Back to answer three more of the "Fifteen Questions" for Evolutionists from Creation Ministries International. Stay with me for two more posts; now with ten of the fifteen answered, we are almost finished. So far, nothing they say has any weight in bringing down evolution; they are questions that can only appeal to creationists as definitively debunking evolution when they have done no such thing. Here they are:
Q11: How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life?
Once again, the argument from incredulity combined with a mischaracterization of what evolution actually says. Evolution says nothing about God; it is science, not theology, and explains the development of the diversity of life, not the origin of life or the origin of the universe. I repeat: evolution says nothing about God. Further, the brain is driven by chemical interactions and emotions are caused by chemicals in the brain. We can see this clearly in modern brain-science, that the release of certain chemicals in the brain triggers certain emotions. It is not a surprise, then, or should not be, that chemical interactions led to the development of mind/intelligence because the brain operates through chemical interactions! We can see different levels of intelligence through the animal kingdom, from the cooperative nature of ant colonies, the rudimentary communication of octopus through color, the intelligence of crows and ravens in solving problems, the pack hunting of wolves, the intelligence of dolphins and the language skills of primates as well. Intelligence clearly evolves. How one wishes to reconcile that with their religious belief is their business, but simple denial of plain fact won't do.
As for meaning, many scientists would say that the meaning of life is what you bring to it. Life is what you make it. On the other hand, no matter what creationists say, many scientists who accept evolution are also believers of various kinds and would invoke God or the Bible as the arbiter of meaning. There is a great diversity of opinion when it comes to meaning of life. The meaning of life is a question for philosophy or theology, and I am puzzled by its inclusion in this question.
Altruism is simple; we see altruistic behaviors in many species and there is no need to invoke an Intelligent Designer to explain it. Altruism, to put it simply, privileges the survival of the group over the survival of the individual, or in many cases the survival of one's own offspring over one's own survival. Morality too seems to be relative to one's own group. Even the creationists prove this by their actions. Many of the supporters of Intelligent Design/creationism in the Dover classrooms openly spoke the truth to their in-group of fellow believers but vociferously lied to people outside of the group. Take the Gypsies (or, more correctly, Roma) as another example. Their code of conduct permits theft from outsiders but not from members of the group. Morality seems to enhance the survival of the group and thus individuals within the group. I hope that answer is satisfactory...but I know that it won't be to creationists who won't accept that morality, altruism, intelligence and meaning of life could possibly come from any other source than directly from God with no evolutionary mechanism involved.
Q12: Why is evolutionary "just-so" storytelling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to "explain" observations contrary to evolutionary theory.
Without saying it, creationists are attacking the idea of sociobiology, a notion that has been promoted heavily by E.O. Wilson and also by David Sloan Wilson (no relation that I'm aware of) in Sloan Wilson's book Evolution for Everyone, in which the author uses evolution to explain numerous findings in sociology. It is an interesting, well-written book, but sometimes Sloan Wilson stretches his case. Creationists should remember that many ideas in sociobiology are conjectures or hypotheses that do not have the same standing as evolutionary theory on the whole. There are a number of scientists who do not accept sociobiology as a legitimate field of study for those very reasons, that it involves too much conjecture and not enough evidence. No less a person than Stephen Jay Gould was intensely critical of aspects of E.O. Wilson's ideas of sociobiology. I do not accept that this was created to explain observations "contrary" to evolutionary theory. It is, however, legitimate to question sociobiology if it strays too far from observable evidence, but critique of sociobiology does not translate to a serious objection to evolution itself. The two are separate; just as a critique of string theory does not undermine the notion of universal gravitation, critique of sociobiology does not undermine evolution.
Q13: Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
What scientific breakthroughs do you want? We've continued to unlock the genetic code, continued to find numerous fossils that support evolution, continued to see natural selection operate in the world and in the lab. Are those the scientific breakthroughs creationists mean? I suspect they want medical breakthroughs based on evolution; we know from evolution and experience that simply killing off bacteria with antibiotics only speeds up their evolution. Now, different medical technology is in development that blocks the receptors of bacteria rather than killing them to prevent evolution of resistance to the drugs. Perhaps that's what you meant? Further, lack of understanding of evolution in medicine can be deadly. Donald Prothero relates, in his book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters about a doctor who performed an organ transplant on a patient using a baboon heart instead of a more-compatible (based on evolution) chimp heart. The patient died, and when asked why he didn't use a chimpanzee heart, the doctor replied that, well, he didn't accept evolution. Some scientists, including Jerry Coyne, don't expect evolution to lead to scientific breakthroughs of the kind creationists want; he sees it as more of a majestic understanding of the world.
That's it for today: the last two questions remain, and from the look of them, they're easily addressed. Creationists peg evolution as non-science and religious dogma.
Q11: How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life?
Once again, the argument from incredulity combined with a mischaracterization of what evolution actually says. Evolution says nothing about God; it is science, not theology, and explains the development of the diversity of life, not the origin of life or the origin of the universe. I repeat: evolution says nothing about God. Further, the brain is driven by chemical interactions and emotions are caused by chemicals in the brain. We can see this clearly in modern brain-science, that the release of certain chemicals in the brain triggers certain emotions. It is not a surprise, then, or should not be, that chemical interactions led to the development of mind/intelligence because the brain operates through chemical interactions! We can see different levels of intelligence through the animal kingdom, from the cooperative nature of ant colonies, the rudimentary communication of octopus through color, the intelligence of crows and ravens in solving problems, the pack hunting of wolves, the intelligence of dolphins and the language skills of primates as well. Intelligence clearly evolves. How one wishes to reconcile that with their religious belief is their business, but simple denial of plain fact won't do.
As for meaning, many scientists would say that the meaning of life is what you bring to it. Life is what you make it. On the other hand, no matter what creationists say, many scientists who accept evolution are also believers of various kinds and would invoke God or the Bible as the arbiter of meaning. There is a great diversity of opinion when it comes to meaning of life. The meaning of life is a question for philosophy or theology, and I am puzzled by its inclusion in this question.
Altruism is simple; we see altruistic behaviors in many species and there is no need to invoke an Intelligent Designer to explain it. Altruism, to put it simply, privileges the survival of the group over the survival of the individual, or in many cases the survival of one's own offspring over one's own survival. Morality too seems to be relative to one's own group. Even the creationists prove this by their actions. Many of the supporters of Intelligent Design/creationism in the Dover classrooms openly spoke the truth to their in-group of fellow believers but vociferously lied to people outside of the group. Take the Gypsies (or, more correctly, Roma) as another example. Their code of conduct permits theft from outsiders but not from members of the group. Morality seems to enhance the survival of the group and thus individuals within the group. I hope that answer is satisfactory...but I know that it won't be to creationists who won't accept that morality, altruism, intelligence and meaning of life could possibly come from any other source than directly from God with no evolutionary mechanism involved.
Q12: Why is evolutionary "just-so" storytelling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to "explain" observations contrary to evolutionary theory.
Without saying it, creationists are attacking the idea of sociobiology, a notion that has been promoted heavily by E.O. Wilson and also by David Sloan Wilson (no relation that I'm aware of) in Sloan Wilson's book Evolution for Everyone, in which the author uses evolution to explain numerous findings in sociology. It is an interesting, well-written book, but sometimes Sloan Wilson stretches his case. Creationists should remember that many ideas in sociobiology are conjectures or hypotheses that do not have the same standing as evolutionary theory on the whole. There are a number of scientists who do not accept sociobiology as a legitimate field of study for those very reasons, that it involves too much conjecture and not enough evidence. No less a person than Stephen Jay Gould was intensely critical of aspects of E.O. Wilson's ideas of sociobiology. I do not accept that this was created to explain observations "contrary" to evolutionary theory. It is, however, legitimate to question sociobiology if it strays too far from observable evidence, but critique of sociobiology does not translate to a serious objection to evolution itself. The two are separate; just as a critique of string theory does not undermine the notion of universal gravitation, critique of sociobiology does not undermine evolution.
Q13: Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
What scientific breakthroughs do you want? We've continued to unlock the genetic code, continued to find numerous fossils that support evolution, continued to see natural selection operate in the world and in the lab. Are those the scientific breakthroughs creationists mean? I suspect they want medical breakthroughs based on evolution; we know from evolution and experience that simply killing off bacteria with antibiotics only speeds up their evolution. Now, different medical technology is in development that blocks the receptors of bacteria rather than killing them to prevent evolution of resistance to the drugs. Perhaps that's what you meant? Further, lack of understanding of evolution in medicine can be deadly. Donald Prothero relates, in his book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters about a doctor who performed an organ transplant on a patient using a baboon heart instead of a more-compatible (based on evolution) chimp heart. The patient died, and when asked why he didn't use a chimpanzee heart, the doctor replied that, well, he didn't accept evolution. Some scientists, including Jerry Coyne, don't expect evolution to lead to scientific breakthroughs of the kind creationists want; he sees it as more of a majestic understanding of the world.
That's it for today: the last two questions remain, and from the look of them, they're easily addressed. Creationists peg evolution as non-science and religious dogma.
Comments
Post a Comment