Herein follows my reaction to John Conlin’s “About” page for his E. I. C. Enterprises educational initiative:
I found it after reading his excellent article about why capitalism works so well at American Thinker;
Good morning John,
Thank you for your writing (found at American Thinker) comparing the success of capitalism and free markets with the science of “swarm intelligence”.
It fits nicely with what the great Austrian economists (von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and others) have done with their parsing very finely the economic science, to the degree it can be called a science, that underlies human society. Their analysis shows the same thing, that a truly free market is the only way to optimize “economic benefit” in terms of each individual’s perception of same.
I followed the link to your E. I. C. Enterprises, and listened to your short video. I agree whole-heartedly with your explanations on the video and almost all your text.
Facts are what matter. Beliefs are something else, it is true. And the saying is recently oft-repeated, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to your own facts.
This leads me to this paragraph from the page:
What is the fundamental basis for this fact-based paradigm? The simple fact that we evolved on this planet; nothing more and nothing less. And please, this fact says nothing about the existence of God.
Your disclaimer yells louder than your claim that “we evolved on this planet” is a fact. It recognizes that people with a bunch of PhD’s behind their names in the hard sciences have the same facts as any Dawkin or Hawking but have the beliefs based on well-argued logic that Darwinism and neo-Darwinism (aka “evolution”, aka “macro evolution”, aka “molecules to man”) are falsified by the facts.
The sentence is introduced by a pejorative, preemptive phrase used in contexts like this to shut down objections. It expresses a frustration with the undeniable fact that there are academically, secularly, super-credentialed physicists, cosmologists, biologists, biochemists, chemists, biomimetics researchers, and mathematicians that emphatically state these beliefs based on the same facts that are available to everybody on this whole planet.
To explain further, there is also a difference (not meaning contradiction) the rejection of the idea of darwinian evolution as a “fact” or “factual”, versus advocacy for any particular explanation for “how we got here”, or for the reality of the world around us.
What’s more, among those who study the issue and have a belief, there is a clear difference between the “intelligent design” viewpoint and approach to research, and the “creationist” viewpoint and approach. The former includes the latter in its description.
Intelligent design theory studies the phenomena in the facts uncovered by hard science, there emerges a pattern that points to intelligent design in those phenomena. DNA, the anthropic principle, irreducible complexity, are examples. Some of the analyses and theories are used for Creation science studies, but they are not the same.
Creation science studies “the Creation” from the perspective of a Creation event, or with some researchers, creation events. Most of the studies you can find in this genre find evidence that shows a relationship between what we find in the fact-based scientific studies, with the Genesis narrative. There are a few Muslim scholars that fall into this category and others.
As a matter of fact, there are even some New Age-acolytes I have known that agree with a creation-type event (or events, some of them), who are of a belief in a self-aware and self-creating universe with intelligent life being in some way an intentional effect. But most of these devolve into the same kind of speculative fiction, such as the atheist cosmologists’ multi-verse conjecture to escape from the implications of the facts.