In Defense of Evolution

[mahler10th]

Why not?

Because these things are intrinsically human.

[mahler10th]

Yes, this is the trap. To look at morality with human eyes. The behaviors of the mantis and the cuckoo are moral in the sense that they promote the individual specie. Humans continually kill millions of other creatures every day and we call that moral (and I don't mean just for food) and we will happily turn birds out of their nests if we want to build on the site of them.

Precisely.

[Shrunk]

Yeah, sure, "of course", as you say. Moral behaviour programmed as instinct. Why didn't I think ot that? Probably because it's such a gross anthropomorphic trap. It's their instinct that leads animals to hunt and kill. It's the female Preying Mantis' instinct that makes her eat her mate alive right after breeding. It's also its instinct that makes the Cuckoo lay its egg in another bird's nest, and the chick push the other eggs and chicks off to a speedy death. For some reason I fail to see any of these instinctive acts as moral. But I suppose that's not what you meant, right? I hope not.

I'm not actually sure what you're arguing in your last few posts.  Are you saying that evolution, or any other scientific theory, cannot explain the existence of human morality, and that it can only be explained as resulting from supernatural causes, such as God?

[drogulus]

I'm not actually sure what you're arguing in your last few posts.  Are you saying that evolution, or any other scientific theory, cannot explain the existence of human morality, and that it can only be explained as resulting from supernatural causes, such as God?

    That would be like "irreducible complexity" like an eye or a wing, which can't work unless it's perfect. Is that the idea, charitably speaking?

     

For some reason I fail to see any of these instinctive acts as moral.

     For some reason you fail to see that you do see them as moral, and that's the problem.

     Why would instinctive acts fall under moral guidance? These creatures are using the earlier simpler system.

     So insects are not moral beings, therefore nature can't equip us to be? I would think that the more complex the creature, the more dynamic and multifaceted the control system would be, which would have to develop in parallel. So you should expect that as brains get bigger there would be more things to learn, lot's of show and tell for the babies and not just instinct. You'd have more choices under internal guidance, and eventually conceptual rule making to replace action directives. Instead of "when A happens, do B" you'd get "the Great Spirit says do this" and then a story with a narrative about why B is good to do. At every stage of development these are useful elements of a control system once the creature reaches the stage when they can appear. They don't have to be perfect.

[Shrunk]

That would be like "irreducible complexity" like an eye or a wing, which can't work unless it's perfect. Is that the idea, charitably speaking?

Yeah, that's what I was getting at.  But I don't know for sure if that's what Lilas Pastia is claiming. 

Researchers are making significant progress in understanding the neurological basis for moral reasoning (one example here), such that it is clear that morality is perfectly explicable in biological terms, without the need to introduce the idea of any magical or supernatural processes.  Of course, this doesn't disprove the idea that God is reponsible for morality, if one still chooses to believe that.  However, one will have to agree that God has created morality by providing human beings with a brain capable of generating moral thought.  And the method He used to create that brain was evolution.  (To be clear, not what I believe, but not a claim that can be falsified.  The God part, that is, not the evolution part.)

[Lilas Pastia]

No, yes, yes, no and maybe. In no particular order. What I'm saying is that 'systems' (the evolutionist and religious) cannot explain what the world is, where it's coming form, what place Man has in it, etc. One way to distinguish between animal and human behaviour is the choices they make. Animals don't really make choices. They act instinctively. Humans make choices (or are able to make them). Good or bad.

That's what I referred to by alluding to Paul a few posts ago - in one of the most oft-quoted passages of his Epistles (Romans 2:15). But nobody seems to be interested in (or able to) dig and check. I find it interesting to find that 'morals' are defined by Paul (of all people: usually seen by atheists as an arch enemy) as a law that's written in the heart and minds even though the person may have never heard of the Law (implying any system of religious do's and dont's). IOW men are responsible for their choices, whatever their beliefs - or absence of beliefs. Up to there I don't think there's much of an argument. For me (that's my personal opinion), larger brains and evolutionary process cannot explain that ability.

So, in the end, I just don't understand why these threads recur every so and so. Except maybe for the fun of it.

[Shrunk]

No, yes, yes, no and maybe. In no particular order. What I'm saying is that 'systems' (the evolutionist and religious) cannot explain what the world is, where it's coming form, what place Man has in it, etc. One way to distinguish between animal and human behaviour is the choices they make. Animals don't really make choices. They act instinctively. Humans make choices (or are able to make them). Good or bad.

That's what I referred to by alluding to Paul a few posts ago - in one of the most oft-quoted passages of his Epistles (Romans 2:15). But nobody seems to be interested in (or able to) dig and check. I find it interesting to find that 'morals' are defined by Paul (of all people: usually seen by atheists as an arch enemy) as a law that's written in the heart and minds even though the person may have never heard of the Law (implying any system of religious do's and dont's). IOW men are responsible for their choices, whatever their beliefs - or absence of beliefs. Up to there I don't think there's much of an argument. For me (that's my personal opinion), larger brains and evolutionary process cannot explain that ability.

So, in the end, I just don't understand why these threads recur every so and so. Except maybe for the fun of it.

I actually found that quote from Paul very interesting, though perhaps not in the way you intended it.  To me, it represented an early recognition of the fact that morality can result from inherent biological processes, without the need for any intervention from a supernatural being.  It seemed more a deist, rather than theist, view, though I won't pretend to be conversant with the source material.

And, of course you're entitled to your opinion, but I wonder why you find it so hard to accept that morality could result from a big brain that developed thru evolution?  If there was/is a God, He doesn't seem to operate thru magical processes, but through naturalistic processes that are discernible and comprehensible to the human mind, so why should human behaviour be an exception?

[drogulus]

What I'm saying is that 'systems' (the evolutionist and religious) cannot explain what the world is, where it's coming form, what place Man has in it, etc. One way to distinguish between animal and human behaviour is the choices they make. Animals don't really make choices. They act instinctively. Humans make choices (or are able to make them). Good or bad.

     If you're an absolutist it makes sense to be absolute about explanations, like "cannot explain what the world is" when what we're talking about is how moral systems get started. So you invalidate explanation by explaining why and missing the fact that the explanations operate under the same "good enough" principle as the creatures we're explaining. And then the punch line, you explain things in exactly the terms used by your opponents, this time as a reason for ignorance and not knowledge.

That's what I referred to by alluding to Paul a few posts ago - in one of the most oft-quoted passages of his Epistles (Romans 2:15). But nobody seems to be interested in (or able to) dig and check. I find it interesting to find that 'morals' are defined by Paul (of all people: usually seen by atheists as an arch enemy) as a law that's written in the heart and minds even though the person may have never heard of the Law (implying any system of religious do's and dont's). IOW men are responsible for their choices, whatever their beliefs - or absence of beliefs. Up to there I don't think there's much of an argument. For me (that's my personal opinion), larger brains and evolutionary process cannot explain that ability.

So, in the end, I just don't understand why these threads recur every so and so. Except maybe for the fun of it.

     You can't quote Paul to confirm inborn morality and then use this to damn the whole approach of finding out more about it, can you? I guess you can.

      And how does the non sequitur about the recurrence of these threads relate to the rest?

      The absolutist never deviates far from the principle that only the perfect matters, and not the functional or useful. From this blinkered position it's possible to miss evolutions true import, that if everything develops on a sufficiency basis (what it is is what it does) the model of perfect essences created by a perfect being that wants us to be perfect is shown to be a collection of fantasies unrelated to how anything actually works. Bad models don't need to be disproven, because their lack of resemblance to real processes is all you need to give up on them. You can't actually make anything with them.

      So, the point of all this is that the explanations offered here actually produce the kind of imperfect morality that you see in humans, with its misattribution to gods who, perfect beings themselves, created us imperfectly. The fantasy of perfection now can be seen to operate as a misdirection, helping to cloud the issue in more ways than one.

[Ten thumbs]

No, yes, yes, no and maybe. In no particular order. What I'm saying is that 'systems' (the evolutionist and religious) cannot explain what the world is, where it's coming form, what place Man has in it, etc. One way to distinguish between animal and human behaviour is the choices they make. Animals don't really make choices. They act instinctively. Humans make choices (or are able to make them). Good or bad.

Is this perhaps a maybe? There is no way that you can know that animals do not make choices. This is mere supposition. Granted evolution has given a whole range of animal types from the simplest to the complex but we have no idea where the cut-off lies between pure instinct and choice.

[drogulus]

Is this perhaps a maybe? There is no way that you can know that animals do not make choices. This is mere supposition. Granted evolution has given a whole range of animal types from the simplest to the complex but we have no idea where the cut-off lies between pure instinct and choice.

    Thermostats make choices. What's the problem? What kind of purist fantasy can't see a gradient between a switch and a fully conscious choice? More absolutism at work: It isn't really a choice unless blah blah blah. There is no barrier separating full consciousness with musings about free will on the one hand and unconscious "decisions" made by little beings with tiny brains. Our "as if" consciousness is much more convincing than a frogs because it convinces us that we're conscious while a frog never thinks about it at all.    

    I don't think there's any way for a frog to develop this ability with the limitations it has and with no need for such a talent anyway. Decision making at the frog level can remain largely instinctive with a little learning thrown in. All the second-order "thoughts about thoughts" that convince us we're conscious are beyond the frog. So it makes decisions with it's equipment and that's been sufficient for hundreds of millions of years. Does that mean a frog doesn't really choose? No, it means that there's no such thing as a real choice over and above the various ways they are made by creatures equipped differently to make them.

[M forever]

Hey! Watch what you are saying!

[Lilas Pastia]

I actually found that quote from Paul very interesting, though perhaps not in the way you intended it.  To me, it represented an early recognition of the fact that morality can result from inherent biological processes, without the need for any intervention from a supernatural being.  It seemed more a deist, rather than theist, view, though I won't pretend to be conversant with the source material.

And, of course you're entitled to your opinion, but I wonder why you find it so hard to accept that morality could result from a big brain that developed thru evolution?  If there was/is a God, He doesn't seem to operate thru magical processes, but through naturalistic processes that are discernible and comprehensible to the human mind, so why should human behaviour be an exception?

I didn't say such a thing. Rather the opposite, actually. I mentioned that Paul verse simply because it acknowledges that the distinction between 'good' and 'bad' is common to all mankind, regardless of any religious background. Whether that ability is the result of evolution or not I cannot tell. I don't think that evolution is a process that is fully agreed on by scientists. I don't deny evolution exists. Life is an ongoing process of transformation. I actually agree with what you just wrote (If there is a God he operates through naturalistic processes etc). But I don't think you can do more than hypothesize one way or another. That's what I said all along - not very clearly, from what I gather. And that's where beliefs come into play. If you can't be sure, you can still believe. You don't need to prove it. Evolution can't be proven, intelligent design can't be proven, God's existence can't be proven, but if the concepts exist, clearly they can be believed in.

[Shrunk]

I didn't say such a thing. Rather the opposite, actually. I mentioned that Paul verse simply because it acknowledges that the distinction between 'good' and 'bad' is common to all mankind, regardless of any religious background. Whether that ability is the result of evolution or not I cannot tell. I don't think that evolution is a process that is fully agreed on by scientists.

I'm sad to say you're very misinformed on this subject.  Evolution is probably the most well-supported theory in all of science, and whatever disagreement there may be among legitimate scientists over it is limited to details of how the process occurs, not the process itself.  There is, however, a religious and political movement to spread misinformation on this fact to which, it seems, you have fallen victim.

I don't deny evolution exists. Life is an ongoing process of transformation. I actually agree with what you just wrote (If there is a God he operates through naturalistic processes etc). But I don't think you can do more than hypothesize one way or another. That's what I said all along - not very clearly, from what I gather. And that's where beliefs come into play. If you can't be sure, you can still believe. You don't need to prove it. Evolution can't be proven, intelligent design can't be proven, God's existence can't be proven, but if the concepts exist, clearly they can be believed in.

I hear what you're saying but, again, you're wrong when you say "Evolution can't be proven."  Well, technically speaking, you're right.  Scientific theories are never "proven" in the literal sense that "proof" is possible in mathematics.  However, scientific theories can be supported by such an overwhelmng amount of evidence that there be no room for reasonable doubt about their accuracy.  This is the case with evolution.  To put it on the same level as a philosophical concept like "God" or, worse, an actively disproven idea like "intelligent design" is erroneous.

[Ten thumbs]

I mentioned that Paul verse simply because it acknowledges that the distinction between 'good' and 'bad' is common to all mankind, regardless of any religious background. Whether that ability is the result of evolution or not I cannot tell.

Maybe it is the belief in god that distinguishes us from other animals. We know that some of them are able to understand the concepts 'good' and 'bad'.

[M forever]

Maybe it is the belief in god that distinguishes us from other animals.

It's probably more the other way around.

[mahler10th]

Quote from: Ten thumbs on Today at 13:28:03
Maybe it is the belief in god that distinguishes us from other animals.

M Forever: It's probably more the other way around.

So then...it is the belief in animals that distinguishes us from other Gods?        I would agree with that. 

[Lilas Pastia]

I'm sad to say you're very misinformed on this subject.  Evolution is probably the most well-supported theory in all of science, and whatever disagreement there may be among legitimate scientists over it is limited to details of how the process occurs, not the process itself.  There is, however, a religious and political movement to spread misinformation on this fact to which, it seems, you have fallen victim.

I hear what you're saying but, again, you're wrong when you say "Evolution can't be proven."  Well, technically speaking, you're right.  Scientific theories are never "proven" in the literal sense that "proof" is possible in mathematics.  However, scientific theories can be supported by such an overwhelmng amount of evidence that there be no room for reasonable doubt about their accuracy.  This is the case with evolution.  To put it on the same level as a philosophical concept like "God" or, worse, an actively disproven idea like "intelligent design" is erroneous.

I understand your sadness and appreciate your concern. I hadn't realized I had fallen victim of a disinformation spreading politico-religious movement . I hope there is a way out? Thank God there are concerned citizens like you to enlighten us about what's right and what's wrong . Please let me know next time I stray. I just can't bear the thought of disappointing you.

[Shrunk]

I understand your sadness and appreciate your concern. I hadn't realized I had fallen victim of a disinformation spreading politico-religious movement .

I know you're speaking tongue in cheek, but the fact is that this movement actually exists.  I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but in this case the conspirators actually happened to put their plans in writing:

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

You might also want to look at this documentary if you have the time:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

...not to mention the article that started off this whole thread.

[drogulus]

Origin of the specious

AC Grayling dissects a new defence of Intelligent Design

    Grayling is responding to an argument by Steve Fuller in his new book, which says that we have no reason to believe that science works if we don't think a creator god is behind it. Read the Grayling article here.

     Edit: Fixed the link.

[karlhenning]

. . . Grayling is responding to an argument by Steve Fuller in his new book, which says that we have no reason to believe that science works if we don't think a creator god is behind it.

If that is really what Fuller is saying (and for all I know, it may be) . . . yes, it's a peculiar thing to say.