The natural selection vs. “creationism” debate has led to Ben Stein creating a film about the matter. The film was shown in Tallahassee recently and was not a great success. I suspect that part of the problem was the apparent lack of advertising-I had no idea the film was even here until after the fact.
But, this shows that matter is still of some concern.
The debate is often muddled by the fact that people (on various sides) lump together all the forms of intelligent design with creationism (and often the most absurd form of creationism).
The more interesting conflict is between the foundation of the two main views. To be specific:
Natural selection: there is no intelligent or purposeful guide to the universe. Complex organisms arise from a process in which those that survive reproduce and pass on traits. Organisms that do not survive to breed do not (obviously enough) pass on traits. This selection process results in the evolution of complex organisms that seem designed but are, in fact, the result of a random process and a selection mechanism. This idea actually originated with the Ionian philosopher Anaximander but was best presented by Darwin.
Intelligent Design/Teleological Approach: There is an intelligent guide or purpose to the universe. The ID view is that an actual mind (or minds) guided the development of organisms. Naturally enough, this view is most often put forth by religious thinkers. However, it can also be presented without a religious angle. Aquinas, Locke, Leibniz and others present excellent arguments in favor of this view. The teleological view is that the universe has a purpose or goal and that living creatures also have an end or purpose that guides them. On this view the process of evolution would not be due to random factors and a natural selection process. Rather, the process would be goal oriented. This need not involve a mind (like God) guiding the process. For example, Aristotle took this view and some take Taoism to also include this approach.
In the public battles, people tend to stab vigorously at straw men-they attack the worst, simplest and most absurd version they can find or create. While this affords a certain degree of amusement, it is intellectually dishonest.
I have argued elsewhere (my book will be out in May) that a teleological account fits a non-question begging definition of science. At this point, the teleological approach seems to be behind the natural selection approach based on the empirical evidence, theoretical economy and such. But it can be considered a proper hypothesis.
To forestall some attacks-I don’t defend simplistic creationism. I don’t defend the pop view of evolution. I consider the matter of the nature of the universe to still be an open matter. One thing that science and philosophy teach us is to be wary of dogmatism. That is one of the most savage enemies of truth and wisdom.
Ken says
March 16, 2008 at 5:39 pmI think it is very interesting to consider whether or not the universe has a purpose and to look at how Darwin’s argument in The Origin of the Species affects that consideration.
I think Darwin was considering this topic to some degree when he wrote in his autobiography that when he thought about “the immense and wonderful universe” that he wondered whether “chance and necessity” were sufficient to explain it and whether there was an intelligence behind it. I think that Darwin’s argument that natural selection accounts for the evolution of species from one or several organisms did not preclude purpose in his own thinking.
I also think it is interesting to consider whether or not the universe, or cosmos, or nature is inherently benevolent (or indifferent, or even malevolent) and to look at how Darwin’s argument affects that consideration. It seems that Darwin’s argument is most compatible with the idea that nature or the cosmos is indifferent, but, at the same time, natural selection does, in Darwin’s view, work to the benefit of each specie.
I also find James Lovelock’s proposal interesting for thinking about both the purpose and benevolence (or not) of nature. I am referring here to his proposal that it is fruitful scientifically to view the earth as an organism that regulates itself for the benefit of the species now existing. Scientists first shunned his proposal for being too teleological, but his idea is now, more or less, foundational in ecology. His idea seems to make natural selection compatible with a teleological view of nature and the universe or cosmos.
It is my interest in nature and nature writing (and hiking) combined with my interest in theology that has led me to ponder such things as these. I was very glad to find your blog under the evolution tag – to find another person out there who thinks about such things too.
Josh Caleb says
March 17, 2008 at 12:12 amVery insightful. I’m glad you see the arguments for what they are (at least most commonly), which is a lot of equivocation on terms and knocking down strawmen that don’t exist.
However i would characterize it not as “natural selection vs. ID” but rather “Darwinism (or macroevolution) vs. ID” for these reasons:
1. IDists recognize the real and true observations of A) Descent with modification: offspring do vary from parents, although horizontal gene transfer does muck it up a bit. B) Natural Selection: certain traits are preserved in the gene pool due to selective advantages or adaptations to habitation, limited resources or competitors/predators. C) Random mutation/genetic drift: DNA replication is not perfect, very rarely mutations cause selective advantage (i.e. antibiotic resistance). D) Homology: similarity in morphological features are parrallel to similarity in genetic code (DNA) and similarities between and among species are observed.
2. So IDists are fine with microevolution and all the abundant data that backs it up. Microevolution explains a lot of biological diversity. The question that ID puts forth is this: does it explain ALL of biological diversity? Is “common descent” the necessary capstone to A, B, C and D above? or could some type of creator/designer better explain gaps in our scientific knowledge (i.e. gaps=macroevolution/speciation).
Any scientist will admit gaps in scientific knowledge; what most scientists will not admit is that those gaps in scientific (read: empirical data) are filled by ideology dependant upon the person thus making “Naturalism of the gaps just as wrong, scientifically, as “God of the Gaps”. Because the assumptions of naturalism/materialism are just as untestable/unrepeatable (Popperian falsification anyone?) from a naive inductivist standpoint as Creator/God. So inference to the best explanation (into the rhealm of philosophy, rather than empirical science) becomes the most important case to be made.
I happen to lean towards the IDist on theses points.
Michael LaBossiere says
March 17, 2008 at 2:55 pmSome say that music is the silence between the notes. Likewise, some of the most interesting aspects of science and philosophy are the gaps in the theory. Deciding what to place in those gaps (what sort of metaphysical spackle shall we use?) is a difficult matter.
Newton famously used God to fill in the gaps in his physics. Today, people postulate such things as Dark Matter and Dark Energy. I’m rather pleased by this-it is good to see people doing classic metaphysics again (that is to say, making stuff up to solve problems).
Now if only I could get a government grant for what I do.
magus71 says
March 17, 2008 at 10:58 pmTo me, the best arguments against Darwin’s theory are the simplest:
1) Lack of observed phenomena. It seems to me, that in many cases where science has postulated based merely on figures, and not observed happenings, it’s been wrong. Optimum human diet comes first to mind. (Fat makes you fat, fat is bad for you, dietary cholesterol increases chances for heart disease etc…) Also, Global warming, but I don’t want to open another can of worms… For me, I must place a prime imortance on empiricism, as the universe does not seem very intuitive at many points.
2) Simple thought experiments like: Where do the first examples of a newly-evolved species find mates? Afterall, they’re the first and presumably the only one of their kind. If there are others that evolved exactly as they did, how the heck do they find one another? And even if this happened in one case, how can it happen in every case? Some may say, that the evolution caused changes so minute that they can still mate with the species of their parents, but in that case, how is this a different species? And, at some point, according to Darwinism, the species would not be able to mate with the species it evolved from. What is a species in the first place?
3) To me, the fossil record merely shows that certain creatures used to exist, and they no longer do. To infer much more than that, seems to stretch the term empiricism to a near breaking point.
George says
March 22, 2008 at 4:35 amI toyed with ID a few years ago, but ultimately gravitated toward theistic evolution. I think only an intelligent designer could create a universe with a system of organization as brilliant as evolution. First, evolution is not driven by chance but by practicality — only useful adaptations survive in the long run. The role of chance is minimal, since most mutations are never selected, and only the useful ones continue. So, if evolution is true, then it is a survival mechanism the Creator gave his creatures, a wonderful gift. Second, evolution does rule out all possible teleologies. The universe has two forms of order: symmetrical order, which we see in tiny things such as subatomic particles, and utilitarian order, which we see in large structures such as living beings. Since the laws of physics extend back to the Big Bang, or nearly back to it, they do not evolve and are uniform throughout the universe. Utilitarian order is, therefore, localized where it is needed, but exists against a “backdrop” of symmetrical order. If evolution represents God rolling the dice, the dice are loaded — and that opens the door to teleological philosophies. I have known IDers who claim to loathe theistic evolution — some have even accused me of contributing to the downfall of all civilization — but I find their position unfathomable. It seems to me theistic evolution is just another form of ID, albeit a Darwin-friendly one. I suspect, though it’s just a guess, that in the long run, ID will become theistic evolution and its hardliners will drift back into old-earth creationism.
George says
March 22, 2008 at 4:38 amCORRECTION: If you read my previous post, you probably caught this, but the sentence “Second, evolution does rule out all possible teleologies” should read “Second, evolution does NOT rule out all possible teleologies.” Apologies.
Josh Caleb says
March 24, 2008 at 9:04 amGeorge,
I think your on point to suggest that ID may turn into theistic (or deistic evolution)… at least that is a consistant scientific/philosophical position.
Although i would argue it is not a consistant theological position because, once it is agreed that some free agent (Designer, Creator, God) must have brought the universe into existence and infused intelligence in some manner into the order of natural laws, then it would be the work of establishing the identity of that free agent… which I am persuaded is knowable from history and revelation (i.e. scriptures of the Bible).
But even so, I fully appreciate that some see theistic evolution as a necessary concession is a step in the right direction.
toddyenglish says
August 7, 2008 at 5:58 pmHello, I just happened to find this blog today (via my own) and I’m certainly glad that I did.
As a former religious dogmatist (now an agnostic truth seeker) I’m fully committed to, and enthralled by, Darwin’s theory of natural selection. While, in many cases, I find natural selection to be cruel (the elegant Cheetah killing the beautiful gazelle); it is that “cruelty” that made the Cheetah so elegant and the gazelle so fascinatingly beautiful (in my opinion).
If I were to choose a specific religion it would be the taoist view that nature is a yin/yang balance. You cannot have one without the other. If there is a God then he or she must exhibit the traits of malevolence as well as benevolence. I can’t find it within me to attribute absolute goodness to a God if he or she could create the predator/prey dichotomy.
However, on the flip side of the proverbial coin, I wonder what force caused the Big Bang to happen. Was it just a random implosion? Or was that seemingly “random” event catalyzed by something…
Why is does so much of humanity have a need for the divine? Is it intrinsically placed there by a God? Or was it simply or huge brains needing to know the origins of the universe? What will happen to God once science fills in all of the gaps?
Moreover, will we ever truly know our purpose here? Or will we become content with the possibility that we are all here via some huge cosmic “accident?”
Well, glad I found this place. I’ll be visiting alot more often. Keep up the good work!
Michael LaBossiere says
August 11, 2008 at 11:58 amThanks for the feedback and compliments.
You raise many excellent questions. In regards to the big bang, it is interesting to speculate what might have caused it to occur. One hypothesis that seems rather philosophical is that the big bang is an ongoing cycle: the universe expands to a maximum limit, then there is a “big compaction” which is followed by a big bang. Perhaps, as Nietzsche claimed, there is an eternal recurrence. Then again, maybe each iteration of the universe is a new game.
Naturally, there are many other theories!
As far as the need for religion, Freud provided some speculation in his works (mostly a need for a father figure). Others have suggested a biological basis (a God gene). I’m inclined to think that we turn to religious explanations because our main experience is with humans and hence we would tend to project human traits onto the environment. This idea isn’t original to me. They again, maybe we are drawn to religion because there is a divine aspect to reality.
Could be an accident. I wonder if we have insurance? 🙂