Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Jerry Coyne and the contradictions of Darwinian morality

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Among the topics historian Richard Weikart addresses in a recent article is Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne’s contradictory morality:

When it comes to solving the dilemma of morality, Jerry Coyne faces many of the same problems as Russell. Coyne is an emeritus professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago and a prominent atheist. In his 2015 book, Faith Versus Fact, Coyne argues that morality is the product of both evolutionary and cultural processes. He vigorously denies that there is anything fixed or objective about morality. However, despite his moral relativism, later in his book Coyne inexplicably states, “Indeed, secular morality, which is not twisted by adherence to the supposed commands of a god, is superior to most ‘religious’ morality.”Apparently it escapes Coyne’s grasp that for one kind of morality to be superior to another, there has to be some yardstick outside both moral systems…

Coyne embraces the same contradiction when he discusses whether human life has value or purpose. In a YouTube video he states that evolution “says that there is no special purpose for your life, because it is a naturalistic philosophy. We have no more extrinsic purpose than a squirrel or an armadillo.” However, Coyne’s own progressive political and moral views seem to presuppose that human life does have value and purpose.

Richard Weikart, “Whatever Happened to Human Rights?: Morality and C. S. Lewis’s Abolition of Man” at CRI

Being a Darwinist means never having to address inner contradictions. No one who matters asks.

Comments
To continue, one might object to the characterization that the ribosome/DNA processing is analogous to a computer, because, after all, trees are systems too, they take in water and minerals, and output sap. Are they "computers" too? No. There are no specific codes involved. (And that's the point.) Sap production does not rely on any highly specified sequence of input for the sap generating process to work. Computer systems and the ribosome/DNA system both rely on highly specific and varying streams of digital codes to produce anything functional and useful. Bob O'H is just kicking at the cactus here, because we can clearly see that the ribsome/DNA is clearly a coded system wherein the varying sequences of DNA have the role of informing the ribosome layer and thus determining the output. The physics involved speak to implementation not conceptualization.mike1962
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
Bob O'H: Yes, I know this. And it’s wholly material – we can replicate the process without having to resort to adding anything immaterial. “Information” is the concept we use to describe the order of the bases: we ascribe meaning to that order, because the order has an effect (and different orders have different effects). Information" is a term we use to describe a relationship. Information describes the particular sequence of codons that inform the ribosome level processes in a particular way. The same kind of relationship that exists between words and ideas, and codes and effects. computer input and computer output. Mike1962: As the others have said, codons tell ribosomes how to build functional proteins. The poor ribosomes would be wandering around sucking their metaphorical thumbs without the codons. There is no interpretation needed. . Bob O'H: Right. They need the very physical presence of the RNA to work. We describe the RNA sequence as information because that’s how we (as humans) understand it. We apply the term "information" to this case because that's what we see actually happening in a systemic process relation. "No interpretation necessary" in my comment referred to us interpreting what we're seeing in this process. There is no reason for us to interpret anything. We can immediately and directly see the function of DNA (the molecule) as a carrier of information (the particular sequence of codons) to the ribosome level process. But for the ribosome, it’s just an RNA strand with 3 bases to attach to. It’s a purely physical process. Nobody said it isn't. But the outcome (a particular proteins) are determined by the varying sequences of codons (the information.) Change the sequence of codes and you change the outcome of the ribosome level process. Computer processors acting on computer software is a purely physical process as well. The software, that is, the particular values upon which the processor acts, changes the outcome of the processor level process, and is information, by definition. There is no conceptual difference between the computer process and the ribosome/DNA process. They are both processing systems that take variable input and produce output by the conceptual processor.mike1962
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
Bob O’H, What about this? https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/suzan-mazur-on-how-the-college-board-skews-students-toward-darwinism/#comment-692155 :)PeterA
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
Maybe Bob O’H is right after all? For example, the Nazi Enigma code had no information whatsoever, but just a bunch of naturally piled up numbers or letters that meant simply nothing. The Polish and British people who intensively worked on deciphering it were just pretending in order to become famous. There was not such information as they made everybody believe. Right? :)PeterA
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
BTW, If Bob was right, actual human-made codes like Morse code would just be non-existent.EugeneS
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
LoL! @ Upright Biped! Beautiful. Just beautiful.ET
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
. Bob @ 63,
we can replicate the process without having to resort to adding anything immaterial”
Is that right Bob? Okay, let us make you the Director of a research team with unlimited personnel, unlimited time, and unlimited funding. And let us say that with this extraordinary intellectual and research power, it is not long before you can control, manipulate, and bind together whatever molecules you wish, and not only can you do that, but you can also successfully predict the results of that manipulation. So, if you need a replacement for the extant ribosome, you got it. If you need a de novo tRNA, you got it. If you need an aaRS to fulfill the box on a diagram of chemical pathways, you got it. Now comes the time to “replicate the process”, so you set your team out to organize a dissipative system where your de novo DNA/RNA is manipulated by your de novo ribosome and whatever array of other helper molecules you need, to the extent that the sequence of your de novo DNA/RNA is used to successfully establish the functional re-construction of the system. Let me ask you Bob: Will you have to coordinate the descriptions of each the de novo aaRS, with the descriptions of the other molecules in the system? That is to say - will the individual sequences within the portion of your de novo DNA/RNA that describe your de novo aaRS’s have to be simultaneously coordinated so that the remainder of the descriptions result in a successful replication? And would you also say, and agree, that without that simultaneous coordination, your system will not result in a successful replication? If this is so, Bob, can you then stand before your intricate diagram of the system’s pathways and properties (with the great formulas of physical law at hand, and with your team’s documented intimate knowledge of every facet and dynamic interaction within the system) and point out where exactly you find the source of that coordination?Upright BiPed
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT
@51 John_a_designer:
It appears to me that a lot of atheists agree that when you honestly look at man’s place in the universe, at least from their perspective, it’s really rather pointless.
They know that nihilism is pointless. That is why they put all their hopes on science. They are terrified children. "Maybe some day we will be immortal, forever young and happy".Truthfreedom
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
@ PeterA: "Randomness, dude!" Blindprocessesdidit! aminoacyl what? "Illusion of complexity!" "Blind watchmaker!" "You want to be comforted". "Deluded and weak theist". "Yuuuu do not understand "Evolution"!Truthfreedom
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
Let’s talk about this later https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aminoacyl_tRNA_synthetasePeterA
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Bob
(and different orders have different effects)
Correct.
We describe the RNA sequence as information because that’s how we (as humans) understand it.
It does not matter what word to use to describe it, be it 'information' or not. What counts is that it is a phenomenon, part of objective reality independent of the observer. That is not the whole picture though. What is missing from your description, is that an amino acid ordering is prescribed where the prescription is rate independent, i.e. it is NOT part of the system dynamics. That is why I mentioned boundary conditions. The prescription is physically enabled by the fact that there is no chemical bias towards particular orderings of bases in messenger RNA (sic!). This term, messenger RNA, is not a metaphor. It does carry a geniune message consisting of bona fide instructions how to build an organism.EugeneS
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
@64 Bob O'H:
...but that in the absence of reasons for it to be wrong...
You mean blind adherence to materialist dogma / lack of critical thinking. Or lack of b***s.
"That is the fatal flaw of the materialistic causal sequence of vision described ... While the external object and its effect on the end organ of sight are both locatable external to the knower, the change in the brain, the image, the representation, is not external, but locatable internal to the knower. Thus, in knowing, ultimately, only changes inside himself, the materialist is logically forced into an epistemological idealism that contradicts his assumed starting point, the observation of external things. All of this flows from his a priori philosophical commitment to materialism. The scientific method does not demand materialism. But, the naturalist’s philosophical bias does". Dr. Dennis Bonnette
https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/Truthfreedom
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
Yes, I know this. And it’s wholly material – we can replicate the process without having to resort to adding anything immaterial.
Nonsense. No one has been able to replicate it. No one can synthesize a living organism. But we do have knowledge of humans producing a synthetic genome. No one has ever observed nature doing so.
“Information” is the concept we use to describe the order of the bases: we ascribe meaning to that order, because the order has an effect (and different orders have different effects).
That is false. We OBSERVE the meaning, Bob.ET
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
JAD @ 51 -
Claiming that your position is the default position is logically fallacious because that’s something else that hasn’t been proven.
But a default position doesn't need to be proven - the very description of it as a default implies that it might be wrong, but that in the absence of reasons for it to be wrong, it's a reasonable position to take. using Occam's razor to decide on what default positions to take makes pragmatic sense, because you eliminate factors that aren't necessary to the position.Bob O'H
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
ET @ 50 -
The genetic code is a real code, Bob. DNA codes for mRNA’s which in turn represent specific amino acids./blockquote> Yes, I know this. And it's wholly material - we can replicate the process without having to resort to adding anything immaterial. "Information" is the concept we use to describe the order of the bases: we ascribe meaning to that order, because the order has an effect (and different orders have different effects). Mike1962 -
As the others have said, codons tell ribosomes how to build functional proteins. The poor ribosomes would be wandering around sucking their metaphorical thumbs without the codons. There is no interpretation needed.
. Right. They need the very physical presence of the RNA to work. We describe the RNA sequence as information because that's how we (as humans) understand it. But for the ribosome, it's just an RNA strand with 3 bases to attach to. It's a purely physical process.
Bob O'H
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom @60, Ok, maybe now I see how it got there. Thanks.PeterA
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
EugeneS @56: Excellent explanation. Thanks.PeterA
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
@PeterA:
Perhaps I skipped the explanation, but I don’t quite understand what how the Darwinian morality in the OP title relates to the GCAT-based 3-letter codons being associated with aminoacids by the translational machinery in biological systems.
Are morals real and objective and we "interpret"/"understand" them? Or are they simply a "human construct"? ET told Bob O'H that some things are real and had existed before we humans arrived on Earth. Examples: information (stored in the DNA) and the lawgiver = source of moral behavior.Truthfreedom
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
Truthfreedom @57: “The genetic code is the dictionary that nature “invented” to be able to translate from one language to another. No intelligence involved. Pure serendipity. Some dirt coded itself. Sure.” Yeah, right. :)PeterA
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
. Good grief Bob. Humans only invented the word "information", but we surely did not invent the reality nor the necessity of information. When you touch something hot, Bob, is it heat that travels from your fingertips to your brain?Upright BiPed
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
@Bob O'H
But in what sense is that information,
"Genetic information is stored in the cell nucleus in the form of DNA. Genes hold the information to produce proteins, which are the molecules that carry out most functions in a cell and therefore in an organism. But proteins are produced outside the nucleus, in the cytoplasm". "Furthermore, genes and proteins use different languages. That used by the former is based on the letters of DNA—the 4 base types known as Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C) and Guanine (G). In contrast, the latter use amino acids—20 distinct molecules, which, when combined, comprise a wide variety of proteins". "The genetic code is the dictionary that nature “invented” to be able to translate from one language to another." https://www.irbbarcelona.org/en/news/discovery-of-a-fundamental-limit-to-the-evolution-of-the-genetic-code No intelligence involved. Pure serendipity. Some dirt coded itself. Sure.Truthfreedom
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
Bob O'H:
In what sense?
In the sense of symbolic boundary conditions on the motion of the particles of matter in the system. Do you suggest nature can build symbol translation systems via an unguided sequence of events? Do you suggest nature can build symbolic boundary conditions for itself? Are there any empirical indications of these alleged capabilities? Do you have any empirical basis to believe that nature can steer events towards maximizing pragmatic non-physical utility or achieving computational halting as opposed to just minimizing total potential energy? Apart from living systems, all other observations of this kind, in the whole observable universe, are correlates of (human) intelligence. Do you really have any empirical basis to argue against the abductive reasoning classifying living systems as intelligently created based on observations of human intelligence? I mean, anything of substance instead of just flat denial or rhetorical questioning. Given your selective hyper-scepticism in relation to ID reasoning with respect to the objective and undisputed phenomenon of information translation in all living organisms without exception, how can you explain the fact that the criteria for signal origin classification adopted in SETI are what they are? Your position here appears to be heavily biased on prejudice.EugeneS
February 7, 2020
February
02
Feb
7
07
2020
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
Perhaps I skipped the explanation, but I don’t quite understand what how the Darwinian morality in the OP title relates to the GCAT-based 3-letter codons being associated with aminoacids by the translational machinery in biological systems. BTW, if the codon-aminoacid association is not information, then what else is it? And that association, which doesn’t seem explained by chemical or physical properties, existed long before humans knew about it. Can someone explain this? ThanksPeterA
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT
Darwinian morality? Materialistic moral code? Huh? https://youtu.be/OcEQCJmQzwMPeterA
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT
Bob O'h: The sequence of bases were there, but in what sense is that information, other than in the sense that we interpret it as such? In a literal sense. As the others have said, codons tell ribosomes how to build functional proteins. The poor ribosomes would be wandering around sucking their metaphorical thumbs without the codons. There is no interpretation needed. The word "information" is exactly the right word to apply to what we're seeing. There's no logical difference in concept between what is going on in this situation, and what is going on with one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNC_router Or one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printingmike1962
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
BA77 @46, Wild wild stuff.mike1962
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT
Bob @ #30,
JAD @ 27 – I didn’t say that Occam’s razor did settle anything, indeed I even explicitly stated that it doesn’t mean it’s right. So the fact that you’re agreeing with me suggests you don’t have any better counter-argument. Without evidence to support the existence of a non-material world, there seems little reason to invoke it. Thus it is a reasonable default position, but no it doesn’t settle the issue. If you want to argue that materialists have subjective opinions, then my only response is “well, duh”. Materialists are human too.
And what exactly do your personal beliefs and opinions prove, Bob? As a scientist are you are more qualified speak about philosophical issues than anyone else? Clearly you do not understand the argument I was making @ #17 where I wrote: Let’s begin with a proposition that appears to be self-evidently true from both the theist and non-theist perspective: If the universe is all that exists there is no ultimate purpose and meaning to human existence. That proposition or postulate is basically what the OP quoted Jerry Coyne saying. That is “human life has value or purpose. In a YouTube video he states that evolution “says that there is no special purpose for your life, because it is a naturalistic philosophy. We have no more extrinsic purpose than a squirrel or an armadillo.” Coyne is not alone in his position. The late great Cambridge University physicist Stephen Hawking once observed,
“The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies.”
(STEPHEN HAWKING, Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken, 1995) It appears to me that a lot of atheists agree that when you honestly look at man’s place in the universe, at least from their perspective, it’s really rather pointless. For example, in his book, The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg writes:
“It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that we are somehow built in from the beginning… It is very hard to realize that this is all just a tiny part of an overwhelmingly hostile universe. It is even harder to realize that this present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early condition, and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat. The more the universe seems comprehensible the more it seems pointless.” (p.144)
I would suggest that Weinberg was trying to play, perhaps unwittingly, a subtle bait and switch game here. This paragraph appears at the end of a book which is purportedly a book about following the chain of scientific evidence back to the very first few minutes of the universe. I have no problem with that. Weinberg is a Nobel Prize winning physicist. By vocation he has the credentials, the knowledge and expertise to explain how the universe evolved. He is not, however, any more qualified than anybody else to tell us what it all means. And, at least in academia, such questions are the province of philosophers and theologians not physicists… https://uncommondescent.com/atheism/monods-objectivity-naturalistic-scientism-and-begging-big-questions/#comment-691945 (Also see #24 and #31 on the same thread,) We could go on to list dozens of other scientists and philosophers who share virtually the same view: Monod, Lewontin, Sagan, Dawkins, Ruse, Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre etc. Again my point is that atheists and theists basically agree with the first premise. However, it is not self-evidently true "that the universe is all that exists" therefore atheists have no way to prove their argument. So it must be accepted on faith. Claiming that your position is the default position is logically fallacious because that’s something else that hasn’t been proven. Just believing that the universe is all that exists or simply claiming the evidence favors your position or that there is no evidence supporting the logical alternative doesn’t prove anything. It’s just your opinion.john_a_designer
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT
Bob O'H:
The sequence of bases were there, but in what sense is that information, other than in the sense that we interpret it as such?
The genetic code is a real code, Bob. DNA codes for mRNA's which in turn represent specific amino acids. The ribosome is a genetic compiler, Bob. It takes the source code of mRNA codons and produces the object code in the form of a functional protein. It is all information regardless of what we do or interpret. Cells are information processors.ET
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
@47 EugeneS:
Materialist denial of empirical facts is astonishing.
They display the typical tics of cultist mentality: "The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law." I have seen atheist evos preaching the gospel of this deluded coyne guy on several blogs and treating him like the source of all wisdom! Rather pathetic, what crappy gods do these atheists have.Truthfreedom
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
ET @ 45 -
The information in our DNA existed before we knew it was there.
The sequence of bases were there, but in what sense is that information, other than in the sense that we interpret it as such?Bob O'H
February 6, 2020
February
02
Feb
6
06
2020
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply