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

Echidna, Your analogy is an attack on Occam's razor, not on me.Clive Hayden_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT}

Clive,
Your materialism will reduce yourself to nothing
Not at all. The diffence is that I won't put any effort into paving the way for my "afterlife", I'll put my effort into leaving a legacy in this world. Are you more worried about your afterlife then your actual life? What if you are wrong about it? Then what will your legacy be?Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT}

Clive
Why would you presume that nonsense? Really, I really want to know why you would.
A simple case of logic. You believe ghosts exist because A) you have seen them B) other people around you have seen them People believe that penis theft happens because A)They have had their penis stolen B) other people around them have had their peni stolen. Why are the two things different please? As you said
Occam’s razor dictates that the simplest explanation was that the men indeed had their penis stolen as that 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.
Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Echidna, ------"This has happened. Theism dominated the world since recorded history began. We are overthrowing it and beginning again, this time with a much better chance of success. Your side had thousands of years to prove it’s case. Move over. Your time is passing." This tells me that you didn't really take anything from that essay. Your materialism will reduce yourself to nothing, and this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it is an error, and an error that you don't seem to get.Clive Hayden_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT}

Clive
you’ve reduced yourself to being just as vacuous as the trees.
From you I take that as a compliment of the highest order. What is it you want me to take from that essay? There is some truth in it however
. We must go back and begin over again: this time with a better chance of success
This has happened. Theism dominated the world since recorded history began. We are overthrowing it and beginning again, this time with a much better chance of success. Your side had thousands of years to prove it's case. Move over. Your time is passing.Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT}

Echidna.Levy, ------"Then presumably you believe in witchdoctors and penis theft?" Why would you presume that nonsense? Really, I really want to know why you would.Clive Hayden_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

Clive
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
Then presumably you believe in witchdoctors and penis theft?
KINSHASA - Police in Congo have arrested 13 suspected sorcerers accused of using black magic to steal or shrink men's penises after a wave of panic and attempted lynchings triggered by the alleged witchcraft. Reports of so-called penis snatching are not uncommon in West Africa, where belief in traditional religions and witchcraft remains widespread, and where ritual killings to obtain blood or body parts still occur. Rumors of penis theft began circulating last week in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo's sprawling capital of some 8 million inhabitants. They quickly dominated radio call-in shows, with listeners advised to beware of fellow passengers in communal taxis wearing gold rings. Purported victims, 14 of whom were also detained by police, claimed that sorcerers simply touched them to make their genitals shrink or disappear, in what some residents said was an attempt to extort cash with the promise of a cure. "You just have to be accused of that, and people come after you. We've had a number of attempted lynchings. ... You see them covered in marks after being beaten," Kinshasa's police chief, Jean-Dieudonne Oleko, told Reuters on Tuesday. Police arrested the accused sorcerers and their victims in an effort to avoid the sort of bloodshed seen in Ghana a decade ago, when 12 suspected penis snatchers were beaten to death by angry mobs. The 27 men have since been released.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04232008/news/worldnews/penis_theft_panic_hits_african_city_107774.htm ? Under you scheme it must be real!Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

Echidna.Levy, Because you've reduced yourself to being just as vacuous as the trees. I refer you to this essay, http://scientificintegrity.blogspot.com/2008/05/empty-universe.htmlClive Hayden_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

Clive
If you are not an embodied spirit, then there is no “you” to begin with.
Why?Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

Echidna, You should use Occam's razor on yourself if you really want to know if ghosts exist. Just kidding, don't do that. Yes, some dead, but not all, can be communicated with, but we are not supposed to do that. This question has been answered for me since I was a kid. My grandparent's house was haunted, and my whole family, including cousins, including myself, had encounters with this ghost. Including actually seeing it. 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. 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.Clive Hayden_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Upright
I clearly take your response to mean that you wish to not answer the question. Given the direct simplicity of the question, it would be hard to perceive it any other way.
Your question was stated in a unclear manner, too many negatives to sort through. Claim victory if you wish because of that.
That is certainly not hard to do - which I did.
No, you did not.
This is pure obfuscation in place of a direct answer to a direct question.
What part of "no" is difficult for you to understand?
To the contrary, the more we find, the more pressing the question becomes.
Publish or perish.
I would start posting the bios of religious scientists throughout the past 200-300 years who contributed to your ability to sit at a computer in the lap of comparative luxury and spit in their faces.
You can have religious scientists, you can have spagetti monster scientists. Yet once you mix religion and science they stop being scientists. 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.
I simply asked you if the existence of anything not explained by material acted upon by chance would negate the ability of material and chance to explain everything?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Levy, "Ask your question in a different form." I clearly take your response to mean that you wish to not answer the question. Given the direct simplicity of the question, it would be hard to perceive it any other way. "Then demonstrate that they are wrong rather then just stating such." That is certainly not hard to do - which I did. "But as far as your question goes, as I understand it, the answer is “no”. No because the existence of anything not currently explanable 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 is pure obfuscation in place of a direct answer to a direct question. "So what if some things are unexplained." The question at hand does not emanate from our ignorance, but from what we empirically and rationally know. To the contrary, the more we find, the more pressing the question becomes. "You’ve had thousands of years of opportunity for your religion to explain the world, and look how that worked out!" The question you have repeatedly evaded did not ask your opinion of religion. If that was my concern, I would start posting the bios of religious scientists throughout the past 200-300 years who contributed to your ability to sit at a computer in the lap of comparative luxury and spit in their faces. I simply asked you if the existence of anything not explained by material acted upon by chance would negate the ability of material and chance to explain everything? It seems you have answered my question after all. CiaoUpright BiPed_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

Clive
I am communicating with one right now who happens to be a spirit living inside a body whom I call Echidna.Levy.
Here you seem to be saying that these immaterial entities are in fact what most people would call a "soul" and that you in fact are now distancing yourself from your original statment of believing that "stand alone" ghosts exist. Don't you find it odd that these "spirits" can only exist inside physical bodies and once those bodies die these "spirits" are nowhere to be seen? Occams razor suggests that they don't exist. After all, it's not like you have any evidence for them (or do you?) So, perhaps we should concentrate on my follow up question then. Can the dead be comminucated with?Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

Jerry
It could be
Many things could be. It's what is supported by evidence that matters. I asked for an example of something biological that was not designed. You now say that the design included the ability to "wander" to find local optimums. 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?Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

"So how then are the specific properties of polar bear fur not designed?" It could be that the original gene was part of a design but the specific allele does not have to be. One of the concepts that is completely consistent with ID is that mutations, recombination, natural selection, genomic variability and genomic resistance to change (no they are not contradictory) are all good design that allows genomes to adapt to new environments while not allowing the genome to wander too far from what was originally there. There is an example in Behe's book of the fish that developed a mutation to a gene that enabled its blood to have an anti freeze component and allow it to inhabit sub freezing temperatures of the South Atlantic (salt water can be colder than fresh water.) The question is the origination of new proteins and ID says it is very rare but not impossible. The reason ID says it is very rare is first, the lack of many examples and second the inability of normal mutation procedures to effectively explore protein space for possible new functional proteins. ID says most of it is useless and any random process that creates variations of a gene is essentially exploring for a new protein island. Some here have disputed that and that is one of the questions as far as I am concerned that is uncertain. ID says these protein islands are rare and others say they are not. There will be a lot of research in the next 30 years that will explore this in detail and maybe find a lack of them or a plethora of them.jerry_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Echidna.Levy, ------"Let me put it another way, would you vote for a goverment who indicated that teaching children that ghosts exist would be taught in school?" No I would not, for spiritual matters, and education in general, is the job of the parents, not the schools. And yes, ghosts can be communicated with, I am communicating with one right now who happens to be a spirit living inside a body whom I call Echidna.Levy. And when you die you'll "give up the ghost" as scripture says. Clive Hayden_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Upright, Ask your question in a different form. Give an example if possible.
Your comments in #139 are demonstrably wrong,
Then demonstrate that they are wrong rather then just stating such. Or is your copy and paste that in your mind? But as far as your question goes, as I understand it, the answer is "no". No because the existence of anything not currently explanable 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". Look around you! Science is very young. We did not even know that DNA existed 100 years ago. So what if some things are unexplained. You've had thousands of years of opportunity for your religion to explain the world, and look how that worked out!Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

