base that claim?

I also did not get the impression that Reese considered each theory valid. On the contrary, I got the impression that he considered each theory as invalid, i.e., without physical proof. He was not proposing. He was rejecting. That's the gist I got from this statement of his: "I've never seen any physical evidence to support either belief, and one is no more improbable than the other." Don't forget that he just characterized evolution as canaries evolving from dinosaurs.

btw - Refusal to claim evolution as fact was Rand's view. Here is an exact quote from her: "I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent." This is from The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 17 May 21, 1973, "The Missing Link--Part II."

I understand Reese to be saying he, also, is neither supporter nor opponent. In terms of Rand, Reese is very much on her wave-length. You seem to read a different meaning into his words and I am curious as to how you arrived at that.

Finally, where do you get the implication that Reese claims that it is not important to learn the truth? I got the exact opposite impression. I read him as saying that until we know the truth, the theories are not all that important (essentially because of the partisan fighting and the fact that they have no practical application). I even understood him to say that only the truth (stuff that is actually known) should be taught in school.

Michael

Bob,

I have a personal opinion about this that I did not express in my opening post. Of course I consider evolution as science-based and ID as religion-based. They are still both theories, though, and they are developed logically from certain premises inherent in each side. I am not opposed to teaching both in school, but I am opposed to teaching ID as if it were science, just as I would oppose teaching evolution as if it were religion (i.e., present in scriptures).

I hold the exact opposite opinion about teaching religion in school than is the popular view. I think religion should be taught. I think all the essential tenets of the world's major religions should be presented in a secularized "information only" kind of presentation in school as part of the standard curriculum. After all, most of mankind's history developed around one religion or the other. Religion has been the conduit of philosophy throughout the ages. Wars were and are constantly fought over religion. Nations were and are founded on religion.

Whether we admit it or not, religion has been and is a major influence on human affairs. So it makes sense to me to expose children to the playing field they will encounter out in society as part of their education. In fact, I think such exposure would lessen the noxious effect that religious clashes have had on peace throughout the ages.

Michael

You cite Rand correctly. I don't that was one of her better moments, however. I think that evolution just hadn't garnered enough interest on Rand's part to warrant her attention. I think her comment suggests that she had never looked at the matter carefully - not that she had looked and found the matter ambiguous.

Alfonso

Bill (Afonso),

Actually, Nathaniel Branden reports conversations with her where she was in doubt about evolution.

If you are interested in an in-depth discussion, here is an excellent article by by Neil Parille: Ayn Rand and Evolution.

Also, you might have missed a lot of discussions on this issue on Objectivist forums. Those in favor of ID (and there were several) kept mentioning that, although there is observable proof of evolutionary changes within a species, the rub hits on going from one species to another. Several views and speculations were battered about, but the surprising fact (to me at the time) is that there are no hard facts to point to.

The most reasonable explanation was once given by Dragonfly in a discussion I had with him online. The gist was that the birth of a species would take so long that it would not be noticeable. That seems reasonable (in fact, the most reasonable explanation in my opinion), but it is still speculation.

Michael

Michael -

I think you cited the key Rand quote from her published writings above - to the effect that she had not studied the question, and hence was neither a supporter or an opponent on the issue.

Are the NB reports published? I'd be interested if the reports of doubts refer to her not having investigated the question carefully (in her own evaluation), or to her having investigated the question carefully and found the matter unclear. Those are, of course, two very different matters, and I'd like to understand which is the case.

Alfonso

Reese considers all theories invalid. It is unclear when he would ever be able to declare something a "fact". He makes no distinction between the scientific method and blind faith, and says that "theories" derived from either method are equally invalid. He never states that he personally has not studied the subject and thus has not come to a conclusion. His position is that NOBODY knows the facts of the origin of life on Earth, even those who have made a life's study of the subject. He is elevating his own ignorance to be on an equal footing with the partial knowledge of scientists who have devoted their lives to study. His characterization of scientists as being just like priests, dogmatic, and completely biased by their own personal agendas, leads me to believe that he's never actually met a real live scientist.

He is totally, totally NOT on Rand's wavelength. (Not that that is relevant.) The whole article reeks of "we can't know anything", "who do these scientists think they are."

