In Wiker’s book, Moral Darwinism, he explains the rising materialism in modern society that gives fuel to the pro- evolutionary argument. He traces the secularized Darwinian world view back to Epicurus, who taught a secularized, pleasure driven philosophy. Epicurus sought private tranquility and thus his philosophy required that there be no disturbance of his freedom to lead the “good life” ( p.10, MD ). In other words Epicurus saw any source of anxiety or displeasure as something that needed to be eliminated. Epicurus saw a God that intervened with creation and the disturbance of the afterlife, or at least the moral accountability that an afterlife would imply, as “incompatible with his pleasure driven world view” ( p.10, Moral Darwinism ) Wiker submits that Darwinism is the “flower” of Epicurean philosophy (p.19, Moral Darwinism ) He also demonstrates that present day Darwinists pass off the valid scientific evidence of the intelligent design argument as non-scientific theology because they themselves have set up a sort of “anti theology”, based on Darwinism and ultimately Epicureanism. A cosmology that has surrendered a secularized world view (p.12, Moral Darwinism)Epicurus sought through his philosophy to be “freed of disturbance” or trouble (from the Greek word ataraxia) and to have a “secure conviction” (Greek , pistis bebaios) . He proposed the best way to do this was by attain a certain state of mind, by studying nature, that would keep him undisturbed (p.32, MD) Epicurus saw two main sources of disturbance. The first being the heavenly, cosmological events in the skies. These events implied either the pleasure or displeasure of the gods. Anxiety would thus build as one would strive constantly to please the gods. The second source of disturbance was being concerned and dreading the punishment they would face in the afterlife. As Wiker points out, Epicurus believed that “science, understood in a particular way, can cure us of such dread, and can thereby bring us this-worldly contentment. Such, for Epicurus, was the whole point of natural science, for ‘if our suspicions about heavenly phenomena and about death did not trouble us at all and were never anything to us....... then we would have no need of natural science” (p.33, MD)
In order for Epicurus remain true to his own philosophy he needed a view of nature that fit his boundaries. For this he looks at the view of nature held by Democritus. Epicurus held to the view that the universe itself is eternal because he grasped to the notion that nothing could come from nothing, but instead of going further, like St. Thomas did later, and admitting to our contingency and the necessity of a necessary being (our intelligent designer) he stops short and remains adamant that because nothing can come from nothing that the universe must have always been. (p.35, MD)
Moral Darwinism goes on to detail Roman poet Lucretius and his poem De Rerum Natura (On the nature of things) and the enormous effect that this advocate of Epicurean thought has had on modern thought. It also discuss the rise of Christianity and the ongoing battle between Christianity and Epicureanism. Then Wiker immerses in the book’s most intriguing chapter about the historical track of Epicurean writings and thought. Wiker proposes that if the Epicurean and Lucretian writings were destroyed that modern secularized thought would not exist.
The law of Epicurus has its grips on almost every part of society. From The very Supreme Court of the American government supporting and finding constitutionality in things such as abortion, contraception, and sodomy to the ranks of reputable scientists convinced of creation by chance and closed off to a theory, who’s end may be in the Divine, but whose means is undoubtedly scientific. Mr, Staver’s viewpoint is no doubt tainted with traces of the materialistic mindset. If Mr. Staver intends to write in support of evolution, he ought to research ID theory a little more, consider it with a little more objectivity and then meet ID supporters on the level they deserved to met on, a Scientific one.
Most students of ID, like myself, would cringe away at going further with the argument presented above in fear of being simply passed off as theologians, or being ‘religious’. A secular scholar would not see the intrinsic unity between these scientific studies and the natural theological truths they bring. It is therefore more prudent to not make the theological conclusions when discussing ID, primarily because it CAN be discussed on strictly scientific terms. The fact is though, that marks in creation do indeed point to something beyond. In the next installment of this series I would like to take a step further with the ID argument, and even discuss some of the points of ID where ID folk disagree. I will point out some of the strong ID arguments that have come about as of late, and also point out where I sense that some ID writers have missed the mark by a little.
No comments:
Post a Comment