Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

[Dave Allen]

Well, I stand corrected - but I hope my point is still clear. Attacking evolution because it states evolution is all there is is erroneous - using evolution as an inappropriate stand-in for Materialism and/or Naturalism.

In fact, it's even an unfair slur on Naturalism/Materialism, as most proponents of such things would still accept that much more is still to be learned, and that current scientific understanding (not just evolution) has a long way to go.

But they would doubt or deny (depending on the strength of their conviction) that an 'unscientific' explanation would exist at the root of it all.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

Well, I stand corrected - but I hope my point is still clear. Attacking evolution because it states evolution is all there is is erroneous - using evolution as an inappropriate stand-in for Materialism and/or Naturalism.

In fact, it's even an unfair slur on Naturalism/Materialism, as most proponents of such things would still accept that much more is still to be learned, and that current scientific understanding (not just evolution) has a long way to go.

But they would doubt or deny (depending on the strength of their conviction) that an 'unscientific' explanation would exist at the root of it all.

I have no other complaints. You are more read on the topic of evolution than I am. I'm more interested in evolutionary psychology. Perhaps you are well-read in that field too. (?) (I just read an introduction book, David M. Buss's Evolutionary Psychology, 1999.)

[Dave Allen]

I've read articles about it in New Scientist and so on (including some evolutionary arguments for religion), I wouldn't claim to be well read on the subject, though I think it's a very interesting area.

To be honest, whilst I find it flattering to be called knowledgable on the suject it's not something I really know an awful lot about. There are other posters on the forum who understand the actual nuts and bolts better than I do.

I think it's a fiarly easy thing to get a basic grasp of - which is why I am always rather astonished when people say things like "evolution says man came from ameoba" or "the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex" - because they're elementary misunderstandings of what is actually said about evolution by those who actually understand the subject.

[l0ck]

Originally Posted by Emil

I don't see why you bother, Dave. But it's good that you do. I would not. I promised myself years ago not to discuss evolution with creationists/IDists again.

The forum is full of personal perspective and expression, that is to be expected, and cherished (even though we don't, but this is still a useful necessary approach as well).

The spirit of inquiry involves appreciation of changes of view, subject, as well as their pace and as such philosophy includes all aspects of existence, finite and infinite. Fiction is qualitative, fact is qualitative, all is qualitative, this follows the general premise that all is qualitative, and thus purposeful and thus exists, as quantitative mass is a condensed container of quality that decays over time (entropy) from a separated positive/negatively cohered condition into a singular chaotic, infinite, and free state of cohesive awareness.

But it is those who think they know something, that stop searching. Equals have no authority over equals and it follows that if people accept you as equal and of them they will support you and if not, no amount of reasoning will convince them to do so. "Stop Raping Language!", Says Emil on his philosophical blog, and followed verbally in a private discussion in the lounge is the accusing definitive example of: "When someone yells, 'Stop Yelling!'", but it is satire, sarcasm, and parody, and thus 'Language Rape', that have undoubtedly shed light on and gave birth to many of our propositions and philosophies (such as Jonathan Swift's).

Our resistance to a proposition, and unwillingness to include it in our tool bag makes up a self-imposed limited form of perception (which still has purpose), and indeed proposition, and often what is not understood cries out to be understood by emphasizing its absence, as we learn by reason of apparent absence and opposition and differentiation.

The network of knowledge and of proposition is like a tree, all propositions have grown out of each other (self-created), and we should not prune our branches in such a way to limit our view (Even though we do, we emphasize what we don't understand by resisting it, and thus externalizing it in the environment around us, manifesting a cry for conflict to release this potential trapped energy into a free and kinetic state). As a self-created species, the creationist, the IDist, the artist, the scientist, and any monadic entity of perception can and will find the self-created process apart of all things as our creative means moves us towards this realization at all times. Every proposition involves every other proposition, directly or indirectly, we can start with any one proposition and proceed to the next.

If we include a network of all proposition in our approach, one that includes all perspectives of creativity which are composed of finite and infinite syllogisms (as is existence composed of finite and infinite magnitude), and attempt to grasp the whole picture with all of our available tools, evolution is apparent everywhere, even in the discovery process of proposition (even though it is not necessarily a ordered process, one thing does lead to the next however), it follows that a self-created species self-creates everything, and all things unfold out of one thing, in turn that one thing, as described by George Cantor, is present within each of its parts. Ideally, his propositions, and model of infinite powers (aleph-series), fits our exact system, where the existence of simply one infinite aspect, thereby follows that the whole thing is of infinite proportions, and the only way to determine this is to take the infinite set, and compare it on a 1 vs 1 match to its sub-sets, hints a all inclusive infinite and integrated whole that only appears to be separated in our limited, individual, monadic perception.

We all start on different branches of the 'tree' and simply progress towards complete creativity as we watch, and very literally create, the growth of the 'plant' from 'seed' to 'fruition'. The fact that population is at a all high, shows us that our absorption rate is increasing, exponentially, through us, as true creators (that is not to say it wont decline, population can and will decline and absorption will still gain exponential speed, as our creative intelligence guides us always, and is very literally the most powerful force created, even beyond those of cohesion or gravity).

