This post is for the continuation of a thead from another site where the Theory of Evolution vs. a Creationist approach is being discussed as to the best explanation for the observable evidences of changes is being discussed. To date, what has been stipulated is that evidence is defined as any data that are verifiable like fossils, DNA and others; that in science a Theory is the top rung and that the Theory of Evolution will never be a "proof" of the observable fact of biological change. The argument is whether the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is in fact the best explanation, which is admittedly the most prevalently believed in scientific circles in contemporary culture.
The evidence has just begun to be examined and, as many times beginnings do, started at the beginning, namely the Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record. Please follow the comment thread for a continued discussion, where the first comment is the last comment and follow-up question from the previous line of discussion.
So I checked out the Berkeley site you provided (thanks by the way for primary source). I also did some additional searching and read a couple articles from the PNAS site and learned quite a lot. I'll give a brief synopsis of what I found and let me know if I missed anything.
ReplyDeleteEdiacaran fossils have been dated to about 100 million years before the Cambrian period and have been catagorized as follows:
Cyclomedusa davidi - used to be thought a jellyfish, now thought to be holdfasts (most common)
Dickinsonia costata - jellyfish with apparent head end
Tribrachidium - jellyfish with three-way body plan
Mawsonite spriggi - originally thought to be jellyfish, not thought to be another holdfast type
Spriggina floundersi - tube-like unit with head, mouth and through-gut
Parvancorina minchami - may be three-dimensional, central ridge with arched lobes
The following summary of their form was given as follows:
"The various elements of the Ediacara fauna are united by one common character, none have any hard parts. There is no evidence of mineralisation in any fossil so far found. Thus the preservation of essentially 'soft bodied' organisms presented something of a quandry, especially as they are preserved in what is now quartzite".
The physical characteristics of the trilobite (which is said to have evolved from the previous) are as follows:
"When trilobites are found, only the exoskeleton is preserved (often in an incomplete state) in all but a handful of locations
The cephalon of trilobites is highly variable with a lot of morphological complexity.
While there is direct and implied evidence for the presence and location of the mouth, stomach and digestive tract (see above) the presence of heart, brain and liver are only implied (although "present" in many reconstructions) with little direct geological evidence.
The pair of antennae. suspected in most trilobites (and preserved in a few examples) were highly flexible to allow them to be retracted when the trilobite was enrolled.are probably similar to those in extant arthropods and as such could have sensed touch, water motion, heat, vibration (sound), and especially olfaction (smell) or gustation (taste).
Even the earliest trilobites had complex, compound eyes with lenses made of calcite (a characteristic of all trilobite eyes). Trilobite eyes were typically compound, with each lens being an elongated prism. The number of lenses in such an eye varied: some trilobites had only one, while some had thousands of lenses in a single eye. In compound eyes, the lenses were typically arranged hexagonally."
My follow-up question to you after having reviewed these sites is how does the evidence (the fossil record as you have defined it) show evolution took the jellyfish, tube-like, sea worm forms with no hard parts or even any traces of calcium to the trilobite which had an exoskeleton, a fully developed digestive and sensory system of antennae and eyes? I didn't see any other fossils listed in between the ediacaran and cambrian so it seems a stretch to just conclude that evolution is the best explanation, unless you are simply basing that premise on other evidence you may have that comes after these most dated finds.
Do you know of any fossils in between the ediacaran and cambrian finds (such as a jellyfish form with signs of calcification, or better yet with a hardened shell, or a sea worm with hexagonal eyes)?
Another problem I have is that even if evolution is stipulated as the best explanation of the differences between the ediacaran and cambrian forms does it then follow that only 100 million evolutionary years is all that is required to make a step-by-step series of changes to get what appear to be major physiological changes? I have heard the explanation for the formation of the eye to be in the range of billions of years, not 100 million?
Can you shed some light on this?
Jeremy asks: "...how does the evidence (the fossil record as you have defined it) show evolution took the jellyfish, tube-like, sea worm forms with no hard parts or even any traces of calcium to the trilobite which had an exoskeleton, a fully developed digestive and sensory system of antennae and eyes?"
ReplyDeleteIt (the fossil evidence) doesn't do this all by itself. Fossils are only part of the body of evidence that biologists use, not the entirety of it.
Fossils provide many transitional forms, ordered chronologically exactly as the ToE describes, and these fossils help to map the evolution.
Here is a perfect description of this in action:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml
It's important to note that if fossils were discovered 'out of order' then the ToE would fall. Finding a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian strata is one simple example - the ToE would NOT be able to explain that. This has not happened though - every fossil lines up chronologically to show that life has evolved over the years to (eventually) become human.
Jeremy continues: "if evolution is stipulated as the best explanation of the differences between the ediacaran and cambrian forms does it then follow that only 100 million evolutionary years is all that is required to make a step-by-step series of changes to get what appear to be major physiological changes?"
The answer is yes and no. You have to watch that you don't assume from a picture what the species is doing internally. Many things don't fossilize well making the fossil record an incomplete picture.
Take the eye for example....
Continued: "I have heard the explanation for the formation of the eye to be in the range of billions of years, not 100 million?"
Not having an eye and then 100 my (million years) later having one doesn't tell the whole evolutionary story.
The eye didn't evolve in 100 my - it likely took longer (I've heard 600 my). But there are SO MANY intermediate steps that need to be taken to get from no-eye to eye. Many of those intermediate steps LOOK like they don't have an eye - but it's in the process of developing.
Here's another page (it's short) with a better explanation than I have given:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
That is another great evolution site btw - www.talkorigins.org
Cheers.
Joe_Agnost. Thanks for the reference sites, again an interesting read. I've got another definition question, but that's on toward the end.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the site you gave for the transitional form is really not an apples to apples comparison of my question. You showed fossilized whale heads and showed nostrils moving up the nose. What I was asking for was a fossil showing a change from something like a jellyfish to something like a trilobite. We already stipulated changes occur. I'm not really challenging changes in degree (i.e. location of nose, 3 meters long vs. 8 meters long, etc.) but rather changes in kind. The change from a jellyfish to a trilobite would mean a complete change in kind (no skeleton to completed exoskeleton, no sensory organs to sensory organs, no eye to hexagonal formation, etc.) Do have a transitional fossil for that type of change?
And now the question of definition. How do you define evolution? It may be that we are using the same word but with a different meaning which will inevitably lead to confusion later if not settled now.
As to the second reference to the eye. There is no doubt that the fossil record will not show every single soft part of a creature. However, we have already decided that evidence is any visible data. If there is an absence of visible data relative to transitions that lead to the formation of the eye then we could not say evidentially it "must" have happened without being predisposed beforehand to it's necessity. In our agreed language it could not be used to advance an hypothesis to a theory. Also, with regard to the time element. Your reference stated the following:
"Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations." This calculation assumes that each step representing a 1 percent change took place sequentially (in other words one change in every generation). Is there evidence to support the assumption that 1 percent changes occur in every generation or do they skip generations? This could have a significant impact of the time estimate. Also, this assumes that each step along the way was a positive step toward the final product. However, if the formation of the eye is a random process with no end result in mind, how can the assumption that every step was a positive step be given without just assuming it? It just seems to me to assume too much.
This same usage of assumption shows up in the first reference site as well:
"Although pakicetids were land mammals, it is clear that they are related to whales and dolphins based on a number of specializations of the ear, relating to hearing."
Again, this appears to assume too much. Whereas changes in the formation of the ear may be sufficient for saying whales changed into some other land animal, it is not a necessary deduction (or 'clear' from the visible data available (evidence as we have defined it)).
Again, we are both looking at the same evidence, but without assuming that things like jellyfish change into things like trilobites I just don't see that the evidence necessarily supports the progression from a hypothesis to a theory.
Jeremy wrote: "The change from a jellyfish to a trilobite would mean a complete change in kind"
ReplyDeleteHere we have one of the biggest problems with creationist 'speak'... the word "kind".
It's not biological, in fact it has never been adequately defined at all!
What is a "kind"? You'll need to properly define it if you wish to discuss it. Is a poodle the same "kind" as a retriever? A wolf?
Without proper definition how can we discuss something changing "kind"?
Since I'm not an expert (by ANY means) on this stuff I don't have any fossil evidence at my disposal for "jellyfish to a trilobite" fossils.
I saw a facinating short video featuring Richard Dawkins talking about vestigial organs in dolphins though. Dolphins have hind limb bones which serve no purpose today but can be shown to be a result of having once had hind limbs. They have actually found dolphins in the wild which were born with these bones having actually formed small (useless to the swimming animal) hind legs!
Jeremy asks: "How do you define evolution?"
I define ~biological~ evolution as follows:
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. (not my words - I don't know who to attribute them to though.)
That's how I see it... but biologists would be more accurate and would likely say something like:
Evolution is any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. (Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974)
Jeremy wrote: "However, we have already decided that evidence is any visible data."
Not quite. I sad "verifiable", not "visible".
Jeremy continues: "In our agreed language it could not be used to advance an hypothesis to a theory."
You are making the mistake of assuming that fossil evidence is the ONLY evidence. That's not the case.
Jeremy continues: "This calculation assumes that each step representing a 1 percent change took place sequentially (in other words one change in every generation). Is there evidence to support the assumption that 1 percent changes occur in every generation or do they skip generations?"
It is a 'minimum' estimate. It's not saying that this IS how long it took, but that theoretically it ~could~ take as little as that much time. In other words it need not take billions of years necessarily.
Jeremy continues: "this assumes that each step along the way was a positive step toward the final product. However, if the formation of the eye is a random process..."
That's another misconception about evolution. It is NOT random! It is fueled by a selection mechanism known as 'natural selection'. The changes in alleles happen randomly but then natural selection kicks in and is anything BUT random. A change in allele which benifits the organism will likely be passed to the next generation, one that is negative or has no benifit will likely not be passed on to the next generation. There's nothing "random" about that!
Jeremy wrote: "I just don't see that the evidence necessarily supports the progression from a hypothesis to a theory."
Of course not! You're looking at a ~tiny~ fraction of the evidence. It wasn't moved to "theory" because of speculative eye evolution, or dolphin ears, it's ~much~ more than that!
Before you're able to provide meaningful resistance to the ToE you're going to have to learn A LOT more about it I'm afraid... and I'm not the guy to teach you since I'm not nearly well enough educated in this matter myself.
Let me begin by saying that no stranger to mistakes am I. With respect, however, I believe you may be moving too fast. I was not in my comments trying to imply that because there are no transition fossils between jellyfish and trilobites that the entire Theory of Evolution is in a shambles. You stated previously that all the evidence (I believe in your comment the all was in all-caps) was compelling. I was simply trying to say that this particular piece is not compelling. It might be stating the obvious, but I though it worthy to mention given your previous assertion that all evidence pointed to the ToE being the best explanation. This is precisely why I asked for another piece of evidence, so we can look at that one and see where it leads.
ReplyDeleteI do apologize for the visible vs. verifiable mistake. I did that elsewhere and corrected it before posting, I just missed that one.
I'll also try to stay away from using non-biological terminology like "kind". (FYI, though, the Hebrew miyn is the word translated as 'kind' in the Bible which means "to portion out" or "to sort out", and has been modernized into genus or species. The Genesis text also provides the specific "sort"'s: plants and trees, creatures of the sea, birds of the air, living creatures on land. In my dictionary genus is defined as "one of the major taxonomic groups used to scientifically classify plants or animals". If that is the accepted definition of genus then i'm not sure any Biblical definition of 'kind' would ever be acceptible no matter the specificity.) From now on i'll just stick with the more simplified point that although small changes like a change in location along the skull of nostrils may be a sufficient evidence for the broader statement that whales transitioned from sea to land, it is not a necessary condition.
"Evolution is any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. (Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974)" Thanks for the reference, but wow that's pretty broad. Basically any measureable genetic change is considered evolution, eh? I'll have to think on that one for a while. But essentially you are saying then that the Theory of Evolution and the process of natural selection is the best explanation for any measureable genetic change from one generation to the next?
You said: "Before you're able to provide meaningful resistance to the ToE you're going to have to learn A LOT more about it I'm afraid... and I'm not the guy to teach you since I'm not nearly well enough educated in this matter myself." I am well aware that I have a lot to learn in a number of areas. That's why I wanted to continue this thread with you. I don't know that i'm really trying to "provide meaningful resistance" to the ToE. There are much more intelligent people on both sides of the issue that are better qualified now to "provide meaningful resistance" to the ToE. I'm looking only to look at the evidence and ask questions as to what is the best explanation of it. You look at the evidence and say that the ToE is the best explanation, I look at the evidence and say that creation is the best explanation. We are agreed that we will never have a proof from the evidence, and that neither of us are experts. I just enjoy the discourse and thinking things through. As i've stated before, my faith is in Jesus Christ and so my belief in God is not dependent or contingent upon whether or not i'll ever know all there is to know about alleles, DNA or the fossil record.
With that in mind i'd like to continue with other evidence if you are still interested in the interchange. Since I began by asking about the Cambrian Explosion as an example, why don't you provide some evidence that you believe makes the ToE convincing.
Joe_Agnost, i've thought some more about your definition of evolution. I'm also not a geneticist so I looked up the definition of allele for my own benefit:
ReplyDelete"An allele is an alternative form of a gene (one member of a pair) that is located at a specific position on a specific chromosome. Organisms have two alleles for each trait. When the alleles of a pair are heterozygous, one is dominant and the other is recessive. The dominant allele is expressed and the recessive allele is masked."
We may be getting more into philosopy here, but i'm a little concerned about some of the outworkings of this genetic definition of evolution and your presented belief that the ToE is the best explanation for evolution in those terms. We humans exist today with a sense of right and wrong, we have for centuries asked questions of ourselves and our existence, we love, we have a sense of what ought to be. Given the definition of evolution you gave, are you suggesting then that all those attributes are the result of a random increase in frequency of certain alleles from one generation to the next and love, evil, conscience, logic, awareness, etc. are a product of that?
I'm still thinking through some of the implications, but that's a pretty scary concept. I'm not being accusatory here so please don't take it that way, but we seem to be laying a lot of extremely significant things at the feet of biology and genetics.
One addition to the "kind" question, and the populat creationist assertion that they believe in micro- but not macro-evolution.
ReplyDeleteSo why are biologists so comfortable lumping together the comparatively large leaps as evidenced in the fossil record and the small evolutionary changes readily detectable in the lab?
Simply speaking: Because they are one and the same. Specifically: There is no reason for the known and watchable processes that e.g. immunize a bacterium against antibiotics to stop for some sort of invisible "species" border. Since all change happens at a molecular level, every single step is as probable as every other, so as long as you get from A to B without any steps in between that are too harmful for the organism (and given enough time), it doesn't matter how far A and B are apart.
As Joe already said, there is lot's of evidence in lot's of different fields to consider, and while not all of them on their own are compelling evidence for evolution (though many are), every single one of them is consistent with evolution, and taken as a whole they are extremely compelling.
So the ToE is a very good explanation. Is it the best explanation we have? I'd say yes, mainly because of the bad quality of the alternate theories I know of.
"Given the definition of evolution you gave, are you suggesting then that all those attributes are the result of a random increase in frequency of certain alleles from one generation to the next and love, evil, conscience, logic, awareness, etc. are a product of that?"
Yes and no. Not everything that makes us us is genetic. Our surroundings (upbringing, environment etc.) have been shown to also have a strong effect. So in that sense, no, love, evil, conscience and logic are not necessarily a product of our genes. But if you factor into that the what I'd call environmental influences then yes, the above is the result of this combination.
I'm too busy to respond properly - I'll do that on Monday.
ReplyDeleteBut lastchancetosee wrote something I wanted to emphasize: "As Joe already said, there is lot's of evidence in lot's of different fields to consider, and while not all of them on their own are compelling evidence for evolution (though many are), every single one of them is consistent with evolution, and taken as a whole they are extremely compelling."
When you (jeremy) wrote: "You stated previously that all the evidence (I believe in your comment the all was in all-caps) was compelling."
I was going to respond with (almost) exactly what lastchance wrote above. It's not that all the evidence ~by_itself~ was compelling - but that it ALL (those all caps again for emphasis) was consistent with the ToE. There is no evidence which does ~not~ make sense with regards to the ToE.
I'll be back on Monday to further this discussion... Cheers.
lastchancetosee, welcome. I remember some of your posts from the other site and i'll glad to have your input as well.
ReplyDeleteYou said: "Since all change happens at a molecular level, every single step is as probable as every other, so as long as you get from A to B without any steps in between that are too harmful for the organism (and given enough time), it doesn't matter how far A and B are apart."
The part is problematic for me is the part that inevitably comes in, namely 'so long as you get from A to B without any steps in between that are too harmful for the organsim (and given enough time).' That assumption works out fine if you start by seeing the ToE as the best explanation. For me it's just too much to assume. This is exactly the point of contention that changes at the genetic or molecular level may not necessarily lead to large scale differences now (i.e. jellyfish to trilobite as we have been discussing here).
Also i'd have to have a bit more explanation of your environmental effects before I could see creedance in your combining measureable genetic changes in individuals with environmental effects produce emotion, reason, etc. Environmental effects that you've described are either other people we are in contact with (which are just other products of measureable genetic changes, or things like weather or location (Canada vs. US). Please elaborate on that point for me if you would.
See my comment to Joe-Agnost below for follow-up on what you both said relative to the whole picture of ToE evidences.
Again, thanks for taking part in the discussion. It's nice to have you on board.
Joe_Agnost. I'm about out of time until Monday so i'll have to be brief also and pick up next week.
ReplyDeleteYou said: "I was going to respond with (almost) exactly what lastchance wrote above. It's not that all the evidence ~by_itself~ was compelling - but that it ALL (those all caps again for emphasis) was consistent with the ToE. There is no evidence which does ~not~ make sense with regards to the ToE."
Perhaps my makeup and mindset will help here. I am a structural engineer by profession. I can accept all parts fitting together when put together and assembled, I had tinker toys as a child (made a pretty cool ferris wheel with my dad too). However, I also know that if I take out the first piece and can't get it to fit I get a bad feeling. This works out at my job in steel fabrication as well. When a building is put together if the anchor bolts that hold the columns in place are located wrongly even if all the other pieces are right the building doesn't fit up. That's why it's hard for me to move past even this first discussion with the Cambrian Explosion. I see the lack of evidence (verifiable data) in the fossil record as a mis-located set of anchor bolts. If we are going to limit ourselves purely to the scientific realm then we can't speak of the intermediate steps that may have occured but we never see in the fossil record because they are soft parts can we? We only consider the evidence (verifiable data) don't we? Now I don't believe anyone can move on without making just those kind of inferences, but it is a big assumption to say even though this missing piece of verifiable data is missing at the very earliest levels i'm at least skeptical of other evidences.
This is why I asked for another piece. I'm geared to go slow and build the ferris wheel one piece at a time. If this handicaps my understanding of the ToE so be it. It'll just take me more time to sift through each piece.
By the way, my belief in Christianity is much the same. I believe the Bible is true, and Colossians 1:16-17 says "For by him (Jesus) all things were created...all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." Whereas you might say "so long as not too many changes that are bad for the organism occur and there is enough time" I would say things were created and God holds them all together. Both of us looking a the same evidence, you saying the ToE with natural selection is the best explanation and me saying the God of the Bible is the best explanation.
I know we disagree on this point and it may take us off the present line, I just wanted to let you know my stance. I feel like you've expressed yours very well and I hope although you may think it unscientific or even downright silly that my offering here was at least coherent.
Please feel free to continue on and provide another piece of evidence for consideration if you like. Until next time.
I'll start with the environment.
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking, it has become obvious that we are not entirely determined by our genes, but also by environmental factors. A very basic example: Change how much you "eat" before you're born or how early you're born and you change the organism, although it's genetically identical. Get born and grow up in Antarctica and you'll turn out rather different from you-who-grew-up-in-dubai.
If you include not only love/reason etc. per se, but also their products, then it gets even more obvious - your identity and how you view the world is almost entirely a product of your environment.
That's what I meant when I said that you can't lay everything that makes us us at the feet of evolution. For example, you mentioned our sense of morality. Some of it may be entirely genetic (I don't know, I'm a biophysicist and don't follow all of evolutionary biology), but much of it is probably due to us living in packs.
If you're interested in the philosophical side of this (reason, morals etc), I'd suggest you start by reading the appendix to this: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/goldstein09/goldstein09_index.html (just scroll down). It might save us some time.
Now, on to macroevolution!
"This is exactly the point of contention that changes at the genetic or molecular level may not necessarily lead to large scale differences now"
And they don't, NECESSARILY. Given the right environment all of live could very well have stopped at the bacterial stage (and some of it did → archaebacteria). We see that it didn't, but it could have.
The point I was trying to make is that there is nothing there to stop them.
If we agree that evolution on a molecular level happens, but go on to claim that large-scale changes only happened by design, then we'd have to show why and where exactly these molecular processes stopped working.
That after all is the central premise of the whole theory, that at some point "microevolution" stops working.
The only step towards an explanation that creationists ever put forward (at least that I know of) was irreducible complexity - not a bad idea, but still thoroughly flawed and of course widely debunked.
That does not mean the evolutionary explanation of the cambrian explosion is true, I hear you say. True, but ...
(Maybe this is better for Joe_Agnost to explain, he'll probably be able to link relevant papers for you as well)
The fossil record will always be extremely sketchy. Almost no individual is fossilized, and of those that are almost none are found. We're finding loads of fossils and loads of transitional forms, but you'll always be able to point to something and ask "How did we get from there to there?" and the answer would be "The fossil record doesn't show."
However, to infer design at this point is rather like inferring teleportation from the fact that you can't see a car getting from the entrance to the exit of a tunnel.
Every single piece of fossil we do have confirms evolution, some of them compellingly so. But we don't and never will have fossils for everything. "But wouldn't you expect to find lot's of transitional fossils from A to B?" - no, you wouldn't.
lastchancetosee. Again, thanks for the interaction. Very well thought out and articulated comments. I also went to the link you provided and read through all 36 arguments for the existence of God and the rebuttals. In my limited knowledge and ability to accurately and effectively convey my point, i'd like to respectfully disagree at the fundamental level and a further concern for the outworkings of the genetic + environment position.
ReplyDeleteThe ToE and all the points made and rebutted on the link site begin with the same premise, namely existence preceeds essence. Regretfully even some who would defend creation also start at this point. So, for example in the link the argument goes that we see one thing, we see another thing, we assume a third thing, and because of those three pieces then God exists. The Biblical-Christian position (in which I put my faith in Jesus Christ, as i've mentioned before) begins by saying that essence preceeds existence. This is a fundamental difference at the starting point of how we view both ourselves, the world around us and the interaction between the two. The two positions are contradictory and therefore both cannot be true. I've been thinking of an illustration and the best I can do involves my children. According to the genetic plus environment (nature) position, my three boys are male offspring, or human reproductions with certain genetic tendencies toward gender, personality, etc. acted upon or influenced by our geography their grandparents and friends, etc. As a believer in Christ and their father, however, all these things are pale and cheap because those three boys are my sons. They were created in the likeness and image of God, special and with intrinsic worth, not because of their genes and environment but in spite of them. There is no greater value that can be given to them than that. This same principle is recorded in Isaiah and again in the New Testament in the passage that says, "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given." The child is born (with genetic information from the lineage, acted upon by those around him/her, in conditions based on geography and other), but the son is given. Who we are (creations of God, knit together by God, and known by God) preceeds the genetic and the environment.
That brings me to the point on outworkings. If we are products of genetics and environment then history has shown that line of reasoning to lead to an egalitarianism of ideas and an elitism of people, where one group of men/women decide what is right for the rest. Value and worth, when defined by men/women will never end with equality. I am not categorizing all atheists, agnostics or those who believe in the TeO in this way, so please don't take it that way; but the genetic plus environment position is what leads some to say that a pig is more valuable than a Downe's Syndrome baby, and led to one race of people in the not too distant past to see theirs as superior and that they would help evolution along and eliminate those of inferior genetics and environment. I'm not saying that becoming a believer in Christ stops that activity as many who claim the name of Christ have committed atrocities. The point is the logical outworking is consistent with the genetics plus environment idea, but not with the idea presented by Christ.
I believe that essence preceeds existance, and that their is an elitism in ideas and an equality of people which I only see possible in the truth of the God of the Bible. In my mind, the opposing view is simply unliveable.
I realize this is country miles away from looking at the fossil record, and that Joe_Agnost has not had a chance to respond but i would welcome any thoughts you may have in response to these points.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically i'd like to know if you feel all people have equal value and how you believe that works out based on your presentation of "what makes us us."
Thanks again for the discussion.
Glad you read the article. It adresses the most common arguments you hear for the existence of God rather well, I think.
ReplyDeleteConcerning your point about essence/existence, I admit I don't really understand what you want to say. In what way does the special value God puts into e.g. your children relate to their existence or nonexistence? What do you mean by "essence"? How do your views invalidate the "proofs" of God and refutations thereof?
"Specifically i'd like to know if you feel all people have equal value and how you believe that works out based on your presentation of "what makes us us.""
Yes, I do.
The good thing about nature is that it is indifferent. Front a naturalistic point of view there is no inherent value in anything. Things exist or the don't. Period.
Since "I don't give a fuck." is hardly a basis for successfully living amongst others we make up rules (for animals these are mainly instinctive, we have the liberty to imagine them ourselves).
(this is the rest of my post. For some reason I'm getting an error with OpenID: "Your OpenID credentials could not be verified.", although it worked on the first half - lastchancetosee)
ReplyDeleteThe naturalistic view doesn't preclude one from developing values like "All men are created equal.", the only thing that changes is that these values are not necessarily ordained but can also be arbitrary (And looking at history it is pretty clear that they always were exactly that).
I don't try to justify my moral values through anything natural (or in light of what I think makes us us ;) ). I can't. Nature doesn't care whether we live or die. Everything we see in ourselves beyond what is there biologically is something we give to ourselves.
Many of our values/ethics/morals are probably the result of the will to live inherent in all organisms and the fact that we are social animals. That doesn't change that to my mind all justifications for our values, because we always look for universal truths, are philosophical. But even in philosophy it is possible to argue from first principles (The categorical imperative would be a good candidate for a central axiom, because it seems to me to be rather self-evidently true).
Developing a coherent moral philosophy from first principles is hard work. It seems to me that we often dump our choices on this "god" character to avoid having to defend them (especially the bad choices ;) ).
(The following is not any kind of argument but rather a result of how I view our species, and a rant against the claim that there is somehow something great or elevating in this claim that morals come from god.)
I think that we are better then that. We shouldn't need to defend our moral choices by basically claiming that we're only following orders. We shouldn't belittle our capabilities by turning to a magical parent to tell us how to behave. I think we are, as a species, capable of learning to live together without that help.
"and led to one race of people in the not too distant past to" - my people, btw.
A couple of things in response lastchancetosee. Your OpenId probably doesn't work because of your choice to use profanity in your first shorter post. I haven't had to deal with that before, so i'll try to work on getting you back in and/or removing that one word from your comment. In the future, I would respectfully request that you refrain from using words understood to be obscenties on this site. As intelligent and eloquent as you are, i'm sure you have a wealth of quips, sayings and phrases that you won't have to limit yourself to that language any more.
