Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3807
|
Post: #31  Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:17 am Post subject: Re: Darwinism |
  |
|
|
| JPhillips wrote: |
athena said:
| Quote: |
| I am quite confident that our morality has its roots in our animal evolution. I am also curious about why some people stress things like humans kill, instead of humans cooperate. Our survival depended more on our cooperation than on any inclination to killing. Like packs of dogs must work together to bring down the prey, so did the earliest human hunters have to work together. Civilizations would not be possible if we weren't better suited for cooperation than not. |
Some of us believe we are far superior to animals and should act much more humanely. Some of us expect people to act civilized because we are civilized. Some of us expect cooperation because we are cooperative. The fact that there are others who are capable of commiting act of violence and capable of killing another human being without cause is incomprehensible to some of us. |
Then it sounds as if you are endorsing what Athena wrote?
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick
Joined: 10 Sep 2009
Posts: 71
Location: Yiwu City, China
|
| Post: #32 Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Alun, you said,
"...the only reason he is so highlighted is because the theory he instigated offends religious creation stories, and therefore has to be defended in public."
--> I agree. It is a good example of a theory that seems so innocent yet gets a lot of people all riled up.
People think) "...that publicity correlates to importance."
--> That's a good way to put it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juice
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1919
|
| Post: #33 Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Yes the controversy between Darwinism and Intelligent Design is political and its proponents and opponents are divided along ideologies and world views.
Just as much as the religious are protectionist for their faith so are the Darwinists hence the almost cult like adulation of Darwin who can likely be viewed as the "savior" of those prone to a particular world view from a life of trading God as part of their life for a chimpanzee.
As Steve Myers puts it in "Signature of the Cell", and from philosophic contemplations, there are those of a "mind first" concept versus those of a "material first" mindset, and it is these two causal principles that shape our views of the human endevour.
It may be a point of argument, as it has been, but evolution is a theory of failed expectations meaning that the "hopes" that evolution/Darwinism would eventually be scientifically provable has failed on so many fronts. The problem with evolution is in the presentation and the expectations. Darwinism does not work unless the course of organic development is undirected and random. Darwinism does not work unless it is the result of promulgation from a single event involving inorganic random, chance chemical convergences.
The ad hominem excuse of the evolutionist is that any problems with the theory will be remedied in the future even those that have been inconsistent for the 150 years since its inception and its acceptance. And they keep coming. Such blind adherence to materialist evolution has the effect of denying any scientific progress and well directed philosophic discourse.
As I have previously presented that Darwinist in effect depend on old fashioned and outdated theories while the design proponent has moved evolution into the 21st century, the information age where the universe is not the product of material redundancy but of "information". The new paradigm of existence is rooted in meaning, from the ethereal and chimeric properties of energy to thought.
It is up to those who continue to accept and adhere to Darwinisms square peg in a round hole ideologies to examine the new paradigm of reason in design for themselves.
The circuit board of being.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alun
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 883
|
| Post: #34 Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Juice wrote: |
| Just as much as the religious are protectionist for their faith so are the Darwinists hence the almost cult like adulation of Darwin who can likely be viewed as the "savior" of those prone to a particular world view from a life of trading God as part of their life for a chimpanzee. |
... no. I mean, I love how we keep going through this, but how many times do you want me to state that there's a distinct difference between a belief that is based upon evidence and a belief that isn't? And that scientific theories are all about evidence? You simply cannot put evolution by natural selection in the same ball park as religion.
| Juice wrote: |
| As Steve Myers puts it in "Signature of the Cell", and from philosophic contemplations, there are those of a "mind first" concept versus those of a "material first" mindset, and it is these two causal principles that shape our views of the human endevour. |
Evolution by natural selection does not rule out idealism; it is only framed in material terms, so it says nothing about whether material comes from ideals or vice versa. (Although doing science does assume that material is meaningful in the first place.)
| Juice wrote: |
| Darwinism does not work unless the course of organic development is undirected and random. |
What are you talking about? Evolution by natural selection is an explanation of the direction that organic development takes.
| Juice wrote: |
| The new paradigm of existence is rooted in meaning, from the ethereal and chimeric properties of energy to thought. |
Evolution by natural selection is not intended to be a "paradigm of existence," nor does the ethereal have anything to do with science.
