Gasper says
> we have plenty of compelling evidence against the theory that
>conscious design played any role in the development of life on earth.
The immediate point is the striking refusal of atheists like
Gasper to discuss these matters. They sloganeer onwards, simply
ignoring reason. Refusal to discuss is a cardinal sign of
fanaticism, and of paradigms in deep trouble as neoDarwinism has been
for a decade or more.
The simplest summary is that evolution is compatible with
mainstream religion. The use of evolution to club religion is a
tired, and dishonest, old ritual from which we should move on.
I hasten to add that IDT is scarcely more reasonable.
For all those who tooned in late, here's what I posted here a year ago.
-----
I doubt we will get to grips with the monstrous hubris of
gene-tampering until we get across at least this much philosophy to
those fanatics e.g W Parrott, R Beachy et al who intone in Nature
Biotech
"The reality is that "unintentional consequences" are
much more likely to occur in nature than in biotechnology because
nature relies on the unintentional consequences of blind random
genetic mutation and rearrangement to produce adaptive phenotypic
results, whereas GM technology employs precise, specific, and
rationally designed genetic modification toward a specific
engineering goal."
Clarifying "the" theory of evolution
L. R. B. Mann
Real World 35 Nov 2005
Which aspects of the theory of evolution are in dispute? A
thickening fog of verbiage now makes it more difficult than ever for
students to discover fact, and to understand theory, regarding
evolution.
Fact as distinct from Theory
What does the term 'evolution' mean? The OED tells us it
comes from the Latin noun evolutio 'unrolling' and means:
1. The process by which different kinds of living
organisms are believed to have developed from earlier forms,
especially by natural selection.
2. Gradual development.
Evolution is the appearance over time of new life-forms -
new species, and larger taxa (genus, family, order, class, phylum,
kingdom). Science has inferred{1} from a large body of observations
that life appeared on our planet as blue-green algae 4 x 10^9 year
BP; later emergences include complex animals 1 x 10^9 y, mammals 2 x
10^8 y, and man somewhere in the region 10^6 -10^4 y BP. Most
species were created much later than the first. Thus, insofar as
facts can ever be confirmed regarding pre-human processes, evolution
is a fact - in the sense that new life-forms have appeared over
billions of years.
However, evidence for change in descent from one to another
has been difficult to come by and is sparser, at least to date, than
sometimes assumed.
Theory
To explain evolution, as to explain any process in nature,
will require theory - some model of how organisms could have
evolved. (The question of how the first organism came to be is a
largely different matter.) All categories of cause will be required
for any such theoretical model. The 4 categories of cause,
originally defined by Aristotle (trans. Flew{2} ), hold key potential
for improving evolution theory. The recent restricting by e.g.
Dawkins of causality in evolution theory to only two categories of
cause is a main confusion in evolution theory.
The biologist John Morton {3}, noting that at Aristotle's
period in the development of science he was in no position to
understand chemical process, offered a more modern version of the 4
causes which I précis and commend for wide spreading:
What are the causes of the bottle of claret I'm now decanting?
The material causes include the grape juice and the yeast,
materials transformed by the efficient cause into this peculiar
substance claret.
The efficient cause, as in Aristotle's prototypical example
'the making of a statue', is the action of the yeast on the grape
sugars and some minor components, a process resulting in aqueous
ethanol and some minor chemicals characteristic of claret.
But my bottle of claret has also a final cause: a person
(named Babich) willed to organise suitable vessels & conditions for
the substances which are the material causes, and planned a sequence
of operations, for the purpose of making claret by maximising the
likelihood that the efficient cause for claret would operate i.e. the
particular biochemical action of the yeast on the grape juice leading
to claret.
Aristotle's formal cause is in this example the 'claret
idea' in Babich's mind.
Some rationalisation for the label 'final' is offered by Temple{4}:
This is the essence of "intellection" or science,
that it asks "why" perpetually; as soon as it is answered, it asks
"Why?" again ... But if from some other department of Mind's
activity an answer is suggested, the intellect (if not impeded by
"intellectualist" dogmatism) will gladly accept it. And Mind does
accept as final an explanation in terms of Purpose and Will; for this
(and, so far as our experience goes, this alone) combines efficient
and final causation. "Why is this canvas covered with paint?"
"Because I painted it." "Why did you do that?" "Because I hoped to
create a thing of beauty for the delight of myself and others."
I believe the Categories of Cause - surely among the most
important ideas in the whole of philosophy - constitute the lever
to break the confused logjam of "creationist"® fundamentalism,
'intelligent design theory' IDT®, and neoDarwinism.
IDT, a very restricted phenomenon, is a modern version of
Paley's 1802 natural theology, insisting that biology bears the marks
of design. IDTers refuse to discuss the character, or even the
number, of the designer(s).
NeoDarwinism, the current mainstream scientific theory,
purports to explain change in descent by mutation (usually said to be
random) followed by natural selection which narrows the variance
among the mutants by selecting against the less fit.
Those two processes, involving only material causes and
efficient causes, are necessary, but not sufficient, to explain
evolution.
What can be said to explain - ascribe all the causes of -
an organism and its evolution?
DNA is a material cause of all (so far as is known)
organisms, and operates as parts of efficient causes through the
several types of RNA and the many enzymes essential for biosynthesis
of proteins & other biochemicals; but DNA is surely not a Final
cause. As Morton has recently put it, DNA is not the kind of thing
that can cause other things as if paints could leap from tubes to
create a Turner, or vibrations & percussions form themselves into a
work of Mozart. A person implementing a plan - a final cause - is
a prerequisite for such things to come into existence. The point
which IDT® emphasizes is more clearly put: no amount of explanation
in the categories of material & efficient causes can suffice to
explain life. The OED's attempt to privilege natural selection as a
theoretical approach is questionable. Similarly, megatime is no
substitute for purpose in the emergence of new species.
Technology - and more widely, all human acts willed to
modify the universe - cannot be explained without using the concept
Final Cause. The only type of final cause - person acting with a
purpose - is, in the militant atheist Dawkins' approach, human
will. Thus "who designed this watch?" would be an allowed question,
but "who designed this frog?" disallowed - as an assumption of
atheism.
But ecology, and evolution of ecosystems, are purposeful, and
Dawkins' descriptions of evolution turn out to be always laden with
the language of purpose.
How is a modern biology to deal with Final cause? A
conservative answer today could be to continue the methodological
convention that science will pursue only material and efficient
causes, but also to advocate that science be taught & practised in a
context of philosophy acknowledging all the categories of Causes.
(This can be readily done consistent with the USA constitutional
amendment so misrepresented by USA courts this last half-century;
there need be no tendency to establish any church with legal
privileges.)
If science consists in discovering materials (e.g. chemical
elements & compounds), energies (so far just 4), and forms (e.g.
species of organism) and elucidating qualitatively & quantitatively
the processes - including energy conversions - which result in
new physical situations, then material and efficient causes are the
only causes science can study. But this methodological restriction
in the scope of scientific theory does not constitute any reason to
say that no final causes operate in evolution. How much science can
hint about these final causes remains to be seen, but will not amount
to much; natural theology - the study of nature, without recourse
to revelation, with intent to infer who created it - is only a
small part of comprehensive theology. Philosophy and theology will
have to revive to give us the metaphysics needed to study final and
formal causes in evolution.
The mainstream Christian doctrine is that evolution is God's
process for creating new types of organism. Less than a century old,
eccentric, and mischievous, is the fundamentalist claim that
evolution is refuted by Genesis 1-3 (the creation stories of Judaism
& Christianity) & 6-9 (the Noah story). These very figurative
sections are among the most myth-laden biblical texts and were
written long before science emerged as a way of knowing. Their
theological wealth is neglected by the novel mischievous pretence
("creationism") to understand them as literally contradicting science.
Discussion of final cause in biology may well begin with
Hume's quip "[t]his world, for aught [any man] knows, is very faulty
and imperfect compared to a superior standard; and was only the first
rude essay of some infant deity, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed
of his lame performance." As a Christian, I'm willing to discuss
starting as far back as that ultra-sceptical position. But anyhow,
let's keep moving, shall we, IDTers? It is not realistic to stand
pat on your one little point, Paley's Argument to Design, waiting for
Dawkins, S. Weinberg, Wolpert etc to concede its logic.
The only theory of evolution anywhere near explaining that
marvellous process comes to us by the Christian tradition - today
Morton, Broom, and Sheldrake; in the previous generation Sir Alister
Hardy and Archbishop Wm Temple.
I would relish a public debate against Dawkins about his
depauperate 2-causes philosophy.
-----
References
1 Margulis, L. & Schwartz, K. V., 1998. Five Kingdoms New York: Freeman.
2 Flew, A., 1989. Introduction to Western Philosophy p.159 London:
Thames & Hudson.
3 Morton, J., 1972. Man, Science and God Auckland & London: Collins.
4 Temple, W., 1923 . Mens Creatrix - an essay Macmillan.
Further Reading
Broom, N., 1998. How Blind is The Watchmaker? Aldershot: Ashgate ;
rev edn IVP 2001.
Temple, W., 1934. Nature, Man and God Macmillan.
= = =
|
