The Philosophical implications of Darwinism/ID

I would like to submit the following philosophical points for discussion:1) Darwinism is a philosophical materialistic/naturalist view of evolution, one which holds that life is an accident, and devoid of meaning. As such it serves as a philosophical framework for all secular religions.2) ID is an optional philosophical view of evolution, one which holds that evolution is by design, and hence contains meaning. This "meaning" can then be defined by an individual according to philosophical reasoning or non-secular religion.

quote:

---

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, than miracles may happen.
Richard Lewontin, New York Review of Books, 1999

---

Ask yourself this, 'Is Humanity more than the sum of its evolved, physical, material parts?'If you answer no, I submit you are a Darwinist. If you answer yes, you are not a Darwinist. If you disagree, please provide reasoning. I would love to learn how a Darwinist can reasonably and honestly answer yes.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 04:04 PM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I would like to see some actual evidence. The Lewontin quote for instance indicates only Lewontin's view of how science should operate. Yes, it indicates a strong attachment to methodological materialism but - as has been pointed out in other threads - that is not philopsophical materialism. Nor is there anything in the quoted material that attributes Lewontin's stance on this issue to Darwinism.So far no evidence has been produced that Darwinism is a philosphical view rather than a scientifc theory.

I answered 'yes' almost reflexively before I read your inference and I am most definitely an evolutionary biologist.Humanity is definitely more than the sum of its physical parts.
In the collective, it comprises political, intellectual and cultural constructs that, facilitated by language and communication, far exceed the intellectual accomplishments of any individual.On an individual level, a human is also more than the sum of his cells and organ systems. Because of the integrated behavior of these systems, he/she is capable of thought, abstract reason, emotions etc. etc. This is something Mayr refered to as the 'emergent properties' of biological systems in his book "Toward a New Philosophy of Biology" in which he argues convincingly that a simple reductionist approach can never adequately account for the complexity of life. In essence, it says that if you could calculate and 'know' all the laws governing chemistry, you would still know nothing about how a cell operates. Going up a level, you could know everything about how a cell functions, but nothing about the behavior of the organism it resides in. This can be extended from individual behavior to population dynamics to ecosystem dynamics. Each level has emergent properties unique to that level that require a whole new set of rules to describe.Your inference seems to imply that evolutionary biology ('Darwinism', if you wish) somehow renders life devoid of meaning. I submit that nothing could be further from the truth. The evolutionist would argue that life itself holds ALL the meaning. Nature IS the creator and chance events (accidents, if you will) appear to play a big role in the process of life, even though various biological forces determine whether chance events have transient or lasting influences on evolutionary trajectories. The element of chance is only anathema to those who are determined to look for 'purpose' in life in the sense of a creator's purpose. I submit that there is plenty of purpose in nature created by a wonderful 'godlike' force called adaptation. It is perhaps our intuitive desire / need to understand a 'final purpose' that drives us to postulate that some sort of omniscent entity is guiding life, particularly our life. The problem is that the laws of nature, despite producing phenomenal beauty and complexity through both guided and random processes, have no need for a final purpose. That is a distinctly human need.Edited to add title. EZThis message has been edited by EZscience, 05-17-2005 03:35 PM

First let us ask. What is Darwinism? Talk origins, has a nice little article on it here. Darwinism is not prevalent in scientific thought these days, unless you conflate Darwinism with neo-Darwinism which I suspect you do. Darwinism proposed gemmules and Lamarck like inheritance which has been thrown out.Is it a naturalist view of evolution? Well, neo-Darwinism is embraced by naturalists/materialists, but neo-Darwinism is also embraced by supernaturalists. So it is not a view that is exclusively naturalist or supernaturalist. Naturalism could be said to hold that view. Accident is a funny word though, since it implies that there was someone who intended for something to happen, but something else happened 'accidentally'. So let's use the word 'chance'. Neo-Darwinism says nothing about life being anything. Neo-darwinism holds that the diversity of life can be explained through random mutations coupled with natural selection. Not true at all, Darwism, nor naturalism explicitly says that life has no meaning. Here is a naturalistic belief system that explicitly accepts Darwinism, and finds meaning of life: Pantheism. Your old friends, the religious secular humanists also manage to find meaning in life. Darwinism is not and cannot be a philisophical framework, it is incapable of being that. Ontological naturalism is the philosophical framework upon which secular religions use. Since neo-Darwinism does not evoke supernatural entities to explain things, secular religions accept it as compatable with their belief.So the philosophical point number one should read:

quote:

---

1) neo-Darwinism is the view of evolution that ontological naturalists use. It is also the view many theistic philosopers take, and IDers can even accept neo-Darwinism. It holds that the diversity of life is the result of random mutations of DNA natural selection. Like other sciences it makes no comment on the meaning of life.

---

You do realize that ID and neo-Darwinism aren't mutually exclusive?

---

Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
The busy bee has no time for sorrow.
The hours of folly are measur'd by the clock; but of wisdom, no clock can measure.

I'm not sure if this is on topic here or not so please give your opinion on that.If this commitment to materialism is wrong then what do we use instead to determine real things about the real (that is natural or not supernatural) world?It would seem to me one lesson from history is that if we don't tie our conclusions to what we can sense in the natural world we go wrong, frequently very far wrong. How would you prevent error from entering our understanding of natural processes if we don't tie our conclusions to what we can detect in some fashion?The only "commitment" that I can see that underpins the sciences is the recognition that we must keep checking back to detectable reality before arriving at any consensus. What would you replace this with and how would it keep error from coming in with the vast number of very different views of what the supernatural is about and how it behaves?

No, it is not! Ok, I'll take your word for it.I have a question about ID. Where do we draw the line and how do we know?A thousand years ago, the world was flat and everyone knew the world was flat. Below the sheet of the Earth was hell and above was heaven. What was holding up the sheet of the Earth? Godditit, that's what. 500 years ago, the world was round but it was in the center of the universe and the planets were in perfect circular orbits around the Earth. Why did these heavenly bodies move in such manner? Godditit, that's what. 100 years ago, classical physicists encountered what is now known as the ultraviolet catastrophe. Why did the electromagnetic radiation behave in such manner in the short wavelengths of the spectrum? Godditit, that's why. Nowadays, how did life come about or why there are so many species in the world? Well, godditit, that's why.Do you see the pattern? Where do we draw the line or do we keep moving it back as science is pushing forward?Added by edit.I answer yes and I am a physicist wannabe. My explanation is best presented in the TNG episode "Emergence".This message has been edited by GAW-Snow, 05-17-2005 07:15 PM

quote:

---

Your inference seems to imply that evolutionary biology ('Darwinism', if you wish) somehow renders life devoid of meaning. I submit that nothing could be further from the truth. The evolutionist would argue that life itself holds ALL the meaning. Nature IS the creator and chance events (accidents, if you will) appear to play a big role in the process of life, even though various biological forces determine whether chance events have transient or lasting influences on evolutionary trajectories.

---

So, if all the meaning is in life itself, then its up to individuals to find their own meaning...or none at all. In other words, there are no moral absolutes. This can lead to reasoning like:

quote:

---

Rape is a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage, akin to the leopard’s spots and the giraffe’s elongated neck.
Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, Why Men Rape, 2000

---

quote:

---

Darwinism is not prevalent in scientific thought these days, unless you conflate Darwinism with neo-Darwinism which I suspect you do.

---

Yes, I did. Perhaps instead of saying Darwinists, I should say 'ontological naturalist neo-Darwinists'. Is that a more accurate description?I guess what I'm trying to sort out is this: those who disagree with ID because it conflicts with their philosophical or religious worldview, and those who disagree with ID for political reasons that have little to do with their belief system.We have people who share philosophical views with ID, such as the possibilty of a designer or guiding force to evolution, yet are against it politically.We also have people who do not share a fundamental 'ontological naturalist neo-Darwinists' view yet are for it. It makes little sence. People are letting thier political views and media spin deside where they stand, at the expence of their philosophical or religious views. This blurs the line(s).So, when I see someone who is against ID, yet does not share fundamental 'ontological naturalist neo-Darwinists' beliefs, they are still on the politically opposite side of ID, and hence, in a way, they are still in the 'Darwinian' camp because they choose to sacrifice their philosophical differences with 'ontological naturalist neo-Darwinists' at the alter of Darwin, and take up the sword against Darwins political enemies. Does that make sence?

quote:

---

If this commitment to materialism is wrong then what do we use instead to determine real things about the real (that is natural or not supernatural) world?

​

It would seem to me one lesson from history is that if we don't tie our conclusions to what we can sense in the natural world we go wrong, frequently very far wrong. How would you prevent error from entering our understanding of natural processes if we don't tie our conclusions to what we can detect in some fashion?

​

The only "commitment" that I can see that underpins the sciences is the recognition that we must keep checking back to detectable reality before arriving at any consensus. What would you replace this with and how would it keep error from coming in with the vast number of very different views of what the supernatural is about and how it behaves?

---

Thats the million dollar question. I think that we need a new way to categorize the particular fields of science which directly deal with the origin of life issue. Divide it into two teams, each approach the question from different philosophical angles. One from a naturalist approach and one from a teleological approach and see which is a) more complete and b) produces the most benefit for mankind.

I have never been quite sure what "Darwinism" should be defined as. The word is certainly used quite a bit by people who choose for religious reasons to not accept the findings of science in the field of biology and I assumed it meant that one accepted at least in part the veiws of Charles Darwin in regards to evolution. I see here another definition.Very good. I have a few questions. First, what other view is reasonable then a "materialistic/naturalistic" one regarding evolution? No evidence exists for any other kind. Define "meaning" in this context and explain how it is important in considering biogenesis, please. Finally, are you aware that the term "secular religions" is an oxymoron? There is no such thing, because if a thing is one, it by definition cannot be the other. Again, I do not how "meaning" is to be defined in this context. What exactly do you mean. I am curoious why you seem to think it so neccessary. To answer your question, yes. All that we are and all the wonders we have made and the marvels we have as a species accomplished are the direct product of naturalistic evolution and the magnificent brain it has given us. Humanity is as responsible for it's wonders and goodness as it is for it's evil destruction. We are not, as many religions would have it, responsible for the evil but gifted by some inhuman agency with the good.Does that make me a "Darwinist"? I don't know. Clear up my questions about your definition and we will see.You ask for my reasoning. It is quite simple. There is no evidence for any creator or God. The belief in one is clearly a hold over from an earlier more primitive and ignorant level of development. Those who believe in it do so for one of three reasons.1. Because their parents did and they learned to believe in some religion as a child and they do not want to bother with thinking for them selves.2. Social reasons, in the near theocracy that in America, it is easier to be a christian. They do not believe out of any strong conviction of their own.3. They are so afraid of death and contemplating personal non-existance that they will cling to any idea, concept or person that will give them an out.I am neither a blind follower, a hypocrite, or a coward so I have no need of religion. The idea of a god is as ridiculous to the reasonable person as monsters under the bed or Santa Claus.So, since there is no creator (as I said, a ridiculous idea) life must have began somewhere at some time by happenstance and developed on it's own. No other possibility exists. Science is the only tool that has ever allowed humanity to reliably ascertain fact and science. Faith and theistic thought has invariably failed in this regard, as no two people can agree on religious matters. So, I will stick to the teachings of science, not the hoary declerations of religion. Man can only be the product of evolution and his works the product of the mind evolution gave us. No evidence exists for any other possibility so there is no reason to believe any other possibility to be true.Sorry if this bothers anyone, but Limbo asked a very personal question and this is the answer.

That was the question I asked which you have yet to answer. What will the dufference between these two approaches be? If there is a particular question with two suggested hypothoses in the teleological camp how will the practioners there pick the most likely correct one?That can be answered before we expend a lot of time and resources on this alternative approach. That is, just what is this alternative? How is it different? How will it proceed in answering questions about the real world?We wish to determine the chances and mechanisms for the avian flu virus to jump to humans. Will this alternative suggest that it will if god wants it to but not if he doesn't? How will we determine if he does or not? What mechanism might he use to make it happen? Are we even allowed to attempt to stop it from happening?Please clarify the approach that the teleogists would use in this case.

None of the above. We 'evolutionary biologists' (since you seem to be groping for a label of some sort and 'ontological naturalist neo-Darwinist' is just not going to cut it) disagree with ID as 'science', specifically. We are entirely indifferent to its continued existence in any other discipline. Methinks thou doest extrapolate too much.
Because scientists speculate on the evolutionary origins of rape (and it is a frequent phenomenon in many animal species) they are somehow condoning the act? Givning licence to human beings to engage in this behavior. Come ON. I think you defeated yourself here.
If ID is on ANY political side AT ALL, it cannot be... A SCIENCE !
Does that make any sense ? That's just fine with us.
The only problem is your side doesn't have a methodological approach for testing anything, or making any assertions or predications about biological phenomena. So unlike our theories, its unfalsifiable.
I have already demonstrated this here.

Ned, you might be interested in this story. But of course you are right - where are the ID scientists when it comes to solving biological problems for everyone?
They're having coffee, speculating on telological origins.Edited for formatting only. EZThis message has been edited by EZscience, 05-17-2005 10:06 PM

I doubt there is more than a handfull of people that would fall into the categories you mention.The reason most people ignore ID is that there is simply no evidence there is any such thing, there is no way ID could explain anything nor currently explained and there is no predictive quality to ID.It has nothing to do with world view, philosophy, religion or politics. It has to do with the fact that there is not a science of ID, a theory of ID, a hypothesis of ID or any evidence for ID.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ok, well I guess there are only two kinds of people in this debate, pro-ID and anti-ID. So, when I refer to people who are against ID, instead of using the term Darwinist, Ill just use 'anti-IDist'. Is everyone fine with that?

quote:

---

That was the question I asked which you have yet to answer. What will the dufference between these two approaches be? If there is a particular question with two suggested hypothoses in the teleological camp how will the practioners there pick the most likely correct one?

​

That can be answered before we expend a lot of time and resources on this alternative approach. That is, just what is this alternative? How is it different? How will it proceed in answering questions about the real world?

​

We wish to determine the chances and mechanisms for the avian flu virus to jump to humans. Will this alternative suggest that it will if god wants it to but not if he doesn't? How will we determine if he does or not? What mechanism might he use to make it happen? Are we even allowed to attempt to stop it from happening?

​

Please clarify the approach that the teleogists would use in this case.

---

I wish I could answer the specifics, but I just dont know. I do know that if the two sides sat down and talked about working together then they could think of something.

quote:

---

The reason most people ignore ID is that there is simply no evidence there is any such thing, there is no way ID could explain anything nor currently explained and there is no predictive quality to ID.

---

And the reason people see no evidence is because they ignore it.Jar, you have your motives for being so adamently against ID, and I respect that, but since your logic is circular I have no reason to believe they are based on reasonable and objective thought.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-18-2005 01:37 AM