the two category fallacy-theistic evolution debunked

skeptic griggsy · 02-05-2007 01:39PM #1

Creationists are so right that evolution dethrones their divine king as causalism needs no divine backing.One can conflate the Bible with evolution, but not theism with evolution.Natural selection is not some neutral matter that needs divine intervention to work wonders galore. It is a power of its own.It would be the new Omphalos argument that God deceives us into thinking that selection is such a power.Causalism doesn't have any goals or purposes,but works nevertheless whereas teleology means goals and purposes,thus contradicting,not supplementing, selection, To obviate this plain contradiction,anaturalists concocted the two category classification of origins[ causalism] or contingency and creation[teleology],but that begs the question of the second category. Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. He might be wrong! Logic is the bane of theists.

Dades · 02-05-2007 01:43PM

Closed - at least until your other threads have shown purpose.
Don't make me close another.

Edit:

Reopened...
The OP is back, and looking for comments.

skeptic griggsy · 08-05-2007 06:09PM

And Phillip Kitcher notes:"For we easily might take life as it has been generated on our planet as the handiwork or a bungling or a chillingly indifferent,god." The teleological argument begs the question of a caring god who had us in mind when really we are the outcome of mindless evolutionary forces. The argument as the Occam shows requires ad hoc explanations while natural selection fits.[I recommend Kitcher's "Living with Darwin" whence this quote.]:cool:

Zombrex · 09-05-2007 12:40AM

In English griggsy, in English

5uspect · 09-05-2007 09:40AM

Okay, these little speeches are getting a little bit annoying. Why start so many threads? Why not just take part in the discussion instead of preaching to the already converted?

Tim Robbins · 09-05-2007 10:22AM

skeptic griggsy wrote:

And Phillip Kitcher notes:"For we easily might take life as it has been generated on our planet as the handiwork or a bungling or a chillingly indifferent,god." The teleological argument begs the question of a caring god who had us in mind when really we are the outcome of mindless evolutionary forces. The argument as the Occam shows requires ad hoc explanations while natural selection fits.[I recommend Kitcher's "Living with Darwin" whence this quote.]:cool:

1. "For we easily might take life as it has been generated on our planet as the handiwork or a bungling or a chillingly indifferent,god." is not the telelogical argument.

2. What's wrong with "ad hoc" explanations? The explanations are either valid / invalid or subjective?

3. What does "natural selection fits" mean?

4. What is objective in your post? It doesn't make much sense to me. Are you trying to propose something for us to debate or discuss? If that's the case try and make your points a bit clearer. It's hard to ascertain what you are talking about or what your opinion is. Most people post to either debate or argue or look for other people's feedback or experience on a range of issues?
What are you doing?

InFront · 13-05-2007 10:39PM

skeptic griggsy wrote:

Natural selection is not some neutral matter that needs divine intervention to work wonders galore. It is a power of its own.

No, it isn't.
Even from an atheist's point of view, it must be accepted that natural selection arises from something else in the physical creation of the planet and the atmosphere, and that from the big bang. And, possibly the big bang was controlled entirely by - who knows - one of many big crunches, perhaps.

Whatever you believe gave rise to the creation of life, natural selection needed intervention, a parent event.
I'm sure even some atheists are tempted to describe such intervention as divine - in a non-religious sense - whereby such enormous mystery and simplicity is the foundation of all things.
Atheist or theist, natural selection does require a contributor, something to contract, establish and perpetuate it.

Dades · 14-05-2007 12:10AM

InFront wrote:

Whatever you believe gave rise to the creation of life, natural selection needed intervention, a parent event.

Aren't "intervention" and a "parent event" completely different things?

I'm no expert but I see nothing within natural selection to indicate "intervention". That why they call it 'natural' I guess.

Tim Robbins · 14-05-2007 10:09AM

InFront wrote:

No, it isn't.
Even from an atheist's point of view, it must be accepted that natural selection arises from something else in the physical creation of the planet and the atmosphere, and that from the big bang. And, possibly the big bang was controlled entirely by - who knows - one of many big crunches, perhaps.

Whatever you believe gave rise to the creation of life, natural selection needed intervention, a parent event.
I'm sure even some atheists are tempted to describe such intervention as divine - in a non-religious sense - whereby such enormous mystery and simplicity is the foundation of all things.
Atheist or theist, natural selection does require a contributor, something to contract, establish and perpetuate it.

I with agree with The Atheist, "intervention" and "parent event" are different things. Also what exactly do you mean by both?
Intervention - is that God, or Divine or what?
Parent event - is that a cause and natural selection being the event?

I would say it just comes down whether you believe natural selection was intended or not.

Myksyk · 14-05-2007 12:29PM

Yes ... 'intervention', 'contributor', 'establish' etc all are loaded to some degree in that they imply an intended cause (and therefore something with intention) rather than a natural cause.

Even so, the beginning of natural selection and the beginning of the universe are not necessarily causally related except in fairly obvious ways (e.g. temporally). Regardless of the 'cause' of the beginning of the universe you cannot then say that events emerging from it were also intended; unless you believe in fate/destiny etc. The evidence suggests that the phenomenon of natural selection is based on an initial chance physical/chemical event which then proceeded, because of the nature of the chemistry involved, in a non-random way.

InFront · 15-05-2007 08:19AM

The Atheist wrote:

Aren't "intervention" and a "parent event" completely different things?

Yes, the intervening consequences (things that effect or affect it) are what perpetuates natural selection, the parent event is what gives rise to it. The question of deliberate intervention is something entirely different and I'm not going to argue it, I'm just responding to the point that natural selection is a power in its own right, which isn't exactly true.

skeptic griggsy · 15-05-2007 12:58PM

The Atheist has it right and he makes the point of this thread.:cool: .There is no need postulating God. Natural selection, a form of causalism, does not need ad hoc assumptions as it shows nicely what happens in the creation of new life forms. Ad hoc ones are ones that demand more assumptions, here only guesses come forth for God.The reason for so many threads is to drive home the point that theists have no basis whatsoever for theism.There is no need for any sort of transcendence- supernatural or paranormal[ See Paul Kurtz's "The Transcendental Temptation."]

skeptic griggsy · 01-08-2007 10:46AM

However, we can well thank theistic evolutionists for helping us combat special creationism! While they do indeed obscure evolution with mere verbiage, they do show the nonsense of special creationism.

5uspect · 01-08-2007 10:50AM

skeptic griggsy wrote:

However, we can well thank theistic evolutionists for helping us combat special creationism! While they do indeed obscure evolution with mere verbiage, they do show the nonsense of special creationism.

But by giving the theistic evolutionists an inch won't the creationists take the proverbial mile? Won't they just use that to further justify their nonsense to lay people?

skeptic griggsy · 28-08-2007 05:22PM

Suspect, yes, we cannot give them an inch but we can appreciate their showing that special creationism is goofy.How might we further this argument, this challenge! And teleological arguments, including the probability and fine-tuning ones , beg the question that God had us in mind! Y'all are wonderful!

Fanny Cradock · 28-08-2007 07:29PM

My goodness, your posts are difficult to decipher, griggsy.

So you have a problem with Christians encroaching on your hallowed ground of evolution? Despite the title, I've yet to see any debunking going on here, just ranting. Come to think of it, it really sounds like you are threatened by the notion that a Christian doesn't believe that the world is c. 10,000 years old.

skeptic griggsy · 25-11-2007 04:49PM

No,Fanny, I applaud theistic evolutionists [ No,Suspect,I don't think so.I am with Dawkins on combatting any creationism.]but find their blend contradictory: they put out the front door what they bring throught the back one as Amiel Rossow@Talk Reason notes about Kenneth Miller, American defender of evolution.
Notice I maintain that science shows no purpose while theology-teleology- shows purpose. Science gainsays metaphysics.
From the side of religion, there is no contradiction; from the side of science there sure is!
Try to meet this challenge! I mean to provoke discussion, not a dogma! As a fallibilist, I recognize that others just might find my points wrong.[ On the matter of evolution, no, for there that is settled,yet no dogma.]:cool:
As noted, others here further the challlenge.

Fanny Cradock · 25-11-2007 09:49PM

Good to see you back, Griggsy.

Anyway, 'logic is the bane of theists' :rolleyes:

That made me laugh

skeptic griggsy · 26-11-2007 01:32AM

Fanny, might you answer the challenge? Science shows no goals and the Ockham puts God out of range. How then can one aver God without Him being the God of the gaps? Do you merely reply- let there be light, God did it?
People feel that God has to be there. A mere feeling and guess.:cool:

skeptic griggsy · 30-11-2007 12:27PM

For an opposing view read Michael Ruse's 'Darwin and Design" and Francisco Jose Ayala's book on design.For supporting views, read Dawkin's "The God Delusion" and Philip Kitcher's book on design.
Design begs the question in assuming we were in the thought of God while selection did not have us in mind. The former is teleology; the latter,dysteology. They contradict each other.

Futhermore, teleology violates the Razor:eek: and adds nothing to anything. See the ignostic-Ockham thread.:cool:

skeptic griggsy · 26-05-2008 11:04AM

The weight of the evidence shows no teleology period. So, theistic evolution does not even get off the ground. Natural selection is its own boss, and as such shows no plans, so one cannot actually posit a divine plan behind it. That would make a contradiction. [unless William Provine is right that it has natural bosses].That bane!
No teleological force decides beforehand the outcome of evolutionary ones.

calahans · 26-05-2008 04:40PM

skeptic griggsy wrote: »

Creationists are so right that evolution dethrones their divine king as causalism needs no divine backing..

Creationists do not posit this.

skeptic griggsy wrote: »

One can conflate the Bible with evolution, but not theism with evolution.
..

How so? I could believe that God started the whole thing off and left evolution to bring about intelligent beings - I'm just giving an example of how a God could do this.

skeptic griggsy wrote: »

Natural selection is not some neutral matter that needs divine intervention to work wonders galore. It is a power of its own.

Natural selection is not matter but a process.

skeptic griggsy wrote: »

It would be the new Omphalos argument that God deceives us into thinking that selection is such a power.Causalism doesn't have any goals or purposes,but works nevertheless whereas teleology means goals and purposes,thus contradicting,not supplementing, selection, To obviate this plain contradiction,anaturalists concocted the two category classification of origins[ causalism] or contingency and creation[teleology],but that begs the question of the second category. Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. He might be wrong! Logic is the bane of theists

I think I agree with what you are saying here. You know a lot of terms but need a vast amount of work on your grammer. I dont say this to offend, just if you want to discuss things you need to present them in a clear manner.

God bless

AtomicHorror · 27-05-2008 02:36AM

InFront wrote: »

Whatever you believe gave rise to the creation of life, natural selection needed intervention, a parent event.

Natural selection is not active. It's not a force nor a power. It is no more a force or power than a wall is. It is merely the tendency of the unfit to fail to survive within a given environmental context. It is a probabilistic boundry with fuzzy edges.

That being said, a hypothetical timespace-transcendent being would have a full awareness of the influence of natural selection, mutation, gene flow, drift... presumably all set up by the creator. The theists can very comfortably suggest that God simply inserted matter into that system knowing that it would create humans eventually.

Nothing I have seen in the theory of Evolution specifically prohibits the existence of a creator God. The theory doesn't extend to abiogenesis (though abiogenesis will likely invoke darwinian natural selection and other elements of evolution), and abiogenesis is not currently understood well enough to be considered a theory itself. Given that the Big Bang theory is more fundemental than the hypothetical Theory of Abiogenesis, and the theist can still insert God in "before" it or outside of it it seems to me that there may never be a theory which denies them their faith.

So long as faith does not impede science it matters little to me.

AtomicHorror · 27-05-2008 02:48AM

skeptic griggsy wrote: »

The reason for so many threads is to drive home the point that theists have no basis whatsoever for theism.

Why do you need to convince them of our way? It's certainly not the easier path, by my reckoning. Since we all end up the same way, what difference does it make that they think a certain way?

I challenge those whose weakness of faith leads them to attack things that they fear will weaken their faith further. Fundementalists, literalists... but theistic scientists, if they're true to the scientific method and keep their faith where it belongs, are no threat.

skeptic griggsy · 12-07-2008 04:33AM

Some declare that natural theology is dead, but philosophers still debate it. So do I. It is hardly a matter of wanting others to convert but to make matters pellucid [ crystal clear]. I desire to set the record straight as does Dawkins and other new atheists. Now if others give up their superstition, so much the better!
As a naturalist, I find the presumption of naturalism that all causes are not only efficient but necessary, primary and sufficient. Efficient causes are the sufficient reason, contrary to Lieibniz. This neither begs the question nor sandbags theists but demands evidence to overcome it just as Einstein overcame Newton.
One can suppose any maybe this or maybe that but one should put forth the evidence therefor. Maybe gremlins are actually behind mechanical failures and demons are the cause of my double depression and schizotypal personality disorder [ Do pills put those demons out of work?].
Again, as Richard Carrier [ Sense and Goodness], my historian/ philospher friend puts it in an email to me, it is the weight of evidence that shows no teleology at work- no mind had us in mind! And it begs the question to aver design in that one assumes an intention when all nature shows are patterns that people use as the pareidolia [ like seeing Yeshua in a tortilla] that a caring ,super mind had us in mind. That is John Hick's aspect notion at work.
Why violate the Razor with a convoluted ad hoc pseudo-explanation that is no more than God did it, as the ignostic argument so shows.
Theistic evolutionists are welcome to their notion just as are any who reckon that their superstition is at work! Maybe the broken glass mirror is behind ones failures rather than ones laziness.

skeptic griggsy · 08-09-2008 03:11PM

I call it the atelic argument that since science shows no cosmic teleology, no divinity need apply to cause things! The weight of evidence show no teleology as Ernst Mayr so notes in 'What Evolution Is" :"Selection is not teleological [ no goals]. Indeed how could an eliminative process be teleological? Selection does not have a long term goal. It is a process repeated anew in every generation. The frequency of elimination of evolutionary lineages, as well as their frequent change in direction, is inconsistent with the mistaken claim that selection is a teleological process.Also there is no known genetic mechanism that could produce goal-directed evolutionary processes."

That is a scientific fact rather than a philosophical point as Paul Draper so notes.:D
Furthermore, to see teleology is to make the pariedolia of seeing mind behind nature, which shows patterns, not designs. And also to see design is to beg the question.
Why violate the Razor when natural selection not only is the efficient cause but also the necessary, primary and sufficient cause. It is the sufficient reason. [ See the thread the ignostic-Ockham.]

Soul Winner · 11-09-2008 02:43PM

skeptic griggsy wrote: »

I call it the atelic argument that since science shows no cosmic teleology, no divinity need apply to cause things! The weight of evidence show no teleology as Ernst Mayr so notes in 'What Evolution Is" :"Selection is not teleological [ no goals]. Indeed how could an eliminative process be teleological? Selection does not have a long term goal. It is a process repeated anew in every generation. The frequency of elimination of evolutionary lineages, as well as their frequent change in direction, is inconsistent with the mistaken claim that selection is a teleological process.Also there is no known genetic mechanism that could produce goal-directed evolutionary processes."
That is a scientific fact rather than a philosophical point as Paul Draper so notes.:D
Furthermore, to see teleology is to make the pariedolia of seeing mind behind nature, which shows patterns, not designs. And also to see design is to beg the question.
Why violate the Razor when natural selection not only is the efficient cause but also the necessary, primary and sufficient cause. It is the sufficient reason. [ See the thread the ignostic-Ockham.]

How can Natural Selection be the efficient, primary and sufficient cause for everything in nature without also being teleological (i.e. having a pre-intended outcome)? If Natural Selection is the efficient, primary and sufficient cause of the development of the elephant’s trunk for instance, then why does it (the trunk) end up becoming an efficient eating aid and water dispenser and not just a useless burdensome appendage? If no goal was intended in evolving a trunk then why does it end up being a trunk that does the things it does which benefits rather than hinders the survival of the elephant?

If Natural Selection is the efficient, primary and sufficient cause of the chameleon’s camouflage, then why is this camouflage so efficient at what it does if this efficiency was also not pre-intended as the outcome? Surely there is a reason for chameleon’s camouflage? The reasons being that it protects it from predators and conceals it from prey. Both beneficial for survival not detrimental to it. Why so if not a desired outcome?

Also the cheetah’s speed? The crocodile's stealth? The aerodynamics in birds? The claws of the lion? And so on. If there is a reason for them (and we hear all the time in nature programs that they have their advantages for a reason, i.e. to catch gazelles, to catch fish, to ambush prey and so on) and if Natural Selection is the efficient, primary and sufficient cause then the implementation of them must have been purposed.

Are all the predatory and defensive mechanisms present in the creatures of this world a purely incidental byproduct of goalless Natural Selection? Surely if Natural Selection is the efficient, primary and sufficient cause of all these then it must follow that every single outcome of these causes (i.e. efficient mechanisms for survival) that it always seems to end up with, could not be incidental.

If what you say about Natural Selection is true then these outcomes are purely incidental aren’t they? This is harder to believe for the theist than believing that God did it is for the atheist, especially when this idea is supported vigorously even fanatically by people who have a real purpose in doing so, which said purpose is to take God out of the picture completely. The same people who still don't even understand all the processes that are evident in nature yet. These people are to science what fundamentalists are to religion.

robindch · 11-09-2008 03:41PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

if Natural Selection is the efficient, primary and sufficient cause then the implementation of them must have been purposed.

Nope. Natural selection weeding out poorly-reproducing organisms needs no "purpose" any more than something falling in a straight-line requires a deity with a ruler.

Soul Winner · 11-09-2008 05:41PM

robindch wrote: »

Nope. Natural selection weeding out poorly-reproducing organisms needs no "purpose" any more than something falling in a straight-line requires a deity with a ruler.

If Natural Selection has no goals then what is the point of this weeding out? To what end does it weed out? If no end is required or needed then why not leave the weeds alone? Why does it occur to Natural Selection to weed out? When I weed out my garden the end result is to have a nice looking garden. Without this end result as a motivational factor prior to my weeding, I see no point in doing it in the first place, in fact it wouldn’t even occur to me to do it. I go to work with the end result of getting paid, but if one day my employer said to me that he will no longer pay me then I will no longer go to work for him.

Symbiosis i.e. mutually beneficial relationships in nature are a good example of this. Sea Anemones and Clown fish have a purpose in how they relate to and live with each other, and both benefit from their symbiotic relationship. Nile crocs and birds that lay their eggs near the croc’s nests also have this mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. There is a purpose for their behavior. How does Natural Selection explain this purpose since it has no goals? Why do caterpillars get cocooned before they can become butterflies? There is a reason for the cocoon and if there is a reason for it then there is a goal to achieve. The goal being to become a butterfly. To go from larva to butterfly is a process, and processes have causes and effects, these effects once attained result in the goal of the process, which in this case is to produce butterflies or maybe it’s to produce caterpillars, or are they just there because they are there?

The point being that in nature we observe many types of behavior and each type has a reason for it. Mating is done in order to reproduce, eating is done in order to grow, develop and survive, excretion is done in order to rid the body of toxins and unwanted/un-needed waste, and on one could go. All these processes have reasons and goals to achieve and if any one of them is not performed then the end result will always be detrimental to survival, but once the reason for these behavioral patterns is attained then the end result (which is the pre-desired result or goal) is achieved, then its purpose is fulfilled and the cycle starts over again.

Dades · 11-09-2008 05:56PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

If Natural Selection has no goals then what is the point of this weeding out? To what end does it weed out? If no end is required or needed then why not leave the weeds alone? Why does it occur to Natural Selection to weed out?

You realise that you are trying to apply goals and objectives to something non-sentient?

Natural Selection is just the name given to occurance that sees less favourable genetic traits disappear over time, and more favourable ones survive. There is nobody at the helm.

You might as well ask what's the point of water boiling at 100°C.

robindch · 11-09-2008 06:35PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

If Natural Selection has no goals then what is the point of this weeding out? To what end does it weed out?

No reason. Same as there's no purpose to a river flowing downhill, or a hotair balloon floating up. It just happens.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If no end is required or needed then why not leave the weeds alone? Why does it occur to Natural Selection to weed out?

Natural selection is a process, it's not a sentient entity capable of expressing intention. If things didn't die for whatever reasons, then the world would overpopulate in a couple of generations. Natural selection is the name given to the -- frankly fairly obvious in retrospect -- observation that organisms that are more successful at having kids will be more common than organisms that are less successful at having kids.

And if being more successful at having kids means co-operating with other organisms to achieve that end, then there's plenty of that around too. It would be difficult to imagine humanity existing as it does now if we didn't have a symbiotic relationships with, say, mangoes, rice, spuds and cattle. Amongst much else of course.

As I was going to say in the previous post, you're making a basic mistake in thinking that things must have a "purpose" in order for them to happen. They need not.

the two category fallacy-theistic evolution debunked

Comments