Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Response to The Ignorance of Blind Faith

A.J. Castellitto wrote a piece for the site American Clarion called The Ignorance of Blind Faith, in which he (she?) writes (in the best David Klinghoffer or Cornelius Hunter fashion) the following critique of “evolutionism”:
Ultimately, the overall problem with blind evolution both in process and acceptance is the non-skeptical adherence to a contrived, ideologically-based foundation. Especially since a sinless, godless form of evolution is arguably a building block of communism, apathy and moral decay.

For many, evolution is a cherished and heavily defended concept that resembles religious dogma. The main exception is that most of the radical aspects of evolution proposed by man preclude God. On the contrary, the consideration and inclusion of Intelligent Design theories provide healthy skepticism and rational thought beside the explanatory limits of unguided materialism.

True science should leave no lasting place for unsupported assumptions, unfounded speculations and insurmountable barriers. Not surprisingly, long ago evolution entered the realm of ‘scientism.’ This is why the funding continues to follow the agenda.
Here is how I responded on the site:
The concept of biological evolution is a lot like the concept of atomic energy. When it became possible to use atomic energy to develop nuclear power plants, with their attendant cheap power and radioactive waste, many people decried its use, claiming that it would poison the environment, lead to meltdowns that would jeopardize the health of millions and so on. When it became possible to create the nuclear-based weapons of mass destruction, people decried their existence and use as an existential threat and lobbied to get their use eradicated and to have them destroyed. These were no less than globally moral issues. Underneath it all, uncaring, disinterested, sat the reality of nuclear power. It existed. It was there. It wasn't going to go away.

Evolution is, objectively, one of the most well-documented, supported scientific theories in existence. It just is. I have studied biological evolution for over thirty years. Over 99% of the naturalists out there that actually study the data are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that it explains the present and past biodiversity of the planet. You might debate how it is used by those who would perpetrate abuse of their fellow humans. You might debate how it has affected the spiritual walks of the people who encounter it. You might debate how it has affected the globally moral questions we ask. But that won't make biological evolution go away. As humans, we need to ask how to answer those questions in light of evolution. Does it change them? If so, how?
An open question.


3 comments:

  1. Anonymous12:24 PM

    you would know more than me, my strength is not knowledge but debate....Although I have a pretty good elementary understanding of a much of the proofs for evolution

    Read this and my comment underneath, Im interested in your opinion on the Chemist I quote, God Bless! http://www.americanclarion.com/using-propaganda-hide-darwins-doubt-34984

    -AJ

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous12:26 PM

    Although I did win this prestigious award, not many can claim such achievement!!!!

    http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/buffoon-award-winner-renewamerica/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, what a smackdown. Did you read any of the comments on the article. I posted a few things more and got absolute nonsense back. I gave up after awhile. it reminded me of the argument that is posited that there are gaps in the fossil record. When you show them a transitional fossil they say "now there are two gaps!" You half expect John Cleese to be there saying "no, it isn't."

      Delete