What’s Wrong with the World

Nietzsche was always at his best, by the way, in his occasional role as scourge of revolutionary ideologists.

Takes one to know one, I guess.

correct me if I'm wrong but might mr darwin have accidentally prove Mssrs Plato and Aristotle right after all i.e. there are real and distinct mind indipendent forms? but how to account for change you ask......hmmmmmmm it couldn't be Actus Primus could it :)

Hi, Steve,

If Darwinism, as Darwin meant it, is true, then it doesn't simply mean that Paley's watchmaker design analogy fails. As I understand it, Darwin was trying to show how mankind could have arisen in a fully accidental, unintended way. He denied divine intention, not just divine intervention. Even if one combines this belief with the idea that God exists, it still seems to me that the idea that man is cosmic accident, unintended by God, is at least incompatible with theism. It also implies that morality is relative/illusory (if God didn't intend us, then He didn't intend any right way for us to act either). And finally, it seriously calls into question the coherence of the whole "God" concept. If God didn't intend us, and has no real link with us, then what could we possibly be referring to when we say "God"? To refer to something, you must have some experience or causal connection to it, right?

In fact, how can we refer to anything transcendent at all? Our brains, under this view, are accidental material objects, cobbled together over the eons solely as a result of their efficacy in keeping us alive by making us hunt, gather, and reproduce. How could these local, material objects possibly refer or interact with something transcendent with which they have no causal contact? It would seem that "God" talk is merely behavior that was selected because it had some sort of survival benefit to our ancestors, having nothing to do with the existence of some immaterial being, and if it refers to anything at all, it refers only to the evolutionary pressures that spawned it. Even if God exists, we can't actually refer to or talk about Him, so even this sentence is meaningless and doesn't actually refer to God, but to evolutionary pressures.

And, on a related note, Darwinism (as Darwin meant it) seems to have radical implications for knowledge and objective truth. It does away with essentialism, so that a consistent Darwinist cannot say that there is something essentially human about humans, essentially male about males, essentially female about females, and so forth. These things blur together over time, and the hierarchy that we see is merely subjective, a product of our minds' evolved tendency to impute hard distinctions and categories where there are none. In other words, Darwinism implies a strong nominalism. Indeed, Darwin's own definition of "species" was nominalist.

Finally, it implies constructivism. Darwin believed that design was an illusion, but rather than treat it as an illusion (that is, something that exists only in our minds), he developed a theory to try to explain it. It's a well-known issue among philosophers that Darwinism tries to explain design while simultaneously denying its objective existence. This is the constructivist account of science, according to which the objects science tries to explain are actually all subjective and "invented" by us. This view entails that we can never really learn objective truth about the world.

Between the radical constructivism and nominalism, and the implication that we can have no concept of the transcendent, I don't think there's much to recommend Darwinism from a conservative standpoint. And while the Left appears to be conveniently ignoring the theory when it seems to have implications they don't like, I don't think that they really are. They've taken the one true lesson from it to heart: that there is no objective truth that transcends their subjective minds, but only the power to define the world, and that with enough power, they can define the "truth" to be whatever they wish it to be.

Let me just add that you don't get all those nasty implications if you're just talking about evolution in the simple sense, or even from the idea that God used environmental pressures and differential reproduction as means to accomplish much of what he wanted, but only from Darwin's idea that the intendedness (or design) of life and man in particular are illusions.

"In short, much (most?) of evolutionary theory is reactionary dynamite."

Yes, the part of 'modern evolutionary theory' which is true might well be called "reactionary dynamite."

On the other hand, the part of 'modern evolutionary theory' which is important (by which I mean, non-negotiably important to the 'modern evolutionary theorists' themselves; I don't mean objectively important) is false.

It goes even deeper, Deuce. If "Darwinism" (whether Darwin's or the contemporary version ... whatever that happens to be on any specific day, and which I mock as 'modern evolutionary theory') were indeed true, then this problem of the coherence of "the God concept" applies to *all* concepts.

If "Darwinism" were indeed true, then we can never *know* that "Darwinism" is true. Or that anything else is, either.

Great post, Steve. I have always thought as evolution as more traditional - dealing with people as they truly are, their limits, natural inclinations, etc. - and "intelligent design" as more idealistic and liberally universalist. The Left uses Darwin to beat up on Christians, but otherwise ignores the deeper lessons from evolutionary thought (such as the real implications of kin selection theory).

Here is John O. McGinnis's article on Darwinian conservatism:

http://www.nationalreview.com/22dec97/mcginnis122297.html

The word 'evolution' means "structured development" (*), and it is inherently teleological -- for this reason Dawrin avoided, as much as possible, even using the word, employing instead the clunky phrase "descent with modification;" the word carried baggage he wished to drop. Darwin, and his heirs, wish to deny -- without making a rational argument to support the denial -- the teleology, which humans have always believed themselves to be seeing, in existence.

(*) The word 'evolution' was coined for and first used in embryology to name the seemingly scripted process by which a single cell becomes an infant of its species.

... to slightly hone the point:

Darwin wanted to get rid of the idea of "structured development," replacing it with the idea of mere (and unguided) change (as the phrase "descent with modification" implies). Once this replacment was effected in the wider culture, Darwin's heirs were fairly (but not entirely) able to hijack the term 'evolution' to stand for it.

But not entirely successful. Thus, to this day, there are many people (most people, actually), including "Darwinists" themsleves, who use the term both ways, and frequently both ways at once.

Great post, Steve. I have always thought as evolution as more traditional - dealing with people as they truly are, their limits, natural inclinations, etc. - and "intelligent design" as more idealistic and liberally universalist.

That would be true if it were not for the fact that ID and microevolution are compatible, and that the Bible presents us as a species in genetic decline, not advancement. A Bible-based ID is the exact opposite of idealistic...

In short, much (most?) of evolutionary theory is reactionary dynamite.

Bingo! And while the left uses it to beat down their ideologically-related (liberalism and secularism only arise as Christian heresies) traditionalist cousins, they have no clue that they saw off the very branch upon which they perch. In the long run, I think, the reactionary dynamite will win out, but where will that leave Traditionalist Conservatives?

I am somewhat ambivalent: On one hand, the Secular Right/anti-PC HBDers can (and sometimes do) make a great case in defense of traditional, "patriarchal", non-egalitarian culture, viz., traditions and the rest arose naturally as a way to near optimally benefit societies, therefore don't mess with them. On the other hand, having no grounding in (or complete contempt for) revealed religion, they often are unbothered by the destruction that same culture (or work in favor of it, e.g., Roissy).

In short, full-frontal Libertarians are nearly always correct in their prescriptions, but almost always for the wrong reasons. Do we, therefore, make common cause with 'em? I don't know.

Steve Nicoloso: nor do I.

Nor do I.

Oddly, I find myself in agreement with Ilion, The Deuce, and Steve Burton here all at once. Namely, I think evolution is inherently teleological, is "reactionary dynamite" that is vastly more threatening to various liberal (even atheist) perspectives. At the same time, I agree that Darwin was trying to offer up a worldview - not a purely scientific explanation, but something unfalsifiable, largely detached from science, and metaphysical - specifically crafted to leave God out of any explanation. And unfortunately, "evolution" and "Darwinism" get confused, one word gets used in place of the other, etc, and a lot of confusion tends to pop up.

I also suspect that few people really adhere to full-blown Darwinism of the kind Ilion and Deuce justly describe, despite the insistence of some that they do. Too many people who yell about existence, and certainly evolution, being unplanned, unguided, wholly contingent, etc engage in speculations that seem strangely akin to eschatology.

Here is a similar idea.

Darwinism has nothing to say on the existence of God; the question is outside of science's ken. The way God has chosen to direct creation--even if it be through evolution of species--in no way takes away from His omnipotence.

Steve wrote: "the highly speculative account of the progression from microbe to man."

There is nothing speculative about the account. The fossil record is replete with examples of the evolution of species, including the evolution of hominids to homo sapiens. Not only this, human DNA confirms our common ancestry with the chimp. I think Christians,though well-intentioned, do a grave disservice to the truth by denying the obvious in favor of an unnecessarily fundamentalist, literalistic reading of Genesis, which was never meant to serve as a science textbook.

Actually, Christine, the whole point of "Darwinism" is to deny that God exists. Or failing that, to assert that even were there an entity we might with justice (had it anything to do with us) call 'God,' this entity has nothing to do with us, and so, from our point of view, might as well not exist.

While it may be true that science' has nothing to say on God's existence, this is not true of "Darwinism."

Furthermore, Christine, you are in serious logical error in attempting to correct Steve's characterization of "Darwinism" as "the highly speculative account of the progression from microbe to man."

"The fossil record" does noting of the sort that you are saying it does -- for (and even aside from the known difficulties and deficiencies in "the fossil record") in citing "the fossil record," you are assuming the very conculsion for which you are claiming to be providing evidence. Hell, even some dedicated "Darwinists" (with appropriate PhD) will admit this, from time to time.

Similarly with the claim that "human DNA confirms our common ancestry with the chimp;" you are assuming the very conculsion for which you are claiming to be providing evidence.

Moreover, were you interested in following and understanding the argument, I could show you, using only reason and the pronouncements of 'modern evolutionary theory' that your assertion must destroy 'modern evolutionary theory.' (see my exchange with Sarah in this thread, which lays out the gist of the argument).

Christine:

Darwinism has nothing to say on the existence of God; the question is outside of science's ken. The way God has chosen to direct creation--even if it be through evolution of species--in no way takes away from His omnipotence.

While some theistic evolutionists may mean something different by "Darwinism", Darwin's entire stated purpose was to show how creation could have come to be what it is without being intentionally directed. That was his primary point, and it's what made his theory so provocative. He seemingly provided a way to explain away the apparent intendedness of life. The rest (such as common ancestry) was incidental, and didn't start with Darwin.

So, it's simply incoherent to say that Darwinian evolution is "the way God has chosen to direct creation". It translates to saying that God directed creation by not directing it - a logical absurdity.

Christine, Ilion's nonsense about Chromosome 2 has been debunked several times over the years by specialists who actually work in evolutionary biology. For starters, you would probably like to read this. For what it's worth, don't waste your time trying to persuade him that Darwin's work was motivated by anything other than ideology.

Oh, you poor dear. If you going to rely on obfuscation, why not just link to TalkOrigins while you're at it?

Christine,

This from Darwinian believer and published author Michael Hart, re. the fossil record:

"For the most part, what the fossil record displays are various species, each of which arises suddenly (and is at the outset clearly distinct from any prior species), then persists virtually unchanged for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, and then eventually dies out. (An excellent discussion of the facts--replete with pictures--can be found in chapter 8 of Michael Denton's book.) Instead of the fossil record providing proof of Darwin's theory, it has mostly provided problems to be explained away!

"Furthermore, according to Darwin's theory, there must have been a larger number of intermediate forms between distinct genera of animals than between closely related species; and more intermediates still between higher divisions (such as families, classes, orders, and phyla). However, the fossil record does not bear out this prediction."

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009899.html

So where is Zippy, when I really need him???

Christine: though Ed Feser has just about won me 'round to belief in the god of Aristotle, I still cannot claim to be a Christian - not even a bad one.

And I'm pretty much addicted to evolutionary theory.

But to claim that there's "nothing" speculative about Darwin's account of the "origin of species," in particular, is just silly.

It's the best going scientific theory that accounts for all of the available evidence. I'll happily agree to that. But I won't happily agree that there's nothing speculative about it.

Lots to respond to here.

First, I think a more appropriate word is "Neodarwinism", if one wants to use it to mean discarding the necessity of God in directing life. I, of course, wasn't using "Darwinism" in that sense at all. Instead of using such loaded terms, I'll simply say that evolution per se has nothing to say about God.

Steve: your original comment wasn't taken to mean Darwin's Origin of Species, which, for its time, was indeed highly speculative, as there was little in the fossil record to go on. Since that time, however, the fossil record as well as DNA evidence have confirmed his thesis again and again. I don't think it remains "highly speculative" anymore.

Ilíon: If evolution is not true, then the existence of human chromosome 2 was designed to trick us into believing that evolution is true. God does not deceive, nor is He the author of confusion.

Andrew: Denton's book is, unfortunately, not the most accurate. It would take up too much time and space to deal with here, but you can easily find adequate critiques of his work online.

Christine: "Ilíon: If evolution is not true, then ..."

You don't really pay attention, do you?

Christine: "If evolution is not true, then the existence of human chromosome 2 was designed to trick us into believing that evolution is true. God does not deceive, nor is He the author of confusion. "

Nor, apparently, do you know how to reason soundly.

Ilíon,
Having been a creationist once myself, I perfectly understand the defensiveness of its adherents; but your snide, impolite remarks do nothing to further any sort of dialogue here.

Having said that, please reread the sentence that you deem to be irrational, and you'll see that it makes perfect logical sense. In any case, if you have something substantive to say, say it--but refrain from the rudeness, m'kay?

Cheers.

I'd agree with The Deuce that Darwinism was intended by Darwin to show how species and diversity could come about "without being intentionally directed". But one problem I have there is that "without being intentionally directed" is an area science just falls flat in. That much is metaphysics, it's philosophy, and it's not really an area science, as science, can do much in. On the other hand, if we cut off that part of "Darwinism" and leave ourselves with the remainder (mutations and selection)... what remains is uncontroversial to anyone but YECs, and useless to atheists. It's very easy to regard evolution in a teleological light.

On the other hand, I agree with Steve. There's quite a lot that's "speculative" about evolution. At the same time, I think Christine here may be confusing Darwinism with "any evolution at all". Darwin and, say.. Wallace both believed in evolution and natural selection, but clearly they didn't believe in the same thing. Or Darwin and Lamarck. Or Darwin and Behe (who accepts common descent, etc.) And evolution without Darwinism is a whole other beast, intellectually.

... I perfectly understand the defensiveness of its adherents;

And I don't give a damn about "niceness" -- thus, passive-aggressive whinging (with a tinge of hypocrisy) doen't move me -- I am a Christian, not an adherent of "Nice-ianity."

... On the other hand, if we cut off that part of "Darwinism" and leave ourselves with the remainder (mutations and selection)... what remains is uncontroversial to anyone but YECs, and useless to atheists. It's very easy to regard evolution in a teleological light.

The controversy here, and as has been known from 1859 and pointed out repeatedly since, is that "mutations and selection" is useless as an explanation for the history, or presumed history, of living organisms. Even those YECs, whom all right-thinking persons know we should all look down upon as cretins, can see this.

At the same time, I think Christine here may be confusing Darwinism with "any evolution at all". ... And evolution without Darwinism is a whole other beast, intellectually.

Ilíon,
You may be a Christian in name, but you are no gentleman. By the way, I did read the thread you linked to regarding your exchange with Sarah. It puzzles me why you would refer to it, as the whole thing ended rather poorly for you. You provided no substantive response to any of your challengers, and instead resorted to your favorite sport: namecalling. I repeat: if you have something substantive to say, say it. Otherwise, this is getting uninteresting.

Joseph,
If you re-read my last post, you'll see that I expressly dropped such loaded terms as "Darwinism" or "Neodarwimism" (which have been defined in a dozen different ways, depending on viewpoint) to state that evolution per se has nothing to say about God. If that's a proposition you disagree with, I welcome your thoughts. As to the rest of your claims, they have nothing to do with my original statement, which, really, is non-controversial. Whether or not the supernatural exists is outside of science's ken.

"The controversy here, and as has been known from 1859 and pointed out repeatedly since, is that 'mutations and selection' is useless as an explanation for the history, or presumed history, of living organisms."

There's no controversy in the scientific community about this. None. Neither is there a grand conspiracy to put Christianity down by tricking the world into believing in a bad scientific theory.

Ilíon,
As to the question-begging enterprise you accuse evolutionists of entertaining ("you are assuming the very conculsion for which you are claiming to be providing evidence"), it surprises me that you don't realize you are doing exactly the same thing. You approach the fossil record or human genetics with your YEC-colored glasses, and therefore whatever new discoveries that might appear to confirm evolutionary theory are from the start ignored, discarded, explained away. You are an example of Quine's maxim of minimum mutilation par excellence.

Whether or not the supernatural exists is outside of science's ken.

Christine,

Can you prove this assertion, or is it supposed to be self-evident?

If it is true, I should think there is no good reason to believe in God at all. That statement alone probably contains enough revolutionary dynamite to eradicate faith from the face of the earth.

Ilion: please calm down.

"You're self-blind. But then, that seems to be a requirement of your sort. And I don't give a damn about "niceness" -- thus, passive-aggressive whinging (with a tinge of hypocrisy) doe[s]n't move me..."

Nothing that Christine has written here even remotely deserves that sort of abuse.

There is more than one way to lose an argument.

George R. wrote: "Can you prove this assertion, or is it supposed to be self-evident?"

Well, it depends on how you define science. Science is relegated to study of the natural realm; musings on the supernatural belong to the realm of metaphysics or theology. If your faith in God hinges solely on empirical evidence, then it rests on a very weak foundation indeed. I hope this is not what you meant by your statement.

If your faith in God hinges solely on empirical evidence, then it rests on a very weak foundation indeed.

What foundation would be more solid than empirical evidence? Feelings? Hunches?

If there is, as you say, no empirical evidence for God, then surely there is no rational grounds to believe He exists. Why, then, do you talk as if people should believe in God? Are you just being condescending?

It would be more honest if you just said something like this: "There is no evidence for God and no reason to believe in Him. But if there is evidence of God, I guess I'm blind, and I just don't see it."

For it could be that whether or not God exists is not outside the ken of science at all, but just outside the ken of Christine.

If your faith in God hinges solely on empirical evidence, then it rests on a very weak foundation indeed.

Christine, you and I have agreed on other things (I assume you are the Christine I know elsewhere on line), but there I have to disagree with you. I don't buy the whole NOMA thing, though I'm inclined to put more stock for _theistic_ and _Christian_ purposes in historical evidence than in scientific (e.g., biological or cosmological), as the latter would not tell us the good character of the designer in any event. But in an important sense, all three are empirical.

"If there is, as you say, no empirical evidence for God..."

I never said this.

"What foundation would be more solid than empirical evidence? Feelings? Hunches?"

I'm surprised by this. As a Christian, is the answer not obvious? How about faith?

As there seems to be confusion, I'll clarify: it is not science's place to prove or disprove the existence of God. The natural cannot *prove* the supernatural. The supernatural is, by its very definition, outside/above/beyond the natural.

"If your faith in God hinges solely on empirical evidence, then it rests on a very weak foundation indeed."

The emphasis here is on the word *solely*. If a Christian bases his entire belief on empirical evidence alone, and nothing more--i.e., if he relies only on natural evidence to justify belief--then his is a very shaky foundation.

My statement was meant in the light of Hebrews 11:1; no more, no less:

"Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen."

Christine,

I agree that if you drop "Darwinism" or "Neodarwinism" - or at least, if you purposefully eradicate Darwin's and other's metaphysical commitments and speculations from evolutionary theory - then what you have certainly is nothing that challenges (implicitly or otherwise) the existence of God. On the other hand, I think the number of people who are careful to make that distinction are in a tremendous minority. Quite a lot of smuggling goes on between the scientific and nonscientific, so to speak.

As for faith - there's a difference between purely fideistic, baseless faith, and faith informed by reason and otherwise. I'm sure you know as much, so perhaps you're driving at a different point. My own response is that there is abundant 'empirical evidence for God' (Speaking here in the broad sense of theism, with questions of specific religions being another matter) - in fact, I'd probably part ways with some here in that I think even nature indicates design. (Meaning, nature itself points towards a fundamental mind or intelligence, period. Not just "things we can't explain about nature".)

As an aside, I wouldn't call this empirical evidence "scientific" either. I agree with you that science can't find or rule out design (certainly not on the level of God/gods), etc. In fact, I think science is radically limited in what it can rightly prove or investigate. On the other hand, I also think that science is routinely abused, and not just (or even mostly) by YECs, etc.

Joseph A.: " ... if you drop "Darwinism" or "Neodarwinism" - or at least, if you purposefully eradicate Darwin's and other's metaphysical commitments and speculations from evolutionary theory - then what you have certainly is nothing that challenges (implicitly or otherwise) the existence of God."

Your comments are ever so reasonable, but it does seem to me that if Darwin's and others' metaphysical commitments and speculations are subtracted from evolutionary theory, then the
skeletal evolutionary theory bears no resemblance to the Darwinian [or neo-Darwinian] evolutionary theory that is spoon-fed to the American public by "science's" high priests, to public-school children by their teachers and textbooks, etc., - to the _real_ evolutionary theory lurking behind the rhetorical curtain, IOW. Therefore, is it not perfectly valid to suspect that those who [rather imperiously] insist that "_evolution_ per se has nothing to say about God" are being more than a little disingenuous? Furthermore, it's not been claimed that _evolution_ per se _does_ have anything to say about God.

The "Darwinism has nothing to say on the existence of God; the question is outside of science's ken" shibboleth seems a plainly fallacious bait-and-switch tactic, but maybe I just don't appreciate its nuances....

Sarah,

Honestly, I find little to disagree with what you just wrote. I also think the topic is typically presented in an enormous tangle, because the language involved is tricky. So many people say or write "Darwinism" when all they mean is "evolution". And many people write about "evolution" when what they're really talking about is "Darwinism". I don't think this is always a bait and switch, mind you - many times it's just people trying to use something close to common parlance. If you asked me in public 'Do you believe in Darwinism?', I couldn't give a simple answer because confusion would abound.

I do not know tremendous details about how evolution is taught in public school. I do know that the NABT incident of years ago (evolution as "unguided" and "impersonal" if I recall) seems to have gone down the memory hole for many. That incident alone should serve to give those Christians/theists who believe in evolution (of whom I am one) some serious pause. This debate is not just about "science" for most of the people involved, I dare say.

"The "Darwinism has nothing to say on the existence of God; the question is outside of science's ken" shibboleth seems a plainly fallacious bait-and-switch tactic..."

Care to elaborate? You clearly don't mean the same thing by Darwinism as I do (although, as I've said several times already, it's more useful to drop the loaded term and discuss "evolution" itself).

The only way I can possibly understand your misgivings is if you require all good Christians to read Genesis as if it's a science textbook--a literal 6-day creation, perhaps. And that attitude strikes me as far more "imperious" than anything I've written.

Steve Burton: "Christine: though Ed Feser has just about won me 'round to belief in the god of Aristotle, I still cannot claim to be a Christian - not even a bad one."

When did this happen?? I'm always the last to know about these things.

Bobcat - I have long thought that there was much to be said for at least a couple of Aquinas' "five ways" - at least since I studied medieval philosophy, and Spinoza, years ago, with the notorious atheist Wallace Matson, at Berkeley.

Ed Feser's discussion in *The Last Superstition* helped push me over the edge into believing, at the very least, that:

Something lies beyond the scene, the encre de chine, marine, obscene
Horizon
In
Hell.
Black as a bison...

For better or worse.

You studied with Matson? Why was he considered notorious? Should this be handled over email?

It helps to cut things down to size. Cladistic or phylogenetic "trees" are representational of the evolutionary pathway of a particular group. Punch in your data set based on DNA samples, set your algorithm to "spin" cycle, rinse, repeat. The most parsimonious "tree" or trees generated are selected and presented as the most likely model of diversification for that group _based on what the investigator knows_. This will change in time as knowledge changes and is heavily reliant on-- not old fashioned insight from the study of actual organisms-- but statistical probability. (Whether investigators as a whole are more excited about the organism-- life itself-- or the latest methodology is an interesting tangent).

If you extrapolate this schema to include the vegetable and animal kingdoms in their entirety, plus several more we must now commit to memory, and the relationships between these trunk groups, then you will have some idea of what modern evolutionary inquiry is trying to decode. It is merely a set of tools to help us understand the natural world "objectively".

The notion that these natural processes are carried out by random or "haphazard" actions at the genetic level, subject to natural selection, seems to me the more important assumption, versus inferences drawn from evolutionary trees. Whatever theoretical explanations are forwarded by science for the miracle of life, the continuously unfolding order evident in its essence has not been well explained and is even sometimes denied.

Perhaps order and haphazardness are routine companions in nature and, by extension, in our personal lives. Where is the heresy-- religious or scientific-- in embracing paradox?

Christine:

First, I think a more appropriate word is "Neodarwinism", if one wants to use it to mean discarding the necessity of God in directing life. I, of course, wasn't using "Darwinism" in that sense at all. Instead of using such loaded terms, I'll simply say that evolution per se has nothing to say about God.

I think it's the other way around. Darwin himself was trying to "discard the necessity of God in directing life." He was rather explicit about this in several instances, and even reflected on what it implied for morality (he explicitly recognized that it implied moral relativism) and even rationality (he openly worried that our minds being unintentionally adapted from lower lifeforms for material survival rather than truth cast doubt on reason itself). Those weren't tacked on by "Neo-Darwinists". In fact, the Neo-Darwinists, while maintaining Darwin's atheistic (or at most deistic) bent, at least added on Mendelian genetics as well as some other mathematical stuff that was more properly scientific and can be taken in isolation from the philosophical stuff.

The problem I have with people talking about "separating Darwinism from the materialistic philosophy that has been stuck onto it" is that the philosophical materialism wasn't stuck on by others, but rather built in by the founder of the theory himself. It was a core part of the meaning of the theory. When he said "random" he really meant random, as in unplanned or unsupervised. That's not something that Richard Dawkins stuck on.

You can formulate a more properly scientific evolutionary theory, that includes environmental pressures and all the mathematical predictability that current evolutionary theory has, while lacking its philosophical content, but that theory is not Darwinism, doesn't mean the same thing as Darwinism, and doesn't explain the same thing (how life came to look intended without being intended) that Darwin purported to explain.

I complain only because words mean things, and I aspire to be a stickler for clarity. If you want to promote evolution without the philosophical baggage, then it's better to simply talk about evolution and avoid the "Darwin" talk, rather than twisting the meaning of Darwin's theory into something more conducive to your own worldview while still referring to it as "Darwinism".

If you want to promote evolution without the philosophical baggage, then it's better to simply talk about evolution and avoid the "Darwin" talk, rather than twisting the meaning of Darwin's theory into something more conducive to your own worldview while still referring to it as "Darwinism".

Deuce, it seems to me that if a person wants to boost Darwinian evolution [meaning universal common descent / random mutation / natural selection] but at the same time deny the philosophical foundation upon which Darwinian evolution is built, then he is either not boosting *Darwinian* evolution or being intellectually dishonest -for the very reasons you've rightly outlined. It also seems to me that using the descriptor "evolution" to identify a _theory of_ evolution is very confusing.

I always really appreciate your comments.

I complain only because words mean things, and I aspire to be a stickler for clarity. If you want to promote evolution without the philosophical baggage, then it's better to simply talk about evolution and avoid the "Darwin" talk, rather than twisting the meaning of Darwin's theory into something more conducive to your own worldview while still referring to it as "Darwinism".

I agree--which is why I have said (for the third or fourth time now) to drop such a loaded term and simply discuss evolution per se.

What, exactly, *is* "evolution per se?

Indeed.

What, exactly, *is* "evolution per se?

No, Christine; "ent with modification" is Darwin's phrase, implying merely "change" -- and how, exactly, does one go about, other than by intellectual dishonesty, freeing the phrase of materialist moorings -- and which his followers have tried to equate with the term 'evolution,' which means "structured development." The Online Etymological Dictionary: evolve

Don't you feel even the least embarrassment on this? I mean, considering what you'd said previously.

Also, that is not how you have used the word; and I suspect that that fact is one reason for Sarah's question: you "Darwinists" tend to be very equivocal in your use of the term.

I suspect that that fact is one reason for Sarah's question: you "Darwinists" tend to be very equivocal in your use of the term [evolution].

Ilion, your suspicion's right on the mark. First we're told "Darwinism has nothing to say on the existence of God; the question is outside of science's ken" [quote #1]. Then we're told that the author of quote #1 has "expressly dropped such loaded terms as "Darwinism" or "Neodarwimism" (which have been defined in a dozen different ways, depending on viewpoint) to state that evolution per se has nothing to say about God" [quote #2].

Well, in the first place, nary a soul has so much as hinted that evolution per se *does* have anything to say about God.

In the second place, the rhetorical shell game is as plain as the big, red nose on Bozo's face: "begin with a claim, like "descent with modification" [or "change through time"] that no one will dispute and then slowly develop from that universal belief a sequence from which one cannot escape." IOW, because I agree that I'm a modified descendent of my parents, it follows that every creature, living and dead, that's ever inhabited the biosphere we call home "descended with modification" from one or a few common ancestor[s], and, of course, that descent is "naturally" effected by time, randomness, death, and sex - no teleology, no supernatural or preternatural intervention. If the great unwashed are unpersuaded, the "methodological naturalism" -"'science' has nothing to say...."- talking point is the stock retort. And, of course, anyone who doubts the Darwinian fairytale, which is exactly what "evolution per se" means, is *necessarily* a YEC [meant as an "epithet" that Darwinists think is every bit as repugnantly marginalizing as "pedophile," or "murderer," or "rapist"] who "require[s] all good Christians to read Genesis as if it's a science textbook".

Thirdly, it is *Darwinism* that is the orthodox "scientific" theoretical paradigm, not "evolution per se."

Lastly, it seems to me that if Darwinists refrained from talking down to and sneering at those who are skeptical of Darwinism per se, the skeptics to whom their lectures are addressed wouldn't respond "rudely."

Well, the "Darwinists" (in general) can't help but talk down to those who see abd point at the intellectual weaknesses of 'modern evolutionary theory,' for 'modern evolutionary theorists' (in general) tend to be intellectually dishonest. The problem with "Darwinists" isn't so much that they exhibit the very human trait of getting carried away in their partisanship and in that state reason improperly, the problem is that when their errors of reasoning are brought to their attention, they refuse to correct the problem. And, at the same time, were a "creationist" to make an analogous error of reasoning, they spot the error with no problem -- thus, we know that they are *capable* of spotting the problem -- that is, DarwinDefenders tend to be intellectulat hypocrites, they tend to be intellectually dishonest.

Steve ButronL "Ilion: please calm down.
...
Nothing that Christine has written here even remotely deserves that sort of abuse."

And *you* are not paying attention. Also, you're falling into the common male pattern/rut of (misplaced) "chivalry." And, that "calm down" bit indicates that you too are engaging in passive-aggression.

Christine,

You will notice from Ilion's link that "descent with modification" was Darwin's preferred definition, and, frankly, it is a perfectly serviceable general definition. However, evolutionary biologists have restated it in this form: evolution is change in allele frequencies in populations. This restatement sticks to the original in the sense that genes (and the variants, or alleles) are inherited from generation to generation (descent), and their frequencies can change (modification) due to mutation and other population genetic processes, such as natural selection and genetic drift. The rest of the elements of the theory flow from this simple definition, so the complaints about equivocation .are hollow and without merit. As the excellent contemporary evolutionary biologist Michael Lynch has pointed out, "nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of population genetics". This so because. evolution, as directly follows from the restated definition, is a statistical property of populations.

Good to see you here, Dave.
However, evolutionary biologists have restated it in this form: evolution is change in allele frequencies in populations.

Not to worry. Ilion will find an ideological motivation lurking behind this alleged definition soon enough.

;)

Sarah,
Really, I find rather remarkable all this hostility and anger over a statement that is non-controversial: evolution has nothing to say about the existence of God--and I explicitly clarified my meaning by explaining that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. If you disagree and think evolution DISproves the existence of God, I'd be happy to hear your argument. Otherwise, your breathless response entirely misses the mark, and you are fighting enemies you've created out of thin air.

You make some inaccurate assumptions:

IOW, because I agree that I'm a modified descendent of my parents, it follows that ... no teleology, no supernatural or preternatural intervention

The point of all this? It's merely to show that I do not in any way discount the possibility of supernatural intervention in the created order. Do I think that somehow contradicts the possiblity of evolution in the way God has chosen to form living beings? No, I do not. If you think belief in the supernatural necessarily contradicts the possibility of evolutionary theory, then your response is most welcome. But all this crowing over "intellectual dishonesty" and the like is needless and debases the conversation.

Otherwise, your breathless response entirely misses the mark, and you are fighting enemies you've created out of thin air.

Really, I find rather remarkable all this hostility and anger over a statement that is non-controversial: evolution has nothing to say about the existence of God ...

"Evolution" (and who can tell how, from minute to minute, a "Darwinist" is using that word) says nothing at all.

On the other hand, evolutionism, which is, after all, what Christine is really on about, says quite enough.

The point of all this? It's merely to show that I do not in any way discount the possibility of supernatural intervention in the created order.

As to the dogged insistence that anyone who ascribes to evolutionary theory is necessarily a closet materialist because evolutionary theory=Darwinism, it's enough to dispel this erroneous notion by pointing out that Darwin was not the first to come up with this theory. Although Darwin may have popularized it, it was common enough in his time, well before he ever published Origin of Species. You can find similar ideas stretching back to the ancient Greeks and the early Church Fathers (e.g., St. Augustine). There is nothing necessarily materialist about the notion of descent from a common ancestor. If God chose evolution as the physical process to form man, why could He not have supernaturally intervened at some point to infuse the first man with a soul? Is that not what truly separates man from the animals (at least in the eyes of God)--the soul? And evolutionary theory has no say over the creation or existence of souls.

It strikes me that this whole argument with proponents of YEC or ID is not one having so much to do with science as it does with scriptural interpretation. If one insists that Genesis must be interpreted literalistically, and looks with disdain on Christians who do otherwise, then there is clearly little room for dialogue. But I, as member of the Catholic Church, can with good conscience hold to my opinions, as the Church has never made an official pronouncement on this, but has only said that there is no incompatibility between the possibility of evolution as the mechanism by which God chose to physically form human beings, and the faith.

Christine wrote:

Really, I find rather remarkable all this hostility and anger over a statement that is non-controversial:

Please. Don't flatter yourself.

evolution has nothing to say about the existence of God--and I explicitly clarified my meaning by explaining that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.

That "science" and *evolution* "have nothing to say about God" ... "can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God" are trivial truths that are irrelevant to what *was* the topic of discussion, namely Darwin's *theory of* evolution.

You make some inaccurate assumptions: IOW, because I agree that I'm a modified descendent of my parents, it follows that ... no teleology, no supernatural or preternatural intervention

Hmm. Where did I ever say this?

Where did I write that you did say that "because I agree that I'm a modified descendent of my parents, it follows that ... no teleology, no supernatural or preternatural intervention"? The comment was a response to Ilion's re: "Darwinists" tending to be very equivocal in the use of the term [evolution].

(Preternatural is anomalous here, as it means intervention by a created being.)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, preternatural means "beyond what is normal or natural." Merriam-Webster defines preternatural as "existing outside of nature; exceeding what is natural or regular."

As a devout Roman Catholic, I firmly believe in miracles--in the Virgin Birth, the resurrection of Christ, his Ascension, and I even go farther than my Protestant brethren by believing in the apparitions at Guadalupe, Rue du Bac, Salette, Fatima, Lourdes (including all the miraculous healings there), the intervention of the saints, etc., etc.

As do I, being a devout and faithful traditional Catholic.

Do I think that somehow contradicts the possiblity of evolution in the way God has chosen to form living beings? No, I do not.

I haven't the vaguest idea why what you think is germane to the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of evolution, to whether the Darwinian account of the origin and history of biological species is speculative, and so on and so forth.

If you think belief in the supernatural necessarily contradicts the possibility of evolutionary theory, then your response is most welcome.

But all this crowing over "intellectual dishonesty" and the like is needless and debases the conversation.

It seems to me that resorting to Bulverism and definitional shell games *forecloses* any constructive conversation.

As I don't seem to be getting any substantive responses to my actual position, and as I am dealing with a fellow traditional Catholic, then I shall simply leave off with a quotation from our Holy Father on the matter:

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities.

--Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall

Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" (TAN books, 1974) also gives guidance:

The doctrine of evolution based on the theistic conception of the world, which traces matter and life to God's causality and assumes that organic being, developed from originally created seed-powers (St. Augustine) or from stem-forms (doctrine of descent), according to God's plan, is compatible with the doctrine of Revelation. However, as regards man, a special creation by God is demanded, which must extend at least to the spiritual soul [creatio hominis peculiaris Denz 2123]. Individual Fathers, especially St. Augustine, accepted a certain development of living creatures.... The Biblical text does not exclude this theory. Just as in the account of the creation of the world, one can, in the account of the creation of man, distinguish between the per se inspired religious truth that man, both body and soul, was created by God, and the per accidens inspired, stark anthropomorphistic representation of the mode and manner of the Creation. (emphasis added)
--pp. 93-94, 95

I will also happily refer you to the following website for further study:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p94.htm

I appreciate your zeal and good intentions, and wish you well.

Christine - thank you very much for your contributions to this thread.

SB

Oh, indeed!

As I don't seem to be getting any substantive responses to my actual position, and as I am dealing with a fellow traditional Catholic,

Christine, it seems to me that you have gotten substantive responses to what you have communicated to several WWWtW commenters, but what you've communicated isn't an actual position, or substantively responsive to the commentary that's addressed.

then I shall simply leave off with a quotation from our Holy Father on the matter:

B16's observations are plainly true, but not relevant to whether or not the one particular theory of evolution that was the topic of discussion and Christianity are complementary, etc. The meaning of the word 'evolution' -the biological phenomenon- and any theory of evolution -a conceptualization of the causes, etc., of evolution- are not synonymous. Therefore, the claim that the [Christian] Creation and evolution are complementary realities is irrelevant to whether a particular theory of evolution and the [Christian] Creation are complementary, or mutually exclusive, realities - as the Pope himself has made clear.

Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall

The Pope's little book is one of my very favorites, so "well-loved" that the copy I now own is the third, the first two having succumbed to wear and tear....

Ludwig Ott's "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" (TAN books, 1974) also gives guidance:

Neither the Pope's nor Ott's commentaries are germane to the dispute, which is whether the doctrine of evolution is based on the theistic conception of the world - as, for instance, the Pope's In the Beginning, etc., and JP2's teaching, plainly acknowledge.

I will also happily refer you to the following website for further study:

Why the [happily] -unwarranted- assumption that the referral is necessary? [Rhetorical question.]

I'll add that I'm skeptical of Darwin's theory of evolution because there is no empirical evidence that suggests, let alone confirms [per the "scientific" -i.e., tentative or provisional- meaning of 'confirm'], the hypothesis that Darwin's simple little algorithm [random mutation and natural selection] has the sort of creative power that the [neo-]Darwinian paradigm necessitates.

I appreciate your zeal and good intentions, and wish you well.

I'm not zealous.

My only intention was to defend the rationality, the reasonableness, of my actual convictions. The person who replies to those with whom he disagrees as if they are abysmally ignorant primitives who think the Bible is a science text, as if they are unaware that there is the Catechism, and so forth, can hardly be surprised if those replies beget offended, defensive answers - or so it seemeth to me.

Thank you for the kind wish, and please know that I wish you the best too.

The person who replies to those with whom he disagrees as if they are abysmally ignorant primitives...

I also think it's error to attack theistic evolutionists for their good-faith belief in the possibility of descent from a common ancestor, particularly when the Church Herself leaves room for belief in that area!