Levi “ Webster- Materialsim: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter Encarta- Materialism: in philosophy, doctrine that all existence is resolvable into matter or into an attribute or effect of matter. According to this doctrine, matter is the ultimate reality, and the phenomenon of consciousness is explained by physiochemical changes in the nervous system. Wiki- The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism. Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions Columbia- Materialism: The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. Nobel Laureate Biologist Jaques Monod- “We say that these events are accidental, due to chance. And since they constitute the only possible source of modifications in the genetic text, itself the sole repository of the organism’s hereditary structures, it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one compatible with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition (or the hope) that conceptions about this should, or ever could, be revised.” - - - - - - - Your comments in #139 are demonstrably wrong, but it was a valiant effort. Materialism is not my “strawman”, it is the very center of your position. There should be no reason for you to run from its implications if it is true, nor should you be able to label it as an opponent’s strawman in order to shield it from scrutiny. Now I ask again: 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 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Jerry
not designed - color of polar bear fur
A question then. Fur is made of keratins. Keratins are proteins, i.e., polymers of amino acids. I understand from reading comments on this site that useful proteins are not obtainable via chance mechanisms (i.e. they have to be designed due to the large configuration space of proteins). So how then are the specific properties of polar bear fur not designed?Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT}

Clive, Let me put it another way, would you vote for a goverment who indicated that teaching children that ghosts exist would be taught in school? I have answered your question, and you agreed that you would answer my next question if I did so. Do you believe the dead can be communicated with?Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

"Yet you cannot give me an example of a designed biological entity and an example of one that is not. " Designed - the cell not designed - color of polar bear fur "And in any case, can you give a specific example of how assuming design would guide research?" Not appropriate - You do not assume design, you conclude it. Design remain a possible conclusion of certain research studies but not others. For example, if I was doing research on microbe changes over time relevant to certain disease, I would not conclude design had any element in it unless there was some unknown element I am not aware of. But if I was doing research on aves genomic structure, I might conclude that certain elements may have been designed while others were not. Notice I said "might" and there may not be any conclusion about design at all. But the possibility remains. ID embraces all naturalistic explanations but adds a potential layer on top of these explanations when the situation calls for it. It expands on not ID science, not restricts it.jerry_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Echidna.Levy, ------"For instance, do you believe that children should be taught that ghosts exist? That then would make you “absurd” in my mind." The don't, but don't presume to tell me how to raise my own children. That would be absurd.Clive Hayden_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT}

William
Not true. If there is evidence of design, that perspective can guide one’s methodology. That would be a big difference.
Yet you cannot give me an example of a designed biological entity and an example of one that is not. And in any case, can you give a specific example of how assuming design would guide research?Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

William
If evolutionary theory was not religious, then scientists would be free to utilize the design framework from which to conduct their research and explanations.
Who's stopping them? Do you think there is an army of people watching every scientist in the world making sure they follow the "rules"? There are plenty of countries around the world that don't have secular goverments. Another strawman.Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT}

William
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.
I'll take that as a "no" then, that you can't give me an example of something biological that is designed and something that is not and explain how you came to that determination. We have moved to "phenomena" now have we? Are flagellum phenomena? Does ID not note that it was designed then?Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped
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?
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. 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.Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

Levy, as long as you are back. Please coinsider answering the question I posed to you earlier. Thanks. 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 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

William
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?
Yes. If the rejection letter consists of "your work is not science" rather then actual reasons why the work has been rejected then I think everybody, Darwinist or ID supporter would agree that that would be unfair. And there are many respected journals, they don't all share the same "policy guidelines" that you seem to think somehow apply across the board. If an ID supporter never submits their work to such a journal then it will never appear. That's a fact. 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?Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Clive
I believe in ghosts, am I absurd?
It depends. Many people believe many things, not all of which can be proven. Simply believing in ghosts does not automatically make you "absurd". What you do with that belief, maybe. For instance, do you believe that children should be taught that ghosts exist? That then would make you "absurd" in my mind. Now, given that you believe in ghosts and I have answered your question do you believe that the dead can be contacted? In a similar vein, what are ghosts? Dead people? Something else?Echidna.Levy_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

Excession said: "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." Not true. If there is evidence of design, that perspective can guide one's methodology. That would be a big difference.William J. Murray_{June 26, 2009
June
06
Jun
26
26
2009
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply