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

Onlookers, You even see these religious statements from the larger secular culture, apart from evolutionist scientists. An example would be those "Darwin fish", which are of course a crude parody of an authentic Christian symbol. I guess there is some room for interpretation here, but I would conclude that atheism is therefore a religious view.herb_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

"While one must conduct science as if god isn’t actively interfering in the process, they don’t have to conduct science as if no god exists." Which is exactly what I just said: "In reality scientific theories are formulated “As if god doesn’t interfere” ..." Proceeding on the assumption that god doesn't interfere renders the question of whether god exists redundant as far as science goes because if god doesn't interfere then it should make no difference to an observation or experiment. "One could similarly appeal to chance as an explanation for any test results they didn’t like or couldn’t explain." This is why scientists prefer multiple sources of confirmation for hypotheses - because it helps to exclude errors. In more general terms if you want to appeal to 'chance' then scientifically you need to appeal to a known mechanism for generating 'chance', otherwise your source of chance is indistinguishable from an interfering deity.Excession_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray: "If evolutionary theory was not religious, then scientists would be free to utilize the design framework from which to conduct their research and explanations." Are you implying that religion automatically entails restrictions on freedom? :)iconofid_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

Excession, No, it doesn't get hard to do science from a "god exists" perspective, because your example is a straw man. While one must conduct science as if god isn't actively interfering in the process, they don't have to conduct science as if no god exists. One could similarly appeal to chance as an explanation for any test results they didn't like or couldn't explain.William J. Murray_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

BVZ
the fact that population change over time?
The claim that evolution is a fact entails more than merely "change over time." It entails all the species arising from blind, natural processes, a claim that is not motivated by the scientific evidence alone.Cornelius Hunter_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter says: "It is always preferable to use conventional English to communicate, but that obviously is not working. We’re going to have to switch over to logic. Nothing fancy, just premises and a conclusion. Here is Myers’ argument which entails a religious premise: Premise 1: god is a god that exists. Premise 2: god is a god that is all-powerful (throw in all-knowing and all-good if you like) Premise 3: god is a god that “pulls the strings and shapes history” for our benefit Conclusion: god is a god that would not likely create the universe that we observe Now, it is impossible, repeat impossible, to arrive at Myers’ conclusion from the stated premises. Break out your logic books, evaluate the argument, you cannot get to the conclusion from the premises." Myer's is not claiming to come to any conclusion from any premises, but from observation (which is certainly scientific and which you mention in your "conclusion") in relation to that particular proposed god (which is not his proposal). For example, observation of the universe would tell you that just one large asteroid occupies a greater area of space-time than we humans, but would we seriously consider the proposition that the entire universe was created for the benefit of asteroid B1348? Then, even when we look at the tiny dot of space-time that we occupy, and at the life system we are part of, we see that most of its history and biomass consists of micro-organisms, and there would certainly be no reason to come up with the idea that Dodos or Apes were the objective of such a system. Then, by any normal understanding of beneficial, in English (which you mention above) disease is not beneficial to us, and detrimental mutations, by definition, are the opposite of beneficial, and would be optional for an omnipotent god who can, by definition, pull the strings of history whichever way he wants. The conclusion necessarily entails additional non scientific premises. You can easily imagine what could work. For example, “The universe we observe is a universe that is not to our benefit” which is not a scientific premise. The evolutionary response is typically to scoff at such a caution because, after all, this premise is so obviously true. Wars, destruction, disease. Nature, as Hume put it, seems to have been designed to embitter the life of every living being. "The universe that we observe does not appear to be created for us any more than for anything else that exists in it, and cannot be described as perfectly beneficial to us" is a scientific observation. It comes from observation, not philosophy, and certainly not theology. The "perfectly" is there because of omnipotent benevolence in the described god. It does not require religious belief to make an observation about a religious belief (try it with Scientology!). But of course all of this relies on non scientific premises about what benefits us, what doesn’t benefit us, and so forth. That is why it is a religious argument. It is a scientific observation that distant galaxies do not seem to be constructed for our benefit. As to whether or not cancer and leprosy are to our benefit, we just need to go with the understood definition of the word. It is not merely a hypothetical test. Evolutionists can throw sand in all directions, but it doesn’t alter the fact that they use religious arguments. Saying "evolutionists use religious arguments" is meaningless in this discussion. Do you mean all of them? Of course a religious evolutionist might make a religious argument for or against something. Theologian John Polkinghorne makes a religious argument about evolution, claiming it is his god's way of giving us free will. But you seem to be implying that the statement "biological evolution is a fact" requires religious arguments, and also, you seem to make another (very different) claim, that the theory of evolution depends on religious arguments. For the first claim, look up definitions of biological evolution, and you'll see that you're obviously wrong. For the second claim, I'd like to hear just one religious argument that all evolutionists make and that the ToE depends on. The tragedy here is that these identical claims have been made over and over in the history of thought. Myers’ religion can be found in the 20th c, 19th c., 18th c., 17th c., 16th c., … We’ve been over this ground over and over. It’s fine to hold the view and make the argument, but let’s not fool ourselves that it is something new and not religious. Of course those obvious arguments are not new, and of course they have been made for centuries, both by theists debating the role of their god, and by non-theists. Neither evolution (the fact), nor evolutionary theory require them, and even when they are made, religious belief is not required to make them. We see "god" arguments so much in relation to biology because we come from a traditionally creationist culture which is shifting (painfully!) to a more naturalistic view. Also, because no-one has come up with a strong naturalistic alternative explanation for the origin of species other than some form of evolution, so the traditional argument from design is the only thing to compare it to, which is why people from Darwin to Dawkins have done this sometimes when explaining their ideas.iconofid_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

"forming a theory to account for a phenomena “as if a god does not exist” is in itself a theistic position;" And surely so is forming a theory to account for a phenomena as if a god does exist. Your picture isn't subtle, it is fairly crude. In reality scientific theories are formulated "As if god doesn't interfere" because if we assume god is always interfering then it gets very hard to do science. - 'Did I just get a confirmation of X or is god pulling my chain?'Excession_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

If evolutionary theory was not religious, then scientists would be free to utilize the design framework from which to conduct their research and explanations.William J. Murray_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

I think the more subtle picture is being missed; forming a theory to account for a phenomena "as if a god does not exist" is in itself a theistic position; the hypothesis must accommodate that metaphysical position, which is why the the heuristic "it appears to be designed", and any hypothesis derived from that heuristic is regarded as non-scientific. IOW, if one was free to implicate design in any accounting of how a giraffe's neck became so long, then one is free to use that heuristic in their epxlanation or research protocol. I.E. "Okay, if one is designing an elongated neck for a purpose, what else must be simultaneously designed, and what is the cost/benefit rations apparent in the design? If such a thing is being designed, there must be a reason why it is being designed at that time; can we find any environmental challenges or needs that would facilitate the need for such a design? What would be the most efficient mechanism for achieving this design? What kind of pre-existing tools or devices, structures or materials exist to facilitate the design's implementation? What kind of check and safety mechanisms are used? Etc. As long as one is formulating their theory/heuristic to accomodate the metaphysical guideline "as if no god exists", it is a religious method.William J. Murray_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

Excession @123: Yes, that's roughly what I'm saying.ScottAndrews_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews: "When pressed, however, I think that most Darwinists could formulate their so-called evidence without an appeal to opinions about God." the MET is formulated without reference or appeals to god in any form, just like any other modern scientific theory. I think most 'evolutionists' only bring up god when debating with creationists or ID'rs.Excession_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

allanius: "The religious claim underlying Darwin’s theory is that there is no God. All of his arguments flow from this supposition. And if that’s not religious, then what is it?" Darwin makes no such claim, neither does the modern evolutionary synthesis. It is a myth dreamt up by religious fanatics to try and persuade people that evolution is 'anti god'. The only thing that Evolution undermines are a subset of creation stories, just as geology or cosmology undermine YEC'ism. You are confusing the people who use scientific theories to support their beliefs (like Dawkins) with the theories themselves. Evolution is neutral on the topic of gods existence.Excession_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Dr. Hunter @112, You've described atheist reasonings which are often mixed with explanations of evolution. It's regrettable that they may do so freely while ID must take greater care to separate its science from the religion of its scientists. Materialism isn't fighting an uphill battle, and they have that luxury. When pressed, however, I think that most Darwinists could formulate their so-called evidence without an appeal to opinions about God. Such statements are typically strawman arguments to contrast Darwinism with the supposed simple-mindedness of belief in God.ScottAndrews_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

