Evolution / Creationism / Intelligent Design

Science & Technology Biosciences
61

Is an electromagnetic field an entity?

Yes.

The term “entity” has several meanings, depending on context. The primary meaning (for purposes of this discussion) is as follows: “An entity means a self-sufficient form of existence, as against a quality, an action, a relationship. etc., which are simply aspects of an entity that we separate out by specialized focus. An entity is a thing.” (Peikoff, The Lexicon, page 146)

An entity has a real, metaphysical existence. A concept that refers to a collection of entities does not. For example, consider the concept “society”. While the concept is useful, there is no such entity as “society”. All that actually exists (in this context) are individual human beings.

There are certain attributes that apply to individual human beings that do not apply to the concept, “society”. For instance, one cannot refer to the sex of a society; sex is a characteristic of the individual, not of the group; there is no entity “society” to be male or female. Likewise, one cannot refer to the mind of society; the mind is an attribute of the individual, not of the group; there is no entity “society” that possesses a mind.

One can measure certain attributes of individual members of a collection and refer to an average. For instance, one can say the average age in a particular society is 45 years.

But such statements have no meaning when one measures a property possessed by some members of the collection but not by others. It would make no sense to say, society is an average of 4.5 months pregnant. Society cannot be pregnant. Only individual females can be pregnant.

Like the concept “society”, the concept “universe” refers not to an entity, but to a vast collection of entities. The wider and more disparate the nature of the entities subsumed by a collection, the less you can say about the collection as a whole. When you use a term that refers to all entities – living and non-living, matter and energy, nano-scale and galactic scale – about all you can say about the collection is that it includes everything that exists, it possesses identity, it follows natural law, etc.

Attributes of individual human beings, like sex and mind, are not attributes of the collection “society”. Likewise, attributes of individual existents are not attributes of the collection that includes all existents: the universe. The universe does not have a wavelength, a temperature, a color, an orbital velocity, a sex, a lifespan, a career, a consciousness – or any of a whole host of properties that apply only to entities.

62

Thank you very much for that post.

63

There are certain attributes that apply to individual human beings that do not apply to the concept, “society”. For instance, one cannot refer to the sex of a society; sex is a characteristic of the individual, not of the group; there is no entity “society” to be male or female. Likewise, one cannot refer to the mind of society; the mind is an attribute of the individual, not of the group; there is no entity “society” that possesses a mind.

Now I got it. So the universe is just a concept like society. And as such, it doesn’t have certain properties at all, like volume or weight. Is that the argument?

I thank you, too.

:slight_smile:

64

*** Mod’s note: Merged with a similar topic. - sN ***

 

After following the recent debate in this paper concerning evolution, I am amazed by how little the opponents of evolution actually know about it. What amazes me even more is that they would wish to flaunt this lack of knowledge to the whole world with statements such as “If evolutions really happened why are there still monkeys?” The fact that evolution states that humans and other modern primates are cousins and descended from a common ancestor, not one from the other, is readily available information. In light of the fact that there is no lack of information available on evolution on the Net, there can only be two reasons why people who wish to debate evolution are not properly educated about it. One is willful ignorance and the second is that they don’t know where to look. Of course nothing can be done about the first, as the old cliché goes, one can lead a horse to water but can not make him drink; So, I will address the second possibility. www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution provides information on, to name a few, the fossil record, transitional forms of animals, the evolution of the eye, case studies of animals, and many videos. There is FAQ that includes the answers to questions like “Did we evolve from monkeys?”, “Isn’t evolution just a theory that remains unproven?”, and “What is “intelligent design,” and is it science?” The National Academies (www.nationalacademies.org) also provides reports, statements and research papers on evolution. If the opponents of evolution were to research just the two aforementioned websites they would find that evolution is supported with volumes of experimental evidence and that intelligent design has “not yet been subjected to the normal process of scientific experimentation and debate, nor have they been accepted by the scientific community.”

65

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

66

Here is a link to Alfred Russel Wallace’s original paper on evolution by survival of the fittest.

“On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely From the Original Type” by Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858

http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S043.htm

67

survival of the fittest.

That phrase should be used cautiously in evolutionary biology <_<

Nice link. Wallace was right on Darwin’s heels with his own theory of evolution.

68

Most importantly, Wallace avoided personifying the principle, so that it remained a process, rather than a force. This allowed him to avoid the teleological thinking that still bedevils adherents of Darwin’s “natural selection.” In fact, Wallace later (1866) wrote a letter to Darwin on just this point, suggesting that Darwin substitute Spencer’s “survival of the fittest” for “natural selection”:

See the comments after the linked article by A.R.Wallace.

That phrase [“survival of the fittest”] should be used cautiously in evolutionary biology.

I used “survival of the fittest” because according to John Reiss that was Wallace’s preferred term. Wallace was co-discoverer of “Darwinian” evolution and does not get as much credit as he deserves.

What is the nature of your reservation about “survival of the fittest”?

69

What is the nature of your reservation about “survival of the fittest”?

My reservation is that the term “fit” brings certain images to mind in most people: that of a strong, physically fit, healthy individual. The term fitness is used a lot in biology, but it doesn’t mean physically fit in this sense. The fittest are those with genotypes that allow them to be the best adapted to the conditions at hand and thus have the greatest resources for reproduction.

This is why the allele for sickle cell anemia stays in African populations: there is a fitness advantage of individuals heterozygous for this allele. It confers protection against malaria. Those who are homozygous for the sickle cell allele will die of sickle cell anemia. Those who are homozygous with two normal alleles will die or malaria. Those individuals who only have one allele for sickle cell anemia and a normal allele (heterozygous) are healthy and do not have sickle cell, nor will they die from malaria.

I agree that Wallace doesn’t get as much credit as he deserves. My reservation is relatively small - only that people understand what they’re talking about. We have a similar problem, as you noted, with the term “natural selection” since people see it is a force, and thus they think that something or someone must be behind that force. aaargh!

70

Ask yourself this:

“What is it that we may differentiate the Universe from perceptually?”

In the case with the robot, sure you create a sum from the parts but the reason you call it a ‘robot’ is to differentiate it from any other arrangement of those parts.

Again, are you able to apply that to the concept of ‘Universe?’ No, because there is nothing to differentiate it from perceptually. The Universe is everything you can possibly perceive.

Isn’t the concept of ‘Universe’ differentiated from any subset of its parts? i.e. a galaxy isn’t a universe.

Now I got it. So the universe is just a concept like society. And as such, it doesn’t have certain properties at all, like volume or weight. Is that the argument?

The universe does have properties, such as mass, volume, overall energy state, hubble parameter, speed of light, plank length, etc.

71

None of those apply to the universe itself. They are all properties and measurements between various existents _in_the universe. I.e., time is not a property or nor does it actually apply to the universe itself, but between events that take place within it. Size does not apply to the universe, the universe is finite and unbounded, but apply’s to existents in the universe. Existent’s in the universe have mass, but the universe itself does not. And so on.

72

Some people (intelligent design followers and creationists in particular) marvel at how perfectly tuned the universe is to life. i.e. if the Hubble parameter was a little higher, atoms wouldn’t be able to hold together, or if it were lower, the universe would collapse on itself. The charge of an electron must also be what it is for atoms to work and molecules to form. I read there are six such constants (at least) which must be exactly what they are otherwise the universe wouldn’t be able to produce the phenomenon that it has, including life. The theory is that there are countless universes which all have different values for these constants, and the only universes that can harbor life are the few that just happen to have these constants set right.

So in that sense those six (or more) constants are properties of a universe.

Time is one of the properties of a universe. I don’t mean the current date and time of a universe - that’s meaningless. I mean that a universe has time at all. Time is an imaginary (in the mathematical sense) axis, as opposed to the spatial axis. The trace of a flat-space matrix is [-1,1,1,1,…] where the ones are the x,y,z axis, and the -1 is the time axis. Depending on what theory you subscribe to, there may be more elements. The sign of these elements have profound implications to how the universe works. Why does our universe behave the way it does? Because of its properties.

73

My reservation is that the term “fit” brings certain images to mind in most people: that of a strong, physically fit, healthy individual.

The accuracy of the phrase doesn’t rest on the misconceptions of those who imagine it wrong. I would assert that the “fittest” in that phrase is contextual to that which is surviving and in what conditions and environment it must survive. What constitutes the needs for man’s survival may be entirely different than what affords a some other species or things survival. Certainly adaptability is frequently a “strength” in the survival process.

[Edit - “Fitness” to “Fittest” (doh!) - RC]

74

Just to add my two cents on this matter, as a former student of the Dominican order and devout Catholic whom supports the theory of evolution.

The primary arguement in favor of “Intelligent Design” and “Creationism” rests pretty much on the arguement from Incredulity, which is always a losing arguement, and is a literal admission of intellectual ineptitude. Just because a mind is fascinated by the order in which things are built does not necessitate that they are designed, and it definately does not prove that they magically sprang up out of a void.

To understand that the universe is suitable to life is the admission that we are living in it, and that goes to the axiom of “existence exists”. However, in order for things to adapt, develop, change, or evolve they must be in motion (physics). The optical cells that make up the eye and the bond that holds them together are not denegrated to the cause of chance with out a designer (unless one wishes to argue that the law of causality is itself a designer of sorts, and this would only hold up as an abstract analogy at best).

Furthermore, “Intelligent Design” suggests some sort of biological determinism, which as a proponent of free will I clearly reject. If we assume that God exists and that his will is supreme, (note: I am speaking hypothetically here, my own beliefs in God might suggest I was advertizing a non-Objectivist arguement, which are only welcome on the debate forum) there would be no contradictions in that will, hense science would serve to illuminate to the senses and the mind the true nature of the universe, which is the work by which any God’s credibility as a creator would be measured.

The theory of evolution explains that things adapt to their environment, and this is self-evident from observing phenomena with the eyes, eyes which “according to the Intelligent Design/Creationist crowd” were given to us by God. To assert that our eyes and our minds decieve us when we utilize the clues of the universe to understand it’s nature is to assert that it we somehow that we are getting away from understanding God by trying to understand him. It’s patently absurd, and I would like to take this opportunity to distance myself from those who think such contradictory thoughts.

75

A good book to read if you want good arguments against Intelligent Design is Science of Discworld 3: Darwin’s Watch.

76

From a philosophical point of view / theoretical point of view, I don’t have much of a problem with ID. Personally, I have a hard time arguing against St. Thomas Aquinas’ first point (don’t hate me):

If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

I’m not advocating creationism (in the biblical sense), it’s just that any kind of Socratic attempt at reducing science seems to inevitable lead to “that’s just the way things are” (ie. natural laws, mathematical relationships, etc.). Personally, I think evolution can be seen as a product of such laws (and therefore evolution and ID are NOT mutually exclusive - if evolution is seen as a product of laws created by a prime movement).

I guess the best answer (especially from a scientific standpoint) is that we simply do not know and oviously, there’s no way to prove that there was a prime movement ( don’t think there’s any way to prove that there wasn’t as well). But I don’t think that stops (or should stop) anyone from speculating - as long as we realize that it’s purely theoretical.

What are the arguments against St. Thomas Aquinas first point as quote above?

77

I’m not 100% sure what you mean, but I dont think many supporters of evolution would deny that the individual subatomic particles which constituted the living things at each stage of the evolutionary process all acted in accordance with the laws of physics. Hence I think that they would genearlly agree that evolution is, in a sense, emergent from a set of more basic laws (ie, its a higher level theory than those of pure physics).

78

What are the arguments against St. Thomas Aquinas first point as quote above?

Aquinas’ argument rests on the assumption that the universe has a beginning, that there was a “time” when no motion existed and thus that *something* must have made it all start.

Here are a couple of counter arguments:

1- The universe is all there is, so if “the first mover” exists he is part of the universe and must (if you accept Aquinas’ argument) himself have been put in motion by some other force. Since nothing else exists, there is an unsurmountable contradiction - one or more of the assumptions must be false.

2- Aquinas’ argument assumes that not moving is the “natural state” of things. This is completely baseless.

mrocktor

79

I have not yet read a comprehensive description of what ID proponents are claiming. If this lack is the result of the idea that there is no supernatural force in the first place, it is partly understandable, but it does not identify all the parts of the argument.

Intelligent Design posits that living things are complex. This is fact not just incredulity. Irreducible Complexity is the concept that any living thing, if changed only slightly, would not work properly or at all. Take out a component of a cell and it will not function, remove an organ from a person and serious problems will be the result unless care is taken and/or outside means are provided to make up for it.

If at this point in your reading, you are becoming emotional, why?

Further, the origin of the universe is unknown. The information required to build the first cell did not exist. If a liquid was somehow enclosed in an envelope, it would still lack the internal machinery to convert some outside energy source to sustain itself. It would not be alive. It would not contain the information or machinery to divide itself. The idea of a self-creating cell is nonsensical since no genetic information was in existence.

Evolution is still described as a robust theory. The arguments between it and Creation and Intelligent Design are old and have been repackaged. Somehow, great scientific discoveries have been made by religious people, this in contradiction to the idea that a belief in a supreme being has clouded their ability to function or interact with scientific subjects, and contribute to society in a reasonable, productive manner.

I am against forcing people to believe things. Wishing away the existence of religious people is nonsensical.

80

I have not yet read a comprehensive description of what ID proponents are claiming.

That would be because they aren’t actually claiming anything concrete.

Intelligent Design posits that living things are complex.

That isn’t significantly different from non-living things. Things are complex, at least to people who have no standard for measuring the complexity of things. But yeah, that would be one of those contentless claims that I’ve seem coming from ID proponents.

Irreducible Complexity is the concept that any living thing, if changed only slightly, would not work properly or at all.

See, that is just so totally misguided. If you cut someone’s hair, they don’t die. But these ID whackos want us to believe that is you make any change at all in a living being, then it turns into meat-pudding. Ridiculous.

'If at this point in your reading, you are becoming emotional, why?

I suppose because it makes me weep when people don’t bother to read what the purpose of this forum us.

I am against forcing people to believe things. Wishing away the existence of religious people is nonsensical.

Me too. I’m also against state school. If you want to have fudamentalist boot camps, fine, do it on your own dime, and don’t make my kid learn this goggledygook.