I've started reading The Lucifer Principle and I have been enjoying the discussion on it so far. I think that I still lack understanding about some basic principles of evolution. So here are a couple questions I have.

1) Is evolution considered to be a theory, a fact, or both by the scientific community?

2) If evolution is considered to be a fact, what does that mean? How does a fact differ from a theory in the scientific method?

Please don't direct me to the Talkorigins website. I've read it and I know how it defines it. But I've heard others disagree with it. I'm interested in views other than that.

Cheryl

Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 10/30/05 3:48 pm

Evolution is accepted as a correct method of describing the origins of the variability of life on Earth.

Evolution by Natural Selection is still a theory, although one thats fairly well accepted.

Fact, law, theory...its really all relative. The body of scientific knowledge is changing all the time. Newton's laws aren't really laws in the face of new advancements....such as gravity, for example. The distinguishing feature is mankind's arrogance over their models. As I was once told in Chemistry, regarding a model of the atom, "And as a model of the atom, it's probably wrong, like every other model we have. But it suffices, and for now that is good enough."

Edit: This seems to be a good book on evolution so far. It's the textbook I'm using in my Evolution class currently, and its paperback, so its only about half the cost of a normal textbook.

Edited by: ZachSylvanus at: 11/2/02 4:04:24 pm

We have many members who are well educated in the theory of evolution, or at least the process of the scientific method. I'm hoping to hear a few more responses to Cheryl's questions.

Chris

Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 10/30/05 3:49 pm

HTML Comments are not allowed

(damn)

Edited by: Johnny Neuron at: 11/4/02 3:23:35 pm

You may want to check out What Is Evolution? by Ernst Mayr. Mayr is sorta 'the' distinguished gentleman of evoulutionary science and his views are quite conservative, but that's probably a good thing if you're looking for basic information and ideas. It's out in trade paper now so shouldn't be overly expensive. For the length of the book (couple hundred pages), it is comprehensive - though Mayr will cover in a paragraph issues that others write whole books on (hehe... Gould's 'summary' of evolutionary theory is, what, 1500 pages?).

One of the issues Mayr does spend a good deal of time on, however, is the fact vs. theory business with evolution. Mayr argues (and I heartily agree) that evolution as a phenomenon is a fact, while the various theories of evolution are more properly theories of the mechanisms that give rise to the phenomenon. For example, Lamark's acquired traits theory explained (badly) the fact of evolution, and Darwin's theory of natural selection explained (much better) the same fact; which is to say, the facts don't change, though our understanding of them does.

Thank you for the replies.

Ani said, Mayr argues (and I heartily agree) that evolution as a phenomenon is a fact, while the various theories of evolution are more properly theories of the mechanisms that give rise to the phenomenon. For example, Lamark's acquired traits theory explained (badly) the fact of evolution, and Darwin's theory of natural selection explained (much better) the same fact; which is to say, the facts don't change, though our understanding of them does.

This has been my understanding as well. Am I correct in stating that a scientific fact is something that has been proven while a theory is still being tested or debated? When I say "proven" I understand that it's not with certainty. Even solid scientific facts could potentially be disproven. But it seems as if there is a much greater level of support for a fact than a theory. Do you agree?

Cheryl

Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 10/30/05 3:49 pm

Here's another question. This is more of a personal nature. How does viewing our existence and our origins from an evolutionary or natural standpoint vs. that of a divine purpose affect the value you put on life?

If we were a special creation by God our life has inherent value. If we simply evolved through the blind forces of natural selection our life has no inherent value. If God created us then our life has a purpose of greater significance and even if we die we will live on in one form or another. But if we evolved then our life has no cosmic importance. If I die tonight it really won't matter except to the few people in this world who care about me, but then they will be dead in a few decades and eventually I will be completely forgotten. So what was the point?

