Friday, April 27, 2012

Theistic evolution...

Commentor Mulder has some good questions:

Egnor, where do you stand on the opinion of the catholic church that god has a hand in evolution? A so-called theistic evolution?


I have no disagreement with common descent (it is certainly possible, and some evidence supports it). I have no disagreement with descent with modification. Its obviously true-- like gives rise to like with some differences in offspring. I have no disagreement with variation in a breeding population. Obviously living things vary in heritable ways. I have no disagreement with natural selection. Survivors do survive.

I disagree with the fanatic assertion by Darwinists that this consititues a powerful scientific theory with explainatory power. It's not 'the best idea anyone ever had' or 'the foundation of biology' or 'that which makes sense of all biology' and it does not allow one to be 'an intellectually fulfilled atheist'. What crap.

Darwinism is a few banal observations cobbled together to serve an ideological end. In that it has been remarkably successful.

If you mean 'theistic evolution' to mean common descent and descent with modification and heritable variability and natural selection-- of course I accept that. It's obviously true (common descent is debatable).

If you mean 'theistic evolution' to mean a deistic God Who set everything running a few billion years ago then went off to play celestial golf, that's nonsense. Theological nonsense. God maintains all in existence moment by moment. He is the Ground of existence. Deism is just a stupid philosophical error.

The Catholic Church's take on evolution is eminently reasonable. Common descent and descent with modification and heritable variability and natural selection are fine. Undirected change is nonsense, and the human soul is created directly and immediately by God.

The most coherent understanding of biological evolution is still Aristotle's and Thomas' understanding: evolution is a manifestation of natural teleology.
I just cant see the reason in theists, when they make fun of scientists - people actually trying to find evidence logically for how life has become as it is on this planet.
I don't make fun of scientists. I make fun of ideologues (who are employed as scientists) who make stupid assertions. The questions about origin of life are very important. Population genetics is great science. Cladistics is fascinating. All are subdisciplines within biology. None are the foundation of biology and none disprove the existence of God.

Meanwhile, their 'banality', egnor, is the same banality that they've been spewing for a couple thousand years - a magical being snapped his fingers and poof! everything appeared as you see it. It really is ironic when believers in magic point to scientists and call THEM silly.
God's existence and agency are matters of philosophical dispute. The arguments are sublime and continue to engage the best minds. They are questions of fact, and have nothing to do with magic. The notion that life began by chance in a warm little pond is an assertion of fact as well.  The latter has a stronger claim on magic than the former.

Is Christianity banal? The assertion that the Second Person of the Trinity was born to a woman in Bethlehem 2000 years ago and died as expiation for our sins and rose from the dead is many things. It is not banal. It is either the most bizarre and consequential hoax in history or the most important thing that ever happened. Neither is banal.

'Things change and survivors survive" is banal.


12 comments:

  1. Theistic Evolution, eh?
    Does that mean cocktail of adaptation and variation of organisms... without the mickey of nihilism?
    Evolution with a function or purpose? Teleology?
    If so, it is an idea as old as the breeding of cattle and horses - at least. Of course the Churches and Christians in general take no issue with such ideas.

    The other, much older scientific observations and conjecture(s) are largely accepted and argued by all sides in the conversation.

    The nihilism is part of the Darwinian model the Faithful cannot and will not swallow, Mulder.

    The metaphysical and philosophical (monistic and nihilistic) extensions of Darwinian thought are not only poorly framed by people who are well out of their league, but the 'science' they base their claims on are actually banality redefined as grand discovery.
    It is not just bad medicine, it is snake oil sold as a cure all. Mind numbing booze disguised as elixir of life.

    Here is a question back at you, Mulder.
    Consider for a moment that the 'Theistic Evolution' model, as you understand it, is the correct model. Just for a moment accept that evolution has a purpose and actually does the all the things evolutionists claim. Accept by extension that these are agencies of a Divine being or God imprinting his will on the very form of life in this universe. That the information and 'blueprint' is one of careful design and planning.
    What does that say about the motive of the forces behind the promotion of a nihilistic and direction-less model?
    Of those who would claim it is good and well to redirect those potentials into new forms and goals or simply destroy them all together?
    If the driving force of the universe seeks a goal through order and choice, what is it that drives others to seek solace in chaos, meaningless, death, and the selfish pursuits of sensuality?
    Even from a naturalistic standpoint, many scientists condition their minds for specific specialized tasks. So why on Earth would the normal, healthy, sane stock breeds of humanity want to prune their minds to some artificial efficiency level at the sacrifice of their depth? Why on EARTH would they look for philosophical advice from these eunuchs for matter?

    So you see, the Nihilism is the key - not the science. Nobody is 'anti-science' on this side of the debate. We are anti-censorship. We are generally against a scientific priesthood or elite; and certainly against any such elite's disproportionate influence on social policy. One such elitist wrote in a paper/article I read today 'we need leadership that listens to science, not bends to pressure.'
    Really?
    In a democracy, we need leaders that bend to pressure (votes) not obey some divine abstraction known by the name 'science.'

    This is where we differ with Darwinian crowd:
    Commandment number 1.


    But we are for inquiry, purpose, and real progress. Better, safer way to provide food, water, energy and other essentials is great science. Medicine has much to offer. Computer sciences have been instrumental in most of these advances.

    But when you tie progress to randomness, when you attempt to turn purposeful miracles into 'emergent phenomena', when you want to turn Creation into an accident, when you want to turn the children of God into 'just human' or his creatures into 'just animals' - that is where your Darwinian mind-set meets the first real resistance.
    That ex-nihilo horizon is where you leave our reality and enter the twilight zone.
    The problem is not with the science - other than it is boring and obvious.
    The problem is with your philosophy of no-philosophy. It is both a logical and moral problem.
    Even a Deist can see that, I am sure.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you for your reply.
    Theistic evolution- i meant generally, but guided by the hand of god.

    "the notion that life began by chance in a warm little pond is an assertion of fact as well. The latter has a stronger claim on magic than the former. "

    Who said that? Darwin? That wasnt part of his theory and not in his Origins book. In a letter to a colleague, maybe..
    Evolution doesnt declare the origin of life. Of species and variation within, yes. And i agree with you that evolution is not undirected. But where we differ in opinion is what/who is controlling that direction. You say god, but what actually is directing it is a species' environment.

    And the christianity story IS banal because its been repeated and pushed ad nauseum. That, and the fact that there have been MANY religions with very similar stories.

    Rex:
    A nihilistic model? OK. YOU may have a problem with that, and every religious person might. But why is that so hard to fathom, that humans have evolved from a lower life form over millions of years, down to the genetic level mind you, strictly for the preservation of the species?

    Knowing that, and not believing that our 'purpose' is to serve an invisible creator being who cannot be seen, gives me more drive to create a true purpose: to make this short life all that i can make of it - self growth, provide a good home and to raise my kids as good, honest people. I just dont see anything wrong with that. And Rex, it is NOT a problem as you say, of my 'no-philosophy.' I'm a moral person and (somewhat) logical. To think that theres some wonderful paradise in the sky to go to after death is a logical problem.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Darwinism is a few banal observations cobbled together to serve an ideological end."

    So, the idea that we are not magically created, as was thought by hundreds of cultures over thousands of years is banal? The idea that we descended from earlier species through natural means is banal? Then the idea that the Earth formed by natural processes, and is just one of uncounted planets in the universe is banal, correct? The idea that the Earth orbits the Sun is banal? The idea that natural phenomena have natural causes is banal?

    You ask if the mythology of Christianity is banal? Of course it is. What is more banal than another among the thousands of magical creation stories from human history? Your myth is popular, that's all. Does Danielle Steel's popularity make her fiction less banal? Besides, popularity is heavily driven by advertising, and the Catholic Church has been one of the world's greatest marketing forces for centuries.

    A few basic concepts in evolution tell us more about ourselves than the combined output of every theologian and prophet in history. It is the final, truthful answer to the question "where did we come from?". Yes, I agree, it sucks to believe in a religious creation myth and suddenly be confronted with the truth of evolution. It also sucks to believe the Earth is the center of all the heavens and then be confronted with the image through a telescope. But that doesn't change the profound, humanity-altering nature of these grand discoveries.

    For an educated person to call evolutionary theory "banal" is just another example of shedding intellectual integrity to preserve personal ideology.

    Now THAT'S banal.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mulder,

    "But why is that so hard to fathom, that humans have evolved from a lower life form over millions of years, down to the genetic level mind you, strictly for the preservation of the species?"
    It is not hard to fathom. It is a very simple theory when stripped of the ideology. It is not an inability to understand the belief that leads me to disbelieve it; rather it is the precisely the opposite circumstance.
    There are two central reasons (and many peripheral) why Darwinian Evolution is an unacceptable belief system for a person like myself.
    The first is based in the field of philosophy. By this I mean the sheer lack of it. It is empty of explanation and does not address the interesting questions about existence and life. The problem here is the scientific pretence. the evolutionist view ia a belief system couched in the language of science and propped up by questionable (often forged) evidence. Consequently it does not have the rich philosophical traditions associated with most beliefs. Worse still, by donning the guise of science it must not seek those explanations and ideas.
    So the 'un-philosophy' is what grabs me first. I despise lazy and shallow approaches, and this seems one to me.
    Secondly there is the recursive nature of the logic involved.
    The Neo-Darwinian model is baseless and ungrounded. It's logic is circular and it's predictions utterly boring and obvious (ie the constant refs to banality).
    First the recursive nature. You quite aptly state that evolution predicts that the purpose of life is "strictly for the preservation of the species".
    In other words: 'The reason survivors survive, is because they survived - and THAT is WHY they survived!'
    Is that kind of logic supposed to be greeted with applause and praise? It sure seems to be.

    The logic problem is simple: You answer to the question 'why', is 'cuz it does.' It is a tautology. A 'stuff happens' approach. It is lazy, and tries to avoid the deeper and more interesting questions.
    I could not force myself to believe some monism that required me to deny the obviously immaterial influences in life, the mind (and all it's disciplines like mathematics, language, and art), purpose, function, causes (first and final), or even a real objective morality.



    "Knowing that[...]"
    Survivors survive is such a profound revelation. Knowing that is no big deal - all surviving (ie living) creatures know this.
    Believing, however, that survival is the explanation for existence is quite a break from the normal human experience. Most people would see survival as part of the means of achieving a long term purpose - not survival as the ends in itself. Most people see the latter view as myopic and shallow at best. I would go further and describe it as 'barbarism' or 'savage'. Perhaps even 'Pagan'?

    "[...], and not believing that our 'purpose' is to serve an invisible creator being who cannot be seen,[...]"
    Again you make leaps. Your model still does not presuppose there is NO creator or 'designer', nor make assertions about it's location in time or space. Niether again does it make any predictions about the opacity of such a creator being. As far as theology goes it has but a single use/purpose/function: To prohibit the Theistic model. That is what this tool was designed to do. Thankfully it is designed very poorly and for an impossible task.

    You make that personal leap from a 'walk away', deistic God or Pan Spermian designer on your own due the even more basic metaphysical belief that there is no such beings/forces at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CNTD


      "[...] gives me more drive to create a true purpose"
      Ah, now we begin to see the core of the belief. You are the architect of purpose. YOU decide and design your own meaning and purpose - it just happens to bear a striking resemblance to the traditions of your forefathers and cultural predecessors (see below).

      "[that is] to make this short life all that i can make of it - self growth, provide a good home and to raise my kids as good, honest people."
      A lifetime does not seem long enough once you have children, does it?
      But I admire your honesty and humility in desires. You just want your kids to be good and honest. I have no doubt they are. You just want to provide a home for your family. I've no doubt you do so.
      But for all that to be so, there must be such a thing as 'good'. An objective moral reality.
      That brings us full circle back to the futility, nihilism, and poor logic that makes the model so unworkable - so unrealistic.

      Evolution as a form or process of adaptation for survival and diversity in populations? Sure.
      Old news.
      Everyone knows it happens and have for a VERY long time indeed.
      Evolution as a pattern to model life after and as an explanation of life and it's origins?
      No way.
      Wrong tool. Wrong discipline.
      I would no more seek answers to such questions with a vague biological theory on physical adaptation than I would pattern it after theory music composition or a recipe for a specific stew.
      You need the correct tools for the job.
      You may want to consider this final rather polemic thought, Mulder.
      If New Atheist thinkers can actually be so oblivious to reality to suggest that a 19th century biological theory on species adaptation (that did not even account for genetics) can be somehow twisted and applied like a 'biblical code' or oracle of sorts in order to answer the most elusive and mysterious metaphysical questions of ALL time.... how can you take the work they build on those foundations seriously.

      " and not believing that our 'purpose' is to serve an invisible creator being who cannot be seen,"
      I am not sure who or what you think your arguing about - but that does not describe any ancient or modern monotheistic Divinity I am familiar with. Reads more like the Heroes and 'gods' of Greece or Rome. Perhaps the Pagan Britons or Norse?
      Sufficed to say: At least those colourful old beliefs had some richness and tradition. They at least had good thinkers trying to answer the questions, not silence the inquiry via fiats of tautology.
      "Shit Happens" was just an expression to them, not a way of life.

      Delete
  5. Crus: There are two central reasons (and many peripheral) why Darwinian Evolution is an unacceptable belief system for a person like myself.
    The first is based in the field of philosophy. By this I mean the sheer lack of it. It is empty of explanation and does not address the interesting questions about existence and life.


    This is utterly silly, crus. One does not reject a scientific theory because it does not tickle one's metaphysical fancy. Think of Newtonian theory of gravity. It only describes what gravity does, not where it comes from or why it exists. It is philosophically unsatisfying in that sense. If you reject Newton's theory of gravity on those grounds, well, good luck to you. Think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Crus: The Neo-Darwinian model is baseless and ungrounded.

    To declare this, one has to be, at a minimum, familiar with what the "Neo-Darwinian model" is. You aren't in a position to judge. You don't know enough. Take a course on evolution and genetics (that's what's known as modern synthesis, the Neo-Darwinian framework), then come back and argue something cogent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oleg,
      "This is utterly silly, crus. One does not reject a scientific theory because it does not tickle one's metaphysical fancy. "
      That is not what I stated. My 'metaphysical fancy' is not tickled by a lot of valid theory.

      "Think of Newtonian theory of gravity. "
      Sure. But there is no comparison that can be sanely drawn between Newton and Darwin...or their work. Gravity may be demonstrated in the here and now. Experiments may confirm or deny qualities of that value. Evolution has only conjecture, fossils, and Barney the purple dinosaur.

      "It is philosophically unsatisfying in that sense."
      NO WAY! Netwon's stuff opens all sorts of philosophical doors that actually LEAD somewhere. Newton's works are replete with philosophical (and theological) underpinnings. He could not answer the 'why', but he sure as heck ASKED.

      "If you reject Newton's theory of gravity on those grounds, well, good luck to you."
      I do not reject Newton, why would I?

      "Think about it."
      Good advice. Take some of your own.

      "To declare this, one has to be, at a minimum, familiar with what the "Neo-Darwinian model" is."
      Ignorance is not my defence. I know what the 'theory' exhorts. I am not simply ignorant of nihilism and it's vehicles - I am OPPOSED to it and them. If theories of adaptation (like modern evolutionary theory) are to be used as tools for such philosophy, then I will expose them for what they are.
      Simple.

      "You aren't in a position to judge. You don't know enough. Take a course on evolution and genetics (that's what's known as modern synthesis, the Neo-Darwinian framework),"
      I have taken several courses on biology, genetics, and evolution theory - I had to. I actually did quite well in most of them.
      I have also read books, watched programs, attended lectures... who hasn't in this day and age? There is no escape from that belief system in today's academic climate. It is FAR too trendy.

      Love this part:
      " then come back and argue something cogent."

      I have a better idea!
      How about YOU shut up?

      Such a non-response speaks volumes to my point. Thanks for the concession, Oleg.

      Delete
  7. "Darwinian Evolution is an unacceptable belief system"

    But it is the truth. Evolution happens. You are the product of evolution from earlier forms.

    This "banal" idea of evolution through descent with modification tailored by natural selection is a fact-based, definitive replacement of every religious creation myth in history. I'm really sorry that Adam and Eve were only fairy tales, as were a thousand other creation myths. I'm sorry that original sin and all sorts of other foundations on which your particular belief system rests are nothing more than imagination. But that doesn't change the fact of evolution. And it certainly doesn't mean the concept of evolution is "banal".

    Darwinian Evolution (updated with knowledge of genetics, symbiosis, etc.) is a fact. It's the truth. You can hate it, you can love it - who cares? But to deny it is no different than to deny atomic theory.

    At some point you have to decide which is more important to you: preserving your ideology, or telling the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But it is the truth."
      Truth! Such certainty. Such OBJECTIVITY!
      Such BELIEF! Such FAITH!

      "Evolution happens"
      Do you mean creatures adapt? Okay. Sure. Old news. Much older than Chuck, Hux, and the Eugenics squad. Hey, know what? Precipitation happens too.
      Shit happens.

      "You are the product of evolution from earlier forms."
      No I am the product of a sexual union between my parents, actually.

      "This "banal" idea of evolution through descent with modification tailored by natural selection is a fact-based, definitive replacement of every religious creation myth in history. "
      So it IS a belief system. It IS a replacement ideology. It IS a RELIGION? It DOES have a nihilistic power grabbing agenda!!??
      WOW! What a concession RickK!
      THANKS XD

      Delete
    2. CNTD
      "I'm really sorry that Adam and Eve were only fairy tales, as were a thousand other creation myths."
      You are BETTING it is not true.
      You have no way of proving that any of these myths are unfounded. NONE. ZERO. ZIP.
      There is no means to do so. All you have is your hope and faith in a 19th century society for racial bigots.
      **BTW the word you're looking for is LEGEND. Myths generally are based on some grain of 'truth' (there's that word again!).

      "[I'm sorry]That original sin and all sorts of other foundations on which your particular belief system rests are nothing more than imagination."
      Again, no you're not sorry about anything. That's the WHOLE problem, isn't it? Being sorry is VERY difficult for your set.
      Remember your line about 'truth'?

      "Darwinian Evolution (updated with knowledge of genetics, symbiosis, etc.) is a fact"
      Eh? Darwin's LAW of evolutionary biology (universal or just earth?)??

      " It's the truth. "
      Again, you may want to look up some definitions. Truth is not the same as 'fact'. Funnily enough neither works here.
      Darwinian Theory is THEORY - not a single fact. Also you may want to consider that symbiosis and genetics are not 'upgrades', they are more akin to a computer virus. They are destroying your pet theory incrementally.

      "You can hate it, you can love it - who cares?"
      Well if I love or hate, I obviously care.
      What a silly question...even for a rhetorical one.

      "But to deny it is no different than to deny atomic theory."
      Yes it IS different. Evolution and Atomic theory are not the same thing - and so denying one is NOT the same as denying the other, or Science in general.

      Calling a bad theory out, on ANY grounds from common sense to opposing results, is NOT the same as denying science: It IS Science.
      Such hissing claims that denying Darwin is the same as denying ALL other theories within science - or even the observable laws of nature (see above re Newton) - are literally hysteric in nature.
      They are akin to bigotry and are meant to silence opposition. Again we see the religio-political purpose of neo-Darwinism and the dialectic nature or the argument they posit.
      In short, they won't work on me RickK.
      I am not easily insulted, intimidated, or silenced.

      "At some point you have to decide which is more important to you: preserving your ideology, or telling the truth."
      My ideology? What is that then? Militarism? Libertarianism? Loyalism? Or do you mean my FAITH?
      Either way, I see no conflict there. You must, thought. Your ideology is one that denies the existence of objective truth. You are a nihilist, no? Your atheism requires that belief, just as my Christianity requires a theistic belief.

      So... we can take the observable, provable, logical defence of a belief from a believer in an ancient and working tradition; or we can take the argument of a limited and utterly subjective collection of scientific evidences as metaphysical 'truth' from those who do not even believe that truth really exists.
      Who is really telling the 'truth'? Who is really an ideological trojan horse?
      I will leave that riddle to the readers.

      Delete