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

CannuckianYankee "Did you mean “in order to DENY the religious premises of its founders?”” To be honest I am not sure which wording is better suited. I was simply exploring Dr Hunter's post in terms of the psychological observation that sometimes children are unable to balance the selectively bonded individual (or collective) traits of their parents. For instance (simplifying here) a child may grow up with an exceptionally well-disciplined parent. If that particular parental trait becomes an emotional attachment for the child, then he/she may grow up to either mimic that trait in their own lives, or may become the direct opposite (by being distinctly irresponsible about their finances, or time, or bodies, or whatever). The opposite can be true as well. A completely irresponsible parent may engender a child to be the same, or that child may react exactly the opposite and be as responsible as anyone could imagine, even hyper-responsible. More often than not, if that person then finds themselves later in life sitting across from a therapist or close friend, these unresolved (and often hidden) attachments come to light. Anyway, I realize I am way off topic. I was just reflecting on this in relation to Dr. Hunter’s thoughts about a-theism being a direct product of theism. Perhaps a case could be made (has been made) that theism is the default position of human existence, and that a-theism is simply one of the ways humans deal with it. In any case... (…by the way Yankee, I have very much enjoyed your post over the past days. Very nicely done!)Upright BiPed_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

Folks and iconofid (72): One of fascinating aspects of evolutionary thought is its denial. The constant religious claims followed by the constant stream of denials is fascinating. Here we have Myers saying this:
We’re pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does.
From what scientific experiment did that finding about all-powerful beings come? That is unequivocally, unambiguously, a religious claim (it is amazing we even have to spell this out!). It has been around for centuries, and not surprisingly is still a popular belief today. And yet, here is the response:
he’s not being religious in any conventional sense of the word
Amazing. What is it about "all-powerful being" that people don't understand. Why do they think they can make religious pronouncements and then hide behind science? Then we have this:
What you seem to be pretending to yourself is that people think evolutionary theory is a strong scientific theory because of their interpretations of what your god should or shouldn’t be.
Pretending? I'm pretending that evolutionists have religious beliefs?? My god? Amazing.
Actually, it’s because of the evidence.
Actually, it is not because of the evidence. If that were the case, then evolutionists would not be claiming it is a fact and then providing religious arguments to prove their case.
Surely you’re being a bit parochial if you think that the many Japanese and Chinese “evolutionists” have their views of biology because of anything to do with your god?
Now it's "my god." Evolutionists make the religious claims and then pin in on you. Amazing. As for the "Japanese and Chinese," what makes you think their metaphysics are any different? The particular religious premises that promoted evolutionary thinking in modern science were first advocated by protestants and some roman catholics, but more generally these premises are quite universal. You can find them in ancient thought, in today's atheists, and pretty much everywhere in between. Furthermore, evolutionists in general today have little concern with proving evolution. Why? Because it is assumed to be a fact. The "fact" of evolution was proclaimed back in the 19th century.
I think you’re perhaps making this mistake because you see the history of theological/philosophical ideas as central; as what drives change. Try looking at those things as symptoms or products of other factors, and see if it makes a difference (as if scientific, technological and socio-economic change create the changes in philosophy, rather than the other way around).
That would be great advice if (i) the fact of evolution was supported by scientific evidence, and (ii) evolutionists did not use religious arguments. As it stands, neither (i) nor (ii) are the case. So this raises the questions: how does the scientific evidence bear on the theory, and where are these religious arguments coming from? The answers are that evolution is not well supported by the evidence, and that this is inconsequential because strictly naturalistic explanations have been religiously mandated for centuries (long before Darwin). This is anything but, as you suggest, a case of philosophical / theological conclusions, resulting from scientific findings. In fact, it is exactly the opposite. What is truly amazing is the lengths to which evolutionists will go to remain in denial. Evolutionary theory, and its claim to be a fact, is perfectly rational and logical. But here it becomes irrational.Cornelius Hunter_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

