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

Cornelius 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?Mark Frank_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT}

Joseph @ 7:"How many mutations did it take to go from a quadaped to an upright walking biped? How many mutations did it take to go from a reptilian ear to a mammalian ear? By trying to answer those questions you will understand the author’s point." Has anyone ever noticed the curious asymmetry between science and ID? ID demands that science list every mutation required to turn a single cell into an aardvark. But if someone asks ID to explain how aardvarks come to be, we get either the sounds of crickets chirping or claims that "ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it's not ID's task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories..." If ID would try to answer those questions, it would be the first step towards turning ID into a science.djmullen_{June 24, 2009
June
06
Jun
24
24
2009
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT}

William, "Unfortunately, there cannot be an examination of evolution without invoking design, because without design there is nothing but chaos and disorder to observe, or to observe with." Sorry I missed this earlier. I think you said it better than I said it in #35. You stated "or to observe with." Another excellent point. Here we are with ordered intentional minds, diminishing our intellect with notions of random chaos. If Darwinian evolution were consistently true, we could never actually know it.CannuckianYankee_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped, "Mr Hunter, are you saying that TOE is religious (or religiously based) because it is not primarily tied to evidence, but instead, uses whatever evidence can be surmised in order to attack the religious premises of its founders?" Did you mean "in order to DENY the religious premises of its founders?"CannuckianYankee_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT}

Phinehas, "Yet for some reason (that suposedly has nothing to do with intent), evolution seeks out the improbably complex peak. Why?" And on top of that (no pun intended), there really is no "peak" to Mt. Improbable. Evolution continues until that last meteor comes along and destroys the whole system, or until supernova, whichever comes first. It seems such a waste that evolution should go to such an "intentional" extent only for the inevitable to disprove it all - that no matter how fit, no matter how selective, no matter how randomly creative, the end result is annihilation, not survival. The Darwinist would argue that evolution has no knowledge of that end, and so it continues. But aren't we a part of evolution, with our evolved brains and evolved minds? And haven't we figured out that this is our fate? No wonder they put intent in quotes. Hmmm.CannuckianYankee_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

BVZ (37):
Can you give me an example of evidence the ToE relies on that is NOT observable?
I did not say ToE relies on unobservable evidence. I said the claim that evolution is a fact entails religious claims. It cannot be derived from the empirical evidence (far from it). So rather than following the empirical evidence, ToE interprets the evidence according to religious assumptions. IOW: ToE is religious because its original development, and continued justification, is based on religious claims. It is from these religious claims (rather than simply from the empirical evidence), that evolutionists conclude that evolution is a fact. Sober's new PNAS paper is helpful because it highlights the structure of one of the important religious arguments (though the paper does not explore the penetration of religion, it is more focused on the structure of the argument) that has been crucial to proving the "fact" of evolution.Cornelius Hunter_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT}

Phinehas, Also good points. I should have added that "fitness" seems to be value driven as well, which seems to contradict randomness. But Dawkins goes to great lengths to explain that the randomness is really not random; I guess in the same way as the "appearance" of design is not "real" design. I can't quite figure out what he means by that. The sophistication of his argument does not seem to escape the tautologies, nor the contradictions. BTW, your argument gives "a rolling stone gathers no moss" new meaning.CannuckianYankee_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT}

Cornelius, you made the following statement in 32:
ToE is religious because its original development, and continued justification, is based on religious claims. It is from these religious claims, rather then empirical evidence, that evolutionists conclude that evolution is a fact.
Can you give me an example of evidence the ToE relies on that is NOT observable?BVZ_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT}

Hey CanYankee, Good points. I wonder where complexity falls into the whole "intent" thing as well. The analogy of climbing Mt. Improbable always struck me as a bit strange. Why climb at all when it is easier to roll down Mt. Improbable? Is a human somehow more fit than bacteria? Yet for some reason (that suposedly has nothing to do with intent), evolution seeks out the improbably complex peak. Why?Phinehas_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT}

