Because they probably don’t.
When I said a microcosm, I meant it. You must be referring to areas of the USA. In most of Europe, the Darwinian theory of evolution is widely accepted.
I would have think that the scientific theory of evolution would survive largely unaffected without the state with scientists being at the helm in their respective insitutions. Academica tends to consume their own work. The general public usually don’t and will generally ignore those scientists.
Evolution is one of the fundamental tenent of biology. To destroy that tenent is to destroy several field of inquiry, many which may advances technology or have practical application.
Hayek had a great quote from Why I Am Not a Conservative:
I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it - or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories.
But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called ‘mechanistic’ explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position.
I sincerely hope not since ID is not a scientific theory - in that it makes no testable claims about the world. That being the case, though, I find the reasoning behind your statement intriguing and it ties nicely in to my question in the above. How, for instance, do I as a free individual obtain the means to maintain my health and the health of those near to me in a society where the very cornerstone of modern biology is somehow frowned upon in favor of religious boo-haa? I would simply have to move, or influence my fellow citizens to once again embrace reality. And how do I go about doing this other than embracing whatever communal systems there would be to try to transfer funds (my own and theirs) into reality-based research instead of ill-supported fairy tales? Is this a challenge to the ideals of libertarianism? (just to stay on track - the whole ID/evolution-debate is covered at great lengths everywhere else on the web)
If abandoning Darwinism causes endless destruction and ruin, I think people will be demanding to have it back. Otherwise, good riddance.
No, it is not a “challenge” to the ideals of libertarianism; it is libertarianism. If people do not approve of X, they do not have to support X. Those who do support X will not have subsidized institutions to advance X, so X will have to compete for support on a level playing field. That’s libertarianism.
What is a “challenge” to libertarianism is when libertarians are so quick to doubt the free market if it does not do what they want it to do.
You realize that “Darwinism” is a strawman, do you not? The only thing left of Darwin’s is natural selection.
To misquote Rothbard: "“It is no crime to be ignorant of evolutionary biology, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be difficult to grasp’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on evolution while remaining in this state of ignorance.”
And you are in that state of ignorance. Please educate yourself.
The whole debate is based on a false premise: the idea that ID and evolution theory are mutually exclusive.
In fact, ID doesn’t refute evolution theory and ET doesn’t refute ID.
We have all been taught that since the state runs our schools and whoever controls the state will control education then we must only allow the one “true” idea to be taught.
Without the state, schools could teach that indeed, things do evolve over time, while this doesn’t nullify the potential of an intelligent creator.
I have no problem with private schools teaching whatever they want. However, if the kids are to have a firm grasp of reality, then they should be taught the facts, and not some myth. It would be no different from wanting kids taught that 2 + 2 = 5. Sure, they can do it, but they’ll be screwed up in math until they learn the truth.
It would be more accurate to teach the kids that 2 + 2 = 4 and that there may be an intelligent creator…
No, since there’s no evidence for the latter. Why not teach them that there may be elves and pixies as well?
There are elves and pixies… In HELL!!!
Just kidding.
I guess I just wanted to point out that this is an unnecessary disagreement.
I believe deeply in creation and I also study evolutionary biology. If you leave out the whole bit about apes turning into people there are no core conflicts between the two viewpoints. In fact, that evolution works so beautifully highly implies (to some) intelligent design.
But we could both agree to respect each others wishes as to how we educate our own children correct?
So what if they believe in intelligent design?
Yes, let’s leave that strawman out, if you’re meaning that apes directly turned into people.
Of course. I’m simply commenting on how the children will deal with reality when they’ve been taught a fantasy.
Interesting. That gave me an insight.
I have a good buddy that is a total statist. We argue constantly (over beers). Neither one of us can understand why the other just won’t accept REALITY. And we both secretly wonder why the other believes in their FANTASY…
At first I enjoyed your likening evolutionists to libertarians, but then you gave us this last paragraph, in which you admit that a free society must be created. Doesn’t this contradict your analogy?
I would argue that “we” don’t “create” anything arbitrarily. I think freedom is the emergent behavior in the absence of group coercion.
Which begs the question, if we don’t see liberty, then there must always be some form of group coercion. What makes this scenario predominant throughout history?
Yes, and I would like to add that the appalachians will keep copulating with their livestock in a free society.
Well, I’m afraid you won’t get much love here, friend. The atheists on these boards are quite deeply religious and take great offense at anyone expressing doubt at their faith in the lack of god(s) and the sufficiency of chance and necessity. Of course, naturalistic evolution is utterly preposterous, and of course the “spontaneous” order of markets can only exist because its subunits are conscious, rational beings, but you will never get through to them. They fancy themselves intellectuals, see, and such intellectuals think it’s kewl to not only discard anything that might reek of “primitive” superstition, but also be complete assholes about it.
Order can come from the top down or from the bottom up, but its source is always one or more intelligences. At least, in every case where we have perceived the ultimate origin of a novel and meaningful order, that is so. Also, expect them to talk to you like you’re a Christian even if you’re not, because most of their pathetic arguments are based on weaknesses in Christianity, not theism itself. This is particularly in regards to insisting that ID is basically identical to biblical “creationism”. Also expect them to ask patently ridiculous questions like “who designed the designer” because they can’t accept that we have only observed that orders with origins and what is more, physical orders, actually need a designer. We are unable to observe the creation of a mind/soul, therefore we don’t know how it works.
Their reasoning is such that if they were right, they could never be sure, because their thought would be adapted to maximizing survival, not solving metaphysical dilemmas.
The best is when a keynesian tries to shut down a debate with “we use the scientific method”, this is just pure demagogery it actually makes them look like complete idiots to think that economics is a natural science (of course macroeconomics isn’t a natural science)
Such a strawman is so laughable that I wonder if you’re not a Keynesian wannabe in disguise.
Since you’re deeply offended by our not believing your myth, you can leave. Never come back. In fact, never leave your house. Never watch TV. Never do anything where you might have the possibility of someone not agreeing with you in any manner. You’re just too sensitive for such things. And I’m such a humanitarian that I want to help you not be offended, especially since your pouting indicates that you believe you have the right to not be offended.
If you don’t want to do that, I suggest you grow up.