Evolution’s Religion Revealed

_{Cornelius Hunter

June 23, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Did you know evolution is a religious theory? If this seems strange then read on. In this post I will explain one way that evolution is contingent on religious reasoning. Such reasoning is a constant thread running through the evolution genre, but it can be subtle. If you are familiar with the evolution literature you may have noticed this underlying theme, but exactly how does it work?

Enter evolutionist and philosopher Elliott Sober. In his new paper, Sober continues his work in analyzing the arguments for evolution. He has done much work which is particularly helpful in showing (i) the premises built into the arguments and (ii) the relative strengths of the different arguments evolutionists use. And strong arguments are needed for evolution, as Sober writes:

Continue reading here.

Comments

Levy, Well…you get points for effort in trying salvage your ideology, even if you loose points for style. When asked a simple up/down question which would confirm whether or not you approach the issues with obvious rationale, you run around in circles a bit, then close your comments with the following statement:
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
This comment is supposed to infer that I have asked you an unjustifiable “gotcha” question. Unjustifiable “gotcha” questions are those that when merely uttered, the respondent is to become so tainted by the question that the answer hardly matters. This, of course, has nothing to do with the question I posed. I was asking you if your conclusions were falsifiable, and your answer was “no”. In fact, I believe you were rather emphatic about your answer. Your exact words were:
What part of “no” is difficult for you to understand?
Expressing such certainty that your worldview cannot be falsified is a rather interesting position to take, particularly on an ID website where you pepper the regulars here with sarcasm. Your comments represent the central core of the average materialist’s attitude on UD. Whether you intended it or not, you could easily become something of a spokesperson for the paradigm. Let’s take a short walk back through the exchange between us and I’ll show you what I mean. And do me a favor - in your mind’s eye, imagine you are carrying a box along the way. When an issue in our exchange is resolved, we’ll put it in the box and move on to the next. Fair enough? First let’s start with the question I asked: “Would the existence of anything not explained by material acted upon by chance negate the ability of material and chance to explain everything?” This is a rather important but simple question. The structure of the question is central to scientific understanding, and indeed to most rational pursuits. If an explanation can be shown to be incapable of explaining what it must explain, then the validity of the explanation is brought into doubt. Your responses to this question were as expected. Your immediate response was to answer a different question, one that had no bearing whatsoever on the question I asked. You said:
Evolution is not “chance”. There is a random component, of course. But the clue is “selection”. It’s not selection by chance, it’s selection by success.
You then added:
Nobody thinks that “chance and material explain everything”, that’s the strawman you’ve built simply to knock down with your absurd probability 747 calculations.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with the question. I didn’t ask you about the Theory of Evolution, nor did I ask you about the power of selection. And I certainly didn’t ask about aircraft. But, in fairness I tried to get at the core of what you were suggesting – that my characterization of materialism is incorrect (a strawman) because “nobody thinks that chance and material explain everything.” To this I responded with the definition of “materialism” provided by several sources including Merriam-Webster, Encarta, Columbia, and even Wiki. To that I added a verifiable quote from a famed Nobel Laureate who confirmed in the strongest possible terms that chance is the central mover in the biological production on this planet. He stated it in such strong terms that “nothing warrants the supposition (or the hope) that conceptions about this should, or ever could, be revised.” Now is an appropriate time to get out our box and judge whether this part of our exchange has been put to rest. If we can take four dictionary sources as sufficient to understand the core meaning of the word “materialism” and if we can further accept the unequivocal testament of a Nobel Laureate on the subject, then I say “yes” this issue is resolved. You are incorrect here; my question did not represent a strawman, and indeed “material acted upon by chance” is the core explanation in the materialist paradigm you defend. In the box it goes. We can now move on to another exchange. I responded that your comments were “demonstrably wrong” about materialism and chance, to which you said that I should then “demonstrate that they are wrong rather than just stating such.” This is a comment you made after I posted the definitions and the quote. It’s time to get out the box again. In the box it goes. Next you say your answer to the question I asked is “no”. You commented:
“No because the existence of anything not currently explainable by “chance” (as you use it) would not cause me to think “oh, thing X (or it’s origin) is not well understood therefore the designer did it”.
This comment is interesting for two reasons: on one hand you are trying to obfuscate the issue by introducing phenomena that we simply have no explanation for into a question that deals with what materialism insists we already have explanations for. Materialism does not say that there is the possibility of agency involvement is nature; materialism (as presented by the repeated definitions I gave earlier) suggest that no other cause may be considered except matter and chance – whether we fully understand the phenomena or not. In other words, materialism places its conclusion above, beyond, and before the evidence. You may in turn say that Theism does the same thing, however I would remind you that Theism is not part of the scientific hypothesis of Design. Even more damning is the fact that scientific hypothesis of Design does not demand that material explanations of natural phenomena cannot be studied or considered in any observation – that particular position (of self-referring exclusivity) is reserved solely for materialism alone. Secondly, you attempt to take a swipe at a competing explanation by mischaracterizing it. ID proponents do not say “thing X is not well understood therefore the designer did it”. Michael Denton made quantitative studies of homology, the fossil record, embryology, and such. Michael Behe studied mutation rates and presented (and supported) the concept of irreducible complexity. Bill Dembski focused on rational mathematical probabilities. David Abel presented a qualitative profile of the mechanisms involved in nucleic sequencing. Even agnostics like David Berlinski, who is a harsh critic of materialism, uses material rationale to support design as a legitimate point of inquiry. Literally no one says anything like “X is not well understood therefore the designer did it”. In other words, your representation is nothing less than a petty mischaracterization of a competing paradigm – a strawman. Get out the box. These comments of yours should definitely go in with the others. Finally moving on to your last post, after the obfuscation and strawmen, you say:
Your question was stated in a unclear manner, too many negatives to sort through.
Too difficult to understand? The question was “Would the existence of anything not explained by material acted upon by chance negate the ability of material and chance to explain everything?” What are the negatives that you suggest are untenable? Is it that you cannot understand the word “not” in the sentence? Is it the word “negate” that is throwing you off? I find it odd that you didn’t ask for a clarification of these words, nor did you seem to misunderstand the sentence in such a fashion that you could not react to it in your previous two posts. In short, it is simply not convincing to suggest you cannot understand the sentence. In the box it goes. Incredibly, you then say yet again that I have not demonstrated the central tenant of materialism, nor the role that materialism assigns to chance. You quip:
No, you did not.
It is as if the dictionaries I quoted are as untrustworthy as Nobel Laureate Jaques Monod. This is nothing short of a denial of reality. Get out the box again. This is the third time for this to be put in the box. I should be the last. Then, in response to my comment (that “the more we know” then the more that agency is inferred by the observable evidence) you simply state:
Publish or perish.
This is an oldie but goodie. Against all odds, a portion of the rationale for agency has been published in peer review. A case for agency has become part of the scientific record. And as expected, people were trashed and slandered for allowing it to happen. This was done to send a signal. (Anyone who has seen the private emails knows this to be true). The old “ID never publishes” retort is now a thing of the past - even though it has been made clear to all concerned that it is never to happen again, never to be expanded upon, and never to be cited. This comment goes in the box as well. Finally, coming to the end of your comments you gain steam and start feeling boisterous. You state:
Yes, you can name plenty of religious scientists but you cannot give a single example of “science” that includes god in the answer to a question. Newton was a believer yet god is not part of his laws of motion. He may have been inspired by his belief, but it did not intrude into his scientific work. Prove me wrong. A single example will do.
Clearly, you really, really want ID to posit the intervention of a God in place of making rational observations of the empirical evidence (Polanyi, Behe, Denton, Abel, Durston, Dembski, Meyer, etc). In complete denial of the obvious, you are asking for a single example of something that does not represent the hypothesis of agency involvement in the natural world. The reason that it is not part of ID is already been told to you. There is nothing in the observational evidence that provides any information whatsoever about the existence of a God, or Gods, or any particular God, if any God at all. The evidence only supports the empirically rational conclusion is that Life is the result of an act by an agent. Nothing more. Now look in your box Levy, every single thing you’ve posted has been met with simple clarity – not obfuscation, not strawmen, and not misrepresentation. And the thing you really need to understand is this: This conversation cannot be turned around. We cannot switch positions and have the same conversation. You cannot ask me anything that I must obfuscate upon. You cannot ask me anything that I must build a strawman to avoid. You cannot force me into any rationale that I must misrepresent your position in order to avoid my own. (Perhaps you should consider what that suggest)Upright BiPed_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

R0b Indeed. There are also many claimed photographs of ghosts. Why have people come to the conclusion that they are immaterial? They can see (I suppose), be seen and even make sounds (clanking chains come to mind). What connection to the non-material realm do they have exactly? Why are they being talked about as non-material entities? Just because they can walk through walls? As walls are mostly empty space, it's not inconceivable that an advanced technology could enable that. Perhaps ghosts are the aliens we've been searching for with S.E.T.I?Echidna-Levy_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

Clive:
Including actually seeing it. ... If you deny this, that’s your business, but you do so to a prior commitment to materialism, and actual observation doesn’t much matter to you if observation competes with your world view.
I don't understand the distinction between material and immaterial, but I would think that something that emits or reflects photons would be considered material.R0b_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

William, It's a classic example of a supposed refutation based on a belief in scientism. The method of scientism cannot even bring about belief in scientism, so....some things aren't hard to calculate, it's an absurd system. And secondly, we believe in the testimony of our loved ones, of the news, of our teachers, doctors, etc. without subjecting them to the lab and gathering evidence and controlled vs. uncontrolled experiments etc. But, when something comes along that clashes with their precious scientism and materialism, they'll reject it out of hand, claiming scientific grounds as their reason for rejecting it (which they say science cannot even study), when it is actually a philosophical rejection masquerading as a scientific position.Clive Hayden_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Seversky, Evolution can't explain the human eye or even the single celled euglena's eye.lamarck_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Seversky says in 186: "The evidence for my claim that ghosts have no existence outside human imagination lies in the lack of evidence for ghosts existing outside human imagination. Please feel free to to refute that claim by providing compelling evidence for ghosts existing outside human imagination, unless that is too inconvenient, of course." That's not what I asked you to support. I asked you to support the claim that there is no such evidence. You made the assertion; you can either support it, or you cannot. Second, a positive claim of fact based on a lack of evidence to the contrary is a classic argument from ignorance. Lack of evidence of a thing is not evidence the thing doesn't exist. So, not only have you not supported your assertion that no such evidence exists, even if you could support it, you would be committing a logical fallacy in claiming such a lack of evidence supported your assertion that ghosts do not exist. Third, asking me for evidence that ghosts exist is "shifting the burden"; you are the one making assertions; back them up if you can.William J. Murray_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

Seversky, Your argument about the "perfection" of the design of the eye is a theistic argument, not a scientific one. Design is the better explanation of the two, because (1) natural law and chance have not provided a sufficient explanation for the development of the eye, and (2) design does, and (3) we have examples of design generating similar such structures (regardless of how "perfect" they are) in human-designed and engineered mechanisms. So, we have one theory which offers no significant explanation via a process known to construct such a feature (natural law and chance), and for which evidence contraindicates the potential of the theorized process to produce such a feature, and another theory that offers a process that is known to construct such a feature. The theory that utilizes the process known to produce similar features - design - is thus the better explanation.William J. Murray_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Willam J Murray @ 183
Example of biological phenomena best explained by ID: the successful, physical organism-generating digital code contained in DNA. The eye. winged flight.
Best by what measure? The human visual system undoubtedly provides us with an excellent image of the world around us but, in some ways, that is in spite of, rather than because of, the "design' of the human eye which is far from perfect.Seversky_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Willam J Murray @ 183
Please support your assertion that we have no evidence that such things exist outside of human imagination.
The evidence for my claim that ghosts have no existence outside human imagination lies in the lack of evidence for ghosts existing outside human imagination. Please feel free to to refute that claim by providing compelling evidence for ghosts existing outside human imagination, unless that is too inconvenient, of course.Seversky_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Levy, Example of biological phenomena best explained by ID: the successful, physical organism-generating digital code contained in DNA. The eye. winged flight. Example of biological phenomena best explained by law & chance: genetic entropy. The color one's eyes. The specific patterns or markings on an individual bird. Design is claimed to work with, or through, natural laws and processes to achieve specific goals. In that process, law & chance can generate many unforseen, additional, and specific phenomena.William J. Murray_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

Levy, in #137 said: "Can you give me a single example of such a rejection? A rejection not on the basis of the content of the paper, but simply because it supported ID? A single one?" How would you define or discern the difference between being rejected because of content, and being rejected "simply because it supported ID", when ID implication as content is considered a flawed scientific argument? If the reviewer that advocated rejection of the submission made a lengthy argument against the whole idea of "intelligent design" as a meaningful claim or scientific philosophy, and the editor stated that the content was controversial and unorthodox in his rejection, and that it would displace material that extended the current paradigm .. would that count? http://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.aspWilliam J. Murray_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

Seversky said: "In the case of ghosts, we have evidence that the human visual system is prone to malfunctions like hallucinations but none that such things exist outside human imagination. That means that they don’t make the cut as a scientific explanation for now." Please support your assertion that we have no evidence that such things exist outside of human imagination.William J. Murray_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden @ 155
Occam’s razor dictates that the simplest explanation was that a ghost was what they indeed saw. If you deny this, that’s your business, but you do so to a prior commitment to materialism, and actual observation doesn’t much matter to you if observation competes with your world view. If you are not an embodied spirit, then there is no “you” to begin with.
One version of Occam's Razor is entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem which is roughly translated as "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". There are others but all make the same recommendation. In other words, when explaining something, base it on what is known, at least to begin with. Only introduce something as yet unknown when you have exhausted all known causes. In the case of ghosts, we have evidence that the human visual system is prone to malfunctions like hallucinations but none that such things exist outside human imagination. That means that they don't make the cut as a scientific explanation for now.Seversky_{June 27, 2009
June
06
Jun
27
27
2009
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT}

Oramus:
An a priori commitment to the irrational idea of spontaneity as responsible for molecular development of organisms is a religious idea since spontaneity is not an empirical observation but an appeal to ignorance.
So the defining characteristic of religious ideas is that they are appeals to ignorance? That sounds like an own goal, Oramus.mereologist_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, It is narrow, it is so narrow, that you dismiss your own soul my friend. That's about as narrow as it gets, when a person denies the existence of their very self. I'm sorry that your materialist cosmos is not a large as my grandparent's living room. Clive Hayden_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
10:30 PM
10
10
30
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, And it was my dad's cousins, who were all adults, including my grandparents, my dad himself, my mom, my brother, and my uncle. Over and over. If this disappoints you, I'm sorry, the truth is difficult when you're fettered to materialist chains.Clive Hayden_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg, I'm disappointed that you're a closed minded materialist who doesn't even believe in his own soul.Clive Hayden_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

Mr. Kellogg, Why wait for thousands of years for science to invent a machine that can detect what our minds can detect now? See 176.Oramus_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

BVZ, yes it is easy, like you said. An a priori commitment to the irrational idea of spontaneity as responsible for molecular development of organisms is a religious idea since spontaneity is not an empirical observation but an appeal to ignorance. Given enough time, science will confirm what theologians have claimed for centuries; that the forces of Nature are embedded with the Word (information) and the embedding of the Word is what animates matter/energy. That was the reason Christ chastised Thomas. He revealed that He was the Word, but Thomas as the embodiment of the skeptical scientist, just had to touch Christ's wounds to believe that He as the Eternal Word, had the power of Ressurrection within Himself. Well, guess you'll have to wait in the airport lounge for a couple of thousand years (if Man makes it that far) waiting for confirmation that the airplane's safe to board. P.S. there's a limited supply of beer at the bar, so think hard about your need for confirmation.
So, here is my question again: Can you please provide me with SPECIFIC examples of religios concepts that evolution relies on? Please don’t give me a link. Just give me a quick example. It should not be hard.
Oramus_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

lamarck, sarcasm, I suppose. I don't believe in ghosts; sorry if that seems narrow. :-(David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

David is this sarcasm or an olive branch or you never had such a narrow paradigm as I thought, which one?lamarck_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

Perhaps we can develop a science of ghost detection.David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