Ideas seem to have a distinct personality of their own, and as a believer of the democracy of ideas, all are free to interject and have their say so and provide means. Monadic life voluntarily manifests itself in all forms (self-creates), to progress itself toward awareness. For example, the electron very literally does anything it likes as it goes in any direction at any speed, forward or backward in time, again, however it likes, and then you add up these amplitudes it gives you the wave function, as bizarre as it may seem, they tend to have a mind of their own, yet willingly appear before us to cohere the finite expressions before us, hints where there is a will, there is a way. Monadic extensions do the same, and are the same, they volunteer through the will of our minds to manifest into everything, as all is self-created, and in a realm of electrons, of particles and waves, we can interpret this proposition, and as knowledge cannot be known until the mind creates a form for it, and differentiates it, we should now begin to include a broad variety of tools (all of them) in our search for creative means if we so wish to truly arrive at the whole truth, and not just with our personal organized single forms of perception.

By constraint we learn freedom, by suffering we learn compassion, by separation we learn integration, by annoyance we learn tolerance, therefore, until all qualities that are unmeasurable are absorbed, we will continue to have these finite expressions in the environment around us, it is not a single organized view of people that will lead us to the absolute truth, it is not a matter of governance, as a fully aware being who is fully aware of its sovereignty will not be governed, or will not allow itself to be governed, because it is truly aware of these things. Organized form obstructs and only exist to resist and provide means to our self-created awareness, in the end it is a multi-dimensional-paradigm of a view, of chaotic and free and aware beings, that are aware of these qualities, that will allow the latter finite resistances to be completely abolished, and thus not exist, and thus not be self-created, as we self-create everything directly or indirectly in the name of self-awareness.

The more we stick to a single view of finite syllogism, the more fallacious things will become.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

I've read articles about it in New Scientist and so on (including some evolutionary arguments for religion), I wouldn't claim to be well read on the subject, though I think it's a very interesting area.

To be honest, whilst I find it flattering to be called knowledgable on the suject it's not something I really know an awful lot about. There are other posters on the forum who understand the actual nuts and bolts better than I do.

I think it's a fiarly easy thing to get a basic grasp of - which is why I am always rather astonished when people say things like "evolution says man came from ameoba" or "the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex" - because they're elementary misunderstandings of what is actually said about evolution by those who actually understand the subject.

Technically I didn't call you knowledgeable. I said that you were more read than I am. You would need some assumption that I am knowledgeable before you can deduce that you are too.

Yes, it is astonishing, but just reveals the power of human stupidity and the number one exploiter of that, religion.

For another angle. Think of how astonished people with advanced degrees in biology must think when they see their field so grossly misrepresented. It is not surprising that R. Dawkins (and others) is so angry at creationists and other evolution "skeptics" (mostly just deniers, similar to AIDS denialism and holocaust denialism.).

[jeeprs]

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

Well, I stand corrected - but I hope my point is still clear. Attacking evolution because it states evolution is all there is is erroneous - using evolution as an inappropriate stand-in for Materialism and/or Naturalism.

In fact, it's even an unfair slur on Naturalism/Materialism, as most proponents of such things would still accept that much more is still to be learned, and that current scientific understanding (not just evolution) has a long way to go.

But they would doubt or deny (depending on the strength of their conviction) that an 'unscientific' explanation would exist at the root of it all.

Actually, Dave, I think that is a little disengenuous. I don't think the OP in this thread, or me, or many others, would have any issue with the theory of the evolution of species and descent of man, WERE IT NOT being put forward as a philosophical explanation of the nature of life and the place of man in the Universe.

I think Darwin's theory is a marvellous intellectual accomplishment and is very clearly true, as far as it goes. But there is a 'neo-Darwinist' movement which exrapolates from the biological to the metaphysical to the spiritual. This is not my misreading of the situation or my lack of knowledge of the science. It is at the heart of the very deep cultural divide which is real, present, and current.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

Actually, Dave, I think that is a little disengenuous. I don't think the OP in this thread, or me, or many others, would have any issue with the theory of the evolution of species and descent of man, WERE IT NOT being put forward as a philosophical explanation of the nature of life and the place of man in the Universe.

I think Darwin's theory is a marvellous intellectual accomplishment and is very clearly true, as far as it goes. But there is a 'neo-Darwinist' movement which exrapolates from the biological to the metaphysical to the spiritual. This is not my misreading of the situation or my lack of knowledge of the science. It is at the heart of the very deep cultural divide which is real, present, and current.

Can you cite an example of this "neo-Darwinist movement"?

[jeeprs]

'The God Delusion' R. Dawkins.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by richard_mcnair

Basically I think that theory falls apart on philosophical, and ontological grounds, namely - the necessary a priori.

