Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

[jeeprs]

Thanks Dave - I understand that and think yours is a very reasonable stance - if everyone shared it there would be less contention about the issue. (Although I must admit I do enjoy the cut and thrust of debate with those of a more materialist outlook, and I also think that writers such as Monod do very much overstep the bounds of their discipline.)

[richard_mcnair]

Originally Posted by Dave Allen

You can look at it whatever way you want. I haven't been stopping you, as far as I can see no one has.

In fact, as far as I can see, I have been engaging with you.

The reason I have not bothered to answer your original question is that I struggle to see it's relevence given that scientific enquiry takes as read that the phenomenal world can be the subject of greater understanding through observation.

If it doesn't make that foundational step - a line of enquiry is not science.

So choosing a particular branch of science and suggesting it take such a line of enquiry is rather bewildering to me.

What you are doing is conflating the theory of evolution with a sort of philosophical materialism that states all we can potentially about the material universe is all there is to know.

Evolution - changes in allele frequency leading to a theory regarding the relatedness of all organisms on earth.

Is not...

Philosophical materialism - there is nothing supernatural.

They are two rather different things, and whilst philosophical materialists might often cite evolution because it provides answers to questions such as "how did we get here" and "why are we the way we are".

Using evolution in that way is certainly fraught with problems, because a scientific theory is being applied to a natural history we aren't certain of.

I myself would tend toward philosophical materialism - but I am careful to distinguish between the fact of evolution and its possible (highly plausible in my opinion) application to natural history.

But philosophical materialism is not evolution in and of itself - it certainly is not "Darwinian" because he never stated that it had any bearing on the supernatural. His own disavowel of a loving god came as a result of questions such as "why is there suffering" based on the death of his daughter - and he never stated he was an atheist or disbeliever in the supernatural. He stopped being a practising Christian - yes - but that in itself is not proof of a worldview.

So to sum up, the reasons I'm not interested in your question:

1) It's based on a false premise (evolution doesn't state that it is "All there is" even if some proponents of evolution do, like Richard Dawkins - a self-proclaimed philosophical materialist).
2) It fails to understand the theory (evolution does not teach that we came from ameoba).
3) Even if it did why would that be anathema to religious belief unless you wish to adhere to a literal reading of a particular creation myth (many proponents of evolution happily supplement it with or to their religious beliefs - see Ken Miller again, a practising Catholic, see what the last two Popes said about the theory).

Well you havent been stopping me, but rather than answer my question you have been trying to simply dismiss it.

My point is this (i'll state it again). When we carry out scientific investigations into the phenomenal world, the most reliable deductions we can make are ones that have the qualities of demonstrability, and repeatability, for instance if you make the statement that the average rate of gravity on earth is around 9.1 m/s/s, you can take a stopwatch and a tennisball, go outside and try it out. Now, we can also do things like try to work out the rate of gravity on mars. This is not demonstrable and repeatable in the same way - ie I can not take a tennis ball, and stopwatch and try it out. BUT, we are able to work it out, and it is mathematically demonstrable, if we take certain ASSUMPTIONS. For instance that somehow the laws of physics dont just break down once we travel a certain distance outside our planet.

Now the further we go away from things which are immediately demonstrable and repeatable, the more ASSUMPTIONS we have to take. Therefore it is very acceptable for someone to question a theory VERY FAR from being immediately demonstrable and repeatable on the assumptions it is based on alone.

I am not, nor would I ever not take into account any evidence,and I am not now. Many times, I have one hundred percent stated I one hundred percent agree with evolution, and the transmutation of species. The ONLY thing I am questioning is the statement made in many quarters that ALL life on this planet started from a common ancestor, and even 'abiologically', and that was all there was, on the simple ground that this treats time space, and substance as kantian 'things in themselves', and that these were there before any conscious being. The statement I am making is that this is irreconcilable to many philosophic positions regarding the nature of copnsciousness, time space, and substance.

Can we then agree on this point then? If kantian idealism is correct, along with various ideas relating to the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that 'conscousness expresses itself as matter' as davd bohm put it, and that we are indeed co-creators of our relaity, then this refutes the richard dawkins traditional picture of the beginnings of life on this palnet?

You asked(I paraphrase) what observable facts back up the theory of evolution - hence my list of observable facts.

So it's not to counter any sort of dispute that I give them, but why ask for observables to back it up and then claim you have no dispute?

No.

I have never once even questioned the theory of evolution (for the millionth time), as I quite clearly state in my OP. None of your points prove anything about what I am attacking - ie that ALL life on earth can be explained with the 'common ancestor' explaination.

