I'd say that evolution is just the material world's expression of time through physical change. The process that creates trillions of different planets and stars is the same process that, on a more micro level, creates millions of different forms of life - which includes humanity, of course. That said, I think it would be silly for us to judge such a process as being right or wrong, seeing as the world has no intentions. The real question is whether the world creates and consumes itself in a microcosm, or if there is a predicated creator (God) of the world. If the latter is true, then the implications of evolution become rather unimportant compared to that of what a God's existence means. So, the implications of evolution essentially just get you back to core philosophical issues relating to creation, God, existence, and so on.

I think evolution can be regarded in a positive way if we can agree that the continuance of life in general is considered to be good.

If organisms don't adapt to the changing environment, they will eventually die off. With the elimination of various life forms, the world would become less diverse, and hence less enjoyable. Imagine an Earth with no flowers, no birds, and no butterflies. Nature suddenly holds less appeal, and probably loses some of its power to soothe the soul. Taken to the extreme, think of Earth with no life other than humans - a barren landscape, and nothing to eat but other humans!

if we can agree that the continuance of life in general is considered to be good. — CasKev

You can give a deflationary account of this view. In order to coerce us to reproduce we could be wired to see life as good.

It certainly isn't unmitigated good and the good can be highly subjective. Personally I value meaning and purpose.

Also I don't think the vast majority of species reproduce because life is good.

I think your view is a good argument for the continuation of humans and I think it is quite compelling however I think it will just lead to a one size fits all justification for human values.

the good can be highly subjective — Andrew4Handel

I think the good for humans is mostly objective in this case, if we can agree that the minimization of suffering and maximization of contentment are good.

I'll continue with the idea that in the absence of evolution, we would eventually be left with a barren landscape, and cannibalism.

There is an undeniable connection we humans feel with nature, especially when it comes to other living things. I think it is fair to say that the existence of plants and animals makes life more enjoyable.

Also, since we have things other than humans to eat, we are not left wondering if we are going to be the next meal, which I'm sure would lead to mental suffering of some kind.

There are many planets that have no life on them and we still appreciate them. (We seem to be obsessed with Mars).

I think harm can be objective but not the good. People can be discontented with any aspect of existence. (Especially a lack of purpose and meaning). (Me for example)

Your view seems to depend entirely on the continuation of human consciousness. However life ends in death and our conscious experience are finite not inherited by our offspring.

This is What Richard Dawkins has claimed:

"The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

There are many planets that have no life on them and we still appreciate them. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, but given the choice, on which planet would you choose to live?

Your view seems to depend entirely on the continuation of human consciousness. — Andrew4Handel

I think these principles apply to an individual's finite existence as well. If one decides to continue living, they will naturally want to make that existence as pleasurable as possible. To me, the most pleasurable life is one where I have persistent peace of mind, with as little physical suffering as possible, sprinkled with moments of joy and physical pleasure. The continued existence of other life, made possible through evolution, undeniably contributes to those goals.

People can be discontented with any aspect of existence. (Especially a lack of purpose and meaning). (Me for example) — Andrew4Handel

On a side note, I currently believe that the brain may have over-evolved, in that humans feel some unshakeable need for purpose and meaning, creating a conflict between what we think should exist, and how the world really operates. If we can accept that life really is meaningless, we can shift our focus toward satisfying our instinctive biological needs and desires (food, water, shelter, family, community, procreation).

Throughout its history it has been used in various ways to justify ideologies and actions. The worst examples stem from The Nazis ( "Alles leben ist kampf"), eugenics and communists. This should concern us I think, when a theory can be interpreted in such a damaging way. This is not usually the case with ideas in science such as gravity or Quantum physics. — Andrew4Handel

Not entirely true. Quantum physics is being interpreted in such ways that basically say "magic is real" and then being used by con artists and hucksters to fleece people. See also Scientology. Not Quantum mechanics, but also a misappropriation of science to legitimize bad behavior. It's not rare for bad actors to use science, religion, politics, nationalism, or whatever else to lend an air of legitimacy to their nonsense.

On one account evolution is deflationary and destructive of purpose and meaning and all action can be seen in the light of attempts at brute survival. I have not heard pf a positive account of evolution although some people talk as if it involved progress which is controversial. — Andrew4Handel

I don't understand what this means. I have no idea why evolution is destructive of purpose or meaning, unless you are suggesting that purpose and meaning can only come from a creator, and evolution makes the likelihood of a creator less.

Regarding a "positive" account of evolution, why should there be such a thing? Is there a positive account for general relativity? Godel's incompleteness theory? These are analytical tools used for explaining and making predictions about the world. The only positive accounts should be "they are logically self-coherent and they cohere with the available evidence. That's all a good theory is supposed to do.

In a trivial way it easy to claim anything we do is ultimately a survival trait regardless of our intentions. i don't like being in service of this system. — Andrew4Handel

That would show a failure to understand how evolution works. The theory of evolution by natural selection doesn't imply that all traits are best suited for survival (adaptive). There are non-adaptive traits:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/misconcep_07

As far as being in service to it, I' don't know what that means either, unless you are saying you don't want to be an evolutionary scientist, which is, I think, fine by everyone.

As far as being in service to it, I' don't know what that means either, (..). — Reformed Nihilist

This is actually Richard Dawkins position especially in the selfish gene.

"They did not die out, for they are past masters of the survival arts. But do not look for them floating loose in the sea; they gave up that cavalier freedom long ago. Now they swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control. "

Not entirely true. Quantum physics is being interpreted in such ways that basically say "magic is real" and then being used by con artists and hucksters to fleece people — Reformed Nihilist

This is not the equivalent to justify killing numerous people based on a notion of the survival of the fittest or justifying racism and forced sterilisation.

"In 1929 Hitler said at the Nazi Party Conference in Nuremberg, "that an average annual removal of 700,000-800,000 of the weakest of a million babies meant an increase in the power of the nation and not a weakening".[1] In doing so, he was able to draw upon scientific argument that transferred the Darwinian theory of natural selection to human beings and, through the concept of racial hygiene, formulated the "Utopia" of "human selection" as propounded by Alfred Ploetz, the founder of German racial hygiene."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_euthanasia_in_Nazi_Germany

I don't understand what this means. I have no idea why evolution is destructive of purpose or meaning, unless you are suggesting that purpose and meaning can only come from a creator, and evolution makes the likelihood of a creator less. — Reformed Nihilist

Design makes purpose and meaning somewhat inevitable.

A spoon has a purpose and meaning for us.

If we are here solely by chance and with no intention we are here for no reason with no purpose. Any meaning is accidental.

Now we need a memetic complement to that last Dawkins quote.

"They came into being with language. Look for them floating loose in a sea of data ; they have cavalier freedom (if worms have it). Now they swarm inside the neural networks of mankind."

I am a meme editing agent.

I don't see how the Dawkins quote implies that you are in service of evolution.

Regarding the equivalence, they are equivalent insofar as they are ideas being adopted as justifications for bad acts. How is the degree of harm relevant?

Design makes purpose and meaning somewhat inevitable. A spoon has a purpose and meaning for us. — Andrew4Handel

Not at all. A creator could be acting arbitrarily. A creator could not care. A creator could be free of intention totally. A thing only has meaning and purpose if we assume a creator is intentional like we are. At that point though, all you have determined is the the creator has it's own meaning and a purpose for what it created. There's no reason to assume that it's meaningful to us or gives us any purpose.

If we are here solely by chance and with no intention we are here for no reason with no purpose. Any meaning is accidental. — Andrew4Handel

You've already established that purpose is created, not inherent with your spoon analogy. Why is a spoons purpose ok when we create it, but creating purpose for ourselves not ok?

. If we can accept that life really is meaningless, we can shift our focus toward satisfying our instinctive biological needs and desires (food, water, shelter, family, community, procreation). — CasKev

Despite modern technology our life is still about brute survival. Everyday we are struggling to stay alive. It is easier to fulfil basic needs giving ample time to reflect on meaning.

I think religion etc may have sprung up in a response to fear and meaninglessness but now it has been undermined. I think the need for meaning now has been created by the destruction of wide spread superstitions. I am not an expert in anthropology but I have the impression that most humans societies have been superstitious and not atheistic and they had no scientific theories to justify atheism.

I don't makes reality less "magical" but it has been used in a deflationary and reductionist ways concerning human relations.

There have been many discoveries in science which were advantageous or disadvantageous to one group or another, but most of them have not caused huge and prolonged controversy. Maybe there are reasons for this.

Origin of the Species by Darwin and Wallace's On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type were concurrent. They arrived at a time of intellectual ferment in many scholarly area. But then, what period doesn't ferment intellectually?).

