Joralex: Tentativity or Dogmatism?

He passed me over, too.

Well post 28 makes it very clear that evolution is not a metaphysic - the definition given claerly does nto include evolution which is a scientific theory concerning a particular area of reality - and one that is far less concerned with ultimate reality than particle physics or cosmology. There is no basis, then, to single evolution out as a "metaphysic" on the basis of any definition you have offered.Perhaps the problem seems to be that you are determined to label evolution a metaphysic when it is clear that it is not. If you had tried instead to argue that parts of evolution were derived more from a metaphysical system than from science and labelled those as "Metaphysical evolution" you would have an easier time of it in that you would be at least arguing a position that was not self-evidently false.But lets ask you the sort of question you seem to be arguing. Everyone who has studied the matter with any serious knows that the conflict of evolution versus creation is a clash of science versus religion. Where have you been that this common fact appears to be a major revelation ?

Apologies, I don’t normally post on weekends — weekends are usually devoted to family. However, at the rate this thread is growing, I didn’t want to leave my principal interest in this thread to get too buried. I know that this is your take on it. However, I would refer you back to the post to which you were responding. I want to get ultimately to the basis for your take. This being a discussion board, discussion should theoretically be the reason people are here. To do so, we need to establish a common framework for the discussion.You propose that evolutionary theory as understood by the majority of evolutionary biologists contains both a science of evolution and a metaphysic of evolution. I understand that. However, to be able to effectively argue for or against this proposition, the basis for the differentiation between the science element and the metaphysical element needs to be determined. Others are already touching upon the metaphysics (although we’ll get there also, if you’ll bear with me.) My preference would be to begin as I did in the OP: establish a common definition of science. Otherwise, all we’re doing is talking past one another. Unless you are willing to stipulate that my definition of science as proposed in the OP is acceptable without comment, you need at this point to provide the description of science from which YOU derive your argument. We haven’t gotten to this point yet in the discussion. We need to first establish whether there IS such a dichotomy as you assert. To do so, we need to first explore the very nature of scientific inquiry (i.e., what science is). Then we can see if there are elements of evolutionary theory (or any other scientific hypothesis, for that matter) that are NOT science as we’ve defined. Then, and only then, can we discuss the basis of the metaphysic claims. Okay — get the drift of the topic, now? That is the question I’m trying to explore here. One step at a time, Joralex, is all I ask. I think I pointed out that I couldn’t care less what your bio is. Your argument should stand or fall on its own merits, as does mine. Since your background isn’t in evolutionary biology, you are unable to argue that you represent an authority of some kind to whom I should lend especial credence. Thus it was irrelevant to the topic. I didn’t consider that there was any sinister motive — simply irrelevancy. To be honest, I thought you posting your bio was merely a rather lame attempt at argument from I-am-not-an-idiot. Since that is not my position nor have I ever given you reason to believe that I don’t take you seriously, taking up so much space rather than addressing the actual topic seemed pointless. However, to close off this line of discussion, I accept as stipulated that you aren’t an idiot. Further, I accept as stipulated that you are interested in discussion and are able and willing to both support and credibly defend your position.Now, can we get back to the topic, please? Thanks.

Others have already replied to this post so I will not add any more, other than to say that I agree with everyone else that it doesn't appear you've established there is any such thing as an ME.--Percy

quote:

---

Here's an example that I'll present but not elaborate (it would be a dissertation onto itself): Communism (a social-political paradigm) is, by its very foundation, atheistic.

---

But isn't communism itself (as we define it today) based on a concept which is not fundamentally atheistic. Isn't it possible that the basic underlying principles of communism are not fundamentally atheistic, only the modern version of it? In other words, perhaps you have not penetrated to the true 'metaphysic' of communism.

quote:

---

Now, it should be quite apparent that a 'science' defined in such a way that it excludes at the outset anything but a materialistic view of nature wholly supports this social-political paradigm.

---

Not sure what you mean here. What is 'a science' compared to 'science?' Are you saying that some sciences are defined this way and others are not? Aren't you then simply avoiding the fundamental nature of science by making a narrow point?

quote:

---

A 'science' as, say, Isaac Newton would have defined it would not have been "acceptable" to the Communist Party. Science is but a pawn, a supporting cast, to the metaphysic that founds it.

---

It seems to me that you have to show that the 'metaphysic that founds science' is some how incorrect or fails to operate as necessary. You have not done this.Whether you believe it or not, many scientists espouse no particular metaphysic when it comes to their work, and are not concerned with the ultimate nature of existence. They are concerned with models that work and explain the world around them. The metaphysics and physics operated on completely separate planes.I am also not clear that a metaphysic 'founds' science. Rather, I think that naturalism (if this is how you describe our modern metaphysic) is based on science rather than the other way around.

quote:

---

The difficulty is that there is a feedback loop in this relationship. I'll not go there.

---

Good idea. If you did, some creationist would start muttering about another case of 'circular reasoning!'

quote:

---

I suspect that you et al. won't but I have to ask anyway : take my word for it, there is a ME.

---

I'm not so sure. It seems to me that the your 'ME' is simply a subset of naturalism which is applied in all science, not just evolutionary thinking. So, you are simply making a specious argument. If the ME is inherrently incorrect, why is not the MCE (metaphysic of civil engineering) not also suspect?You really need to show us that there is something wrong with your idea of ME. You might also explain to us why we should care.

Lets look at your encyclopedia citation. Sentence 1: The ToE is in no way shape or form concerned with the basic nature of reality. You will not find evolutionary biologists, in an official capacity, discussing whether nature is fundamentally mind or matter, for example.Sentence 3: This is exactly what evolution is-- the study of a specific feature of the natural world. And thus, by your own reference, evolution is a natural science, not a metaphysic.Science, all of science, deals with observable phenomena -- allowing for the extension of our senses via technology. The METAPHYSIC invloved is very nearly universally refered to as empiricism. What I can't figure out is why you want to ditch this term in favor of your own very diversionary "metaphysic of evolution."------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I continue to be puzzled over so many people being seemingly unaware of the fact that there is a metaphysic of evolution (ME) as well as a science of evolution (SE). I can't shake the feeling that I'm being played here.In any event, a complete presentation - including historical, philosophical, social and scientific foundations - of this topic would be far too lengthy. I haven't the time for something like this but I can certainly present the punch line.I remind you of something that I posted earlier :In concise, layman's terms a "metaphysic", a.k.a. a "worldview", is a fundamental foundation in whatever activities people conduct - science, math, any of the arts, politics, war, economics... anything! I'd posted the following earlier from the World Book 2001 Encyclopedia : "Metaphysics is concerned with the basic nature of reality. Its aim is to give a systematic account of the world and the principles that govern it. In contrast to the natural sciences, which study specific features of the world, metaphysics is a more general investigation into the fundamental features of what exists."The essence of any metaphysic (the bolded part above) is to provide fundamental, underlying principles that govern reality. Explicitly or implicitly, all metaphysics seek to answer certain key questions such as questions on origins, purpose and ultimate destiny. Atheism, for example, would answer, respectively : materialistic, none, oblivion.Biologically when we speak of evolution we are talking about the change in allele frequencies in populations but in the broadest sense 'evolution' deals with changes in some non-random direction.*********** SYNOPSIS OF THE ME *********** Somehow, someway, the primordial essence of matter-energy (whatever that may be) became the common matter-energy that we know today. Maybe this occurred in what is called the Big Bang (?). Through gravitational condensation (of the lightest element, H) stars formed. These stars then 'evolved' through what is called 'stellar sequences' and, in the process of so doing, nucleosynthesis produced the heavier elements. Eventually some of these stars exploded spilling these heavier elements into space. Again through gravitational condensation, planetoids and planets formed. Through matter-energy interactions planets evolved to eventually acquire certain environments (e.g., Earth, Mars, Venus, etc. each has their own characteristic environments). Some environments are conducive to the emergence of life and, somehow, life got started on earth. The earliest life was extremely simple. This life began to evolve and become more and more complex and diverse. Eventually man emerged from this plethora of organisms on a spiral of complexity/diversity. Man continued to evolve and in time developed a sophisticated culture. Man began to discover some fundamental laws that govern the matter-energy universe that he is a part of - things like 'gravity' and 'conservation of energy'. One of these things that he learned he called 'evolution'.All things 'evolve' : life 'evolves' (from the simplest organisms to a very complex and diverse biota); languages 'evolve'; economic and political systems 'evolve'; human relationships 'evolve'; businesses 'evolve'... heck, everything 'evolves'. Thus, it appears that evolution is an underlying aspect of reality by which all things ought to be interpreted. One cannot truly understand anything without viewing it through the eyes of 'evolution'.******************* END OF SYNOPSIS *******************All things in our universe change, there is no doubt about this. Also, there is definitely a scientific side to the study of this change with regards to biology (changes in the allele frequencies in populations) - this is the SE. It is this scientific aspect that most people associate with 'evolution'. Let me emphasize that this scientific aspect is completely real and legitimate.However, just as real as SE is ME. I have little doubt that the synopsis presented above was recognized. Setting aside theistic/progressive evolutionists, when all other evolutionists promote 'evolution' they aren't just promoting SE, they are actually promoting ME - the completely materialistic, naturalistic worldview of the universe as summarized above.Now, if you are not a theistic/progressive evolutionist, and disagree with the last paragraph above, then show me and I will stand corrected. Otherwise, I trust that this matter is now cleared up.In Christ,
Joralex

Joralex appears to be correct that the "Metaphysics of Evolution" is not his own invention. If you do a Google search for it (put quotes around it) you'll get lots of hits.--Percy

That isn't strictly true. Since he includes almost any use of the word "evolve" (e.g. his idea that "human relationships evolve" is part of the "metaphysics of evolution", rather than a recognition that human relationships change and develop over time ?) it is possible that his version is unique to him.Even if it is not, this version is sufficiently obscure that it certainly cannot be taken that anyone promoting biological evolution is also promoting that particular "worldview".I also note that his argument relies very heavily on lumping together many distinct areas into an "all-or-nothing" package. Certainly he has yet to establish his central claim that the clash between the theory of evolution - understood as biological evolution - with creationism is not a clash of science versus religion.I did check the search - the majority of the first 40 links were related to a book of that title by Hull. Another lead me to a page examining this very issue and coming to very different conclusions :
Evolution and Philosophy: Metaphysics

quote:

---

I continue to be puzzled over so many people being seemingly unaware of the fact that there is a metaphysic of evolution (ME) as well as a science of evolution (SE).

---

That puzzlement, frankly, is due to the fact that the ME is something you have made up, though many creationists play a similar game.

quote:

---

I can't shake the feeling that I'm being played here.

---

It is you who are playing-- with definitions mostly.BTW, I can't shake the feeling that you are avoiding my posts. As evidence, I point out that you repeat your World Book 2001 Encyclopedia argument without responding to my comments concerning it.

quote:

---

The essence of any metaphysic (the bolded part above) is to provide fundamental, underlying principles that govern reality.

---

What exactly about the ToE fulfills this condition?( Atheism does not imply or require materialism, btw. )

quote:

---

but in the broadest sense 'evolution' deals with changes in some non-random direction.

---

This is just simply wrong. There is no other way to put. Evolution does not deal with change in a non-random direction. This a creationist straw-man.

quote:

---

*********** SYNOPSIS OF THE ME ***********

---

Most of it isn't evolution, and for that matter it isn't even 'metaphysics.' It is physics-- ie. dealing with the natural world, or dealing with observable phenomena. The METAPHYSIC involved is empiricism, not the structures built upon that foundation. Why not attack that instead of arguing this convoluted nonsense? You are calling the branches the tree, Joralex.

quote:

---

they are actually promoting ME - the completely materialistic, naturalistic worldview of the universe as summarized above.

---

Why not call the ME 'the completely materialistic, naturalistic worldview of the universe' instead of tagging your diversionary and misleading label on it? There are already perfectly good terms, which have been in use for longer than you have been alive I'll wager, for everything you state, yet you insist upon your redefinitions? Why? I makes no sense. The only answer I can think of is that this is one big semantic game designed to confused the issues.It is a matter of scope. Evolution is a theory accounting for the changes in life-forms through time. Period. It is not the study of the fundamental components of reality. The ToE co-opts, or assumes-- as does all science-- a rather fuzzy form of empiricism. The ToE is a child of empiricism, not its parent or its equivalent.Put another way, evolution is based upon observation, like all science. This ought to at once tell you that it is not a metaphysic. The metaphysical structure UNDER which it operates is blatantly stated at the onset. Why is this difficult to grasp?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

*********** SYNOPSIS OF THE ME ***********

---

Thank you. Let's take a look at it ...

quote:

---

Somehow, someway, the primordial essence of matter-energy (whatever that may be) became the common matter-energy that we know today.

---

The only metaphysic here is in parenthesis: whatever may be the essence of matter-energy is ineed a metaphysical speculation on the "basic nature of reality." The rest is not because it deals with the interactions, not the nature, of what is thought to be real.

quote:

---

Through gravitational condensation (of the lightest element, H) stars formed. These stars then 'evolved' through what is called 'stellar sequences' and, in the process of so doing, nucleosynthesis produced the heavier elements. Eventually some of these stars exploded spilling these heavier elements into space. Again through gravitational condensation, planetoids and planets formed.

---

Cosmology and astronomy - not metaphysics, not evolution.

quote:

---

Through matter-energy interactions planets evolved to eventually acquire certain environments (e.g., Earth, Mars, Venus, etc. each has their own characteristic environments).

---

Cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemsitry - not metaphysics, not evolution.

quote:

---

Some environments are conducive to the emergence of life and, somehow, life got started on earth.

---

Chemistry, biochemistry, some biology, all speculative, of course, but still not metaphysics, and, strictly speaking, still not evolution.

quote:

---

The earliest life was extremely simple. This life began to evolve and become more and more complex and diverse.

---

At last - evolution! Still no metaphysics, though.

quote:

---

Eventually man emerged from this plethora of organisms on a spiral of complexity/diversity. Man continued to evolve and in time developed a sophisticated culture. Man began to discover some fundamental laws that govern the matter-energy universe that he is a part of - things like 'gravity' and 'conservation of energy'. One of these things that he learned he called 'evolution'.

---

Well done - another mention of evolution.

quote:

---

All things 'evolve' : life 'evolves' (from the simplest organisms to a very complex and diverse biota); languages 'evolve'; economic and political systems 'evolve'; human relationships 'evolve'; businesses 'evolve'... heck, everything 'evolves'. Thus, it appears that evolution is an underlying aspect of reality by which all things ought to be interpreted. One cannot truly understand anything without viewing it through the eyes of 'evolution'.

---

Is this it? That the use of the word "evolve" in it's casual meaning of "to change gradually" results in a mindset? Basically just Humboldt's 'Weltanschauung' hypothesis of the 1830's?If you have any evidence substantial enough to support your claim that the use of evolution as a term for gradual change is in fact a "metaphysic" relating to the "the basic nature of reality", perhaps you could present it?

Hi Joralex,It looks like the metaphysics discussion is taking off nicely. However, I would like you to address my post #33, wherein I asked you to help delimit what constitutes "science" in your lexicon. Again, I want to approach the question from the science, vice metaphysics side. Where are the limits to "science"? After that, we can see whether or not evolution is within the realm of science or strays into the realm of metaphysics.Thanks.

quote:

---

He passed me over, too.

---

That is his way.On the OCW and CARM boards, he claimed that evolution was no good because of the 'presuppositions' employed by those researching it.I asked him about his presuppositions.About 11 times, if I recall correctly.When he finally answered, it was the usual 'the bible says...' routine, and that what the bible says is golden, so his presuppositions are OK.He belongs in the AppleZeph/sonnike pile...

Quetzal :You wrote : "... Again, I want to approach the question from the science, vice metaphysics side. Where are the limits to "science"? After that, we can see whether or not evolution is within the realm of science or strays into the realm of metaphysics."I'm not trying to avoid your question(s) but from the above (bolded) I gather that you are missing the fundamental point here. There is a SE and it is definitely within the realm of science. Anyone that knows what they're talking about - naturalists, creationists, and Vulcans included - will agree to there being a bona fide SE. I say again, there is an 'evolution' that unquestionably is within the realm of science.But that's not the point nor the source of the controversy.[OTOH, maybe I'm not seeing what you are driving at.]Feel free to correct me but attributes of science include observability, testability, and "falsifiability". That last one is far more elusive than most people know thus the quotation marks. What I'm getting at is that the SE is far exceeded - beyond the realm of science and into the realm of a metaphysic - as soon as it becomes an operational model for the naturalistic metaphysic.Plainly : the naturalist must have a mechanism with which to explain the observable facts. The Christian has the same requirement (and our ultimate answer is God - science serves only a minor role). That naturalistic mechanism, if you give it some thought, can only be one : the evolutionary mechanism. Unless one is to assume the spontaneous emergence of life, diversity and complexity then there has to be something that made these things possible. For the naturalist that something is 'evolution' and this 'evolution' replaces the creative/supportive role that God has for the Christian. This is a metaphysical role, not a scientific one.You do pose an extremely interesting and profound question : "where are the limits of 'science'?" On this I'll just say that long ago I wondered about that question myself and this helped me to finally 'get it'.In Christ,
Joralex

quote:

---

What I'm getting at is that the SE is far exceeded - beyond the realm of science and into the realm of a metaphysic - as soon as it becomes an operational model for the naturalistic metaphysic.

---

You are saying that the operational model (whatever that is) for a metaphysic is a metaphysic?

quote:

---

Plainly : the naturalist must have a mechanism with which to explain the observable facts. The Christian has the same requirement (and our ultimate answer is God - science serves only a minor role).

---

A mechanism to explain what observable facts - that is the problem you are not addressing.One could quite easily hold a view about the interactions of matter, which could be scientific, highly speculative and naturalistic. However that is not metaphysics. Metaphysics is only marginally concerned with the issue of how matter behaves - it is more interested in the issue of whether matter exists, and if it does what such existence consists in, and why such existence consists in that manner. How the matter behaves is physics, leading to chemistry, leading to biology.The science of evolution deals with that how. There is no necessary account of the whether, what or why.Thus, for example, a Deist could hold a metaphysical view that the existence of matter was entirely dependent on God, and that the reasons for matter's existence are to be found in His Will, without for a moment dropping a naturalistic belief in how matter interacts.Salty, if you read his papers, supports both a creationary metaphysic (albeit positing a very impersonal God) and an evolutionary science.Unless one is to assume the spontaneous emergence of life, diversity and complexity then there has to be something that made these things possible.But the emergence of life is not necessarily a subject for evolution.There are many evolutionists, including some on this board, who take a metaphysical view of the what it means to be "alive" which is rooted in theism. But there are others (who may be on this board) who would deny that the nature of life is a metaphysical issue. Still others might take a thorough positivist view and deny meaning to any metaphysics at all.You seem to be caught in the common trap of assuming that denial of your metaphysics is itself a metaphysical position. This is a simple, but seductive, fallacy.