Where do I get the implication that he claims that it is not important to learn the truth? He comes right out and says it, "I just simply don't know and frankly don't think it matters whether we know or not."

Calling them both theories is like calling the Queen Mary and a rowboat both 'watercraft'. They cannot be compared in any reasonable way. teaching religion in schools is fine, just like teaching Greek Mythology is fine too because of historical implications and such. But Evolution and ID are NOT alternatives. One is evidence-based and the other is nonsense. As long as that's clear, then we're OK.

Bob

Ellen's objections notwithstanding, IMHO I believe Rand was aware that Evolution threatened a number of her views and therefore avoided all discussion. I'd love to find more evidence for this. However, the fact that she avoided it so forcefully makes me highly suspicious of her motives here.

From Neil's Article

_____
In “Racism,” Rand rejects the contention that a person’s character or intelligence is inherited or produced by his “internal body chemistry.” (p. 126.
_____

I think at the very least, Rand had to know that Evolution had essentially proven, or at least implied that this idea was false.

Bob

Michael: Are you referring to (From Benefits and Hazards):

I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, "After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis." I asked her, "You mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms — including humans — evolved from less complex life forms?" She shrugged and responded, "I'm really not prepared to say," or words to that effect. I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all God's creation; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable.

or to some further discussion by Nathaniel Branden?

Alfonso

I don't think that a person with her mental abilities who had "investigated the question carefully" would have written something so...uninformed (polite description) as that "Missing Link" article.

Ellen

___

Ellen -

I agree. I doubt that she ever spent much time looking at the question. Her own statement indicates that she had not. Also, as you indicate - the cofew things she said on the subject are most consistent with what would likely be said by someone whose attention had never been riveted on the question.

Alfonso

That isn't actually the substance of my objections to remarks you've made, Bob. I, too, think that she was aware enough to be aware that Evolution threatened a number of her views -- but not specifically in the ways you've spoken of. She wasn't aware of implications of "sociobiology" and descendants. They came too late in her life. That her view on the enormous gap between the consciousness types of other animals and man would be false if evolution is true, I think she had to have sensed. But that's a much more abstract and broad issue than the particular details you've claimed she had to have been aware of and which I'd say clearly she didn't know enough about the subject TO have been aware of.

Ellen

___

You edited while I was posting. I -- who know evolutionary theory well, unlike Rand -- don't agree with you that evolution proves "that a person's character or intelligence is inherited or produced by his 'internal body chemistry.'"

There's an example of what I mean when I say that you're speaking of some specifics which you claim Rand had to have ignored; it's on her having to have ignored those specifics on which I disagree with you. And, as added, I don't even agree with the details of what you claim has been proven. (It would be possible to restate the statement you made above in a way with which I would agree, but not the way you put it.)

Ellen

___

The Queen Mary and a rowboat are both "watercraft." How about...the Queen Mary and a kite? Or some such comparison?

;-)

E-

___

I think you're right, Bob. There's considerable tension between theoretical individualism and genetics. In a wider sense, philosophical inquiry is conceptual, empirical science driven by evidence, and it's customary to shrug and concede to each his own, like the grumpy detente between business and government. Higher math and statistics attempt to explain everything from gravitation to garbage collection, convincing no one of anything in particular, not even mathematicians.

On balance, I agree with Charlie Reese. I don't care how life on earth began. I don't much care what happens in Africa, Russia, China, India, or South America. I try to avoid spending time or emotional concern with other people as a general rule. I don't care what's taught in schools. The purpose of schooling is not to teach anybody anything, but to learn socialization and its inevitable injustice, boredom, spectacle and heartache.

I'm glad you cleared that up.

--Brant

Laure,

I am giving this some attention because I am truly curious. I think you are mischaracterizing Reese's points (I will discuss a few and give my reasons for thinking this below). I have suffered similar mischaracterizations online enough times to wonder where it comes from. I certainly do not think of you as a dishonest or stupid person. On the contrary, I have the highest respect for you and I value you greatly. You think with your own mind. But in the present case, I cannot relate to your thinking. And I am fully aware that you are expressing what is in your heart and mind and not trying to fool anybody or put on airs.

