The Delusion of Darwinian Natural Law

Acton Institute ^ | 12/27/03 | Marc D. Guerra

[bdeaner]

A very provocative and persuasive thesis. What Guerra is concerned with, in short, is biological reductionism -- the reduction of the meaning of human morality to more basic or simple processes of biology, e.g., natural selection. Such reductionism, of course, risks undermining the very foundations of morality, which in itself often goes against the grain of biological impulses originally designed for biological adaptation.

[drlevy88]

How does one ever tot up the score for such a philosophy anyhow? Is it the gross number of lives without any thought as to their quality? Suppose by a given 'morality' all humans die but cockroaches multiply by a factor of 1000; does that balance out the score?

[bdeaner]

How does one ever tot up the score for such a philosophy anyhow? Is it the gross number of lives without any thought as to their quality? Suppose by a given 'morality' all humans die but cockroaches multiply by a factor of 1000; does that balance out the score?

That's an excellent point. By the standards of natural selection, the cockroach would have to be the most moral creature on the face of the earth -- which is absurd.

[Dimensio]

By the standards of natural selection, the cockroach would have to be the most moral creature on the face of the earth -- which is absurd.

Which is why it is absurd to assume that natural selection says anything about morality. Unfortunately, many creationists argue against evolution specifically because they insist that it must be making some kind of moral point.

[drlevy88]

Belief that evolution is the "define-all" of life, is making a moral point.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

What's even more ironic is the fact that "Morality" is theorized as evolving in relation to mankinds instinct for self preservation. Therefore, anything we do to preserve and protect ourselves, regardless of the circumstances, becomes moral.........

There you have it! Liberalism, in a Darwinian-mutated nutshell.

[bdeaner]

Unfortunately, many creationists argue against evolution specifically because they insist that it must be making some kind of moral point.

Yes, but this is due in part to many evolutionary theorists, such as the sociobiologist, who continually insist on using evolutionary theory in order to make what are essentially moral and ethical points. But again, this is absurd, since evolutionary theory cannot be the foundation of morality -- nay, cannot even be the ontological foundation for the condition of possibility for morality -- because, by definition, it is amoral. To make it the foundation of morality is, in effect, to dispel morality as morality. On this score, the creationists have a point, but they might be better served through an immanent critique of evolutionary theories of morality (that is, a critique of evolutionary theory of morality on its own terms), because this is ultimately a more gratifying argument.

[MarkL]

It seems to me that what we talk about as "morality" often goes against the Darwinian laws of nature... Morality is what sets us apart from the animals.

In nature, the old and weak are generally left to die. In most human cultures, we care for the old and weak. While this could ostensibly lead to a weakening of the genetic "stock," with a few exceptions, like that idiot at Princeton (Singer?), we look upon it as a good thing.

Mark

[drlevy88]

Yes! Because ultimately most of us could hardly care about what happens to the "stock" except in a limited sense with our own families.

[Prime Choice]

Belief that evolution is the "define-all" of life, is making a moral point.

Truly? In what way?

For my own part, I see nothing in the theory of evolution that precludes (or even detracts from) belief in the Almighty. Indeed, it doesn't even seem at all odd that the Good Lord's creations should change over time. That in itself implies an intelligent design capable of successfully adapting to any number of conditions not present at its original creation.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

We have to understand creationists ane where they are coming from.

My Brother is a Quantum/Nuclear Physicist, PHD.( (Studied under Edward Teller)After nearly 20 years of intense research he kept coming to the same conclusion: This Universe was created with a design-genius that cannot be disputed. Einstein, also came to that same conclusion.

Entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes a better model for how the Universe is assembled than does Evolution. There are countless holes and missing links in the THEORY of Evolution that Evolutionists continually avoid. These are serious discrepancies that threaten Evolutionist credibility. Yet, somehow it remains unchallenged and when it is challenged, it is not given due notariety.

My Brother and I believe that there is a God who created us. One thing for certain, it wasn't Carles Darwin.

[John H K]

Entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes a better model for how the Universe is assembled than does Evolution.

Evolution doesn't say jack squat about how the Universe is assembled; it's about how speciation occured on one little corner of that Universe.

And I haven't the foggies idea of what you mean by "entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" in this context.

You are aware that in no way, shape or form does evolution "contradict" the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, don't you? And anyone who says otherwise is a moron.

[Iris7]

Do you find insults a satisfying form of argument? Appears so.

"Darwinism" looks to me to be just another creation myth. Believers are simply superstitious primitives.

There, your own medicine fed back to you! Enjoy being called a "moron"?

[Iris7]

Actually, information theory, which is based on the 2nd law, can be used to make an apparently irrefutable refutation of Darwinism. If you are curious, which you aren't, look it up yourself.

Myself, I don't care much for a bunch of ape jabber, even if the apes concerned don't have much body hair! As if people knew what they are doing! What a laugh!

There you go, more insults. Got a million of them.

[Virginia-American]

... information theory, which is based on the 2nd law, can be used to make an apparently irrefutable refutation of Darwinism. ...

But experiments can be used to confirm it.

For example, using the evolutionary idea that orangutangs, chimps, and people have a common ancestor, and that chimps and people have a more recent one than either does with orangutangs, one deduces that

If a transposon, pseudogene, etc is found in the genome of both chimps and orangutangs, then it will also be found in people.

Same idea: if a pseudogene, etc is found in both whales and cows, it will also be found in hippos.

To the best of my knowledge, every time this sort of prediction has been tested, it has turned out to be a true prediction. Any theory that aims to replace the ToE must be capable of making these predictions, at least.

If you are curious, which you aren't, look it up yourself.

It would have been more polite to simply post a link or a synopsis of whatever argument you found persuasive. I wouldn't want to critique something you're not claiming.

Since the theory is making true predictions, I rather suspect that the information-theoretical critique has an error in it.

[drlevy88]

The question, mad-cow, has profound implications: whether God just stood back and "turned it loose," or is at the helm steering.

[Wonder Warthog]

Actually, information theory, which is based on the 2nd law, can be used to make an apparently irrefutable refutation of Darwinism."

By whom?? The "Creation Science Institute".

From: (http://www.dna-double-helix.net)/

"DNA Double Helix: Its Existence Alone Defeats any Theory of Evolution"

"The scientific reality of the DNA double helix can single-handedly defeat any theory that assumes life arose from non-life through materialistic forces. Evolution theory has convinced many people that the design in our world is merely "apparent" -- just the result of random, natural processes. However, with the discovery, mapping and sequencing of the DNA molecule, we now understand that organic life is based on vastly complex information code, and such information cannot be created or interpreted without a Master Designer at the cosmic keyboard."

From their "about" (http://www.dna-double-helix.net/common/aboutus.asp) page, it appears so.

Now, SCIENCE says:

"This highly interdisciplinary book discusses the phenomenon of life, including its origin and evolution (and also human cultural evolution), against the background of thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and information theory. Among the central themes is the seeming contradiction between the second law of thermodynamics and the high degree of order and complexity produced by living systems. This paradox has its resolution in the information content of the Gibbs free energy that enters the biosphere from outside sources, as the author shows. The role of information in human cultural evolution is another focus of the book. One of the final chapters discusses the merging of information technology and biotechnology into a new discipline — bio-information technology."

So it appears the "information theory" does NOT "refute evolution".

[drlevy88]

I am amazed at the presumption of those who can a priori call any gene "pseudo." What that seems to mean, once the curtain is yanked away to show the man behind it, is "we have no idea what this could do beyond negating the operation of a gene that we do [partially] understand."

[Iris7]

There is a correlation between DNA sequences in various species. Certain species have DNA pattern correlations with certain other certain species that appear more correlative than with other species. And?

Correlation is mere correlation. Correlation merely calculates the likelihood that certain data series are "related", assuming that imperfections in the fit are "random". Really nothing can be deduced from correlation except it might be that the dependent and independent variables could be dependent variables of some unknown function where the independent variable(s) are unknown. Or, it can be used for curve fitting. In other words, So What? Is an observation enough to require hypothesis?

Besides, the information-theoretical critique is enough to destroy the theory of Darwinism as it shows Darwinism as not sufficient to explain the facts observed. More, the argument used by Dembski and others is tremendously simple. To say there must be an error in it, though you don't know what it is, is merely a statement of faith in Darwinism. Darwinists have responded to mathematical critiques of their quaint beliefs with the same "there must be something wrong with your calculations" since before World War Two, as I recollect.

The time is over when biologists needed no mathematics and formal logic.

In fact there is a theoretical way out of this biologist's dilemma, although I don't think that theory I refer to holds water, since the creator of the original theory (Julian Schwinger) has shown mathematically to his own satisfaction that the more "modern" theory is in error due to over simplification. Has something to do with the importance to quantum theory of the electromagnetic fields surrounding elementary particles. I can go no further here, no training.

Too tired to go on, need rest, and in fact am rapidly reaching my safe depth!!! More a historian type than a physicist!!

[drlevy88]

This paradox has its resolution in the information content of the Gibbs free energy that enters the biosphere from outside sources,

One would expect that "SCIENCE" should be interested in the question of whether one would expect the "outside sources" that it knows about [a Creator being deliberately excluded] to possess the requisite GFE.