Cornelius quotes Myers on his blog: "We go right to the central issue of whether there is a god or not. We're pretty certain that if there were an all-powerful being pulling the strings and shaping history for the benefit of human beings, the universe would look rather different than it does." And says: That is a religious argument. Myers' conclusion depends on what he believes about God. God wouldn't make life difficult. God wouldn't create patterns in the fossil species. God wouldn't create similarities between species. It makes no difference that evolution does not explain how life, in all its incredible forms, actually arose. It does not matter that evolution is consistently wrong--it must be right. Our religion depends on it. Evolutionists such as Myers have been duped by religion. They use it and they depend on it, but they imagine they are free of it. What Myers does there is describe one of the types of Christian gods that some Christians believe in, and then give his opinion that observations of the universe don't fit it. Elsewhere in that L.A. Times, he describes the creator god of ~6,000 years ago, the god of some Christians, and some observations that don't fit that one. Then he describes a third type of god who manipulates things subtly on the atomic level, and gives an opinion on why he thinks it's silly to believe in an undetectable god (or something like that). He's being an atheist and an anti-theist, and he isn't talking about biology, which only gets one mention along with physics, geology and history in relation to the young earth god. As he believes in none of these gods, he's not being religious in any conventional sense of the word. If you want to describe Myer's naturalism as religion, you need to define religion for us, and define philosophy. The history of the last few centuries, during which we have increasingly identified natural causes for a growing number of the phenomena of the universe would argue that naturalism is an observation based philosophy. Hinduism, Christianity and Scientology are not believed in due to observation. They are religions, by the conventional use of the word, but naturalism is only by the Cornelius Hunter preferred use. What you seem to be pretending to yourself is that people think evolutionary theory is a strong scientific theory because of their interpretations of what your god should or shouldn't be. Actually, it's because of the evidence. The theory of evolution is an inevitability in cultures of a certain level of scientific development, and would exist if Christianity had never been invented and Darwin had never been born, once human cultures reached that level. Surely you're being a bit parochial if you think that the many Japanese and Chinese "evolutionists" have their views of biology because of anything to do with your god? I think you're perhaps making this mistake because you see the history of theological/philosophical ideas as central; as what drives change. Try looking at those things as symptoms or products of other factors, and see if it makes a difference (as if scientific, technological and socio-economic change create the changes in philosophy, rather than the other way around).iconofid_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

Herb (70):
Seems like a rational person would conclude a Designer was at work.
Well I wouldn't say evolutionists are not rational. Their argument that evolution must be a fact is perfectly valid. It entails religious premises, but given those premises, the conclusion follows. Therefore the scientific evidence is inconsequential. When the evidence contradicts the theory (as it often does), they just modify the theory to accommodate.Cornelius Hunter_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

Cornelius,
I’ll just mention one TN premise which seems reasonable to me, and that is that God would not create the world in such a way so as to make it appear to have evolved via the same natural laws we can deduce from the experimental sciences.
Well, that would provide a clear target for evolutionists to go after. If they could show that life was reducible to necessity, matter, chance, and energy, then their job would be done. I won't hold my breath though.
But given how badly evolution fails scientifically, this concern doesn’t seem to be in play. Here’s one recent example.
Wow. From the ScienceDaily article:
In the simplest, most primitive cheilostomes, the soft feeding organ is squeezed out of the box by muscles pulling on a flexible membrane. The next step in diversification was calcified spines around the membrane, then fusion of the spines, then reduction of the fused spinal shield and membrane and invention of a water sac inside the box to provide enough volume to squeeze out the feeding organ. Lineages showing each of these stages are alive today. Then as now, these steps are seen as evolved defenses against small predators and parasites on the colony surface.
So they figure these very specific steps occurred repeatedly in different organisms over millions of years. Seems like a rational person would conclude a Designer was at work.herb_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

iconofid (68):
Didn’t you read the P.Z. Myers L.A. Times article that you link to from your blog?
Yes, I did. You should read it carefully.
... he refers to more than one of the popular characterizations of the Christian god, and that nothing he says about these gods mandates his views on biology.
No, you need to read it all the way to the end (better yet, just read my blog, again, all the way to the end). Myers clearly states his religious belief, and it mandates a naturalistic origins narrative.
I think that you miss the obvious reason that biologists often refer to gods, which is the sustained religious attack on their subject by people who feel threatened by the idea of natural origins of species and life.
That's quite a rewrite of history. In fact, contrastive arguments are not in response to "religious attacks." They date back centuries, and are the mandate for naturalism. Sober helps here in explaining the relative strengths of the different arguments. But in any case, the causes of religious belief do not change the fact that the religious belief is there, and it carries with it certain implications. Myers is entitled to his religious beliefs just like anyone else, but his particular belief mandates a naturalistic origins. We can argue all day about why people such as Myers holds to such beliefs, but they do. They openly express their beliefs, and the beliefs mandate evolution, one way or another. Evolutionists use the term "fundamentalist" to describe someone who has such strong religious beliefs.Cornelius Hunter_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter: "Take a look at the PZ Myers’ religion here, and how they mandate his conclusion for evolution." Didn't you read the P.Z. Myers L.A. Times article that you link to from your blog? If you do read it carefully, you'll see that he refers to more than one of the popular characterizations of the Christian god, and that nothing he says about these gods mandates his views on biology. I think that you miss the obvious reason that biologists often refer to gods, which is the sustained religious attack on their subject by people who feel threatened by the idea of natural origins of species and life. It's because cultures that have traditionally believed in a creation myth made up to explain origins are shifting slowly towards a more realistic point of view, creating a culture war. Strongly creationist religions, like the Abrahamic ones, are threatened by this shift, and will probably not survive it in significant strength (although they'll still be around well into the next century, for sure).iconofid_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

Gaz wrote: “...the fact that creation is false that most scientists, and indeed most of the public in the Western world, accept evolution as being established...” Not really. Public opinion surveys indicate that fully half of all Americans affirm that God separately created the first humans within the past 10,000 years. Polls from western Europe reveal that 40% believe in naturalistic evolution, 21% in theistic evolution, 20% in recent special creation, and 19% were undecided.Barb_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

William (62-3) and ScottAndrews (65): Deism is an important tradition in the theological mandate for naturalism that set the foundation for evolution, but it is by no means the only tradition. And many of these traditions are very much with us today. Advocates of those traditions would not view their use of theological premises as in any way disingenuous. It is true that sarcasm or other rhetorical devices may be employed (as in the Miller quote I supplied), but do not mistake that for mere mockery or disingenuous belief. Herb (64):
Thanks for the patient explanations. It’s good to have this insight into our opponents’ tactics. I wonder, though, whether there are some instances in which evolutionists can justifiably say a Designer wouldn’t have done things in a certain way. And if so, do you have any examples?
The question of whether theological mandates for naturalism (what I refer to as theological naturalism -- TN) are justified is, not surprisingly, fairly complicated. It involves some pretty deep theology and philosophy. I'll just mention one TN premise which seems reasonable to me, and that is that God would not create the world in such a way so as to make it appear to have evolved via the same natural laws we can deduce from the experimental sciences. But given how badly evolution fails scientifically, this concern doesn't seem to be in play. Here's one recent example.Cornelius Hunter_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

Dr. Hunter: Perhaps I should reformulate what I'm saying entirely. To claim that a divine creator wouldn't design a thing a certain way appears religious on the surface. But one could also argue that Miller is simply interspersing mockery of religion with his other statements. It could still be construed as religious, but it's very, very thin. The choir will hear it preached, but no one will be converted.ScottAndrews_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

Cornelius, Thanks for the patient explanations. It's good to have this insight into our opponents' tactics. I wonder, though, whether there are some instances in which evolutionists can justifiably say a Designer wouldn't have done things in a certain way. And if so, do you have any examples?herb_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT}

IOW - no personal, active, conscious god would allow/do this, but since they have made no case that "nature" should exist at all, or that it should allow anything resembling life to exist or reason to meaningfully correspond to the world, they have stolen the "god" concept and re-labeled it with the impersonal term "chance". The deistic god has a new name, it seems.William J. Murray_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT}

So, is deism the religious belief that informs evolutionary thought and lies hidden under materialist terminology?William J. Murray_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT}

Herb (60): Yes, correct. However, note that Myers belief in atheism is not required by evolution. Evolution merely requires that the species arose via strictly naturalistic processes. Beyond that, anything goes. Each man, believe what he can.Cornelius Hunter_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Cornelius, Thanks---I'm pretty sure I understand now. I like your post on Myers, as it clearly shows where his expectations of the Designer's intent and methods come from. From your blog, with my comments:
Myers' conclusion depends on what he believes about God. 1. God wouldn't make life difficult. [Life is difficult; Myers therefore assumes God would not tolerate such a state of affairs, hence "God does not exist".] 2. God wouldn't create patterns in the fossil species. [There are patterns in fossil species, repeat above reasoning.] 3. God wouldn't create similarities between species. [There are similarities between species, etc, etc, etc.]
herb_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray, ------"If life spontaneously generated many different times, and formed the differnt phyla we see on their own, it’s too much like the current theistic account of god creating each creature seperately. It seems that “common descent” was an idea manufactured specifically to contradict theistic beliefs." I agree. There is no reason, given a "common descent" explanation that life spontaneously originated once, why it couldn't happen twice, or more.Clive Hayden_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Herb (55):
based on the elephant example you cite, one example of a religious assumption of ToE is: “The Designer would not separately create a large number of very similar organisms over a relatively brief span of time.” (my interpretation of Ken Miller’s view) Am I correct here?
Terrific question. You are asking about the underlying theology at work. What exactly are these religious premises? Yes, you are correct about the above Miller quote, but of course that sentiment derives from more general theological concerns that Christians raises in the 17th and 18th centuries. It is too much to type here, so I'll have to refer you to Section 7 of www.DarwinsPredictions.com. WARNING: If you read this, you will be opening a box of truth from which you may not escape.Cornelius Hunter_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

Sorry, Cornelius---cross-posted there. I'll check out your links.herb_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

Cornelius, RE my post #52, based on the elephant example you cite, one example of a religious assumption of ToE is: "The Designer would not separately create a large number of very similar organisms over a relatively brief span of time." (my interpretation of Ken Miller's view) Am I correct here?herb_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

Herb (52):
I guess I’m still unclear on what the religious assumptions of ToE are then. Would you be able to spell out very explicitly some particular examples (accessible to the layperson, like me)?
Well the religious assumptions can be subtle. But often they are quite obvious. Take a look at the PZ Myers' religion here, and how they mandate his conclusion for evolution. Or take a look at Ken Miller's and Gould's religion here. Do you see it now? Notice that evolution's religion transcends the "atheist vs believer" canard. If you want more detail, you can look here. William Murray (53): Good points, however, you write:
It seems that “common descent” was an idea manufactured specifically to contradict theistic beliefs.
Slight (but significant) correction. “Common descent” was an idea manufactured specifically to ~~contradict~~ support theistic beliefs.Cornelius Hunter_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

I've often wondered about the whole "common descent" concept; I mean, if it is possible for inert material to generate life once, why not several times? In Darwin's day, a cell was thought to be nothing ore than a lump of jelly; surely a lump of jelly can be easily invented multiple times all over the world by natural forces. Why then invoke common descent at all? It seems to me that the idea of common descent would only be utlized to directly, conceptually, contradict the idea that each animal was created seperately, and that humans were signifcantly different from the rest of animals. If life spontaneously generated many different times, and formed the differnt phyla we see on their own, it's too much like the current theistic account of god creating each creature seperately. It seems that "common descent" was an idea manufactured specifically to contradict theistic beliefs.William J. Murray_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Cornelius,
ID does not say it could not have. It says it is unlikely.
Agreed, of course. I was abbreviating there a little for the sake of clarity.
This is an inference from the data. Right or wrong, there is no religious assumption in the inference. *** Contrastive reasoning is not, itself, religious. In the case of evolution it is because religious assumptions are involved.
I guess I'm still unclear on what the religious assumptions of ToE are then. Would you be able to spell out very explicitly some particular examples (accessible to the layperson, like me)?herb_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews (48):
But the objective should be to neutralize religion on both sides, as neither science can embrace religious beliefs. (Did I say “neutralize religion?” My faith means infinitely more to me than ID.)
I don't think the problem with evolution lies in the fact it uses religious reasoning, so much as in the denial of such reasoning.Cornelius Hunter_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews (46):

I said the claim that evolution is a fact entails religious claims.
This is debatable.
It wouldn't be a very interesting debate. The claim that evolution is a fact, though ubiquitous in the evolution genre, is always explained with non scientific claims.
It’s true that Darwin was motivated by some theological reasoning, and today reasoning such as “why would God make something that way” is used to persuade non-scientists. But if we entangle the scientific views of evolutionists with their religious beliefs (even the ones they don’t confess to,) then how can we not view ID the same way? I’d rather argue that ID is science and not religion than that ID and evolution are both religion.
ID (right or wrong) is an inference from empirical data. There are no religious assumptions in the inference. Evolutionists argue it is religious because it fails to exclude supernatural causation from the list of possibilities. Herb (47):
Good point, and I think that’s a valid concern. What if someone tries to apply the argument to the ID side? ID makes assertions of the form “Nature, operating freely, could not have produced the bacterial flagellum, therefore ID is true”.
ID does not say it could not have. It says it is unlikely. This is an inference from the data. Right or wrong, there is no religious assumption in the inference.
IOW, we do not show directly that a designer probably created these structures, but rather that the alternative (unguided evolution) is extremely unlikely.
Contrastive reasoning is not, itself, religious. In the case of evolution it is because religious assumptions are involved.Cornelius Hunter_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank (43):
It appears that you think certain religious assumptions are required to believe in common ancestry. Many of the ID supporters on this forum also accept the evidence for common ancestry. So presumably they share the same religious assumptions as Richard Dawkins et al?
I can only go by what people write. The overriding consensus amongst evolutionists is that evolution and common ancestry is a fact, as much as gravity is a fact. And when they explain why, they use religious arguments (not surprisingly). These religious arguments were not contrived by Darwin. They came primarily from Christians in the centuries leading up to Darwin. Darwin didn't even need to defend them, or define his terms. He just used them. Often times creationists and IDers agree with some of these religious premises (and as a consequence, sometimes the debate glosses over crucial points). BVZ (44):
So basically what you are saying is that supporters of evolution claim that evolution is based on observable evidence like dna analasys, fossils, the examination of extant phenotypes, and the fact that the nested hierarchy can be derived from all of the above (and so on), but in reality, these things does not really point to evolution.
Correct, the evidence raises substantial problems for evolution. The theory itself is not well supported by the evidence. The only way to conclude it is a fact is to falsify the alternatives. Such contrastive reasoning (as Sober puts it) is abundant and crucial in evolutionary thought. Sober's work helps to make this point that contrastive reasoning is the crucial step (though it is obvious from just reading the literature).
In order for me to understand your position better, I have to ask the following: Do you think evolution is compatable with the observable evidence, even though you do not think the evidence leads to evolution?
It depends on what you mean by "evolution." It seems that practically any theory can be made compatible with any evidence, if one is willing to sufficiently alter the theory, by adding "epicycles" or whatever. You might want to read the introduction at www.DarwinsPredictions.com. So there is a tradeoff between parsimony and accuracy. Evolution, because it is not a good model of biology, must either accept low accuracy or low parsimony. Evolutionists have opted for the latter. So yes, it certainly can be made to be compatible with the available evidence (and it has been), but the theory is constantly being patched, and is more of a tautology than a description of how nature works. CannuckianYankee (45):
Mr. Sober seems to be arguing (and I may have this all wrong, because Sober is a difficult read) that Darwin presented common ancestry from the top down in this matter due to a prior religious commitment.
Sober does not explore the religious penetration into science. He focuses more on the structure and power of the arguments.Cornelius Hunter_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

