Evolution vs. Evolution

[slave2six]

I have been reading "Darwin on Trial," a book in which the author makes a case against naturalistic Darwinian evolution in favor of "Creationism" by which he means that evolution was the means by which an intelligent designer created the universe. He does not advocate a "Young Earth" doctrine which is held by some fundamentalist groups.

He implies that the Creator is not involved in every day affairs but shows up periodically to introduce a jump forward in the evolutionary process.

Does it make any difference to your particular belief system whether Darwinian evolution or "Creationism" in this context is more accurate? If so, why?

 

[Smoke]

I have beliefs, but not really a system.

But anyway -- yes, it matters. When you accept "It's a miracle!" as the explanation for any process, you close the door to greater understanding of that process.

 

[slave2six]

I have beliefs, but not really a system.

But anyway -- yes, it matters. When you accept "It's a miracle!" as the explanation for any process, you close the door to greater understanding of that process.

But wouldn't recognizing the hand of an intelligence that is at work in the process be, in fact, an understanding of the process?

 

[Dunemeister]

I, for one, think that if evolution is true, it's a miracle. How anyone can believe in something coming out of nothing by nothing is beyond me. It also seems to me that the transition from nonlife to life is simply impossible, but more importantly, deriving teleology (purposiveness) from something ultimately nonpurposive (ateleological) is incredible. These problems are not just puzzles that science has to "clean up". These are problems that science, by its very nature, cannot even address.

 

[Nepenthe]

I, for one, think that if evolution is true, it's a miracle. How anyone can believe in something coming out of nothing by nothing is beyond me. It also seems to me that the transition from nonlife to life is simply impossible, but more importantly, deriving teleology (purposiveness) from something ultimately nonpurposive (ateleological) is incredible.

Good thing evolution has nothing to do with anything in your post then.

 

[Dunemeister]

Good thing evolution has nothing to do with anything in your post then.

Only insofar as evolution, taken as broadly as possible, attempts to explain how life (that is, things that exhibit purposive behavior) arose from nonlife (purposeless matter). There's a deep philosophical problem trying to explain the existence of such purposiveness by appeal to something without purpose.

As for explaining the existence of the whole process of evolution, yes you're right. Evolution can't explain itself. (That's actually part of the point.)

 

[Nepenthe]

Only insofar as evolution, taken as broadly as possible, attempts to explain how life (that is, things that exhibit purposive behavior) arose from nonlife (purposeless matter). There's a deep philosophical problem trying to explain the existence of such purposiveness by appeal to something without purpose.

As for explaining the existence of the whole process of evolution, yes you're right. Evolution can't explain itself. (That's actually part of the point.)

This has been said so many times and any introductory biology text or class would cover it, but I'll say it again: evolution is the change of alleles over time; evolution deals with living organisms, the science of the origin of life is abiogenesis, a different subject. As for your definition of life as "things that exhibit purposive behavior", well, that's a new one on me. I can't find that definition in any of my textbooks, or remember that during any of my college years in general.

Where did I mention evolution not being able to "explain itself"- or more importantly, what does that even mean?

 

[Sunstone]

Does it make any difference to your particular belief system whether Darwinian evolution or "Creationism" in this context is more accurate? If so, why?

Putting aside the notion that people's beliefs are typically organized into systems, creationism does not seem to be a scientific idea because how would one falsify the belief that deity periodically intervenes in evolution?

 

[Dunemeister]

This has been said so many times and any introductory biology text or class would cover it, but I'll say it again: evolution is the change of alleles over time; evolution deals with living organisms, the science of the origin of life is abiogenesis, a different subject. As for your definition of life as "things that exhibit purposive behavior", well, that's a new one on me. I can't find that definition in any of my textbooks, or remember that during any of my college years in general.

Where did I mention evolution not being able to "explain itself"- or more importantly, what does that even mean?

All right, my bad. I conflated evoluton with abiogenesis. I make no claims to being an expert on science. Nevertheless, abiogenesis often makes an appearance in discussions about evolution, so I thought mentioning it would be unobjectionable. If it is, sorry.

Life may or may not be defined as "things that exhibit purposive behavior", but the fact is that they do. Birds fly south for the winter. It's natural to ask "for what purpose do they do this"? And it makes perfect sense to answer "in order to <fill in purpose here>." I'm not a biologist, but I'm fairly certain that such language would find its way into many a science text. Biological organisms display and follow teleology. Evolutionary theory tries to explain that in terms of something nonteleological. That, I think, is a fundamental error. Purposeless mechanisms cannot give rise to purpose. Please note that this is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. But if the philosophical claim is true, one must admit that life has a purposive source, ultimately.

Finally, you yourself did not mention evolution explaining itself. That comment was part of my conflation of evolution and abiogenesis. So once again, if that conflation is always objectionable, let it pass.

 

[Sunstone]

...abiogenesis often makes an appearance in discussions about evolution...

The folks who are usually responsible for introducing abiogenesis into discussions of evolution are creationists -- not biologists.

Life may or may not be defined as "things that exhibit purposive behavior", but the fact is that they do. Birds fly south for the winter. It's natural to ask "for what purpose do they do this"? And it makes perfect sense to answer "in order to <fill in purpose here>." I'm not a biologist, but I'm fairly certain that such language would find its way into many a science text. Biological organisms display and follow teleology. Evolutionary theory tries to explain that in terms of something nonteleological. That, I think, is a fundamental error. Purposeless mechanisms cannot give rise to purpose. Please note that this is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. But if the philosophical claim is true, one must admit that life has a purposive source, ultimately.

You would need to be a mind reader to honestly know whether birds had a sense of purpose in flying south for the winter. I very much doubt that you are a mind reader.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I have beliefs, but not really a system.

But anyway -- yes, it matters. When you accept "It's a miracle!" as the explanation for any process, you close the door to greater understanding of that process.

Are you saying that once the miracle is accepted they would stop investigating the process?

-Q

 

[Storm]

I, for one, think that if evolution is true, it's a miracle. How anyone can believe in something coming out of nothing by nothing is beyond me. It also seems to me that the transition from nonlife to life is simply impossible, but more importantly, deriving teleology (purposiveness) from something ultimately nonpurposive (ateleological) is incredible. These problems are not just puzzles that science has to "clean up". These are problems that science, by its very nature, cannot even address.

Indeed. "Miracles happen within the rules." (from Joan Of Arcadia)

 

[Dunemeister]

The folks who are usually responsible for introducing abiogenesis into discussions of evolution are creationists -- not biologists.

Or apologists for evolutionary theory. You're right that professional biologists might not do so. In any case, my point is that scientists of some stripe will generally try to explain the emergence of life (teleology) from non-life (ateleological matter).

You would need to be a mind reader to honestly know whether birds had a sense of purpose in flying south for the winter. I very much doubt that you are a mind reader.

Not at all. Do the following questions make sense from a scientific (specifically, biological) point of view?

What is the purpose of the heart?
Is the nervous system of this rat functioning properly?
What advantage does the swarming behavior of locusts confer upon them?
What purpose does flying south for the winter serve?
Why did Jeffrey Dahmer kill and eat those people?
​

I should think they do. And the next to last one, the subject of my previous post, need not appeal to what is in the mind of the bird. The birds themselves presumably haven't deliberated and come up with a plan. Rather, flying south behavior has a purpose (telos) for them. The last question, asking about specifically human behavior, appeals to the telos of a particular person. Its answer will involve the thoughts and intentions of Dahmer but will also appeal to his psychology and environment. It seems to me that these are all teleological questions and that science is perfectly comfortable asking and answering them.

The questions out of the range of science generally are the origins of the universe and the origin of life (telos). And even if you wouldn't want to say that these subjects are relevant for "evolution", they frequently come up in science v religion debates. However I admit that they are properly not part of the specific debate about evolution proper.

 

[Dunemeister]

Indeed. "Miracles happen within the rules." (from Joan Of Arcadia)

Or miracles ESTABLISH the rules.

 

[Storm]

Or miracles ESTABLISH the rules.

I'm not sure I follow. Elaborate, please?

My point was that discovering the natural mechanisms by which "miracles" occur does not diminish the wonder of them. Indeed, I think it deepens.

 

[Dunemeister]

I'm not sure I follow. Elaborate, please?

My point was that discovering the natural mechanisms by which "miracles" occur does not diminish the wonder of them. Indeed, I think it deepens.

Yeah, I take your point about that. As classical scientists said, in doing what they did as scientists, they were simply thinking God's thoughts after him. This deepened their awe and appreciation for nature; it didn't cheapen it or reduce their fervor in examining it.

My response wasn't intended to contradict this but perhaps see it from a slightly different angle. (Hence "or" rather than "rather".) God, in creating, establishes the physical laws (including evolution if that is indeed a law analogous to say, gravity). These laws limit the ways in which the physical universe can and does work without limiting God's activity. As a result, scientists can discover the laws, the existence of which is miraculous, and those cases where God acts in history by doing things that are not adequately explained by those laws (e.g., Jesus feeding 5000 men, plus women and children, leaving 12 baskets of scraps, with only a few loaves and fishes).

 

[Jose Fly]

Life may or may not be defined as "things that exhibit purposive behavior", but the fact is that they do. Birds fly south for the winter.

By the same token, atoms "exhibit purposive behavior". Hydrogen atoms tend to pair up and bond with an oxygen atom.

How do you tell the difference between that "just being the way things are" and them being that way "because a god made them that way"?

 

[logician]

I, for one, think that if evolution is true, it's a miracle. How anyone can believe in something coming out of nothing by nothing is beyond me. It also seems to me that the transition from nonlife to life is simply impossible, but more importantly, deriving teleology (purposiveness) from something ultimately nonpurposive (ateleological) is incredible. These problems are not just puzzles that science has to "clean up". These are problems that science, by its very nature, cannot even address.

So you don't believe that a supposed god, or super intelligence, could appear from nothingness?

 

[fantome profane]

I, for one, think that if evolution is true, it's a miracle.

Strange, to me the exact opposite seems to be the case. If evolution did not happen it would have to be a “miracle”. I think this is why evolution gets so much opposition from people of a religious persuasion, precisely because the “miracle” is not strictly necessary.

Life may or may not be defined as "things that exhibit purposive behavior", but the fact is that they do. Birds fly south for the winter. It's natural to ask "for what purpose do they do this"? And it makes perfect sense to answer "in order to <fill in purpose here>." I'm not a biologist, but I'm fairly certain that such language would find its way into many a science text. Biological organisms display and follow teleology. Evolutionary theory tries to explain that in terms of something nonteleological. That, I think, is a fundamental error. Purposeless mechanisms cannot give rise to purpose. Please note that this is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. But if the philosophical claim is true, one must admit that life has a purposive source, ultimately.

Such language does in fact often find its way into science, but the problem lies in our use of language in expressing the idea, not in the idea itself. Birds fly south. Birds that fly south avoid the cold and lack of food supplies. Birds that do this survive and are naturally selected for. But no teleological explanation is required. As to whether birds have a purpose in their mind only the birds know, but we do not need to assume purpose to explain the observed phenomenon.

Do the following questions make sense from a scientific (specifically, biological) point of view?

What is the purpose of the heart?
Is the nervous system of this rat functioning properly?
What advantage does the swarming behavior of locusts confer upon them?
What purpose does flying south for the winter serve?
Why did Jeffrey Dahmer kill and eat those people?
​

The first three (and most likely the forth) are good example of the imprecise use of language. It is only the fifth question that we can legitimately ask the question of why and expect an answer (not a good answer). But we can talk about what the heart does, what different parts of the heart do, we can talk about them functioning in the way we want them to or what to do when they don’t function the way we want them to without ever ascribing purpose to the organ. I realize that speaking about the heart this way quickly becomes awkward and jarring to our intuitions, but that is precisely my point. We talk about purpose because it is easy to talk about purpose, not because there must be a purpose.

The fact that language of purpose is often used is the result of our limited language, and the tendency to explain complex idea in the “shorthand” of purpose. When you get down to the level of genes, genes are just chemical coding. They don’t have intentions or plans, they don’t care whether or not they survive or if the organism they are in survives. They do not have a overriding purpose, they just are. But the point is that the ones that do lead to physical or behavioural traits that cause them to be reproduced are the ones that are naturally selected for. Again no teleological explanation is required.