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Juice
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1919
|
| Post: #35 Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
It seems evident that some do not possess a full understanding of Darwinism and its implications.
For clarity;
Darwinism is a theory which is based on life origins having no other mechanism than self directed processes. What this means that if the "evidence" compels acceptance of an external directed mechanism or cause then Darwinism fails. The whole purpose of Darwinism is to offer a rational mechanism for the existence of life that does not require an external intelligent cause or design. Darwinism basic premise is that undirected, random causes direct evolution. If the evidence proves directed causes then Darwinism fails.
What this also means is that life does not need God to exist, since a wholly random explanations suffices to support the existence of life. Believe it or not this whole train of thought started as a result of "urine". Sounds like a religion to me.
What does the evidence show that life is more complex than can be explained by random chance?
Who said anything about "idealism"? It's altruism that is in question. We all know the difficulties of equating human dignity and exceptionalism in Darwinian terms.
What "Intelligent Design" says is that there enough "evidence" to prove that there is directed "evolution". That the design and complexity of genetic information and information processes in the cell "are" intelligently designed and based on a directed natural cause while Darwinism states that the evidence "may appear" to be the product of "design" in evolution is actually "illusory" and based on undirected natural causes.
The problem with evolution is its evidential conclusions which only work in evolutionary methodology. Any other science would take its lack of evidence to support a theory as metaphysical.
_________________
When everyone looks to better their own future then the future will be better for everyone.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alun
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 883
|
| Post: #36 Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Juice wrote: |
| It seems evident that some do not possess a full understanding of Darwinism and its implications. |
I agree.
| Juice wrote: |
| Darwinism is a theory which is based on life origins having no other mechanism than self directed processes. |
Evolution by natural selection is not about the origin of life, it is about the cause of species divergence. One way to say it is indeed that the nature of life as we know it caused its own divergence; in this sense, it is about "self directed processes." However, most observed species divergence is the result of external (or environmental) selective pressures.
| Juice wrote: |
| The whole purpose of Darwinism is to offer a rational mechanism for the existence of life that does not require an external intelligent cause or design. |
No. Darwin himself certainly saw that his theory had creation implications, but the purpose of the theory of evolution by natural selection is to explain observed phenomena. In this case, it is trying to explain the observance of evolution (or, more generally, the fossil record and the development of living animals).
| Juice wrote: |
| Darwinism basic premise is that undirected, random causes direct evolution. |
Again, no. At best, this is a gross oversimplification. We know so little about the occurrence of genetic mutations that we can simply say that they are random, however, the actual selective pressures (which are the only things Darwin himself was talking about) are not random. They are a direct function of who reproduces successfully.
| Juice wrote: |
| What this also means is that life does not need God to exist, since a wholly random explanations suffices to support the existence of life. |
This is also not true. Evolution by natural selection does not tell us why physical laws govern us as they do or where the first reproducing things came from. Evolution by natural selection does not rule out God; at best, it rules out the claim that God used supernatural means to segregate species from one another.
| Juice wrote: |
| What does the evidence show that life is more complex than can be explained by random chance? |
No, as far as I've read, including sources from you, there is no such evidence. (And I really mean no evidence, as opposed to whatever you mean when you say, "no evidence.") Certainly ID proponents such as Dembski argue that life is too complex for us to just have "happened," but the only thing behind this argument is delusional approximations of statistics--based on faulty premises no less. This is not evidence, just poor argument.
| Juice wrote: |
| Who said anything about "idealism"? It's altruism that is in question. |
You claimed that science and evolution by natural selection implied materialism.
| Juice wrote: |
| We all know the difficulties of equating human dignity and exceptionalism in Darwinian terms. |
Why would you want to explain moral concepts in evolutionary terms? Biology is not ethics. It's also difficult to explain how to eat tomato soup using astronomy, does that mean we should appeal to astrology?
| Juice wrote: |
| The problem with evolution is its evidential conclusions which only work in evolutionary methodology. Any other science would take its lack of evidence to support a theory as metaphysical. |
Unless you've got something new to say, I'm not replying to you on this topic until you address the gross vacuity of your claim that there is a "lack of evidence to support" evolution by natural selection. In case you've forgotten, I outlined the evidence and reasoning for the theory in this thread. If there is such a gross overall error in my thinking, then you ought to be able to point out one fallacy (one) or one absent piece of necessary data (one) which undermines evidence for the theory completely.
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
athena
Contributor
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 855
|
| Post: #37 Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Total bummer! I wanted to post to Nada's thread about the death of Darwin and I am irritated by that discussion being forced into this one. Anyway life did not begin with one celled creatures as Nada explains the beginning but with acids, evolving into increasingly complex forms.
| Quote: |
http://biology.suite101.com/article.cfm/theories_o f_how_life_began
Scientists believe that the earliest forms of life appeared about four billion years ago. No one knows exactly how it happened, but scientists do know what the basic steps would be. Hydrogen linked nucleotides (molecules composed of an organic base, a sugar, and a phosphate group) together, in chemical reactions, to create chains of nucleotides called nucleic acids. Nucleic acids linked together to form RNA (ribonucleic acid) and DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), the complex molecules that contain the code for carbon-based life—life on Earth.
Read more at Suite101: Theories of How Life Began: Did the First Cells Form in a Soup, Sandwich, or Pizza? | Suite101.com http://biology.suite101.com/article.cfm/theories_o f_how_life_began#ixzz0ZcsaBpTi
|
Alun said:
| Quote: |
| Why would you want to explain moral concepts in evolutionary terms? Biology is not ethics. |
Zoology does explain the pre moral behaviors of animals. This is one of the strongest reasons for me to argue in favor of evolution. I believe our moral being is inherited from our animal beginnings. I think we would have far better judgment about how to treat each other, if we accepted our animal nature.
JPhillips wrote:
| Quote: |
| Some of us believe we are far superior to animals and should act much more humanely. Some of us expect people to act civilized because we are civilized. Some of us expect cooperation because we are cooperative. The fact that there are others who are capable of commiting act of violence and capable of killing another human being without cause is incomprehensible to some of us. |
In the animal world, individual animals can go crazy and behave bizarrely. We know rabbis causes unusual aggressive behavior, but there are other causes as well. A mother chimp taught her offspring to kill and eat other baby chimps. Abused animals have serious psychological problems. The treatment of the alpha hyena's daughter is very different from how the other females are treated, and if the mother dies before the daughter is old enough to lead the pack, it is no longer treated special, but becomes as an orphaned outcast. We are far more like animals than many want to believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alun
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 883
|
| Post: #38 Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| athena wrote: |
| Alun wrote: |
| Why would you want to explain moral concepts in evolutionary terms? Biology is not ethics. |
Zoology does explain the pre moral behaviors of animals. This is one of the strongest reasons for me to argue in favor of evolution. I believe our moral being is inherited from our animal beginnings. I think we would have far better judgment about how to treat each other, if we accepted our animal nature. |
There certainly might be something to gain from science besides phenomenal prediction. But I do not think this can be the basis for accepting scientific theories. E.g. we should not accept as a scientific truth that, if we want it badly enough, we can fly using psychic powers--even if believing this would really be better for society, it wouldn't be a rigorous way to talk about the outside world.
Obviously your argument is a bit deeper than that, but I think the standard makes sense. What you're talking about is, in a way, moral truth, whereas science is only interested in phenomenal truth.
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
athena
Contributor
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 855
|
| Post: #39 Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Alun wrote: |
| athena wrote: |
| Alun wrote: |
| Why would you want to explain moral concepts in evolutionary terms? Biology is not ethics. |
Zoology does explain the pre moral behaviors of animals. This is one of the strongest reasons for me to argue in favor of evolution. I believe our moral being is inherited from our animal beginnings. I think we would have far better judgment about how to treat each other, if we accepted our animal nature. |
There certainly might be something to gain from science besides phenomenal prediction. But I do not think this can be the basis for accepting scientific theories. E.g. we should not accept as a scientific truth that, if we want it badly enough, we can fly using psychic powers--even if believing this would really be better for society, it wouldn't be a rigorous way to talk about the outside world.
