RoR: Forum

Dear Dean Michael Gores,

In my opinion (I don't work as a paleontologist, nor biologist), evolution is very accurate and theoretically bold when applied to microevolution, but Darwinism (and neo-Darwinism) stands in a seriously flawed base when extended to "macroevolution".

I think that most descriptions of "macroevolution" are really shaky. Particularly, and without a deep knowledge of it, I find Punctuated Equilibria as a too much ad hoc theory.

My (current, layman) position on the origin and evolution of life is sketched here, and here I summarize it:

1.- Life did not appear by chance.
2.- Evolution/creation of species: I think there are evolution microsteps, plus creation leaps.

Best regards,

Joel Català

Post 61

Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 6:26pm

Joel, there have been no leaps in the tree of life.

Post 62

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 5:06am

Dear Dean,

1.- Evolution does not explain 'the roots' of your "tree of life", the origin of life.

2.- Do you think evolution has not leaps? What is a mutation, if not a sort of leap?

The difference between evolution and creation is one of degree: the "amount of change". Both can involve mutation (why not to see mutation as a tool of creation?), and both are actually leaps.

Best regards,

Joel Català

Post 63

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 5:24am

1.- Evolution does not explain 'the roots' of your "tree of life", the origin of life.
Answer: Abiogenesis

2.- Do you think evolution has not leaps? What is a mutation, if not a sort of leap?
Answer: When you say leap, I took it as meaning a discontinuity in the tree of life. Sure, "leap" can mean change, and the difference between the two is "the amount of change". Maybe there were large changes, for example maybe in some offspring, a half a chromosome was replicated twice, or maybe a virus came in and modified a large section of a species genome. I would not use the word "leap" to describe these events. Instead, I would call them significant changes.

What I meant when I said "There have been no leaps in the tree of life" is that there have been no changes in the tree of life which can only be explained by ID. I was using your previous usage of leap to describe a change made by ID, and microstep as a change made by evolution.

Post 64

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 8:45am

1.- Evolution does not explain 'the roots' of your "tree of life", the origin of life.

[Dean Michael Gores:] Answer: Abiogenesis

Well, Abiogenesis, which I see as an upgraded version of the original spontaneous generation of Aristotle, is an hypothetical explanation, but not the final word at all.

Anyway, I don't really see fundamental differences between Abiogenesis and Intelligent Design: them both require a set of fine-tuned rules, and both seriously restrain the "chance" factor in the origin of life.

I only firmly oppose the explainations of the origin of life based in chance, and think we can settle a degree of agreement here. The universe has intelligibility.

2.- Do you think evolution has not leaps? What is a mutation, if not a sort of leap?

[Dean Michael Gores:] Answer: When you say leap, I took it as meaning a discontinuity in the tree of life.

If there are discontinuities in the evolution of life, what's the problem, that you feel horror vacui?

Not trying to be offensive, but your "tree of life" smacks me as a sort of Lovelockian "Gaia science" construct --a radically collectivist view of life that probably you will find abhorrent. That construct is idolatrous both from an Objectivist and a Theist point of view ;-)

[Dean Michael Gores:] Sure, "leap" can mean change, and the difference between the two is "the amount of change". Maybe there were large changes, for example maybe in some offspring, a half a chromosome was replicated twice, or maybe a virus came in and modified a large section of a species genome. I would not use the word "leap" to describe these events. Instead, I would call them significant changes.

Well, here only we have nominal differences.
(BTW: in a change, something that was A... ceases to be A; otherwise, by definition, there would be no change.)

[Dean Michael Gores:] What I meant when I said "There have been no leaps in the tree of life" is that there have been no changes in the tree of life which can only be explained by ID.

I am not looking for an explanation rejecting ID a priori, that would be bad science. If its the case that ID is the most rational and integrative explanation, I have no problem to assume it as the best. We will never know the "total-final-explanation-of-everything", but we are approaching it ;-)

[Dean Michael Gores:] I was using your previous usage of leap to describe a change made by ID, and microstep as a change made by evolution.

I think we can settle the issue here. We both recognize reason as the best tool at our disposition, and look for rational explanations for everything.

Our main difference is how we consider the possibility of a Designer and ultimate Creator of everything.

I will end with a half-joke, in which all reading it will agree, and which puts in a nutshell why we won't agree in the ID issue:

Theists have fear of the Creator, and Atheists the possibility of It. I prefer to fear something that exists :-))

The paradox: you only can be Theist or Atheist, and science can't find a proof to refute any of those positions. But hey: paradoxes are good for the brain!

Best regards from a former Objectivist,

Joel Català

Post 65

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 7:14pm

Anyway, I don't really see fundamental differences between Abiogenesis and Intelligent Design: them both require a set of fine-tuned rules, and both seriously restrain the "chance" factor in the origin of life.

I only firmly oppose the explainations of the origin of life based in chance, and think we can settle a degree of agreement here. The universe has intelligibility.

The properties of reality do design. It's properties have resulted in the existence of more than random chaos, life on earth and galactic systems are prominent examples that come to mind. We have found many ways that reality designs, and we continue to discover more ways. These discoveries do not include an intelligent designer, instead, we have found that non-intelligent properties of reality result in design. Furthermore, we have found no evidence that there is intelligence behind any of the things reality designs- until man and some other organisms began designing things.

If there are discontinuities in the evolution of life, what's the problem, that you feel horror vacui?

No, I am denying you a baseless claim that there are discontinuities in the tree of life.

When I say "tree of life" I am speaking of the general structure of generations of life, looking at how one thing is related to the thing(s) that it was produced from. I say general, because its actually a uni-directional graph, not a tree. Maybe in some cases its not even uni-directional. If you get really close, its a graph. If you ignore the details, its a tree.

I am not looking for an explanation rejecting ID a priori, that would be bad science. If its the case that ID is the most rational and integrative explanation, I have no problem to assume it as the best. We will never know the "total-final-explanation-of-everything", but we are approaching it ;-)

Ok, well then here: ID might be true, but I have no reason to think it is. I haven't rejected anything a priori, yet at the same I haven't accepted anything a priori either.

Our main difference is how we consider the possibility of a Designer and ultimate Creator of everything.

Indeed.

Theists have fear of the Creator, and Atheists the possibility of It. I prefer to fear something that exists :-))

I don't fear any such thing. The proposed God made by Christians is irrational. What are the requirements to be able to go to heaven? One of the primary requirements is to believe in something which you have no evidence for. That is ridiculous. Maybe if your proposed God was reasonable, you wouldn't fear the idea of him being a part of reality.

I do not have the fear of aliens that fly around Pluto in toasters, building a giant toaster to toast humans. I do not have the fear dinosaur *bones* coming back to life from the power of their angry souls who want revenge for our disturbance of their slumber. I do not fear the all powerful perfectly good all knowing perfectly wise eternal Christian God torturing me through eternity since I haven't chose to baselessly believe that he exists and I haven't become his slave.

Post 66

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 4:55am

Theists have fear of the Creator, and Atheists the possibility of It. I prefer to fear something that exists :-))

[Dean Michael Gores:] I don't fear any such thing. The proposed God made by Christians is irrational.

My first point there was: people may fear only what they think is (or can be) real. Both Atheist and Theist people.

We agree on the Christian irrationality. The Christian deity is defined in anti-rational terms. A human can't be the Creator; ("you can't have a cake and eat it, too"); a virgin woman could not give birth (2,000 years ago, I mean). Et caetera, et caetera...

But be (reasonably) careful because a bad defense of the concept of the existence of a Creator does not make the same concept false.

[Dean Michael Gores:] Maybe if your proposed God was reasonable, you wouldn't fear the idea of him being a part of reality.

I really don't care about the Christian deity because, as I said, is see it as anti-rational.

(My idea of a Creator does not contradict reason, and my idea of fear is mainly centered in leading a life as moral as possible, not in surviving an Alien attack.)

My other point was related to the sentence:

"you only [exclusively] can be Theist or Atheist, and science can't find a proof to refute any of those positions."

Which implicitly meant: Objectivism rejects the possibility of the existence of a Creator. And that's an anti-rational position, because it can't be defended by reason.

Best wishes,

Joel Català

Post 67

Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - 6:25am

[Sorry, I should have said:]

"Objectivism rejects the possibility of the existence of a Creator. And that's an irrational position, because it can't be defended by reason."

Joel Català

Post 68

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 6:32pm

(Not adding an idea to the group of ideas that you base your decisions on) is not equivalent to (Rejecting the possibility of an idea's truthfulness).

In other words, Objectivism doesn't reject the possibility of the existence of a Creator. Instead, it rejects the idea of basing your decisions on the idea "A Creator exists".

What do you fear about living a moral life? What do you think is moral?

Post 69

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 9:50am

[Dean Michael Gores:] "(Not adding an idea to the group of ideas that you base your decisions on) is not equivalent to (Rejecting the possibility of an idea's truthfulness)."

True.

[Dean Michael Gores:] "In other words, Objectivism doesn't reject the possibility of the existence of a Creator."

Fine. I assume you are right, but Ayn Rand and a big lot of Objectivists would not agree with this rational(!) position. Do you know why? my opinion is that Objectivism must somehow include something irrational (and possibly anti-rational) in it, a kind of "repulsion of the idea of a Creator."

[Dean Michael Gores:] "Instead, it rejects the idea of basing your decisions on the idea "A Creator exists"."

Then your should accept that, if that is true, Objectivism defends a position in where life and the universe are assumed as ultimately purposeless. And then every individual creates his "ultimate" purpose.

[Dean Michael Gores:] "What do you fear about living a moral life? What do you think is moral?"

I fear living an immoral life. In fact, fear of the idea of purposelessness of life is what triggered the creation of idols --by the way, narcissism is a form of anti-rationality (which is a kind of idolatry.)

To me, "immoral" means, precisely, without a good purpose. Purposelessness is irrational and sad. Differently, I see the idea of living a moral life with joy.

The existence of something that's useless makes no sense to me, that's why I think a Creator exists. I think that the ultimate purpose of my life must be somehow related with the question "what does the Creator want me to do?". (Still searching...)

Have a nice weekend,

Joel Català

Post 70

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 9:54am

It never ceases to amaze me why so many seek definition of self outside of self, instead of recognising that purposefulness is what you, the individual, choose to do with your own life..... as the old phrase goes - you are the captain of your ship, the master of your soul....

Post 71

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 7:44am

I reject ID, but like Miss Rand I regard evolution as merely a very good hypothesis--because, like her, I have not made a study of it. Maybe if I knew more about it, I would accept it.

By the way, I of course also reject the Popperian idea that science can only build hypothesis upon hypothesis. No--we go from knowledge to hypothesis to knowledge etc. In some fields, observation is so very difficult and knowledge is so small that hypotheses do dominate. Quantum physics springs to mind.

Post 72

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 11:14am

None the less, the bottom line is - Observation makes for the foundation of science.. to hypothesize without possibility of observation is to fantasize, not be science......

Post 73

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 11:46am

[Robert Malcom:] “purposefulness is what you, the individual, choose to do with your own life”

No, “what to do” basically concerns free will.

Purpose is “why to do anything”, it concerns goals and, fundamentally, The Ultimate Goal of My Life [*].

[Robert Malcom:] “you are the captain of your ship, the master of your soul”

Yes, but again that’s a recognition that free will exists, not a single word about purpose, let alone the ultimate purpose.

[Robert Malcom:] “Observation makes for the foundation of science.. to hypothesize without possibility of observation is to fantasize, not be science”

True.

Best regards,

Joel Català

[*] Of course that can be applied from your perspective, too.

Post 74

Friday, June 3, 2005 - 8:22pm

Joel, objectivism doesn't include anything irrational- or at least I do not know of anything irrational in my thinking. As far as I know, there is no universally given purpose to anything. And then every individual can create their own purpose(s) for themselves. Oh, and there is one thing I have done "without a reason", but I do not consider it "irrational" or "contrary to reason". This one thing is: I chose to make living long, healthy, and happy life my primary purpose/goal.

"immoral" means, precisely, without a good purpose What do you consider good?

Differently, I see the idea of living a moral life with joy. So do you mean to say that "living a moral life with joy" is good? And a moral life is one with good purpose? And what is good? That seems kind of circular. It is still not clear to me what you think is "moral" nor what you think is "good".

The existence of something that's useless makes no sense to me, that's why I think a Creator exists. What makes the Creator useful? Useful to what? How does the Creator get the property "purpose"? Did the Creator choose a purpose for itself, or what? If the Creator chose a purpose for you, how does that make it your purpose from your perspective? What reason would you have to care at all what the Creator chose for you? What if the Creator chose your purpose to be to grow healthy to be his snack? Why can't you take the Creator role in your own life?

Post 75

Monday, June 6, 2005 - 8:20am

[Dean Michael Gores:] objectivism doesn't include anything irrational- or at least I do not know of anything irrational in my thinking.

Your thinking is not necessarily “100% Objectivist.”

My contention is that an amount of Objectivists explicitly reject the possibility of a Creator, and they say that they reject it in basis of reason.

As we already agreed, that same rejection is not feasible in basis of reason. Either Objectivism has something false in it, or those Objectivists falsely attribute their rejection of the possibility of a Creator to the logical consequences of Objectivism. No middle point. You seem to consider the second possibility; I tend to consider the first.

[Dean Michael Gores:] As far as I know, there is no universally given purpose to anything.

Then, today you think that life and the universe are without an ultimate purpose.

That was precisely the issue that bothered me when I was an Atheist. I solved it that way: for everything to really make sense, for “consistency & symmetry” of it all, if you prefer, there must be a Creator that created everything purposefully. Then, that's really not a problem for humans because we are endowed with the capability of free will. And then I though that to be a Theist makes more sense of it all than to be an Atheist.

[Dean Michael Gores:] And then every individual can create their own purpose(s) for themselves.

Yes, you can create (your own, temporary, partial) purposes during your Life; but you cannot create The Purpose for your Life. I sustain that the Ultimate Purpose of Life can only be created by a Creator.

[Dean Michael Gores:] Oh, and there is one thing I have done "without a reason", but I do not consider it "irrational" or "contrary to reason". This one thing is: I chose to make living long, healthy, and happy life my primary purpose/goal.

Then you are admitting that you think that your life itself is devoid of a reason. Indeed, that means --and please correct me if I am wrong-- that you try to live rationaly in spite of the fact that (you think) your existence is itself irrational.

I think that your current position is inconsistent. Only the purposefulness of your existence can give ultimate rationality to what you do. I think that your life can have an ultimate purpose.

[Joel Català:] "immoral" means, precisely, without a good purpose

[Dean Michael Gores:] What do you consider good?

I consider that a good purpose must be a meaningful purpose: a life opposed to a senseless (fake) purpose, a life overcoming any shortsighted purpose. Anyway, my sentence could have been written: “"immoral" means, precisely, without a meaningful purpose.”

[Dean Michael Gores:] Differently, I see the idea of living a moral life with joy.

[Dean Michael Gores:] So do you mean to say that "living a moral life with joy" is good?

I did not mean that, though I think it must be so. “Living a moral life with joy” is objectively good if and only if my morality is precisely the right one. Then my joy would come from the fact that I know that my life is in line with reality. If my joy comes from something external to reality, then I am deluding myself, and that would be bad/wrong.

[Dean Michael Gores:] And a moral life is one with good purpose? And what is good? That seems kind of circular. It is still not clear to me what you think is "moral" nor what you think is "good".

Moral and good must be synonyms. “Good purpose” was a redundancy intended to make clear that the purpose was the right one: The Purpose of Life.

I don’t know what is The Purpose of Life, but it must be in line with “the will” (so to speak), of the Creator. “The will” of the Creator must be perfect, of course.

[Joel Català:] The existence of something that's useless makes no sense to me, that's why I think a Creator exists.

[Dean Michael Gores:] What makes the Creator useful?

We can’t use the Creator. I think the line of reasoning can go this way: we know that reality is intelligible, and we can attain knowledge or reality through the use of our faculty of reason; is there a why for that?

[Dean Michael Gores:] How does the Creator get the property "purpose"?

I guess that our mind and body are prepared to learn from the universe, but are not prepared to gain knowledge of the Creator of the universe. I don’t think we can imagine any “property” of the Creator.

[Dean Michael Gores:] Did the Creator choose a purpose for itself, or what?

I assume that He does not have any need.

[Dean Michael Gores:] If the Creator chose a purpose for you, how does that make it your purpose from your perspective?

That purpose must be the only purpose giving a real meaning to my life.

[Dean Michael Gores:] What reason would you have to care at all what the Creator chose for you?

I want the best for me. Then, by definition of the Creator, He necessarily chose the best for me. So He wants me to chose the best for me; and so do I.

[Dean Michael Gores:] What if the Creator chose your purpose to be to grow healthy to be his snack?

I just control my weight (kidding).

Well, that would be inconsistent with the concept of a Creator: He must have no needs (to eat is a need of living beings.)

[Dean Michael Gores:] Why can't you take the Creator role in your own life?

I do the role of creator. We humans have the ability to create, that’s one of the main meanings of the Biblical “created in the image of God”: we can create, and the Creator creates.

I can create thanks to both my existence and the existence of the universe; and everything what is possible is possible thanks to the Creator of all.

Best wishes,

Joel Català

Post 76

Thursday, December 27, 2007 - 7:46am

Since part three was brought up, thought to include the rest as so far written....

Post 77

Friday, January 4, 2008 - 3:20am

Evolution is biological descent with modification.

Evolution (in the biological sense) is NOT progress. It is a kind of change over time.

Bob Kolker

Post 78

Saturday, January 5, 2008 - 7:45am