This site is for happy atheists and anyone else that is interested in a web site and forum focused on atheism, secular morality, and general philosophy discussion.
[Religion vs. Secular Ethics: What is the Basis of Morality?]
Moral standards must have a strong basis upon which it encourages individuals to act ethically. Mavrodes comes to the conclusion that religion is the only means of providing deep meaning to morality and that morals wouldn’t necessarily exist if religions never developed. The second part of his conclusion brings up an additional question, if morality is based solely on religion, what are the motives involved in being moral? His main argument against secular views of morality is that they are superficial. However, the reasons to be moral which develop through religion create a basis for morality that is arguably driven by fearful obligation which is in itself shallow. This paper will look specifically at religion based morality, in comparison to secular views, and its status in answering the question of why we should want to act morally.
In discussing this topic, it is necessary to review Mavrodes’ argument for a religion based explanation of morality. Mavrodes wrote the article in response to Bertrand Russell’s secular view of ethics, describing them as queer and inadequate in answering the question; “Why should I be moral?[1]” Mavrodes opens briefly with the point that morality is dependent on religion to the extent that morality would cease to exist if religion failed. His intent is to use morality to show that religion is a better explanation than secular views. He develops his argument by taking a look at the Russellian world and how morality would function and gain meaning in such an environment. The Russellian worldview is:
That man is the product of causes which had no perversion of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievements must inevitably be burned beneath the debris of a universe in ruins – all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand.[2]
Mavrodes compares the Russellian world to what he perceives as the actual world, one where religion is the truth. Mavrodes describes final moral obligation as “obligations that a particular person has in some concrete circumstance at a particular place and time, when all the aspects of the situation have been taken into account.[3]” Mavrodes then makes the point that there are many cases in a Russellian world in which moral obligations would require a person to act in a manner which results in personal loss. He makes a distinction between moral feelings and moral obligations and describes obligations which lead to loss as strange because they do not give the individual a reason to want to act morally. He refers to Kant to make the statement “there cannot be, in any ‘reasonable’ way, a moral demand upon me, unless reality itself is committed to morality in some deep way.[4]” Mavrodes states that moral obligation within the Russellian world are superficial. He then ends his argument and essentially concludes that these moral obligations and things like mind and purpose are much deeper in the real world than they would be in a Russellian world so religion must be the answer to why one should be moral.
Mavrodes describes moral obligation as “morality ascribes to particular people an obligation to do certain things on a certain occasion.[5]” This description is a good starting basis for explaining morality. However, it is not possible to create a thorough set of rules which define proper action in every scenario a person may need to make a moral decision. This fact is demonstrated in the many debates occurring within religious groups over issues, such as how to handle abortion rights and civil unions, which are not clearly defined by religious moral laws. To further define morality it must be understood as an obligation, based on the good of humanity, placed on rational beings to discern the appropriate ethical action. Through this definition the needs of the greater good and a sense of duty are included in the decision process. In writing the extended definition, morality is that which creates an obligation for an individual to do certain things on certain occasions by making rational moral decisions which are based on a concern for the greater good. This approach relieves ambiguity created by a limited set of rules. Additionally, it is important to determine morals on a secular basis because new moral issues are repeatedly brought about by medical and technological breakthroughs. A prime example of these breakthroughs is cloning. The ability to clone or alter the genetic code of organisms was not remotely possible during the time religious laws were written. To determine the morally correct action in these cases requires the same approach described as being used by secular ethics.
Kant “held that a truly moral action is undertaken purely out of respect for the moral law and with no concern at all for reward.[6]” Mavrodes uses Kant’s view to support the need for morality to be a commitment with profound origin. The deep meaning which creates moral obligation in a secular world is a concern for the sake of society as a whole. A person is dependent on society and develops concern for its well-being in relation to his own, thus, creating a strong reason to act morally. When asking why someone chooses to act morally within a religious context, the reason does not necessarily seem to be as deep as Mavrodes indicates. With some exceptions, many religious texts advocate morality as being an obligation to avoid punishment and place little emphasis on acting morally for its own sake. This does not necessarily mean that there is no deep theological reason to act morally. However, the emphasis of obligation to act morally because it is the will of a higher power or good is often lacking in religious teachings. This is an aspect of religion that has the potential to be remedied, however at this point the tendencies of religions to teach morality on a basis of fear instead of duty to a higher power discredits the concept that religion universally creates an understanding of a deep moral obligation.
