"I do not wish to judge how far my efforts coincide with those of other philosophers. Indeed, what I have written here makes no claim to novelty in detail, and the reason why I give no sources is that it is a matter of indifference to me whether the thoughts that I have had have been anticipated by someone else."
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Introduction
The Theory of Evolution of Wallace and Darwin is one of the most discussed theory nowadays. Some think that the implications of the theory on our existence are significant, others that they are not. The true nature of evolution is one of the most popular things that trouble modern philosophers and scientists as well.
This article will deal with the question "Can and should the theory of evolution be applied to other fields besides biology, like philosophy?" and it will try to justify that "No" is the correct answer. I will also attempt to present the basic points of a theory called BioLogos which attempts to reconcile the valid biological theory of evolution with the philosophical stance of theism.
What is the theory of Evolution
The theory of evolution is a biology theory according to which that species have evolved through time by means of natural selection. So the phrase "Theory of Evolution by means of natural selection" is the full-correct term. Random mutations generate variations in species and natural selection sees that only the fittest ones for survival do actually survive. Weak (i.e. not fit for survival) animals die. There have been many version of the Theory of Evolution. The initial theory proposed by Russel and Darwin has changed a lot since then. The so called "neo-Darwinian" synthesis is what refers to the new "version" of that theory. [1]
Theory of Evolution is correct!
The first thing that must be said is that the theory of evolution [note: with the term "evolution" I refer to the "micro-evolution of species" (see below)] is a valid, well evidenced and elegant biology theory. It explains the evolution of species and their characteristics and noone can scientifically seriously argue against it. Many fossils show how evolution really worked in the past. Live examples also exist - consider the viruses which grow more immune to antibiotics in hospital environments. It is more than true that random DNA mutations do exist and that all species increase their chances of survival by natural selection: most weak ones dies and thus the total population tends to keep the most beneficial of these mutations as time passes. You can hardly find a modern biologist who denies the theory of evolution.
Such a clarification is of the utmost importance. Most public debates on evolution are caused by the denial of the validity of the theory of evolution by people who believe in God. What I want to clarify here is that the theory of evolution is a correct and valid biological theory that has nothing to do with philosophical problems of existence. Many geneticists (like Francis Collins) practice biology and at the same time believe in God!
It is actually a pitty that some narrow-minded people today "use" the idea of Christianity to promote ideas like the "God created the world in 6 actual man-days". We should not confuse Christian tradition and old texts with religion philosophy and with scientific facts. Please refer to my Knol What a Christian is NOT for more details on these issues and an analysis of how one can be a Christian with no such "conflicts".
Such a clarification is of the utmost importance. Most public debates on evolution are caused by the denial of the validity of the theory of evolution by people who believe in God. What I want to clarify here is that the theory of evolution is a correct and valid biological theory that has nothing to do with philosophical problems of existence. Many geneticists (like Francis Collins) practice biology and at the same time believe in God!
It is actually a pitty that some narrow-minded people today "use" the idea of Christianity to promote ideas like the "God created the world in 6 actual man-days". We should not confuse Christian tradition and old texts with religion philosophy and with scientific facts. Please refer to my Knol What a Christian is NOT for more details on these issues and an analysis of how one can be a Christian with no such "conflicts".
Some common misconceptions
It is generally very important to clarify the things one talks about. Most disagreements are a result of language misunderstandings. That is why Socrates, the great Greek philosopher, throught that before discussing anything you should first define the things that you will talk about.
Not one single "Theory of Evolution" exists
Since Russel Wallace and Charles Darwin there have been many debates between biologists about evolution and its mechanisms. One must bear in mind that not ONE theory of evolution exists. There are many different versions of the theory, some of which have great differences. [2]
What some evolutionary biologists think about the main aspects of evolution are depicted below. [1]
TABLE 1 - Various aspects of Theory of Evolution for some biologists
The table above is a simple indication of the Theory of Evolution is not just one solid piece of theory. What we refer today as "Theory of Evolution" is the modern evolutionary synthesis which was based on Darwin's theory but not for every of its aspects. In fact, many things advocated by Darwin in his time, are now considered completely wrong. That is the way science promotes and progresses: constant criticism of existing theories. That is not something bad. I mention it just because we must have it in mind if we want to really understand the depth and meaning of the theory of evolution.
We should remember that Charles Darwin did not propose only one thing about evolution but many. Along with the mechanism of natural selection, he also proposed for example the fact that all species come from a common ancestor. Knowing what you talk about is crucial.
Not one universal definition of "evolution" exists
People generally hold one of three beliefs concerning the origin of species:
When a person is asked in polls if they believe in evolution, they might interpret the question as belief in naturalistic evolution only. Alternately, they might consider it as asking whether one believes in either naturalistic or theistic evolution. Pollsters tend to like simple yes and no answers. Sometimes they do not handle questions well where there are three discrete positions.
- Naturalistic evolution: Evolution happened according to purely natural forces and processes without any divine guidance.