Echidna "Unless we grant perpetual hallucinations of entire groups of people all seeing the same thing, Occam’s razor dictates that the simplest explanation was that a ghost was what they indeed saw." The key word here is perpetual (this makes its not all inclusive). You twisted this to mean we MUST ALWAYS believe all mass sightings. Clive never says this. The implied context is ghost sightings which are very common compared to the penis stealing. This will make it clear: Suppose around the entire world for centuries, penis stealing was reported. In every culture every day, all on the same magnitude as ghost sightings. Also this persisted in the US despite science's efforts to stop it. THIS is the context which he was talking about. The only context was ghost sightings.lamarck_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

"Therefore the colour of polar bear fur is designed - it comes about because of a designed mechanism. So, can you try again to give me an example of a biological entity that is not designed?" My guess is that you do not understand all the issues or else you would not make the comments you do. I didn't try, I gave you an entity that was not designed. If a system is designed based on initial conditions and boundary conditions and then let to play out, is every event in this playing out a designed event. I guess you might say that but the specific events could be the result of random conditions that are not predicted or even expected so the individual events are unknown ahead of time. Are these events designed? Most would say no but if you wish to think so then there is nothing we can do with the question. If an intelligence of immense proportions designed our universe and the laws under which it operates and then walked away, are all the events that subsequently happen, designed or not designed? If life arose as a result of this design, was this a designed outcome or an undesigned outcome. So again, the fur of a polar bear is an undesigned event within a designed frame work. Capice?jerry_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

I have to say, I'm a little disappointed that you believe in ghosts, Clive. Echidna has pointed out that other incredible ideas are also believed, with just as much empirical evidence, yet you simply choose to prefer one supernatural story over another. Do the current house owners still see the ghost? Do you still see ghosts? Do your cousins still think they saw a real ghost as children? Honestly, if you and your cousins had gotten together to fight the ghost, you might well have forced it to say "I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids." (Explanatory link for the non-American audience.)David Kellogg_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
06:17 PM
6
06
17
PM
PDT}

Echidna, ------"Why bother doing anything at all when the infinte afterlife awaits?" We're already in an infinite life, death is just a change of perspective.Clive Hayden_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

Echidna, Because some supernatural things may be admitted, doesn't mean that it all is. There is this nifty thing called discernment. I know that to you it's all ruled out, so you cannot see the difference, and therefore all is the same, or else you wouldn't have brought up such a ridiculous example. Witchcraft is not the same as seeing ghosts. I can't really believe I have to explain that. Your sense of discernment is entirely nonexistent because to you there is no supernatural. So you lump everything together. But as soon as you can explain existence itself, and all of the mysteries of the universe, in other words, once our knowledge of nature is complete without remainder, then I will have an example to compare with regard to the supernatural. But, since you cannot, I have no reason to consider the supernatural any more strange than the natural, given that we do not know the fundamentals of either, and therefore cannot make a comparison. This sobering bit of wisdom should be perpetually kept in mind by you.Clive Hayden_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

Clive
I’m not interested in a legacy. A legacy is for people who want their name in lights. That’s a poor reason for doing anything.
Who said anything about names in lights? Does "legacy" to you mean "fame and fortune?" What is *your* reason for doing anything then? Why bother doing anything at all when the infinte afterlife awaits?Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

Clive, How are the two situations different then? It is your opinion that "unless we grant perpetual hallucinations of entire groups of people all seeing the same thing, Occam’s razor dictates that the simplest explanation was that a ghost was what they indeed saw." I gave an example of entire groups of people all seeing the same thing, just as you did. Yet you deny one example and not the other without saying why they are different. As you say, the simplest explanation was simply that what the people saw was real. I'm just using your logic, as stated by you.Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

Echidna, I'm not interested in a legacy. A legacy is for people who want their name in lights. That's a poor reason for doing anything, for it makes the legacy the goal, and whatever you pour yourself into the means, which is doing something not for the sake of the thing itself, but for a different reason, that makes the doing insincere. You should put first things first, and do something for its own sake, and if a legacy comes out of it, wonderful, but if you make legacy your goal, the means will always be secondary, and therefore busy work towards a different end or goal. "Aim for heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you will get neither. " — C.S. Lewis Clive Hayden_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply