Myth of evolution and new drug discovery

[reggieM]

You originally stated “But more importantly, you embrace evolutionary theory without recognizing that it contains a philosophical component that cannot be separated from the “science””. When I ask for examples to illustrate what you mean, you just throw out more questions and statements without being accountable for what you originally stated. One more time: What is the philosophical component you claim cannot be separated from the science?

I was hoping to engage you in a conversation so you could clarify your views.

Let’s start with something simple:

Science does not explain what the term “evolution” means. That term is defined through a philosophical process. The same is true with the term “evolutionary theory” and especially, what does evolutionary theory include and what does it not include?

These are very basic examples of the philosophical component that is embedded in the theory itself.

Can evolutionary theory include references to the work of God in nature?

Science does not give us an answer – because it cannot.

The current philosophy of evolutionary science claims that there can be no reference to God in the explanation of the evolutionary development of nature.

Evolutionary theory is a product of philosophy itself. As I’ve explained elsewhere, science cannot tell us what a human being is. Can evolutionary theory explain the origin of human beings? That’s a philosophical question. In materialist philosophy, evolutionary theory can fully explain the origin and development of human beings because human beings are composed entirely of matter - or natural elements.

But in another philosophical view, evolution cannot explain the origin of human beings because human life includes an immortal soul which is not the product of mutations and natural selection.

So, in that view – evolutionary theory would be limited in its explanatory power.

Darwin claimed that evolution explains “all the diversity in nature”. That is a philosophical claim. He uses science to try to prove it. He created the theory deliberately to fight against the idea that there was evidence of God’s creative power in nature.

Again, that is not science but rather, is philosophy. But it’s an essential part of evolutionary theory. As Darwin himself said – if God guided evolution, it would refute his theory because it would make natural selection superfluous.

Darwin points out that the presence of an omnipotent deity would actually undermine his theory. He argued against theistic evolution since God guiding the process would ensure that only ‘the right variations occurred … and natural selection would be superfluous.’"
Darwin’s letter to Asa Gray, 1868

 

[itinerant1]

Let’s just agree to disagree - ok?

I stated that you had misread Peter Kreeft, but you disagreed with my assessment. So, I will post a quote from Peter Kreeft about design and let others carefully ponder the issue:

“But doesn’t evolution explain everything without a divine Designer? Just the opposite; evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There is very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex. But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection “explains” the emergence of higher forms without intelligent design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory. There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love make it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then?”

Continue reading Kreeft’s article Argument From Design

Methinks Peter Kreeft accepts evolution.

 

[itinerant1]

Darwin points out that the presence of an omnipotent deity would actually undermine his theory. He argued against theistic evolution since God guiding the process would ensure that only ‘the right variations occurred … and natural selection would be superfluous.’"
​

You are just arguing against Darwin’s materialist version of evolution. (BTW, Darwin had four theories of evolution.) However, I have frequently pointed out that evolution theory is not synonymous or co-extensive with extreme Darwinism.​

 

[reggieM]

I stated that you had misread Peter Kreeft, but you disagreed with my assessment. So, I will post a quote from Peter Kreeft about design and let others carefully ponder the issue:

“But doesn’t evolution explain everything without a divine Designer? Just the opposite; evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There is very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex. But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection “explains” the emergence of higher forms without intelligent design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory. There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love make it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then?”

Continue reading Kreeft’s article Argument From Design

Methinks Peter Kreeft accepts evolution.

Goodness – that article refutes just about everything you’ve claimed in this discussion. He blatantly refutes the claims of Darwinian theory in the quote you posted above. I had to read the article because I couldn’t believe he said that. Then I saw the rest of what he said and it’s quite amazing.

Here’s what he said:

But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection “explains” the emergence of higher forms without intelligent design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory.

There it is – as clear as day. “No scientific proof” for the claims of Darwinian theory. What do you think evolution is? What do you think evolutionists claim continually and forcefully? They say that there is so much scientific proof of natural selection that the theory is “more certain than gravity”. Evolutionary theory is the claim that all of the diversity in nature is explained by natural selection acting on random mutations.

Dr. Kreeft rightly rejects those bogus claims by evolutionists.

I really wish you would look carefully at the rest of that outstanding paper illustrating the meaning of the argument from design. If you can find a way to accept what he teaches, you are on the right path to understanding this matter.

Why must we believe the major premise, that all design implies a designer? Because everyone admits this principle in practice. For instance, suppose you came upon a deserted island and found “S.O.S.” written in the sand on the beach. You would not think **the wind or the waves had written it by mere chance **but that someone had been there, someone intelligent enough to design and write the message. If you found a stone hut on the island with windows, doors, and a fireplace, you would not think a hurricane had piled up the stones that way by chance. You immediately infer a designer when you see design.

How much more clear, straightforward and direct can that get? Look at it again and again. Please let it sink in. Notice the several posts I provided for you. Notice that the quotes I provided from Catholic sources stretching back through history said exactly the same thing as Dr. Kreeft did here.

Look again:

Is it possible that design happens by chance without a designer? There is perhaps one chance in a trillion that “S.O.S.” could be written in the sand by the wind. But who would use a one-in-a-trillion explanation? Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don’t wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that **incredibly improbable explanation **for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe. We have a logical explanation of the universe, but the atheist does not like it. It’s called God.

There it is. If you accept Dr. Kreeft’s wise teaching here, then we’ve moved to a totally different ground of understanding than we had before.

It’s important to recognize that St. Thomas provided two views of the Design Argument. One, the most famous, is from the metaphysical level – looking at the nature of being that the universe is part of a causal chain, built on an intelligence that transcends the universe and which created the principles that govern the universe and bring it to its purpose.

But St. Thomas uses another example of the design argument and I posted a quote from him comparing nature to a well-decorated house. He says that this could not happen by chance, thus one can infer that there was a designer that decorated (governed) the house.

That is the other argument from design – which looks at the specifics in nature and recognizes design (order, harmony, symmetry, specified-sophistication – which are parts of functions and intent) and compares them to what chance can produce. Since chance cannot produce such things, one can rightly infer the work of a supreme intelligence which coordinated and ordered nature to achieve those results.

This is the argument that Dr. Kreeft spells out quite beautifully in the article you posted.

 

[itinerant1]

Goodness – that article refutes just about everything you’ve claimed in this discussion. He blatantly refutes the claims of Darwinian theory in the quote you posted above. I had to read the article because I couldn’t believe he said that. Then I saw the rest of what he said and it’s quite amazing.

Here’s what he said:

But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection “explains” the emergence of higher forms without intelligent design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory.

Here is where you show how you consistently misinterpret discussions about evolution and design.

Kreeft says, “Just the opposite; evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There is very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex.”

Next, Kreeft discusses natural selection. Natural selection is a theory that attempts to explain the mechanism of evolution. Kreeft personally seems to doubt NS. But that is not the same as denying evolution in toto. And this is where you get totally off-track. Note in my previous post that I said Darwin had four theories of evolution. That did not even register with you, did it? If you had inquired about Darwin’s four theories you might not have totally misunderstood Kreeft. But then again…

 

[reggieM]

Note in my previous post that I said Darwin had four theories of evolution … If you had inquired about Darwin’s four theories …

Ok, what do you mean about Darwin’s four theories?

 

[itinerant1]

Ok, what do you mean about Darwin’s four theories?

Correction: Darwin had not four, but five theories of evolution. I say five theories now, because Ernst Mayr’s analysis is more correct, historically, with his list of five major theories. They are as follows:

1. The nonconstancy of species. This is the basic theory of evolution.
2. The descent of all organisms from common ancestors. This involves branching evolution.
3. The gradualness of evolution. Darwin specifically rejected saltations or discontinuities in his phylogenetic continuum.
4. The multiplication of species, which is the origin of diversity.
5. Natural selection.

(Confer Mayr’s What Evolution Is)

Darwin also, and rather inconsistently, invoked Lamarckian explanations at times, the inheritance of acquired characteristics. But I will ignore this factor here.

That the five theories above are independent theories is evidenced by the fact that Darwinians originally accepted some, but not all of these theories. Theories 1 and 2 were soon accepted by most biologists following the publication of the Origin of Species. Even T.H. Huxley did not accept natural selection.

The remaining three theories were not widely accepted until what is called the Modern Synthesis. Subsequently, the theory of punctuated equilibrium became an alternative “explanation” (or rather “description”) to gradualness. This may mean the Modern Synthesis is dead, as Gould claims.

Regarding natural selection theory, one can doubt it as Kreeft does; or, an alternative possibility is that NS is not the sole operating mechanism. Perhaps most contemporary evolutionists would deny this possibility, but that is to lack something of the scientific spirit, as Stanley Jaki has noted.

Unfortunately, it appears that much argument against evolution on CAF utterly fails because they have been arguments against NS wrongly assumed to be arguments against the evolution itself. So much wasted effort.

 

[rossum]

Regarding natural selection theory, one can doubt it as Kreeft does; or, an alternative possibility is that NS is not the sole operating mechanism. Perhaps most contemporary evolutionists would deny this possibility, but that is to lack something of the scientific spirit, as Stanley Jaki has noted.

I disagree with you here. Almost all modern biologists accept other mechanisms alongside natural selection. Darwin talked about sexual selection, and since then Kimura’s genetic drift has been very widely accepted. Founder effect is agreed to be important in speciation.

rossum

 

[itinerant1]

I disagree with you here. Almost all modern biologists accept other mechanisms alongside natural selection. Darwin talked about sexual selection, and since then Kimura’s genetic drift has been very widely accepted. Founder effect is agreed to be important in speciation.

rossum

Good point. I’ll have to clarify what I mean in another post, later.

 

[John_Pascendi]

In Pope Saint PiusX encyclical …on the errors of the modernists…number 53 states: “The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society,Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution” I prefer to follow the warnings of this Saintly Pope then the on and on attacks on our heritage by the secular humanists! These are the same ones who have backed abortion on demand,do your own thing…viz; drugs ,changing of the marriage contract, or in other words…paganism. (altho I did have an army sargeant that might have been the missing link after all)…Pas

 

[grannymh]

My apology, Reggie, for jumping into the middle of your conversation without reading replies to your post. However, I am most interested in your use of “philosophy”. Ever since I read the reference to the philosophy of Descartes in a research paper on the human brain, I have been especially sensitive to philosophy’s connection with science. Apparently, the philosophy of David Hume is also popular and referenced. The philosophy of materialism is used in interpretation of natural phenomena. Thus, I have some comments…

Evolutionary theory is a product of philosophy itself.

It seems to me that one needs to be careful about mixing evolutionary theory with philosophy itself. This is probably nitpicking, but currently, scientists interpret evolutionary theory as being based (not a product of) on the philosophy of materialism. As you indicated, evolutionary theory would then be limited in its explanatory power.

Using the materialistic position as a base does not automatically eliminate the immaterial or spiritual realm from inquiry as if it were non-existent. In other words, Darwin’s philosophical position, that all reality is material, made it impossible for him to address the uniqueness of the human species. Instead of expanding his philosophical views to include both the material and non-material reality of humanity, the distinguishing uniqueness of the human species was eliminated.

Personally, I see no reason why scientists need to be limited to one philosophical base. Ah, one says. The immaterial cannot be put under a microscope. True. But that does not exclude the reality of its existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

Basically, I am on the same page as you are, Reggie. Nonetheless, from my point of view, I see evolutionary theory as starting after the origin of life; therefore it can be viable regarding the plant and brute animal kingdoms.

It is important to realize that there is no one-size-fits-all evolutionary theory especially when many interpreters of evidence use only the philosophy of materialism as a base. What would happen if one added a philosophy based on creative causality and the natural efficacy of secondary causes which still could include direct supernatural creation of the spiritual intellective soul?

I am not asking non-theist scientists to change their beliefs. I am asking that scientists revert to the basic drive of science which is to search for the truth of life without limiting base philosophies to only one. Human beings are constantly before us. Observation invites us to explore the intrinsic value of human life which is beyond the technical limits of an evolutionary theory based only on the philosophy of materialism. One needs to recognize the fallacy of “All grass is green; therefore, all green things are grass.” or as a materialist would say in error “Evolution takes place in living organisms; therefore, all parts of living organisms have evolved.”

Blessings,
granny

The quest is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[buffalo]

I am not asking non-theist scientists to change their beliefs. I am asking that scientists revert to the basic drive of science which is to search for the truth of life without limiting base philosophies to only one.

I agree - they have painted themselves in a corner and do not even know it.

 

[Touchstone]

Personally, I see no reason why scientists need to be limited to one philosophical base. Ah, one says. The immaterial cannot be put under a microscope. True. But that does not exclude the reality of its existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

The methodological constraints – natural explanations for natural phenomena – are necessary for the integrity of its epistemology; as soon as supernatural explanations are admitted, the entire edifice collapses, and the knowledge base is corrupted wherever supernatural explanations are admitted.

There may well be supernatural explanations which obtain in some philosophical non-scientific sense, but so long as we demand objective, testable, reliable performance for models and explanations in science, science derives its value by being anti-supernatural by design. That is a limitation, possibly, but one that is necessary for science to have any epistemic equity at all.

I am not asking non-theist scientists to change their beliefs. I am asking that scientists revert to the basic drive of science which is to search for the truth of life without limiting base philosophies to only one.
That is a completely self-defeating goal – the “truth of life” as a casual abstraction. Look at the trainwreck that is theology. That’s what you reduce science to by stripping it of its systematic epistemology. In talking about the drive for the “truth of life” you are advocating science’s annihilation, asking that it become nothing more than an annex of theology.

Human beings are constantly before us. Observation invites us to explore the intrinsic value of human life which is beyond the technical limits of an evolutionary theory based only on the philosophy of materialism. One needs to recognize the fallacy of “All grass is green; therefore, all green things are grass.” or as a materialist would say in error “Evolution takes place in living organisms; therefore, all parts of living organisms have evolved.”

That isn’t the rationale of course. If we had some other evidence for other generative agents or processes, we’d happily assess them for their suitability in providing part or all of the explanatory model. We don’t have such, so we explain what we can with what we’ve got. We don’t have evidence of gods pushing planets around their orbits in some kind of divine symphony. Instead we have mass, energy, gravity, momentum, and we make do with what we do have available to us.

We don’t say “planets move according to their mass, inertia, and external forces acting upon them, therefore all motion is explainable in those terms”. Rather, we acknowledge that those factors are both sufficient to explain, predict and model, AND that there is nothing else available to draw upon as explanatory capital.

It is precisely because we are tempted to indulge the “God did it” reflex that we embrace and sustain this method, this discipline, because “God did it” is the easy, unassailable, unfalsifiable, best explanation for for all phenomena. Unless it is forbidden methodologically, “God did it” trumps all natural knowledge and claims all on unknowns as its province.

-TS

 

[itinerant1]

I disagree with you here. Almost all modern biologists accept other mechanisms alongside natural selection. Darwin talked about sexual selection, and since then Kimura’s genetic drift has been very widely accepted. Founder effect is agreed to be important in speciation.

rossum

Darwin talks quite a bit about sexual selection in the Descent of Man. If one actually reads the Descent, then he will understand that sexual selection is not a mechanism of evolution in addition to natural selection. This means that you are not understanding yet the concept of natural selection. Natural selection is a process that eliminates those individuals less fit to survive in a particular environment. The survival rate varies from season to season. When a large number of individuals survive, the enlarged sample provides the needed material for the exercise of sexual selection.

Likewise, when the concept of natural selection is understood, one sees how other factors such as genetic drift and founder effect come into play in natural selection.

When I suggested the possibility of a factor in addition to NS, this would be a positive mechanism in addition to NS, which is basically a negative mechanism. So, thus far, I need not change anything I said about NS. I suggest you make sure your source for studying up on NS correctly understands the concept.

In addition, Darwin did not have any really solid evidence for NS. However, since Darwin’s time biologists have acquired, as it appears to me, good evidence in support of the the theory. One can disregard the implications of the evidence, but I don’t know of any good scientific explanations that have been proposed as an alternative.

NS does have negative philosophical implications as Kreeft believes, but I think there is another way of viewing NS that retains the philosophical soundness that Kreeft is looking for.

 

[rossum]

Darwin talks quite a bit about sexual selection in the Descent of Man. If one actually reads the Descent, then he will understand that sexual selection is not a mechanism of evolution in addition to natural selection.

This is incorrect. Sexual selection will change the proportions of genes in a population. That, by definition, is evolution. Sexual selection by peahens has driven the evolution of a peacock’s tail. That is not natural selection because the peacock’s tail is a disadvantage in ordinary living. It is the sexual selection which has overcome natural selection in this case to drive the male tail to extraordinary size. Sexual selection is a separate mechanism of evolution apart from natural selection.

This means that you are not understanding yet the concept of natural selection. Natural selection is a process that eliminates those individuals less fit to survive in a particular environment.

It is you who have failed to understand natural selection. Natural selection depends on the number of fertile offspring left into the next generation. Certainly dying young can be an issue, but so can living to an old age without producing many offspring, or producing lots of infertile offspring. A mutant gene that manages to get 1% more copies of itself into the next generation will spread through the population:

Generation  Normal   Mutant
----------  ------   --------
     0       1.00        1.00
     1       1.00        1.01
    10       1.00        1.10
   100       1.00        2.70
   500       1.00      144.77
   700       1.00     1059.16
  1000       1.00    20959.16

You can see how the small 1% advantage is amplified over the generations as the mutant variant with the 1% advantage spreads through the population. Elimination of individuals is only part of the mechanism of natural selection.

Likewise, when the concept of natural selection is understood, one sees how other factors such as genetic drift and founder effect come into play in natural selection.

You have misunderstood again. Natural selection is not a random process. Both genetic drift and founder effect are random processes. Genetic drift works on neutral genes, which have no effect on the phenotype for natural selection to work on - such genes are invisible to natural selection. Founder effect is a statistical effect of taking a small sample from a larger population - the small sample is never perfectly representative of the larger population. Neither is natural selection, and it is an error to conflate them with it.

Evolution is driven by different mechanisms, all of which act to change the relative frequencies of genes in the genomes of an interbreeding population. Natural selection is only one of the mechanisms that bring about such changes.

rossum

 

[itinerant1]

This is incorrect. Sexual selection will change the proportions of genes in a population. That, by definition, is evolution. Sexual selection by peahens has driven the evolution of a peacock’s tail. That is not natural selection because the peacock’s tail is a disadvantage in ordinary living. It is the sexual selection which has overcome natural selection in this case to drive the male tail to extraordinary size. Sexual selection is a separate mechanism of evolution apart from natural selection.

It is you who have failed to understand natural selection. Natural selection depends on the number of fertile offspring left into the next generation. Certainly dying young can be an issue, but so can living to an old age without producing many offspring, or producing lots of infertile offspring. A mutant gene that manages to get 1% more copies of itself into the next generation will spread through the population:

Generation  Normal   Mutant
----------  ------   --------
     0       1.00        1.00
     1       1.00        1.01
    10       1.00        1.10
   100       1.00        2.70
   500       1.00      144.77
   700       1.00     1059.16
  1000       1.00    20959.16

You can see how the small 1% advantage is amplified over the generations as the mutant variant with the 1% advantage spreads through the population. Elimination of individuals is only part of the mechanism of natural selection.

You have misunderstood again. Natural selection is not a random process. Both genetic drift and founder effect are random processes. Genetic drift works on neutral genes, which have no effect on the phenotype for natural selection to work on - such genes are invisible to natural selection. Founder effect is a statistical effect of taking a small sample from a larger population - the small sample is never perfectly representative of the larger population. Neither is natural selection, and it is an error to conflate them with it.

Evolution is driven by different mechanisms, all of which act to change the relative frequencies of genes in the genomes of an interbreeding population. Natural selection is only one of the mechanisms that bring about such changes.

rossum

I never said NS was a random process. Nor did I say NS was sexual selection. Neither did I conflate genetic drift and founder effect with NS. You have done a most wonderful job of totally mischaracterizing what I said.

 

[reggieM]

My apology, Reggie, for jumping into the middle of your conversation without reading replies to your post. However, I am most interested in your use of “philosophy”. Ever since I read the reference to the philosophy of Descartes in a research paper on the human brain, I have been especially sensitive to philosophy’s connection with science. Apparently, the philosophy of David Hume is also popular and referenced. The philosophy of materialism is used in interpretation of natural phenomena. Thus, I have some comments…

Thanks for an insightful post, Granny. I think we have more agreement on the main issues than it might have appeared at first.

It seems to me that one needs to be careful about mixing evolutionary theory with philosophy itself. This is probably nitpicking, but currently, scientists interpret evolutionary theory as being based (not a product of) on the philosophy of materialism. As you indicated, evolutionary theory would then be limited in its explanatory power.

That’s a good distinction. In metaphysical terms, evolutionary theory is a product of philosophy because the discipline of science emerged from philosophy. The scientific method, for example, is a philosophical concept in origin. But at the same time, when we talk about modern science and the way evolutionary theory works, for example, it’s true to say that it’s “founded” on a philosophical basis – as you rightly point out.

Evolutionary theory is a collection of disparate ideas – in fact, it’s not even a collection as such. It is based on philosophical materialism and it seeks to prove that atheistic materialism is a sufficient foundation for understanding:

1. All of the diversity and development of nature
2. The origin and development of human beings

This is where the Catholic view departs from Darwinism. In Catholic teaching, it is not possible for atheistic-materialism to come to a true and full understanding, for example, of the origin of human beings.

Personally, I see no reason why scientists need to be limited to one philosophical base. Ah, one says. The immaterial cannot be put under a microscope. True. But that does not exclude the reality of its existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

Absolutely correct. We’ll hear the same contradictory point from materialists who will point out that “gravity is invisible”. That’s right – gravity cannot be put under a microscope. But we can observe effects of this force we call gravity. In the same way, we can observe the effects of spiritual entities (the human soul, mystical phenomena, rationality) and recognize that there is something beyond blind materialism.

Basically, I am on the same page as you are, Reggie. Nonetheless, from my point of view, I see evolutionary theory as starting after the origin of life; therefore it can be viable regarding the plant and brute animal kingdoms.

Evolutionary theory today does not accept those limits though. On the question: what part of nature or of the origin of human beings is it impossible for evolutionary theory to explain? The evolutionary answer is “there are no aspects of nature that cannot possibly be explained by evolution”. Now they will make an exception for the origin of life, but that only makes the problem worse. We heard it claimed just a couple of days ago that “the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution”. That is a very clear sign that the wall between origin and development was established to protect a fragile theory.

It is important to realize that there is no one-size-fits-all evolutionary theory especially when many interpreters of evidence use only the philosophy of materialism as a base. What would happen if one added a philosophy based on creative causality and the natural efficacy of secondary causes which still could include direct supernatural creation of the spiritual intellective soul?

Excellent point. What would happen is that we’d have a totally different “theory of evolution” and whoever came up with that notion would be wise to simply drop the term “evolution” entirely and call it something like “developmental creation” (as on the Catholic Answers page on Adam, Eve, and Evolution.

There are many possiblities that could come from that - but nothing will happen as long as science is trapped on a Procrustean bed of dogma.

Observation invites us to explore the intrinsic value of human life which is beyond the technical limits of an evolutionary theory based only on the philosophy of materialism.

That is an extremely important point. Thanks again for some great insights.

 

[grannymh]

I am back in the world of English speaking keyboards. If I may, hopefully without causing trouble, I would like to take apart your post and get your reaction in a discussion.

The methodological constraints – natural explanations for natural phenomena – are necessary for the integrity of its epistemology;

This is true for science. Any presuppositions and foundations have to be consistent with natural phenonmena which in the case of evolutionary biology are usually perceptible by the senses aided by modern technology.

as soon as supernatural explanations are admitted, the entire edifice collapses, and the knowledge base is corrupted wherever supernatural explanations are admitted.

Yes and no. My point of view places evolutionary theory at a point after the origin of life. It is my understanding that starting immediately after abiogenesis is the common evolutionary path. Thus, I am comfortable with natural science explanations for natural phenonmena (like for like). The supernatural explanations can be left to others. Am I being clear in my point of view?

As far as the knowledge base regarding the plant and brute animal kingdoms, supernatural explanations do not have the power to corrupt the knowledge base. This is because nature as matter exists in time and space. Was it Shakespeare who said “A rose, by any other name, will smell as sweet”. The supernatural explanation is an additional explanation. Personally, I try to avoid the “mutually exclusive or.”

Usually, I try to be careful to distinguish science from scientist. Thus, I believe that the scientist, as a person, needs to follow the specifications of science regarding matter, but at the same time, as a free person, the scientist can freely explore any and all additional explanations.

There may well be supernatural explanations which obtain in some philosophical non-scientific sense, but so long as we demand objective, testable, reliable performance for models and explanations in science, science derives its value by being anti-supernatural by design.

I flat out disagree that science derives its value by being “anti-supernatural” by design. I teach beginning science to my grandkids by having them pick flowers, tear apart leaves, touch pine needles, and open seed pods. This is not anti-supernatural. Rather, this gives them the positive sense of physically exploring the material world to find out how it works. Science derives its value by empirical means. If I choose to add that God created beautiful nature, their “scientific” experience remains intact.

That is a limitation, possibly, but one that is necessary for science to have any epistemic equity at all.

Limitations should not be considered as excluding other possibilities.

That is a completely self-defeating goal – the “truth of life” as a casual abstraction. Look at the trainwreck that is theology. That’s what you reduce science to by stripping it of its systematic epistemology. In talking about the drive for the “truth of life” you are advocating science’s annihilation, asking that it become nothing more than an annex of theology.

My error. I forgot that the phrase “truth of life” is often viewed philosophically. How would you express the broadness of biology? Perhaps understanding living organisms is closer to what I meant. But when I think of really understanding, I revert to the idea of the truth of real living life – like human life.

That isn’t the rationale of course. If we had some other evidence for other generative agents or processes, we’d happily assess them for their suitability in providing part or all of the explanatory model. We don’t have such, so we explain what we can with what we’ve got. We don’t have evidence of gods pushing planets around their orbits in some kind of divine symphony. Instead we have mass, energy, gravity, momentum, and we make do with what we do have available to us.

If by rationale, you are referring to the faulty “Evolution takes place in living organisms; therefore, all parts of living organisms have evolved.” I’ve seen posts which used this in some form.

It is the human species (not gods pushing planets) which challenges both science and scientists. Or better, it is the actions of humans that challenge. A song doesn’t have mass, but it has energy. Gravity doesn’t control music, yet there is momentum.

We don’t say “planets move according to their mass, inertia, and external forces acting upon them, therefore all motion is explainable in those terms”. Rather, we acknowledge that those factors are both sufficient to explain, predict and model, AND that there is nothing else available to draw upon as explanatory capital.

It is precisely because we are tempted to indulge the “God did it” reflex that we embrace and sustain this method, this discipline, because “God did it” is the easy, unassailable, unfalsifiable, best explanation for all phenomena. Unless it is forbidden methodologically, “God did it” trumps all natural knowledge and claims all on unknowns as its province.
-TS

Personally, I think that a “god of the gaps” can trainwreck theology, but please don’t ask me to prove that. I also think that your above sentence “Rather, we acknowledge that those factors are both sufficient to explain, predict and model, AND that there is nothing else available to draw upon as explanatory capital.” works two ways. Factors, when applied to the human species, can be both material/matter and immaterial/spiritual. The question remains. Can a scientist, acting as a free individual, explore both kinds of factors? That would be possible if he adapts the last half of your sentence – “AND that there is nothing else available to draw upon as explanatory capital.”

Blessings,
granny

 

[rossum]

I never said NS was a random process.

Indeed you did not. Neither did I say that you did. We both agree that natural selection is not a random process. I did however say that genetic drift and founder effect were random processes.

Nor did I say NS was sexual selection.

In post #471 you said:

If one actually reads the Descent, then he will understand that sexual selection is not a mechanism of evolution in addition to natural selection.

That can be read in two ways:* SS is not a mechanism of evolution.

• SS is a mechanism of evolution that is part of, and not in addition to, NS.

I pointed out that both of these readings are incorrect. The first because SS changes population genomes and so it is a mechanism of evolution. The second because SS differs from NS, as with the example of the peacock’s tail. Because your phrasing was ambiguous I answered both possible readings.

Neither did I conflate genetic drift and founder effect with NS.

Again from your post #471:

Likewise, when the concept of natural selection is understood, one sees how other factors such as genetic drift and founder effect come into play in natural selection.

Here you are saying that “genetic drift and founder effect come into play in natural selection”, my emphasis. It appears to me that you are saying that that genetic drift and founder effect are to be conflated with natural selection. All I can do is read what you actually write, I cannot read what you meant to write.

I am glad that we can agree that genetic drift and founder effect are not part of natural selection. Do you accept that both these non-NS mechanisms can change genomes of a population?

rossum

 

[Touchstone]

I am back in the world of English speaking keyboards. If I may, hopefully without causing trouble, I would like to take apart your post and get your reaction in a discussion.

Great! Welcome back.

This is true for science. Any presuppositions and foundations have to be consistent with natural phenonmena which in the case of evolutionary biology are usually perceptible by the senses aided by modern technology.

OK, we’re tracking so far.

Yes and no. My point of view places evolutionary theory at a point after the origin of life. It is my understanding that starting immediately after abiogenesis is the common evolutionary path. Thus, I am comfortable with natural science explanations for natural phenonmena (like for like). The supernatural explanations can be left to others. Am I being clear in my point of view?

I think so. You are fine with natural explanations for post-origin life diversifying into different species.

As far as the knowledge base regarding the plant and brute animal kingdoms, supernatural explanations do not have the power to corrupt the knowledge base. This is because nature as matter exists in time and space. Was it Shakespeare who said “A rose, by any other name, will smell as sweet”. The supernatural explanation is an additional explanation. Personally, I try to avoid the “mutually exclusive or.”

Well, divine teleology can be laid over any natural phenomena. There is no phenomena we might observe that refuses by necessity that “God made that happen” somehow. So the “and” is always with us, and is always unfalsifiable.

But many times, as in creationist and ID claims, it is posed as the proximal efficient cause for some phenomena. God created the first double helix of DNA in a miraculous fashion, for example. That would be posited to the exclusion of impersonal forces working through law and randomness to produce same.

Usually, I try to be careful to distinguish science from scientist. Thus, I believe that the scientist, as a person, needs to follow the specifications of science regarding matter, but at the same time, as a free person, the scientist can freely explore any and all additional explanations.

Sure!

-TS