Had Darwin and Wallace been Renaissance personalities, or even better, ancient Greeks or Romans, "evolution" would probably have not triggered such a strong reaction. First, the theory was not about the physical world of physics & chemistry; it was about all life and thus human beings. It laid bare a process of nature which had previously not been recognized (not very clearly, at least) and which had been assigned to the divine.

Darwin and Wallace severed the divine from the human in a particularly effective way.

Evolution placed mankind in an embarrassing relation to primates. The effect was worse than discovering that the exalted royal family's roots were actually very low class trash--nothing exalted whatsoever. We were (gasp) descended from chattering, grinning, idiot monkeys -- an outrage! (We aren't descended from contemporary monkeys, of course. We diverged a few million years back.)

Evolution was tied to the notion of survival of the fittest -- without asking "fittest for what?" Social darwinism is more the idiot bastard son of evolution, rather than a core principle.

You've already established that purpose is created, not inherent with your spoon analogy. Why is a spoons purpose ok when we create it, but creating purpose for ourselves not ok? — Reformed Nihilist

The spoon inherits a purpose but we don't. It doesn't randomly exist.


What purpose could we be said to have? In a trivial sense someone can claim watching paint dry is their purpose. But this kind of invented purpose lacks profundity and also it can be given a deflationary evolutionary explanation.

Do you want me to cite what evolutionary theorist have said about how our purposes are subservient to brute survival of genes and species.

Anyhow here I am talking about interpretations of evolution and what restrictions they put on claims if any. I am am examining statements such is "if evolution is true then X follows"

The problem with evolution on some interpretations is that it reduces or deflates human claims. For example you could help an elderly person cross the road with genuine kindness and altruism but that disposition is seen as primarily in service of the survival of the genes.

One of the implications of science-in-general, biological science in particular, molecular biology even more so, is that we have moved into a position of directing evolution. That we are ready to assume such responsibility is a joke, but here we are taking over the lab, nonetheless.

That molecularly biologists should perhaps have several critical agencies looking over their shoulder was revealed in a bit of science news--that a group had succeeded in building the polio virus from scratch. They would, of course, try to build the variola virus (small pox) from scratch too.

Why would they select two of the most dangerous human viruses to try out construction techniques? There are numerous viruses far more benign than polio and small pox. Why, for that matter, are two or three governments and some science groups reluctant to burn up the samples of small pox or polio (which hasn't yet been eradicated -- almost, but not quite).

What these issues reveal is that our cultural capacity to proceed into the future ethically and safely has not evolved sufficiently.

The theory of evolution by natural selection doesn't imply that all traits are best suited for survival (adaptive). There are non-adaptive traits: — Reformed Nihilist

Explain the treatment of homosexuality then.

Theorists are attempting to explain homosexuality as having adaptive advantage. They are not happy with it just being a spandrel.

"Another possibility is that homosexuality evolves and persists because it benefits groups or relatives, rather than individuals. In bonobos, homosexual behaviour might have benefits at a group level by promoting social cohesion. One study in Samoa found gay men devote more time to their nieces and nephews, suggesting it might be an example of kin selection (promoting your own genes in the bodies of others)."

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality/

Edward H. Hagen, What about spandrels?

On one account evolution is deflationary and destructive of purpose and meaning and all action can be seen in the light of attempts at brute survival. — Andrew4Handel

That's not 'on one account', it is true even according to its most ardent advocate, Dawkins, whom you mention. He frequently observes that Darwinian theory is a lousy basis for any kind of social philosophy, and that we have to transcend it, which sits oddly with his self-proclaimed mission to destroy the traditional sources of such transcendence.

The point about evolution is that it has social, cultural and philosophical implications, due to what it displaces, namely, biblical creationism. Whereas in the latter, man is part of the whole scheme, in the former, man is simply another product of an essentially mindless process. That has many implications, most of which are taken for granted.

And then there is evolution 'as a secular religion', as Michael Ruse observes.

There is professional evolutionary biology: mathematical, experimental, not laden with value statements. But, you are not going to find the answer to the world's mysteries or to societal problems if you open the pages of Evolution or Animal Behaviour. Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity. And, if this is so, “the final decisive edge enjoyed by scientific naturalism will come from its capacity to explain traditional religion, its chief competition, as a wholly material phenomenon. Theology is not likely to survive as an independent intellectual discipline”.

What implications do you think can be validly be drawn from the theory of evolution?

Throughout its history it has been used in various ways to justify ideologies and actions. The worst examples stem from The Nazis ( "Alles leben ist kampf"), eugenics and communists. This should concern us I think, when a theory can be interpreted in such a damaging way. This is not usually the case with ideas in science such as gravity or Quantum physics.

On one account evolution is deflationary and destructive of purpose and meaning and all action can be seen in the light of attempts at brute survival. I have not heard pf a positive account of evolution although some people talk as if it involved progress which is controversial.

In a trivial way it easy to claim anything we do is ultimately a survival trait regardless of our intentions. i don't like being in service of this system.

I am not keen to save someone from harm just so they can go on and mindlessly reproduce. — Andrew4Handel

Evolution by natural selection is a mechanical process, like water vapor condensing into rain.

Water vapor condensing into rain does not imply that things are getting better or worse, that certain responses are warranted or not warranted, or anything like that. It just means that under certain conditions water vapor will condense into rain, nothing more, nothing less.

Nobody says that rain is "advanced" and water vapor is "primitive".

Nobody says that a rock is "primitive" and a pebble formed by the action of water is "advanced".

Nobody says that the wind transporting pollen and pollinating a plant justifies a certain social structure or threatens a certain tradition.

Anybody who thinks that evolution means "progress", "advanced", "backwards", "better", "worse", etc. is reading way too much into it.

Evolution is just a description of a mechanical process like water turning into ice at or below a certain temperature is a description of a mechanical process. Period. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Evolution does not "imply" anything other than genetic material being produced and distributed through a particular mechanism.

That's not 'on one account', — Wayfarer

Dawkins writings are contradictory. I already quoted him here as calling us Gigantic lumbering robots.

Saying we should some how transcend evolution does not mean that you have not presented a thoroughly deflationary account. I can cite his strategy in "The Selfish gene"

What I am referring to is the way things are primarily described as survival apparatus. For instance homosexuality is supposed to have a primary explanation in terms of enhancing fitness.

Here is a quote from a paper by a group of evolutionary psychologists

"Exclusive homosexual orientation seems to defy evolutionary logic since it presumably fails to increase an individual’s reproductive success. Although evolutionary hypotheses have been proposed for homosexuality, as discussed earlier, none have received empirical
support thus far (e.g., Bobrow & Bailey, 2001)"

http://www.dianafleischman.com/epap.pdf

The implication being that things have to ultimately be reduced to their evolutionary purpose. This the deflationary account.Nothing can exist unless that it is at some stage subservient to evolution. I can cite many cases where things have being giving hypothetical evolutionary explanations (music/dancing/religion etc) rather than being accepted as spandrels.

The Nazi and eugenicist interpretation of evolution was that we could actively cull the weak and aid evolution. Natural selection is open to this interpretation if it is seen as improving fitness. So for example it is not in our interest to prop up people with poor genes leading to sickness because it could condemn our species as a whole. For instance we advise against interbreeding because it has been shown to cause disabilities. So I don't think that negative applications of evolution are irrational. The idea we should or could transcend evolution is idealistic. It would only be possible to a non determinist who considered human behaviour flexible enough and spandrel like to transcend innate traits.

Evolution does not "imply" anything other than genetic material being produced and distributed through a particular mechanism. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

But in the evolutionary literature things are described in terms of adaptive pathways and adaptive "benefits". There is a hierarchy and a notion of defunct or harmful forms.

I could agree with proposition that both humans and amoeba and raindrops are impressive phenomena but humans get called "meat bags" and "Just another animal" We are not compared to other animals in a complementary but in a deflationary way.

Raymond Tallis wrote a book about this "Aping mankind" (Which I have yet to read.)

It is clear that humans have numerous abilities other animals do not have especially an infinitely flexible vocabulary of thousands of words. You can say all animals are amazing without having to deny unique capacities of humans.

In these debates I feel like people are just ignoring a lot of what has been said because I have debated these things and read debates and followed media discussions and they are very trivial, reductionist, dichotomous and deflationary.

Dawkins in particularly has used science as a weapon against religion and wildly supported Lawrence Krauss's "A universe from nothing" book comparing it to Darwin. evolution may or may not imply there is no God (although I don't see how) but to actively use it in this kind of pursuit is value ladened.

I think alot of evolutionary claims have implications and are not just value free facts.

In analogy, someone might tell you that you were adopted and you declare that your adoptive parents are your true parents and you love them dearly. However you could inherit genetic disorders etc from your biological parents.

So I don't think that scientific facts or claims are neutral so that we can transcend them and make our own reality.

What implications do you think can be validly be drawn from the theory of evolution? — Andrew4Handel

Implications can be drawn from any idea, including religious ones. Everything is interconnected and therefore has an implication on everything else.

On one account evolution is deflationary and destructive of purpose and meaning and all action can be seen in the light of attempts at brute survival. I have not heard pf a positive account of evolution although some people talk as if it involved progress which is controversial. — Andrew4Handel

Survival isn't a good thing? Religion seems to be all about survival, too - the survival of your soul. Believing that you will continue to survive after your death, and behaving in a way to achieve that, isn't much different from running away from a predator to survive.

In a trivial way it easy to claim anything we do is ultimately a survival trait regardless of our intentions. i don't like being in service of this system. — Andrew4Handel

I'm not too keen on being in service to some entity that created me just for me to be indebted to it for all eternity. Neither one of us was asked what kind of system we'd like to be born into, nor guaranteed that the system we are born into would be something that we like.

I am not keen to save someone from harm just so they can go on and mindlessly reproduce. — Andrew4Handel

We don't "mindlessly" reproduce. Many animals don't reproduce when resources are scarce.

We don't "mindlessly" reproduce. Many animals don't reproduce when resources are scarce. — Harry Hindu

What is the point of reproducing?

Survival isn't a good thing? Religion seems to be all about survival, too - the survival of your soul. Believing that you will continue to survive after your death, and behaving in a way to achieve that, isn't much different from running away from a predator to survive. — Harry Hindu

Survival without an afterlife is temporary Religions are about eternal survival not just surviving so you can reproduce.

What is the point of reproducing? — Andrew

Depends on how and why you do it.

There might be a point somewhere in the room while your doing it but it's a matter of perspective.

It could be the point of a Samurai sword, or the point of a needle, the point of your nose, the point of your prick, the point of your intellect, the point of your gorgeous face, or a numerical point in your bank savings.

I'm not too keen on being in service to some entity that created me just for me to be indebted to it for all eternity. — Harry Hindu

But you are indebted to your parents in the same way. You only exist because of them. being created doesn't mean you owe a debt. I have argued this in my "No consent" thread.

I am referring to a deflationary account of human attributes as ultimately coercive to encourage reproduction. My nihilism doesn't come from Evolution but it is exacerbated by it.
I highlighted it concerning the search for an evo explanation of homosexuality. I think it is insidious to make peoples attribute subservient to brute survival/reproductive success.

For example John Travolta featured in a science journal article about the evolutionary reasons for being a good dancer . But it failed to mention that he has long been speculated as being a closeted gay and one of his children died of a genetic illness. So using his photo undermined their theory by itself. But it shows this desire to encroach on everything with evolutionary motives.

But it shows this desire to encroach on everything with evolutionary motives. — Andrew

Why isn't this just an extension of what everyone is doing in this forum, full of selective pressures on the "proper" way of doing things. Obviously the ability to reason well has benefits for whatever reasons are the "good" reasons. I also have to be able to write in English. I also have to have access to the internet and a relatively recent computing device. Lucky me (except for the glaring "bad" traits). I have to conform to necessary rules.

If life is a bowl of sausage is it better to not look behind the curtain to see how they are made? Only the sausage makers should be allowed back there (a different species of being).

On one side of the fictional future is an intimidating tower of powerful authors (tools used to control human nature which are (un)justly distributed and ultimately leashed to instinctual effects) while on the other side is a pit of postmodern despair, insensibility and madness.

And this is all bullshit because you can go take a walk (unless you don't have functioning legs). There is nothing here yet to determine when you can and cannot take a walk.

Is there?

What specific creature is the target of our concern: Harry, Andrew, Wayfarer, Reformed Thespian? Whose concern is "our" concern?

I think the Buddhist spandrel of "dependent arising" is fit to reproduce in the corner of a postmodern cathedral.

"When this is, that is
This arising, that arises
When this is not, that is not
This ceasing, that ceases."

Where is the moderating agent who didn't appear who would have saved us all this trouble (either Jesus or Baden will do).

Am I passing the Turing test?

Types of posters who are welcome here:

Those with a genuine interest in / curiosity about philosophy and the ability to express this in an intelligent way, and those who are willing to give their interlocutors a fair reading and not make unwarranted assumptions about their intentions (i.e. intelligent, interested and charitable posters).

Types of posters who are not welcome here:

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.

Advertisers, spammers: Instant deletion of post followed by ban.

Trolls: You know who you are. You won't last long — Baden: PF Guidlines