Nnoel, "We can know that the errors are errors cause the ‘intent’ is too survive. If it doesn’t help survival, then it is an error. That may sound like a over simplification, but that is the ‘intent’ boiled down." I've always had some difficulty with this, because it seems to me that "survival" is a value. We've had this discussion elsewhere, but I think I'm able to articulate it better now than then. If organisms are driven to survive, whey are they not also driven to not survive? Why does evolution choose one over the other? I understand that some evolutionsists answer this by saying that evolution does allow both - non-survival and survival, and the ones that survive are selected. This however seems somewhat tautological to me: things survive because they are selected for survival based on their fitness for survival. It still does not address the whole issue of the value of survival, nor the value of "fitness." Where does that come from? If evolution is driven by random mutations acting on natural selection, then what within a biological system tells that system it must survive, or that it has acquired the necessary fitness to survive? Certainly a mutation does not lead to the information: "ah, I'm an organism, and organisms must survive and evolve," or more directly natural selection: "ah, I'm the mechanism for evolution, I must select certain systems for survival based on their drive to survive. Now an evolutionist would probably say to me: "well you don't quite understand the theory, because the organism or the mechanism" don't have to ask these questions. It just happens that way. The fit survive, while the unfit do not (as a general rule)" But that still does not address the overall problem with the value of survival and evolution. It seems to me that in current biology organisms do not survive, but die out - all of them. They all develop unfitness, which causes them to die out. It is the not the individual organism, but the species Which survive (or rather evolve). Why does evolution care either way? How can you explain evolution without bringing up the value of survival? It would appear to me more accurate to say "evolution of the fittest," but that too seems tautological: things that evolve are selected to evolve. You stated: "it is the 'intent' to survive," as if evolution really is purposeful and directed by something outside of the actual process of evolution. I realize that you put the word intent in quotes so as not to suggest this, but I can't help looking at it that way despite your insistence that it is not. And then you state that the "errors" are true errors because they violate the "intent" to survive, while still trying to escape the ramifications of purposeful intent. Let's face it and call intent what it is. Intent suggest purpose and purpose suggests a plan. I'm not saying that you couldn't argue it in another way, but that's the point; Darwinists seem caught somehow in using design terms to explain evolution. They don't seem to be able to escape that. Of course they also can't escape the fact that biological organisms also appear to be purposefully designed. Bottom line is that you can't escape intentional design, no matter how much you leave things to undirected evolution. Why not rather just say it. Evolution requires something outside the system to purposefully intend the goal of survival and evolution? I understand why not, but it doesn't seem to be a scientific answer, but a metaphysical one. I can't help thinking of evolution with some sort of goal in mind: the goal to survive and evolve. Why, if there is not some higher purpose to survive and evolve? Yet I don't hear evolutionists really addressing this, and it used to puzzle me until I came to understand that there are metaphysical assumptions going on.CannuckianYankee_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

Mr Hunter, are you saying that TOE is religious (or religiously based) because it is not primarily tied to evidence, but instead, uses whatever evidence can be surmised in order to attack the religious premises of its founders?Upright BiPed_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Cornelius. With that in mind, I'll take a closer look at the paper.herb_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

Herb (31):
Is this a reasonable paraphrase: ToE is religious because its arguments are aimed at refuting religious conceptions of creation.
Close, but I would reword a bit: ToE is religious because its original development, and continued justification, is based on religious claims. It is from these religious claims, rather then empirical evidence, that evolutionists conclude that evolution is a fact. Everytime you hear the claim that evolution is a fact, you are hearing a religious proclamation.Cornelius Hunter_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Cornelius,
No, evolution’s religious premises are theological. You might reread the post. Sober’s paper is important because he confirms that the important evolution arguments, which raise the likelihood of common ancestry, are powerful not because they show common ancestry to be feasible or even reasonable, but because they show how the alternative has ridiculously low probability.
Ah, pardon my denseness. Is this a reasonable paraphrase: ToE is religious because its arguments are aimed at refuting religious conceptions of creation. That makes more sense to me!herb_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Nnoel you wrote: if fact, you assume there are only 2 choices, that’s absurd! you haven’t considered the flying spaghetti monster. I'm *not* being facetious - if the FSM did it, that *would* be ID - ID doesn't *CARE* who/or what the designer is. Just that it's a reflection of *any* degree of intent, vs "purely natural - law + chance etc" - being discussed in the Barbara Forrest threades58_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

SingBlueSilver (28):

The problem with evolution is that while it is not a good scientific theory…
I’m not sure what you mean here. Evolution makes and continues to make scientific predictions. Is this not the mark of a good theory?
Not necessarily. For instance, one way to evaluate a theory is on how well does on its predictions. In the case of evolution, it does quite poorly on its predictions.

it is nonetheless mandated by religion, and so is declared to be a fact.
So…. the reason astronomers say that the earth revolves around the sun is due to… religion?
No, I was referring to evolution, not heliocentrism.Cornelius Hunter_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

Cornelius,
The problem with evolution is that while it is not a good scientific theory...
I'm not sure what you mean here. Evolution makes and continues to make scientific predictions. Is this not the mark of a good theory?
it is nonetheless mandated by religion, and so is declared to be a fact.
So.... the reason astronomers say that the earth revolves around the sun is due to... religion?SingBlueSilver_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

Herb (25):
Thanks again for the reply. We might end up having to agree to disagree here, but I’m still getting the sense that “religion” in your view includes holding to assumptions despite the lack of supporting evidences (or even the existence of contradictory evidences).
No, evolution's religious premises are theological. You might reread the post. Sober's paper is important because he confirms that the important evolution arguments, which raise the likelihood of common ancestry, are powerful not because they show common ancestry to be feasible or even reasonable, but because they show how the alternative has ridiculously low probability. Thus the species / kinds barrier is essentially falsified. Of course all this depends on how one models divine creation, and that is where the crucial religious premises come in.Cornelius Hunter_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

Dr Hunter, No, that is not the point. Mutations are irrelevant to evolution’s religious views on why divine creation is so unlikely. I think you overstep twice in that last sentence. The first time by ascribing positions of individuals to an abstract concept. This is somewhat akin to being angry at a crack in the sidewalk when you stub your toe (not ToE). The second time by over-generalizing the challenge of evolution as "divine creation". The only story of divine creation seriously challenged by evolution is recent creation of separate kinds. (Oh, and that whole thing about spontaneous generation from meatballs left on the table overnight that they tell in Vacation FSM School. ;) )Nakashima_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Cornelius, Thanks again for the reply. We might end up having to agree to disagree here, but I'm still getting the sense that "religion" in your view includes holding to assumptions despite the lack of supporting evidences (or even the existence of contradictory evidences). That would be a very bad thing, IMHO. As a Christian, I feel that my beliefs are rational and based on evidences---the Bible and writings of apologists such as Josh McDowell or even Chesterton and Lewis if I want something a little more highbrow. And if I cling to any false doctrine, I would pray that God would cleanse me of them.herb_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

Herb (21):
First, thank for replying. However, given that most of us pro-ID folks here are religious Protestants or Catholics, isn’t it odd to criticize evolutionists for being religious as well?
I don't think so. I suppose most people are "religious" in some sense. I certainly don't criticize evolutionists (or anyone else) for being religious. My criticism is directed at problematic theories, and at people only insofar as they hold to the theory. The problem with evolution is that while it is not a good scientific theory, it is nonetheless mandated by religion, and so is declared to be a fact. Yet evolutionists claim it is all "just science."
Perhaps you could elaborate a bit on your Worldview and tell us if you consider yourself to be religious?
I am not anti religion. In fact I am a Christian. The problem with evolution is not that it entails religious assumptions, per se, but that it is in denial about it. Of course the religious assumptions need to be defended as well, but first things first.Cornelius Hunter_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Cornelius,
Sorry, but Protestantism is primarily where evolution comes from (with some help from Roman Catholicism). Sorry, but the word “religious” is precisely the right word.
First, thank for replying. However, given that most of us pro-ID folks here are religious Protestants or Catholics, isn't it odd to criticize evolutionists for being religious as well? Perhaps you could elaborate a bit on your Worldview and tell us if you consider yourself to be religious?herb_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

Folks: This discussion highlights the subtlety of evolution's religion foundation. BVZ (#4):
The words ‘biological errors’ are used, which are of course mutations. And like you pointed out, mutations are observed, so why does the author claim “we cannot measure such data–they come from our religious beliefs” ?
Sorry, perhaps the term "error" can be misleading. It comes from evolutionist's term paper analogy. The biological "errors" are any non adaptive structure (can be mutations, but not necessarily). For example, Sober uses the human and monkey tail bones as an example. Joseph (#5):
How many mutations did it take to go from a quadaped to an upright walking biped? How many mutations did it take to go from a reptilian ear to a mammalian ear? By trying to answer those questions you will understand the author’s point.
No, that is not the point. Mutations are irrelevant to evolution's religious views on why divine creation is so unlikely. Herb (#13):
Thanks for the link to the article. As a Protestant Christian, however, I do have reservations about using the word “religious” in a derogatory manner toward ToE. Perhaps the word “dogmatic” would work just as well, without offending the faithful.
Sorry, but Protestantism is primarily where evolution comes from (with some help from Roman Catholicism). Sorry, but the word "religious" is precisely the right word.Cornelius Hunter_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

Noel, You might familiarize yourself with the faq (which directly addresses your rhetoric), and actually respond to the points made in the discussion.William J. Murray_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray : 15 @ Life has no such intent. One might as well claim that the intent of gravity is to form planetary systems. I see what you did there! Very clever! But you were the one using the word 'intent', and I was extrapolating on your vocabulary. I'd glad you see how inappropriate it is too continue thinking in the 'design' paradigm. No, it’s just a demonstration that unless evolutionists borrow concepts from their design counterparts... Excuse me? Counterpart implies equal, and the ~~theory of ID~~ ~~hypothesis of ID~~ idea of ID is no where near the equal of Theory of Evolution. If the 'ID movement' is not just a propaganda machine, why wont anyone just admit that it is not science yet? When will stop attacking other theories and just begin formulating their own hypothesis and gathering their own evidence. I was surprised to see Cornelius been referred to as 'Dr.' by one of the posters, but I see it has been earned, so I'm not complaining, but I think that makes my call to 'Do some science' even more poignant, as I know the average reader on here has not the time or the means to 'Do some science', but this is the second blog post from the Dr that has demonstrated a lack of 'doing science'. Especially when the attacks are of such a low quality as these! He is basically calling reasonable assumptions 'a religion', and not providing examples of his definition of 'reasonable'. As I said above, it would have proved a valuable use of my time reading his article if he had put forward some idea of how he thought it should be done, but instead... Again, I'm am here to hear both sides, I might sound a little harsh towards ID, but as always, it's for ID's own good to hear these things. :) lol. Love you.Nnoel_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

ID is a double-edged sword- so to speak. It is based not only on the positive evidence but also the negatives against the opposing PoV. And yet in the next message from the same person: ID is NOT anti-evolution. I find the statements difficult to reconcile using the principles of right reason.Nakashima_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

Sorry about the double post, I forgot to differentiate via quotes - the prior one can be deleted by moderators: Nnoel said:"We can know that the errors are errors cause the ‘intent’ is too survive." Life has no such intent. One might as well claim tha the intent of gravity is to form planetary systems. Without a goal, there is no intent. Nnoel said:"If it doesn’t help survival, then it is an error." Unless there is a goal, there can be no “errors”. Evolution is blind. It has no goals, not even survival; that it survives is just a brute fact, a chance occurrence. It can equally, or more likely, have “not survived”. Nnoel said:"That may sound like a over simplification, but that is the ‘intent’ boiled down." No, it’s just a demonstration that unless evolutionists borrow concepts from their design counterparts, they have nothing to talk about, and no way to frame their discussion. Nnoel said:" ‘this part of organism x is DESIGNED to allow y’, could be written as ‘this part of organism x has arisen and been selected by natural selection because it gave" organism x the advantage of y’ That’s an interesting claim. How is it that “natural selection” selects in a way that allows life to continue at all,or allows it to continue in a way where it doesn’t entirely destroy itself in very short order? In other words, how did the parameters of “natural selection” get set to such a precise point so that very slow-reproducing, highly complex and easily-terminated entities like humans were even a possibility?William J. Murray_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

We can know that the errors are errors cause the ‘intent’ is too survive. Life has no such intent. One might as well claim tha the intent of gravity is to form planetary systems. Without a goal, there is no intent. If it doesn’t help survival, then it is an error. Unless there is a goal, there can be no "errors". Evolution is blind. It has no goals, not even survival; that it survives is just a brute fact, a chance occurrence. It can equally, or more likely, have "not survived". That may sound like a over simplification, but that is the ‘intent’ boiled down. No, it's just a demonstration that unless evolutionists borrow concepts from their design counterparts, they have nothing to talk about, and no way to frame their discussion. .... ‘this part of organism x is DESIGNED to allow y’, could be written as ‘this part of organism x has arisen and been selected by natural selection because it gave organism x the advantage of y’ That's an interesting claim. How is it that "natural selection" selects in a way that allows life to continue at all,or allows it to continue in a way where it doesn't entirely destroy itself in very short order? In other words, how did the parameters of "natural selection" get set to such a precise point so that very slow-reproducing, highly complex and easily-terminated entities like humans were even a possibility?William J. Murray_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

Joseph : 8 @ The point being is that if you have two choices and one is shown to be pure nonsense, then you have only one left. Haha, thanks for providing me with a good laugh. 'The point' is, as I said, bashing the ToE doesn't create [the only other option available], if fact, you assume there are only 2 choices, that's absurd! you haven't considered the flying spaghetti monster. I am being slightly facetious here, but I challenge your 'only alternate theory' theory, ID is not doing science, it is not a testable hypothesis, therefore not a viable alternative. Perhaps it may be one day, but ID proponents need to actually do some science first! Joseph : 9 @ As I said the theory of evolution relies on our ignorance. Umm, you are missing the bit where we start from knowing nothing and then slowly accumulate knowledge. That is science, pure and simple. But history has coined the term 'god of the gaps', and it appears to me that you are inserting ID into the gaps. Be wary when the gaps start to shrink! William J. Murray : 11 @ Fundamentally, by what premise does one call any mutation an “error”, unless one knows the intent of, or is ascribing intent to the process being observed? [snip] Unfortunately, there cannot be an examination of evolution without invoking design We can know that the errors are errors cause the 'intent' is too survive. If it doesn't help survival, then it is an error. That may sound like a over simplification, but that is the 'intent' boiled down. The word design may be used in evolution frequently, but as I've said, the intent is to survive, and all talk of design is simplified language to make the concepts understandable. 'this part of organism x is DESIGNED to allow y', could be written as 'this part of organism x has arisen and been selected by natural selection because it gave organism x the advantage of y' This stuff seams elementary to me, please, inform me where I'm going wrong or what my misconceptions are! Love you.Nnoel_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Cornelius, Thanks for the link to the article. As a Protestant Christian, however, I do have reservations about using the word "religious" in a derogatory manner toward ToE. Perhaps the word "dogmatic" would work just as well, without offending the faithful.herb_{June 23, 2009
June
06
Jun
23
23
2009
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply