What do you think you would do if you had no morality?

[Jonti]

... A.R. Wallace is, of course, Alfred Russel Wallace, co-discoverer of the theory of evolution.

So was evolution a Victorian discovery? Or has it been known about for three thousand years?

 

[Jonti]

Well yes it does. Because [intelligent design is] a possibility consistent with the same evidence that is used to argue for the evolution of life

Well, no actually. There are many features in animals and plants which are sub-optimal. Intellegent design cannot really explain that sort of thing at all; by contrast, it's exactly what you'd expect if present forms were the result of the adaptation and slow change of previous forms.

And as for having something invested in this ID nonsense. Well, on the contrary, I'm inclined to say, suppose we lived in some parallel universe where there was some kind of authoritarian religious society, - and we'd discovered all the evidence that life evolved, but the government insisted that this had to be reconciled with religious doctrine, and so required that science lessons taught the theory of evolution by means of intelligent design, and natural selection, but totally outlawed the teaching of evolution by genetic copying errors and natural selection.

And suppose we were having this argument in this parallel universe, only I was taking your role and you were taking mine, and I said,

"Well the fact that the data fits both accounts doesn't make your theory of "random" mutation any less silly than the last tuesday adventist view of things, unless you've got something invested in this atheist crap."

Would you think that was a fair response?
And if not, why not?

if it's not a fair response, then your's at the top can't be either, because
the data fit both accounts.

No, the data does not fit both accounts.

There are many "poorly designed" features in plants and animals. I've mentioned that the fact that your legs are on backwards for a biped is best explained by accepting the fossil evolution that we descended from quadrupeds. What kind of "intelligent designer" would make such an energy inefficient limb?

Another one: humans are unique among mammals in that we run the risk of choking to death with every mouthful of food or drink that we swallow. Really! The food we swallow has to pass over the top of the trachea. The epiglottis serves as a trapdoor to prevent stuff going down the wrong way. But as infants, we are not at risk in this way; a babe can suckle and swallow simultaneously. Hardly an example of intelligent design; but easily explained by evolutionary adaptations to allow speech in the adult form.

eta: on non-falsifiability, - the whole point is that the data only show that life evolved, any theory of why life evolved goes beyond the data, and so to use evolutionary arguments as part of ammunition for debates about the existence of God, is unscientific, because obviously, neither account of "why" life evolved is falsifiable.

OK, the data show that life evolved. I agree.

Can the evidence show "why" life evolved? Nope, the evidence would need to be viewed in the light of other knowledge, perhaps in terms of the general properties of self-organising systems and the necessary nature of the constituent parts of such self-organising systems. Then, if we could show that molecules have the right sort of properties to be components of self-organising systems, we've answered the "why". Sort of. But you could always say, "Well, why do molecules have the necessary properties to be parts of self-organising systems?"

So no. But that's hardly a revelation. The man on the Clapham omnibus does not expect moral guidance from science, just a detailed picture of the facts of the matter in which we must make moral judgements. Similarly, folks hardly expect science to explain the "Why?" of existence. People look to science to explain just the mechanism of the working of things, not the "why" of things themselves.

It seems only philosophers get confused about these issues

 

[8ball]

That was the post that started this present conversation off.
You replied to it.

Do you generally post replies without reading the post you're replying to, or have you just got a memory like a sieve. ?

If you were reading my posts you'd have read where I asked for some link to actual evidence or data that fits both accounts, (post 521), so I could see if this was just a case of wordy bum games or just the very abstract point which is being pretty easily dealt with my Jonti's examples of 'bad design'.

Ah, but the ways of the Lord are Mysterious.

 

[Knotted]

But you seem to be implying that the existence of creationist nitwits should have prevented Gould from demonstrating the errors of Darwinism. That is no way for a scientist to behave.

I want to emphasise that he really did believe that evolution by natural selection lacked the power necessary to explain macro-evolution and that he was so convinced that he was unconcerned about providing the creationists with ammunition.

His pre-eminence and his conviction do not prevent him from being wrong. He was wrong. Punctuated equilibrium is an "ultra-Darwinist" thesis. There is a good deal of literature demonstrating this. Dawkins is a good place to start. See this review of Wonderful Life for an introduction. (It would also be useful for you to notice how much more dialectical Dawkins' thinking is than Gould's clancking essentialism.)

On Darwin's Malthusian influence. If I remember rightly, Darwin was wrong in that he was misapplying Malthusian ideas. However even if he wasn't, so what? Whats wrong with Malthusian principles being valid in biology but not in economics? Darwin's argument is completely sound in any case. How could you possibly object? Have a go at disproving it if you doubt me. Deal with the argument, not the ism.

 

[Knotted]

In his splendid work, Darwin did not realise that by discovering the “geometrical” progression in the animal and plant kingdom, he overthrew Malthus’s theory. Malthus’s theory is based on the fact that he set Wallace’s geometrical progression of man against the chimerical “arithmetical” progression of animals and plants. In Darwin’s work, for instance on the extinction of species, we also find quite apart from his fundamental principle) the detailed refutation, based on natural history, of the Malthusian theory. But in so far as Malthus’s theory rests upon Anderson’s theory of rent, it was refuted by Anderson himself.

Lesson to be learnt from Marx - examine the content, not the blurb, when judging a theory.

 

[Jonti]

... to use evolutionary arguments as part of ammunition for debates about the existence of God, is unscientific ...

Or is it?

Evolutionary arguments can be deployed to show that one has no need of that hypothesis (of God). And, of course, to unnecessarily hypothesise the existence of (whatever) is to offend against scientific methodology.

Even so, the Theist/Deist may retreat a little and say that the hypothesis may be not necessary, but this is merely to say there is no evidence for the theory, not that the theory is counter-factual (!). That's just so lame it's almost funny (although "shameful" might be a better adjective).

And even if one shrugs at Ockham, thereby legitimising all sorts of damaging nonsense, say, about pseuds who pretend to be the incarnation of Buddha, or of Jesus*, one may yet fall foul of some other, even stronger methodological principle. How about "a creation is invariably simpler than its creator"?

Or do you know of anything or process that can create something richer in behaviour and more complex in structure than itself? How is such a thing even possible in principle? The pot is simpler than the potter; the airliner simpler than the total organisation of the hundreds who combine their knowledge and efforts to engineer the machine. The seed may contain a recipe for the mature organism, but it needs the added complexity of an environment to unfold it. Nowhere in the world do we see the simple and unstructured give rise to the complex and differentiated.

If there is a God who created the universe and everything in it, and who takes an interest in the personal lives of his creatures, he must be far more complex than the universe he created. And that gets us nowhere, for how did the internal complexity of the posited god-thing arise in the first place?

But we do know, now (although the idea is still bitterly resented by religionists and mystagogues) how complexity can spontaneously arise. We can create complex, informed structures by means of trial and error; by means of random variation followed by selection. No posited god-thingy can do this, not without infinite regress. But evolution can conjure the complex from simple antecedents.

So there you have it. There's nothing unreasonable or unscientific about the case I've made. And it uses the fact of evolution to argue directly against the existence of God

* You can't prove the pseud isn't that, right? So the devotees' beliefs are of deserving of respect as those of anyone else.

 

[Knotted]

He says this as if it's a Bad Thing

Evolution is not a determinist process. To think it is, is to demand that the genotype of every existing species throughout all of space and time pre-existed in the initial conditions of the universe. And of course, an adherence to hard determinism brings all sorts of philosophical problems in its wake. That of epiphenomenalism for one (because consciousness has has no role or function in a determinist world). Come to that, modern science (qua Heisenberg) explicitly rejects the idea that "identical circumstances always lead to identical outcomes" anyway!

Far simpler to allow that evolution creates information; that it is not a determinist process.

Evolution by natural selection is not a theory of physics. It is a theory of biology. It makes no claims to know about every interaction within the whole of life from chemical reactions upwards. Nor does it make any claims vaguely approximating this. This is why it is not deterministic.

I am completely unaware of any deterministic theory of evolution nor anything close. The strawman that Gould was demolishing is beyond absurd.

 

[phildwyer]

The strawman that Gould was demolishing is beyond absurd.

I don't have time today to respond to your other points, which are very interesting, and to which I will return with enthusiasm. But I must take issue with this. Surely you are aware of the appalling ideological usages to which Darwinism has been put from the time of Spencer onwards? Gould's criticisms arguably may not apply to Darwin (although I believe that they do), but they undoubtedly hit the mark when directed against social Darwinism.

 

[Knotted]

I don't have time today to respond to your other points, which are very interesting, and to which I will return with enthusiasm. But I must take issue with this. Surely you are aware of the appalling ideological usages to which Darwinism has been put from the time of Spencer onwards? Gould's criticisms arguably may not apply to Darwin (although I believe that they do), but they undoubtedly hit the mark when directed against social Darwinism.

Well I don't think that anybody has ever made the error that Gould alludes to in this particular case. For that matter, I don't know if Gould actually accuses anybody in particular of ignoring contingencies in evolutionary theory. The purpose of the strawman seems to be to suggest the necessity of something new rather than opposing any reactionary ideologies.

Of course, I don't deny that Darwinism can and has been used to promote various reactionary ideologies. Though I also suggest that one abuse is not necessarily the same as another abuse. I don't think there is a single killer argument against all possible abuses.

It might be useful to consider that it is possible for Darwinism to be abused so as to promote cosy liberal ideologies of co-operation and peace.

In my view it is perfectly legitimate for science to be inspired by ideologies including reactionary ideologies. It is only when it necessarily relies upon these ideologies that it becomes pseudo-science.

On a final note if you believe what Gould calls 'ultra-Darwinism' is in someway logically connected with the excesses of evolutionary psychology then consider that an 'ultra-Darwinist' such as John Maynard Smith was perfectly capable of pulling apart these excesses.

 

[8ball]

Having read those bits of Gould, I'd have to agree to some shameless strawmanning and overselling of minor matters of nuance and emphasis.

Bit disappointed really - always liked his stuff but I'd mosltly been reading bits recommended by fellow biologists. Plus I finished being a biologist proper in 1997 so would have missed a good bit of the later stuff.

Still like his writing style, though.

I've not read anything by this Daniel Dennett character but I'm not sure I like the sound of him.

I remember enjoying reading 'Did Darwin Get It Right: Essays on Games, Sex and Evolution' by John Maynard Smith back in my undergrad days when things were much more cordial between Smith, Gould, Dawkins et al.

 

[Demosthenes]

Well, no actually. There are many features in animals and plants which are sub-optimal. Intellegent design cannot really explain that sort of thing at all; by contrast, it's exactly what you'd expect if present forms were the result of the adaptation and slow change of previous forms.
No, the data does not fit both accounts.

Well, in fact it does, and you've acknowledged this below.
This thing about optimality, it's an interesting argument but it doesn't really work.
First, you probably don't have any criteria by which you can define optimality clearly. Second, it's not clear-cut that intelligent design predicts optimality.
And third, if you do have criteria for optimality, well they're going to be highly subjective.. how do you know that they're the right criteria? Maybe God has different criteria from you, but you don't understand them. How much do you know about creating life from scratch?

There are many "poorly designed" features in plants and animals. I've mentioned that the fact that your legs are on backwards for a biped is best explained by accepting the fossil evolution that we descended from quadrupeds. What kind of "intelligent designer" would make such an energy inefficient limb?

Can the evidence show "why" life evolved? Nope, the evidence would need to be viewed in the light of other knowledge, perhaps in terms of the general properties of self-organising systems and the necessary nature of the constituent parts of such self-organising systems. Then, if we could show that molecules have the right sort of properties to be components of self-organising systems, we've answered the "why". Sort of. But you could always say, "Well, why do molecules have the necessary properties to be parts of self-organising systems?"

So no. But that's hardly a revelation. The man on the Clapham omnibus does not expect moral guidance from science, just a detailed picture of the facts of the matter in which we must make moral judgements. Similarly, folks hardly expect science to explain the "Why?" of existence. People look to science to explain just the mechanism of the working of things, not the "why" of things themselves.

It seems only philosophers get confused about these issues

If the only way to create life is by evolution, then it's not surprising if our limbs are as you'd expect them to be if we're descended from quadrupeds.
I don't see why intelligent design predicts anything different.

As you rightly point out, the evidence can't show why life evolved, it can only show that it evolved.
So any attempts to make metaphysical pronouncements about the nature of the universe, using the fact of evolution as a starting point are unscientific, in that they go beyond the data.

eta: And so I reckon any attempt to insist that teachers favour one version of "why? " over another must therefore be motivated by a "political" rather than a scientific agenda. (political in quotes for want of a better word. )

 

[Jonti]

Maybe God has different criteria from you, but you don't understand them.

Yeah, maybe.

 

[Jonti]

I think, if you are going to talk about ID as a rival theory to evolution, then your theory really does need to explain some phenomena that the evolutionary model does not. What's the point in it otherwise? It fails the Ockham test.

At least people like Behe tried to find biological structures which, they said, could not be explained by evolution, only by intelligent design. They failed -- but they were doing more than playing with words.

 

[Jonti]

... As you rightly point out, the evidence can't show why life evolved, it can only show that it evolved.
So any attempts to make metaphysical pronouncements about the nature of the universe, using the fact of evolution as a starting point are unscientific, in that they go beyond the data. ...

What goes beyond the data is postulating the supernatural, when natural explanations are available. I even sketched how there may be natural explanations for the origin of life, as well as for its subsequent evolution!

But if you wish to believe in a God with arbitrary properties and abilities tailored to serve your argument (oh! he'd've made everything just like evolution did) then I accept no amount of reason will touch you.

But you've shifted your ground. This is what you said earlier ...

Well yes it does. Because it's a possibility consistent with the same evidence that is used to argue for the evolution of life ...

As a matter of fact, you are simply mistaken in this assertion. Take a read of this, the Dover School Board Court Judgement. It's well worth a read, for it explains very exactly the difference between science and religion; and why ID is a religious doctrine; and one which not all religions share.

 

[Demosthenes]

What goes beyond the data is postulating the supernatural, when natural explanations are available. I even sketched how there may be natural explanations for the origin of life, as well as for its subsequent evolution!

But if you wish to believe in a God with arbitrary properties and abilities tailored to serve your argument (oh! he'd've made everything just like evolution did) then I accept no amount of reason will touch you.

But you've shifted your ground. This is what you said earlier ...
As a matter of fact, you are simply mistaken in this assertion. Take a read of this, the Dover School Board Court Judgement. It's well worth a read, for it explains very exactly the difference between science and religion; and why ID is a religious doctrine; and one which not all religions share.

Well, who said anything about supernatural? not me. Which is quite sensible, as although I have some idea what it's meant to mean, I'm not sure that it makes sense as a concept.

I don't see how I've shifted my ground, feel free to explain.

Supposing that 'supernatural' is a sensible concept, then, why are naturalistic explanations to be preferred to non-naturalistic explanations. ?

 

[Demosthenes]

I think, if you are going to talk about ID as a rival theory to evolution, then your theory really does need to explain some phenomena that the evolutionary model does not. What's the point in it otherwise? It fails the Ockham test.

At least people like Behe tried to find biological structures which, they said, could not be explained by evolution, only by intelligent design. They failed -- but they were doing more than playing with words.

What is the Ockham test? This is something I've commented on before. More than once.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=2027415&highlight=simplicity#post2027415

It's quite simple: The only theory for which there's solid evidence is that life evolved. As to the question of why it evolved. No-one knows. There's competing possible explanations, each equally unprovable, and unfalsifiable.

 

[max_freakout]

It's quite simple: The only theory for which there's solid evidence is that life evolved. As to the question of why it evolved. No-one knows. There's competing possible explanations, each equally unprovable, and unfalsifiable.

does there have to be a reason for life to evolve?

 

[8ball]

does there have to be a reason for life to evolve?

Guess it depends what you mean by 'reason'.

 

[Jonti]

... only lunatics hold political and ethical stances that have no relation to reality, either now or to come.

Here's something that may interest you ...

... although factual and moral assertions are logically independent (one cannot deduce either from the other), factual and moral explanations are not. There is an explanatory link between ought and is, and this provides one of the ways in which reason can indeed address moral issues.

 

[max_freakout]

Guess it depends what you mean by 'reason'.

perhap it means 'purpose'

 

[8ball]

perhap it means 'purpose'

In which case, no it doesn't.

 

[max_freakout]

In which case, no it doesn't.

many people would no agree that evolution might have no purpose/reason/meaning

 

[DotCommunist]

If I had no morality I'd spend all day punching puppies and kicking kittens

 

[Gmart]

Personally i think morality is rubbish. Amorality is waaay cooler but thats a result of me not believing in free will..

so for all you free-willers out there, how do you imagine you would behave if you had no sense of right or wrong?

and what is your basis for believing this?

his systematic extermination of whole sections of society was inspired by his sense of morality.

he was utterly confident that he was doing the right thing. those people are always more dangerous imo.

That's why people hiding behind being pc, rather than thinking, is so dangerous, and believing in the world and the people one surrounds oneself with, so difficult.

Blind faith, generosity and a sense of humour, I'd rather that, than living in fear.

 

[Jonti]

Dem, my take is that you've reached a dead end. Biology will continue to explain things in terms of the modern understanding of evolution (not "Darwinsim" for it has Mendel's results, and many others as well), and without any need to think of any intelligent designer or intelligent design whatever you say.

A biologist might say, evolution creates information; the design can emerge through evolution.

 

[Gmart]

As a consenting adult I feel that it should be me who decides on moral issues which are to do with me only. Why should the government tell me that such and such substance is wrong? Give me information, but leave the moralising to the individual.

Unfortunately this would mean that the conservatives would have to stop telling people how they should live their lives, and they sure do like telling people when they're wrong...

 

[meme1908]

I'd pretty much do what i do now. It's not like i'd get away with killing anyone, or anything similar. What would you do if you had no sense of self preservation and no morality?

 

[Gmart]

I have my conscience, the same as anyone else...