- Theistic evolution / Intelligent design: Evolution happened and its mechanism was/is created/guided by God. These two terms are oftenly misunderstood and used wrongly. The ID movement is a movement that attempts to prove the theory of evolution wrong, while theistic evolution accepts the validity of the theory of evolution while at the same time accepts God as the source of its mechanism. Francis Collins has proposed the term "BioLogos" (see below).
- Creationism: Species were created separately by God.
When a person is asked in polls if they believe in evolution, they might interpret the question as belief in naturalistic evolution only. Alternately, they might consider it as asking whether one believes in either naturalistic or theistic evolution. Pollsters tend to like simple yes and no answers. Sometimes they do not handle questions well where there are three discrete positions.
To what does "Evolution" refer to?
Almost all biologists use the term "evolution" to talk about two different things: the evolution of a species being the first and the creation of new species being the second. This confusion could be a result of a mistake or ignorance, but it almost certainly is the result of bad intentions: Because hard scientific data that prove the creation of new species are difficult to find (if any), scientists (or better "scientists with a hidden agenda") use the same term for both these notions in order to base their belief in the second to evidence they have for the first. Evidence for the evolution within a specific species do exist (micro-evolution). However evidence for the creation of new species (macro-evolution) do not exist in the extent some scientists would want. For example various experiments with thousands of generations of fruit-flies have not resulted in the creation of a new fruit-fly species. That is why they deliberately (?) use the same term for both - so that confusion may make some people think evidence for the first also support the second. You can visit the very insightful Knol on that subject Evolution - Facts, Theories, and Fiction.Scope of Theory of Evolution is limited
Another misconception is related to the breadth of issues covered by evolution / design. Some people (like me) regard evolution as a scientific theory covering only the development of life forms from the first one-celled animal to the present diversity of plants and animals - thus leaving space for thinking human as being something more than dust and electones. Others (like Dawkins) include the origins of the universe, the reason of our existence [which they believe it does not exist, since natural selection and physics laws existed there for ever and with no reason at all], the development of galaxies, stars, planetary systems, development of mountain ranges, continental drift, etc - thus leaving no space for purpose or something more 'spiritual' in our lifes. In my opinion it is of the utmost importance to recognize the scope of the Theory of Evolution and be very careful not to go beyond it. Science can explain the physical phenomena, but not the super-natural ones. The latter must be left to the philosophers...
In that aspect, the Theory of Evolution is a biological theory as stated above and NOT a philosophical one...
 |
| Can a watch exist without a watchmaker? |
Thus, it is difficult to answer the question "do you believe in evolution" with a simple "yes" or "no" without first having clarified the above. It may be better to leave the details of biological diversity to the scientists and the great metaphysical questions to the philosophers. According to an opinion that is becoming more and more popular over time, natural selection is something that explains well how species evolved, but does not answer any of the philosophical questions man has from the beginning of time, nor does it rule out the existence of God or purpose in the Universe.
Evolution does not explain everything...
The main reason that lies behind the Theory of Evolution - Intelligent Design advocates is that some evolutionary biologists try to get out of their realm of expertise and attempt to use the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution for things it never meant to answer in the first place. I do not believe in natural selection as an explanation to everything…According to the logic of many people (and not their faith) it seems illogical to base human existence on probabilities and to think that all the beautiful things people do are just a product or probabilities – that the human existence as a whole (not human evolution through the last 1,000,000 years, which may be well explain via Darwin) is based on probabilities. For example, for me it is logical to say that since people perform altruistic actions to stranger that are not made public to anyone else, then the theory of evolution must have missed something there… The logic of someone else might say something else. Noone has evidence to explain altruism or love or all emotions right now.
And it is unfortunate that some people use the findings of evolution theory to claim that “Species evolved” => “No Grand Designer needed” => “God doesn’t exist / Purpose doesn’t exist”. It is a very popular line of thinking among atheists and one of the reasons for the conflict that some people wish to exist.
In other words: even though I think the theory of evolution is correct for the explanation of species evolution and biodiversity, I don’t think it applies to the beginning of life (how inorganic matter turned into living organisms), the existence/non-existence of purpose or to other grand metaphysical questions.
And it is unfortunate that some people use the findings of evolution theory to claim that “Species evolved” => “No Grand Designer needed” => “God doesn’t exist / Purpose doesn’t exist”. It is a very popular line of thinking among atheists and one of the reasons for the conflict that some people wish to exist.
In other words: even though I think the theory of evolution is correct for the explanation of species evolution and biodiversity, I don’t think it applies to the beginning of life (how inorganic matter turned into living organisms), the existence/non-existence of purpose or to other grand metaphysical questions.
What is more, many great biologists even think that the dogma (axiom) of modern science that humans are just an evolved form of animals is questionable. Alfred Russel Wallace, the founder of the Theory of Evolution (see Russel Wallace and the Theory of Evolution) believed that evolution mechanisms could not be applied to humans. Humans do have some higher quality intellectuall and spirituall skills that can not easily be seen as extended, improved "versions" of respective skills animals have.
To quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “The more general philosophical issues associated with evolutionary theory—those surrounding natural teleology, ethics, the relation of evolutionary naturalism to the claims of religious traditions, the implications for the relation of human beings to the rest of the organic world—receive no single solution from evolutionary science”. [3]
To quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy “The more general philosophical issues associated with evolutionary theory—those surrounding natural teleology, ethics, the relation of evolutionary naturalism to the claims of religious traditions, the implications for the relation of human beings to the rest of the organic world—receive no single solution from evolutionary science”. [3]
Science is theory-driven, not evidence-based. First theories are proposed and then they are backed up with evidence. So for the matters of altruism, love, purpose one may propose a theory, I may propose another. This is what scientists do. I cannot understand why a theory should be allowed to be spoken and another not. Saying that a ‘Grand Designer’ is the cause of Universe’s existence is as scientific as claiming that ‘Nothing’ is the cause for Universe’s existence!
Until we have all the answers it is not proper for any of us to claim he holds the key to the ultimate truth. Especially biologists should be very carefull when addressing these issues. Dealing with human life and existence is a very sensitive matter.
The problem of ethics
The Theory of evolution has really hard time dealing with ethics. If survival is the ultimate purpose, then what stops us from lying or killing to make sure that we survive? We say that "killing is bad" or "lying is bad", but what if you had to kill or lie in order to survive as species? Does that mean that - by the Theory of Evolution - we did the "right" thing? And what if a Muslim kills people in Europe in order for him to survive? Would that make his actions moral or more "correct"? And what if a Christian killed in the name of "God" so as to survive in what he sees as an atheistic theatening environment? And what if communists killed religious people so as to keep the state running and help their ideas "survive"? Do the "survival" needs of anyone justify his - ovisously - wrong actions when examined via the filter of the Theory of Evolution? I do not think many people would agree with that. And that is why morality is one of the things evolution cannot explain. Things that are so "obvious" to everyone (like "you shouldn't kill") are not so obvious for Darwin.
The "poison" of materialism
Many scientists are materialists and they often confuse that philosophical stance with the very nature of science. As I mention in other Knols (see The Limits of Science) materialism (or physicalism) is a not-proven proposition [4] and basing everything on it is a matter of choice with no objective way to know anything about its "validity". Materialism excludes the possibility of the existence of spirit or anything different than matter in the cosmos, so it is not surprising that scientists who believe that view cannot "find" anything different between the humans and the animals. Be careful to know the underlying foundation of the other opinions, so as not to confuse "opinion" with "scientifically validated truth"...
Great scientists' objections for evolution
Many great scientists object to the belief that the theory of evolution explains everything - with the most critical questions not answerable by evolution being human properties and the great metaphysical questions of existence. Among these scientists two men are worth special reference:
- Alfred Russel Wallace: Wallace was the person who first publicly promoted the idea of evolution via means of natural selection, one year before Darwin published the same exactly theory. He was elected head of the anthropology section of the British Association in 1866, president of the Entomological Society of London in 1870 and head of the biology section of the British Association in 1876. In his work 'The Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man' (S165:1869/1870) [http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S165.htm], he argues that the theory of evolution cannot explain 'higher' human properties. He proposed the existence of a 'Higher Intelligent' being' to explain such things as the passing of inorganic matter to living matter or the existence of consiousness [5].
The existence of such big scientists that are leaders in the biology section of science, puzzles many atheists. This should not be the case however, since many logical arguments exist in favour of the existence of intelligent design in nature and human in particular.
Towards BioLogos
BioLogos [8] is a new term proposed by Collins [9] so as to refer to "theistic evolution" in a way that cannot be confused or misunderstood in any way with other "ID" theories. It also does not use the term "theistic" in it so as to avoid any confusion with "creationism" theories. This new term frees us from the burden to analyze and clarify any possible intermix with existing theories and provides us with a "fresh start" in order to build the theory of "the existence of an ultimate being" in the world.
BioLogos schema is actually a line of thinking that is in favour of the existence of a Designer (God) in cosmos. That Designer is the source of the laws and every complexity in Universe. The existence of a Designer does not mean that Evolutuon theory is wrong - quite the contrary. The world is designed by a Designer and then it evolves based on the physical laws (e.g. evolution mechanism) established in its design. What that Designer does and if he/she/it unterferes with the everyday life is a point that is not clear up to now and mostly irrelevant to the basic principle advocated by BioLogos Theory (at least up to the point I have understood): that a purpose exists in the Universe.
BioLogos schema is actually a line of thinking that is in favour of the existence of a Designer (God) in cosmos. That Designer is the source of the laws and every complexity in Universe. The existence of a Designer does not mean that Evolutuon theory is wrong - quite the contrary. The world is designed by a Designer and then it evolves based on the physical laws (e.g. evolution mechanism) established in its design. What that Designer does and if he/she/it unterferes with the everyday life is a point that is not clear up to now and mostly irrelevant to the basic principle advocated by BioLogos Theory (at least up to the point I have understood): that a purpose exists in the Universe.
The BioLogos theory tries to (successfully) combine the theory of species evolution via natural selection (at a biological level) and the philosophy of purpose existing in the universe (at a philosophical level), thus attempting to avoid the error conducted by the Theory of Evolution (which tries to cover both science and philosophical level with one purely biological theory).
Thus, it can be said that the "BioLogos" theory is actually a "marriage" between the biological scientific theory of Evolution and the philosophical stand point of theism (and not a new biological theory). The BioLogos theory does not deny the Theory of Evolution, but it fully accepts it. Its arguments just take a stand for the philosophical problems concerning our existence ("why do we exist", "is there a purpose in our lifes" etc), with which the Theory of Evolution has nothing to do at all.
Arguments in favour of BioLogos
There are many logical arguments in favour of the BioLogos theory. The main thing one must bear in mind is that the differences between Theory of Evolution and BioLogos theory have nothing to do with the details of biology. Both theories accept that the "evolution through natural selection" concept is correct for species (although many argue that it does not apply to humans). However if someone attempts to [wrongly] apply the theory of evolution to the abstract level of philosophical questions, then conflict do arise. Some of the logical arguments in favour of the BioLogos theory include:
- If causality exists in the world (i.e. everything happening has a prior cause), then everything must have a cause. So the Big Bang must in turn have a prior cause, that cause another cause and so on. However it is not logical to say that the Universe exists for ever without any reason. It is not logical to say that there is no initial cause to the existence of the cosmos, because you would then deny the fact that causality exists: it is not logical to say that everything has a cause, but that the existence of universe has not! So there must be an initial cause that would 'break' that indefinite chain of causes (this is the "First Cause" argument - see Religional Science for an analysis of the argument). The initial cause proposed by the theory of theistic evolution / BioLgos is a divine creator, since only such a being can play the role of an initial cause (since that divine creator is outside the bounds of time and space - thus not requiring a prior cause for its own existence). In the same way the theory of Evolution proposes (but has not proven scientifically) that there is no initial cause. None of these arguments can be proven with hard data. However the proposal of the Intelligent Design theory is more logical (and logic is a scientific tool).
- Most things in life seem to have a purpose for their existence (teleological argument). Many aspects of human life propose that we have a higher purpose in life. We everyday strive to improve spiritually and intellectually, we write and read poetry, we cry when we hear a favourite song, we choose to give our precious life for abstract noble ideas (like freedom or dignity or love), etc. If our life as dust particles is the only thing we have, then we would never choose to commit suicide. No hard evidence can be found for the existence of purpose in the Universe. However it is a logical thing to say such a thing. Claiming that existence is an accident seems highly illogical and, thus unscientific, for a species that creates art, thinks, loves, cries... We everyday try to improve ouselfs and go past the strict boundaries of our mortal bodies, everyday we try to improve our spirit and our souls, so telling that we have the same purpose in the world as a banana sounds rather 'not correct'.
- The Achilles’ heel of the theory of evolution seems to be "goodness". Humans have the tendency to be altruistic, do good to other people not for gaining profit but just because they want to do good. This is impossible to be explained in a world were the "survival of the fittest" rule (i.e. theory of evolution) exists. Despite numerous attempts to explain altruism and goodness as a result of evolution, no such thing has ever been acomplished. Male apes or lions may kill the offsprings of other males so that they can dominate, females may eat the males after reproducing, monkeys of a team may attack monkeys in another team, but humans may do good to other humans EVEN THOUGH that will gain them nothing (consider for example altruistic actions that happen in private without the one doing good wanting to say publicly what he/she has done). Only the existence of a higher purpose and a 'Designer' who has embedded in us the sense of Moral Law and the tendency to be good can explain such a behaviour.
- The Universe itself has been proven scientifically that it is specifically designed to support life. Some 10 basic universe parameters (like the gravitational constant, the electon charge etc) have exactly the value they have to so as to support life: a minor change to the 200-th decimal point to any of those parameters would condemn us to non-existence. This looks like design - and the existence of a designer the only logical explanation for such a thing to exist.
- Modern developments in molecular biology strongly indicate that the concept of 'design' is inherent in nature and the various species. Darwin did not know about the concept of DNA, which on its own shows that many traits of humans are coded into genes. Above all, the fact that we are beginning to design new forms of life on owr own (e.g. imrpove the human genome, create new viruses for biological weapons etc) clearly shows that the idea of 'design' in life is more than just a theological idea - it is rather part of reality.
[Please refer to the article Religional Science for a more extensive analysis of these arguments.]
Important thing to note about logic: Even Aristotle, the founder of Logic, did not know what logic was useful about. He could not say whether logic is a tool to find the ultimate truth or just a tool to discover the limits of our language. Post-modern philosophers have thought much on that. To be precise, we do not even know whether such a thing as 'ultimate truth' even exists! As Wittgenstein once said, we cannot know the boundaries of our thought, because in order to do that we should be able to think of what we cannot think!
Important thing to note about logic: Even Aristotle, the founder of Logic, did not know what logic was useful about. He could not say whether logic is a tool to find the ultimate truth or just a tool to discover the limits of our language. Post-modern philosophers have thought much on that. To be precise, we do not even know whether such a thing as 'ultimate truth' even exists! As Wittgenstein once said, we cannot know the boundaries of our thought, because in order to do that we should be able to think of what we cannot think!