herb: That's mind-bending, but it makes sense to me. I think that if one attacks ID on the basis of its theological implications, it's fair game to return the same. But the objective should be to neutralize religion on both sides, as neither science can embrace religious beliefs. (Did I say "neutralize religion?" My faith means infinitely more to me than ID.)ScottAndrews_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews,
But if we entangle the scientific views of evolutionists with their religious beliefs (even the ones they don’t confess to,) then how can we not view ID the same way?
Good point, and I think that's a valid concern. What if someone tries to apply the argument to the ID side? ID makes assertions of the form "Nature, operating freely, could not have produced the bacterial flagellum, therefore ID is true". IOW, we do not show directly that a designer probably created these structures, but rather that the alternative (unguided evolution) is extremely unlikely. Does this make ID an evolutionist theory? I'll need some more coffee before I tackle that one. :Dherb_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT}

Dr. Hunter:
I said the claim that evolution is a fact entails religious claims.
This is debatable. It's true that Darwin was motivated by some theological reasoning, and today reasoning such as "why would God make something that way" is used to persuade non-scientists. But if we entangle the scientific views of evolutionists with their religious beliefs (even the ones they don't confess to,) then how can we not view ID the same way? I'd rather argue that ID is science and not religion than that ID and evolution are both religion.ScottAndrews_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank, "Many of the ID supporters on this forum also accept the evidence for common ancestry. So presumably they share the same religious assumptions as Richard Dawkins et al?" I think the point is that we are all influenced by the assumptions of evolution, whether we accept ID or not. If you read the article, which is at points difficult to understand, pay attention particularly to the point about the human "tailbone," compared to the plagiarism example. You should be able to dicipher that we couldn't know that the human tailbone is deleterious (sp?) without having prior examples of this - as in the analogy from mistakes left over from plagiarism. Thus we know something is deleterious or a mistake because we are familiar with what is not a mistake. Mr. Sober seems to be arguing (and I may have this all wrong, because Sober is a difficult read) that Darwin presented common ancestry from the top down in this matter due to a prior religious commitment. And again, Sober does not really spell this point out explicitly. Anyway, that we have this mistake (without having any example of such a mistake from nature), and more importantly from not having an example of a more perfect or "evolved?" human without the "tailbone" - based on that, we can determine that humans share a common ancestry with monkeys, which also have this tailbone. The problem is that why is the monkey's tailbone not deleterious, while ours is? The conclusion does not follow proper inferretial logic. It assumes it's conclusion to make the argument for common ancestry, because it had no way to tell that the human "tailbone" is in fact a mistake. Apparently Darwin thought that eventually via evolution humans would no longer have this "tailbone." That's how I understand it. What this means then is that Darwin's thesis is formed out of a religious assumption that the designer left mistakes in the creation, and we can follow the mistakes through and find common ancestrty between species. But what Darwin did not say is that the common traits among humans and monkeys, such as our bipedal similarities, our basic body structures were necessarily evidence for common descent. It was the mistakes that were the evidence. What would cause someone to look at an assumed mistake, rather than at the obvious similarities in order to determine common ancestry? Because Darwin was a theist, and he had certain theological views about God - that he made things imperfect - or at least that he left behind evidences of imperfection. This is not a naturalistic assumption, because a naturalist would not recognize mistakes in evolution - only a theist making certain theological assumptions would. The naturalist would simply recognize the obvious similarities between species' body structures and so forth as evidence for common ancestry. So beginning from this theological commitment, Darwin assumed that the human tailbone was a mistake, or a leftover from a prior evolutionary step. Did I get it right, Dr. Hunter? If not, I tried.CannuckianYankee_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT}

Cernelius (39). Ah ok. So basically what you are saying is that supporters of evolution claim that evolution is based on observable evidence like dna analasys, fossils, the examination of extant phenotypes, and the fact that the nested hierarchy can be derived from all of the above (and so on), but in reality, these things does not really point to evolution. So you are not disputing the evidence, or that they are observable, you are simply saying that the evidence does not lead us to evolution. In order for me to understand your position better, I have to ask the following: Do you think evolution is compatable with the observable evidence, even though you do not think the evidence leads to evolution?BVZ_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply