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

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.

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

quote:

---

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.

---

Science: "Hey, look! A new kid on the block!"ID: "Hi guys! Mind if I join you?"Science: "Hell yeah, we mind! What have have you done, that makes you think you're worthy of us?"ID: "..."Science: "Yeah, thats what I thought. You aint got squat. Beat it."ID: "...um, I just got here. Let me join you, and I'll show you what I can do."Science: "No way. I know you, you're Creationism in disguise."ID: "Just gimme a chance!"Science: "GET IM! Kick his a*%!"This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-18-2005 01:51 AM

quote:

---

Ignoring???

​

We have been spending a lot of time here recently paying attention to the evidence put forward. You may not understand the total failure of this evidence to stand up to even modest scrutiny but it has not been ignored.

---

Sorry, Ned. I didnt mean you, you seem like a reasonable fellow.

Ned, I look at the evidence like a court of law. Y'know how before they hold a trial, they go before the judge and determine if there is enough evidence to hold a trial?If ID was being charged with being true, I would say there is enough evidence to hold a trial. Not enough to convict, but thats ok. First things first.

Ah, I see. Well, I guess Im wasting my time here then.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-18-2005 05:10 PM

Well, I dunno. As Ned said, the Grand jury has been held. Ive given up on trying to discuss the philosophical aspects of Darwinism/ID, people have already made up their minds...its fruitless.I kinda want to explore other, more technical topics for a while...bickering and arguing gets old for me after a while.