Re: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?

On Apr 1, 10:45 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 1, 7:27 pm, "sss1000" <ssha...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Apr 1, 6:41 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 1, 12:53 pm, "sss1000" <ssha...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On Mar 28, 11:46 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

-- [snip]

My name is still Steven. I said that some evolutionists thought there
was an evolutionary benefit to religion. I also said that some
evolutionists are, themselves, believers in God and practitioners of
some religion, and not hostile to religion. I can think of two
reasons why nonreligious evolutionists might be hostile to religion,
even if it arose as an effect of psychological traits selected by the
environment: first, religion might be a side effect of other traits, a
"misfiriing" of otherwise useful mental habits that we should watch
out for and try to correct, and second, even if religion were useful
in our ancient environment of evolutionary adaption, we are now living
in a different environment, and some traits (e.g. a sweet tooth and
easy storage of fat) that were once useful are no longer quite so
useful to us.

But why has this misfiring occurred in so many people, and throughout
human history? Is it possible it is not a misfiring but a beneficial
aspect of evolution. Why does man, the most advanced life form,
appear to be the only species to be religious?

Assuming that religion is a "misfiring," the result of misapplying
mental habits that are useful in other matters, presumably the
religious impulse survives because those mental habits are useful in
other matters (e.g. many things that happen do happen because someone
wanted them to happen, and it is useful to expect this; the religious
extension of this is that, e.g. life, the universe, and everything
happened because Someone wanted them to), and religions themselves
survive because they have evolved (culturally, not biologically) to
take advantage of human mental quirks and cater to human needs. It
is, I think, possible that the religious impulse and a susceptibility
to religion are themselves selected features of the human mind. This
would not mean that any particular claim of a religious tradition
about prehistory, biology or cosmology must be true, of course. To be
less vague, even if some religious claims are true, and beneficial to
believe, it would not follow that all religious claims are true.
Religions are not noted for admitting (as science has more often than
not done) that some of its claims will in time turn out to be false,
but this does not mean that it would not be correct for them to do so.

Just to be nitpicking, "advanced" in evolutionary theory means simply
"[more] changed from the last common ancestor of the species being
compared." It does not mean more intelligent, or more aware, or even
necessarily more complex. There is a case to be made that whales are
more advanced than we are (multiple stomachs, loss of hind limbs,
adaptions for marine life, etc.). But I doubt whales have the
abstract intelligence to wonder if they exist because Someone wanted
them to exist. It would be difficult to have religious ideas if one
doesn't have the intellectual capacity to have abstract ideas at all,
and it at least appears that sustained abstract thought is unique to
humans.

Agree.




I am uncertain as to whether any religion is true (of course, just to
complicate things, the original form of Buddhism -- usually considered
a religion -- doesn't exactly claim to be "true" in the same sense
that Islam or Christianity do). I tend towards compatibilism on the
question of free will: we are free to the extent that we are able to
rationally perceive our own interests and act to achieve what we want,
but we neither create our own interests nor do we have unfettered
ability to "choose what to want." It's an old position, advocated by
everyone from Calvinist theologians to Daniel C. Dennett. Dennett, in
case you are interested, is the author of _Freedom Evolves_, which is
an attempt to explain how "the kinds of free will worth wanting" could
arise through evolutionary processes.

Steven: I don't know your background, but it appears that you may
believe in materialism. If so, how does free will fit in?

How does free will fit into dualism, or supernaturalism? The problem
with free will is not naturalism, or evolution, but the principle of
cause and effect. Either our choices are constrained and caused by
our internal mental states (our "desires, beliefs, and intentions"),
or they are not. If they are, then our actions are
"determined" (directly, by our DB&I, or indirectly by whatever causes
led to our current DB&I). If they are not, then we have a different
problem: in what sense are our actions "ours," except in the sense
that they happen to happen when we're around? Normally, while we like
to think our will is undetermined, we also like to think that our
character can be inferred from, and gives rise to, our actions: there
are things we will do, if the situation arises, and others we will
never do, because we're that sort of person. This problem arises
whether there is a materialistic explanation for mind and will or not,
it seems to me.

Are desires, beliefs, and intentions solely a product of ones physical
makeup and/or physical forces acting on the individual? time.)

One of the books on my bookshelf is Ron Rosenbaum's _Explaining
Hitler_. One of the questions it considers is how the cherubic
toddler in the cover photo became the genocidal tyrant of history.
Some of the explainers insist on deterministic accounts: Hitler caught
syphilis from a Jewish prostitute (no one knows if this is true), and
so decided to kill every Jew in Europe, or his mother died under the
ministrations of a Jewish physician (this is true), so he decided to
kill every Jew in Europe (except that physician). Others, contrarily,
insist that explanations of why Hitler became HITLER are impossible
and impermissible. The latter position is easy enough to understand,
and goes back to antideterministic concepts of free will: if something
caused Hitler to be the monster he became, then he is as innocent as
any artillery shell with no choice of its trajectory or target. But
why the former position? Consider: if Hitler at any time could just
have "decided" to incorporate the Jews as full members of Nazi society
rather than murder them, no matter what his prejudices and
experiences, then the filmmaker who spent years making a nine-hour
documentary on the Holocaust could equally well decide to turn around
and make a twelve-hour documentary denying the Holocaust. What value
free will, if it's so free that our choices don't follow from our
character?

Don't understand your point.

As far as I can tell, supernaturalism can answer this problem only by
granting an exception not merely to the laws of nature but to those of
logic as well. And if you're going to ask for exceptions to the
principles of logic, then why not just believe that -- illogical as it
may seem -- free will is also compatible with materialism? Now, as
I've noted above, I tend to take a compatibilist view: our choices are
caused, but the causes are part of us, and therefore our choices,
unless constrained by external force or internal derangements like
drunkenness or mental illness, are "free." Note, by the way, that our
choices need not be (indeed, in light of quantum indeterminacy,
probably cannot be) purely deterministic, but again, I tend to agree
with Daniel C. Dennett that mere indeterminacy cannot by itself be "a
kind of free will worth having," although it can play a role in such
free will.

Not clear what you're trying to say hear either. Do humans act purely
based on their physical makeup and physical laws? If so, then they
clearly don't have free will and are also not morally responsible for
their actions. If not, then there must be something non-physical that
controls their actions.




If you wish to discuss this further, you could, I suppose, start a new
thread, defining what you mean by "free will" (it's hard to argue when
we can't figure out what it is we're arguing about), and setting forth
why you think there are problems reconciling free will with common
descent or natural selection.

Could you please explain what the ultimate purpose of life is: The
pursuit of knowledge?

How does this concern your original question? I do not recall
pontificating on the ultimate purpose of life, although I do not see
pursuing knowledge to be sillier than pursuing "tangible material
benefits." Would you prefer to declare that better consumer
electronics and military weapons are the ultimate purpose of life?

You're of course correct. This was not my original question. When the
tangible/intangible benefits issue comes up, the impression I got was
that a significant number of respondents believe mainly in intangible
benefits of evolution and that the pursuit of knowledge (or science)
is above all else. Is this in line with Darwinian evolution? Have
species been seeking the pursuit of knowledge at all costs? Doesn't
Darwinian evolution teach that procreation is more important, thereby
passing one's genes on?

Natural selection is not a moral principle. Evolutionary theory
describes how life has changed over time; it does not prescribe a code
of conduct or tell us how we ought to order either our societies or
our lives. Evolution isn't the sort of thing that can have goals
towards which we can strive or purposes which we can serve (or, if
we're feeling contrary, flout). Even if our moral principles grew out
of natural selection, that doesn't mean that natural selection is,
itself, one of those moral principles, any more than a sculptor's
chisel is part of a statue, or sun, clouds, and the wind are parts of
a glacier. Humans *do* pursue abstract knowledge and an understanding
of the universe for its own sake (not "at all costs," to be sure, but
often at some considerable cost); it's part of human nature. It
doesn't seem to be part of the nature of other species, but then,
we're not other species, we're our own species.

Steven: You seem to be acknowledging a uniquness of humans compared
to other species. I share this view. You also appear to believe in
moral principles. I also share this view. You state that humans
pursue knowledge for its own sake. I agree with this and would add
that it usually helps them in some way and/or gives them sense of
awe. Sometimes, they pursue it for pride, as you've probably
encountered when dealing with some scientists.

What is not clear is what the basis for any moral principles are
given a purely evolutionist, materialistic universe. Merriam's lists
the adjective moral as meaning:

1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior :
ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of
right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right
behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical
judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a
moral agent>

So moral has to do with right and wrong. What ultimately establishes
right and wrong? Evolution would teach that advancing ones own life
and offspring are the ultimate rights. Anything that counterracts
those is wrong. In a purely materialistic, evolutionary world, where
is the room for compassion, charity, and other moral attributes?

sss1000

-- [snip]

-- Steven J.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Couple questions for evolution experts
    ... >> process of evolution was occuring, did the human female birth canal ... If it were beneficial for the survival of the species, ... Why is it such a guessing game with humans? ... many atheists agree with those religious persons that evolution and religion are not alternatives. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Couple questions for evolution experts
    ... while this long process of evolution was occuring, ... If it were beneficial for the survival of the species, ... Why is it such a guessing game with humans? ... only alternative - religion - is unthinkable. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Couple questions for evolution experts
    ... while this long process of evolution was occuring, ... If it were beneficial for the survival of the species, ... Why is it such a guessing game with humans? ... only alternative - religion - is unthinkable. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: "Creation, Evolution Seminar"
    ... religion is myth based superstition and the ... shown that morality is mobile and mutable: ... a behavioral response shaped by evolution to ennsure ... would predelict towards species survival. ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)
  • Re: Double Standard
    ... work of a fiction writer whose creativity exceeds George Lucas, ... were using dry irony) I think that makes it a far superior read than ... And yet here you are reading stuff concocted by evolution ... confined to religion, my friend. ...
    (talk.origins)