Reflections on Life and Spirituality 101

Hello,

You note Professor Dawkins use of the term "fact" in describing evolution, and imply that he is dogmatic, or that he "believes" evolution: that is on the same level of belief as Religion. If correct, you would indeed undermine the argument dramatically.

However, by "the fact of evolution", Professor Dawkins refers to the observed facts of change over time in creatures. There are many thousands of instances of these observed facts (partial list below).

These observed changes in the form of life over time need to be explained by a theory. And that theory is the theory of evolution.

So, the theory of evolution is distinct from the facts that that theory sets out to explain.

Dawkins is right, and very few surely would disagree, that we observe change in life over time. That we see a record extending back over geological time of continuous change, extinction and creation of life.

Evolutionary theory explains this observable evolution.


Some observable facts:

We observe changes in DNA which differentiate groups of humans, and humans from other primates

We observe fossils of long extinct creatures.

We observe the diversity of life, uniquely changing to evolve to its environment: for instance on the Galapagos islands.

We of course observe the drastic changes in animals and plants by selective breeding.

We observe too the building blocks of evolution: random mutation. We see this experimentally, and in the random changes that accumulate in human eggs and sperm with age, and in the effects of radiation etc.

Thus the effects of evolution (change over time) and the mechanism (novel mutations) are observed facts.

The theory rests on an additional piece of mathematics, namely that mutations which enhance survival increase the frequency of that mutation over time, and, likewise, mutations which decrease fitness will decrease in frequency over time.

The observed facts, plus a simple set of uncontroversial mathematics form the basis of an evolving theory of Evolution: a statement about the complete set of types of selection that can, and that have occurred to lead to modern life.

 

---

Some other perspectives from the media: Replies to Richard Dawkins Root of All Evil

Forget about this link's obvious bias, what's important is some of the media's reaction to the Richard Dawkins.

Elsewhere, the following provides a christian perspective on: The Psychology of Aetheism

 

---

I hesitate to wade in on such a contentious issue as evolution vs. intelligent design, but I feel the need to balance the observational facts in Tim's statements with the rest of the story. The observed genetic changes in the human DNA is not evolution by the definition of life adapting and improving according to its environs, but a gradual DEvolving of the genetic structure via exponential genetic splits during reproduction. The human genome is crumbling, not getting better. Also, I would like to point out the difference between evolution via selective breeding and natural evolution over millions of years, that difference being simply this: selective breeding is just that-selective. It is artificial rather than a mutation that would occur in a natural setting without an astronomical occurance of chance. Likewise, random mutation is the result of outside, unbalanced genetic forces acting in conjunction with certain pollutants introduced into the environment by mankind, and they have a tendency to be bred out of the creature in question by the same genetic devolution that effects humans. We must remember that the scientific method relies upon the introduction and proving of a theory rather than the introduction and disproving of a theory, and evolution has NOT been proven to the satisfaction of ANY tenet of the scientific method. If I may beg the pardon of the author and make one more point to solidify the point I would give this to you as food for thought:
If there is no creator, then there is no designor. If there is no designor, then there is no design. If there is no design, then there is no purpose. If there is no purpose, then there is no meaning. So, philosophically speaking, if life has any intrinsic meaning, there must be a creator. Just food for thought, my friend.

 

---

I do actually agree with you that the use of the word "fact" was unfortunate because it was bound to be misinterpreted by the likes of people like you.

"In 'practicing' his brand of religion -- I wonder how well he is bringing up his child. I wonder how well he treats his family and what they would say about him. I wonder what life-changing difference he has made in the lives of his dearest friends and loved ones. For these are things that really matter, at least in every individual's personal sphere. Based on a glimpse of what this "religion" of his produces in the manner in which he conducted himself in the program, I am not sure how much how this will amount to. I cannot claim to be wise, but I can recognize desperation in his eyes - trying to defend his arguments, which by the way comes across as hollow in the documentary. I expected more from Richard Dawkins cause [sic] I grew up fascinated with some of his books. Now, I have lost all respect for him."

Here you come across as seriously prejudiced: how can you judge how well Dawkins treats his family and friends from 1 hour and 40 minutes of telly? You can recognize desperation in his eyes? Personally I think you're seeing things, as I didn't see any despair, rather I saw a man bravely defend his standpoint, fully aware that he would be misinterpreted and vilified for it.

Never, never attack religion if you want a quiet life. They used to burn people at the stake for that.

It's also gratuitous to call someone's views a religion when that same person so clearly opposes religion.

Am I to wonder " wonder what life-changing difference [you] have made in the lives of your dearest friends and loved ones"? No, because I don't know you from here nor there...

 

---

Gert---

How can I judge Richard Dawkins' personal life based on his short time on telly? The answer is I can't... that's why I used the term "I wonder...etc. I wonder...etc. I wonder...etc." -- I was trying to make a point about how I would measure a person's legacy on this earth.

If I come across as "seriously prejudiced" (as you stated), I am sorry. I was voicing my opinion and was not trying to impose it as fact on anyone. I apologize for that and want to get this out of the way.

 

---

Now, with these opinion portions out of the way, let's get to the more factually-oriented elements:

To Tim---
I thank you for the list of observable facts. I have to say I agree with it... but I have to draw a distinction here between:

Macroevolution (adaptations over time across-species in a single direction, "we are evolved from amoeba" type assertions).

--VERSUS---

Microevolution (minor variations and/or reversible adaptations of similar species according to its environment to allow it to survive e.g. Galapagos island finches; which incidentally, the birds' beak sizes actually returned back to normal - no evidence that it continued to 'evolve directionally forward')

In my non-expert readings of evolution, I am aware of a list of so-called "evidences" which support evolution, some of which you pointed out related to: the Galapolos Islands; the experiments related to dysfunctional fruit flies bombarded with radiation or toxic chemicals (to try to reproduce mutations); peppered moths, and the now debunked Haeckel's embryos.

As far as observable facts that evolutionalists often use, these all seem to be pointing to microevolution, which I have no issues with as a thinking person.

But extending this to macro-evolution, that requires faith and that is exactly what I am saying - that Richard Dawkins has taken a leap of blind faith! And in the latter category of macro-evolution for which there is NO EVIDENCE, Richard Dawkins has no remit to impose his "philosophical proselytising" in the name of science on us.

And to me, this concept of extending small scale changes we observe today and EXTRAPOLATING it backward in time to postulate inter-species evolution is nothing but mythical storytelling.

As I said, if you could provide other evidences... I would be open to hearing it.

 

---

To Gert---
Why am I calling evolution a religion? I realise that this 'R' word is loaded with all sorts of negative connotations, one of which is that it is dogma or belief that one usually has to suspend our brains to embrace - i.e. "Religion and science do not mix", or "Religion stiffles rational thought", as the mantras are chanted in some quarters today.

A survey in 1998 conducted by Skeptics' Society found that among highly educated Americans, the number one reason for believing God was seeing "good design" and "complexity" in the world. Design was cited by almost a third of respondents - 29% - while only 10% said they believed in God because religion was comforting or consoling.

These results were quite surprising, especially for skeptics who had conducted the study, because it shot down the common stereotype that religion is nothing but an emotional crutch. On the contrary, for most believers, the ground for faith is an essential rational intuition: They are convinced that there is a God because the universe seems so highly ordered that it suggests the hand of a conscious Mind or Creator.

As a note, this survey was conducted by Skeptic magazine editor Michael Shermer and MIT professor Frank Sulloway, and though it was sent out to a random sample of Americans, for unknown reasons, respondents included a higher-than-average percentage of highly educated people. Results are reported in the book How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science (2000) by Michael Shermer.

Evolution (as we know it today) starts of with an arbitrary (and unquestionably dogmatic) decision that philosophical naturalism is true and that supernatural creation is false. I guess it is the "priesthood and prophets" of this philosophy that has made this dogmatic statement that their followers believe, which I do not subscribe to. From my own logical reasoning, if one believes God created the universe and hence the laws of science, then eventually everything that is uncovered in good science will point to His design.

I stated before, I am not against science, but there is good science and bad science: and "philosophical proselytising" from evolutionalists via non-factual extrapolation of microevolutionary evidences to include macroevolution, is bad science.

You may say "it's gratuitous to call someone's views a religion when that same person so clearly opposes religion". Whatever we call it - non-factual extrapolation or theory of evolution, it is a philosophical system of thinking that is faith-based. It is a religion ALL BUT IN NAME. I am not the only one acknowledging this. If you are familiar with the well-known evolutionist Michael Ruse, this is what he said:

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion--a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint. . . the literalists [i.e., creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

From Michael Ruse, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000)


So let us call the spade a spade.

 

---

I and many with me who accept evolutionary biology as a successful scientific theory are flabbergasted to find that all of a sudden this body of evidence is now to be declared a faith. J.P.Carter even coined a name for it: neism (naturalistic deism). When it comes to branding new "isms" and referring to members of the scientific community as "ists", the faith-based community are experts. But renaming something doesn't change it. You accuse others of making leaps of faith because that's exactly what's needed to accept theology: you therefore assume that a theory like evolutionary biology must also be faith-based but it isn't. Let me assure you though that I really don't need to "believe" in "Darwinism" to understand that evolutionary biology has an immense body of evidence and a tremendous power of prediction.

Your distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" is entirely artificial: evolutionary biology doesn't need to make this distinction to explain the observable facts, at least not in the deceptive manner you are using here.

Intelligent Design is really a desperate and last-ditch attempt to save some theology in the theory of the ascent of Man. Just look at the variants that have existed: from scientific creationism (abandoned), the Young Earthers (abandoned), the theory in which Homo is supposed to have bifurcated away from early hominids due to Divine genetic engineering (no evidence whatsoever of such an abrupt departure) and now frontloading. I'm sure there are others. Clearly, after the all-out assault ID is now fighting a rear guard action.

ID can of course re-examine existing evidence but it appears to me this is being done solely with the purpose of sowing the seeds of doubt and giving the believers something to cling to.

And that many prefer to believe in an Intelligent Designer, contrary to overwhelming evidence, is perfectly fine by me, but it doesn't prove anything whatsoever. It's not a popularity poll.

It also strikes me as highly suspect that the theists have chosen only evolutionary biology as their target. Why not quantum physics, chemistry of cosmology? The latter certainly contains elements that can be interpreted as deist/agnostic/atheist (choose as appropriate). But then these theories don't really challenge the concept of Man as God's child, do they?

Let me, before concluding, assert firmly again that I believe strongly in freedom of opinion and with it, logically, in absolute freedom of religion, without ifs or buts.

Those however who wish to believe in a living God need to accept that the ancient texts upon which they base their faith have proven to be unsuitable for literal interpretation. Few Christians today will unquestioningly accept the idea of the six day Creation, Noah's ark and the flood, the Virgin Mary, Mary's ascension and many other stories. Undoubtedly, scientific discovery has done much to dispel such myths, much to the Church's chagrin (I'm not going there). Whilst the majority of people I know would describe themselves of Christian denomination, their faith is largely of the "Four Weddings and a Funeral" variety. Perhaps, in this rather scientifically oriented world, ID is an attempt to rekindle the fire of faith of those masses to which belief has become a rather half-hearted affair...

 

---

On the contrary, the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is akin to night and day. The former, minor adaptations to environmental change, we see every day and it's almost a no-brainer. In fact, I am thankful that living creatures have that capability to do that.

But when you point out that a bird can become a fish (or the other way round, etc whichever it is), it is a major leap of faith. The essence of Darwin's theory is that minor adaptations can be extrapolated over vast periods of time to explain major differences between taxonomic groups. But since 1980, it has been known that small changes simply don't add up the way the THEORY requires.

Let me explain:

In a Newsweek article that year about a landmark conference titled Macroevolution, held at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History, paleontologists bravely told the biologists what they least wanted to hear: that the fossil record does not, and never will, support the Darwinian scenario of a smooth, continuous progress of life forms, nicely graded from simple to complex. Instead, the rocks show a pervasive pattern of gaps: New forms appear suddenly, with no transitional forms leading to them, followed by long periods of stability during which they show little or no change at all.

What made the Macroevolution conference so significant was that many paleontologists finally seemed to be throwing in the towel. Since Darwin, fossil hunting has been carried on intensively for more than a century, but instead of filling in the gaps, new findings have actually made the gaps more pronounced than ever. Why? Because the fossil forms tend to fall WITHIN the existing groups, leaving clear gaps BETWEEN groups - just as there are clear gaps between modern animals like horses and cows, dogs and cats. Put another way, variation tends to be limited to change WITHIN groups, instead of leading gradually from one group to another.

Here's a quote from that article:

"The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species, the more they have been frustrated."
--(John Adler with John Carey: Is Man a Subtle Accident, Newsweek, Vol.96, No.18 (November 3, 1980, p.95)

And other quotes which echo this:

"Despite the bright promise that palaeontology provides means of 'seeing' Evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them."
--(David Kitts, Ph.D. Palaeontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution, Vol.28 (Sep.1974) p.467)


"It is easy enough to make up stories, of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
--(Luther D Sutherland, Darwin's Enigma, Master Books 1988, p89)


Gert, I appreciate your statements, but what you have done is given me more assertions about your believe. I keep hearing "mountains of evidence, thousands of examples"... but only in assertions. I have presented you with quotes/surveys (some of it said/done by aetheists who are ardent supporters of the theory of evolution, I must add) -- which connect with real-life facts -- all of which are referenceable. Now, please provide some key points from your body of evidence that you have talked about. Play fair.

Remember, I am asking for ones that are macroevolution. Microevolution I have no issues with.

~Sal

 

---

Here you go again:

"But when you point out that a bird can become a fish (or the other way round, etc whichever it is), it is a major leap of faith."

Put like this it requires a leap of faith indeed. But evolution isn't about turning water into wine. This "leap of faith" pattern runs through your thinking like a thread through fabric.

Now you and I can try and "play scientist" here by presenting references against references and we won't solve anything or get out the impasse of this here "debate".

You also chose to complete ignore my other statements, as if they were irrelevant and instead decided to concentrate on arguments in favour of Intelligent Design. So be it, you're entitled to do so.

Let me ask you a direct question: do you accept that to believe in God requires faith? That objectively speaking there is no evidence of God's existence? I'm not in any way trying to insult you here, or even trying to test your patience but I feel that logically speaking you must accept that belief in the existence of God requires acceptance of something for which there is no direct evidence. That's faith: to accept without requiring proof. Or is that too Dawkinsian for you? I accept that individual believers have claimed to have met or experienced God but these experiences don't have common, objective characteristics that can be shared with those that haven't had such an experience. It's likely that such testimonies refer to quite different experiences.

So, if belief in God requires essentially faith, why the look for evidence, in particular of a scientific nature?

It really strikes me that many of the more eloquent adherents of ID are really doing no more than looking for proof of the existence of God in the fossil record. Anti-Darwinists have often questioned the fossil records, much like you do and have usually been proven wrong: early on it was as a rule assumed that species which appeared to have disappeared hadn't become extinct but had migrated, since as the idea of species extinctions couldn't be reconciled with Christian faith. Since then we know better: the vast majority of species that have ever lived are now extinct. Such overwhelmingly "wasteful" creation of species would hardly be a tribute to an Intelligent Designer but it fits in perfectly with natural selection which indeed is naturally wasteful.

The ID design debate has since moved on to rather more interesting questions about the arrival of very early life and the discussion on how primitive self-replicating chemical systems could evolve into actual prokaryotes and later eukaryotes. There lie still some mysteries to be unearthed.

It's rather typical of the ID community to assume that unsolved questions regarding early life on Earth, point to the hand of God. But it remains entirely to be seen what kind of explanations scientists will come up with. During two centuries (well, more actually) science has done really nothing more than debunk myths and mysteries and provide testable explanations instead. The scientific method is based on very few (literally about a handful) of assumptions (mainly regarding the nature of reality and logic) and yet keeps being called "scientific dogma" (an oxymoron if there ever was one), by those who put their fate into their faith.

The scientific method is used by just about everyone, including laymen, even at the most basic of levels. Even without the use of scales or measuring jugs (or more sophisticated equipment for that matter) I use the method when I refine a recipe for, say, "creamy tomato soup" by adapting it gradually over the many times I make such soup. We all live by the principle of "live and learn".

Yet when the method unearths conclusions that the theists don't agree with, some of the latter find it necessary to try and show that method itself is faulty and essentially nothing more than a faith itself. This then reduces the argument to clash between the "good faith" (Christian faith) and the "bad faith" ("scientific dogma"). And that, Sallibuc, is exactly what you are trying to do... Perhaps NOW you understand why scientists dislike science being called a "religion".

 

---

Your opinions about the church, Intelligent Design as a theory and God are your opinions. I have not ignored them as such, but chose not to argue on those opinions, because that's what they are: opinions and your own beliefs. On the other hand, I picked up the portions that you claimed had "bodies of evidence". I tried to be more specific in my approach, because I was hearing generalities so asked you to clarify - to dig a little deeper for me to understand. But unfortunately, no points at all related to "the bodies of evidence".

You ask: "Do you accept that to believe in God requires faith?"

Yes, I wholeheartedly say so. Belief in God of course does involve faith. Religions do not claim otherwise. Nor do they claim to be scientific as evolution does. I can't speak for all religions, but for me, real Christianity requires both faith AND reason. Maybe the religious people whom you have come across have not given you that impression, but I firmly believe that both needs to be present in order for things to not go wrong e.g. fanaticism.

You ask related to Intelligent Design: "So, if belief in God requires essentially faith, why the look for evidence, in particular of a scientific nature?"

You speak as if to have faith I have to suspend reason. For me and others who (at least try to) think logically, if one believes a Designer created the universe and hence the laws of science, then eventually everything that is uncovered will point to His design. That is why I do not see God and science at conflict (at least the science that have real evidence) because science will eventually uncover the Mind of God, albeit not necessarily completely. And that is why I ask for evidences.

I cannot convince you just by reason alone. As you alluded, it does require faith. The only difference is what is the object of that faith. A religious person would say God. A person who believes in evolution would claim "no faith", but in actual fact, faith exists - just not in a Creator being. Perhaps in Darwinism, scientific processes, mankind's superiority, or whatever label you chose to put on it.

So with this impasse, I thank you for your perspectives and this engaging 'debate'. Always a pleasure :)

~Sal

p.s. I abosolutely agree with all your 'live and learn' principles.

 

---

I understand from your last comment that you prefer not to continue this discussion and I respect your decision. Allow me though to point out two serious inconsistencies in your last post

"For me and others who (at least try to) think logically, if one believes a Designer created the universe and hence the laws of science, then eventually everything that is uncovered will point to His design. That is why I do not see God and science at conflict (at least the science that have real evidence) because science will eventually uncover the Mind of God, albeit not necessarily completely. And that is why I ask for evidences."

Here you clearly show you don't accept the scientific method because applied the way you see it, scientific enquiry should always lead to a pre-determined conclusion: it must always lead to His design. Such preconceptions have nothing to do with science: the enquiry must be allowed to lead to wherever the evidence will lead it. Yet you condemn any science that somehow doesn't lead to proof of God's design. Tell me, does chemistry lead to God's mind, in your view? Quantum mechanics? Cosmology?

It's clear that your rejection of evolutionary biology has nothing to do with "good" science, "bad" science or evidence: to you evolutionary biology must be wrong because it doesn't lead to God's design. There is no shortage of people in the ID camp who see "evolution" and "darwinism" as nothing more than an Atheist conspiracy, see e.g. the well-known Wedge Document.

Science as you see it is theology, at best.

"A religious person would say God. A person who believes in evolution would claim "no faith", but in actual fact, faith exists - just not in a Creator being. Perhaps in Darwinism, scientific processes, mankind's superiority, or whatever label you chose to put on it."

That there are certainly some non-religious laymen who prefer to "believe" in science without understanding what it's actually about is of course true. But those that do understand science or actually engage in scientific enquiry don't need to have "faith". In fact, they are the truly faithless. The scientific method starts essentially from three basic premises:

1. the existence of a reality independent of the observer,
2. the validity of logic,
3. cause comes before effect.

These three premises are accepted also by the faithful, as without them any meaningful discussion becomes nonsensical and becomes impossible. You can call this scientific dogma if you like but I see little dogmatic elements in it.

From these principles and using both empirical evidence and reductions ab initio, a body of evidence can be built up to support a given hypothesis (or not, of course), although absolute proof is unattainable. The process is highly self-critical and constantly iterating, often converging but sometimes diverging towards/away from the hypotheses.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

---

Gert--

You state: "Here you clearly show you don't accept the scientific method because applied the way you see it, scientific enquiry should always lead to a pre-determined conclusion: it must always lead to His design."

No you are incorrect in your logic. If scientific inquiries do prove conclusively that God does not exist, I am in big trouble! :)

Until then, my starting point is that the universe shows all the hallmarks of the design of a Creator. You can choose your starting point that there is no creator, or there is no need for Him in the universe (for whatever historical, personal or moral reasons). But that is YOUR personal starting point, which is as much 'faith' as mine.

You state: "The scientific method starts essentially from three basic premises: 1. the existence of a reality independent of the observer; 2. the validity of logic; 3. cause comes before effect."

1. Really? Can God be in this reality? If not, why not? (Hint: I reject the notion that because you cannot measure the Creator (who is apart from His creation), therefore He is not relevant to the study of nature in science)

2. Absolutely. I (like you) am all for applying our brains.

3. The material world has come into being (effect). So what (or who) created the material world? If you step backwards till before life began, when the universe was just mere gas or particles -- what (or who) was the cause? Cosmology has demonstrated a 'big bang'. If 'big bang' is the effect, what (or who) is the cause?

You do not need to convince me of the merits and methods of science -- cause I am fully GRATEFUL that many branches of science -- Archeology, Astronomy, Biochemistry, Chemistry, Cosmology, Quantum Mechanics, Information Technology, etc. -- are continuing to peel open the black boxes we can often too easily assume to be 'simple'.

You don't need to convince me of the merits and methods of science -- cause I recognize the hallmarks of a Creator's design in molecular biology. I see the harmony in how the earth's ecosystems (vegetation, animals, humans and the environmental processes that support life) display a symmetry and coherence beyond anyone's imagination. I see the awesome BioChemist who put in place the intricate interactions of enzymes with the complex design of every single human organ. And I see the authorship of a brilliant Mind in the DNA which scientists have only in this century begun to decode - combining disciplines of biology, chemistry, biochemistry and information technology.

I am thankful for the dedicated scientists who are are continuing to open life's secrets and the universe's 'black boxes'. And that helps us understand the mechanics of how it works. But science can sometimes give the illusion that when one understands how something functions, one has solved the riddle of where it came from, or who originated it.

You and aetheists in the evolution science world may take the approach that "God does not exist until proven that he does, and therefore I can live my life without Him", but I take the approach that "God does exist until proven otherwise" . You may think the former, but that is YOUR personal starting point. However, I think the latter, and the latter will be done in conjunction with the facts of science, not against it.

Specifically in relation to evolution, microevolution is substantiated with facts. Macroevolution, on the other hand, still remains a claim based on extrapolated assumptions.

~Sal

p.s. Sorry for the delayed reply, it has been a couple of weeks of vacation time!

 

---

I saw Intelligent Design mentioned in these comments. The following blog is a good starting point: ID: The Future.

People against Intelligent Design often associate it directly with religion rather than science. But
ID is not about religion. Instead, it is a systematic evaluation of observed biological phenomena resulting in the logical conclusion that design is inherent in living systems. And it stands apart from biblical creationism as a non-religious approach to origins.

 

---