allanius (119), "The religious claim underlying Darwin’s theory is that there is no God. All of his arguments flow from this supposition. And if that’s not religious, then what is it?" Nonsense. There is no religious claim underlying evolution. The basis of the theory is descent with modification acted on by natural selection. One could claim that it's God that does the modifications and/or the selection -it wouldn't be science, but you could claim it. And that is why all this talk of evolution involving religion is garbage - it is entirely silent on the matter.Gaz_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter:
Yes. Evolution’s hypothetical mechanisms do not entail religious claims. The religious claims are entailed by the motivation and subsequent justification of the theory, and its epistemological claims (e.g., evolution is a fact). That should clear up 55 for you. The Sober paper should also help, or read here. As Sober discusses in his book, Evidence and Evolution, it’s all about contrastive reasoning. There’s no way to conclude evolution is a fact without it.
Let me se if I can get this straight. Is the argument that Evolution is on a par with creationism? Unless I’ve missed something, the ID position is that ID creationism is a fact. I can only say I find changing the statement to “The religious claims are entailed by the motivation and subsequent justification of the theory, and its epistemological claims (e.g., ID is a fact)” makes it more true. What is the purpose of making an issue of whether Evolution is religious or not? If the “motivation, justification of theory and epistemological claims“ make Evolution non-scientific, surely the same must be true for ID as well? I am afraid the entire exercise only serves to confirm the common belief that religions depend on faith and beliefs that may not necessarily be true.Cabal_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

The religious claim underlying Darwin's theory is that there is no God. All of his arguments flow from this supposition. And if that's not religious, then what is it?allanius_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT}

Levy said: "For example, Atom made a claim recently that Nature and Science refuse papers submitted for publication simply on the basis that they support ID. When asked for some proof of that he simply ignored the question. You got a single example of a ID supporting paper that was rejected from such a journal soley on the grounds that it supported ID?" Your particular requested examples are unnecessary; the NAS has stated that ID is a non-scientific endeavor, and is a disguise for creationism. Mainstream science journals "refuse to publish" - as a matter of policy - articles and papers that are not scientific and/or are creationist in nature. Therefore, it is a matter of policy that such journals do not publish ID research. Do you believe that ID researchers should submit their work to journals that are operating under the policy guidelines that their work is not science in the first place? Levy said: "If not, why no ID positive research going on?" Read the faq. Such research is going on.William J. Murray_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

Levy said: "Can you name two biological entities, one which was designed and one which was not and explain how you came to that determination?" You might read the faq. ID theory cannot make the claim that anything is not the product of ID, nor can it assert that something definitely is; it can only reach a conclusion that it is the best current explanation for a particular phenomena.William J. Murray_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:13 AM
4
04
13
AM
PDT}

Yes. Evolution’s hypothetical mechanisms do not entail religious claims.
Well then there you go. If the mechanisms of evolution does not entail religios claims... then it is not religios. It really is that simple.
It has tremendous bearing on evolution. We would not say evolution is a fact without it.
What bearing does it have on evolution? Can you be more specific? How does the fact that people claim that the world would look differently if a creator existed change the fact that population change over time? If every religion suddenly disapeared from the face of the earth in the blick of an eye, do you seriously think that populations will STOP adapting to thier surroundings?BVZ_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PDT}

BVZ (114):
All that is needed for evolution to occur is imperfect replicators competing for resources. Both are observable, and non-religios.
Yes. Evolution's hypothetical mechanisms do not entail religious claims. The religious claims are entailed by the motivation and subsequent justification of the theory, and its epistemological claims (e.g., evolution is a fact). That should clear up 55 for you. The Sober paper should also help, or read here. As Sober discusses in his book, Evidence and Evolution, it's all about contrastive reasoning. There's no way to conclude evolution is a fact without it.
Sure, there are proponents of evolution who make this claim. Sure, it is debatable wether this claim is scientific or not. But it has no bearing on evolution at all.
It has tremendous bearing on evolution. We would not say evolution is a fact without it.Cornelius Hunter_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

I have read the links in 55. I can't find anything evolution RELIES on that is religios in nature. I could find examples of people claiming that the world would look different if a deity created it, but since evolution doesn't rely on this claim being true, it doesn't answer my question. 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. Alternatively, you can explain why evolution relies on the claim that the world would look different if a deity created it. I am not aware of any part of the ToE that references this claim in any way. Sure, there are proponents of evolution who make this claim. Sure, it is debatable wether this claim is scientific or not. But it has no bearing on evolution at all. All that is needed for evolution to occur is imperfect replicators competing for resources. Both are observable, and non-religios.BVZ_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT}

---herb: "Thanks for the reply. That could be, but is worship necessarily involved?" Maybe not. I am just speculating---thinking out loud, as they say.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT}

iconofid (92):
Correct, Cornelius, but Myers was talking about an all-powerful god who is pulling the strings of history in to our benefit, not an all powerful god who is doing nothing specific. The implied results (a perfect world for humans) are in the description of the god (all powerful string-puller for human benefit). It is not a religious opinion to point out the obvious problem with that particular god, which doesn’t fit observations if the world is not perfect for us. There’s little point in quoting from Myers if you don’t understand what he’s saying. To clarify with a more obvious example, if a theist were to propose the existence of an all powerful god who was pulling the strings of history in favour of the Dodo, someone describing the belief as ridiculous would not be expressing a religious opinion, but an observation based one. Got it?
It is always preferable to use conventional English to communicate, but that obviously is not working. We're going to have to switch over to logic. Nothing fancy, just premises and a conclusion. Here is Myers' argument which entails a religious premise: Premise 1: god is a god that exists. Premise 2: god is a god that is all-powerful (throw in all-knowing and all-good if you like) Premise 3: god is a god that "pulls the strings and shapes history" for our benefit Conclusion: god is a god that would not likely create the universe that we observe Now, it is impossible, repeat impossible, to arrive at Myers' conclusion from the stated premises. Break out your logic books, evaluate the argument, you cannot get to the conclusion from the premises. The conclusion necessarily entails additional non scientific premises. You can easily imagine what could work. For example, "The universe we observe is a universe that is not to our benefit" which is not a scientific premise. The evolutionary response is typically to scoff at such a caution because, after all, this premise is so obviously true. Wars, destruction, disease. Nature, as Hume put it, seems to have been designed to embitter the life of every living being. But of course all of this relies on non scientific premises about what benefits us, what doesn't benefit us, and so forth. That is why it is a religious argument. It is not merely a hypothetical test. Evolutionists can throw sand in all directions, but it doesn't alter the fact that they use religious arguments. The tragedy here is that these identical claims have been made over and over in the history of thought. Myers' religion can be found in the 20th c, 19th c., 18th c., 17th c., 16th c., ... We've been over this ground over and over. It's fine to hold the view and make the argument, but let's not fool ourselves that it is something new and not religious.Cornelius Hunter_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
From where, then, can their perception of beauty come except from the worship of an idea.
Thanks for the reply. That could be, but is worship necessarily involved? I can only refer to my experience---I was formerly an atheist/materialist, and I don't feel my ability to appreciate the beauty in abstract ideas has been affected much by my conversion to Christianity.herb_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

----herb: "LOL—I’m glad I missed that youtube video. On the other hand, I think lots of things which are undesigned are beautiful—I do a little rockhounding and the plume agate, obsidian, etc that I find are very beautiful. Some of the amethyst crystals in my collection are spectacular. And of course, by no means do I worship these rocks!" Fair enough, but you can see the rocks and crytals. You don't need to resort to worship to believe they are beautiful, because they are already beautiful to your senses. But PZ Myers and Abbie Smith stated that "evolution was beautiful," even though it can neither be seen or, from their point of view, be designed. So, the perception of beauty can't come from sensual appeal. Nor can it come from an appreciation of a non-material entity, since neither accept the reality of non-matter. From where, then, can their perception of beauty come except from the worship of an idea.StephenB_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

Levy, Such oblique questions. Here is one for you, would the existence of anything not explained by material acted upon by chance negate the ability of material and chance to explain everything?Upright BiPed_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

------"And yes, Ampulex Compressa is beautiful - an intricate dance of predator and prey in a battle that’s lasted perhaps hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. Whereas if you consider it as designed it takes on a rather different aspect. Clive, do you think Ampulex Compressa is beautiful or not?" Whatever man....intricate dance of labotomizing and being eaten alive. Of course I don't think it's beautiful.Clive Hayden_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

Echidna.Levy ------"Clive, Before we get to “absurd or not” another question. Indulge me. Do you believe it’s possible to communicate with the dead? In any way whatsoever?" Nah, I'd rather you answer me before you lead me down this rabbit trail.Clive Hayden_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Clive, Before we get to "absurd or not" another question. Indulge me. Do you believe it's possible to communicate with the dead? In any way whatsoever?Echidna.Levy_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Is the notion of beauty itself ever in flux given that it is also a product of evolution?
It's well known that what makes up "beauty" has changed over the years, in previous times a much fuller figure was considered beautiful. Perhaps because it indicated ample food for any children (stored fat). And yes, Ampulex Compressa is beautiful - an intricate dance of predator and prey in a battle that's lasted perhaps hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. Whereas if you consider it as designed it takes on a rather different aspect. Clive, do you think Ampulex Compressa is beautiful or not?Echidna.Levy_{June 25, 2009
June
06
Jun
25
25
2009
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply