If there is no cause, no purpose, and no intention, then where does reason stand? Science likes to present itself as 'rational' but with no philosophical absolute, and no deity, there is nothing other than measurement of particulars and the discovery of efficient causes. You can talk all you like about 'being rational' but in such a universe it doesn't mean much. And couldn't.
It all comes down to pattern spotting really, I reckon. I doubt it does mean much really, at the end of the day.
People might want it to mean something - plenty of people clearly do - hence the invention of purposes.
I reckon it will accepted eventually that evolution simply cannot be explained by 'what molecules do'.
He presents plenty of evidence from science itself that the scientific narrative, as you call it, does not explain the outcome (i.e. H Sapiens) - based on the outcome of the Human Genome Project, among other things.
He shows that many scientists in the field of molecular biology feel less confident about the theory underlying evolutionary development now than before the Project was finished. This is because there are a number of huge anomalies in the relationship between genes and physiology. For example, that the sea urchin has a larger number of genes than H Sapiens.
That the genomes of H Sapiens and creatures such as mice are largely the same.
That 'master genes' can switch on and off functionalities in the genome.
He also claims that the fossil record is indeed full of gaps and unexplained rapid developments.
A particularly interesting case is the development of bi-pedalism in early Man. The changes to the reproductive physiology that were required by the upright stance mean that H Sapiens (and their immediate ancestors) have a drastically different pelvic structure to chimps and other great apes. As a result, infant mortality is far higher among man and proto-man than among other primates. Also it means human infants are born so helpless they can't cling to their mother like a chimp baby.
Now as I say, Le Fanu is not creationist, although he is, like me, sympathetic to a kind of panentheist spirituality.
The other book I have been reading on a similar topic is Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe by Simon Conway Morris. Conway Morris is a professor of palentology at Cambridge and world-renowned expert on the Burgess Shales. His book is very technical; he has developed the idea of the 'protein hyperspace' to illustrate the magnitude of the numbers involved when considering the role of chance in the development of living organisms. His main interest in the extent to which living organisms develop along roughly predictable lines, as opposed to the purely random outcomes which, for example, Stephen J Gould talked of when considering evolutions (e.g. 'if you replayed the tape, the outcome would be completely different'.)
Unlike you, I feel that biology is ripe for a revolution in this area, of the same magnitude that has affected physics since the advent of quantum mechanics. I think many people, yourself included, feel that Darwin is to biology what Newton was to physics, and that the principle of natural selection is kind of a cosmic law which willl satisfactorily explain the emergence of intelligent life wherever it might occur.
But if it can be shown that there is any tendency for particular types or forms to emerge during the course of evolutionary development, then of course we have a whole new ball game. If there are indeed underlying archetypes or tendencies in the evolutionary process then while not suggesting 'a designer' of the type so badly conceived by Richard Dawkins, it might nevertheless suggest a certain inevitability in the emergence of beings capable of engaging in arguments such as these.
The whole of evolutionary history can be seen as the working out of deep principles that are embedded in the fabric of the cosmos.
It is not a creationist view, and I wouldn't support creationism.
What bothers me is the conclusions that are drawn on the basis that creationism is false.
that said, I will always maintain that Homo Sapiens is unique amongst creatures, and that our nature is not simply the outcome of adaptive necessity. But I will be content to suggest it, not to prosecute the argument.
Isn't it the case that anyone who is persuaded by the scientific account, despite all the numerous anomalies gaps and shortfalls, will tend to characterise any dissenter as 'a creationist' on the basis that creationist beliefs are demonstrably absurd?
It is very similar to the demonization of dissenting views which was characteristic of Luther and Calvin. There is an interesting analysis of 'the Protestant Atheism of Richard Dawkins' which shows just how similar his attitude is to the Protestant worldveiw, wherein the Theory of Natural Selection has been elevated to the position of holy writ, and anyone who suggests that it is deficient is the equivalent of a sinner in the calvinist view, doomed to eternal perdition. The way this thread started off certainly suggests that attitude.
Certainly, some of the philosophical arguments about the nature of the origins of life have influenced me. I am not particularly impressed by Michael Behe, or William Dembski, or, generally speaking, by the Discovery Institute in particular. But I will consider such arguments. I don't think a priori that they must all be false.
The idea of a higher intelligence or a fundamental level of causality is not at all the same as believing that the scriptural account of creation is literally true. As I said to start off with, a fairly non-specific acceptance of the existence of God or gods was basic to the origin of Western philosophy, as well as semitic religion. When you simply declare it obsolete, mainly on the basis that you don't like religion, there is a fair amount of intellectual superstructure that goes with it.
There is a whole new type of argument from design. One is the cosmological anthropic principle. That was devised by phycisists, not funadamentalists.
The other is the DNA as a code, which was developed by computer systems engineers and information systems theorists. These are not even religious, let alone fundamentalist, but they severly undermine one of the principle assumptions of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, namely, the nature and the role of chance in evolutionary development.
But at the end of the day I am a pluralist. I think there is a scientific accounts, various religious accounts, and a number of different ways of conceiving the question. I don't think that Darwin's is the last word or the only one.
Exactly what could it be about them that would lead to falsification of the theory?
Can you name one species that isn't unique amongst species?
Again - are we talking about creation science - which has never been anything other than completely absurd - or the belief in a creator - which is a matter of personal taste and it's absurdity varies from person to person?
Can you provide one quote from either Dawkins or the OP suggesting those who provide challenges for evolution are doomed to perdition?
Well, this is another strawman really - you don't have to declare something obsolete in order to understand that it's irrelevent to a scientific debate unless evidence can be provided for it.
Supernatural actors on or in the universe?
Only if you think chance cannot produce code. Itself a dogmatic presumption.
Nobody thinks Darwin had the last word, or the only one. A lot has been discovered since. But no such discoveries have altered the foundations of his theory - certainly not the apparent challenges you have outlined here.
You continually ignore questions I put to you - which I find really rude.
The Burgess Shales were regarded by Darwin as presenting difficulties for his theory, insofar as an enormous diversity of forms appeared very rapidly, in geological terms, for which there were no obvious precedent.
They are still the source of some controversy.
The part of the theory that it threatens is the idea of changes arising over very long periods by the gradual accretion of changes. It is very hard to see how all these different and unique forms would appear in very short order by such a process. (I am not suggesting that 'a designer' did anything, incidentally.)
Every species is unique - that is why they are called 'species'. H Sapiens is nevertheless easily distinguishable from all other species, on many grounds. I ought not to have to name them, but it would include, for example, symbolic language, mathematics, self-consciousness, use of technology, building of artificial environments.
H Sapiens is not only unique as a species, but as a phenomenon. Nothing else on earth is even remotely close to H Sapiens, in terms of capabilities and faculties. I am puzzled by why this does not appear self-evident.
I am not talking about creation science. As I have said, you equate anything religious, or even spiritual, with creation science, and then vilify it.
The whole of Western culture was based on various religious, mythological and philosophical ideas.
Certainly they must be re-interpreted in light of what we now know. It doesn't mean they must, or can, just be swept away. What should they be replaced with, do you think?
The origins of Western culture, literature, religion and philosophy are not creationism, nor a personal predilection. There is a widespread 'crisis of meaninglessness' in the world today which no amount of scientific progress or economic prosperity seems to be able to address. This is a spiritual problem and it requires a spiritual solution.
Alright then, I was speaking figuratively, of course. Dawkins doesn't believe in perdition. What he says all the time is that if someone believes anything religious whatever, he or she must be mistaken or deluded. That is why he called his book 'The God Delusion'. He is notoriously intolerant of anyone or anything whom he regards as religious.
(Personally, I think the reason he is so uptight about it is because it is something he sees in himself. He has a complex about it of some kind. But I won't put forward a serious argument about that.)
It is quite true that one ought not to consider factors outside the scope of science, when dealing with a scientific question. But I refuse to acknowledge that the nature of the human being is purely a scientific question. It is not just a scientific debate. So if you say 'this is a scientific issue, and anyone who challenges it on religious grounds is creationist', you don't sound scientific to me. You just sound prejudiced against anything religious. As I have said, I am a pluralist. I will listen to many viewpoints, but an wary of those who claim a monopoly.
Well, regrettably not. There is no chance whatever of code being produced by chance,
Yockey is not a creationist, nor a religious writer. However a religious derivation of this theory was debated on the Freethinkers and Rationalists forum for five years, and I really don't think it was defeated.
I hope I have addressed this concern.
I do think religion is nonsense
...although science can demonstrate the falsehood of the design hypothesis, no evidence against that demonstration can be regarded as scientific support for the hypothesis. Only the falsehood, and not the truth, of ID can count as a scientific claim. Something about the nature of the conclusion, that it involves the purposes of a supernatural being, rules it out as science.
The problem cannot be just that the idea of a designer is too vague, and that nothing is being said about how he works. When Darwin proposed the theory of natural selection, neither he nor anyone else had any idea of how heredity worked, or what could cause a mutation that was observable in the phenotype and was heritable. The proposal was simply that something purposeless was going on that had these effects, permitting natural selection to operate. This is no less vague than the hypothesis that the mutations available for selection are influenced by the actions of a designer. So it must be the element of purpose that is the real offender.
I believe there is a reason for this, and that it depends on a premise that, though completely valid, does not have the consequences that are usually drawn from it. The premise is that the purposes and actions of God, if there is a god, are not themselves, and could not possibly be, the object of a scientific theory in the way that the mechanisms of heredity have become the object of a scientific theory since Darwin. We do not have much scientific understanding of the creative process even when the creator is human; perhaps such creativity too is beyond the reach of science. Leaving that aside: the idea of a divine creator or designer is clearly the idea of a being whose acts and decisions are not explainable by natural law.
Something about the nature of the conclusion, that it involves the purposes of a supernatural being, rules it out as science.
The proposal was simply that something purposeless was going on that had these effects, permitting natural selection to operate. This is no less vague than the hypothesis that the mutations available for selection are influenced by the actions of a designer. So it must be the element of purpose that is the real offender.
We do not have much scientific understanding of the creative process even when the creator is human; perhaps such creativity too is beyond the reach of science.
This clarifies a lot of points about this debate. I have no allegiance with 'fundamentalist creationism' or even 'Intelligent Design' in the way that evangelical Christians understand the concept. Yet if even any hint of the idea of purpose, reason or design in nature is suggested, the scientific side of the debate (or some of them anyway) will immediately say 'see, you're a Creationist' or 'this is just another ID smokescreen.' And I think this is why.
Darwin himself had to focus on 'natural causes', as distinct from 'special creation', and natural causes really have to be discerned on the basis of a principle that can be empirically demonstrated, at least in principle, with reference to the biological evidence.
Whereas any consideration, not even of anything so naive as 'special creation', but of any kind of 'underlying intelligence' in the sense that was always traditionally understood, and even arguably underlies the concept of 'scientific law' itself, must be rejected on the same basis as creationism.
When it comes to apparently counter-intuitive adapations, such as altruism, various flaming hoops must be leapt through to preserve the sanctity of the simple principle by which everything must be explained.
But whatever symbolic value is found in any of them, if it can't be plotted on the X/Y axis of Darwinian chance and necessity, then it must be rejected at the outset - because it's not scientific.
It is because by declaring human nature a biological phenomenon, and subject only to scientific explanation, this is more or less a universal acid for all traditional value systems and philosophies, (as Daniel Dennett identified in Darwin's Dangerous Idea).
But then, you have to seriously consider that it is one thing to say that the Theory of Evolution shows that the Bible is not literally true. It is another thing to say that biological science shows that life evolved with no 'greater purpose'. Yet this is the claim that is being made.
It is because the conclusion is not based on any demonstrable evidence.
But what would that consist of? If there were, for example, some principles other than adaptive necessity acting on the basis of chance variations, how would it show up? What would the evidence be that the processes that give rise to living beings tend towards certain kinds of outcomes as opposed to others? I can't really see how you can test for it.
