Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design


Recommended Posts

Modern biology is thoroughly interpenetrated by issues of evolution. Even teaching the classification scheme, as it's structured today, requires reference to evolutionary lineage. What, I wonder, does he imagine that biology with all reference to evolution eliminated would consist of?

Ellen

___

It would be a continuation and elaboration of Aristotle's works in biology. -Parts of Animals-, -Generation of Animals-, -History of Animals-. Aristotle's biological researches (unlike his works on matter and motion) were grounded on careful observation and checking. His biological works are his best scientific works. Aristotle did not make evolutionary assumptions at all. He studied each of the animal kinds carefully (as carefully as naked eye observation permits) and analyzed each according to function and form. He carried the genus-species mode of classification and description rather far. Think of what might have developed if Aristotle had a magnifying glass and a microscope. What Aristotle's biology lacked was the underlying chemical dynamics (he did not have the means to develop such) and the development of living kinds over long periods of time (no fossils or proper geology). If Aristotle's had better means of observation he probably would have come up with theory similar to Darwin's but based on the assumption that each kind (of plant or animal) was a manifestation of some underlying form with a line of development guided by some kind of final causation.

Charles Darwin was the greatest naturalist of the 19th century and Darwin regarded Aristotle as his hero-mentor in the field of careful classification and description of flora and fauna. That is high praise of Aristotle, considering its source.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modern biology is thoroughly interpenetrated by issues of evolution. Even teaching the classification scheme, as it's structured today, requires reference to evolutionary lineage. What, I wonder, does he imagine that biology with all reference to evolution eliminated would consist of?

Ellen

___

Theories of evolution go all the way back to Anaxemander (5 th century b.c.e).

You might ask what biology would have been like without Darwin and Wallace. Most likely some kind of change dynamic based on neo-Lamarkian theories (use and disuse) and orthogenesis. Orthogenesis is a modern day descendant of Aristotle's think on form, matter and telos. Orthogenis assumes there is a built in telos in Life Itself and the various forms are material manifestation of this inherent drive to perfection.

See the Wiki article on the history of evolutionary thought, particularly the sections on neo-Lamarck theories and orthogeneis.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

As Ellen points out, today's biology is evolutionary to the core.

The Origin of Species will celebrate its 150th birthday next year. Gregor Mendel's studies of pea plants are over 140 years old; their rediscovery and broadcast to the wider scientific community took place more than a century ago.

If Reese has a specific objection to the science involved, let him state it.

If he is the extreme positivist that bits of his rhetoric suggest ("no physical evidence," "no practical value"), let him spell out his positivism.

If Reese is an extreme positivist, he is promoting views that stand in the way of a lot of science, but at least he has a recognizable philosophy thereof.

If, instead, he has some specific objection to today's evolutionary biology, he needs to explicate it.

Otherwise, I am going to keep proceeding with my working hypothesis; namely, that Reese neither cares much for science nor knows much of it.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

Based just on the article alone, I have no problem with your line of thinking. It's a valid interpretation and valid speculation. It is based on Reese's own words and meanings without distorting them.

The only cavaet I would suggest is that Reese is equally against religion in that article, so it would be a mistake to conclude that he was favoring one over the other. You do not do that, though.

In fact, I can easily see Reese getting roasted on a religious forum and being accused of not understanding religion properly.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree [ . . . ] that Reese is limited as a science and religion analyst.

This is encouraging.

But I am not convinced that Reese lacks familiarity with science from his essay.

The first bit of real evidence that he lacks familiarity with science is that he misuses the word theory (both Barbara and I have underlined this point). If he can't get that right, what does that show you?

It is obvious that he holds no value for the theory of evolution. So he certainly would not be an ideal proponent to those who value it.

Um, yeah. He sees no value in it. You do. I do. He sees no value in evolution being taught as part of biology. You do. I do. You do see a value for the theory of evolution, and you think it should be taught as part of biology.

I get the feeling that people don't like his attitude, not his knowledge.

I don't like his attitude towards the unnamed 'evolutionists.'

But they claim that it is his knowledge and claim that he said what he didn't.

