Agree or disagree? Darwinism is not just about mutations and fossils, It is a comprehensive philosophy Part 2?

Question

I asked this question just a few moments ago. Please read on.

Stating that all life can and is explained by natural causes acting randomly over time. Therefor there is no need for a creator. No life after death, no ultimate foundations for ethics, no ultimate meaning for life, no free will. The only reason people still believes in such things as ethics, morals and free will, is that people have not yet grasped the full implications of Darwinism.

William Provine, Cornell University.

I have never seen such knee jerk reactions regarding one of your own. Mr. Provine is/was a biologist at Cornell U. He whole heartily embraces Darwin, This is his message to collage students across this nation. Darwin has freed us from such things as ethics and morals, because they are based on the belief in life after death and a creator. Do you people not even know what your side it preaching these days?


William Provine and Phillip Johnson, “Darwinism: Science or Naturalist Philosophy?”

Answer 1

You forget the unwritten rule: "We're" not allowed to quote "them" to make any kind of point. that might challenge the "fact" that "evolution is SCIENCE" (emphasis added).

Answer 2

Well my friend, if you're looking for people to follow the words of "preachers" you should not be asking science minded folks.

Even if those were the words of a biologist (and it seems that they were not) it would not matter. Because what he is saying is not based on science.

Rather than just assuming that you understand the implications of evolution why don't you try reading the book I recommended to you ("Finding Darwin's God")?

You must be at least a little curious as to how so many Christians and other believer can go on believing in their religion and still understand and accept evolution.

Try it. You may like what you learn.

Answer 3

Why are ethics and morals based on the belief in life after death and a creator? Ethics and morals can be and usually are based on how you treat yourself and your fellow human beings. And nothing in evolution says that there was not a creator. That was not the intent of Darwin. Just because Prof Provine says it, doesn't mean it is the end of the discussion.

Answer 4

First of all, we don't have a "side." Just because I believe in evolution doesn't mean I have to believe everything that a biologist says, especially as it relates to philosophy.

I still don't understand exactly what he means by Darwinism; is it a philosophy separate from evolution? A philosophical extension of evolution? Or is it simply a term to describe the theory of evolution? Without knowing that, it's hard to evaluate what he's saying. For the purposes of my answer, I'm assuming he is equating Darwinism with the currently accepted version of the Theory of Evolution.

I disagree with Provine's claims that the only reason people believe in things like ethics and morals are because they haven't understood evolution. Various biologists have written articles and books about how ethics and morals have an evolutionary basis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?ex=1332043200&en=84f902c89c5a9173&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg
http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Origins-Morality-Cross-Disciplinary-Perspectives/dp/090784507X
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Ethics-Essays-Thomas-Huxley/dp/1410203549/ref=sid_dp_dp

Answer 5

Darwin was a single scientist, thousands have studied evolution since and the science has evolved into evolutionary theory. Darwinism, as you put, has to do with biological systems, not philophical/social considerations. Also, when a scientist has a speech, it's not called preaching, because people do not take his word as something more than just his opinion, it must be backed up by studies and other knowledge before it can come close to being accepted by the scientific community. One person's opinion about a subject does not encompass the scientific understanding of a field.

Answer 6

there is a good style of lack of understanding of the thought of Evolution and a good style of folk have taken it to an severe exceptionally interior the sphere of economics. As I are conscious of it, and that i'm an engineer and not a scientist, the thought says that mutations take place and this explains version in a species exist and how some differences are extra effectual at surviving than others. whilst this happens that version will become bolstered and finally will become a function of the species. Fossils are used to check the way this would have occurred interior the previous. the thought says no longer something appropriate to the which technique of existence or ethical and ethical themes. Nor does it say something appropriate to the beginning of the universe or existence itself. If i'm best the best reaction to the thought is to no longer denigrate it yet to debate the barriers of the place it applies.

Answer 7

The problem centers on the word "random" which can have two entirely different meanings. Random can mean uncorrelated, which is the mathematical definition or it can mean without reason.

In natural selection, we all get this impression that the word "random" somehow contains information when in fact, it is saying we have no information. Random means ignorance. So when when we read that natural selection is caused by random mutations, it means we don't know how to predict these mutations. It does not mean that the mutations aren't guided beyond our very poor means to figure it out.

Scientists ought to watch what they say so that they don't stray into philosophy or religion. I think Provine just likes the spotlight; it is one of his reasons for living.

Answer 8

Mr. Provine needs to brush up on his Ape Behavior studies-

Here's a new twist on a crappy question-

If the other great apes had no morals (or ability to work in a group), why are there still other great apes- wouldn't they have killed eachother off by now?

Morals are developed as a society. Religion does NOT hold a monopoly on morality.

Answer 9

Wrong my friend! Being an evolutionist frees you to choose whether or not you accept a moral or ethical value (i.e. if you find that it is truly constructive and furthering of the well being of yourself/others then it is fine to accept it--if it is destructive and breeds intolerance and it is only so because somebody thinks that a mythical "God" wills it to be, then you are free to discard it--hence evolutionists are not morally required to 'wear no cloth of mixed fibers..." as are the Jews.

And p.s.--David Carrington Jr. in incorrect in his response--Darwin didn't believe in God! That's a well-known fact--and neither for that matter did Einstein!

Answer 10

“MORAL, adj. Conforming to a local and mutable standard of right. Having the quality of general expediency.

It is sayd there be a raunge of mountaynes in the Easte, on one syde of the which certayn conducts are immorall, yet on the other syde they are holden in good esteeme; wherebye the mountayneer is much conveenyenced, for it is given to him to goe downe eyther way and act as it shall suite his moode, withouten offence. --_Gooke's Meditations_”

IMMORAL, adj.
Inexpedient. Whatever in the long run and with regard to the greater number of instances men find to be generally inexpedient comes to be considered wrong, wicked, immoral. If man's notions of right and wrong have any other basis than this of expediency; if they originated, or could have originated, in any other way; if actions have in themselves a moral character apart from, and nowise dependent on, their consequences -- then all philosophy is a lie and reason a disorder of the mind.

- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Answer 11

Disagree.

Plenty of believers accept evolution. Darwin himself was a believer. Understanding and agreeing with the theory of evolution does not preclude faith in a deity.