Do scientists research questions which have no answers, because the theory of evolution requires that there be a question?
I have recently been reading Oliver Sacks' new book, Musicophilia. In the preface, he notes that there has been a debate for two centuries over whether speech or music evolved first. Darwin thought music came first; Spencer thought speech came first; Rousseau believed that they arose together.
Steven Pinker, a rock-solid evolutionist, has said (I am still taking from Oliver Sacks's book), "What benefit could there be to diverting time and energy to making plinking noises?... As far as biological cause and effect are concerned, music is useless..."
Why does not Pinker's observation drive Sacks to consider that evolution is an invalid explanation for speech and music? It would seem a fairly obvious next question: if evolution dictates the survival of traits that are "useful" and the demise of traits that are "useless", how is it that the human instinct for music has survived?
Instead, Sacks throws up his hands. "There is, nonetheless, much evidence that humans have a music instinct no less than a language instinct, however this evolved." He doesn't know how it evolved, he doesn't know why it evolved, he doesn't know when it evolved. But he remains convinced that it did, indeed, evolve.
The entire question is mooted when one accepts Genesis as true. God gave man language and music. Perhaps so we could make a joyful noise unto Him?
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
Philosophical Implications
If Darwinism is false, then we can longer assume that History moves in the direction of progress.
The assumption of progress is a logical outgrowth of the concept of the survival of the fittest: those who disappear are, ipso facto, less valuable than those who persist. Restated: those who persist are more valuable than those who disappear. So, today is better than yesterday is better than the day before yesterday, and Émile Coué was right: every day in every way, we are getting better and better.
The belief in progress has further implications. Here is a short path:
1. They were less fit, so they did die out.
2. They are less fit, so they should die out.
3. The persistence of the less fit impedes Progress.
4. Let's kill them.
Of course, the problem comes when we have to define "less fit". Those who would exercise this process have a good starting point: they themselves are "more fit". Everyone else is "less fit", with varying degrees of unfitness. The path of least resistance is to identify the weakest, or least liked, members of a population, and get everyone else to sign on to the elimination program. Then work up the ladder of fitness. This pattern was followed by the National Socialists, who started their killing program with people with genetic defects, then moved on to Jews and gypsies and homosexuals and artists (though not necessarily in that order.) Similarly, International Socialism began with the kulaks, moving on to scientists, generals, and the entire population of Ukraine.
Take away Darwinism, and the underpinnings of the belief in Progress are gone. We can now consider two other views:
1. What came before is equally valuable to what exists today. This means that we no longer have an external yardstick by which to measure "fitness". In the absence of such a yardstick, we have no basis on which to argue that Group A is less "fit" than Group B.
2. What came before is more valuable than what exists today. This is a humbling thought, and seems counter-intuitive. In one sense, we are better off today than 2000 years ago: longer life-spans, better toys. Others might argue that we are worse off: we are certainly more capable of mass killing than were, say, the Romans. It could be that these are not measurements of overall fitness at all, but rather are variations within natural limits. Those distractions aside, a belief that we are in a state of devolution should drive us to protect life. Whereas the logical path from Darwinism eventuates in the killing of the less fit, so that Progress can be accelerated, the logical path from the belief in devolution leads to the preservation of life, as a means to slow down Regress.
The assumption of progress is a logical outgrowth of the concept of the survival of the fittest: those who disappear are, ipso facto, less valuable than those who persist. Restated: those who persist are more valuable than those who disappear. So, today is better than yesterday is better than the day before yesterday, and Émile Coué was right: every day in every way, we are getting better and better.
The belief in progress has further implications. Here is a short path:
1. They were less fit, so they did die out.
2. They are less fit, so they should die out.
3. The persistence of the less fit impedes Progress.
4. Let's kill them.
Of course, the problem comes when we have to define "less fit". Those who would exercise this process have a good starting point: they themselves are "more fit". Everyone else is "less fit", with varying degrees of unfitness. The path of least resistance is to identify the weakest, or least liked, members of a population, and get everyone else to sign on to the elimination program. Then work up the ladder of fitness. This pattern was followed by the National Socialists, who started their killing program with people with genetic defects, then moved on to Jews and gypsies and homosexuals and artists (though not necessarily in that order.) Similarly, International Socialism began with the kulaks, moving on to scientists, generals, and the entire population of Ukraine.
Take away Darwinism, and the underpinnings of the belief in Progress are gone. We can now consider two other views:
1. What came before is equally valuable to what exists today. This means that we no longer have an external yardstick by which to measure "fitness". In the absence of such a yardstick, we have no basis on which to argue that Group A is less "fit" than Group B.
2. What came before is more valuable than what exists today. This is a humbling thought, and seems counter-intuitive. In one sense, we are better off today than 2000 years ago: longer life-spans, better toys. Others might argue that we are worse off: we are certainly more capable of mass killing than were, say, the Romans. It could be that these are not measurements of overall fitness at all, but rather are variations within natural limits. Those distractions aside, a belief that we are in a state of devolution should drive us to protect life. Whereas the logical path from Darwinism eventuates in the killing of the less fit, so that Progress can be accelerated, the logical path from the belief in devolution leads to the preservation of life, as a means to slow down Regress.
Welcome!
Welcome to this blog, which proposes to look at the world through the lens of Genesis 1:1. I would like to explore what assumptions we currently hold would have to be abandoned, and what assumptions would replace them, in the light of a belief that God created the heavens and the earth. What mysteries would be explained? What explained events would revert to mystery?
A plea: I am not interested in debating whether Genesis is literally true. Neither those who believe nor those who don't believe will be swayed by counter-arguments. Such debates will lead us into unproductive rabbit trails, at best; destructive flame wars, at worst.
An example: if God created the heavens and the earths in six days, then we must discard Darwinism as a tool useful for anything less trivial than dog-breeding. With what do we replace it? If we discard the lens of Darwinism, does the concept of "progress" no longer apply to natural history? Indeed, might we see devolution at work, rather than evolution?
A caveat: while the exploration of the implications of Genesis 1:1 will be the focus of this blog, readers should expect off-topic postings as well. I'll try not to wander too far afield.
Please join me on this journey of exploration. It should be fun.
A plea: I am not interested in debating whether Genesis is literally true. Neither those who believe nor those who don't believe will be swayed by counter-arguments. Such debates will lead us into unproductive rabbit trails, at best; destructive flame wars, at worst.
An example: if God created the heavens and the earths in six days, then we must discard Darwinism as a tool useful for anything less trivial than dog-breeding. With what do we replace it? If we discard the lens of Darwinism, does the concept of "progress" no longer apply to natural history? Indeed, might we see devolution at work, rather than evolution?
A caveat: while the exploration of the implications of Genesis 1:1 will be the focus of this blog, readers should expect off-topic postings as well. I'll try not to wander too far afield.
Please join me on this journey of exploration. It should be fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)