What Lies Beneath

[Resha Caner]

I think it would be interesting to discuss the philosophical differences between those with a creationist world view and an evolutionary world view.

I realize the topic will invite a lot of snarky and dismissive replies, but if we can get past that, it could be enjoyable.

Oh, and at this point I'm using "creationist" and "evolutionary" in a very broad sense - not the narrow sense of YEC, Darwinism, etc. So, a creationist view is simply one that believes the material universe was created by the deliberate act of an intelligent being outside the universe. An evolutionary view is one that believes the material universe resulted from innate perfunctory processes.

 

[Paradoxum]

You don't seem to be using 'creationist' and 'evolution' in the normal sort of way. When I was a Christian I'm not sure I would have been happy with you calling me a creationist. I guess that is ok for this thread though.

Also, what is Darwinism?

I guess in some sense creationists and those who accept evolution are similar in that they must think the answer must stop somewhere. A creationist must think that God just exists innately for some reason. An evolutionist must think that the physical world just exists for some reason.

The big difference seems to be belief, rather than taking hugely difference philosophical positions. I mean, if you think God created the world, then a theist will probably think that there is some good reason to believe in God. They will also likely think there is some good reason to trust the Bible to some extent, and/or some good reason why God is more fundamental than the physical.

Do you think that it makes more sense for an ultimate 'conscious' being to be more fundamental to reality, than for the merely physical to fundamental without a God?

 

[souper genyus]

I think it would be interesting to discuss the philosophical differences between those with a creationist world view and an evolutionary world view.

I realize the topic will invite a lot of snarky and dismissive replies, but if we can get past that, it could be enjoyable.

Oh, and at this point I'm using "creationist" and "evolutionary" in a very broad sense - not the narrow sense of YEC, Darwinism, etc. So, a creationist view is simply one that believes the material universe was created by the deliberate act of an intelligent being outside the universe. An evolutionary view is one that believes the material universe resulted from innate perfunctory processes.

The difference, it seems, is whether one thinks Being has purpose or not. I happen to think any purpose human beings find in the world, we create for ourselves. My sense of purpose comes from my constitution, not some metaphysical truth.

What can we say about Being that isn't tainted with human intentions? Even our most robust scientific theories do not tell us what reality is; they tell us how we can manipulate it, how we can make it ours. How then can we say that the universe has a purpose apart from our purposes for it? Isn't it telling that humans tend to think the universe was created just for them?

Saying that Being, or Nature, has an intrinsic purpose is to paint reality with colors that come from within. It confuses our constitution towards nature with nature's constitution. Let's not take our poetry so literally!

 

[Resha Caner]

You don't seem to be using 'creationist' and 'evolution' in the normal sort of way.

Probably not, but why would you have objected?

Also, what is Darwinism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

I guess in some sense creationists and those who accept evolution are similar in that they must think the answer must stop somewhere.

I'm glad you pointed this out, because there are some similarities. I would say both accept that physical laws need not be the same everywhere.

Do you think that it makes more sense for an ultimate 'conscious' being to be more fundamental to reality, than for the merely physical to fundamental without a God?

I'm not sure I understood what you were saying in this part ... maybe that evolutionists are also physicalists? Yes, probably so. But you'll have to realize that I don't try to justify Christianity through philosophical principles. I see it as an experiential thing. For me philosophy is a tool for shining a light on those experiences. So, yes, I think God is the root of reality. To say he is not is to say he is subject to something.

But I wouldn't generalize and say all Christians look at it that way. Many have succumbed to Aquinas' approach of synthesizing Aristotelian thought into their theology.

 

[Resha Caner]

The difference, it seems, is whether one thinks Being has purpose or not. I happen to think any purpose human beings find in the world, we create for ourselves. My sense of purpose comes from my constitution, not some metaphysical truth.

Mmm. But it does beg the question: Why do you need a purpose? If the innately "natural" (if I may use that word) has no purpose, why do we need a purpose?

My study of the history of science tells me modern evolutionary theory was birthed from a positivist mindset. Contemporary science has tried to strip away that positivism and make the theory "objective" (whatever that is supposed to mean), but IMO it has left most drifting from one "ism" to another, not wanting to admit they have not yet escaped a subjective view point.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

So, a creationist view is simply one that believes the material universe was created by the deliberate act of an intelligent being outside the universe. An evolutionary view is one that believes the material universe resulted from innate perfunctory processes.

No, that puts all those theists who subscribe to the ToE into the Creationist "camp".

 

[Resha Caner]

No, that puts all those theists who subscribe to the ToE into the Creationist "camp".

Fair enough. I'm OK with a 3rd category if you wish ... or 10 or 100 categories, which might be closer to the truth.

So, what philosophy does theistic evolution use to bridge the gap? I'll have to be careful because my view of theistic evolution is largely a condescending one. The few I've engaged on that subject insist evolutionary theory does not say evolution "is" random, only that it appears to be random. When I ask biologists in the science forum, their opinion is that evolution is random (or at least has a random component to it). One supporter of theistic evolution told me I had simply posed the wrong question, and promised to start a thread in the science forum to clarify ... and then never did. Oh well.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Fair enough. I'm OK with a 3rd category if you wish ... or 10 or 100 categories, which might be closer to the truth.

So, what philosophy does theistic evolution use to bridge the gap? I'll have to be careful because my view of theistic evolution is largely a condescending one. The few I've engaged on that subject insist evolutionary theory does not say evolution "is" random, only that it appears to be random. When I ask biologists in the science forum, their opinion is that evolution is random (or at least has a random component to it). One supporter of theistic evolution told me I had simply posed the wrong question, and promised to start a thread in the science forum to clarify ... and then never did. Oh well.

There are several definitions of randomness. The one that gets used wrt to the ToE is one that is ultimately compatible with determinism. (It pretty much has to be, because when it comes to DNA you are dealing with Chemistry, and that is deterministic or at least it is treated that way). It's not the kind of randomness that you meet in Quantum Physics, or even physics in general.

Plus, I think that the definition of theistic evolution that is used around Christian forums is different from what a dictionary might say. Around here it means someone who believes in God but does also subscribe to the ToE in whatever way. However, more strictly speaking theistic evolution is somewhat guided.

 

[Resha Caner]

There are several definitions of randomness.

There are, and so I pushed hard on that definition in one of the science forum threads. Someone like Wiccan will say randomness is an inability to predict an outcome. That's a very tidy definition that avoids several philosophical problems. It allows for both possibilities: evolution may be random or may only appear to be random. I realize I'm being a bit circular here, but hopefully you get my meaning. Maybe I should try a different word, like "undetermined." So, I'm trying to distinguish between something being undetermined and only appearing undetermined. Wiccan's definition of random allows for both.

Yet when I pressed on this previously, the answer from several biologists came back unanimously in favor of saying mutation is random (i.e. undetermined). It's not simply a complexity we have not yet explained. Pardon me if my terminology is slightly off. I don't want to harp on that, so change my phrasing if you wish, but the answer was a definite yes that one element of evolution is random.

The theistic evolutionists I've spoken with, however, depend on the assertion that it only appears random. If it were truly random, God would not be in control, would not know outcomes, etc. And to say that it is random except that God steps in and guides when it's not going the way he wants is, IMO, a dodge. It's an attempt to accommodate. If God modifies random events to suit his ends, it's no longer random - at least not in any meaningful way.

So, that's a major philosophical difference between theistic evolutionists and creationists. What then, would be the philosophical differences between theistic evolutionists and atheistic evolutionists?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

There are, and so I pushed hard on that definition in one of the science forum threads. Someone like Wiccan will say randomness is an inability to predict an outcome. That's a very tidy definition that avoids several philosophical problems. It allows for both possibilities: evolution may be random or may only appear to be random. I realize I'm being a bit circular here, but hopefully you get my meaning. Maybe I should try a different word, like "undetermined." So, I'm trying to distinguish between something being undetermined and only appearing undetermined. Wiccan's definition of random allows for both.

Yet when I pressed on this previously, the answer from several biologists came back unanimously in favor of saying mutation is random (i.e. undetermined). It's not simply a complexity we have not yet explained. Pardon me if my terminology is slightly off. I don't want to harp on that, so change my phrasing if you wish, but the answer was a definite yes that one element of evolution is random.

Objective randomness only makes very limited sense to me when it comes to biology. Maybe you could imagine that nuclear decay somehow affects DNA that is passed from one generation to the next. But on the whole, I would simply reject objective randomness as being the "random" in "random mutation".

And unpredictability is frankly irrelevant. That is because predictability usually applies only if we can predict something or not. And I guess nature does care a whole lot whether we can predict something or not. And I also would think that nature does not predict either.

No, I think that randomness can only really apply in the sense that there is no objective to be achieved. Read: mutations happens, but not with the purpose/objective to evolve some sort of trait.

Incidentally that is pretty close to what souper genyus said in the third post:
"The difference, it seems, is whether one thinks Being has purpose or not."

The theistic evolutionists I've spoken with, however, depend on the assertion that it only appears random. If it were truly random, God would not be in control, would not know outcomes, etc. And to say that it is random except that God steps in and guides when it's not going the way he wants is, IMO, a dodge. It's an attempt to accommodate. If God modifies random events to suit his ends, it's no longer random - at least not in any meaningful way.

What I said above vindicates the TE position. Theistic evolution is to some extend random mutations with no objective, and some extent God stepping in. It does not have to be totally one, or totally the other.


(And something really important: Evolution does not really stand or fall based on randomness. Not atheistic evolution, not Theistic evolution, and also not the kind of evolution that creationist hold to and have to hold to.)

So, that's a major philosophical difference between theistic evolutionists and creationists. What then, would be the philosophical differences between theistic evolutionists and atheistic evolutionists?

One problem that occured to me only just now is that creationism does sport some sort of evolution. In the case of YEC it is even a hyperfast type of evolution; from the representative of cats on the ark to lions, bocats, lynxes etc within hundreds of years. And so on. (And that is not a recent development.)

 

[Davian]

...
The theistic evolutionists I've spoken with, however, depend on the assertion that it only appears random. If it were truly random, God would not be in control, would not know outcomes, etc. And to say that it is random except that God steps in and guides when it's not going the way he wants is, IMO, a dodge. It's an attempt to accommodate. If God modifies random events to suit his ends, it's no longer random - at least not in any meaningful way.

So, that's a major philosophical difference between theistic evolutionists and creationists. What then, would be the philosophical differences between theistic evolutionists and atheistic evolutionists?

From what I gather, the theistic evolutionist believes, contrary to available evidence, that evolution is guided process, with an end goal, with a magic, undefined process to 'rescue' the identities of certain theistic critters (and the ones that think like them) at the cessation of their observable life processes.

The atheist evolutionist would not believe this.

This not saying that there not theistic evolutionists that do not believe in any sort of 'rescue'.

Is that what you are looking for?

 

[Resha Caner]

No, I think that randomness can only really apply in the sense that there is no objective to be achieved. Read: mutations happens, but not with the purpose/objective to evolve some sort of trait.

I think this is a shift in meaning. Randomness does not have a purpose, true, but determinism need not have a purpose either. To say something has a purpose is to rise to the metaphysical.

I think the word I chose gets at the heart of my question quite well. If you are saying that evolution has a determined result, then we have a drastically different understanding of what evolution says. As I understand it, the result is undetermined. What do you say?

What I said above vindicates the TE position. Theistic evolution is to some extend random mutations with no objective, and some extent God stepping in. It does not have to be totally one, or totally the other.

For that reason it does not vindicate TE. Was it God's plan for people to exist or wasn't it? i.e. something in "God's image", a sentient being with a spirit?

 

[Resha Caner]

From what I gather, the theistic evolutionist believes, contrary to available evidence, that evolution is guided process, with an end goal, with a magic, undefined process to 'rescue' the identities of certain theistic critters (and the ones that think like them) at the cessation of their observable life processes.

The atheist evolutionist would not believe this.

This not saying that there not theistic evolutionists that do not believe in any sort of 'rescue'.

Is that what you are looking for?

Sure. So now go one step deeper. We can remove the TE and creationist labels here. Creationists also think creation is guided.

So, why does one group think the emergence of life was guided and another group thinks it was not?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I think this is a shift in meaning. Randomness does not have a purpose, true, but determinism need not have a purpose either. To say something has a purpose is to rise to the metaphysical.

I think the word I chose gets at the heart of my question quite well. If you are saying that evolution has a determined result, then we have a drastically different understanding of what evolution says. As I understand it, the result is undetermined. What do you say?

Hmmm ... Rather deterministic. With slight exceptions here and there. Like for example what I mentioned already, nuclear radiation (etc) affecting and modifying DNA and similar smallfry.

For that reason it does not vindicate TE. Was it God's plan for people to exist or wasn't it? i.e. something in "God's image", a sentient being with a spirit?

I am not a TE, but I guess a TE would answer "Yes, it was God's plan for people to exist". This does not of course say anything about whether each and every other living creature was planned, or at least planned to the last detail. It also does not say whether humans are planned to the last detail.

(And, frankly, I don't see how this 'problem' somehow goes away for creationists and IDers.)

 

[Paradoxum]

Probably not, but why would you have objected?

Because I was a Christian who cared about science, so I would have considered myself an evolutionist. I would also want to distance myself from young earth creationists, and old earth creationists who don't accept evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

Again, I wouldn't accept that I the use of the word Darwinism. The theory of evolution has moved on alot since Darwin.

I'm glad you pointed this out, because there are some similarities. I would say both accept that physical laws need not be the same everywhere.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I'm not sure I understood what you were saying in this part ... maybe that evolutionists are also physicalists? Yes, probably so.

Well that wasn't my point. Isn't that how you are using the word anyway? If you don't think God created everything then it is likely you only believe in the physical (and the mental).

But you'll have to realize that I don't try to justify Christianity through philosophical principles. I see it as an experiential thing. For me philosophy is a tool for shining a light on those experiences.

How do you experience that Christianity is true?

So, yes, I think God is the root of reality. To say he is not is to say he is subject to something.

What I mean is, do you think that it is impossible for the universe to have come about without God? Or do you think both creationism and evolutionism both make reasonable sense, but only one happens to be correct? If you see what I mean?

But I wouldn't generalize and say all Christians look at it that way. Many have succumbed to Aquinas' approach of synthesizing Aristotelian thought into their theology.

I think experience could make sense as a good reason to believe (depending what you mean by it), but experience without critical thought is just superstition.

 

[super animator]

, contrary to available evidence,

This caught my attention, what contrary evidence are you referring to?

 

[souper genyus]

Mmm. But it does beg the question: Why do you need a purpose? If the innately "natural" (if I may use that word) has no purpose, why do we need a purpose?

We don't need purpose in the sense that it is logically necessary, but we do need purpose to be fulfilled in life. If you wish not to be fulfilled in life, I suppose that is your choice.

My study of the history of science tells me modern evolutionary theory was birthed from a positivist mindset. Contemporary science has tried to strip away that positivism and make the theory "objective" (whatever that is supposed to mean), but IMO it has left most drifting from one "ism" to another, not wanting to admit they have not yet escaped a subjective view point.

This is not my understanding of the history of science. At the start of the scientific revolution, it was assumed that humanity discovered objective and immutable laws of nature. This firm belief in scientific principles is positivism. Modern philosophy of science is more or less Kuhnian. Science is seen as progressing through a series of revolutions, in which there are no immutable or eternal principles.

 

[Resha Caner]

Hmmm ... Rather deterministic.

That's a new one for me. So, according to evolutionary theory it was determined - it was certain - that humans would exist in this time and place? Again, I've asked biologists that question before, and they always reply: No, it was not determined. If we reset the clock and started evolution over, humans might not develop the next time around.

If you are answering differently, I'd be curious to know if you have a citation for that. Where does this come from?

(And, frankly, I don't see how this 'problem' somehow goes away for creationists and IDers.)

Why is this a problem for creationists?

 

[Resha Caner]

We don't need purpose in the sense that it is logically necessary, but we do need purpose to be fulfilled in life. If you wish not to be fulfilled in life, I suppose that is your choice.

Um, but if I choose not to be fulfilled, then isn't it my purpose not to be fulfilled (since you say we make our own purpose)? And if I succeed in that purpose, then haven't I fulfilled my purpose? So, I am fulfilled by not being fulfilled.

Word games.

Why do we need a "purpose" to be "fulfilled"?

 

[Resha Caner]

Because I was a Christian who cared about science, so I would have considered myself an evolutionist.

So because I disagree with evolution I don't care about science?

Again, I wouldn't accept that I the use of the word Darwinism. The theory of evolution has moved on alot since Darwin.

Umm, this seems to be getting twisted up. Every time I say I believe God created the world (which to me implies the term "creationist"), I must then spend the next 100 posts trying to explain that I am not YEC. I was trying to generalize and avoid these labels.

So, exactly. I think it a bit disingenuous - a strawman - for creationists to throw out labels of "Darwinism" when evolution has moved on from that position. Again, I was asking people to move past those labels. You can call yourself whatever you want. I don't really care what the label is. I care what you think it means.

Well that wasn't my point. Isn't that how you are using the word anyway? If you don't think God created everything then it is likely you only believe in the physical (and the mental).

Still confused.

What I mean is, do you think that it is impossible for the universe to have come about without God? Or do you think both creationism and evolutionism both make reasonable sense, but only one happens to be correct? If you see what I mean?

I don't think the universe would exist without God.

Evolution is an interesting idea and worth considering (Caner says as his fellow creationists gasp). I've considered it, looked at the "evidence" as best I could considering who I am (i.e. not a PhD in biology) and dismissed it. Telling you my whole journey in that regard would likely bore you.

I think experience could make sense as a good reason to believe (depending what you mean by it), but experience without critical thought is just superstition.

Everything must be critically analyzed? Even the aesthetic?

How do you experience that Christianity is true?

Well, it's more a matter of experiencing that Christ is true rather than that Christianity is true. That's the first thing to understand.