Obviously your argument is a bit deeper than that, but I think the standard makes sense. What you're talking about is, in a way, moral truth, whereas science is only interested in phenomenal truth. |
I wish would read Michael Shermer's book "The Science of Good and Evil" before you imply my thinking is not based on good science. We can determine morality by leaving God out of it, "and the methodological naturalism of science, in which all effects have natural causes subject to scientific analysis." We can look to nature to understand our morality and when we do, our judgment will be greatly improved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3807
|
| Post: #40 Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The thing is, Nada, I am not a cell, or even five hundred cells. I am a system of specialised cells ,tissues, physiological structures, and social structures.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alun
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 883
|
| Post: #41 Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| athena wrote: |
| I wish would read Michael Shermer's book "The Science of Good and Evil" before you imply my thinking is not based on good science. |
What I meant was that you shouldn't accept the current theory of evolution just because it supports a metaethical theory you find plausible. I was responding to this part:
"Zoology does explain the pre moral behaviors of animals. This is one of the strongest reasons for me to argue in favor of evolution."
What you're saying about pre moral behavior might be true, but I think we should accept the mainstream theory of evolution primarily because it's true, not because it supports those explanations of moral behavior.
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3807
|
| Post: #42 Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
#38
But I for one think that Athena's argument is that science is concerned with moral truth. The metaphysics of naturalism bind together moral and scientific truth in the following way. The world is as it is, and we cannot do other than harmonise with it. If we make great efforts to understand the world we can be better than we were before we arrived at that particual understanding.The thing is to remain flexible which is what humans are particularly talented at.
Athena's example of primate morality hypothesises that human morality is similar to other primate morality and further research into primate behaviour may show human morality in more detail.Morality, which a name for proper social behaviour, is as natural as eating or breathing.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
athena
Contributor
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
Posts: 855
|
| Post: #43 Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Belinda wrote: |
#38
But I for one think that Athena's argument is that science is concerned with moral truth. The metaphysics of naturalism bind together moral and scientific truth in the following way. The world is as it is, and we cannot do other than harmonise with it. If we make great efforts to understand the world we can be better than we were before we arrived at that particual understanding.The thing is to remain flexible which is what humans are particularly talented at.
Athena's example of primate morality hypothesises that human morality is similar to other primate morality and further research into primate behaviour may show human morality in more detail.Morality, which a name for proper social behaviour, is as natural as eating or breathing. |
I love it when someone says what I am struggling to say. I am moving your post to a file I can keep, so when I argue the point with other people, I can use your words.
However, it is more than primates. Dogs are loyal and they form hierarchies similar to ours. We can go lower than this to viruses that also have communal behaviors. Can we grasp this, from the virus up to the human species, living organisms work in communities and as beloved Belinda said, "The world is as it is, and we cannot do other than harmonise with it." The earliest concepts of God are based on this realization, before man distanced himself from nature with his intellect. Native Americans looked to the animal realm for an understanding of morality.
It is hard for us to comprehend any other cultural thinking than our own, but especially the wolf provided important moral lessons for native Americans.
| Quote: |
http://www.mnforsustain.org/wolf_meaning_wolf.htm
The native peoples of the North America have many myths and traditions associated with the wolf and most, if not all, have something intrinsic to tell the people how to live in the world. The Pawnee of the great plains identified so strongly with the wolf and what wolf stories and myth represented that their hand signal for the wolf and the Pawnee people were nearly indistinguishable (Busch, p96). The Pawnee and many of the other Native American cultures revered the wolf for its great hunting prowess and would emulate this animal in ceremonies hoping to embodying these desirable characteristics, but the wolf participated in many other important stories aside from hunting.
The Eskimos have a story of an aged women abandoned and forced to survive in the cold. She turned into a wolf to do so(Busch 96). The Eskimos admired the great survival skills of the wolf.. Native American shaman held the wolf to be the source of great spiritual power (Religion 433). In the pacific northwest, "the doctoring societies of the Quilete and Makah Indians"(433)did wolf dances to heal sick members of their tribe. For many other Native American tribes wolves were thought to represent the corn god (433). With these example it is quite clear that the wolf took on many rolls in the myth of Native Americans. It is also clear that the image of the wolf was often of a creature who could teach, or give man wisdom about the world. |
Compared to native Americans, I think those of European cultures lacked very important morality regarding the earth, our mother. The wolf is a family with loyalty and many other moral aspects that we can admire. We were able to domesticate the natural dog and get loyal pets, because this is in their genes. Our morality is not something that is only human, but it is in all of nature. Europeans demonized the wolf. What does that say of Europeans and their religion? We could become more gentle people, living in harmony with earth and nature, and feeling united with god, instead of separate from god. This begins with changing our thinking and our relationship with nature, and notion of what it means to be human, a species of the animal realm capable of creation and destruction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
