Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

29873Re: Has Evolution Really Been a Help?

Expand Messages
  • khunsinger33
    Oct 21 6:01 PM
      Gluadys: This was not sent to you by stewart, but by me, gluadys. So if you don't like the answer, blame me, not him.

      Kurt: yes, realized that just as I clicked send.

      Gluadys: To some extent. The metaphorical models scientists use as a basis for their hypotheses often take on philosophical overtones. Medieval philosophy--and science--was shaped by the vision of the cosmos… and philosophy has been shaped by that. Nature as machine is the basic underpinning of the theological/philosophical concept of the absentee god of Deism… That doesn't mean that science asks or answers philosophical questions… The point of my comment is to ask you to think about what sort of concern you bring to this forum.

      Kurt: Good points and good question. We can all benefit from the sincere study of nature from both evolution-minded and creation-minded folks. Just reading Origin of Species is a huge undertaking for most of us, I respect it. My concern is the unjustified authority evolutionary theory enjoys. Believers and academics alike, Dawkins a good example, exploit the perception that evolution in charge of what is rational and creationism only in charge of what is irrational. Leaving evolutionary theory too wide an opportunity for persuasion by authority. Which is exactly how most people accept the theory. Evolution proceeds and feeds on the empty promise of objectivity. To paraphrase Robert Lanza, nothing we see or feel or learn, not even the means by which we learn it, can be viewed or experienced objectively. Yet evolutionary theory has sold us on the lie that it does indeed offer an unbias objective view. What hooey! Yes, hooey I say. In the same way that undue religious influence needs to be called out so should undue evolution-religious influence. And sorry, I don't think evolutionary creationism or ID is getting the job done. Some would say science is self-correcting, we have the scientific method after all, right? But I don't buy it. There is power to be had here, influence, peers to gain praise from, reputations to uphold, a group to be a part of. These are not small components to the issue, these are potent motivators and none among are immune. Evolution is fine, Wielding lagrely unchecked authority and religious influence are making evoltuion too big for it's britches.

      Gluadys: Have you questions about the Darwinian theory of evolution as it applies to the changing nature of the biosphere? Those would be scientific questions and relatively easy to answer.

      Kurt: The Changing nature of the biosphere? No, I don't think so. Maybe later. I would like someone to address how evolution deals with the existence of consciousness. Without it nothing happens. At least not on this issue for sure. But evolution seems to ignore it. Which is kinda odd, don't you think? It is clearly our only means of access to the natural world, our only tool. Seems evolutionary science would want to check, recheck, clearly understand how consciousness is filtering and influencing our view of nature before congratulating itself on having figured out a dang thing. Ignoring our creationist choices throughout human history without knowing what consciousness is or where it comes from seems at least hasty.

      gluadys: These, and others you may raise are all great questions. I would look forward to conversations about them.

      Kurt: Me too

      gluadys: But one thing we cannot ask about any of them is "what explanation does evolutionary theory offer?" Evolutionary theory offers no explanation or perspective on any of these fascinating questions, because that is not its function.

      Kurt: Not sure I get that. In the world of regular folk, in the minds of average people, evolution does offer explanations. "it evolved that way" is at least as common as "God did it". Offering explanations is evolutions accepted function.

      Gluadys: You claim your point is not philosophical, yet you begin with a philosophical assumption--that behaviour (presumably including human behaviour) is driven solely by biology. Should we not actually begin by questioning that premise?

      Kurt: Maybe so. What would you question about it?

      gluadys: No, it is not at all cowardly for scientists to refuse to answer a non-scientific question.

      Kurt: If evolution did not function as a belief system I would agree. But fact is it does not play solely a scientific roll, it enjoys a popular support that other sciences do not because of its creator-related influence. But when called on to account for this influence they deny it, turn tail and say that's not my job. That's cowardly.

      Gluadys: Well, no it isn't. An important component of the theory is traits which are inherited and may be affected by natural selection. Often such traits are behavioral, but behavioral traits have no special importance vis-vis morphological or physiological traits. All heritable traits are potentially selectable, and all selected traits contribute to the shaping of a species over time.

      Kurt: My point was that how any given creature behaves is of interest and can be used to assert any given evolutionary hypothesis. B F Skinners pigeons being a convenient example. Human creator-related behavior is deemed unworthy of this process only out of bias I believe.

      gluadys: Scientists know why sharks swim continually. Unlike other fish, they have no swim bladder to regulate their position in the water column. So to maintain themselves at the appropriate depth, they have to keep swimmimg.

      Kurt: True. But it wasn't till recently by tagging great whites that we found out what vast distances they traveled. That's what I meant by swim around so much.

      gluadys: Don't misquote me please. I did not say the question was irrelevant. There are many contexts in which it is relevant. It is very relevant in a philosophical sense. What I said is that it is not relevant to evolution (meaning, specifically, evolutionary theory) and I stand by that.

      Kurt: Fair enough.