[ACB]

Originally Posted by richard_mcnair

Once agian NO-ONE is answering my ACTUAL question. How does something evolve in time and space, before there was 'mind' to create time and space. If we are co-creators of own reality, how did we evolve in this reality? Time and space do not exist as things in themselves.

Would anyone like to comment on this specific question, which is central to this thread? It implies an idealistic worldview.

[richard_mcnair]

Originally Posted by Aedes

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.

Evolutionary biology may not be interested in such questions, nevertheless it is practice for a large number of people to try to answer questions with evolutionary biology, that can only be answered with some reference to such questions, and they don't - this is what I am attacking.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by richard_mcnair

Evolutionary biology may not be interested in such questions, nevertheless it is practice for a large number of people to try to answer questions with evolutionary biology, that can only be answered with some reference to such questions, and they don't - this is what I am attacking.

Then you've expressed no concerns whatsoever with evolutionary theory itself. You're attacking people who are using a roadmap to find their keys -- they're asking the wrong question. That's not the roadmap's fault, though.

[Theaetetus]

Originally Posted by richard_mcnair

once again NO-ONE is answering my ACTUAL question. How does something evolve in time and space, before there was 'mind' to create time and space. If we are co-creators of own reality, how did we evolve in this reality? Time and space do not exist as things in themselves.

Why does time and space need to be created? Not to mention, why does there need to be 'mind' to create these things? "Co-creators of our own reality" implies that there is something besides us that creates our reality. What is this so-called co-creator? I can see how time does not exist as a thing in itself, because I assume you are talking about space-time, but why does space not exist as a thing in itself. It seems that space may be the only thing that truly exists as a thing in itself. Everything else seems to be dependent on something else, but empty space just is.

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by richard_mcnair

Well you havent been stopping me, but rather than answer my question you have been trying to simply dismiss it.

There has been an honest desire on my part to understand precisely what you mean, and demonstrate why I was having trouble.

Anyway, you have now rephrased in a way I understand.

If kantian idealism is correct, along with various ideas relating to the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that 'conscousness expresses itself as matter' as davd bohm put it, and that we are indeed co-creators of our relaity, then this refutes the richard dawkins traditional picture of the beginnings of life on this palnet?

Short answer - yes.

Longer answer - yes, but it invalidates the scientific method, not just (the popular perception of) Richard Dawkins' application of it (which I feel is based on a subtle misunderstanding anyway, as I explained to jeeprs).

Whilst I agree that IF Kant et al are right the scientific method is invalid, I don't see what the assumptions of the likes of Kant have over those of the likes of Darwin.

Further, the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum is the one that states matter must be observed in order to behave the way it does, is that right?

But many of those advocating the theory also cede that an 'observation' need be nothing more than being hit by a photon - no need for consciousness (itself notoriously difficult to define).

[jeeprs]

Originally Posted by ACB

Would anyone like to comment on this specific question, which is central to this thread? It implies an idealistic worldview.

There is a link over on another thread about shortcomings of Darwinian theory, that addresses this issue. My take on it is this: DNA actually carries information. So it is a code, rather than a pattern. Patterns and codes are fundamentally differernt, for the reason that codes convey information whereas patterns don't. I suppose this is where the 'meta' of 'metaphysic' comes in. Illustration: the meaning of a sentence can be translated into various languages or media, and will mean the same thing - the meaning is different to, and independent from, the media. For that reason, I don't think you can explain or reduce information itself to material substances.

This topic has come up a lot here on the forum, in various guises, another one being the difficulties presented by theory of maths (i.e. do numbers exist if there is nobody to count them? But they are also not a function of the mind of the person counting. So - how do numbers exist? You would think this is a simple question, but you would be wrong.)

Anyway take a look at that other thread. There are some interesting outlinks on it.

---------- Post added 11-24-2009 at 01:54 PM ----------

I also don't know if science has that much to fear from any of this either. The biggest effect is on the philosophy of science, rather than science itself. I think if scientists are reasonably circumspect about the claims they are making, instead of trying to apply them to life the universe and everything, there is an enormous amount still to be discovered and no end to how much there is to know. Worthy case in point is Bernard D'Espagnet, who won the Templeton Prize for 2009. No doubting his scientific credentials, but he is not one of the hard-line 'science conquers all' thinkers.

In a statement prepared for the news conference, [announcing his selection] d’Espagnat pointed out that since science cannot tell us anything certain about the nature of being, clearly it cannot tell us with certainty what it is not. “Mystery is not something negative that has to be eliminated,” he said. “On the contrary, it is one of the constitutive elements of being.”

[jeeprs]

Hey! I'll have what he's having.....

[Emil]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

'The God Delusion' R. Dawkins.

So you say. Cite an example in that book where philosophical materialism/naturalism is derived from biological evolution.