Doesn't darwinian theory fall apart on ontological grounds?

[richard_mcnair]

Ok, first off, let me say I am religious. I do not follow any particular religion, but rather, in a way, I follow all of them. Second, let me say that I believe evolution as a thing in itself is certainly an obvious fact of the natural, formal, phenomenal world. Also it exists at every level. If i learn something new, then you can say I evolve intellectually, if I learn that something I do causes suffering to some living thing, and so I decide not to do it again, I have evolved morally. BUT, I do not believe that all life on earth was once just a bunch of ameobae who evolved into everything we see now, and that this all happened through no other will than just 'survival'.

Basically I think that theory falls apart on philosophical, and ontological grounds, namely - the necessary a priori. Modern science is at its worst and most arrogant when it treats time and space as thing which exist as things in themselves, which they do not, they are created by our own minds. We are co-creators of our own reality. So am I supposed to believe that we evolved in time and space before there was any 'mind' to create time and space? Exactly how does that work? Isn't darwinian theory just logical positivism overstepping its jurisdiction? Did we evolve the necessary a priori? How exactly is that possible? Can someone please explain how the necessary a priori is explained in darwinian terms?

[Theaetetus]

How is "Darwinian theory just logical positivism overstepping it boundaries?"

I am also unclear to what this necessary a priori actually is. Thus, I would not know where to begin to explain it.

[jeeprs]

Hi Richard - I am with you on that. Here are a few random ideas I have been turning over in regard to this.

Take a very good look at Simon Conway Morris. His book, Life's Solution, is directly relevant. I am labouring through it, it is tough going - very technical - but his argument is very sound. Start with the Wikipedia entry.

Second - have a look at this thread. I don't know if it is relevant to what you are thinking about but it might be.

Third - look up the word 'entelechy'. It came to me this morning in relation to all of this. Marvellous word. Let's re-introduce it to the lexicon.

---------- Post added 11-22-2009 at 08:24 PM ----------

and another interesting work to look for, from a strictly philosophical perspective (as distinct from my neo-romanticism) is 'Darwinian Fairytales', by David Stove.

[Krumple]

Most of the time when someone says they don't get how evolution can go from an amoebae to present creatures it is a flag stating they have not done squat for research.

But that aside lets just turn it around. If a being created everything, why is there a plausible explanation like evolution? There is loads of evidence linking pretty much all life to a chain of events that can be traced back. If everything just sprang into existence as their current form, wouldn't there be absolutely NO link? Not even a shred of anything remotely traceable?

Those whom make the argument that there is no link or traceable evidence, have either completely ignored all the literature or they are stuck in some ignorant mindset of denial.

So I pose another option. Why couldn't a creator fabricate the universe and it's laws to support evolution as the tool to develop life without needing to interfere? If I were a being creating some complex universe, that is EXACTLY the solution I would go with. I like self sufficient solutions that work themselves out rather than having to tinker and babysit it.

So three possibilities and yet a person is still willing to deny for some reason all the research. It really shouldn't deserve a response.

[jeeprs]

Yes. I take your third option. I am happy with that. I think it is fully consistent with many non-theistic views of the nature of creation. I too don't believe in 'a' God that designs things. But I also think the vision of life as 'biolchemical fluke' and humans as accidental tourists in a universe that has no inherent purpose is a denial of all philosophy.

Don't you?

---------- Post added 11-22-2009 at 09:33 PM ----------

To which I should add, I do detect a problem with the OP in this thread. 'Darwinian Theory' is not actually the least bit concerned with problems of 'ontology'. The problem only occurs for those who believe that it is - either positively or negatively.

[Krumple]

Originally Posted by jeeprs

Yes. I take your third option. I am happy with that. I think it is fully consistent with many non-theistic views of the nature of creation. I too don't believe in 'a' God that designs things. But I also think the vision of life as 'biolchemical fluke' and humans as accidental tourists in a universe that has no inherent purpose is a denial of all philosophy.

Don't you?