Here is why I ask. I had a patient, a four month old baby, die this past weekend from severe trauma that she sustained in an accident. I found myself thinking, 'What does it really matter if she dies now or 80 years from now? Sure her family is greatly grieved by her death, but they will eventually die out and nobody will feel her loss.' In the big picture her life will have meant nothing, and it wouldn't have meant anymore after 80 years than it did after 4 months unless she happened to be one of the few people to do something so significant as to be remembered for many generations to come. But it seems to me that for most people their lives have no real purpose. Do you think that this lack of inherent meaning to our lives decreases the value that you put on life?

I hope this doesn't sound insensitive. To me the life of a person, especially a child, is very precious. I felt a tremendous loss as I watched that beautiful little girl die and I cried with her parents as they let her go. It was very emotional. But when I start thinking about the whole picture, what was really lost?

Cheryl

Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 10/30/05 3:49 pm

Cheryl,

Well, that's a very theoretical question. Ask anyone on the streets if they value life and if their life has a purpose and most likely the answer will be affirmative, albeit with varying convictions. Personally, I have found that most people have some sense of purpose to their lives and feel that we have inherent worth.

Of course, the Bible God doesn't seem to put too much value in the inherent worth of his creation, but I know your thoughts on this. Here's something else about the matter, though: God (any god) didn't need to make us. Could we add anything to him that he would not alreadly inherently posses? No, not even if we were "perfect." So what worth is that really? And we were'nt so necessary for God to create us sooner than he did. I guess the idea of placing inherent worth upon a person strictly because of God actually opens more worm cans that we wouldn't think of. (That's not to say He doesn't exist)

I think when people say they have inherent worth or purpose strictly because of God, they really are just saying that they want to be loved and recognized (in this sense, transcendently). But aren't we all not loved and recognized? (Well, you and I are still kind of working on this a bit, aren't we)

So, I do not think that a deity is essential for purpose or intrinsic worth. We are the ones who bestow meaning into things. Somebody's got to do it, why not us?

Bradley

Johnny,

I understand that most people place value on human life, though not all do. I place a high value on it. But if we are the result of a blind evolutionary process then we have no intrinsic value. The only value our lives have is that which is placed on it by ourselves and others. And that's my question, does viewing our existence from an evolutionary standpoint decrease or increase your value of human life, or does it remain unaffected?

God (any god) didn't need to make us. Could we add anything to him that he would not alreadly inherently posses? No, not even if we were "perfect." So what worth is that really? And we were'nt so necessary for God to create us sooner than he did.

Well, it doesn't matter whether he needed to make us or not. All that matters is that he did make us. He loved us and valued us enough to create us. Then he loved us so much that he even sent Jesus to die for us (unless you believe the trinity and then he came to die for us himself). The whole idea behind Christianity is supposedly that God loves us and values us. He has a purpose and plan for us. If we live it's because he wills it, If we die it's because he has better things in mind for us. There's always some divine purpose. That gives human life inherent value and worth, as opposed to the animals who, while having some value are not divinely favored like humans.

But aren't we all not loved and recognized?

No. We're not all loved and recognized. Human life is aborted daily. It has no inherent value. Even many children are born into this world and abandoned or neglected by their families. Life only has value because we assign it value.

So, I do not think that a deity is essential for purpose or intrinsic worth.

I do. A deity is not essential for us to value our own lives and one another, but it is essential for us to have intrinsic worth. So my question is, how does this lack of intrinsic worth affect a person's value of human life?

Cheryl

Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 10/30/05 3:49 pm

It's difficult to see how we can value ourselves and others yet have zero intrinsic value, seem like they go hand in hand.

You could turn it around and say that for many believers in God there is little intrinsic value in human life. If you believe correctly, life & death are irrelevant since you're going to the great reward. If you believe incorrectly, your life is absolutely worthless as Sagan documented in the practices of the inquisition and witch trials.

Back to theory vs. fact, it's my understanding a scientific theory is much stronger than the "vernacular" use of that word. A scientific theory has a lot of data to back it up and it has predictive and explanatory accuracy. However to the general public a theory can be whatever a wacko dreams up such as a "conspiracy theory". So it is a misuse of the term to denigrate evolution as being "only a theory". (Sorry, probably preaching to the choir...)

LanDroid,

Alone in this world what value would you have? If there is no god to give purpose to your existence and there are no other humans to assign value to your life, of what value are you? You will compete for survival with other animals and you might very well die at the hands of another species, whether it's a lion who hunts you down for his next meal or a strain of bacteria that overpowers your immune system. Not a single being would mourn your death, except perhaps you, but only because you assign your own life value, not because of any inherent worth.

We can assign our own lives value if we're mentally capable of doing so, but a severely mentally retarded person cannot do that and neither can a human embryo. And some, while capable of doing so, demonstrate that they do not value their own life by intentionally ending it.

In a social context we assign one another value, or as you pointed out, we can devalue one another. But without a creator I don't see how it can be argued that humans have any intrinsic value. Alone in the universe nobody would ever care whether we live or die. And that's the situation as I see it. The lives of individuals, especially those with whom I'm close, are very precious to me. But in the big picture my life is meaningless and so is yours. The only large scale purpose we have is to reproduce and continue our genes. If a person never has a child then he will have left no lasting mark on the world whatsoever. And even if he does reproduce, who knows how long his line will continue or if humans will even be around a few thousand years from now. What was the point? Does any of this really matter?

Cheryl

Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 10/30/05 3:50 pm

Sprouting legs is easy, since it's just a bunch of successive mutations on the Hox genes for the limbs. Flippers to drag out of the water, slowly morphing to something a little better suited to both water AND land locomotion.

Now picture you're an aquatic animal, with a slow metabolism. You're a predator. The warmer you are, the better you can prey on other animals. So you drag yourself out of the water a bit, gills still working at the shore, and warm up a tad more than your neighbours. You're able to be a better predator, and are more likely to survive to propagate your genes. As time passes, more mutations lead to a better ability to get out of the water onto the land to bask. The Hox genes shift to make you a quadruped, and you can swim and maneouver on land--you're an amphibian.

I know that's highly simplified, but it's a good example.

In General: Evolution is a fact. Not every detail has been worked out. The fact that every detail has not been worked out says nothing about one of the most thoroughly tested and examined theories in all of science.

In Specific: There is new evidence that legs evolved long before the move to land. Animals have been discovered who were fully aquatic, and used legs to move about on the bottom of shallow coves. Of course we can't be certain about specific historical events, but our current best guess is that animals walking around underwater found themselves in water TOO shallow; those variants that could use their legs to get to another pool were the ones who survived events that trapped their cohorts.

Returning to the subject of Cheryl's question:

How does viewing our existence and our origins from an evolutionary or natural standpoint vs. that of a divine purpose affect the value you put on life? ... A deity is not essential for us to value our own lives and one another, but it is essential for us to have intrinsic worth. So my question is, how does this lack of intrinsic worth affect a person's value of human life?

This could easily be considered one of the defining question of philosophy. So great is its history that Socrates himself contemplated and defended such issue against the sophists.

There has been much effort to disarm the implications of your question by undermining the religious point of view. Some have said that the existence of a God does not render life more valuable, others state that life becomes even less valuable. I know you and I share similar backgrounds and similar approaches to life and I suspect that you find these answers to be as equally shallow as I find them. This is not a question that you can win by default. Eliminating the opposition leaves us right where we started, doesn't it? Babies still die. People still starve. Couples fall in love, other's grow to despise one another. Life goes on and there's not a damn thing anyone can do to change the inevitability of our finitude. In the grand scheme of things what difference does it make if we die as the victim of infanticide or live the life of Socrates?

You said that a diety imparts some intrinsic worth to our lives, but I ask you, what is the inherent worth of God, in the grand scheme of things? What difference does it make if God himself exists or not? His being has no more inherent worth than that of our own. What right have we to derive value from an entity who according to our own premise is valueless.

Cheryl, this is a path which you should not travel unless you are fully prepared to face the consequences of your inquiry. Even the great Socrates chose to die before embracing the proposition you are about to hear. The Sophists said that all things are but conventions. There is no objective truth. Meaning and value cannot exist beyond the framework of man's mind. You are indeed worthless Cheryl, as is your child, as am I, as is every member of this community, and every person and everything that has drawn breath on our pale blue dot in the grand scheme of things. Why? There is no grand scheme; there is no objective reality; there is no point of reference from the human perspective to drape ultimate value upon.

---

"I see all this potential, and I see it squandered. Goddamnit, an entire generation of pumping gas, waiting tables, slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We are the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no great war, no Great Depression. Our great war is a spiritual war. Our Great Depression...is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars, but we won't...And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very...very...pissed off."

...

"You are not your job. You are not how much money you have in the bank. You are not the car you drive. You are not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You are the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world."

...

Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? Listen to me. You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. It's not the worst thing that can happen to you. We don't need him. Fuck damnation, man. Fuck redemption. We are God's unwanted children, SO BE IT! First you have to give up. First, you have to know, not fear, that someday, you're gonna die. It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything."

...

"I found freedom. Losing all hope was freedom."

---

Cheryl, once we understand that there is no real meaning to life, only then can we truly appreciate the value confered upon each other through explicit relationships and implicit social conventions. What is more precious than that which can be so easily lost?

I would love to end here, but the matter of "ought" cannot be neglected. If life is inherently meaningless, as I have implied, then what right have we to condemn those who regard life accordingly? I have argued that enlightened self-interest demands that we sanction those who take life, but I am no longer so certain that this is a sufficient model. I must concede that I have always felt the subconcious pangs of doubt lurking in my mind although I did not recognize them then as such. My reading of Bloom's The Lucifer Principle has more than ever forced me to acknowledge that socially atomistic theories, like self-interest, can never fully describe human nature and therefore can never provide the basis on how humans ought to live. I think Rousseau, a French contract-theorist, provides an essential clue in that he believes man's only true virtue, in the state of nature, is pity. Mankind is thus inherently social, and I think Bloom would affirm this notion. 'No man is an island' becomes annexed to 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' as the golden rule. We ought to value and preserve life because each of us is a member of a larger organism. No single cell, by itself, determines the course and fate of the body, nor does it ultimately matter if one cell lives or dies, but the course and fate of the organism is dependent upon the unity and cohesion of it's constituent cells.

I hope that I have respectfully and sufficiently addressed your question, Cheryl. I hope that I have not provided you any answers, but only a point to ask more questions. I appreciate your determination to pursue questions of ultimate concern and to reject the easy answers that appeal so powerfully to our human concete. If I have ever been insightful, it is only because of people like you.

Edited by: Timothy Schoonover at: 12/13/02 8:55:25 pm

Tim

That has to be one of the most impressive posts I have seen in a very long time. I'm seriously proud to have someone like yourself a part of the BookTalk community.

Quote:

---

You said that a deity imparts some intrinsic worth to our lives, but I ask you, what is the inherent worth of God, in the grand scheme of things?

---

What is the inherent worth of God? What a phenomenal question! People just assume that a creator sits at the pinnacle of worth and value, but why should this be so? Perhaps because the deity says this is the way it is supposed to be. He demands our respect, admiration and worship. He demands it! "Believe and worship...or I'll cast you into a lake of fire for all eternity."

Quote:

---

Cheryl, this is a path which you should not travel unless you are fully prepared to face the consequences of your inquiry.

---

This gave me chills. Probably because I traversed this path a long long time ago. What strength it takes to ask such blunt questions, knowing fully well the answers might be extremely painful to digest.

Quote:

---

There is no objective truth.

---

I would probably word this differently, but when push comes to shove, you and I probably agree on the underlying meaning. I do believe there is an objective reality, and rational man must strive to bring his subjective interpretation of this reality as close as possible to the objective. One can never be 100% positive that their understanding of reality, and objective reality, are one and the same. But science and reason have proven themselves repeatedly to be the best known tool for bridging this gap.

The key word here is "truth." By "truth" I doubt you are referring to "reality," but are more or less referring to values and worth. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Chris

Half of my post mysteriously vanished after I clicked the post button! Just pretend the above response is much longer and more thorough please. Thanks.

Edited by: Chris OConnor  at: 10/30/05 3:51 pm