So please take the following comments as an attempt to understand, not as criticism. As for me saying "I am right and you are wrong," I not only admit the possibility that I am not seeing something, I am seeking to see it. But for now, I have to start somewhere.


In my understanding, nobody does know such facts because they haven't been found. Every expert I have read calls evolution a theory. The problem is with one species becoming another and no longer being able to reproduce in that species (and vice-versa). I don't know of anyone who would deny that species adapt to their environments, not even religious people. The results at the supermarket with genetic engineering are too evident for even laypeople to deny.

But when this is applied to evolutionary theory, even here, there is a lot of speculation. I remember a book I read years ago by Arthur Koestler called The Case of the Midwife Toad. This concerned some experiments on the inheritance of changes (called Lamarckianism), which is one of the few ways a biological change can possibly take place and endure in a species, except nobody believes it anymore. Paul Kammerer was found to have falsified research data and was shunned by the scientific community, with heaping helpings of scorn that would do a fanatical cult proud. He denied doing the fraud and claimed an assistant must have done it. There was a lot of controversy with no lack of Nazis, Soviets and spies, but in the end, he bit the bullet, accepted that he was disgraced and committed suicide.

Most people, even scientists, accepted his suicide as proof that he was guilty. (And that sounds more and more like religion, not science.) The interesting thing to me is that Kammerer's totally authentic experiments on salamanders and newts are practically ignored by the scientific community. If you are interested in the case, here are a few links:

The Case of the Midwife Toad (Hoaxipedia)
Paul Kammerer (Wikipedia)
How one toad destroyed one man's entire career

Incidentally, Kammerer's work on seriality could be seen as a form of scientific support for the Law of Attraction which is in vogue among Oprah fans and similar. Einstein, according to the Wikipedia article, called his idea "Interesting, and by no means absurd." (I just threw that in to stir up some crap. Otherwise, disregard. )

My point in this example was to show a case where the scientific community acted just like a band of religious zealots. After oodles of investigations over decades, the full truth about Kammerer is not known. What is known is that he was first set up as a worldwide publicity darling, then denounced and condemned from one minute to the next. From Saint to Satan in a heartbeat.

If Reese had only this case in mind when he made his comments, I fully understand where he is coming from. I suspect he had more knowledge of irrational disputes between scientists, but just did not find it useful for his article, whereas you claim he is "elevating his own ignorance."

I may end up disagreeing with him later, but I am not convinced of his ignorance. His opinions reflect my own observations. I may be a layman, but I have read some things. I suspect this is Reese's case.


I find this statement amazing because I cannot smell what you do. To me, he stated clearly that we do know many things and they should be taught, not that we can't know anything. He even mentioned biological things we do know. I don't find the idea you attribute to him even implied in his words.

Also, I like his idea of separation of science and state. If a scientist wishes to become a politician and make laws, let him run for office like everyone does and become a politician. I think if a scientist wishes to impose his particular brand of science on others by law, but from the wings, I also say, "who do these scientists think they are?"

Hell, scientists can't even agree among each other. So which one would you have making the laws? A or B or C? They all say different things. For example, which scientists should make laws about global warming? There are plenty of respected and renowned scientists with peer-reviewed studies of all stripes.

I always have difficulty with this point in these discussions. To me, it is obvious as all get out that one scientist would make one kind of law and another would make the opposite. Hell, forget "would." Just look at what they are doing. It's all over the mainstream press. Do you see any consistency of class? I don't.

So if that is the standard, I'm with Reese. This compares against religion quite nicely. I am not claiming this for all standards, just for partisan bickering, backstabbing, greed and power lust.


I think you dropped the context to make that general statement. I do not see Reese disparaging human knowledge in general. He was clear that his context was practical issues and partisan bickering. If he implied anything, it was that education should be for practical issues.

Within this context, I even agree with him. It doesn't matter whether we know or not where human beings came from.

But, for the advancement of human knowledge, obviously it does matter. In fact, once that is discovered qua fact and not qua theory, we will be able to make human beings to order. The implications of that are staggering.

From your sweeping statement about Reese, he would be against calling this kind of implication important. I think that is stretching it way too far.

So getting back to my original curiosity, do you not see the exaggerations in your accusations against Reese? I'm asking seriously. I see your criticisms of him dropping context and exaggerating his statements to attribute meanings to them they do not communicate and I seriously doubt he holds.

Where are you coming from? What is it I am not seeing?

Michael

I need to amend something I wrote earlier, in reply to Bob Mac. Here's the whole post repeated, including his remarks:



I need to amend my statements:

"I, too, think that she was aware enough to be aware that Evolution threatened a number of her views";

and:

"That her view on the enormous gap between the consciousness types of other animals and man would be false if evolution is true, I think she had to have sensed."

I've had a "click" just today about Ayn Rand and evolution. For one thing the wording I used doesn't match my feeling of AR's sense of confidence in the rightness of her own views. It isn't that, if she sensed a disparity between her views on human consciousness and those entailed by evolutionary theory, she would have had a submerged worry that her views were wrong. Instead -- as in the case of aspects of 20th-century physics -- she'd have assumed that the scientific view was in error, with the errors resulting from bad philosophy.

So I don't think it's the case that she avoided evolutionary theory; I think she just wasn't much interested, since she didn't see its relevance to the "essential" characteristic, in her opinion, of the human, i.e., the human type of consciousness (as she saw that type of consciousness).

Second, I've had a feeling of fully recognizing -- as if with the thought, "Oh, yes, of course, that's why" -- the feature of her evolution remarks in "The Missing Link" which made me cringe with a shudder of embarrassment when I first read the piece, and which has lingered as an "ick."

Here is the key wording:



Here's what emerged into central clarity for me: She did not understand what the issue of the "missing link" was all about. It was basically a past-tense issue, though lots of details were still unclear, by the time she wrote that article -- had been for more than a decade. But she didn't understand what it was. You see, she so completely believed her own theory of the difference between animal and human consciousness, she was thinking of the issue in terms of a missing consciousness link. Instead, the issue was transitional forms, the gap in the fossil record. There was the search for transitional skeletons leading to the human anatomy. The gap had started to be filled in by the early 60s.

What the passage indicates is how far she was from understanding the theory of evolution, or the problems evolutionists were considering in regard to human evolution. So I think that whatever she "picked up" on the subject from readings and conversations, she must have been mostly not interested and the details weren't registering.

I hope that Anne Heller has managed to interview Robert Efron. He I think is the person who would be the most informative on how much she did/didn't know/imagine on the subject of evolution.

Ellen

___

Laure,

I think one can overstate the importance of evolution. Most of what we know and believe would be the same if evolution isn't true. For example, if an evolutionist had a disease and the best surgeon available was a creationist, most evolutionists would go to the creationist surgeon, notwithstanding the repeated claims that "evolution is foundational to biology." Ideas aren't as interlinked as Rand thought. Maybe this is what Reese is getting at (I haven't read his article).

Ellen,

On Larry Arnhart's blog Darwinian Conservative, one of the "anons" said that Harry Binswanger said recently at the ARI that Rand said in later years that she accepted evolution.

Ellen Wrote:

"Instead -- as in the case of aspects of 20th-century physics -- she'd have assumed that the scientific view was in error, with the errors resulting from bad philosophy.

So I don't think it's the case that she avoided evolutionary theory; I think she just wasn't much interested, since she didn't see its relevance to the "essential" characteristic, in her opinion, of the human, i.e., the human type of consciousness (as she saw that type of consciousness).
"

Second point first. It's hugely relevant, especially to the tabula rasa concept. While there's still argument over extent, the nature vs nurture debate is firmly in the 'nature' corner. Intelligence, character, and personality traits are very highly heritable. While the details wouldn't have been exposed as clearly in Rand's time, relevance is huge.

And for the first point, that's precisely the attitude that throws her, sometimes deservingly and sometimes not, onto the quack heap. It's unfortunate because some of her ideas are worth thinking about at least.

Bob

Except that core concepts in Objectivism are proven wrong if Evolution is correct.

Sure, there's ton's of academic evidence on the nature side of the debate, but what strikes me most absurd is how we can so easily speak of things like dog breeds and how they're bred intentially (and successfully) for physical AND personality traits, but that somehow humans are so different. We're not.

Bob,

Which core concepts? Here are a few (in layman's terms):
Existence exists.
Things are what they are.
Conceptual consciousness is the human means of knowing them.

How about one stage up axiom-wise?
Entities are causes.
Life is self-generated action.
Man is an end in himself.

That's pretty good for starters. Which of those are proven wrong by evolution? If none, what do you have in mind?

(If it is tabula rasa, I agree with you. Biology influences many things in a human being, even on the conceptual level. Babies might be born tabula rasa in terms of developed content, but I agree that there are seeds of knowledge that develop on their own with growth and without volition. Volition itself is one of them.)

Michael

Incidentally, after WWII, nativist ideas on character and intelligence were widely rejected due to the horrors of Nazism (or so I've read). In the 60s and 70s conventional wisdom said that IQ tests are bunk and that there is no relationship between race and intelligence. So I don't think Rand had much reason to believe her racial egalitarianism would be threatened by evolution. I suspect her concern about the implications of evolution were directed at other areas.

Yes, tabula rasa for one and the downstream effects if incorrect.

Also is the idea of life as the standard of value. Evolution says no, or at the very least it's not nearly so simple.

Next is the more complex ideas (not available to Rand in her time) of inherent 'genetic' altruism and how in an evolutionary sense, a certain amount of non-reciprical altruism makes sense - or in other words - altruism is part of who and what we are.

Bob

What I find interesting in all this is that Ayn Rand's ignorant musings are "part of Objectivism" because she mused them. This wasn't quite her attitude ("consistent with Objectivism") but it sure is an ARI attitude. If orthodox Objectivism was once a box of chocolates it is now a box of stale chocolates. Go on, take a bite.

--Brant

Michael,

I gotta agree with Laure on this one.

Charley Reese's article is hardly the worst thing I've seen on the subject of evolution and intelligent design. But it's still pretty bad.



Apparently, our desire to understand ourselves and our world can't lead us human beings to try to understand the origin of life? There has to be a scheme to discredit some of our peers? It has to be rivalry between "hegemonic discourses"?

There are people who want to use science to destroy religion. There are people who want to use religion to destroy science. It doesn't follow that evolutionary biology as an enterprise keeps going on account of a desire to destroy religion.

There are people who do science in order to grab up government grants. It doesn't follow that evolutionary biology as an enterprise keeps going on account of a desire to grab up government grants.

Some individual actors want one or more of these things; some factions want one or more of these things. But Reese is claiming to know what motivates every individual scientist, plus every non-scientist who seeks to inform himself or herself about these issues.



If "nothing wrong with" means "no crime in," of course Reese is correct.

If "nothing wrong with" means "no likelihood of serious intellectual error in," that's a whole different ball of wax.

I won't assume that Reese means by "faith" what Rand did, or what many religious believers do, because there is too little to go on here. I have no idea what his standards of evidence are, or why he thinks they're good standards of evidence.

What is clear is that Reese doesn't know any relevant evidence concerning the evolution of canaries from dinosaurs; doesn't see any need to learn what evidence exists, or to critique any claimed evidence put forward by others; and doesn't think that those who have labored to obtain or carefully consider such evidence understand the matter any better than he does.

Nor does Reese seem to know, or care, or think it matters, why the "intelligent design" advocates claim to believe in intelligent design.

Which makes the guy anti-intellectual, at the very least. Some of his rhetoric goes beyond anti-intellectual; it gets close to the postmodernist dismissal of science per se (hence my use of the phrase "hegemonic discourse").

I'm a developmental psychologist by training. Developmental psychology would not exist, were it not for the rise of modern evolutionary thinking. Reese is writing off my field as uninformed mythologizing or idle speculation. I doubt he even realizes that he is doing it.

Robert Campbell

Robert,
Glad someone else is seeing the article the way I do. One thing, though. You say, "There are people who do science in order to grab up government grants." I think there are very few of these, and they're far outnumbered by people who grab up government grants in order to do science! ("I have clients in order to build." ) Of course, I admit that some scientists tell the granting bodies what they want to hear in order to get more grants, and that's not a good thing.

Laure,

I didn't mean to imply that there are a lot of people who do science in order to grab up government grants.

But I didn't want to deny their existence, either. Some of them become academic administrators...

Robert Campbell

Neil,

I had figured that Harry Binswanger tried to educate Ayn Rand about evolution. So what the anonymous commenter said on Larry Arnhart's blog makes sense.

But I don't believe the story that Dr. Binswanger convinced her that some account of biological evolution is true.

Here is what she said during her last Ford Hall Forum talk, less than a year before her death. In her blasts at the Ronald Reagan administration and its supporters, she includes a condemnation of those who want creationism taught in public schools ("intelligent design" was not the preferred term back then):



She no longer claims to be ignorant of evolutionary biology, but still refuses to take a stand on the issue.

This particular speech has never been anthologized by the Estate of Ayn Rand.

I suspect that Harry Binswanger would be opposed to anthologizing it because she disappointed him by clinging to her agnosticism about evolution.

Leonard Peikoff, on the other hand, doesn't seem to care much about evolution, but surely wouldn't want to wave around evidence of irrationality on his mentor's part. (By Peikovian standards, it is flatly irrational to say that genuine evidence supports a claim and then refuse to take a stand on it. Indeed, agnosticism is one of the worst epistemological sins.)

Robert Campbell

Robert,

As you stated below regarding another passage, this all depends on how you read this guy. If you are reading the article as a scientific or religious assertion of truth, I agree with your objections. I don't read it that way, though. If you are reading it as a general description of observed behavior (which is how I read it), especially the behavior of what has transpired very loudly in the press (and even on discussion forums), I think he is spot on.

I don't take Reese to be commenting on all persons who believe in evolution or all persons who believe in ID. I take him to be criticizing those intellectuals who clamor to make laws. Robert Ringer (in I think it was Looking Out for No. 1) called this kind of person an Absolute Moralist, i.e., a person committed to a cause who insists (usually loudly and obnoxiously) on committing everyone around him or her to it. And if that doesn't work, then commit them by force if possible. I certainly have seen crusaders on both sides of the ID debate try to use the issue to bash the other and behave in precisely the manner Reese describes. I have seen any number of Absolute Moralists par excellence on both sides.

In my mind, these people are Reese's target, not reasonable people who look at the evidence and draw conclusions.

I must make one reservation. I do not know the work of this guy so I don't know if he is religious or not, anti-intellectual or not, a fanatic or not, a bonehead or not, friend or foe. I have seen his name appear at times, so I know is is an author in the Lew Rockwell orbit who gets read. My comments pertain to this one article and if there is a wider context, I am at this moment not familiar with it. I might change my mind if I learn that he normally has a bias I disagree with.


I read the article according to the first meaning for the reasons I gave. If Reese is actually saying the second, I do not agree with him.

Like I said, I don't think Reese was making a scientific judgment so much as making an observation about the behavior of people who bash each other in the name of their theories and beliefs. I know I see it far too often and I get tired of the constant bickering (and I am not talking about OL discussions). I admit I might be in error, but for the present, I still understand the article to be with the first meaning. I also understand this slant to pertain to the entire article. That's one of the reasons I called it an op-ed kind of article.

Michael

Bob,

I know where you are coming from, but there is a nuance I would like you to ponder a bit. Rand considered healthy human life to mean a person who has a conceptual and volitional faculty—a mind—in addition to a body. Her characterization of volition and so forth often reminds me of the religious version of soul, except it can't be disembodied.

When Rand defined ethics, she was defining a code of choices man should make according to his values. (She called it a code of values to guide man's choices, but that is the same thing.) She was more or less providing an instruction manual for exercising his volition. So when she claims that man is an end in himself, I get the feeling she is often talking about that soul (the Objectivist version) as the starting point and source. I would have to look, but I don't remember her making that statement (end in himself) about other living beings. Thus, by extension, I don't think it would even apply to permanently severely mentally impaired people, which she considered subhuman. (I am not saying that this is right or wrong, merely that this is the standard I think Rand used.)

Altruism in the meaning she meant was in the sense of how one should choose ones values, how one should exercise his volitional faculty—not the actual choices so much as the method, the standard. According to altruism in the philosophical sense, the highest good is always others, never oneself. In Objectivism, the highest good is always oneself, never others. Note that this does not mean all acts will be short-term benefits. This is merely one standard among several standards that must be used in making choices. Other standards are more animal-like and pertain to terrain, evaluation of success or failure of an action, etc.

Using other words, Rand was against altruism as a conceptual standard for governing the code of values and how to choose (which is a conceptual act in ethics). You refer to biological altruism, but this has another meaning altogether. Even then, say with animals, the instances of actual altruistic behavior are vastly fewer within a lifespan than instances of self-serving action.

If you are going to talk about something disproving Rand, we should start by making sure her meanings are clear and are the ones she used. Otherwise, that something is probably disproving someone, but not Rand.

Michael

Well, at least you're an optimist

Michael, your words collide with my serenity, dang you.

Please tell me you now see that Reese offers an argument from ignorance. He has "never seen any physical evidence" to support the evolution of birds from dinosaurs. Hmmm. Has he inquired? If not, then his ignorance of any evidence is hardly supportive of his conclusion: that bird evolution is as probable as gawd creating the first man and woman.

I put it another way: do you actually believe that the two events being compared are more or less equally improbable?

You write "I take him to be criticizing those intellectuals who clamor to make laws," and "I certainly have seen crusaders on both sides of the ID debate try to use the issue to bash the other and behave in precisely the manner Reese describes."

Hmmm. Reese precisely describes what behaviour? You mean "[evolutionists] wish to assert their theory as fact and to employ government power to ban discussion of creationism and intelligent design"?

Who are you talking about, Michael? What is the context? Where is the banning of discussion? Can you name a couple of intellectuals "who clamor to make laws"?

I don't understand why you praise a shoddy, murky, tendentious argument from ignorance.

I recommend an antidote to the ignorance of Reese -- a helping of Richard Dawkins, specifically his book Climbing Mount Improbable.

~ I agree with MSK's view that the article (especially as an 'op-ed') was worth reading; in its own way it was 'thought-provoking' in many ways. Prob is: it provoked me thinking down lines not yet brought up in this thread.

~ Reese starts off talking about 'science' and 'religion' (which conflict in more territories than mere Creationism & Evolution do), then focuses in on C&E only, as being representative of the general conflict, hinting an argument that the opposing ideas are rationally eqivalent (ergo, he has an 'open' mind [ahem!] and he's therefore an agnostic on the questions.) I find his argument(s), hinted and stated, as a bit disingenuous.

~ I agree with MSK re evolution: I tentatively accept it as 'explanatory' (whatever its internal details-debates.) --- Interesting that no one's argued alien-seeding as an 'alternative' theory for *our* beginnings, (though such does push the basic question of life-origins back.)

2Bcont
LLAP
J:D

~ However, Reese seems to be doing what so many 'religionists' do: argue that 'science' and 'religious teachings (aka Reason and Faith) are on the same rational-debate par for discussion.
Would that religious teachers of religion 'X' were so ready to argue with their ilk in religion 'Y.' But, you'll rarely see that.

~ 'Science', whether about Evolution or Nuclear Physics, Plate Tectonics or Cosmology, studies NATURE IN-ITS-OWN-TERMS. Some 'bottom line' is accepted (such as, nowadays so far, whereever there's matter, there's gravity) as a 'fundamental' and used to thereby 'explain' other phenomena.

~ To speak about Creationism is to speak about the 'outside' hypotheticalness of NATURE, whether supernatural 'hypothesis' (or should we say hypotheses?)...or merely alien (as in 'alien Universes'!)

~ This is not 'science', ergo, Creationism should be taught (as alien-seeding)...but...not in a so-called 'science' class.

~ Von Daniken, anyone?

LLAP
J:D

William,

The thing I like most about the article is the method:

Q: Are you for A?
A: No.
Accusation: Then you are for B.

Q: Are you for B?
A: No.
Accusation: Then you are for A.

Final answer: Wrong on both counts. I am for neither. There is another alternative that falls outside that dichotomy. I use a different standard based on my observation.

I admire this manner of thinking when I perceive it is sincere and is ones best effort. (I think this is Reese's case, but since I do not know the rest of his work, I might be mistaken.) Doing this takes courage when the issue excites strong passion and name-calling on both sides. What's more, such a person is open to rational persuasion (like physical evidence), but not peer pressure.

Incidentally, Kat got me a present: The God Delusion by Dawkins. This will be my first Dawkins read. I look forward to it.

Michael

-The Ancestor's Tale- by Dawkins is his best book. It will also straighten you out on what the theory of evolution is about.

Ba'al Chatzaf

And that is a classic false dichotomy problem. Man qua man in reality means being partially inherently altruistic. It's not an A or B situation. Admitedly, Rand probably did not know this, as most of this line of research is post-Rand.

So what we have is the question of what the highest good should be. Well, it looks like, to simplify greatly, that we should be about 80% selfish, and about 20% altruistic (numbers are arguable of course). So there exists no single paradigm. Too much selfishness and we risk peer retribution. Too much altruism and we risk too much detriment to the individual. The right balance maximizes the survival and proliferation of the individual AND the species.

Or heritage, our ongoing 'creation' up to this point, is as gene replicators. This means that survival is important, but some things can be more important than survival. The difference is perhaps subtle, but critically important. This more accurate 'qua man' explains and predicts quite a lot; including, but not limited to, family relationships and behaviour, extended family relationships, charity, tribalism and racism just to name a few.

It is quite clear to me that Rand was very wrong on the 'qua man' thing, the 'life as the standard of value' idea, and the 'tabula rasa' concept and by extension, any ideas that extend from the above.

Bob

Seeding and evolution are not incompatible. Evolution occurs now and in the past and explains current biodiversity - fact. When and where exactly did it start, here or elsewhere? Doesn't really matter to evolutionary theory.

Bob,

This aligns with my thinking. I would not call it altruism to avoid confusion with former definitions, but I definitely see some innate behavior develop through growth in human beings (20% seems like a reasonable rule of thumb) that I can only classify as species oriented and not individual oriented.

This brings me to the second point:


If "'qua man'" is not valid for the individual part, if "tabula rasa" is not valid for learned concepts and so on, what are the standards? If these aspects you criticize are claimed across the board and this is a fundamental condition, I can agree with your objections. But, if they apply to the 80% (or whatever standard is used), they are true and insightful.

I think the problem is scope, not right/wrong.

Michael

I'm not sure my use or definition of altruism is different or confusing. You call it "species-oriented". What I mean by an altruistic act is one that benefits another at a cost to the individual. Therefore, extended to a paradigm I think it's not substantially different from Rand's at all.

"But, if they apply to the 80% (or whatever standard is used), they are true and insightful."

I don't think so. I think the 20% in there, logically extended, paints a very different picture than Rand's models.

"but I definitely see some innate behavior develop through growth in human beings"

Interesting choice of words. I see Rand as the sullen, know-it-all perpetual teenager who missed that growth and never quite matured enough to refine her initial self-centered views to encompass the more layered, mature, complex and nuanced human condition.

Bob

The rub is the "cost." How much cost vrs benefit? Sacrifice as a moral/intellectual weapon to benefit the state and slavemasters by disarming the victims is the one, big, bad thing. People are first individuals then they are individuals who integrate themselves into relationships with others as they grow and mature even while differentiating themselves from mother and family. The individualistic base is reflective of the atomistic nature of human cognition. If that's not properly honored you get tribalism and your sons march off to fight crazy, stupid, irrational wars while you are taxed to the nines to pay for it.

--Brant

This is IT, right here! And I think this is where Rand's views on altruism originated. She saw the results firsthand in Soviet Russia. Rather than see her as a "sullen teenager", Bob, can't you cut her a little slack and see her as someone who saw altruism being used as a club by the Soviet thugs and who stood up and said "NO! I will not sacrifice." Perhaps Objectivism takes it to an extreme, going so far as to say that voluntary altruism is bad, too. But it's telling that when Phil Donahue asked her why it's wrong to be a self-sacrificing person, her response was "because they don't hesitate to sacrifice whole nations."