They who, Michael? Here is what you said: "op-ed kind of writing at its best," and and an "outstanding article," and several listmembers said, "Whoa, now."

Of course, Reese equivocates on theory and condemns evolutionists. Contrary to your observations: "There are no [ . . . ] demonized targets on one side or the other, examples that try to prove that one side is good and the other evil, etc., not even any sarcasm or mocking."

Michael, the demons were evolutionists. The evolutionists want to destroy religion. The evolutionists want to make laws. The evolutionists shut down discussion. The evolutionists crush dissent. The evolutionists use the power of the state. The evolutionists, the evolutionists, the evolutionists . . .

Look at the article, realizing that for all his professed agnosticism, Reese has a mighty beef with the demon evolutionists, the scientific priesthood, the dogmatists ruthlessly crushing dissent and wielding state power and so on . . .

We all have read major debates in the news and on public forums about ID (and on TV and radio).

Have we now? I have, and have followed debates online. I regularly keep up with the intelligent design debates, as I thought I indicated with my references to Pharyngula and other sites.

Heated debates with all kind of highly qualified people on both sides.

No. This is a mistake. It equivocates on 'highly qualified people' and it again equates two 'sides' with two 'speculations.' We can't ignore the actual context of the discussion -- the struggle I noted in my earlier post. America has had a long history of religious polities imposing on education law by way of creationism and intelligent design -- that's why I gave pointers to recent big legal challenges and clashes. There are many more, you know. I invite you to visit the NSCE site and check out the continuing efforts to attack evolution. Most recently, in Florida and Louisiana, the struggle has been with anti-evolution laws.

Michael, Reese is taking aim at the side of the fence you stand on.

And you still ask "who," where," etc.?

I ask for references, that we can both examine the evidence you have adduced. I can't imagine why you give vague allusions to 'heated debates.' If you have read all of this stuff, I can imagine you can point to an example of dreadful evolutionists doing bad things in the debates. If your point is that both sides are quilty of some awful behaviour, then I want to know what exactly you are talking about.

That is not a question. That is intimidation. Even so, you wanted a scientist, so I gave you one of the granddaddies. That scientist didn't work for you, though, and you still ask "who?". There are oodles more out there and you know it. We may disagree with their views, but there is no need to pretend that they do not exist and ask "who"?

Hmmm. Pointed questions as intimidation? Here's the interchange:

I personally think Reese was arguing against a biased kind of thinking where the bias leads to misidentification, power struggles, etc., and arguing against indoctrinating children with it.

Like where? Like in the struggle in the courts (by parents, in the Dover case) to keep the religious crap out of science? Like somewhere else? If we take you at your word, Michael -- "I take him [Reese] to be criticizing those intellectuals who clamor to make laws."

Which intellectuals, for heaven sake?

Vague waving at "the news" and "public forums" doesn't illustrate your point. Kenyon didn't illustrate your point. Unless of course you submit that Kenyon, as a force behind the early efforts to get creationism into science class, is an example of an intellectual clamouring to make laws (viz., his participation in challenges to the creationist law I cited earlier). In which case, Kenyon is on the other side of the fence from you.

I won't ask you any more intimidating questions like "who" and "wherefore," then, Michael. But I will ask if there are any quotes from Reese's article that you still stand by as heartily as you did in your first post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I will ask if there are any quotes from Reese's article that you still stand by as heartily as you did in your first post.

William,

A few:

I am against banning any idea, theory, speculation or body of guesses.

. . .

I believe in the separation of church and state. I also believe in the separation of science and state.

. . .

Survey courses – giving them a taste of what is on the large menu of learning – are useful. Practical courses, such as personal finance or typing, are useful. Teaching all children a second language would be extremely useful, as would be music and drawing.

. . .

I truly despise people who try to use children in adult conflicts.

There are others with qualifications.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has a very firm opinion on the subject -- that is, that creationism must be taught in schools as the alternative "theory " to evolution, which is why he took the trouble to write his article.

Barbara,

This is not accurate according to Reese's article. Here is a quote:

I see no reason to include any discussion of evolution or creationism in secondary schools.

You claim that Reese wants creationism taught in schools and he said in his article that he did not. What is the basis of your claim? I cannot find it in the article. Is he involved in a movement or something? I do not know his other work.

Michael

Michael, I synopsized something that I'll spell out. When he says he does not want either evolution or Intelligent Design to be taught in schools, he is being less than straightforward. He knows that evolution will be and must be taught if schools are to teach biology. What follows from this? That Intelligent Design should also be taught.

Consider the falseness of the second paragraph of his article. He writes: "My main conflict with the evolutionists is that they wish to assert their theory as fact and to employ government power to ban discussion of creationism and intelligent design on the grounds that they are unscientific or, worse from their point of view, religious. I am against banning any idea, theory, speculation or body of guesses."

He is accusing evolutionists of wanting the government to ban ideas, theory, speculation, etc. But that is not what the evolutionists want to do. They want to ban the teaching of ideas based solely on faith from the teaching of science. They want to ban the teaching of wholly unscientific nonsense in science classes. I have never heard a scientist say or hint that he wanted to ban any and all discussioms of ID -- only that ID, like flat-earth theories or the view that Zeus runs our lives should not be presented in classes on science as ideas carrying the mantle of science.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara,

I agree that ID should not be taught as a scientific theory whereas evolution should be taught as a scientific theory. As I stated earlier, Reese not mentioning this aspect is one of the things I did not like about the article.

As to whether Reese was lying in order to mislead the reader as to his true intentions, I will have to think about it. The article sounded sincere on its own terms to me.

I might look into his other writing to get a feel for his thinking (but not any time in the near future—I have way too much to do right now that has greater priority).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judging from the posts, I notice that taking Reese at his own word is extremely difficult for most everybody to do.
Here are a few quotes that I endorse. They spoke to me on a deep level.
I've never seen any physical evidence to support either belief [evolution/creationism], and one is no more improbable than the other. The only fact is that some beliefs have to be accepted on the basis of faith, and that goes for evolution as well as creationism.

This might rankle some people and collide with their serenity or beliefs, but I think it is eloquently stated. I could not have said it better myself.

I might look into [Reese's] other writing to get a feel for his thinking (but not any time in the near future—I have way too much to do right now that has greater priority).

Here's some windows on Charley Reese's thinking:

I personally don't read news stories about health or science. [link]

Much of science, however, is based on speculation also not subject to proof by inductive reasoning. Evolution and the big bang are theories, not facts. To suppose that the millions of different and complex life forms came from a single cell in a primordial soup requires a great deal more blind faith than the belief in intelligent design. [link]

As has often been noted, modern science, for all its inflated sense of self-importance, cannot even find a cure for the common cold. In fact, it hasn't been able to find a cure for anything except mild bacterial infections, and that was a happy accident. [link]

I believe we are seeing that today with the evolutionists, who react with rage to the idea of intelligent design, despite the obvious flaws in the evolutionary theory. Rather than examining the idea of intelligent design with an open mind, they attack it. [link]

In a crazy way, humans will always be under a god – if not the God of the universe, then the state will become God. Personally, I prefer the one in the sky to the one in the uniform.

I really believe the future of America depends on whether we experience a revival of the spirit. If we don't, if the secular trend continues, then politics won't save us. In fact, politics devoid of God will doom us. [link]

Religion is the only force that can teach virtue to masses of people. Therefore, anyone who is an enemy of religion is an enemy of a free republic. [link]

If indeed there is no God, then human life is just an accidental phenomenon and no more valuable than that of a mosquito. [link]

I am a great believer in conforming to natural law, and there is a reason God made man without gills or webbed feet and hands. We are land animals. [link]

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has a very firm opinion on the subject -- that is, that creationism must be taught in schools as the alternative "theory " to evolution, which is why he took the trouble to write his article.

Barbara,

This is not accurate according to Reese's article. Here is a quote:

I see no reason to include any discussion of evolution or creationism in secondary schools.

You claim that Reese wants creationism taught in schools and he said in his article that he did not. What is the basis of your claim? I cannot find it in the article. Is he involved in a movement or something? I do not know his other work.

Michael

Michael, I synopsized something that I'll spell out. When he says he does not want either evolution or Intelligent Design to be taught in schools, he is being less than straightforward. He knows that evolution will be and must be taught if schools are to teach biology. What follows from this? That Intelligent Design should also be taught.

[....]

I see no evidence that Reese didn't mean his statement that he "see no reason to include any discussion of evolution or creationism in secondary schools," since I see no evidence that he does "[know] that evolution will be and must be taught if schools are to teach biology." I see no evidence that he begins to have enough knowledge of science in general or of the details of the theory of evolution or of the field of biology in particular TO know that. In other words, I think his horrifying ignorance (I find it horrifying) is genuine. ;-)

He does, however, seem to have a wider agenda than is evident from the particular piece Michael linked. One of the articles William linked is especially revealing. The article isn't long. I recommend reading the whole thing, Michael.

It's titled "Trust God, Not Man." For the full text See.

Here are some further excerpts:

"Trust God, Not Man"

November 13, 2004

[...] without religion, one can make a perfectly logical and reasoned argument for murder. [....]

If indeed there is no God, then human life is just an accidental phenomenon and no more valuable than that of a mosquito. As we saw in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, societies without God create rivers of blood. In a crazy way, humans will always be under a god – if not the God of the universe, then the state will become God. Personally, I prefer the one in the sky to the one in the uniform.

Western civilization was built on the foundation of Christianity. That's a fact, not an opinion. A lot of sinning notwithstanding, the laws and institutions of the West were derived from Christianity. It is no accident or whim that Europe was long known as Christendom. It is no accident that George Washington said a man who was an enemy of religion was also an enemy of the republic.

Unfortunately, the West is losing its Christian moorings. Europe today is far more secular than the United States. The Europeans could not even bring themselves to acknowledge Christianity in their new constitution.

In the United States, the push is on to lock Christianity up in its church buildings. Keep it out of politics. Keep it out of the public arena. Well, this militant secularism is one way to commit national suicide. Washington's comment was connected to the fact that it was impossible for a free republic to exist with immoral people. Cut people loose from the moral moorings of religion, and the state will have no choice but to step in and control them. Remember, it's always a choice between the God in heaven or the God who commands the army and the police. [my emphasis]

One of the favorite canards of the secular folks is to blame wars on religion, but the truth is that the all-time champion murderers have always been atheists. [....]

One piece of sophistry employed by the secularists is the claim that "you have no right to impose your morality on other people." That's bull. Every law in every law book in the land is an imposition of morality on other people. The only question is whose morality is going to be imposed. What the secularists are really up to is imposing their morality on Christians and other people of faith.

I really believe the future of America depends on whether we experience a revival of the spirit. If we don't, if the secular trend continues, then politics won't save us. In fact, politics devoid of God will doom us.

Liberals hate it when I say this, but the Third Reich was secular liberalism carried to its logical conclusion. That's plain enough if you study the Third Reich and compare it with the positions advocated by today's secular liberals. It is always a fatal error to put one's trust in man instead of in God.

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

Thanks for the links. You are right.

I take it all back. Reese is crap. He does have a pro-religion anti-science agenda. I thought it was an anti-fanatic agenda. I was mistaken.

Next time I will look at more writing samples before I praise a writer like that.

Sorry to everybody for the misunderstanding.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the passages in Trust God, Not Man made an impression, the passage about

'the secularists.' There seems to be general agreement here that there are few obvious outrages in the US on the issue of 'secularists' doing horrible bad things with law to crush the suffering creationists. But check out the (slightly modified) text below, and then follow the story to the Turkish creationist author heading for the hoosegow.

One of the articles William linked is especially revealing. The article isn't long. I recommend reading the whole thing, Michael.

It's titled "Trust God, Not Man." For the full text See.

Here are some further excerpts:

"Trust God, Not Man"

One piece of sophistry employed by the secularists is the claim that "you have no right to impose your morality on other people." That's bull. Every law in every law book in the land is an imposition of morality on other people. The only question is whose morality is going to be imposed. What the Turkish secularists are really up to is imposing their morality on Muslims and other people of faith.

See Turkish Islamic author given 3-year jail sentence

Oktar, born in 1956, is the driving force behind a richly funded movement based in Turkey that champions creationism, the belief that God literally created the world in six days as told in the Bible and the Koran.

Istanbul-based Oktar, who writes under the pen name Harun Yahya, has created waves in the past few years by sending out thousands of unsolicited texts advocating Islamic creationism to schools in several European countries.

. . .

The court decision comes at a time when political tensions in officially secular but predominantly Muslim Turkey are high as the ruling AK Party faces a court case that seeks its closure for alleged Islamist activities, a claim the party denies.

Oktar's teachings echo those of Christian fundamentalists in the United States. He has publicly denounced Darwinism and Freemasonry in high-profile attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
On Larry Arnhart's blog Darwinian Conservative, one of the "anons" said that Harry Binswanger said recently at the ARI that Rand said in later years that she accepted evolution.

It is likewise attributed to Binswanger that Rand was more accepting of homosexuality late in life. How reliable is this? I would like to believe these things. Should I believe these things? What is the chance that this is just Binswanger idealizing Rand? Could someone here with better personal knowledge of Rand and Binswanger comment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Larry Arnhart's blog Darwinian Conservative, one of the "anons" said that Harry Binswanger said recently at the ARI that Rand said in later years that she accepted evolution.

It is likewise attributed to Binswanger that Rand was more accepting of homosexuality late in life. How reliable is this? I would like to believe these things. Should I believe these things? What is the chance that this is just Binswanger idealizing Rand? Could someone here with better personal knowledge of Rand and Binswanger comment?

I have no idea about this. I do know that Rand was asked about her thoughts on the subject at The Ford Hall Forum (I was there) and gave her famous reply. I think she interpreted the question as hostile--that she was being set up for something--and that a lot of the antagonism emanating from her reply had a lot to do with that, not just her views on homosexuality. She tended to be premised on taking her views to their utmost extreme as her primary way of defending them. This was in public. I don't know private.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Larry Arnhart's blog Darwinian Conservative, one of the "anons" said that Harry Binswanger said recently at the ARI that Rand said in later years that she accepted evolution.

It is likewise attributed to Binswanger that Rand was more accepting of homosexuality late in life. How reliable is this? I would like to believe these things. Should I believe these things? What is the chance that this is just Binswanger idealizing Rand? Could someone here with better personal knowledge of Rand and Binswanger comment?

I have no idea about this. I do know that Rand was asked about her thoughts on the subject at The Ford Hall Forum (I was there) and gave her famous reply. I think she interpreted the question as hostile--that she was being set up for something--and that a lot of the antagonism emanating from her reply had a lot to do with that, not just her views on homosexuality. She tended to be premised on taking her views to their utmost extreme as her primary way of defending them. This was in public. I don't know private.

I pretty much get Rand on homosexuality. Her views are the same as my parents. They are supportive now that I am out to them (I was born in 1968) and I can understand their views. After all, I find bubble gum chewing unnatural and disgusting, and would gladly say so in a public forum. My main philosophical concern is that her views on sexuality seem to go hand in hand with her ignorance of evolutionary biology and lead to a rationalistic view of man as an (animate) reasoner rather than a (rational) animal. But that is quite a bit to get into here.

My central biographical question is, is it that likely that her later private views were so different from her stated public views, (I do see this as possible,) and moreso, is Binswanger's softening of what are largely considered embarrassments to be trusted? Are we likely to hear, for instance, that she admired and approved of Thatcher as a woman executive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main philosophical concern is that [Rand's] views on sexuality seem to go hand in hand with her ignorance of evolutionary biology and lead to a rationalistic view of man as an (animate) reasoner rather than a (rational) animal. But that is quite a bit to get into here.

Ted, that is a very interesting, provocative comment. Could you please explain how seeing man as an "(animate) reasoner" is rationalistic?

I can see one way this might be so. "Animal" is the genus and "rational" is the differentia, making "rational animal" the species. So, treating "reasoner" as the genus, i.e., as more general than "animate", really is conceptually non- (even anti-) hierarchical.

"Reasoner" is a dead-end genus, and "animate reasoner" is the sole species under it. Now, if that is not exactly a floating abstraction, it sure comes close. So, yes, I see at least a sense in which "(animate) reasoner" is rationalistic.

But what are your thoughts on this? Thanks in advance....reb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My central biographical question is, is it that likely that her later private views were so different from her stated public views, (I do see this as possible,) and moreso, is Binswanger's softening of what are largely considered embarrassments to be trusted? Are we likely to hear, for instance, that she admired and approved of Thatcher as a woman executive?

For the record, here's what appears to be all Rand published about Margaret Thatcher:

A story on Margaret Thatcher, the new leader of the British Conservative party (The New York Times Magazine, June 1, 1975), stated that her "'think tank' of intellectuals" is studying and popularizing "the theories of"—and there followed a hodgepodge of so-called rightist names, ending on "Ayn Rand." I did not pay much attention to that story—but, later, I was told privately that my ideas actually do have an influence on Mrs. Thatcher's group.

That doesn't help much, but I thought I'd offer it for completeness.

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted:"My central biographical question is, is it that likely that her later private views were so different from her stated public views, (I do see this as possible,) and more so, is Binswanger's softening of what are largely considered embarrassments to be trusted? Are we likely to hear, for instance, that she admired and approved of Thatcher as a woman executive?"

I would not trust Binswanger's report on anything involving Ayn Rand. This is the man who announced in a question period following one of his lectures that Rand had no flaws -- "unless," he quipped, "you consider a Russian accent a flaw" -- but that if she did have flaws, they should not be made public, because that would discredit her and hinder the spread of Objectivism. (The number of nonsensical ideas that can be crowded into one statement is mind-boggling.)

About the two issues that Binswanger commented on, purportedly saying that in later life Rand came to accept the theory of evolution, and that she became more accepting of homosexuality: I doubt both statements, although I can't claim first-hand knowledge of her views in those years.

With regard to evolution, I would think that if the theory were explained to her more accurately than her previous understanding of it, she would have granted the probability of aspects of it, but still have insisted that what she believed to be the distance in kind, not just of degree, between the consciousness of even the higher animals and the consciousness of man, could not be accounted for by strict adherence to evolutionary theory.

With regard to homosexuality, there was always an odd split in her attitude. Both publicly and privately she claimed that the homosexual was severely neurotic as well as immoral (immoral, that is, if the person acted on his sexual desires), and that she personally found it, as she said at Ford Hall Forum,"disgusting." But she had friends, two in particular, whom she knew to be homosexual and of whom she was very fond. And I know she had discussions of "the problem" with each of these two in a rather gentle manner that belied her principled statements of its evils. But I doubt that she would ever have been accepting of homosexuality, even significantly more tolerant than she was in the years I knew her, because of her concept of the proper man-woman relationship. There was no room for homosexuality, no healthy interpretation of it, in the nature of sex as she conceived it. "Man," she said, "is defined by his relationship to reality; woman, by her relationship to man." Man is the hero; woman is the hero-worshipper. The idea of a man as the worshipper of another man or of a woman as the worshipper of another woman -- which is how she understood homosexual relationships -- was profoundly repugnant to her both personally and philosophically.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if "worship" and "romantic love" properly go together. I once knew a woman who worshipped a man who cheated on her. They got married. I don't know the end of that story. I think the basis of romantic love is psychological visibility and WHAT you see.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about one stage up axiom-wise?

Entities are causes.

Life is self-generated action.

Man is an end in himself.

Michael

Entities are causes: What about events? Sometimes entities are effects, as in the case of photons being produced by the collision of matter and anti-matter. Cause-Effect is not the property of just an entity, but of a relation between entities. Effects happen because entities (more than one) interact.

Life is self-generated action: A clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics. We are heat engines driven, in part, by processes outside of our bodies and outside of our consciousness. Here is a hint: Anything that violates or implies a violation of the laws of thermodynamics is likely to be bogus.

Man is an end in himself: Tell that to the IRS or a slave holder. The world over men and women are used and abused. Justice is notable for its scarcity.

I think the success of modern science has made shreds of the underlying metaphysics of O'ism. The only thing left intact is the law of non-contradiction which is not unique to O'ism. You know O'ism is loosing when it fights a loosing battle against modern science*. Conclusion: O'ism needs to be repaired (or discarded)**. Unfortunately the Faithful Remnant consider O'ism a closed system which cannot be amended, sort of like the Bible being the inerrant Word of God. Read some of the other O'ist boards to see that this is the case.

Ba'al Chatzaf

*There is another board which I shall not name, wherein the erroneous physics of Lewis Little (Theory of Elementary Waves) is heavily promoted. This is despair, not physics.

**O'ism has got politics and economics right so it should not be discarded in the entirety. A thorough repair job, however, is called for. As for aesthetics and morality, they are doxa and cannot be determined uniquely by some system of objective metaphysics and finite collections of fact. Rand's opinions on art and other techne (such as house building) are just that -- opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main philosophical concern is that [Rand's] views on sexuality seem to go hand in hand with her ignorance of evolutionary biology and lead to a rationalistic view of man as an (animate) reasoner rather than a (rational) animal. But that is quite a bit to get into here.

Ted, that is a very interesting, provocative comment. Could you please explain how seeing man as an "(animate) reasoner" is rationalistic?

I can see one way this might be so. "Animal" is the genus and "rational" is the differentia, making "rational animal" the species. So, treating "reasoner" as the genus, i.e., as more general than "animate", really is conceptually non- (even anti-) hierarchical.

"Reasoner" is a dead-end genus, and "animate reasoner" is the sole species under it. Now, if that is not exactly a floating abstraction, it sure comes close. So, yes, I see at least a sense in which "(animate) reasoner" is rationalistic.

But what are your thoughts on this? Thanks in advance....reb

Roger,

You have hit on my objection in essence. The scholastics viewed man, angels (and demons) and god as rational beings. Man was differentiated from the others as being animate/corporeal. I don't think Rand came anywhere near holding this view explicitly or consciously. But her view of man as essentially rational led to tensions. The relevant way here is that values are portrayed as resulting from beliefs and premises. This is problematic when one asks why babies value sweetness. Babies don't go through a process of thought and determine that since sugar is a necessary nutrient, and since sweetness indicates the presence of sugar, sweet foods should be sought out. [We don't choose to make sweetness taste good because we value the calories in sugar intellectually.] Humans simply like certain sensations becuase of their biological nature. If this were not true, dieting should be so simple that we would not even have a concept for it - we wouldn't try to avoid fattening foods, we would simply do it.

Sexuality, like taste in food, is in part learned, but it is prompted by one's biological/genetic nature and is also part of a bottom up process. People like sweet foods because they have sugar, rich foods because they have fat, tart foods because they have vitamin C, and so forth. They come to enjoy things such as spicy thai chicken because through experienece they learn that such foods are very satisfying of those basic cravings. A young child will not like spicy food, since he has not yet had the experience to learn such an acquired taste. Likewise, we are born enjoying the soft touch of another. As we mature we come to appreciate certain curves of bodies, certain smells. This is analogous to our desire for sweet food. We come to integrate our desire for certain touches, certain smells, and so forth, and find that we really like physical contact with certain individuals - and that our genitalia responds in a spontaneous way to such stimulus. Biological experiments have shown the genetic/chemical nature of our attraction to certain body odors. This is not the result of a person saying that because he is a woman worshipper he likes the way a woman smells. It is, in a sense, the other way around.

Rand is supposed to have said that NB should have worshipped her even if she were confined to a wheelchair - this comment shows exactly the attitude that I find wrong in her theory of sex. One does indeed form the best and highest relationship with those with whom one shares the highest values. Rotten (e. g., Bill Clinton?) people do find tawdry affairs easier than noble relationships. But that one finds a certain type of person physically attractive is a bottom up phenomenon. The trick is to find someone whom one finds both physically and spiritually attractive. Love at first sight is a physical attraction - infatuation - that becomes a spiritual attraction - romance. I have fallen for men and woman physically, only to find that their spirits don't live up to their bodies. But I have also been lucky enough to find a few men and women whose souls have lived up to their bodies. I am in such a relationship now for 14 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about one stage up axiom-wise?

Entities are causes.

Life is self-generated action.

Man is an end in himself.

Michael

Entities are causes: What about events? Sometimes entities are effects, as in the case of photons being produced by the collision of matter and anti-matter. Cause-Effect is not the property of just an entity, but of a relation between entities. Effects happen because entities (more than one) interact.

Life is self-generated action: A clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics. We are heat engines driven, in part, by processes outside of our bodies and outside of our consciousness. Here is a hint: Anything that violates or implies a violation of the laws of thermodynamics is likely to be bogus.

Man is an end in himself: Tell that to the IRS or a slave holder. The world over men and women are used and abused. Justice is notable for its scarcity.

I think the success of modern science has made shreds of the underlying metaphysics of O'ism. The only thing left intact is the law of non-contradiction which is not unique to O'ism. You know O'ism is loosing when it fights a loosing battle against modern science*. Conclusion: O'ism needs to be repaired (or discarded)**. Unfortunately the Faithful Remnant consider O'ism a closed system which cannot be amended, sort of like the Bible being the inerrant Word of God. Read some of the other O'ist boards to see that this is the case.

Ba'al Chatzaf

*There is another board which I shall not name, wherein the erroneous physics of Lewis Little (Theory of Elementary Waves) is heavily promoted. This is despair, not physics.

**O'ism has got politics and economics right so it should not be discarded in the entirety. A thorough repair job, however, is called for. As for aesthetics and morality, they are doxa and cannot be determined uniquely by some system of objective metaphysics and finite collections of fact. Rand's opinions on art and other techne (such as house building) are just that -- opinions.

To properly have a discusion with Michael on this you should have completely quoted him. I will, below.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that core concepts in Objectivism are proven wrong if Evolution is correct.

Bob,

Which core concepts? Here are a few (in layman's terms):

Existence exists.

Things are what they are.

Conceptual consciousness is the human means of knowing them.

How about one stage up axiom-wise?

Entities are causes.

Life is self-generated action.

Man is an end in himself.

That's pretty good for starters. Which of those are proven wrong by evolution? If none, what do you have in mind?

(If it is tabula rasa, I agree with you. Biology influences many things in a human being, even on the conceptual level. Babies might be born tabula rasa in terms of developed content, but I agree that there are seeds of knowledge that develop on their own with growth and without volition. Volition itself is one of them.)

Michael

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Larry Arnhart's blog Darwinian Conservative, one of the "anons" said that Harry Binswanger said recently at the ARI that Rand said in later years that she accepted evolution.
My central biographical question is, is it that likely that her later private views were so different from her stated public views, (I do see this as possible,) and moreso, is Binswanger's softening of what are largely considered embarrassments to be trusted? Are we likely to hear, for instance, that she admired and approved of Thatcher as a woman executive?
I would not trust Binswanger's report on anything involving Ayn Rand. [....]

About the two issues that Binswanger commented on, purportedly saying that in later life Rand came to accept the theory of evolution, and that she became more accepting of homosexuality: I doubt both statements, although I can't claim first-hand knowledge of her views in those years.

With regard to evolution, I would think that if the theory were explained to her more accurately than her previous understanding of it, she would have granted the probability of aspects of it, but still have insisted that what she believed to be the distance in kind, not just of degree, between the consciousness of even the higher animals and the consciousness of man, could not be accounted for by strict adherence to evolutionary theory.

Two points about this report of Harry's re evolution:

(1) He is the person he credits with having swayed AR on evolution.

(2) I see no evidence that Harry well understands the subject himself. As to the "distance in kind," he still holds to that himself, so he could hardly have been effective in convincing AR otherwise.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(1) He is the person he credits with having swayed AR on evolution.

Ah, the "goal-directedness of biological action"? I was not very impressed with this, although I had hopes, and found it at least a step in the right direction so far as interest in the subject. Rand having assented to his arguments would certainly not amount to her having accepted the neo-Darwinian synthesis.

As for a difference in kind, I prefer to see man's rational faculty as emergent, but his underlying nature as animal. Man is an animal in the full sense. But just as a bird can do things that a reptile cannot, man can do things that other animals cannot. Man is an animal that is different from all animals. But he does not transcend animality. Animality is still his kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now