One can clearly counter-argue that logic says that since we have no hard measurable evidence for the existence of purpose in the universe, then non exists. That could very well be the case. The point is that my logic may not reach the same conclusions as your logic. The logic of Godel (the greatest mathematician-logican after Aristotle) told him that God existed (see my knol Religional Science). The logic of another person might say something different. That is the reason why people argue for many things. It is human. I do not claim that I have the key to the ultimate knowledge, but I would ask from everyone else not to claim such thing either (those who think they do, try and read my knol The Limits of Science).
BioLogos critique
Many people who are against the theistic evolution proposed by BioLogos theory as a philosophical idea believe that it has already been famously demolished by David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779). The fact that Hume could only provide a plausible criticism of intelligent design, but not an alternative explanation for the complexity and diversity of life, was remediated by the theory of Russell-Darwin [9]. However what these people fail to see is that while they talk against the notion of combining philosophy (and in particular the idea of "theism") with biology, they do the same when they conclude that the Theory of Evolution has proved that a divine creator is not required.
Debate over BioLogos
Many people ofter misunderstand terms used and I am no exceptio to that. When I read books over the subject, I can almost instantly undertand that the terms are not used consistently from one writer to the other. I use the term "BioLogos" that Collins suggested so as to refer tio "theistic evolution which accepts the biological validity of the theory of evolution". Many people could confuse that with the Intelligent Design movement. Many people claim that theistic evolution is not science but religious dogma. This is not true. Science is the logical explanation of phenomena in our cosmos. Ancient Greeks saw things and they thought hard to explain them. So they reached to the theory that the world is composed of atoms, even without having the tools we have today! These ancient Greeks are regarded highly as the first scientists. In a similar way, the Intelligent Design supporters simply suggest a logical explanation of the facts they see (like the fact that all Universe parameters have exactly the values needed to support human life), in the same way as people who believe in Evolution suggest another. Neither of them has hard data - i.e. scientific measurements to illustrate how or what created the universe. Thus, "soft" logic (in contradiction to "hard" mathematical logic) is our only means of finding out how the universe was created. Maybe in the future another explanation is found. But at this point our logic says that not everything is based on chance. Godel, the greatest logician after Aristole, concluded logically that God exists. Thus, Intelligent Design is logical thus scientific.
Moreover, saying that chance is the source of our existence (as evolutionarists do claim), is highly un-scientific. Science from the beginning of time tried to find logical explanations to things and never relied on chance to explain various phenomena. Science from the beginning of time tries to find the causes of all phenomena, so it is rather ironic that some scientists claim that there is no initial cause. It is not logical to say that every event has a cause, but that the universe it self has not! After all, when examining an event, e.g. a glass of water that falls on the ground, you try to find the initial cause. If you say that "the glass fell because of the law of gravity" you would have "cheated". You did not find THE cause, you just stated the first-most immediate cause. For your analysis to be complete, you must find the cause of the law of gravity, the cause of that cause etc...If no initial cause exists (God?), then actually the simple phenomenon of the glass falling has no cause at all! The world would stop from being intelligible...
Most scientists I speak to believe in the existence of a God. Other scientists do not. There is a controversy over the matter. The fact that the theory of evolution has not convinced so many years after its initial proposal, shows something that noone should ignore: it seems as though the Evolution theory has crossed its boundaries of expertise and falsely claim knowledge of things it cannot prove or justify. Explaining how fish evolved does not necessarily mean that we have explained the purpose of the Universe!
The difficulty in explaining *everything* with one theory (e.g. theory of evolution) is clearly depicted by the following video of Richard Dawkins interview. In that interview Dawkins was asked to name one biological process that increases the information in the genome, thus leading to new more evolved species. Richard Dawkins simply did not answer...
Important note: Please do not confuse the main point here by paying attention on the fact that this video is tagged as "Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question". I am not a creationist and this page is not a page that promotes their ideas. YouTube videos have titles of their own and I cannot change them.
And do not forget that the notion of design exists even in the theory of evolution. All species evolve in a way so that the fittest to an environment survives over the least-fit species. This means that the evolution process is 'designed' to promote the survival of the fittest (and not, for example, the survival of the weakest animal thus leading to the degradation of our civilization). Who or what gave that 'purpose' to the evolution mechanism?
Be logical is the only way to reach truth - and logic says that when you play at a casino your chance will finally give you up and you will loose all your money...
Be logical is the only way to reach truth - and logic says that when you play at a casino your chance will finally give you up and you will loose all your money...
Bibliography
1. 'Dissent Over Descent', Steve Fuller.
2. 'The Origin of Human Races and the Antiquity of Man Deduced From the Theory of Natural Selection', Alfred Russel Wallace (S93: 1864).
3. http://www.discovery.org
4. http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
2. 'The Origin of Human Races and the Antiquity of Man Deduced From the Theory of Natural Selection', Alfred Russel Wallace (S93: 1864).
3. http://www.discovery.org
4. http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
6. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Francis Collins, Free Press, USA, 2006.
7. 'Notes Added to the Second Edition of Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection', Alfred Russel Wallace (S716: 1871) [http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/index1.htm].
8. 'The Limits of Natural Selection as Applied to Man', Alfred Russel Wallace (S165: 1869/1870) [http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S165.htm].
Philosophy Knols of the same writer
This Knol is part of a series of philosophy-related Knols I have written, which are listed below.
6. Russel Wallace and Evolution Theory [not philosophical, but related to Evolution Theory]
References
- The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance, Ernst Mayr, Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press. ISBN 0-674-36446-5.
- Modern evolutionary synthesis [Wikipedia article]
- Evolution, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Physicalism (Materialism) [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
- Russel Wallace and Evolution Theory
- Francis Collins
- "I’ve found God, says man who cracked the genome", The Times, June 11, 2006
- BioLogos [Wikipedia]
- The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Francis Collins, Free Press, USA, 2006.
- The Evolution of Evolutionary Theory
Spiros Kakos
Copy-Paste from Knol-to-Knol?
Murry Shohat
Invite as author
Found myself many times
You've written a 4-star Knol. To be 5-star you simply need to edit it to fix typos and spellings, improve paragraph spacings and work on the syntax a little for improved comprehension. It's a wonderful piece of work and I celebrate and encourage the effort. This is a very important arena for human understanding.
On the subject matter, I discovered myself many times. All my life I've maintained a "Grand Architect" theory. Some of my family and friends see me as an atheist. In reality I'm more BioLogos and you've explained why.
On the question or observation of Altruism, there is a growing body of empirical evidence showing altruistic behavior in other creatures, notably and visibly among elephants. As a long time dog owner, I've witnessed "kindness" between animals many times (though not as often as the opposite). And we've actually witnessed inter-species cases in dolphins and orcas, thanks to all those people running around with cameras and camcorders.
I look forward to the 5-star version, which I'll make a favorite.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Chris Fellows
Invite as author
The(odicy) Problem
(5) Because we are designers, and there may have been other designers in our biological history, it does not follow that there needs to a Designer. As one of the other commenters has said, you should read (and review for us!) 'The Selfish Gene'
(4) If the universe did not have these properties, would we be here to comment on it, hmmm? Your argument (4) reminds me of the argument in 'Candide': "Observe that noses were made to wear spectacles; and so we have spectacles."
(3) It is easy to explain how altruism could arise through group selection. A group whose members cooperate with one another and are willing to make sacrifices for one another will prosper at the expense of groups that are more fractious and selfish. The group will want to reinforce these tendencies (good for the group, even if bad for individuals) through cultural mechanisms, and so humans do. The altruistic behaviour you mention is seen among members of other 'pack' animals subject to similar selection pressures, I believe.
(2) This argument hinges on the fact only that *you* want to believe there is a purpose; why should there be a purpose? (Of course I also want to believe there is a purpose- but preying on other people's hopes, instead of appealing to reason, is improper.)
(1) I agree that the universe looks like a caused thing; but we do not know how far up the 'ladder of causality' it might be, or what could conceivably have caused it; it might have spontaneously congealed out of some pre-existing quantum froth; it might have been designed with meticulous care; it might have been thrown together in a slapdash way to meet quota, etc..
Far more important to me than the question of whether the universe had a Designer or not is, Can the properties of the universe we observe be reconciled with a Designer who is good? I think this can best be done by minimising the role of the Designer in bringing into existence the suffering and evil we see in the natural world. It is not clear to me how your theory does that.
I indeed want to review the Selfish Gene someday. In fact, someday soon...
The "teleology" (existence of purpose) and "First Cause" arguments are founded in the logic of some great thinkers of humanity. I have a small desciption in the Religional Science knol of mine. However there are of course some counter-arguments as well. I do not claim to know which one is more "valid" than the other, but I would also ask the same from everyone else...
Finally, the universe seems designed but many people believe it is not. That is perfectly acceptable and respected. What I cannot understand is why me believing that the cosmos is designed is "illogical" (as some atheists I talk with claim). I know that there are alternatives. But if we do not have an objective criterion upon which we can rely so as to decide which alternative is the best, then all should be tagged as equally "logical".
The question about the Designer who allowed evil into the world is more a question of "Free Will". Unfortunately not the simplest philosophical issue...There are theories which allow for the existence of free will and theories which do not. If humans for example design a robot, will we hold it responsible if it malfunctions and accidentally kills a person?
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Here, I am in complete agreement with you!
I think once you allow free-willed agents (which I feel is necessary to solve this problem of evil), it becomes difficult to talk about a universe that is designed: what we see could then well be almost entirely the product of free-willed entities going against the wishes of the Designer.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Pianist
Invite as author
Untitled
Evolution/The Big Bang/etc. can not be experimented on or observed; only hypothesized about. This places Evolution outside of the realm of science.
Evolution is not reconcilable with Scripture. The Bible teaches that God created the world in 6 literal, 24-hour days; Evolution states that the world came into existence through billions of years of mistakes.
I hope that all who read this will also check out the resources at www.answersingenesis
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
The Bible does not say anything about "literal, 24-hour days." It uses the word "day," yes, but at other places in scripture the word "day" is used to describe a much longer period of time which included many "literal, 24-hour days."
Also, contrary to what you have stated, there actually is quite a bit of evidence to support the big bang theory. In fact, there is quite possibly more tangilble empirical evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory than for the Theory of Evolution.
I'm not saying that the Theory of Evolution is entirely true, but the arguments you've made against't it aren't valid ones.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Klaus Rohde
Invite as author
Untitled
http://knol.google.c
http://knol.google.c
Update [13/4/2009 10:11 Greece Time]: Update conducted.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Seeger Carbajal
Invite as author
Science is logical... Religion is not... You can't mix them... Part 2
My comment was not “aimed” at what you said in your knol. My comment was “aimed” at all the things I have heard proponents of “Intelligent Design” say. The people who aggressively push for “Intelligent Design” to be taught in the schools along side of “Evolution”, are the same people who did everything possible to suppress and legally ban the teaching of “Evolution”. The concept of “Intelligent Design” was invented by “Creationists”, who failed in their attempt to suppress “Evolution”. My objection to “Intelligent Design” is that it is just another attempt to destroy “Evolution”. The people who created “Intelligent Design”, would never, ever accept the scientific fact that “man” and the “apes” descended from a common ancestor.
I believe in a “God”, but I see no conflict in believing in a God, and believing that “man” and the “apes” descended from a common ancestor. I certainly don’t believe that God created “Adam & Eve”, and that all people are descended from them. Nor do I believe that the Bible was “divinely inspired”. The Bible was compiled and written and edited by men, by Romans hundreds of years after Jesus died, who were creating a new “state religion” for the Roman Empire called the “Roman Catholic Church”.
If you want a “First Cause” and say the “the Big Bang” of Astrophysics was God creating the Universe, I see no conflict. But if “God always was, and always will be”, (no First Cause), it is just as possible (or logical) to say that “the Universe always was, and always will be”, or that the Universe Is God. But I certainly don’t believe the Bible story of Creation.
I know the Spirit World as a fact, because I have experienced it. So I know there is an after life when we die. I also know that there is absolutely no way anyone could apply “Aristotle’s logic” to it. The Spirit World contains every contradictory thing that man has ever imagined. It even contains “the Elysian Fields” of the ancient Greeks !!!. And everyone else’s hells and heavens, and every kind of creature in the universe.
Evolution describes the very consistent and logical laws of the Physical Earth World, based on observation. It is open to change. There is no “good” and “evil”.
Religion deals with the Spirit World , as interpreted (mostly) by people who have never observed it. Religion is based on rigid “Dogma” and “good & evil”, and already has all the answers. It has no place for logic (unless it gives you the pre-prescribed “correct” answer). “Intelligent Design” has not place in “Serious Science”, any more than “Intelligent Physics”, “Intelligent Mathematics”, or “Intelligent Astronomy”, and so on.
I agree with your view of religion and science in the way that they deal with different realms: the spiritual and the metaphysical one. I also agree with the fact that the "Intelligent Design" concept has been wrongly used by many to ban the teaching of the scientific theory of evolution at schools (something with which I totally disagree: the theory of evolution is a correct and valid biology theory). However I also disagree with the way some people use the theory of evolution as a tool to promote atheism (e.g. Dawkins).
Have you seen the "Modern Platonic Dialogue" I have written? I was thinking of creating a new "MP Dialogue" with the theme "Evolution and Intelligent Design". What would you think about such an idea?
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
I think that writing anything that can reconcile "science & religion', would be very worthwhile. It is probably the intellectual issue that creates the most "angst" in our society at this time. What we need more than anything else, is to unity of the "Body" (science) and "Soul" (religion) of our culture... I think the title should something like, "Science & Religion : a Modern Platonic Dialogue"... because Plato's Dialogues cover such a wide range of topics, that the title needs to be more specific and informative. Then you use "Evolution" and "Intelligent Design" (or anything else) as a theme, to illustrate the points you want to make... Below are some thoughts on the subject.
The "Intelligent Design" people say that "Evolution" is just a "theory" with no "proof". "Atheists" say that "Religion" is just a "theory" with no "proof". The "Intelligent Design" people are clinging to a literal interpretation of the Bible stories they were taught as a child, while the "atheist" sees a literal interpretation of the Bible stories as being impossible and rejects them... Each is "ignorant" in their own way. The Religious Fundamentalist clings to religion, and denies the value of Science. The Scientific Fundamentalist (Atheist) clings to science, and denies the value of Religion.
Science and Religion are similar, in that each is trying to describe "how the world & universe works". So they are in competition with one another. But this is because science itself was originally a part of religion. Astronomy and mathematics were invented by the shaman/priests to understand and explain the movements of the heavens,and how it effected man's fate. Medicine was invented by the Shaman/priests to cure people of the "evil spirits" that were making them sick. The shaman/priests were the "keepers of knowledge".
