Biologists Attack Plato and Aristotle

[Quack]

I am a university student. One of the first things that I was taught in Biology class was both Plato and the Bible represent “typological thinking,” which has since been surpassed by Darwin.

Biologists at the university level often attack the “philosophy of Plato,” even in introductory level biology classes and even though they do not have any knowledge of philosophy. I get the sense that something is not right here and that their approach to philosophy is :banghead: :whacky:

One such example is this is a blog post written by Allen MacNeill, a Cornell professor of introductory biology and evolution.
evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/02/platonic-roots-of-intelligent-design.html

His points are such:

1. This is why I have asserted that Darwin’s most “dangerous” idea was his recognition of the reality of the variations that exist between individuals in populations. This variation is produced by various genetic processes, including mutation, recombination, and developmental/phenotypic plasticity, and is the source of all evolutionary innovations

1. But to Plato (and his most important student, Aristotle) the variations don’t matter; it is the “ideal form” of which those variations are only imperfect representations that really matters. That is, the variations aren’t “real,” and so for almost three centuries they were ignored. Darwin argued in the Origin of Species that species aren’t fixed entities, but rather can change over time. Furthermore, this change is “real,” implying that the variant forms upon which such change depends are “real” as well. Darwin doesn’t take his ideas to their logical conclusion, however: that “species” are purely figments of the human imagination (especially as trained in Platonic philosophy, as all of us are)

1. The Platonic essentialist worldview largely replaced the earlier Ionian naturalist worldview, partly because of the predominance of Athens and Athenian culture in the ancient Mediterranean world.

1. Nominalism directly challenges the fundamental basis of Platonic philosophy in the same way that darwinism challenges it in biology. In the long run, I believe that the paradigm shift to the darwinian worldview has been and will continue to be the most important one since the founding of Platonic philosophy (and therefore of the dominant position in western philosophy).

I would like to avoid a debate on Genesis and would like to hear from those cerebral Aristotelians and Thomists that frequent CAF.

My question is twofold:

1. Why do Biologists mention Plato in a biology class? Is Plato misrepresented here?
2. Does Darwinian evolution of species present a problem for Aristotelian and Thomists? I’m not talking about human origins, but about the issues of changing species and variation among a species and the things mentioned above.

I ask because the problem of universals is so important to Thomism and because many biology students, sadly, write “no Plato” in their notebooks and never think about philosophy again.

 

[Ghosty]

1. Why do Biologists mention Plato in a biology class? Is Plato misrepresented here?

I’m not sure why Plato would be mentioned at all, other than as Aristotle’s teacher. It is Aristotle who dealt most heavily with the material world and how “ideal forms” interact with matter. Plato mentioned these things, but it wasn’t his focus; for Aristotle the material world was a major focus.

1. Does Darwinian evolution of species present a problem for Aristotelian and Thomists? I’m not talking about human origins, but about the issues of changing species and variation among a species and the things mentioned above.

Speaking as someone who considers myself a Thomist, I don’t see how Darwinian biology really poses a fundamental problem, though it does challenge some of the presumptions Thomists and Aristotelians held regarding material, scientific facts.

Thomists always held that changes in matter could produce a change in form. In fact, I would say that they insisted on this moreso that even Aristotle and Plato. They weren’t fools, and they could see that melting a coin down to slag changed its form. While they didn’t know about genes, they knew that crossbreeding certain species caused offspring that weren’t quite either parent (mules, for example).

Another point is that Aquinas often talks about matter being “prepared to receive a form”, and he does so both about purely accidental forms (read: physical shape and size and such), such as shaping a ball of clay into a pot, and essential changes, such as air becoming fire (obviously his science was off in this regard, but the point is that he clearly believed that something could change forms at the most fundamental level). One can easily look at the shifting of genes as being “preparation to receive a new form”, even if we can’t quite demarcate when the new form is received. Transitional forms, like transitional species, are real even if we can’t quite p(name removed by moderator)oint their existence.

All of this, of course, is speaking about the metaphysical definitions, rather than the “pure science” of people like Aristotle and Aquinas. In “pure science” they obviously didn’t understand as much as we do today about genes and chemistry and such, and had other theories for how and why changes occured which are now disproven. That’s just the way of science, however, and doesn’t shake these philosophies to their core by any stretch.

Personally I don’t see why these people should come up at all in a biology textbook, especially if the idea is apparently to challenge their philosophy, and not their scientific errors.

Peace and God bless!

 

[crowonsnow]

My question is twofold:

1. Why do Biologists mention Plato in a biology class? Is Plato misrepresented here?

You mean to ask why a professor mentions Plato in one of his biology classes. I’ve been in lots of biology classes and don’t remember Plato in any of them.

Obviously this professor is simply pointing out the shift in thinking away from preconception, mysticism, idealism and argument from authority to good old natural observation and hypothesis and experiment. Cherished illusions are one thing. Experimental data has tended to dash cherished illusions on quite a few ocassions.

1. Does Darwinian evolution of species present a problem for Aristotelian and Thomists? I’m not talking about human origins, but about the issues of changing species and variation among a species and the things mentioned above.

Yes, because these models use mysticism, idealism, argument from authority, supernaturalism and are not testable.

I ask because the problem of universals is so important to Thomism and because many biology students, sadly, write “no Plato” in their notebooks and never think about philosophy again.

Not all.

BTW good school that Cornell.

 

[Quack]

**Ghosty:**Another point is that Aquinas often talks about matter being “prepared to receive a form”, and he does so both about purely accidental forms (read: physical shape and size and such), such as shaping a ball of clay into a pot, and essential changes, such as air becoming fire (obviously his science was off in this regard, but the point is that he clearly believed that something could change forms at the most fundamental level). One can easily look at the shifting of genes as being “preparation to receive a new form”, even if we can’t quite demarcate when the new form is received. Transitional forms, like transitional species, are real even if we can’t quite p(name removed by moderator)oint their existence.

This helps clear it up for me. His attempt to use Darwin to demonstrate a philosophical point fails. It is evident that the biologist, when he speaks on philosophy, speaks as a philosopher and not as a biologist. And not a very good philosopher, at that.

Further, his statement along the lines of “we are all schooled in Platonism” and that “Platonism is the dominant position” is false, since Platonism does not dominate Catholic or secular universities. He lumps together Plato and Aristotle and does not bother with the latter.

The biologist has experienced a problem in communication because and has ventured into philosophy with naturalistic preconceptions. Also words like “species,” “genus,” “evolution,” and "genetic " may have a different meaning in philosophy than in biology.

My understanding of Aquinas was limited to proofs of God and arguments for the immateriality of intellect so this is new for me.

Thus the evolution of the cosmos is explained as being a combinant of fixity and movement. Beings evolve, but everything is not new: something of the past remains in the present, and will in turn enter into the constitution of the future. The scholastic theory of the process of change is a modified one, a via media between the absolute evolution of Heraclitus and the theory of the fixity of essences which so much attracted Plato.

That was from a summary of Thomism by Maurice de Wulf I found online here: radicalacademy.com/philaquinasmdw0.htm.

I still have much to learn. Thanks, Ghosty!

**Ghosty:**Personally I don’t see why these people should come up at all in a biology textbook, especially if the idea is apparently to challenge their philosophy, and not their scientific errors.

It was not in a textbook. Something a professor said in lecture some time ago came back to me when I came across a blog by a different biologist.

 

[agangbern]

They are simply not honest to their calling of being biologists. How can they attack something beyond their sphere? It is simply “vanity of vanities” in doing so.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

It all boils down to a denial of the spiritual. God (a Spirit) never changes, the philosophy of that spirit also never changes. Thus the denial of that spirit leads one to a denial of the absolutes of the unchanging God. The philosophical points can be argued by those better at Aristotle but denying the spiritual is their presupposition.

Since they are denying the spiritual, their philosophy is a roadblock, one I would think you can not go through, that is to refute their world view. It is the apples and oranges debate. You must go around it to the absolutes, the theories that deal with the greatest good and not the biological aspects of that good as a world view.

John 6:65

And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.

Peter Kreeft is a good author dealing with the moral relativism of this age, a book called “Refutation of Moral Relativism”.

 

[Darwinsbulldog]

Plato and Aristotle were bright dudes, and they contributed much to western thought and philosophy. But they are hardly the last word, and they did get some stuff wrong. Science and reason has moved on a little since classical times.

 

[agangbern]

Plato and Aristotle were bright dudes, and they contributed much to western thought and philosophy. But they are hardly the last word, and they did get some stuff wrong. Science and reason has moved on a little since classical times.

Yes, they maybe wrong in some aspects. But it would be more wrong if it is a “biologist” true to his calling would attempt to prove that Plato and Aristotle were wrong.

 

[Darwinsbulldog]

Biologists, like all scientists, use the same basic methodology. They observe some pattern in nature, and present a hypothesis [or even better, more than one hypothesis] and try to disprove that hypothesis on the basis of currently known facts.
If there is no contrary evidence gained from observations and/or experiments, then after repeated successful testing, hypothesis becomes scientific theory.
So any scientist is free to falsify anything material that Plato, Aristotle, Darwin or Einstein asserted.

Spiritual or immaterial things [if they exist! ] are not questions asked by science. They are matters of theology, or perhaps philosophy.

 

[trinitybeliever]

I would like to know how Darwin explains self awareness. Does an ape know it is an ape? Does it dream of being not an ape, but a man? Does it will itself to evolve into man? Why don’t apes continue to evolve into men?

 

[agangbern]

Spiritual or immaterial things [if they exist! ] are not questions asked by science. They are matters of theology, or perhaps philosophy.

You are correct in one respect! Therefore biologist has nothing to do with spiritual things?

 

[Leela]

Yes, they maybe wrong in some aspects. But it would be more wrong if it is a “biologist” true to his calling would attempt to prove that Plato and Aristotle were wrong.

Biologists should discuss connections between biology and other disciplines. It’s just good pedagogy for teachers to make as many broad connections between their discipline and other disciplines if they want to make their content area as meaningful to the students as it can be. What science tells us about the world affects how people think in other disciplines. If students aren’t convinced that it does, they would find little of interest in science.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

You are correct in one respect! Therefore biologist has nothing to do with spiritual things?

A biologist is not a spiritual being?

 

[Darwinsbulldog]

I would like to know how Darwin explains self awareness. Does an ape know it is an ape? Does it dream of being not an ape, but a man? Does it will itself to evolve into man? Why don’t apes continue to evolve into men?

Evolution is without direction or purpose, it is just adaptation over time to changing conditions. How do I know what an ape dreams? And how do you? Apes adapted to their environment, and humans to ours. Apes do not evolve into humans-they share a common ancestor, that is all. Did your parents evolve into you, or do they stay as they are?

I am not an ethologist, nor a psychologist, so I can’t answer you question about self-awareness with any great authority. Brain function is not an “all or nothing” thing however-higher animals do show some self-awareness.
edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran07/ramachandran07_index.html

When practicing science, a biologist is doing science, and not theology, and therefore is not considering spiritual things even if he or she is a Christian. Scientists study nature when practicing their craft, not spirituality.

I do not know which individual scientists are spiritual, and which are not. There is Kenneth B. Miller, who is both a Catholic and a biologist, but I have no idea what he is thinking about at any particular time. I imagine when he is in church, he worships god, and in the lab, he does his science. So does everyone, I guess. A bus driver drives buses when at work, and prays in his church or at home-I really don’t understand the thrust/point of your comments-would you elaborate?

Edited: for typos.

 

[agangbern]

Biologists should discuss connections between biology and other disciplines. It’s just good pedagogy for teachers to make as many broad connections between their discipline and other disciplines if they want to make their content area as meaningful to the students as it can be. What science tells us about the world affects how people think in other disciplines. If students aren’t convinced that it does, they would find little of interest in science.

Best,
Leela

Thats nice. To challenge the intelligence of the students. But please, do not attempt to attack Plato and Aristotle in the bioligistss way.

 

[agangbern]

A biologist is not a spiritual being?

Yes! Do you want to prove the contrary? Then do it here now!

 

[Leela]

Yes! Do you want to prove the contrary? Then do it here now!

Not at all. I thought you said that biologists have nothing to say about the spiritual. I must have misunderstood. I’m glad we agree that biologists are free to comment on the implications of science on theological and philosophical ideas.

 

[Leela]

Thats nice. To challenge the intelligence of the students. But please, do not attempt to attack Plato and Aristotle in the bioligistss way.

Are certain ideas supposed to be held without the possibility of criticism? One thing to understand about science is that the idea of “respecting beliefs” is an extreme liability to a scientist. Scientists attempt to confront bad ideas rather than “respect” them.

 

[JDaniel]

Plato and Aristotle were bright dudes, and they contributed much to western thought and philosophy. But they are hardly the last word, and they did get some stuff wrong. Science and reason has moved on a little since classical times.

It’s always a pleasure to welcome a new poster to the CAF. However, one thing you will find here is that many of us aren’t particularly enthused by universal statements made without backup or documentation. So, in light of this, allow me to ask you to document your statements, or, retract them.

Sincerely,
jd

 

[agangbern]

Not at all. I thought you said that biologists have nothing to say about the spiritual. I must have misunderstood. I’m glad we agree that biologists are free to comment on the implications of science on theological and philosophical ideas.

Exercise extra care in this forum. Take care not to put words into the mouth of posters. And simply be honest. Then all will go fine.