Is there any reason to reject the science of evolution, other than religious beliefs?

[George-ananda]

With regard to your first statement that evolution has a "physicalist-materialist bent that thinks it all happened physically only through random chance," has anyone commented on that point without diverting to other possibilities? Insofar as the promoters and believers in the theory of evolution, do you or others think that your analysis of it would be true as far as they are concerned? (physicalist-materialist, that is -- whatever that means...but I think I understand some of your thought there -- at least about physical means...not sure how materialism fits in that, but I think I understand the gist of what you are saying here...)

By 'physicalist-materialist' I mean:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. (Wikipedia)

In that mindset that is common in science, there is no place for intelligence to be guiding evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

By 'physicalist-materialist' I mean:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. (Wikipedia)

In that mindset that is common in science, there is no place for intelligence to be guiding evolution.

Ok those philosophical definitions are beyond me. Thanks. Have a good evening.

 

[Yerda]

By 'physicalist-materialist' I mean:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. (Wikipedia)

In that mindset that is common in science, there is no place for intelligence to be guiding evolution.

Some people argue that matter is inherently experiential, in part or in whole. You could be physicalist and hold that physical objects/events/processes are in themselves a form of mentality which opens the door to cosmopsychism. That's a bit fringe but not totally unheard of.

Btw, lots of people in the sciences have had some wacky ideas that don't sit comfortably within the materialist perspective. In the neuroscience and cognitive science side of things where physicalism has a pretty distinct meaning there are lots of people, past and present, who advocate non-physicalist understandings of the mind-body problem. Physics has also had its fair share of mystics and hippies.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

By 'physicalist-materialist' I mean: Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions of material things. (Wikipedia) In that mindset that is common in science, there is no place for intelligence to be guiding evolution.

That's incorrect.

There's simply insufficient evidence of intelligence being involved to conclude that one is.

Bring a reason to think otherwise like a bona fide example of irreducible complexity in a biological organism and we're all ears. Until then, intelligent design is just a hypothesis without sufficient supporting evidence that is much less parsimonious than a naturalistic hypothesis.

 

[George-ananda]

That's incorrect.

There's simply insufficient evidence of intelligence being involved to conclude that one is.

What's incorrect? In materialist philosophy there is no place for a non-material intelligence to have a hand. That is correct.

Bring a reason to think otherwise like a bona fide example of irreducible complexity in a biological organism and we're all ears. Until then, intelligent design is just a hypothesis without sufficient supporting evidence that is much less parsimonious than a naturalistic hypothesis.

Well, the formation of DNA and complex life from just the known natural forces has some explaining to do (not to say it is impossible). My personal opinion is that life is fostered by intelligence (Nature Spirits, aliens, whatever) from my acceptance of Vedic and Theosophical sources and higher planes of nature. Can't claim to prove it though.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What's incorrect?

You wrote that with a materialist orientation to nature/reality, that "there is no place for intelligence to be guiding evolution." That's incorrect. Materialists would simply say that that intelligence if it exists is based in matter.

My personal opinion is that life is fostered by intelligence (Nature Spirits, aliens, whatever) from my acceptance of Vedic and Theosophical sources and higher planes of nature. Can't claim to prove it though.

OK. I choose not to guess and just remain agnostic on the matter. Maybe gods exist, maybe not. I don't see any value in guessing.

 

[George-ananda]

You wrote that with a materialist orientation to nature/reality, that "there is no place for intelligence to be guiding evolution." That's incorrect. Materialists would simply say that that intelligence if it exists is based in matter.

To belabor the point, I was saying the first material intelligence to appear could not have been guided by intelligence.

OK. I choose not to guess and just remain agnostic on the matter. Maybe gods exist, maybe not. I don't see any value in guessing.

I don't call it guessing but a best rational analysis of all things pertinent.

 

[setarcos]

Hi
I would like to ask you a question , but
can you first define what do you mean by natural hypothesis?

What I mean by natural hypothesis is the presumption that all processes in reality can ultimately trace their origins to purposeless happenstance. That is, undirected, fortuitous events causing an increase in the productively effective order of a realistic system .
For example, while the productively effective order of the realistic systems of modern transportation can be traced to another productively effective ordered system - Conscious human ingenuity - that ordered system is itself ultimately traced to other ordered systems which themselves eventually can be traced to undirected, fortuitous events causing an effective cascade of increases in the productively effective order of a realistic system.
Nature creates order and out of that order consciousness and out of that consciousness artificiality.

One reason I think that the natural hypothesis ( a purposeless universe) is less probable than a purposeful universe is that there are many more processes in nature which rely on improbable undirected fortuitous events in order to advance the ordered system sans sentient direction than there would be with purposefully directed events.
Science uses similar considerations to determine the natural or artificial origins of any specific system.
For example, if a scientist is asked to determine the origins of an artifact found on mars or in space for instance to see whether or not it was artificially or naturally produced that determination is usually done first by comparing it to similar, if any, artifacts of known origin. Then a probabilistic analysis of the systems necessary to produce the artifacts specificity of information content would be performed. A sufficiently high specificity of information content would indicate a corresponding lower probability of that artifact being naturally produced.
Automobiles for instance have high specificity of information content while rocks do not. Carved rocks have higher specificity of information content than uncarved rocks but not as high as automobiles. That's why hardly anyone who sees a working automobile thinks its a natural item and most people who see rocks consider them to be naturally made through geological processes. That's also why most who see carved rocks might think they are artificially derived even though they may be mistaken.
Its much less probable that you'd mistake what looks and functions like an automobile as a naturally produced item than that you would mistake what looks like a carved rock as an artificially made artifact but is in reality naturally produced due to their respective specificity of information content.
This is why molecular structures like DNA are so eyebrow raising. They are presumed to be naturally derived but have extremely high specificity of information content.

 

[setarcos]

That's incorrect.

There's simply insufficient evidence of intelligence being involved to conclude that one is.

Bring a reason to think otherwise like a bona fide example of irreducible complexity in a biological organism and we're all ears. Until then, intelligent design is just a hypothesis without sufficient supporting evidence that is much less parsimonious than a naturalistic hypothesis.

I beg to differ...see my post 308 to Dimi95 for instance. I'm interested in your view of those ideas.

 

[Audie]

You wrote that with a materialist orientation to nature/reality, that "there is no place for intelligence to be guiding evolution." That's incorrect. Materialists would simply say that that intelligence if it exists is based in matter.

OK. I choose not to guess and just remain agnostic on the matter. Maybe gods exist, maybe not. I don't see any value in guessing.

People control the evolution of domestic
plants and animals.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I was saying the first material intelligence to appear could not have been guided by intelligence.

The statement I indicated as incorrect was, "there is no place for intelligence to be guiding evolution." I do not find your claim reflected in those words, as they seem tautological. The use of the word 'first' in describing intelligence (which has now shifted from simply 'intelligence' to 'material intelligence', a term I am unclear about or whether it differs from unqualified intelligence) implies that it is unprecedented.

I don't call it guessing but a best rational analysis of all things pertinent.

I wrote, "I choose not to guess and just remain agnostic on the matter. Maybe gods exist, maybe not. I don't see any value in guessing." Your assertion that a god exists is without justification. You might be correct, but if so, you lack a method to know that you are, which is why I equate it to guessing. This is also how I describe the claim that gods do NOT exist. They cannot be conclusively proven or disproven, thus the only logical stance is to neither affirm nor deny their existence - a stance known as agnostic atheism.

It is not logical to choose one option over the other. Rationality implies being derived from reason: "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." There is no cogent argument that ends with, "therefore, a god (or gods) exists." What you possess is an instinct or intuition, not knowledge.

Moreover, if we rank the possibilities, the option of no god is more parsimonious, as it necessitates only the existence of nature and nothing more.

What I mean by natural hypothesis is the presumption that all processes in reality can ultimately trace their origins to purposeless happenstance. That is, undirected, fortuitous events causing an increase in the productively effective order of a realistic system .

I concur, but I suggest using the term 'unintended' instead of 'undirected'. Natural forces like gravity guide the configuration and motion of matter. They maintain the orbits of planets and moons, which is an unintended yet not undirected process.

It's a subtle distinction. Your term is commonly interpreted as 'unintended', but I wanted to mention this in case you seek greater precision.

Evolution is guided, yet it seems to lack intention, as @Audie pointed out, "People control the evolution of domestic plants and animals." That's artificial selection, which guides evolution based on the preferences of horticulturists or animal breeders, while natural selection, as far as we understand, unintentionally molds biological forms to fit their environments.

One reason I think that the natural hypothesis ( a purposeless universe) is less probable than a purposeful universe is that there are many more processes in nature which rely on improbable undirected fortuitous events in order to advance the ordered system sans sentient direction than there would be with purposefully directed events.

I disagree. That appears to be a subjective assessment. To the best of our knowledge, there are numerous forces and particles that operate mindlessly, following simple rules, yet complexity can emerge from such processes over time. We should avoid attributing natural complexity to an intelligent designer simply because it seems too intricate to have self-organized without intelligent direction.

What you're proposing is similar to George's earlier point: the world appears to require a deity to explain its existence, leading you both to believe in a divine architect of our reality.

However, this perspective encounters a few issues, specifically two logical fallacies.

The first is the fallacy of incredulity, which is the notion that "I cannot fathom how it could have occurred without a deity, therefore it did not."

The second issue is the special pleading fallacy, or an unjustified double standard. This argument could similarly challenge the existence of a god, claiming it's too complex to exist uncreated or undesigned. Believers often counter this by exempting their deities, arguing that reason doesn't apply to a god who created it and asserting that such a being transcends reason.

However, nothing truly transcends reason. When we encounter phenomena that appear to, like time dilation at high relative speeds or the wave-particle duality of subatomic particles, we don't abandon reason; we refine it. If something seemingly unreasonable proves true, then our reasoning must be revised.

Carved rocks have higher specificity of information content than uncarved rocks

It appears that your argument likens the universe to a sculpted rock, which is more precise than 'carved,' as natural processes like erosion also carve formations such as the Grand Canyon and river rocks. If that's the case, it suggests you perceive design where science does not.

This is why molecular structures like DNA are so eyebrow raising. They are presumed to be naturally derived but have extremely high specificity of information content.

This could potentially be explained in natural terms. It might have been the result of intelligent design, but the evidence to assert this conclusively is lacking. As I mentioned to George, I feel no compulsion to speculate, and I have valid reasons for restraint. Knowledge isn't derived from mere hunches, intuitions, or conjectures. Knowledge can only be gained through empirical means. Here, 'knowledge' refers to more than just compelling intuitions or beliefs rooted in faith; it pertains to verifiably accurate propositions (inductions) that enable us to predict outcomes successfully (deductions).

When you dine at a new restaurant for the first time, you lack the knowledge to predict whether you'll enjoy it. If your initial visit is pleasant and subsequent visits are consistently satisfying, you then possess the knowledge of where to find a satisfying meal. This is my definition of knowledge: concepts that enable us to predict outcomes with success.

 

[George-ananda]

The statement I indicated as incorrect was, "there is no place for intelligence to be guiding evolution." I do not find your claim reflected in those words, as they seem tautological. The use of the word 'first' in describing intelligence (which has now shifted from simply 'intelligence' to 'material intelligence', a term I am unclear about or whether it differs from unqualified intelligence) implies that it is unprecedented.

I wrote, "I choose not to guess and just remain agnostic on the matter. Maybe gods exist, maybe not. I don't see any value in guessing." Your assertion that a god exists is without justification. You might be correct, but if so, you lack a method to know that you are, which is why I equate it to guessing. This is also how I describe the claim that gods do NOT exist. They cannot be conclusively proven or disproven, thus the only logical stance is to neither affirm nor deny their existence - a stance known as agnostic atheism.

It is not logical to choose one option over the other. Rationality implies being derived from reason: "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." There is no cogent argument that ends with, "therefore, a god (or gods) exists." What you possess is an instinct or intuition, not knowledge.

Moreover, if we rank the possibilities, the option of no god is more parsimonious, as it necessitates only the existence of nature and nothing more.

I concur, but I suggest using the term 'unintended' instead of 'undirected'. Natural forces like gravity guide the configuration and motion of matter. They maintain the orbits of planets and moons, which is an unintended yet not undirected process.

It's a subtle distinction. Your term is commonly interpreted as 'unintended', but I wanted to mention this in case you seek greater precision.

Evolution is guided, yet it seems to lack intention, as @Audie pointed out, "People control the evolution of domestic plants and animals." That's artificial selection, which guides evolution based on the preferences of horticulturists or animal breeders, while natural selection, as far as we understand, unintentionally molds biological forms to fit their environments.

I disagree. That appears to be a subjective assessment. To the best of our knowledge, there are numerous forces and particles that operate mindlessly, following simple rules, yet complexity can emerge from such processes over time. We should avoid attributing natural complexity to an intelligent designer simply because it seems too intricate to have self-organized without intelligent direction.

What you're proposing is similar to George's earlier point: the world appears to require a deity to explain its existence, leading you both to believe in a divine architect of our reality.

However, this perspective encounters a few issues, specifically two logical fallacies.

The first is the fallacy of incredulity, which is the notion that "I cannot fathom how it could have occurred without a deity, therefore it did not."

The second issue is the special pleading fallacy, or an unjustified double standard. This argument could similarly challenge the existence of a god, claiming it's too complex to exist uncreated or undesigned. Believers often counter this by exempting their deities, arguing that reason doesn't apply to a god who created it and asserting that such a being transcends reason.

However, nothing truly transcends reason. When we encounter phenomena that appear to, like time dilation at high relative speeds or the wave-particle duality of subatomic particles, we don't abandon reason; we refine it. If something seemingly unreasonable proves true, then our reasoning must be revised.

It appears that your argument likens the universe to a sculpted rock, which is more precise than 'carved,' as natural processes like erosion also carve formations such as the Grand Canyon and river rocks. If that's the case, it suggests you perceive design where science does not.

This could potentially be explained in natural terms. It might have been the result of intelligent design, but the evidence to assert this conclusively is lacking. As I mentioned to George, I feel no compulsion to speculate, and I have valid reasons for restraint. Knowledge isn't derived from mere hunches, intuitions, or conjectures. Knowledge can only be gained through empirical means. Here, 'knowledge' refers to more than just compelling intuitions or beliefs rooted in faith; it pertains to verifiably accurate propositions (inductions) that enable us to predict outcomes successfully (deductions).

When you dine at a new restaurant for the first time, you lack the knowledge to predict whether you'll enjoy it. If your initial visit is pleasant and subsequent visits are consistently satisfying, you then possess the knowledge of where to find a satisfying meal. This is my definition of knowledge: concepts that enable us to predict outcomes with success.

In the face of an unknown some stances can be rationally more believable than others.

You are trying to say explanations for all things not provable are equally likely. I’m going to disagree with an example like aliens are more likely than the Easter Bunny although both are not proven.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In the face of an unknown some stances can be rationally more believable than others.

Yes, some ideas that have not been proven or disproven are more likely to be correct than other unproven and undisproven ideas but believing either of them at that point is guessing. We are more likely to have guessed correctly if we choose the more likely option, but it's still guessing if we think we have knowledge doing so.

You are trying to say explanations for all things not provable are equally likely.

Not at all. In fact, I just said the opposite.

From Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

"We can come to the end of any analysis, which may include a list of logical possibilities none of which can be ruled in or out, but perhaps they can be ordered according to the parsimony principle. At that point, further dwelling on the matter is fruitless."

You can add choosing one of those possibilities to that.

Why do that? I don't. There is no benefit to guessing and believing one's guess, and a risk of making a mistake if one acts on such guesses.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, some ideas that have not been proven or disproven are more likely to be correct than other unproven and undisproven ideas but believing either of them at that point is guessing

I might sometimes take the position 'I believe something is highly likely to be the case'. While it seems your position in all such cases would always be 'I'm not guessing'.

Action based on reason and best chances is a positive trait of rational beings.

 

[YoursTrue]

You wrote that with a materialist orientation to nature/reality, that "there is no place for intelligence to be guiding evolution." That's incorrect. Materialists would simply say that that intelligence if it exists is based in matter.

Well, who knows?

 

[Audie]

Some people argue that matter is inherently experiential, in part or in whole. You could be physicalist and hold that physical objects/events/processes are in themselves a form of mentality which opens the door to cosmopsychism. That's a bit fringe but not totally unheard of.

Btw, lots of people in the sciences have had some wacky ideas that don't sit comfortably within the materialist perspective. In the neuroscience and cognitive science side of things where physicalism has a pretty distinct meaning there are lots of people, past and present, who advocate non-physicalist understandings of the mind-body problem. Physics has also had its fair share of mystics and hippies.

"Understandings" are not data or theories.
What are they?

 

[muhammad_isa]

"Understandings" are not data or theories..

They could well be based on investigative data .. the physical sciences do not have
a monopoly on the scientific method.

 

[Yerda]

"Understandings" are not data or theories.
What are they?

In the context above they would be an attempt to create a coherent perspective of the nature of the mind-body problem. The data would be unaffected but a "better understanding" would present a more parsimonious or elegant framework that incorporates the data and the theories.

 

[Audie]

In the context above they would be an attempt to create a coherent perspective of the nature of the mind-body problem. The data would be unaffected but a "better understanding" would present a more parsimonious or elegant framework that incorporates the data and the theories.

In plain talk?
I don't know what you said.

 

[Yerda]

In plain talk?
I don't know what you said.

Ha. Fair enough. I suppose that's what I get for trying to sound clever. Let me think of a better way of putting it.