Mavrodes might accept that secular morality gains meaning through society but maintain his claim that religion provides a more solid and deep reason for people to want to act morally. It is true that religion has a history of being able to get people to act in a certain way. However, unless all religious sects are able to agree on what is ethical then individuals will be in conflict with the moral beliefs of other religions. A strong example of this variance is between religions based on anthropocentricism and those which place moral value on being an equal part of the ecosystem. This sort of conflict is not an adequate means of creating a moral basis. Furthermore, this conflict of moral views can lead to unnecessary disdain between religious communities. For morality to have universal application the means through which it is derived cannot be subjective.
Additionally, Mavrodes briefly indicates that a reason to act morally would not exist without religion[7]. This assumption was formed on the idea that individuals will not act morally without the deep meaning that religion provides. In a comparison of secular and religious based cultures, those countries which are less religious are more likely to have stronger morality.
‘In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.’ . . . The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional.[8]
This study, originally published in the Journal of Religion and Society, contradicts Mavrodes notion that morality would not exist without religion. The study, accompanied by the previous explanation of how secular worldview can maintain a deep sense of obligation, demonstrates that there is no reason to think that morality would not exist without religion. Through this correlation I am not intending to argue that religion necessarily has a negative effect on morality. The purpose is to show that religion cannot be concretely deemed the primary basis through which morality is derived.
Mavrodes holds the idea that secular morality requires a being to sometimes act against its own good. If this were the case, secular morality would certainly be odd. Indeed, if many moral actions repeatedly resulted in personal loss, the obligation to act morally would be greatly overcome by an individual’s sense of concern for himself alone. Examples of actions which he perceives to accommodate personal loss in the Russellian world are “repaying a debt, keeping a promise, refraining from stealing . . . risk of death or serious injury.[9]” It is true that some of these actions can cause a certain amount of personal loss. However, these actions do not regularly carry a net loss when considered in the community framework. Although reward is not the foundation that creates an obligation to act morally, many ethical actions do present the moral agent with a positive result. Moral obligation placed on individuals in a secular worldview do not require a person to act in a way with is negative to their well-being. A person operating within a secular moral framework keeps promises out of obligation to society, but in doing so also creates additional social connections and opportunities. Any loss created by keeping a promise is far outweighed by the social benefits. Much in the same way, a person chooses not to steal by abiding by society’s standards of moral obligation and is rewarded by being viewed as a favorable member of society.
In moral situations which may require risking death or injury it is easily stated that the person is acting for the sake of humanity because these are altruistic actions. A person performing these actions within a secular context runs the risk of personal loss. However, if the person were to refrain from performing this obligation, feelings of remorse would create a far greater loss than that of death or injury. Furthermore, in a secular world, an individual does not experience a loss through his own fatality because death is viewed as an end where the individual no longer exists to have experiences. In a similar way, religious moral obligations call for individuals to act against what may be their immediate best interests while associating a reward with acting morally. Although the religious reward in acting morally is perceived to be granted in the afterlife, the extents to which moral obligations create personal loss appear to be more or less equal between secular and religious views.
Within our ever changing social environment, the ethical issues which result call upon a need for a moral basis which can rationally adapt moral understanding to accommodate progress. Religious morality does not have the flexibility to respond to issues which are new to modern times. This combined with the nonconformity of religious morals across various belief systems, renders religion inadequate as a prime basis for telling individuals why they should be moral. I leave open the question of if secular morals based on a deep commitment to society are indeed the best explanation of moral basis. This is in recognition that there are numerous foundations upon which secular morals have been declared to receive substantial meaning. I do however claim that a secular moral basis better answers the question of why one should be moral because it allows ethical codes to apply universally.
Return to the Top of this page
[1] Mavrodes, George. “Religion and the Queerness of Morality.” Philosophy of Religion: An Anthropology. Canada, Wadsworth, 2003. p. 566.
[2] Russell, Bertrand.. “A Free Man’s Worship.” Philosophy of Religion: An Anthropology. Canada, Wadsworth, 2003. p. 570.
[3] Mavrodes, George. “Religion and the Queerness of Morality.” Philosophy of Religion: An Anthropology. Canada, Wadsworth, 2003. p. 563.
[4] Ibid. p. 565.
[5] Ibid. p. 563.
[6] Mavrodes, George. “Religion and the Queerness of Morality.” Philosophy of Religion: An Anthropology. Canada, Wadsworth, 2003. p. 565.
[7] Mavrodes, George. “Religion and the Queerness of Morality.” Philosophy of Religion: An Anthropology. Canada, Wadsworth, 2003. p. 561.
[9] Mavrodes, George. “Religion and the Queerness of Morality.” Philosophy of Religion: An Anthropology. Canada, Wadsworth, 2003. p. 563.
[Why Act Morally: Religious Moral Reasoning]
Why should anyone want to act ethically? Sure, there are religions which promise a gift of spiritual immortality in exchange for ethical actions. But, is this unsubstantiated promise the reason why people chose to act ethically? If this was the sole bases for morality then the jails would be overcrowded with non believers. However, if you look at the numbers of Christians who have found Jesus while serving sentences, you’d think that Jesus must be in jail. Have you found Jesus? Why yes I did while I was serving a twenty year sentence. Oh, so that’s where he’s been this whole time. These “born again” Christian are the same people who will undoubtedly participate in actions which will allow them to visit Jesus again.
The use of religion to explain why people act ethically is insufficient in explaining the ethical actions of non believers. In case you are one of those people who hold the stereotypical view that atheists participate in week long orgies and murder at will, get ready for a wake up call. Atheists are no different from any other respectable human being; they just don’t share your beliefs. I obviously can’t go so far as to say that all atheists are the epitome of morality. This would be an untruth because all groups have their “bad apples.” However, atheists act ethically as a result of their own free will. Actions which are chosen without threat or promise surly hold greater value than those done out of obligation. If religion is the sole guiding force of ethical actions, then the acts themselves lose a certain amount of value. The atheist acts ethically because it’s the right thing to do, while the theist does so out of fear of damnation. Where is the value?
It could easily be said that morals exhibit their value through the result, not the intentions. However, as a society we tend to base value on the unique properties of a service or item. Cubic Zirconium sparkles just as much if not more than a diamond, but a diamond is a thousand times more valuable. The rarity of the diamond is what determines its value, not the sparkle it creates. Work done by a skilled craftsman is more valuable than that done by a machine. There is an obvious analogy between these examples and the relationship of sincere morality verses religion based morality. A person choosing to act morally without outside prompting there is a high level of sincerity involved. This level of sincerity is absent in those who act ethical solely in accordance with religious instruction. The non believer is acting as a skilled ethical being while the believer is simply a cog in a machine.
The value of ethical intent cannot be placed on the result. Often times, unethical acts may inadvertently produce results which are accepted as good. By placing the value of ethical actions on their result, value must also be given to immoral acts which produce a positive result. A person may chose to rob another individual in order to provide basic needs for his family. In this case we can assume that the person who was robbed is financially secure and ultimately unaffected by the robbery. The result of this immoral action was that the robber was able to feed and clothe his family for another few days. This is a case where the result of an unethical act is good. However, to say that the robbery has moral value due to its result is impossible. The value of an ethical act must be determined prior to the action because the result is ultimately unknown.
It can now be realized that ethics retain their value in the individual's intentions. If a person acts in such a manner that would normally be considered ethical but has unethical intentions, the act loses its moral value. The use of a moral act in order to deceive another is absent of value. But there is a catch, if the intentions are good but the act is bad, that act is still immoral. Ultimately, an act can only hold moral value if the act itself can be valued by society in all imaginable cases.
There is no value in acting ethical simply for the sake of being seen. If a Christian acts morally simply due to fear of God or because God said so, a certain amount of value in those actions is lost.
Return to the Top of this page
[Intelligent Design: Does It Prove God?]
The Teleological Argument (Argument from Design): This is the argument what Intelligent Design advocates utilize to base their assumptions.
A basic breakdown of the
Watchmaker Argument by William Paley (1743-1805):
If you come across a watch you assume it had a designer because, due to
it apparent design and complexity, it would be illogical to think it
always existed. In this same way we can look at living organisms which
are more complicated than watches and infer that they must too have a
designer. (Just as we infer an intelligent designer to account for the
purpose-revealing watch, so likewise we must infer an intelligent Grand
Designer to account for the purpose-revealing world.)
Full length version:
http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/intro/paper.paley.html
Objections:
1. If something complex has a designer then surely the designer would
have to be more complex than its creation. This would mean that the
designer must also have a creator, thus leading to an infinite series of
creators.
Refutation to Objection 1: God is infinite and therefore does not need a
creator or explanation outside of itself.
Objection: This violates the premise that complex entities must have a
creator.
2. A watchmaker creates watches with pre-existing materials. God is
stated to create from scratch. This difference renders the analogy weak.
3. A watchmaker makes watches but nothing else. We would not see a
laptop and assume that the watchmaker was the designer. This indicates
that the arguments suggests multiple creators; one for each type of
thing that exists.
4. The first part of the argument says that the watch stands out from
randomness of nature because it is ordered. The second part of the
argument claims that the universe is obviously not random, but is
ordered. This makes the entire argument inconsistent.
5. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution: complex animals and plants can be
produced through generation by less complex animals and plants. These
plants and animals can be show to be derived from a process where
complex things cam from inorganic matter. (www.talkorigins.com , also
see Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker) So, the premise that complex
beings must have a designer is inaccurate.
Refutation to Objection 5: Evolution does not explain the initial orgins
of the universe. (and they make various other claims about the how
evolution isn’t true).
Objection: Just because we can’t currently explain the origins does not
mean that goddidit. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for
evolution.
------------------------------------------
There are more objections to this form of the argument, however I think
the above is more than enough to show that it is not adequate for
proving the existence of a higher power or even demonstrates that the
way the universe is constitutes design. There may be some theistic
refutations to objections that I overlooked, theists, feel free to point
them out.
===================
Modern teleological arguments tend to focus on the “fine-tuning” in the
universe, the fact that it is exactly as it needs to be (“fine-tuned”)
to support life. Richard Swinburne (1934- ) reformulated the argument to
get around the nuisance of dealing with Darwinist refutations. This is
called the inductive argument from design.
“We can reconstruct the argument from spatial order as follows. We se
around us animals and plant, intricate examples of spatial order in the
ways which Paley set out, similar to machines of the kind which men
make. We know that these animal and plants have evolved by natural
processes from inorganic matter…They may therefore naturally infer from
nature which produces animals and plants, to a creator of nature similar
to men who make machine-making machines.”
Swinburne didn’t think this argument was very strong by itself. The
circumstances under which nature behaves as a machine-making machine are
very rare. This makes the analogy weak.
He then goes on to offer an argument from temporal order which he thinks
is much stronger than the inductive argument; I summarized it here:
1. Simple laws govern almost all successions of events.
2. The universe might so naturally have been chaotic, but it is not.
3. The universe conforms to a pattern which man can identify and
describe. (admits that one could argue that this is by chance)
4. Things have and will continue to conform to such a pattern however
initial conditions vary, however men interfere in the world.
5. This order exists independent of men.
6. If the universe were not orderly, men would not exist.
7. There is a great deal more order in the world than is necessary for
humans to exist.
8. The existence of the universe is a problem too big for science to
explain.
9. Nature only has building blocks of a few kinds. Each of which has its
own defining properties.
10. The orderliness of nature is a matter of vast uniformity in the
powers and liabilities of bodies throughout endless time and space, and
also in the scarcity of kinds of components of bodies.
11. The temporal order of the world is where explaination stops
12. The temporal order of the world is due to the agency of God.
Objections:
1. Four: Problem of induction (Swinburne admits to this) “Hume's problem
is usefully divided in two. There is first what I shall call the
descriptive problem: How do human beings form opinions about unobserved
matters fact? And then there is the normative problem: Are beliefs
formed in this way justified? Does someone who "reasons" as we normally
do really have reason to believe his conclusions about the parts of
nature he has not observed?”
http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/induction.html
2. I agree that it is amazing that we are here. But, it is very possible
that this is not the first or last universe to exist. We could be the
result of a series of “unsuccessful” universes and are the lucky
recipients of a working universe.
3. Six: If the universe were not orderly it is true that men would not
exist. However, this argument assumes that the current universe is the
only possible universe which could sustain life. It could be possible
that there are alternative ways in which the universe could be arranged
that would also bring about life in an orderly fashion. Also, I don’t
understand the String Theory very well, but I think it claims that there
is an underlying chaos within the order of the universe. So, someone
that actually understands the string theory may be able to make a
scientific objection on this.
4. Eight: I actually agree with this. But there are some that would
argue that eventually science will be able to explain everything.
5. Nine: String theorists may have an objection here.
6. Tweleve: it is illogical to jump to the conclusion of god. God has
distinct attributes which are not supported by this argument. It would
have been more appropriate to say intelligent designer. This designer
could be a highly intelligent race of aliens for the purposes of any
argument from design.
7. There is no reason to conclusively state that the universe is
temporal (finite). There is a common misconception that the universe is
claimed to “start” from the big bang. This is simply as far as science
has been able to explain at this point. I would have to brush up on what
Big Bang theorists do and don’t think in order to explain this further.
Swinburne went on with some more arguments from design, but I think they
are boring. If anyone wants to look at them further the book is “The
Existence of God” by Richard Swinburne (1979) Oxford University Press.
=========================
More about the Argument from Design:
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/sober/design%20argument%2011%202004.pdf
So, that was a crash course in the Argument from Design. It is far from
a complete explanation or refutation, but at least it lays down the
basis from which the argument formed and how it is stated today.
Return to the Top of this page
In this article by C. R. Overby (http://www.atheistcoalition.com/termsanddefinitions.htm), he will examine some of the commonly equivocated terms and problematic language that is prevalent in the evolution/creationism debate.
So what is evolution anyway?
One of the first things to do is to define the "evolution" we will talk about. This is a major point of confusion for many people. When I refer to "evolution" I am speaking of the scientific theory of biological evolution, not the colloquial usage of the term. For instance, in the American Heritage dictionary, the colloquial usage for "evolution" is:
"A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form" 1
This definition is much different from the term as it is used in a scientific context! Just like many words, "evolution" has several definitions. American Heritage defines "evolution" in a scientific context as:
"The theory that groups of organisms change with the passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors"1
As you can see, the definitions have some small similar items but overall they are both very different. This can lead to someone using the fallacy of equivocation in that they will use "evolution" in both senses of the term. For instance (as we shall see later) many people mistakenly include the beginning of the universe (the Big Bang theory) with biological evolution, this is incorrect. They may refer to "cosmic evolution" which is not an incorrect term but their equating evolution in this use which is the first definition we showed to biological evolution is incorrect.
It can be confusing though since you may run into differing definitions of "evolution" in the scientific context. This is not to say that there is a disagreement in what evolution is, it is simply showing the many ways to define the theory. Some are specific and some, like the dictionary definition, are very general. Here are some more definitions of "evolution" in the scientific context:
" the descent of modern organisms with modification from preexisting life-forms; strictly speaking, any change in the proportions of different genotypes in a population from one generation to the next." 2
" a scientific theory of orgnismal change over time originally developed by Charles Darwin; it embodies the ideas that species alive today are descendants of species living long ago, and that species have changed and diverged from one another over billions of years; the process of change over time by which existing populations of organisms develop from ancestral form through modification of their characteristics."3
Now, we know that when we talk about evolution and it is in reference to the scientific theory, there is a distinct definition at work of what we are referring to. Just having this cleared up usually can save a lot of time in discussions. Since we know this now, here's a question for you – Does evolution deal with the origin of life itself? Go ahead and take your time to answer…I'll wait…
…still waiting…
...okay, got the answer? See if you were right. Does evolution deal with the
origin of life? No, it doesn't. By definition, evolutionary theory only deals
with life itself and not how it arose in the first place. Many people will point
and say that you often find mentions of life's origins in evolution literature
or say that Darwin mentioned his "primordial pond" in Origin. This is true. This
is often times mention of such things in the literature, however, if it is read
and understood one would see that it is not the person formulating a part of a
scientific theory but making speculations, there is a big difference. Darwin's
mention of such items is just that, speculation and he phrased his writing as
such.
You said "theory" isn't a speculation, I thought that's what it was?
Unfortunately, here we have another confusing of definitions in the word "theory". Most often people will hear the term "theory" used in the colloquial sense such as – "My theory is that he isn't going to lie about his grades.". This is simple conjecture, a speculation and conforms with one definition of the term "theory". However, as we saw with "evolution", there is a science specific definition of "theory" and it is by no means a speculation. Let's examine the colloquial definition for the word "theory":
"An assumption, conjecture."1
This is the definition as it would apply to the example I gave earlier. Now let's take a look at the science-specific definition of the word "theory":
"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, esp; one that has been repeatedly test or is widely accepted."1
The latter definition is very different from the former. By now you should see how equivocation can sneak back in when using this term. In his essay, "Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution", Mark Isaak touches upon this problem as well:
"Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is a "coherent group of general propositions used as priniciples of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can’t be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)"4
Another good essay which discusses evolution as fact and theory is Laurence Moran’s "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory"5
Knowing this you should also, by now, see the difference and it may make some things in the "evolution debate" seem a bit silly, like the stickers placed upon biology books:
You should also see how this simple item can be so absurdly misunderstood in creationist literature and some of their internet sites. For instance, take Kent Hovind's $250,000 challenge requirements in which he wanted proof of the universe's beginnings from the Big Bang.
" Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
formerly $10,000, offered since 1990
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any
empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer
demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a
religious belief. Observed phenomena:
Most thinking people will agree that--
1. A highly ordered universe exists.
2. At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing
variety of life forms.
3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.
Known options:
Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being--
1. The universe was created by God.
2. The universe always existed.
3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes
(known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.
Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of
causing the observed phenomena.
Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process
that:
1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine
planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic
evolution.)
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from
nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in
reproducing themselves.
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into
different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the
earth today (biological evolution).
People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While
beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the
students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at
taxpayers' expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious
worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or
common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy
in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the
First Amendment.
How to collect the $250,000:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3
above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed
phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is
acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their
evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A
committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered
and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation
and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.
If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I
suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against
the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:
1. The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the
possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
2. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally
different kind of animal.
3. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving
matter.
4. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.
My suggestion:
Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe
in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They
should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in
books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust
the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your
Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming
judgment on man's sin.
* NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor
variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am
referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major
events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed
to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or
mammals)."6
Can you see the problems with Hovind's request and the incorrect definitions he provides? However, if you look for Kent's challenge on his site now, it is mysteriously gone. However there are several places that address what his challenge was and the absurdity of it. 6,7
Now that we know the correct definitions of the terms being used when we talk about the scientific theory of evolution we can be on a solid foundation to explore other aspects of the theory and some creationist "objections" or "problems" that have been presented.
Before moving on, you should take some time and review some material on the basics of evolutionary theory. This will help you to keep up in other more technical discussions later on. Here are some easily accessible internet resources to view that will help.
References
1. Pickett, J. (Ed.) (2001). The American Heritage Dictionary.
New York: Dell
Publishing.
2. Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G., & Byers, B. (2002). Biology: Life on earth. (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
3. Alters, S. (2000). Biology: Understanding life. (3rd ed.). Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
4. Isaak, M. (2003). Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution. Talk.Origins website – http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html.
5. Moran, L. (1993). Evolution is a Fact and a Theory. Talk.Origins website - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html.
6. Pieret, J. (2002). Kent Hovind's $250,000 offer. Talk.Origins website - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html.
7. Stear, J. (2005). Kent Hovind's Challenge to Evolutionists. No Answers in Genesis website - http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_challenge.htm.
Return to the Top of this page
In this article by C. R. Overby (http://www.atheistcoalition.com/naturalselection.htm), he will examine the major driving force of evolution, natural selection. Utilizing several examples, he will attempt to make natural selection understandable and show how you have to think about it in order to comprehend how natural selection works.
In the last section we discussed the definition of evolution as it applies to
the biological theory of evolution as well as the use of the term "theory". Now
that we are all on the same page as to what exactly we're discussing, we can
move into some of the basics of evolution. In this next section we'll discuss
natural selection.
What is natural selection?
Natural selection is the process by which species evolve. Taking the raw material provided in a species by genetic variation, the population will interact with the environment. It is this interaction by which natural selection takes place. The ability for a species in its environment to produce viable offspring and perpetuate its genetics is a major point here. However, do keep in mind (this is a point where some confusion can set in) that natural selection works on individuals but only populations evolve. A single organism by itself cannot "evolve".
A good analogy of natural selection is given to us by Daniel Dennett:
"Cooks know that subtle changes in the texture of flour and sugar in different countries can have a profound effect on how their favorite recipes come out. They follow the recipe to the letter, reaching for the stuff that is called flour here, and get an unfamiliar cake. But if the new cake is a good cake, its recipe may be copied and followed by many cooks, creating a lineage of cakes quite distinct from their ancestors and from their contemporary kin in the home country (171)." 1
Dennett's cake story is but an analogy to help someone grasp the concept of natural selection. Audesirk et al. give a more formal definition of natural selection as:
"the unequal survival and reproduction of organisms due to environmental forces, resulting in the preservation of favorable adaptations (G-16)." 2
Also Hartl and Jones add a bit to this saying:
"Natural selection favors genotypes that are better able to survive and reproduce (521)."3
To help you get an even more solid grip on this concept, I'll give you a little story to visualize, so to speak. Let's say we have an island and on this island is a type of bird that feeds primarily on hard shelled nuts from a certain tree. This tree is plentiful and these birds have large, stout beaks to smash the nuts open. Thos with smaller beaks have a hard time finding food and may go malnourished and even die prematurely. After a long drought, these nut bearing trees all but die off. The food is less plentiful. However some of these birds have smaller beaks that they can use to route for small grubs in trees and logs. The larger beaked birds have a harder time getting to the grubs who have become the more plentiful food source. Because of their obvious disadvantage, the larger beaked birds have a hard time finding food and begin to die off prematurely. Those smaller beaked birds have no problem finding sustaining food and live to reproduce successfully. Over time (assuming that the environment doesn't have another significant change) the smaller beaked birds will become the majority of the population and their genetics will be perpetuated.
This story attempts to illustrate how natural selection might work on our little imaginary island. In fact, part of Darwin's observations and a large part of helping him formulate his theory was observing the different beaks of finches on the Galapagos Islands.
Another example of selection from the real world would be that of snail shells in the genus Cepaea. The shells show up with several different colors in one species and this has been a trait for over 10,000 years which is found in the fossil record. Curtis and Barnes tell the snail's tale:
"Studies among English colonies of Cepaea have revealed some of the selective forces at work on the snails, which occupy a variety of habitats. The snails are preyed upon by birds, among which are song thrushes. Song thrushes select snails from the colonies and take them to nearby rocks, where they break them open, eat the soft parts, and leave the shells.
In habitats, such as bogs, where the background is fairly
uniform, unbanded snails blend in and are less likely to be preyed upon than
banded ones. Conversely, in habitats, such as woodlands, where the backgrounds
are mottled, unbanded snails are more likely to be victims. (336)"4
The snail example also can show that, contrary to what some people espouse, there can be more than one selective pressure working on a trait of an organism:
"Experiments have shown, for instance, that unbanded snails (especially yellow ones) are more heat-resistant and cold-resistant than banded snails. In other words, several different selection pressures are at work, and they appear to maintain the genetic variations of color and banding. (336)"4
There are many other examples of natural selection, some more popular than others, such as the peppered moth story. However, we'll address this specific story later as it has come under attack by many a evolution opponent.
What we talked about in the story earlier is a very simple version of natural selection at work. And as Richard Morris states:
"Natural selection is not a theory of chance. It preserves favorable adaptations and weeds out unfavorable traits (144)"5
Many evolution opponents will claim that evolution cannot occur since it is a mindless, completely random process. As Mr. Morris said, it's not just random chance but there is some randomness involved. Natural selection is best viewed as a two step process as Mayer explains:
"Almost all of those who opposed natural selection failed to realize that it is a two-step process. Not realizing this, some opponents have called selection a process of chance and accident, while others have called it deterministic. The truth is that natural selection is both.
Step One: The Production of Variation
Mutation of the zygote from its origin (fertilization) to death; meiosis, with
recombination through crossing-over at the first division, and random movement
of homologous chromosomes during the second (reduction) division; any random
aspects of mate choice and fertilization.
Step Two: Nonrandom Aspects of Survival and Reproduction
Superior success of certain phenotypes throughout their life cycle (survival
selection); nonrandom mate choice, and all other factors that enhance the
reproductive success of certain phenotypes (sexual selection). At the second
step much random elimination occurs simultaneously. (119)"6
In relation to the process, Mayer also uses the eye (a structure claimed by evolution opponents that could not have evolved by "random chance") as an example of how natural selection is not a completely "random chance" process:
"The eye, for instance, is not chance product, as so often claimed by anti-Darwinians, but the result of the favored survival of those individuals, generation after generation, who had the most efficient structures for vision. (120)"6
Matt Ridley also adds that for natural selection to act, there must be certain
conditions that must be met:
"There has to be variation: that is, more than one kind of individual in the species. The varieties have to differ in how well they survive and reproduce. And the offspring have to resemble their parents: a virus that is drug-resistant has to produce drug-resistant offspring viruses. Any system that satisfies these three conditions will evolve by natural selection. The third requirement – inheritance – is particularly important. (7)"7
Aren't there different types of natural selection?
Yes, there are. The type of natural selection we talked about in the story is called directional selection. The main other types natural selection are – stablilizing, disruptive, frequency-dependent and sexual. Artificial selection is not included as it is obviously not natural selection.
Curtis and Barnes describe the different types of natural
selection:
"Stabilizing selection, a process that is always in operation in all
populations, is the elimination of individuals with extreme characteristics.
Many mutant forms are probably immediately weeded out in this way, often in the
zygote or embryo. (340)"4
A common example used to show stabilizing selection is the example of infant birth-weights. Those born too heavy or too light have a higher risk of not surviving. This mode of selection tends to favor the average, the middle ground in terms of traits of an organism.
Next is disruptive selection:
"A second type of selection, disruptive selection, increases the frequency of the extreme types in a population at the expense of intermediate forms. (340)"4
Audesirk et al. give us an example of disruptive selection:
"For example, individual black-bellied seedcrackers (small, seed-eating birds found in the forests of Africa) have beaks that come in one of two sizes. A bird may have a large beak or small beak, but very few birds have a medium-sized beak. The species' food source includes both hard seeds and soft seeds, and each bird seems to specialize in eating one type of seed. Cracking hard seeds requires a large, stout beak. However, a smaller, pointier beak is apparently a more efficient tool for processing soft seeds. Individuals with intermediate-sized beaks have a lower survival rate than do individuals with either large or small beaks. Disruptive selection in black-bellied seedcrackers thus favors birds with both large and small beaks, but not those with medium-sized beaks. (298)"2
Directional selection is the type of selection we saw in our bird story discussed previously. Selective pressures favored the smaller beak which was one type of extreme phenotype. The peppered moth story also shows directional selection when the black phenotype replaced the lighter phenotype in heavily polluted areas and then favoring the lighter phenotype again once industrial controls curtailed the soot accumulation.
Frequency-dependent selection:
"In some situations, however, a type of natural selection known as frequency-dependent selection acts to decrease the frequency of more common phenotypes and to increase the frequency of less common ones. Such selection is, for example, a factor in maintaining hooknose and jack males in coho salmon populations. As the frequency of either type increases, the competition between males of that type becomes more intense, allowing greater opportunities for successful reproduction by males of the other type. (342)"4
And finally we come to sexual selection:
"As Darwin recognized, many of the conspicuous characteristics of animals have little to do with survival on a day-to-day basis but are instead the result of sexual selection, the 'struggle between members of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex'.
The competition among males may be either direct – for territories, harems, or privileges of consort – or indirect, as with nest-building and displays. (344)"4
Through sexual selection we can see males who have spectacular plumages and colors, intricate mating displays and so forth.
With all these items working together in a complicated interplay with the environment, we get populations that evolve. But where does this variation come from? What is the raw material, so to speak, that provides natural selection something to select? That my friends we'll cover in the next section. We'll talk about mutations, mutagens, and adaptation.
Source - http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/2900_Modes_of_Selection.htm
References:
1) Dennett, D. (2003). Freedom Evolves. New York: Viking.
2) Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G., and Byers, B. (2002).
Biology: Life on Earth. (6th ed.).
Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
3) Hartl, D. and Jones, E. (2002). Essential Genetics: A
Genomics Perspective. (3rd ed.).
Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett.
4) Curtis, H. and Barnes, N. (1994). Invitation to Biology.
(5th ed.). New York: Worth
Publishers.
5) Morris, R. (2002). The Big Questions: Probing the
Promise and Limits of Science.
New York: Henry Holt.
6) Mayer, E. (2001). What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books.
7) Ridley, M. (2001). The Cooperative Gene: How
Mendel's Demon Explains the
Evolution of Complex Beings. New York: The Free Press.
Return to the Top of this page
