Communism, Darwinism, and the Catholic church

'Mexicans, religious or not, have no problem with Darwinism, and cannot understand their American neighbors who get so uptight about it. That’s the gist of an article by Antonio Lazcano, a Mexican biology professor and origin-of-life researcher, who was given lengthy press in Science this week (11/04/2005) under the heading “Global Voices of Science.”

Quotes and comments;

1. "I am always amused when I am asked by my American colleagues about the problems and pressures they imagine I face in Mexico because of my interest in life’s beginnings. However, pressure to include creationism in public pedagogical and research settings has been primarily a phenomenon in the United States. Only twice during my 30 years of teaching about evolutionary biology and research into the origins of life, have I encountered religious-based opposition to my work. In both cases, it came from evangelical zealots from the United States preaching in Mexico. One of the little recognized U.S. imports into Mexico is a small flow of creationists, who, through religion, are trying to impose their fundamentalist beliefs and hinder the teaching of Darwinian evolution in all levels of schooling. ''

- when someone writes 'I'm always amused by x' you can be confident he's flying the bull flag. Lazcano is clearly Not amused.
- I'm always amused (well, not always) by how people around the world seem intent of putting the adjective 'Darwinian' in front of evolution. Why are they so intent to give this rather odious man credit for an idea that already existed a couple millennia before he was born. Charles Darwin in no way invented evolution. He was basically a popularizer, a man who freely plagiarized other thinkers. Darwin had many precursors in France and other countries. And the biggest irony is that the evolutionary theory taught in our day has almost nothing to do with the ideas delineated in the 'Origins of species, and the survival of favored races' published in 1859. The 'theory' has been totally overhauled since then. (Why? It clearly didn't work.) So why does Lazcano call it 'Darwinian' evolution? (Why give this imperialist gringo credit :=)

2. "Our understanding of the origin and early stages of biological evolution still has major unsolved problems, but they are recognized by the scientific community as intellectual challenges, and not as requiring metaphysical explanations, as proponents of creationism would have it.'' - Antonio Lazcano

- materialism of course IS a metaphysical explanation. (Doesn't he know this?)
- the snide pretense here is that if you're a creationist there are no intellectual challenges. Again I have to ask how anyone can believe this. (The only explanation would appear to be profound ignorance. I consider myself a creationist and see intellectual challenges everywhere. I really don't understand such a statement.) Naturalism or materialism, are world view (wview) positions taken on faith; adopting one or the other doesn't do away with challenges. One could easily make the case that the challenges (at least in a largely secular society like ours) are greater for the creationist; at least in some respects. (The RATE project undertaken by ICR is just one example of creationists engaged in trying to solve an intellectual challenge.)
- one reason Darwinism reigns in Mexico is that Mexico was one of the first communist countries... one of the first to have a communist (i.e. atheistic, materialist) education system; a system which remains virtually unchanged as far as I know. (I'm no expert.) Children are taught from day one that materialism is the correct metaphysical position to take, and that evolution is a fact.

- despite Lazcano's attempts at bluffing, materialists have no way of explaining how the living organisms on this planet 'emerged.' One wonders how he can then possibly know that it's true. The truth is that there is no possible way the intelligent codes of life could have just happened by some kind of chemical Accidentalism.

- we see here a clash of world views. This is what makes 'progress' seemingly impossible in the c/e debate. If your basic presupposition in life is materialism, you will necessarily become an evolutionist; you have no other choice. If you start with theism, you will necessarily become a creationist; you have no choice. And at the risk of annoying people by repeating ourselves; neither materialism, nor theism can be proved. People should be free to make their own choices in this; to follow the dictates of their conscience. These things aren't properly a matter for government edicts and legislation. To legislate E. is to legislate materialism and atheism.

- what we see here is the sad influence of the Catholic church in Latin America; right down the line they've denied biblical revelation and given the people humanism instead. (One thinks of the idiocy of Liberation theology.) The clergy (at least at the top) push Darwinism, and speak as if no criticism of it is even imaginable. Why? Because this fits into the humanist theology they push. (See the views of George Coyne below.)

- when Lazcano insists a materialist explanantion for life is possible, he's really saying nothing is impossible. He has a faith that an answer will be found. Why? because this is what he wants. I see no way he can know this. The idea he can know nothing is impossible is absurd. We know that many things are impossible. We know that it's impossible for animal breeders to turn a dog into a cat. It's not 'religious' or mystical to say so. We know that when we wake up tomorrow the 2nd law won't have vanished or reversed itself; that would be impossible. It's impossible that we can give an explanation in physics for why one person favors creation and one evolution. (Materialism demands a materialist explanation for all thngs and this is clearly impossible.) There are many things that are impossible; and it's possible to know what they are. I contend that a materialist explanation for the origins of the living 'things' on earth is one of these things.

- it seems to me that if you believe in the 'laws of physics' you must believe that some things are impossible; that the two go hand in hand. The idea the incredibly complex codes of life just happened by accident isn't scientific but anti-scientific. This 'idea' (hope) violates all we know about biology; e.g. that life doesn't come from non-life. Someone who affirms a belief in the ultimacy of 'physical' law cannot at the same time claim nothing is impossible. Laws make some things possible, and other things impossible.

Notes;
1. The RATE project looked into radiometric dating methods; looking for ways they might be mistaken; explained in other ways.
1. A good article along these lines is Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure
By Granville Sewell
3. to say nothing is impossible... that we can find m. answers to all problems given time... is like saying 'yes a perpetual motion machine seems impossible, but that's only a religous superstition... given time we will build one.''
4. Lazcano comes to the u.s. to villify c's, but doesn't want any c's to be allowed into mexico. Sounds fair right? (I wonder why millions cross the border despite the collectivist utopia of mexico.)
5. Lazcano calls creationists zealots. Now I don't want to call him a zealot, but he is very enthusiastic and committed to a cause :=) If Materialism were a true view of the universe he'd have to explain, in terms of physical law, why people only refer to their opponents as zealots, and don't apply it to people on their own side :=)
6. George Coyne;
“Intelligent design isn’t science even though it pretends to be.... If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.” ' Coyne continued arguing that the faithful should abandon the concept of a dictator God or designer God creating a Newtonian “clockwork universe” and instead embrace the concept of God as “encouraging parent” using evolution to achieve his ends – allowing, participating and loving, but not intervening.' (from C/E headlines)
7. 'A photo in the article shows an elementary school in a small Mexican town, where “children celebrate Darwin’s birthday (12 February) with a ceremony and display of murals on his life and theory.”
- well this is clearly a joke. It's school teachers who 'celebrate' Darwin. This smacks of little children being made to sing hymns of praise to Chairman Mao. (I'm sure this 'celebration' must be deeply moving.) It's obvious that children can't understand even the obsolete evolutionary ideas of darwin... let alone the current puddle of obfuscation.