      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "gluadys" <g_turner@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "khunsinger33" <khunsinger33@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Stewart: The question is irrelevant to evolution. Therefore evolutionary theory pays no attention to it.
      > > You are actually posing a question of philosophy, not of biology.
      > > C. S. Lewis made the same sort of claim about the human propensity to develop systems of morality.
      > >
      >
      >
      > This was not sent to you by stewart, but by me, gluadys. So if you don't like the answer, blame me, not him.
      >
      >
      >
      > >
      > >
      > > Kurt: Philosophical? I can see that. But doesn't all scientific inquiry lead to sharpening our image of life and of ourselves? Ultimately science is a philosophy shaper.
      > >
      > >
      >
      > To some extent. The metaphorical models scientists use as a basis for their hypotheses often take on philosophical overtones. Medieval philosophy--and science--was shaped by the vision of the cosmos as a macro-organism. For some time now, however, science has used the metaphor of a machine (typically a great clockwork)to guide its exploration of the universe--and philosophy has been shaped by that. Nature as machine is the basic underpinning of the theological/philosophical concept of the absentee god of Deism.
      >
      > It is becoming clearer by the day that this is an inadequate model of the universe. For example, it cannot cope with quantum reality. And it is not a good model for tracing the information flows through the biosphere. We do need new models in science, and as they are developed, no doubt they will shape new philosophies as well.
      >
      > That doesn't mean that science asks or answers philosophical questions, though it does often give philosophers new questions to ask.
      >
      > The point of my comment is to ask you to think about what sort of concern you bring to this forum. Have you questions about the Darwinian theory of evolution as it applies to the changing nature of the biosphere? Those would be scientific questions and relatively easy to answer.
      >
      > Or is your concern to raise issues of what it means for certain philosophical-theological concepts that we live in and are part of an evolving world? What does this fact mean for concepts like "creation", "humanity made in the image of God" "the relationship of spiritual to material nature" "how we can know anything (is science the only sure path to knowledge?)"
      >
      > These, and others you may raise are all great questions. I would look forward to conversations about them. But one thing we cannot ask about any of them is "what explanation does evolutionary theory offer?" Evolutionary theory offers no explanation or perspective on any of these fascinating questions, because that is not its function.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > > My particular point this time is not philosophical, however. What drives behavior/desire if not biology?
      > >
      >
      > You claim your point is not philosophical, yet you begin with a philosophical assumption--that behaviour (presumably including human behaviour) is driven solely by biology. Should we not actually begin by questioning that premise?
      >
      >
      > > Now, does our behavior always reflect genuine realities? Probably not always. But creator-seeking is a behavior so persistent in humanity that it is easily a defining feature. For evolutionary scientists to say that thats only a subject for philosophy is rather cowardly.
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > No, it is not at all cowardly for scientists to refuse to answer a non-scientific question. Indeed, I wish it were a principle adhered to more faithfully. After all, scientists, like anyone else, have their own philosophical biases, and all too often muddy the waters by presenting those biases as if they were conclusions, or at least logical implications of their scientific work. That apparently closes the door on a different philosophical perspective that would be equally faithful to the science.
      >
      >
      > >
      > > Especially since behavior is an important component of the theory.
      > >
      >
      > Well, no it isn't. An important component of the theory is traits which are inherited and may be affected by natural selection. Often such traits are behavioral, but behavioral traits have no special importance vis-vis morphological or physiological traits. All heritable traits are potentially selectable, and all selected traits contribute to the shaping of a species over time.
      >
      >
      > >
      > >
      > >If we encountered a migrating species that appeared to just travel around, expending energy and resources with no relationship to a genuine reality, pretty sure science would want to get to the bottom of it. I mean, scientists spend untold hours following sharks all over the planet trying to find the reason why they swim around so much,
      > >
      > >
      >
      > Scientists know why sharks swim continually. Unlike other fish, they have no swim bladder to regulate their position in the water column. So to maintain themselves at the appropriate depth, they have to keep swimmimg.
      >
      >
      > >
      > >
      > >yet when faced with the question of why humanity has spent nearly it's entire existence expending energy and resources on creator-seeking you turn around and say "the question is irrelevant."
      > > It is hardy irrelevant. No offense but your reply is dismissive and bias. Religiously bias, I believe.
      > >
      > >
      >
      > Don't misquote me please. I did not say the question was irrelevant. There are many contexts in which it is relevant. It is very relevant in a philosophical sense.
      >
      > What I said is that it is not relevant to evolution (meaning, specifically, evolutionary theory) and I stand by that.
      >
      >
      >
      > > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "gluadys" <g_turner@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Hunsinger <khunsinger33@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Stewart: It would be an explanation. The question of how reasonable an explanation it is, would remain.
      > > > > Kurt: Indeed. I have not seen the idea talked about much. When it is mentioned “survival trait” comes up without any satisfying exploration. No doubt some feel that humanities effort to understanding a creator was a waste of time until evolutionary theory came along, but none the less, that effort has been a hallmark of our species’ behavior. Regardless of whether or not you buy into it, creationism at least addresses the question of why we possess this desire/behavior, evolution nearly ignores it; which is very odd because evolutionary science is otherwise very diligent about finding the purpose behind what drives the behaviors of other animals. Mice exhibit a scurrying behavior for only one reason, predators are real. Whales travel 1/2 way around globe to birth their calves only because those warm, safe waters are real. Lions will protect a water source only because the shortage of water is real. My point is, animals exhibit only behaviors that
      > > > > reflect a genuine reality. Evolution just doesn’t produce animals that go about wasting their time looking for stuff that doesn’t exist, nor does evolution produce behaviors that don’t relate to a genuine reality. We know this, we see it played out every day in the creatures all around us, and yet evolutionary theory would have us believe humans are the only species on the planet that can somehow invent useless, impotent behaviors for itself. We tend to think of creationism and evolution as choices of intellect but I have come to believe they are instead both expressions of the same desire/behavior and that that behavior could not exist if a creator were not a genuine reality. What other explanation does evolutionary theory offer?
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > That's easy to answer. None. The question is irrelevant to evolution. Therefore evolutionary theory pays no attention to it.
      > > >
      > > > You are actually posing a question of philosophy, not of biology.
      > > >
      > > > C. S. Lewis made the same sort of claim about the human propensity to develop systems of morality.
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      >
    • Show all 29 messages in this topic