Darwinian evolution has three main components: random mutations (variation), natural selection (selection), and common ancestry (inheritance).
Today, evolutionary theory has two parts: 1. the mechanisms that make it possible (Darwinian evolution), and, 2. a scientific material worldview that acts as a lens for interpreting the evidence. While it may appear intuitively obvious that evolution explains physical reality, it's also surprising that the scientific evidence doesn't line up as one would expect. Moreover, adopting a worldview anchored in evolution creates difficult philosophical problems.
Problems with evidence:
- The fossil record is the “biggest problem” (pg. 323 Origin of Species, C. Darwin). Punctuated equilibrium is a complex explanation.
- Lack of evidence from the natural world for macro or vertical evolution. No evidence for essential steps such protein to protein interactions based on random mutations and natural selection.
- The mathematics of adaptive vs deleterious mutations do not add up to account for complex structures
- Difficult to explain complex design with serial assembly ("Most of the mutations that built the great structures of life must have been nonrandom." Michael Behe)
- 2nd Law of Thermodynamics – entropy
- Limited or no ability to apply scientific method (e.g., observation, repeatability, falsifiable)
Philosophical problems include:
- No basis for morality: If evolution explains all of reality then there is no evil, moral accountability or judgment
- No objective and consistent basis for values of any kind
- No intrinsic value for human beings
- No basis for the equality of human beings
- No answer to fear of death, non-being, the impersonal, dread, or existential angst
- No satisfactory explanations for evil, love, guilt, pain and suffering, or our need to hide and control
- No answers to our need for rest, forgiveness, freedom, and ultimate personal relationship
- No means by which we can be saved from ourselves (e.g., pride, selfishness, self-delusion)
- No meaning and purpose
- No ultimate destiny
Evidence for evolution:
- adaptation - horizontal change within species in response to environmental conditions (e.g., finch beaks, moth coloring)
- micro-evolution (e.g., sickle cell and other adaptations to malaria, HIV adaptations to drugs, E. Coli adaptations to anti-biotics)
- gene sequencing points strongly to common decent
Reasonable explanations:
- Evolutionary theory in its current state is incomplete and/or has mistaken assumptions
- Some type of intelligent design is involved
The evolutionary worldview dictates that reality is bound by the uniform laws of cause and effort in a closed system. Humanity and God are part of the cosmic machinery. Embracing this worldview has logical consequences that one cannot escape without illogical leaps of faith.
Over the last hundred years unimaginable brutality and death came by way of non-theistic religions. These religions were based in post-modern worldviews that sprang from evolutionary naturalism. Some of the leaders of these religions include: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and Pol Pot.
In fact, Hitler's "final solution" to the Jewish "problem" was grounded in the naturalistic philosophy of "survival of the fittest". Of Christianity, Hitler said, " I shall never come to terms with the Christian lie." and "Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity." Hitler's thinking was also strongly influenced by Nietzsche and his ideas of "will to power" and uber-man. Hitler's use of ideas from Nietzsche and Darwin turned out to be a deadly combination.
A Biblical worldview also supports the uniformity of cause and effect. However, this system is open and permits humanity and God being outside the system.
Other views, opposed or different?
6 comments:
Carl,
I'm very interested to engage in some debate on these points if you are interested. I'm not sure I follow the argument that the truth of Darwinism would necessarily entail the absence of God or morality. Darwinism is an empirical, testable theory -- one one which I believe is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. The case for Darwinian evolution articuled well by Coyne in his 2009 book, "Why Evolution is True". He takes on many of the arguments of Behe and others in the Intelligent Design movement, providing excellent discussion of the fossil evidence and the evidence for speciation and macroevolution. Darwinism is empiricial (not circular or tautological as has been claimed) because it makes testable predictions, which could be falsified, and these predictions have been upheld. The challenges to Darwinism based on lack of "missing links" or transitional forms, and the lack of utility of "half an eye" or "half a wing" are also addressed.
What testable scientific predictions or explanations have ever been made by the theory of Intelligent Design? And how does it explain imperfections in design and the discarded designs of exinction?
I do not think that the theory of natural selection is incompatible with a strong and well grounded basis for morality. While I am an agnostic, I don't think Darwinism implies atheism. Darwinism is compatible with a belief in a God who put the world into motion and is confident enough in his creation to let it evolve. It may or may not be compatible with the "God of the Bible", depending on how literally one reads the creation story in Genesis.
In any case, I think there are problems with any viewpoint that would deny that species have changed over time, evolved, and diverged. The fossil record shows clearly that most species that ever existed are now extinct. If God intended and specifically designed the currently living species, why did he make the dinosaurs and trilobites and allow them to disappear?
Furthermore, morality can exist without specific theological grounding in Christianity. Certainly, the Greeks, Aristotle among them, and later the Romans had a well conceived view of morality. In many ways, the Christians adopted some of the central tenets of Greek and Roman philosophy, including the centrality and value of the individual, that is not found in certain Eastern philosophies and religions. And early Christian thinkers like Aquinas borrowed heavily from Aristotle and his view of rationality. I think a case can be made that there is more of a continuity between Greek rationalism and Christian thought than the view that they are incompatible or diametrically opposed.
There is a long philosophical traditional of rationally grounded morality. Relativism and nihilism are not the only alternatives to basing morality explicitly on Christianity.
Your thoughts?
Todd
Todd, thank you for the great counter points to my assertions that I made with little in the way of supporting evidence! Sounds like I need to secure a copy of Coyne’s book that could offer some evidence to “plug” what I see as “holes” in the Darwinian system as well as some responses to Behe’s objections to the Darwinian system of thought. While you made a number of excellent points, let’s focus on what could or could not serve as a basis for mortality.
For me, what’s most troublesome about the version of the Darwinian worldview being popularized today is the coupling of Darwinian evolutionary mechanics with a scientific material worldview to explain all of reality. In my view, that combination results in a list of philosophical problems that make a thoughtful, reflective life unbearable on the one hand and simply does not explain reality, on the other. Moreover, if logically extended, a Darwinian worldview leads to despair because it precludes rather than provides answers to the human condition.
Do you concur that science is, by definition, limited to providing answers to the “is” questions about reality and has nothing to say about how we “ought” to live? Science can, however, discredit other systems that purport to answer “ought” questions. For instance, sociobiology asserts that all forms of human behavior such as love, altruism, and even religion are behaviors that have been selected for over time in order to perpetuate portions of the gene pool. It’s an interesting perspective that has some merit. Still, sociobiology remains incapable of explaining how we “ought” to live (Colson, Tillich, Schaeffer).
More generally, I continue to struggle to see how science or even reason can be a basis for morality. Hume (for whom, I’m neither a fan nor very knowledgeable) seems to argue against the use of reason as the basis for morality. Instead, he seems to believe there is evidence for instinctual knowledge of morality that is reinforced by the notion of utility for society and the common good that somehow serves as the basis for morality. Wouldn’t any prescription for specific moral actions in that system be at the mercy of a particular situation and, therefore, the whim of the individual? Perhaps you have something entirely different in mind…
Certainly, moral systems existed in ancient times and they’re being leveraged in part to this day. But, do those moral systems in their native form match up to the totality of reality intellectually, philosophically, experientially, and empirically so they are worth living out? Todd, can you help me understand how science or reason or some other non-theistic approach could serve as a credible basis for morality and moral behavior?
Carl
Carl,
Here is Part 2 of my entry for today:
While science is not a suitable basis for morality, I do not agree with Hume that reason per se is not a basis for morality. Hume was the originator of the is-ought distinction, and his viewpoint underlies utilitarianism and contemporary relativism. I think that is a shame, because the view that morality can be supported by rational argument is an ancient and honorable one, going back to the Greeks, principally Plato and Aristotle. Their viewpoint, which I find persuasive, is known as "natural law". It is a view that has had an enormous influence also within Christianity and Judaism, through philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas. It played a central role in the founding of this country and in core documents such as The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It seems to have fallen out of favor in the twentieth century, with the advent of positivism and existentialism, even among Christian and Jewish theologies that have moved away from rationalism.
Natural law theories of ethics, politics and legal systems are grounded in a view that certain moral precepts are demanded by an appropriate understanding of the nature of man and his needs for living. Thomist theology argues that God created man with a defined nature, from which can be derived all moral precepts. And what is interesting is that even non-theistic natural law theorists appear to agree on most points regarding human nature. One can even take the viewpoint that human nature is a product of evolution and agree with this. So there is no inherent conflict between belief in evolution and belief in moral law.
So I find no conflict between a belief in evolution and a belief in an objective morality. What I find compelling in the Darwinian theory of evolution is a coherent scientific framework that is useful for explaining the history of biology on this planet, that is abundantly supported by evidence in diverse areas such as the fossil record, biogeography, embryology, physiology, and molecular biology. Furthermore, like any good science, the Darwinian theory of evolution has made a number of empirical predictions, any of which could have been refuted, but all of which have been confirmed (so far) by later discoveries. This includes some amazing predictions, such as what types of fossils would be found in Antarctica (and later were), the distribution of species on oceanic vs. continental islands, convergent evolution solving the same problem (e.g. flight and sight) in similar ways by independent paths, and so on. Futhermore, it is a useful science, one that we make use of everyday in biotechnology, which is premised on the principles of evolutionary science.
The question remains: what alternate explanation exists for the diversity of life as we find it? Has "creation science" ever predicted any empirical phenomena? Or explained anything in a non-circular fashion? (i.e. that animals and plants are the way they are because God intended that it be so...which begs the question of how one knows God's intentions).
Well, I think that is probably enough for this iteration. I look forward to your next chapter in our dialogue!
Todd
Todd
Todd (my response part 1),
Thank you for the discussion on morality and natural law. It is true that one can formulate a rational basis for morality apart of a supernatural basis. As you point out, such formulations have successfully been put forth over the millennia. Moreover, such explanations for morality have received wide acceptance due to, perhaps, some resonance with human experience. And, like you, I too am convinced that natural moral law is woven into human nature.
It is simply difficult for me to grasp how a system of morality with a rational basis alone holds much weight when it comes time to determine what one ought to do, from one situation to the next. Speaking for myself, I can justify variance from any particular code using the excuse of some “unique” circumstance or no circumstance at all! It’s interesting to note that people, myself included, admit to a moral code and then break the code repeatedly and in varied ways to suit our interests. Why is that and how can that behavior pattern be countered using rational argument? Even then, why counter it at all?
There seem to be at least two aspects in play in our human nature. The Biblical explanation is: we are made in the image of God, on the one hand, while we are also Fallen, on the other. The image of God part explains why we have a moral code built into us and a desire for personal intimacy beyond what can be achieved on a human level. The Fallen part explains our restlessness expressed as angst and a search for meaning, purpose, and the personal. It also explains why we continue to do things that hurt ourselves and other people.
Another overarching explanation is sociobiology. As logical extension of an evolutionary/material worldview into realm of human nature, this explanation concludes that all forms of human behavior such as love, altruism, morality, and religion have/are selected for and determined by the evolutionary process. For some, sociobiology is an adequate explanation for the good and bad aspects of human nature. If one accepts that evolution and sociobiology explains all of reality including us, there are two problem areas.
First, if we logically play out this explanation, the consequences lead to despair. There are no weighty answers to ought questions about how we ought to live. There are no answers to the human yearning for meaning, purpose, and values; only the illusion that was created by the evolutionary process. In fact, this explanation is impersonal, meaningless, and purposeless – that is, pointless.
It’s interesting to note that people who hold to and promote this explanation, do not act consistently with this explanation. For good reason, folks who hold that view avoid following that thinking through to its bleak and depressing conclusions. Instead, we observe that these folks make irrational leaps to escape the logical consequences of this view. They will refer to romance, love, duty, art, or causes in almost religious ways that have no basis in the view they say they hold to. Years ago, Francis Schaeffer, outlined in detail this continuing phenomenon of truly irrational leaps of faith. More recently, Chuck Colson points out in his dense book, “How Now Shall We Live?” the following: "When believers are selfish, they are acting contrary to their own beliefs. By contrast, when securlarists are compassionate, they are acting contrary to the internal logic of their own worldview."
Todd (my response, part 2),
Second, sociobiology is inadequate to explain all of reality. It contradicts what each of us experiences in ourselves, what we experience with others, or what science can measure about the human experience. In short, sociobiology doesn’t explain the full human experience. There was a time when I trusted science over the Bible. Somehow my disdain for the Bible was overcome when I began to correlate (Tillich’s methodology) my existential and ought questions with the Biblical perspective. That experience was utterly surprising as was the realization that my faith in science (beyond what it does so well) was groundless and irrational.
Todd, since your points about the evidence for evolution aren’t addressed here, I have a proposal. How ‘bout I read Coyne’s book and you read Colson’s book for follow on discussions about each? In addition, I realize that I’m talking past a number of your points and I’m not sure how to rectify that. If I may suggest, we could benefit from an in-person discussion, don't ya think?
Carl
Todd, I finally read "Why Evolution is True" by Cohne. It was a great recommendation. Here's my take on the book: "Excellent review and overview of evolution for those with a biology background using clear though often tedious examples. Becomes speculative when transitioning from micro to macro evolution and trying to explain how an organism acquires new genetic information. Philosophically deficient when addressing morality, meaning, and purpose." Now we just need to find a time to discuss!
Post a Comment