Tuesday, December 1, 2009
The Relevance of the Origin of Species
One important scientific development unavailable to David Hume or any of his fictional interlocutors is the theory of evolution. For many people today, both theists and atheists, religious believers, scientists and intellectuals, the truth of evolution is bound up with the truth of theism. So what is the significance of evolution for the design argument? Does is it provide evidence for either side of the debate? On this 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's seminal Origin of Species, it is fitting to ask: where might a discussion of Darwin have fit into Hume's Dialogues?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Some people will argue that the theory of evolution completely debunks the design argument because it shows that people are descendants from monkeys, and monkeys from dinosaurs, and dinosaurs from single-celled organisms, and so on. They claim that God didn't create man, but it was just natural selection.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the theory of evolution and the design argument aren't mutually exclusive because one can just as easily argue that God created evolution as a tool for developing man. It neither debunks nor proves the design argument, so while it may provide some interesting insight into the workings of life, it isn't useful for assigning meaning to our existence.
I think that this argument would fit nicely as a prequel to the discussion in Hume of how the world works because the characters could easily discuss the design argument first and then proceed to evolution. After concluding that evolution doesn't debunk intelligent design or the existence of God, they can then move onto more complicated arguments for a model of the universe including machines and vegetables.
I am in agreement with chip. A popular religious view is that god directly created humans. After all, Genisis in the bible directly describes the birth of this world. According to that point of view, the two theories should cancel each other out. If evolution is true and the bible means every word, then there was a missstep somewhere. The idea that the bible is simply a guideline or a story with morals goes along very nicely with the theory of evolution. God could have very well been the infitesmal energy that sparked the big bang, thus causing life to erupt in all its glory. And perhaps that was all of gods design. Ultimately, we don't have enough evidence to rule either way, because while we can prove to some degree the existence of evolution, we cannot prove that it started arbitrarily. Perhaps God is the root of all.
ReplyDeleteEvolution, as I see it, is a game of chance. Every organism that we have any knowledge of has existed as a result of chance. Genetic mutations that offered better odds for survival were passed along from offspring to offspring, and those who did not adapt perished. Therefore, the creation of our humble home, Earth, must also have been a result of chance. The collision of particles and mass are what formed our planet, but beyond that reasoning we know very little. This is where I propose a separate view of the higher being we perceive as God. I think that if everything we know has come to exist by chance, is it not absurd to assume the same for God? However, I want to make clear that the God I'm portraying has taken an ambiguous role, rather than the traditional Biblical version. I think it's reasonable to say that this spirit, being, or big bang is entirely a result of chance, however, its own origins unknown. Therefore, in order to tie up the loose ends and have a beginning as we humans innately prefer to do, I would have to say that it holds the reason for its existence within itself. Therefore, I disagree with Chip a say that it affects our idea of a God significantly and reduces him/her/it to a much less notable state.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with what Chip is saying, I think there should be some discretion in what he said. What requires discretion is that you can apply the "God created X" to essentially any explanation of the universe. "What caused the Big Bang?", "Well it was God." The problem with this explanation is there is no grounds for believing it other than faith.
ReplyDeleteJust for the sake of confusion, I will respond to that comment by saying that "The absence of the evidence is not the evidence of the absence." But just because we can't prove something doesn't exist, that is no reason to believe it does exist.
That being said however, I do agree with Chip when he says that evolution does not refute the design argument. What I think evolution does debunk is the idea of Adam and Eve, but that's kind of a given.
To build on Zach's sentiments about the "cut and paste God" strategy, I think that would ultimately apply to any conjecture on the origins of the world. It just demonstrates how theology attempts to explain completely different things that science attempts to explain (as I noted in a prior post): in my opinion, theology asks WHY does all this stuff happen, and science tries to describe HOW things happen. The descriptive nature of science vs. the explanatory nature of theology just hit different tracks and I don't think you can necessarily disprove one with the other.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, think that evolution can be stated as a fairly interesting way to account for God as a perfect creator. I say that because under the tenants of evolution what is suited to live and thrive depends on the environment that animal/thing is in. And at the point where evolution explains how the only surviving species are the ones that are adapted to the environment, a level of suitability to the environment is reached. That adaptability sets apart humans, though, from the rest of the stock; because humans are able to shape the environment to their own preference, we have essentially reached the ability to adapt to _any_ environment (on the Earth) (and even some in space). If you can call anything close to perfection, that may be one of them. I'm not arguing that humans are perfect; I'm just arguing that from an evolutionary standpoint, we probably are as close as it gets, and so there might be some merit to theological descriptions of mankind as having the "perfect" form (or whatever the Bible has to say about that, I don't remember)