Well to be honest, I think the only thing we are dealing with is the side effect of cognition. Once you have the capacity to reason all sorts of paradoxes arise which never existed before. I have absolutely NO problem with a stupid universe. Life could have easily been a fluke but lets go a little further. If you enjoy math and physics, why not allow for an unlimited amount of possibilities? Eventually given enough time the statistics of probability would suggest the strangest, most bizarre or perhaps even improbable event would eventually happen. But of course those who hate statistics would also hate this idea. Time becomes irrelevant and a creator behind the scene is also irrelevant. Math wins.

Originally Posted by jeeprs

To which I should add, I do detect a problem with the OP in this thread. 'Darwinian Theory' is not actually the least bit concerned with problems of 'ontology'. The problem only occurs for those who believe that it is - either positively or negatively.

I didn't bother to touch on the ontological argument because according to me and my opinion it can't hold water. In other words it has been proven false.

[richard_mcnair]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

How is "Darwinian theory just logical positivism overstepping it boundaries?"

I am also unclear to what this necessary a priori actually is. Thus, I would not know where to begin to explain it.

Darwinian theory is logical positivism overstepping its boundaries because logical positivism is only a philosophy concerning the objective external phenomenal world, whereas life itself, ie conscious experiencing beings, can only be understood in the transcendental, like in the way Kant shows us 'mind' can only be understood in the transcendental. So something which purports to 'explain' life cannot do so from a purely logical positivist standpoint. Necessary a priori, is the knowledge that exists in our mind before any experience, like space and time. Space and time are formal conditions of the mind. The entire external world is just phenomena, ie not reality as it actually is, but merely the construct of our minds, it is shall we say Platonic cave shadows for anyone familiar with his analogy from 'the republic'.

---------- Post added 11-22-2009 at 11:50 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Krumple

Most of the time when someone says they don't get how evolution can go from an amoebae to present creatures it is a flag stating they have not done squat for research.

No, I am not saying that from any reason you mean, I am saying that because I fail to understand how anything can evolve in time and space before time and space existed.

But that aside lets just turn it around. If a being created everything, why is there a plausible explanation like evolution? There is loads of evidence linking pretty much all life to a chain of events that can be traced back. If everything just sprang into existence as their current form, wouldn't there be absolutely NO link? Not even a shred of anything remotely traceable?

Who are you talking about exactly? When did I say I believed that? I dont even believe in a personal god in the classical sense. I am not proposing any theory as to how the we came into being, I am just questioning the accepted story on ontological grounds, any problem with that?

Those whom make the argument that there is no link or traceable evidence, have either completely ignored all the literature or they are stuck in some ignorant mindset of denial.

When exactly did I deny any of this?

So I pose another option. Why couldn't a creator fabricate the universe and it's laws to support evolution as the tool to develop life without needing to interfere? If I were a being creating some complex universe, that is EXACTLY the solution I would go with. I like self sufficient solutions that work themselves out rather than having to tinker and babysit it.

So three possibilities and yet a person is still willing to deny for some reason all the research. It really shouldn't deserve a response.

Once again, I am not ignoring or denying any research... did you even read my OP? I am only question the actual philosophy behind the assumptions, and the treatment of time and space as things which exist as things in themselves. We are co creators of our own reality, so how exatly did we evolve into it before we were around to first create it? Care to actually answer my arguments?

---------- Post added 11-22-2009 at 11:52 AM ----------

Originally Posted by jeeprs

Hi Richard - I am with you on that. Here are a few random ideas I have been turning over in regard to this.

Take a very good look at Simon Conway Morris. His book, Life's Solution, is directly relevant. I am labouring through it, it is tough going - very technical - but his argument is very sound. Start with the Wikipedia entry.

Second - have a look at this thread. I don't know if it is relevant to what you are thinking about but it might be.

Third - look up the word 'entelechy'. It came to me this morning in relation to all of this. Marvellous word. Let's re-introduce it to the lexicon.

---------- Post added 11-22-2009 at 08:24 PM ----------

and another interesting work to look for, from a strictly philosophical perspective (as distinct from my neo-romanticism) is 'Darwinian Fairytales', by David Stove.

Thank you, I will look into those things

---------- Post added 11-22-2009 at 11:57 AM ----------

To which I should add, I do detect a problem with the OP in this thread. 'Darwinian Theory' is not actually the least bit concerned with problems of 'ontology'. The problem only occurs for those who believe that it is - either positively or negatively.

