Comments on: New Age “Evolution”

By: Claudia

Claudia — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 00:46:44 +0000

I can only imagine… a world where a microscopic cell built itself, all by its clever self, then figured out how to duplicate itself and, over eons of time, to grow its DNA information base exponentially, thereby becoming ever increasingly complex, creatures filling the earth?? So where does God come into this picture? That’s a rhetorical question by the way.

From the Manifesto we see where evolutionary theory takes one:

“At present humanity is lost. We don’t know what we are doing here. We are without a worldview that can point to our place and purpose in the universe and that can also withstand rational scrutiny. God has been dead for centuries.”

By: Mike R.

Mike R. — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 04:39:11 +0000

I was thinking of eugenics while reading the quotes in the post.

organisms must emerge that awaken to the possibility that they are living in the midst of a developmental process; they must realize that the continued success of the process depends on them; and they must commit to actively moving the process forward.

Isn’t this stating that it’s up to us to use our knowledge to continue the process of evolution in humans?

By: Tony Hoffman

Tony Hoffman — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:28:29 +0000

Well, Tom, I don’t know if I exactly agree with the statement “there’s no progress related to evolution,” for one. I think it would be correct to say that a salamander and human are both equally evolved, but you can also say that evolution has led to progressions — the largest animals, the most complex, etc. all exist today, and they did not exist in the not so distant (relative) past. The overall evolutionary trend has resulted in some animals that are larger, more complex, etc., and so I think in some instances you could make a case for biological progress. This is not the same thing as saying “more evolved,” however. That’s the point I thought you were making, and that’s what elicited my agreement.

I didn’t really understand the posting you linked to the first time — I try not to get involved in arguments that have philosophical underpinnings, and I thought that was where that discussion might logically go. If you really want me to bite I’d say that a) I have never heard of the progressive secularists, so I’m not so sure they’re that deserving of ridicule, and b) it was my understanding that progressivism is a kind of idealistic, pro government political philosophy that tried to manage the changes brought about by the industrial revolution. I wouldn’t think that they would require the modifier “secular” to distinguish themselves from other progressives, because I wasn’t aware they were known to have a religious bent.

So I thought the quote that started the post seemed to disparage a group whose name did not intend to have a philosophical meaning beyond “improvement over what is.” That is how I think of progressives, by the way; other centralizing, pro government philosophies all seem to have a utopian ideal which they spectacularly fail to reach. I think of progressives as “healers,” bent on “fixing” ailments (forbidding alcoholic consumption, streamlining processes, etc.) rather than striving for a positive ideal.

By: Tom Gilson

Tom Gilson — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:07:30 +0000

That opens up a question, though, Tony: given that you agree there's no progress related to evolution, how do you feel about the question of progress here?

By: Tom Gilson

Tom Gilson — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:41:30 +0000

It’s nice to agree once in a while, isn’t it?

By: Tony Hoffman

Tony Hoffman — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:58:01 +0000

Just thought I’d chime in and say I pretty much agree with you here, mostly because when I usually chime in it’s to tell you the opposite.

In some ways it’s kind of refreshing to see those who are espousing evolutionary theory, instead of opposing it, still getting it fundamentally wrong. Something about that theory, I guess, that just makes people want to take off and run with it. And run badly.