Evolutionary biology is not interested in this question, so it doesn't fall apart any moreso than any other science. Whether we hatched from the cosmic egg or we emerged from the Big Bang is immaterial to evolutionary theory -- at least at a level that distinguishes evolution from anything else in physical existence.

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

'The God Delusion' R. Dawkins.

Well, this book does not put forward the suggestion that evolution necessarily leads to philosophical materialism, and I don't think it's part of a neo-Darwinian (again - I'm not actually sure what the term means) "movement" comprising evolutionists, or "Darwinians", or "neo-Darwinians", in general.

But I admit that I can see why people think it does.

To illustrate:

RICHARD DAWKINS
Richard Dawkins is a proponent of evolution - in that he accepts the body of work surrounding modern understanding of the theory, respects that Darwin got a lot of the salient points down in "on the origin of species", seeks to understand more about it and share his understanding with others, and so on.

Richard Dawkins is also an atheist and thinks the universe can be explained (eventually, given enough time and expert study) through purely natural and/or materialist (depending on your understanding of such terms) processes and philosophies.

Asked why he has the worldveiw he has - he will cite various reasons, among them the fact that he thinks evolution and similar scientific theories and hypotheses (cosmology, abiogenesis, the big bang, etc...) render a supernatural creator potentially meaningless. For him.

This isn't the same as saying "evolution leads to anti-supernaturalism".

It seems very similar, but it's not, what he actually says is "I don't believe in the supernatural" and when asked why cites evolution as one of many things that informs that worldview.

The God Delusion, for example, actually concentrates far more on subjects such as inconsistencies in scriptural accounts, the immorality of professed believers (and relative moral behaviour of many non-beleivers), bigotry against non-believers in the US and Middle East, reasons why so called religious comforts aren't really comforting, and so on. It mentions the discoveries of science too, but it doesn't claim those discoveries prove irreligion, it just says they provide satisfactory alternative answers to the big questions some religious people claim to be their soveriegn territory (how did we get here, why is everything seemingly fine-tuned to life, and so on).

Anyway, Dawkins is just one proponent of evolution.

KEN MILLER
Ken Miller is a proponent of evolution - in that he accepts the body of work surrounding modern understanding of the theory, respects that Darwin got a lot of the salient points down in "on the origin of species", seeks to understand more about it and share his understanding with others, and so on.

Ken Miller is also a pracitising catholic, who thinks scientific processes teach us how God might have put things together. He thinks the bible is largely metaphorical. He started his lecture that I posted up earlier with a prayer.

Both Ken and Richard accept the same things about evolution, but they have very different beliefs about theology.

That's their right isn't it?

I mean, people don't say "Ken Miller claims evolution points to catholicism" - they just accept that he can reconcile his scientific knowledge and his theology.

Neither would say that their theology is a necessary result of evolutionary understanding alone, it's just that evolution is easy for Ken to reconcile with Catholicism, and Richard to reconcile with atheism.

Richard is no more "neo-Darwinian" than Ken, they're both familiar with the cutting edge of the theory and it's ramifications.

Actually, Dave, I think that is a little disengenuous. I don't think the OP in this thread, or me, or many others, would have any issue with the theory of the evolution of species and descent of man, WERE IT NOT being put forward as a philosophical explanation of the nature of life and the place of man in the Universe.

Well the OP stated Darwinian theory fell apart on ontological grounds, and that it was an example logical positivism stepping over it's bounds, did he not?

A few people did ask him to reclarify what he meant, and I myself state that I would have no problem if he were to rephrase along the lines of an attack on the materialistic/naturalistic veiwpoint (even though it's a viewpoint I happen to favour) because I accept it's hubris to assume we can account for everything or are ever likely to.

However, he hasn't rephrased, so I can assume it's an attack on a scientific theory based on criteria that science cannot work with (ie: refusing to accept reality and the utility of the assumption that observables lead us to better understand it).

In fact, the OP is apparently doing what you accuse Dawkins of doing - conflating a scientific theory with a philosophical worldview.

Until he clarifies himself I don't see how I'm being disingenuous.

No qualified biologist asked to give a definition of evolution would state that it had any bearing on whether or not there was a God in and of itself. They might mention common descent, or changes in allele frequency, or diversity of species. That's not "there is no God - QED".

No one puts evolution forward as a philosophical explanation of the nature of life and the place of man in the Universe in and of itself.

However, those with a philosophical veiwpoint of the nature of life and the place of man in the Universe might see a combination of scientific theories about how we came to be were we are - including evolution, of course - as reason enough to dismiss, more or less, the need for a deity.

Which is what Richard Dawkins does.

I do pretty much likewise (though I don't share his optimistic opinion of human capacity to understand).

UNTRUE STATEMENT: I think evolution points to godlessness.

TRUE STATEMENT: I don't think there's a deity, and the various reasons proposed for a deity I feel are often better answered by scientific explanations. One of these explanations is the theory of evolution, but there are many others with eaqually profound implications (in my opinion).

The difference is subtle, I agree, but profound.