ReplyDeleteNow on to your comments:
ReplyDeleteTo my question on equality for humankind you said: "Yes, I do. The good thing about nature is that it is indifferent. Front a naturalistic point of view there is no inherent value in anything. Things exist or the don't. Period."
My first inclination is to respond with something like the following: You say, yes I do, but on what basis? What makes nature's indifference good? If you were consistent, the most you could say is that humans exist, only equal in their existence, wouldn't that be correct?
You also said: "The naturalistic view doesn't preclude one from developing values like "All men are created equal.", the only thing that changes is that these values are not necessarily ordained but can also be arbitrary...Nature doesn't care whether we live or die. Everything we see in ourselves beyond what is there biologically is something we give to ourselves."
In response I would say that if our equality is arbitrary then it is also meaningless. If all we can say of ourselves is that we exist, then to say "All men are created equal" means the same as to say "All men are created of varying value". Equally arbitrary, equally meaningless. You can say that everything we see in ourselves beyond nature is seomthing we give to ourselves, but we are only nature (genetics and environment). So all you are saying is that nature arbitrarily says there is more than nature.
This is the point I was trying to make on existence and essence comes in. The essence is the beyond in you and the beyond in me that we both know is there. More than biology, more than genetics, more than environment or the summation of them all. What makes us us. That essence you are saying you make for yourself in your own mind and by your own actions. And you say this is better than giving over that essence to God.
ReplyDeleteI say that God created you and me with this essence. It is intrinsic. You or I can be tortured and killed, belittled or defamed, live in a country where we are persecuted only because we believe in certain things but that won't change who we are. The man can be killed, the self cannot be. Respectfully, I beg to differ when you say "we are better than that...we shouldn't belittle our capabilities..." I would say we can't do any better than that because if we are just a product of genetics and environment, just nature, then we have no capabilities, only existence.
This is why I say the naturalistic position is unliveable. If nature is red in tooth and claw, as it were, then the only thing that matters is not what you or I conjure up individually as meaningful, but who it is in power that is dictating what is right and wrong. Based on your position, if a government somewhere in the world decided that all deformed children under the age of 8 should be executed, and all mothers and potential mothers with a genetic predisposition to giving birth to deformed children should be sterilized to remove that potentiality from the available gene pool, could you really say they were wrong? They are in power and have decided that it is right. Wouldn't you be just as arbitrary in saying it was wrong? This is the outworking I for one cannot live with.
"'and led to one race of people in the not too distant past to' - my people, btw."
Mine too.
Hello gentlemen. I hope you won't object to me joining the discussion/debate?
ReplyDeleteQuestion for lastchancetosee and Joe Agnost:
If you were wrong about evolution, and I'm not arguing that you are, simply asking a question....if the theory of evolution is wrong... would you want to know?
Jon G
Jon G asks: "if the theory of evolution is wrong... would you want to know?"
ReplyDeleteWhat a silly question... It underscores your ignorance of science. (The answer is YES! Of course!)
The ToE is ridiculously solid at the moment. It has more supporting evidence for it than 'the theory of gravity' and 'germ theory' (2 theories I assume you accept). It's incredibly unlikely that it will prove to be wrong, BUT...
...before the mounds of fossils were discovered, before DNA was discovered, scientists were actively working to DISprove the ToE. That's how science works: you propose an hypothesis - and then you proceed trying to falsify it. After enought evidence supporting the hypothesis is found (and NONE disproving it) the hypothesis moves onto the the "theory" stage.
It's all about trying to falsify - not prove. Science doesn't deal in "proof", that's for maths.
If a person (scientist) disproves the ToE he would be world famous, he would be respected and would win a nobel prize FOR SURE! Science WELCOMES fact checking and theory checking, unlike religion (sorry for the dig) science is happy learning it's been wrong in the past and readily changes when presented with new evidence. This is one of the great strengths of science IMO.