Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

If evolution is true, life is a result of chance.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Evolution is ridiculous. If it is true then you are admitting that your entire life is a result of random chance. As objectivists how can you handle this? How can you think that your wonderful life is a result of chance? You degrade it and make it something common and crude. In my opinion the reason you do this is to avoid the concept of a creator. Evolution gives an explanation for creation that doesn't involve a creator - how ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution does not describe a process of random chance, it describes a process whereby advancements come about because reality dictates what aspects of an organism are best suited for survival. Over time certain capabilities grow while others fade away. Evolution is caused by a species' interaction with the world over long periods of time.

To my knoweldge evolution does leave a few questions unanswered (I haven't brushed up on it recently) but a few unsolved questions don't change the nature of the process and the fact that we can observe it happening (albeit on a much different scale).

There is no embarassment in this fact. It simply is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution is ridiculous. If it is true then you are admitting that your entire life is a result of random chance. As objectivists how can you handle this? How can you think that your wonderful life is a result of chance? You degrade it and make it something common and crude. In my opinion the reason you do this is to avoid the concept of a creator. Evolution gives an explanation for creation that doesn't involve a creator - how ridiculous.

The philosophy of Objectivism does not involve scientific theories as its basis. It also dosn't involve mystical creators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution does not describe a process of random chance, it describes a process whereby advancements come about because reality dictates what aspects of an organism are best suited for survival.

You speak of reality as though it had a brain. Surely "reality dictating" is a completely arbitrary process and is in fact just random chance?

However, lets change the topic slightly from evolution to what was the first ever life form. I assume that non-Christian/religious scientists have an explanation along the lines of particles combining together under immense heat etc etc, forming the first gene, or something like that.

So how can you argue that this process happened not by random chance or by a creator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just found a website that describes what evolutionists believe in. How can you believe in this?

http://www.creationdesign.org/If%20you%20b...evolution.html#

I believe the concept of God is degrading to human life. Everyone I’ve ever met who believes in God no matter what religion believes life is a temporary pain and that if a rat had a soul, man’s would be even lesser than the rodent.

As for evolution, Objectivism hardly deals with it. What we know is that reality is absolute and that everything acts naturally. That’s all that’s necessary to live and prosper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would I be banned for posting that website? It is not as though I have offended anyone! I'm only trying to understand why you believe what you do. I think (like the article) that you believe evolution because it allows you to avoid a creator concept.

I also understand that scientific theories are not the basis of objectivism. The reason I posted here instead of a science board is as follows:

I can accept a socialist espousing a theory that reduces life to random chance, but I cannot understand how a group of people who love life can believe in evolution.

What specifically do you disagree with in the article that I posted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from the website:

“Life cannot have had a random beginning … The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."

I hate how irrational people try to use science and math to prove things. Does evolution claim that all 2,000 enzymes had to be created at once? Do you have any concept of millions and millions of years? It seems like evasion is a bad habit for you, not only do you believe in god for which there is no evidence, but you deny an alternative for which there is evidence. You predecessors who followed Christian dogma had a much better excuse because there were offered no alternative answers for how life began.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I can accept a socialist espousing a theory that reduces life to random chance, but I cannot understand how a group of people who love life can believe in evolution.

First of all, obviously Objectivists "believe" in evolution to the extent that they think it's true. That said, it has already been pointed out that the false alternative between life as "designed" and "random chance" is resolved by the concept of causality. Causality refers to the fact that entities (including living entities) in reality have a nature, an identity, and act (and react) accordingly. This includes the ability to mutate genetically, which is a causal property of such entities. Mutations do not happen "randomly," they happen for specific biochemical reasons, it's just that they are not related to any kind of grand design. The natural selection process is also causal and involves the interaction of living entities with their environment. The organisms that successfully survive and reproduce are able to pass on their genetic material to the next generation of organisms.

I really fail to see what exactly is "degrading" about this. "Degrading" to whom? Why?

I often hear from theists that atheist lack a greater "meaning" or "purpose" in life but I think any so-called "purpose" or "meaning" that is in fact divorced from life and based on mystic fantasies can only lead to disaster as history has in fact shown. Purpose is a crucial value but it must be established in the context of life and the facts surrounding it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, lets change the topic slightly from evolution to what was the first ever life form.

Everybody knows that I was the first life form. One day I woke up and there I was in the great Void. After floating around aimlessly for what seemed like an eternity, I got the bright idea of creating the Universe. Then I created Earth and Mankind. It was great. I could do anything. I just thought about what I wanted to do, and BAM! it happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ChildofGod

"Evolution gives an explanation for creation that doesn't involve a creator - how ridiculous."

Theory of Evolution

Process of change over time to life forms starting from the first living organism, the evolution of eukaryotes cell from prokaryotes cell.

Abiogenesis

"hypothetical generation of life from non-living matter" - wikipedia

"The modern definition of abiogenesis is concerned with the formation of the simplest forms of life from primordial chemicals." - wikipedia

I.E how the first cell came about, the origin of life, Miller's experiment simulating condition of primeval planet demonstrating that building blocks of life can be produced from mixture of water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen. Electrical discharges (such as lightning) pass through the mixture, sealed off from the atmosphere, that yield a number of more complicated organic substances such as aldehydes, carboxylic cids and basic components of protein: amino acids.

- Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, Introduction by Richard E. Leakey.

The Big Bang Theory tries to give an explanation for creation, Evolution does not, and Abiogenesis gives theory for origin of life, which is different from Evolutionary Theory and is not an explanation for creation either, but origin of life.

The link below mentions the distinction between Evolution and Abiogenesis

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_abio.htm

If someone was to believe in Evolution and in Creationism, they would not hold a contradiction as they are not theories of the same thing, Evolution does not care how life was created, it begins with premise that life exists and goes on to say how it evolved.

Creationism gives an explanation of creation that rests with the fact that something was created out of nothing - how ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to make this clear.

Theory - Of what?

Big Bang - Creation of Existence

Abiogenesis - Creation of Life

Evolution - Evolution of Life

These theories do not depend upon each other, Evolution starts with life not needing or wanting an explanation for how it was created, I think Abiogenesis starts with matter not needing or wanting an explanation of how it was created, Big Bang theory starts with nothing and and believes existence is created from nothing.

Objectivism says only this, existence exists, and dismisses Big Bang Theory as absurd, there is no official view of abiogenesis or evolution in Objectivism as these are scientific matters and not a metaphysical matters as is Big Bang Theory.

Only the Big Bang Theory deals with existence and tries to explain creation of it from non-existence, essentially it's the same as Creationism in the fact that both believe in existence arising from non-existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what you have posted, here is the situation as I see it:

Creation of Universe

Either something was created out of nothing (the explanation being that God created it), or think that the universe has always been here for an infinite amount of time.

Abiogenesis

Either God created life, or large amounts of time and chance sparked the first life form.

Evolution

Things evolve by mutation and natural selection weeding out the bad mutations. So in large amounts of time, helpful mutations will have by chance occured, and will propagate.

In each case we are talking about the same thing. Created things (either the universe, the first life form, or a helpful mutation) are either caused by large amounts of time and chance or by God.

You say that causality means that things do not happen by chance. If I roll a dice and it is a six, then this was caused by laws of physics and is a result of cause and effect, yet the event of a six being rolled was still a one in six chance.

You say that the chance of any two molecules forming into life is very very small but given enough time it will happen. You seem to be saying that given enough time anything and everything will happen. Even an event with the lowest probability of happening will happen eventually given enough time.

So is this a clear representation of what you and I believe?

PS Please be patient if I have completely misunderstood what you have been saying.

PPS I think I may have been using the word random in previous posts when I should have used the word chance. (Hopefully that will help in understanding what I have been saying.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Childofgod: I suggest you do some reading about what evolution really is. Try the book referenced earlier, or any introductory college biology textbook. Don't bother with creationist material like that website you quoted; they are full of distortions and misrepresentations of evolution.

Only the Big Bang Theory deals with existence and tries to explain creation of it from non-existence, essentially it's the same as Creationism in the fact that both believe in existence arising from non-existence.

Not exactly; that's only one version. Another version says just that we cannot know what happened before the big bang because there is no way to get observations from that time. That should not pose a problem for Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Creation of Universe

Either something was created out of nothing (the explanation being that God created it), or think that the universe has always been here for an infinite amount of time.

The fundamental question for a serious theist, as I see it, is: Does God exist? And to properly answer this question, you need to reject the arbitrary and focus on whatever objective evidence you have for either a 'yes' or 'no' answer. Relying on your faith is an evasion of reality, a psychological habit which you have probably been trained to perform automatically your entire life, through prayer and the fear of Hell, among other things.

Questioning Creation is not a bad start, but it ultimately leads you back to the question: Does God exist?

Consider the idea that it is impossible to create something out of nothing. There must first be something, anything. Then that something can change into other things.

I would argue that in the universal scheme of things, there has never been nothing. There has always been something. There is just no getting around that fact. If you start with God, then where is he? What happened to him? What is your proof for your assertions? What created God? And if God has always been here, then where is he now? It is simply a fact that you have no facts and no objective reason for believing in God.

But if you start with the universe, then you can point and say, 'there is the universe all around me.' I don't understand everything about it, but at least I can see it and study it. And since it's impossible to create something out of nothing, I can only conclude that the universe has always existed, in one form or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from the website:

I hate how irrational people try to use science and math to prove things.  Does evolution claim that all 2,000 enzymes had to be created at once?  Do you have any concept of millions and millions of years?  It seems like evasion is a bad habit for you, not only do you believe in god for which there is no evidence, but you deny an alternative for which there is evidence.  You predecessors who followed Christian dogma had a much better excuse because there were offered no alternative answers for how life began.

That's an old tactic that Chomsky uses too. He thinks that if he can ridicule other people's ideas enough, his will magically become correct by default. It's just like this question :

Does disproving evolution mean that the universe was therefore farted into existence 10000 years ago by some neolithic war god ?

Answer : Definitely not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Godless Capitalist was correct. That website is very skewed in what it views as 'evolution'.

What's more, that website is designed not in trying to find out the truth (ie. is there a god, or not? What does our world tell us?). Instead, it skews information that may seem difficult to the common man and then puts forth its agenda based upon such information. This is called deceit, and is one of the first signs of something that needs to be avoided.

If you desire the truth, I welcome discussion with you. If you desire to evade the truth, then I'd rather you be banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does disproving evolution mean that the universe was therefore farted into existence 10000 years ago by some neolithic war god ?

Answer : Definitely not.

It's been a while since I considered the (theoretical) possibility of ~evolution and ~god (~ is the "not" operator.)

J. Hall: How is this possible? Sure it's *logically* possible, but doesn't Ockham's Razor cut it to bits? (If you need me to clarify, just holler. I just had a lot of caffeine and it's hard to think & write straight.)

Child of God:

You say that, in your opinion, Objectivists and other atheists accept the theory of evolution in spite of "overwhelming evidence" to the contrary solely because they wish to deny the existence of a god/creator at all costs.

But have you considered the reverse argument? Namely, that theists (most notably fundamentalist Christians) are willing to do anything to deny the possibility of evolution *at all costs* (i.e. in spite of overwhelming evidence that the theory is consistent with reality) because they fear the possibility that there could be an alternative explanation for the existence of intelligent beings, etc.?

If you really want to give an honest look at this issue, I suggest that you do more than just read the creationist literature on the subject. You should:

1) Set aside any emotional attachment to either side of the issue;

2) Study basic cellular and molecular biology, followed by textbooks on evolution;

3) *Then* read and critically analyze the literature from *both* sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody knows that I was the first life form. One day I woke up and there I was in the great Void. After floating around aimlessly for what seemed like an eternity, I got the bright idea of creating the Universe. Then I created Earth and Mankind. It was great. I could do anything. I just thought about what I wanted to do, and BAM! it happened.

You are wrong sir. I did that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...