In the tens of thousands of years that modern man has been in existence, both religion and science have evolved and gone through many changes to suit the needs and circumstances of the world that man lived in at the time. Both Religion and Science have evolved along with man. As man has acquired more knowledge, both Religion and Science have absorbed the new knowledge and been changed as a result. Both need to change to be stay relevant. The times we live in now are the beginning of a new era. It started with Darwin's "origin of the species" and "machines", in the 19th century. Then the 20th century added airplanes, electricity, radio & television, atomic energy & bombs, space rockets and landing men on the moon, computers, the discovery of DNA, the Hubble space telescope, the internet, and so on. Science has been rapidly evolving, but Organized Religion has not.
Christians should treat the "Bible stories" as "parables", not literally true "word for word"... For example.... That "god's creation of the world in seven day", means seven eons, (seven being a figure of speech, meaning, "many") because day is simply one rotation of the Earth, and God hadn't created the Earth yet.... That the story of the "Garden of Eden" is man's recollection of when he was a Hunter-gatherer, when the world was filled with animals and plants, and he could easily go out and find food everywhere... That the story of Adam & Eve eating the fruit of the "Tree of Knowledge" is man inventing tools and methods to efficiently kill more and more animals, and gather more plants... That the story of Adam and Eve "Cast out of the Garden of Eden", is when man had multiplied (because of his increasing knowledge) and raped the land of free animals and plants, he was then forced to work for his food, either as a "herdsman" (raising animals) or as a "farmer" (raising plants")... That "Cain killing Able", is the story of a "range war' as the herdsmen battle with the farmers over control and use of the land. "Cain" (the farmers) are growing unlimited amounts of food, and the farmer population is exploding, the farmers are pushing the herdsmen (Abel) off of the best land and killing them... That the story of "Noah's Ark", is about a "great local flood" that covered "their whole world", and Noah was a man who saved "breedings stocks" of domesticated animals, and "root stocks" of domesticated plants, so that after the flood they could start over again, and not face starvation... and so on... In this way, there is no conflict with Science and Logic... Then the parable of Adam & Eve cast out of Eden, early hunter-gatherer man raping the land and destroying all the free food animals and plants, could be used as "a cautionary parable", and compared to what modern man is doing to the planet now. That if we are not careful, we will be cast out of the "eden" that Planet Earth is now . In this way Christians could be focused on the great Spiritual Issues of our times. Religion could then assume it's rightful place as the "Soul of Science".
P.S... Why don't you delete my first comment, as it might unnecessarily offend someone who reads your kno...
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
The "Spirit World" and "Religion" are two completely different things. "The Spirit World exists as a place that is just as real as the "Physical World". If we are alive, we are living in both worlds simultaneously... "Religion" is man's inadequate attempt to describe the "Spirit World", just as "Science" is man's inadequate attempt to describe the "Physical World".
The 'Physical World" and the "Spiritual World" exist as "Cosmic Realities"... "Science" and "Religion" are man's attempt to understand the two worlds. It is not possible to "question" or "criticize" the "Physical World" or the "Spirit World", they just are... It is only possible to "question" or "criticize" "Science" and "Religion", because they are "man made" descriptions of the two worlds. In the same way that "Science" is not perfect and makes new discoveries, "Religion" is not perfect and makes new discoveries... Both are subject to change.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Seeger Carbajal
Invite as author
Science is logical... Religion is not... You can't mix them.
Since Godel was the greatest logician of all times and he believed in God, I find it difficult to agree with you. And since Aristotle, who was THE greatest logician of all times (and can hardly be "accussed" of being a Christian...), also believed in the "First Cause" I find it even more difficult to agree with you.
Thanks for your comment!
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Anonymous
Invite as author
To Question Everything it's a part of our evolutive process.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
There was one time one Chinese Scientist that was talking with an American Scientist and he said, here in China we can question Darwinism but we can't question our President while you the U.S. can question your President but you can't question Darwinism. Just like you said it's like some kind of "Religion".
I'm making further research on this subject of the Intelligent Design and I'll be glad we can discuss it because when i talk to most of my friends about it they are not really interested on anything of that. Most of the people don't bother to question themselves what's our purpose in the Universe what are our origins where are we going next, what's the next step? Are we simply going to cease to exist are we simply a grain of sand in the Universe or is there something bigger stored for us in the future?
Best Regards!
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
All big metaphysical questions of man are just outside the scope of physical sciences. Physical sciences deal with the physican phenomena, not with questions like "what is our purpose". I refer to you an announcement made by the International Association of National Academies of Sciences http://www.interacad
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
Spiros Kakos
There is no ultimate truth
Spiros Kakos
Complementary clarifications
Thanks in advance.
A claim that the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth, then such a statement is a self contradiction, right?
// Rolf Lampa
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
The whole point of the article is to pinpoint that the great metaphysical questions of humankind are not so easy to answer with a "theory" based on some fossil, but a much greater problem that even great philosophers have not managed to answer. See my article on religion and philosophy at http://knol.google.c
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window