Platonic forms and mustard seeds

[gluadys]

Note: I posted this originally in the C&E forum as the conversation that sparked the idea occurred there. But it may be more appropriate here.


The creationist notion of evolution and speciation would seem to owe a lot to the philosophy of Plato. This was brought home to me particularly in a conversation with Mark T, though he is not the only one to make similar points.

In Plato’s philosophy, material things lack perfect existence. They are little more than shadows of real things. (Parable of the Cave). What really exists are eternal forms. The forms are eternal, immaterial and perfect templates of which concrete material individual instances are contingent, mortal and imperfect copies. Each rabbit, each chair, each instance of the colour red is an imperfect replica of an eternal and perfect form of a rabbit, a chair, the colour red which exists beyond the material world. The form constitutes the essence (being) of everything that is, but no one material instance of a form comprises the whole essence of the form.

Now compare that with the common creationist explanation of a kind and its evolution. The original created kind (which may have been taken on to the Ark) is said to be “fully-formed”, “perfect” and to have had a genome which included all the possibilities of all subsequent variations in the combined gene pools of all species emanating from it.

Now when a part of the population of the original kind adapts to a particular environmental pressure, it can only do so by emphasizing some aspect of the genome and not expressing other parts. So it no longer expresses 100% of the kind genome. It has become an imperfect copy of the original kind.

Similarly, if speciation occurs and a part of the original kind becomes a separate species from the rest, it can only do so by losing some of the information in the original genome of the kind. By the same token, the remaining population has also lost some of the original genome---a part found in the new species, but not retained in the remaining population. So now we have two less than complete copies of the original kind.

As speciation continues, the original genome keeps splintering into smaller and smaller portions, so that each new species is based on a less complete copy of the genome which the kind began with. At some point, it must become impossible to generate a new variety or species, because there would be too little of the original genome left to support existence.

So, if one begins with a Platonic concept of a perfect ,whole kind, the only thing evolution can do is create incomplete copies of that kind---and the more variation, adaptation and speciation there is, the less complete each is in comparison to the original.

It seems to me the bible itself gives us a different image, best expressed in Jesus’ comment on the mustard seed: a small seed, which grows into a bush large enough for birds to nest in. How do we get a large bush from a small seed? By adding to it. It grows. It adds roots and a stem, then small branches, then branches on branches, then more branches as the earlier branches grow larger to support more new branches. Even if some branches are removed, the others keep producing.

And this is the scientific image of evolution. Not of beginning with a whole form and splintering it into varieties, but of beginning with a seed which adds structure and new branches and branches on branches and more and more branches. New species are not subtractions from an original whole; they are additions to the growing family tree. The gene pool is not divided again and again and again till it is too small to divide any more; rather each new variety adds new potential to a gene pool. And speciation creates a new gene pool---just as one can take a branch from a plant, develop new roots on it, and start a new tree. And this tree can also grow and add new possibilities to those it brought from its parent tree.

God didn't reveal himself in the beginning to one of the great Mesopotamian nations. Instead he called one person (Abraham) and grew a nation, actually several nations, from his seed to be the vehicle of his revelation. When his people needed a new king, God did not direct Samuel to a full-grown mature man to lead a rebellion against Saul, but to a boy tending the sheep and grew him into a leader. And although huge crowds followed Jesus, only a tiny group were called together to plant the seed of the church in the world and grow from there.

Evolution also proceeds from the small start of simple unicellular life and over generations adds and adds and adds new growth, new varieties, new species as living things spread out and explore and adapt to new environmental pressures. It seems to me that evolution is another expression of God’s mustard seed principle. And that if creationists abandoned their Platonic interpretation of created kinds for a biblical “mustard seed” interpretation, the so-called conflict of science and scripture would disappear.

 

[Vance]

Very well said.

 

[Crusadar]

The creationist notion of evolution and speciation would seem to owe a lot to the philosophy of Plato. This was brought home to me particularly in a conversation with Mark T, though he is not the only one to make similar points.

I hardly think so gluadys – I suggest you take a course on classical philosophy and you will understand that Plato’s views are as far from the present view of creationism as it can be. I would think that his thinking fits much nicer with that of naturalistic evolution. As a matter of fact naturalistic evolution has its roots in classical philosophy.

In Plato’s philosophy, material things lack perfect existence. They are little more than shadows of real things. (Parable of the Cave). What really exists are eternal forms. The forms are eternal, immaterial and perfect templates of which concrete material individual instances are contingent, mortal and imperfect copies. Each rabbit, each chair, each instance of the colour red is an imperfect replica of an eternal and perfect form of a rabbit, a chair, the colour red which exists beyond the material world. The form constitutes the essence (being) of everything that is, but no one material instance of a form comprises the whole essence of the form.

It always amazes me how evolutionists (TEs in this case) distort things just to make their case more palatable. If one examines critically the philosophy of Plato there is little evidence of the God of the bible that we know of. For one Plato’s concept of God was not at all the same as that of biblical revelation but purely pantheistic. In his diaglogue “Timaeus” he makes clear that both time and chance are his explanation of the universe – sort of like darwinistic evolution except in reverse. For Plato, the process of creation was simply a degeneration from God, the perfect life form. For example he taught that cowardly and unjust men were reborn as women – which would suggest that women are inferior to men, which I would say is absurd. As in this translated quote from Timaeus:

“After the women we come to the animals. “Beasts who go on all fours came from men who were wholly unconversant with philosophy and had never gazed on the heavens. It is a tale of the fall in permanence: a theory of descent and devolution – as opposed to evolution by ascent.” Koestler “The Sleepwalkers” p.55.

As such there is little similarity between Plato’s ideas of degenerative evolution and that of creationists imperfect genetic replication process. Platonic evolution stands as a stark contrast to modern creationism in that it requires that one species or kind change into another as human’s into four footed beasts, while creationism maintains that the kinds (or species if you prefer) do not change into other species (i.e. reptiles into birds, monkeys into men etc.).

Now compare that with the common creationist explanation of a kind and its evolution. The original created kind (which may have been taken on to the Ark) is said to be “fully-formed”, “perfect” and to have had a genome which included all the possibilities of all subsequent variations in the combined gene pools of all species emanating from it.

There is no comparison really as there are major differences as creationists do not claim that cowardly and unjust men (or women for that matter) are reborn as anything else. Furthermore the idea that something is created as perfect is not a teaching of creationists that I am aware of, as only God is perfect.

Now when a part of the population of the original kind adapts to a particular environmental pressure, it can only do so by emphasizing some aspect of the genome and not expressing other parts. So it no longer expresses 100% of the kind genome.

If you mean adaptation by a change in physical features in order to survive in their environment (which by the way does not require additional brand new genetic information) then I would agree, as that is what is observed to occur. After all a well informed evolutionist as yourself must of heard about Peter and Daphne Grant’s work on Darwin’s finches in early 70’s? What isn’t surprising is that when they later return in the 80’s they discovered the opposite of what was required for Darwinian evolution had occurred.

It has become an imperfect copy of the original kind.

No longer expressed doesn’t necessarily mean that it is an imperfect copy, it only means that genetic information is now dormant.

Similarly, if speciation occurs and a part of the original kind becomes a separate species from the rest, it can only do so by losing some of the information in the original genome of the kind. By the same token, the remaining population has also lost some of the original genome---a part found in the new species, but not retained in the remaining population. So now we have two less than complete copies of the original kind.

As speciation continues, the original genome keeps splintering into smaller and smaller portions, so that each new species is based on a less complete copy of the genome which the kind began with. At some point, it must become impossible to generate a new variety or species, because there would be too little of the original genome left to support existence.

Gee-gluadys I would really like to know where you are getting your creationist information from? I hope not Dr. Dino! Actually wrong, creationists believe no such thing. My advice to you is please look at what creationists actually believe before you start building a strawman. Variation does not require a reduction of information more so it is the reshuffling of genetic information – as there are you know corrective mechanisms in place to repair transcription errors.

Which by the way brings up a question – according to evolutionionary theory mutations due to copying errors are essential for evolution its back bone. However research suggests that in bacteria the mutation rate per nucleotide is between 0.1 to 10 per billion transcription where in higher lifeforms other than bacteria it is between .01 and 1 per billion transcription.

- Grosse, F. et al Replication of 0x174 DNA by calf thymus DNA… Advances in Experimental Medicne and Biology v.179 535-540, 1984.

With such a low rate of transcription error, why even evolve any sort of mechanism that repairs and keeps these copying errors in check if evolution is dependant on them?

So, if one begins with a Platonic concept of a perfect ,whole kind, the only thing evolution can do is create incomplete copies of that kind---and the more variation, adaptation and speciation there is, the less complete each is in comparison to the original.

Again, the idea that modern day creationism is based on platonic philosophy is ludicrous as shown above.

It seems to me the bible itself gives us a different image, best expressed in Jesus’ comment on the mustard seed: a small seed, which grows into a bush large enough for birds to nest in. How do we get a large bush from a small seed? By adding to it. It grows. It adds roots and a stem, then small branches, then branches on branches, then more branches as the earlier branches grow larger to support more new branches. Even if some branches are removed, the others keep producing.

This is a straw man gluadys. No where does creationist teach that a mustard seed does not grow to become a mustard plant. In fact creationists believe whole heartedly that only a mustard tree grows up from a mustard seed! And so does every type of seed into the trees that produced it - as the plant that produced the seed is 100% of the time, a good indicator of the type of plant it will grow into.

Here you have missed the spiritual meaning and the scientific inference of the passage in that to begin with there must be the seed (which contains already the information required to grow into what is specified by its DNA). Now if it had actually said that a mustard seed suddenly grew into a tomato plant then that would be an example of Darwinian evolution in progress.

And this is the scientific image of evolution. Not of beginning with a whole form and splintering it into varieties, but of beginning with a seed which adds structure and new branches and branches on branches and more and more branches. New species are not subtractions from an original whole; they are additions to the growing family tree. The gene pool is not divided again and again and again till it is too small to divide any more; rather each new variety adds new potential to a gene pool. And speciation creates a new gene pool---just as one can take a branch from a plant, develop new roots on it, and start a new tree. And this tree can also grow and add new possibilities to those it brought from its parent tree.

But is this what is observed in nature? Does inorganic matter self assemble into organic lifeforms? Does natural processes generate genetic information from basic substances by natural processes. In all cases it begins with the seed, which contains already the information to orchestrate its growth.

God didn't reveal himself in the beginning to one of the great Mesopotamian nations. Instead he called one person (Abraham) and grew a nation, actually several nations, from his seed to be the vehicle of his revelation. When his people needed a new king, God did not direct Samuel to a full-grown mature man to lead a rebellion against Saul, but to a boy tending the sheep and grew him into a leader. And although huge crowds followed Jesus, only a tiny group were called together to plant the seed of the church in the world and grow from there.

Nice sermon, however there is no reference to any evolutionary thought in your examples. In each case God is simply working with what He has created hence the word “make” is used and not “create”– after all making something from something is not the same as creating something from nothing.

Evolution also proceeds from the small start of simple unicellular life and over generations adds and adds and adds new growth, new varieties, new species as living things spread out and explore and adapt to new environmental pressures.

How many generations would be the question? And what did it start out as? It all sounds good in theory, now how about showing some empirical evidence for this adding to occur in nature?

It seems to me that evolution is another expression of God’s mustard seed principle. And that if creationists abandoned their Platonic interpretation of created kinds for a biblical “mustard seed” interpretation, the so-called conflict of science and scripture would disappear.

Its just too bad the word of God never tells us that - anywhere. And it is not creationists who have embraced the pantheistic philosophy of Plato, it is the evolutionists who continue to hang on to it. In fact it is the rejection of such ideas as women being the rebirth of cowardly men and that four footed animals are evolved from man that Plato’s ideas are rejected!

 

[gluadys]

I hardly think so gluadys – I suggest you take a course on classical philosophy and you will understand that Plato’s views are as far from the present view of creationism as it can be. I would think that his thinking fits much nicer with that of naturalistic evolution. As a matter of fact naturalistic evolution has its roots in classical philosophy.

Been there, done that. No, Plato's philosophy is essentialist. Evolution is not. Some of Aristotle's thinking could be amenable to an evolutionary scenario, but he is also very essentialist.

It always amazes me how evolutionists (TEs in this case) distort things just to make their case more palatable. If one examines critically the philosophy of Plato there is little evidence of the God of the bible that we know of. For one Plato’s concept of God was not at all the same as that of biblical revelation but purely pantheistic. In his diaglogue “Timaeus” he makes clear that both time and chance are his explanation of the universe – sort of like darwinistic evolution except in reverse. For Plato, the process of creation was simply a degeneration from God, the perfect life form.

Sure, I would agree that Plato's philosophy is contrary to the biblical perspective. What I am noting is that it is very much in line with the creationist perspective. How many times on this board have we seen creationists insisting that creation is degenerating?

As such there is little similarity between Plato’s ideas of degenerative evolution and that of creationists imperfect genetic replication process. Platonic evolution stands as a stark contrast to modern creationism in that it requires that one species or kind change into another as human’s into four footed beasts, while creationism maintains that the kinds (or species if you prefer) do not change into other species (i.e. reptiles into birds, monkeys into men etc.).

Plato believes in the Great Chain of Being descending from the Form of the Good to grossest inert matter. He believes the human soul can be displaced on this chain downward to beast or upwards to angelic ranks and eventual reunion with the Form of the Good. But it is the soul which moves from one form to another, not the forms which change into another. The forms are very much like the creationists "kind".

This is very different from evolution.

Furthermore the idea that something is created as perfect is not a teaching of creationists that I am aware of, as only God is perfect.

It is not uncommon for creationists to claim the God's approbation of his creation as "very good" means that it was perfect. Would not the work of a perfect God be perfect? You may disagree with your fellow creationists on this point.

After all a well informed evolutionist as yourself must of heard about Peter and Daphne Grant’s work on Darwin’s finches in early 70’s? What isn’t surprising is that when they later return in the 80’s they discovered the opposite of what was required for Darwinian evolution had occurred.

On the contrary, they found exactly what one would expect to find if they understood what evolution is. The fact that you think it is the opposite of what is required for evolution shows that you do not know what evolution is.

Gee-gluadys I would really like to know where you are getting your creationist information from? I hope not Dr. Dino!

No, the source is not Dr. Dino. It is Carl Weiland at AiG. See the thread in information.

Which by the way brings up a question – according to evolutionionary theory mutations due to copying errors are essential for evolution its back bone. However research suggests that in bacteria the mutation rate per nucleotide is between 0.1 to 10 per billion transcription where in higher lifeforms other than bacteria it is between .01 and 1 per billion transcription.

Per billion transcription of what? The answer to that question is very significant.

This is a straw man gluadys. No where does creationist teach that a mustard seed does not grow to become a mustard plant.

It is a parable, Crusader. Jesus was not talking about actual mustard plants and neither am I. We are talking about models.

The rest of your argument is therefore moot.

But is this what is observed in nature? Does inorganic matter self assemble into organic lifeforms? Does natural processes generate genetic information from basic substances by natural processes.

everywhere
maybe--that is still in the research stage
yes.

Nice sermon, however there is no reference to any evolutionary thought in your examples. In each case God is simply working with what He has created hence the word “make” is used and not “create”– after all making something from something is not the same as creating something from nothing.

And evolution doesn't make something from nothing either. It works with what already exists. I think you have supported my point.

How many generations would be the question? And what did it start out as? It all sounds good in theory, now how about showing some empirical evidence for this adding to occur in nature?

How be you start a new thread with this question. It would derail this one to get into detail evidence for evolution.

Its just too bad the word of God never tells us that - anywhere.

I see it in scripture everywhere.