Evolution vs Creationism (be nice)

[Neosodon]

I would argue that rather than free will not existing, "instinct" doesn't truly exist. Though perhaps it's simply semantics at that point.

Interesting take. But I think instincts and free will both exist. Take a star fish for example. Echinoderms do not have brains. They have to rely on reactions controlled by a nerve ring to move and react to their environment. So you could say they are a hundred percent controlled by instincts and have no free will at all. Even though we humans have incredible thought and decision making capabilities we are still controlled by instincts in small ways. We can make a conscious choice in a staring contest not to blink but eventually our instincts will take over and we will be forced to blink. The more intelligent an animal is though the more it can use free will.

[Halichoeres]

You guys don't even believe in free will or non evolutionary behavior? Those characteristics are not necessarily exclusive with creationism and can be easily observed. I'm no neuroscientist but when the thinking and decision making part of the brain becomes developed enough it can override the evolved set of survival based instincts.  Everything about our evolutionary programmed instincts is to make us survive. Yet people (and some animals) kill themselves all the time. That is like the complete opposite of evolutionary behavior. Our instincts tell us to reproduce but there are plenty of people who choose to remain single and not have kids. That is free will.

Well, don't tar anyone with the same brush as me. I think most people believe in free will, but I think it is probably an illusion. That's not terribly germane to the thread topic unless we go back to theodicy; I was just pointing out that I wouldn't have responded to you the way you seemed to think I would.

I do think the free will illusion is extremely powerful and useful. And I take your point that we choose (or, as I prefer to say, appear to choose) actions that seem to fly in the face of evolutionary imperatives. Our lineage has undergone a billion years of relentless, but short-sighted, selection for better cognitive ability. Without going too much into human history, those of us in a privileged enough position to be arguing via computer on a forum for toy collectors have the luxury of deploying that ability in the service of questions that have very little to do with survival. And yes, we can now out-think some impulses that would increase our reproductive output, in much the same way that we've suppressed a lot of our violent instincts (you're less likely to be killed violently now than at any time in history).

But as I said, selection is short-sighted. It optimizes traits in a particular context. Cognition in small groups of hunter-gatherers made for better hunters, better raiders, better inventors--and more offspring. Now it makes better doctors, better carpenters, better teachers, but not necessarily more offspring. The context has changed completely. If you take any other animal out of the setting in which it evolved, it too will usually have fewer offspring. That doesn't argue against natural selection in the least.

[Gwangi]

One can quote Rick and Morty "love is just a chemical reaction that causes animals to breed" all they want, that only explains the existence of physical attraction, it explains nothing of romantic bonds. Every individual is different and will seek those that are compatible emotionally, whether platonically or romantically.

Romantic bonds? As in, a relationship that exists in order to insure the successful rearing of offspring? Or in the case of platonic relationships, the drive to seek out our own species in order to insure our survival as social animals. Something that's easier to do with those you get along with.

I never suggested free will did not exist but I do believe that we're driven by more primal forces than we realize, even if it seems counter intuitive to our survival. Since I don't believe in a creator and accept that evolution is the process through which life exists then naturally I would believe that all behavior is evolutionary behavior.

[stargatedalek]

I don't deny that conscious decision how we tend to quantify it is potentially different from how it functions, but I don't think that alone qualifies it for being an illusion.

I would define free will as our ability to consciously make decisions, even if those decisions are determined by the ways we respond to external factors. Just because I would respond the same way at the same time under the same circumstances doesn't mean the decision is not something that I am controlling. Even if it feels like we aren't in control of our own actions, a flinch, a laugh, a blur of adrenaline after an injury, that's still our mind processing external stimuli and responding.

Either control is an illusion or lack of control is an illusion, and I for one feel the latter is more parsimonious with behavior we can observe.

One can quote Rick and Morty "love is just a chemical reaction that causes animals to breed" all they want, that only explains the existence of physical attraction, it explains nothing of romantic bonds. Every individual is different and will seek those that are compatible emotionally, whether platonically or romantically.

Romantic bonds? As in, a relationship that exists in order to insure the successful rearing of offspring? Or in the case of platonic relationships, the drive to seek out our own species in order to insure our survival as social animals. Something that's easier to do with those you get along with.

I never suggested free will did not exist but I do believe that we're driven by more primal forces than we realize, even if it seems counter intuitive to our survival. Since I don't believe in a creator and accept that evolution is the process through which life exists then naturally I would believe that all behavior is evolutionary behavior.

I didn't intend to suggest that romantic bonds existed outside of evolutionary origins, indeed they have survival purposes.

My intended example here is that behaviors that originally occurred for evolutionary advantage can be modified for personal advantage. For someone who doesn't feel sexual attraction to the opposite sex, or who does not seek physical intimacy, forming a sexual or even solely romantic bond still has great advantages and can improve both partners mental health and overall well-being significantly, even if it offers the species nor those parties genetic material any direct advantage (short of two members who are happier and more productive than they might otherwise be, but there is no evolutionary cause for "half-victories" [from a purely genetic spread perspective]).

I site the examples I've mentioned here and earlier as witting modifications of behavior and as evidence of free will, and in-turn deny the presence of free will (or of perceived free will) as evidence of creationism.

[SidB]

Many public debates on the issue are labelled "Creation vs. Evolution", which generally gets the blood flying on both sides, though the former stance is very much a minority report position nowadays. Since "creationISM tends to be identified with six literal days (or Young Earth) creation, it is profoundly offensive to folk whose science background has any degree of rigor. The sad thing is that the dichotomy between the two is not philosophically necessary. One can accept both a creator and evolution, which is the position of most non-fundamentalist religious entities these days. Media debates tend to foster a false dichotomy, since that generates more publicity/ conflict.

This is to say that the person of religious faith can believe in a creator who uses "ordained, sustained and teleologically directed evolutionary processes" to create the vast diversity of life forms. There is no necessary conflict between the two polarities in the debate. If I don't accept that there is a purposeful Mind behind it all, then you would have to classify me as a "dysteleological" evolutionary, one who espoused sheer randomness as the driving force. As a hard materialistic reductionist, such a person could be considered a believer in evolutionISM, rather than evolution per se. Darwin would be an advocate of the latter, Dawkins the former philosophical position.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Many public debates on the issue are labelled "Creation vs. Evolution", which generally gets the blood flying on both sides, though the former stance is very much a minority report position nowadays. Since "creationISM tends to be identified with six literal days (or Young Earth) creation, it is profoundly offensive to folk whose science background has any degree of rigor. The sad thing is that the dichotomy between the two is not philosophically necessary. One can accept both a creator and evolution, which is the position of most non-fundamentalist religious entities these days. Media debates tend to foster a false dichotomy, since that generates more publicity/ conflict.

This is to say that the person of religious faith can believe in a creator who uses "ordained, sustained and teleologically directed evolutionary processes" to create the vast diversity of life forms. There is no necessary conflict between the two polarities in the debate. If I don't accept that there is a purposeful Mind behind it all, then you would have to classify me as a "dysteleological" evolutionary, one who espoused sheer randomness as the driving force. As a hard materialistic reductionist, such a person could be considered a believer in evolutionISM, rather than evolution per se. Darwin would be an advocate of the latter, Dawkins the former philosophical position.

While I tend to agree with your comments and totally agree, I would take a moment to point out in the beginnings of this thread, that a few who accept a creationist standpoint advocated a postion of inerrancy within the bible. Those who offered a viewpoint seemed in fact to be stating they were satisfied the "entire book" was factual, or similar positions. Spokesman for AIG Ken Ham has repeatedly stated we have to accept the entire tale given in Genesis as entirely factual, or as he suggested then none of it is true.
   Given this determination to see the creation story as more documenatary than an abstract view of a creation method, I do see why he polarity exists, although I feel that both sides share the blame

[SidB]

Yes, plenty of blame to go around in this scrum. Truth claims can, of course, be either/or or both/and. The challenge is to discern which set of parameters to apply in a given case. Unfortunately, historically the debate has been framed and often dominated by either/or people who tend to look at the world around them in very wooden terms. Certainly the creationist side has tended to a hyper-literalistic hermeneutic which does no justice at all to the poetic chiasm of the ancient Hebrew. The parabolic nature of the old Genesis account is meant to indicate that the cosmos is both good and created (not eternal). That's it - it's not a manual of cosmology/life science to be unpacked as such. Interesting enough, in reference to Ham, those who claim a rigidly literal understanding of ancient cosmologies such as this are not consistent in their methodology. For example, applying the same standard to the fourth gospel -John, where Jesus asserts that he is the gateway to the sheepfold - would Ham then aver that Jesus is saying that he is made of wood or aluminium. We read different genres differently - comics, editorials, articles, sports. All potentially true, but in different ways.

[tanystropheus]

Even things often construed as "instinct" are in actuality free will or learned behavior.

Wild ducks will choose not to migrate entirely of their own volition if they're being kept well fed through the winter. And in contrast birds raised in captivity need to be taught how to migrate. Many predators kept well fed in captivity will coexist peacefully with would-be prey animals (fish in particular). Even insects will learn and alter their behavior to fit their environment.

One can quote Rick and Morty "love is just a chemical reaction that causes animals to breed" all they want, that only explains the existence of physical attraction, it explains nothing of romantic bonds. Every individual is different and will seek those that are compatible emotionally, whether platonically or romantically.

I would argue that rather than free will not existing, "instinct" doesn't truly exist. Though perhaps it's simply semantics at that point.

I've always considered the concept of free will not in contrast to evolution but in contrast to creationism. Many times growing up I'd hear "oh its all gods plan" as if we were nothing more than objects being controlled by some grandiose being, and frankly I found that concept revolting and still do.

Thank you for this unique take. I found this post to be quite informative. Perhaps, scientists should revisit the concept of instinct, imprinting and other related constructs (it might have far-reaching implications for establishing sentience, especially for invertebrates).

[tanystropheus]

The Creationist tendency to portray existent entities as conforming to the "immutable species" archetypes imposes an unnecessary (and, problematic) limit on God's overall abilities and attributes. The command, "Be and it is", encompasses ALL design. Evolutionary process exists as a function of intelligent design. In fact, I would argue that Evolution is the most intelligent expression and manifestation of intelligent, creative design. Evolution is Sacred.

Unfortunately, the majority of religionists are simply unable to read beyond the canonical NT. The Bible is too abridged (especially with respect to the Creation mythos), and the Koran is concise. The Koran, (while more accessible than the Bible) poses a unique set of issues, namely, the non-linear manner of story-telling and presentation; extrapolating a chronological sequence from the scripture is not an easy task. However, in stark contrast to the Bible, there is no mention of the forbidden Tree of Knowledge and therefore the quest for scientific (ilm) inquiry is generally encouraged. Verse 29:20 states, "Say, "Travel through the earth and see how God did originate creation..." Thus, the Christian fundamentalist belief that Satan somehow implanted fossils to deceive mankind is regarded as being foreign or nonsensical heresy to Sufis. Religionists need to go beyond the NT and look into the Book(s) of Enoch, the Kybalion, Nag Hammadi, Dead Sea Scrolls, Koran and the Taoist/Buddhist canon in order to formulate a more comprehensive understanding of natural phenomena (in tandem with secular studies and the natural sciences, of course). When we analyze the Old Testament, we should evaluate the impact of Yahwist, Elohist and Sacerdotal renditions.

I think the fundamental problem that Creationists face is an aesthetic one. In their mind, Adam (the human archetype) is envisioned as the pinnacle of Creation. The possibility of any simian ancestral ties deeply troubles them because it readily disrupts that perfect image of Adam they had in their mind. What Creationists fail to realize is that Adam can still be "perfect", but the concept of Adam MUST begin at the level of Homo Sapiens or "the wise man" ("And He taught Adam the names of all things"). Creationists have to also give up the notion of man being special. We are special, but not that special. If Creationists (in particular, the Abrahamic variety) were to reject their firmly entrenched anthropocentric framework, they will allow themselves the transformative opportunity to expand and be open to the true nature of Evolution.

[SidB]

Yes, it's good to question even the meanings that we attach (or allow to be attached by others, without refutation) to common words, like "perfect" or "perfection." Too often this is assumed to be some static, fixed state. But what is such an immobility but death. Rather, life is process and progress. The fourth century philosophical mystic, Gregory of Nyssa, wrote that the inner meaning of perfection is an everlasting ascent into the divine immensity (Immensitas= unmeasureability), onwards and upwards forever in the freedom of stepping into the wave, to see where one will be carried.

[JohannesB]

As one who studied archaeology, anthropology, comparative cultural studies, and read some geology, palaeontology and philosophy, I have come to the realization I know extremely little about the Earth, nature and life, and the cosmos as a whole. But it seems to me evident that lifeforms which produce via sexual intercourse, and thereby recombine DNA do indeed produce ofspring that exhibit changes from their parents. Doesn't that, combined with many other experiments and observations, prove beyond all doubt that evolution does indeed exist?

By the way, the fact that I think that evolution is real does not really dissuade me from thinking that there is no "Creator". Maybe there is. Maybe there isn't. Not a matter of belief for me.

[Libraraptor]

Oh no, I had been so happy that this thread eventually had been kicked into the long grass, and then someone raises the zombie!
This discussion is toxic and leads to nothing.
And although I am no moderator: caring for everyone here and on behalf of the peace on the forum I beg for everyone to respect this post as the very last in this thread.
Thank you.

[Loon]

Oh no, I had been so happy that this thread eventually had been kicked into the long grass, and then someone raises the zombie!
This discussion is toxic and leads to nothing.
And although I am no moderator: caring for everyone here and on behalf of the peace on the forum I beg for everyone to respect this post as the very last in this thread.
Thank you.

Yeah, this thread died pretty naturally I think. Also, some of my posts in it are just embarrassing.

[Libraraptor]

Oh no, I had been so happy that this thread eventually had been kicked into the long grass, and then someone actually tries to reanimate a zombie!
This discussion is toxic and leads to nothing, absolutely nothing but bad blood and sulkiness!

Although I am no moderator: caring for everyone here and on behalf of the peace on the forum, in respect of so many other interesting and exciting topics and members:

I beg for everyone to respect THIS post as the very last ever in this thread.

Thank you.

[suspsy]

Yeah, I'm also very disappointed that someone saw the need to resurrect a nearly three year old thread that was clearly very divisive. Not cool.

[stargatedalek]

Oh no, I had been so happy that this thread eventually had been kicked into the long grass, and then someone actually tries to reanimate a zombie!
This discussion is toxic and leads to nothing, absolutely nothing but bad blood and sulkiness!

Although I am no moderator: caring for everyone here and on behalf of the peace on the forum, in respect of so many other interesting and exciting topics and members:

I beg for everyone to respect THIS post as the very last ever in this thread.

Thank you.

No offence, but Loon was only discussing the thread itself in a logistical way, the exact same as you were doing. So this feels rather uncalled for.  Closing it makes sense, but there is no reason to get so aggressive about someone else expressing their sentiment to the thread as a whole.

Skimming the past page or so of comments this thread actually seems unusually un-heated. I can only assume things were far worse prior to this threads apparent final days.

The title is certainly needlessly absolutist and dichotomizing though, so it should be deleted. All ongoing discussions ended naturally so no need to continue those elsewhere wither.

[JohannesB]

It would be logical to delete this thread, as it is indeed a non-discussion. So actually I am sorry. I guess my autism causes me to be as untactful as I am (by ignoring the consequences of beating this horse so many years after it had died..).

[Libraraptor]

I break my own promise/demand  by posting again in order to clarify two matters:

Firstly, my wish to starve out this thread by not posting anymore was by no means intended to be aggressive. It was a kind wish, declaimed calmly but clearly.

Secondly, no one has to apologize for posting anything anywhere unless he/she breaks the forum rules. I just wanted to avoid further tempests in teapots.

No offense meant!

[Loon]

It would be logical to delete this thread, as it is indeed a non-discussion. So actually I am sorry. I guess my autism causes me to be as untactful as I am (by ignoring the consequences of beating this horse so many years after it had died..).

No worries, I've necroed threads before. I think it wouldn't be wise to delete it, rather close it to future posts.

[postsaurischian]

....... my wish to starve out this thread by not posting anymore was by no means intended to be aggressive. It was a kind wish, declaimed calmly but clearly.

It wasn't aggressive at all. Some people are just being too sensitive.
Apart from that you were right. If people want to dicuss the bible thing, go to church (and pay their taxes)!
Don't come to the DTF! There is no less appropriate place to do that.

Besides that: Forum rule 7 says: Topics concerning politics and religion are discouraged.