I know darwinian theory isnt the least bit concerned with ontological ... nor is bullshit logical positivism as a whole... perhaps it should be? We know the objective phenomenal world consists of phenomena ie things which dont actually exist as kantian 'things in themselves', they are merely plato's cave shadows. We know that 'that which transcends space and time' are the noumena - things as they really are, away from platos wall, and outside his cave. Darwinian theory is merely an explanation in reference to the shadows only. That is not good enough for me.

[Dave Allen]

Originally Posted by richard_mcnair

Darwinian theory is logical positivism overstepping its boundaries because logical positivism is only a philosophy concerning the objective external phenomenal world...

Sorry to cut you short.

"Darwinian theory" is a scientific theory, and all scientific theories concern themselves with observable facts about reality and the degree to which those facts can be verified and explained by a governing idea - the theory.

So your objection is as valid (or invalid) as an objection to the theory of gravity or electromagnetism or a hundred other scientific theories.

Now you may be happy, through some sort of phenomenological mind game, to assume that it is unwise to assume the theory of gravity has something relevent to tell us about our lives.

However, to state that a scientific theory is "logical positivism overstepping its boundaries" is to misunderstand science.

Science starts with the assumption that observable things teach us something about reality.

To complain about it doing so is a bit like complaining that vermillion is too red, really, or that water's overly liquid.

So something which purports to 'explain' life cannot do so from a purely logical positivist standpoint. Necessary a priori, ...

Again, sorry for the cut.

Why is it necessary to seek a necessary a priori?

What is the a priori for a priori thought?

Is there some sort of basic assumption involved, and why is it a given that that basic assumption is required?

No, I am not saying that from any reason you mean, I am saying that because I fail to understand how anything can evolve in time and space before time and space existed.

Is a priori thought just solipsism then?

Once again, I am not ignoring or denying any research... did you even read my OP? I am only question the actual philosophy behind the assumptions, and the treatment of time and space as things which exist as things in themselves.

Sure, but to repeat (as I think this is important), science is defined by the assumption that observing phenomena leads to an undrestanding of reality.

So you can question the assumptions by all means, but science is not science without that foundational assumption.

I know darwinian theory isnt the least bit concerned with ontological ... nor is bullshit logical positivism as a whole... perhaps it should be?

I'd love to see you live your life without the various products of this "bullshit". I would wager you'd grow pretty miserable.

To fetter science by claiming that it "should" concern itself with the ontological is nonsense. It is up to those with a metaphysical appetitie for theological answers to the big questions to either reconcile those beliefs with science or ignore science.

However, too often they demand science adopt some sort of sensitivity to their beliefs, or they lie about science and twist science to some sort of collusion with their beliefs - like Christian Creationists and the like.

But (I know this is getting repetitive, but it's worth bashing into people's heads) science deals with the observable world.

And those who claim evolution is some sort of exception to this are either ignorant of the theory or unable to reconcile their metaphysical desires with science.

We know the objective phenomenal world consists of phenomena ie things which dont actually exist as kantian 'things in themselves', they are merely plato's cave shadows.

But we don't "know".

The whole exercise of Plato's cave exists to teach us the hubris of claiming to "know".

But even taking the exercise as verifiable fact is actually to miss the point of the exercise.

You are making an idol of something designed to be idolatrous.

We know that 'that which transcends space and time' are the noumena - things as they really are, away from platos wall, and outside his cave. Darwinian theory is merely an explanation in reference to the shadows only. That is not good enough for me.

SCIENCE is merely an explanation for phenomena. That's how science works. Why single out "Darwinian theory"? Why not "Newtonian" theory, or "Pasteurian" theory or dozens of others?

I seem to me unfair to single out one set of Scientific ideas, facts, principles and the theory that governs them and say that they have to satisfy some sort of phenomenological ideology which the rest of science gets on quite well without.

Yes - everything we think we know might be wrong - pretty much everyone gets that don't they? However, the discoveries of science - which I feel have vastly contributed to my own quality of life and wellbeing - work because they assume reality can be observed.

[l0ck]

Once again, I am not ignoring or denying any research... did you even read my OP? I am only question the actual philosophy behind the assumptions, and the treatment of time and space as things which exist as things in themselves. We are co creators of our own reality, so how exatly did we evolve into it before we were around to first create it? Care to actually answer my arguments?

Some young guy thought once: Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, only converted. As separated finite form is condensed energy and in a very literal sense, decaying at all times due to entropy, we can see the process and transfer of the homogeneous flux of energy that has been thus proposed as separated and condensed finite mass back into its original chaotic and singular infinite un-separated shape.

It is safe to assume, that one day, the universe will return completely to its original and infinite shape.

Pre-big bang was a state of void and absolute cold, the creator was aware of himself, however not aware of his all creative will and power, since learning is a paradoxical process, the only way to become aware of that which it was not hinted the expression of separate form, and thus created separate form, and as we are that same self-created monadic species (just unaware) we still learn the same way as the infinite absolute, that is to say through opposition as well as reason of apparent absence - You cannot know light without dark.

It has been demonstrated by Cantor and his proposition of aleph powers of infinity as well as the propositions by Bolanzo, that all is powers of infinity, one infinite aspect of existence is enough to provide evidence that the entire thing is of infinite whole, as a infinite set can only be determined when it can be compared 1 on 1 with it's sub-sets and thus a infinite set is present within each of its sub-sets. As existence is composed of finite and infinite magnitudes, we can apply this model to our system.

When the absolute heat of creation hit the absolute cold of the void, it was very litterally cold-set into positive and negative form. As conflict releases energy from mass, quality is released, and we convert the finite (unaware) form of mass into a internalized infinite (aware) form. That which we do not know is externalized (finite), that which we do know is by the opposite coin, internalized (infinite). A absolute and self-created species, self expresses with purpose always and with absolute intent, there is no 'non-purpose', even in the idea, and by that we see that in order to become aware, we must first not be aware, and differentiate ourselves through a series of separate sub-sets, I.E. realities, I.E. unaware man.

The entropic process gains speed exponentially, and as environmental cohesion is lost due to nuclear decay and the release of energy from mass, internal cohesion is gained. Our creativity guides us always, as we self-create everything, we self-create our own obstacles to lead us to that realization, and all must be expressed, even expressions of horror and crime. The process here is a process of switching forms of thought, from a separate form of finite syllogism into a transfinite form of all inclusive proposition and thus include every sub-set of the entire network. That is not to say finite thought is pointless, because it is from this we have developed the creative technologies that allow us to release energy from mass so fast, that at this point in time it is harmful to our physical form. From our ideas of cooking, to our ideas of nuclear advents, and beyond, the conversion process has always been guiding us towards itself, and towards awareness, and there is but no other way to go.

[Aphoric]

Originally Posted by Krumple

Most of the time when someone says they don't get how evolution can go from an amoebae to present creatures it is a flag stating they have not done squat for research.

But that aside lets just turn it around. If a being created everything, why is there a plausible explanation like evolution? There is loads of evidence linking pretty much all life to a chain of events that can be traced back. If everything just sprang into existence as their current form, wouldn't there be absolutely NO link? Not even a shred of anything remotely traceable?

Those whom make the argument that there is no link or traceable evidence, have either completely ignored all the literature or they are stuck in some ignorant mindset of denial.

So I pose another option. Why couldn't a creator fabricate the universe and it's laws to support evolution as the tool to develop life without needing to interfere? If I were a being creating some complex universe, that is EXACTLY the solution I would go with. I like self sufficient solutions that work themselves out rather than having to tinker and babysit it.

So three possibilities and yet a person is still willing to deny for some reason all the research. It really shouldn't deserve a response.

Or, what if it's a subtle balance? Sure, there's plenty of evidence for evolution. I mean heck, you can SEE evolution in the course of hours when observing bacteria. However, there are plenty of problems with all of the current models we have for evolution, so nobody has it completely solved, and I honestly doubt that it ever will be. That being said, the exact same thing goes for Creationism. There is rational, empirical evidence for intelligent design while there is also major controversy and debate over some of the finer points of its proponents. I just don't understand why it has to be one or the other.

Also, who says God couldn't have created the universe that way? Maybe God wants to tinker a little. Plus, aren't you kind of suggesting that you wouldn't want to "baby-sit" your own child in such a scenario? I should hope my God isn't so callous, hehe.