@Zetherin,
Zetherin;135387 wrote:No, it's not pure accident. There are many things which cause an organism to evolve - it doesn't happen randomly in many cases. For instance, through natural selection, organisms acquire traits which make it more likely for their species to survive and reproduce. So, this would fulfill my understanding of reason (perhaps not yours). But there's always a cause, even when it is considered random.
This is the nub of the problem indeed. In the Origin of Species, there is an explicit rejection of the idea of cause, other than those which can be attributed to the role of selective pressure, operating on the basis of changes brought about by chance mutation. So as far as Darwinian theory is concerned, this is elevated to a matter of principle. Now I notice that Kennethamy has observed that he supposes evolution is a natural law. Actually it is most unclear in the general discussion what 'natural law' means, beyond the two principles I have mentioned. I think you would find most orthodox biologists would be antagonistic to the idea of 'natural law' if it gave the impression that there really was any sort of underlying cause in all of this. The effect of the law of evolution really amounts to changes that occur by chance, that are then preserved because of the inexorable logic of survival. This is why Jacques Monod called his famous book on the topic '
Chance and Necessity' which, written in 1972, is the clearest statement of the attitude that life, and man, is a 'biochemical fluke'. (There are others, though.)
Now Richard Dawkins tries to distance himself from the idea of chance and necessity. He has realised that the idea of 'random evolution' is quite nonsensical and insists that the action of 'selection' implies that the process is anything but random.
Quote: Q: You said in a recent speech that design was not the only alternative to chance. A lot of people think that evolution is all about random chance.
A: That's ludicrous. That's ridiculous. Mutation is random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive. That's a non-random process. The animals that are best at whatever they do-hunting, flying, fishing, swimming, digging-whatever the species does, the individuals that are best at it are the ones that pass on the genes. It's because of this non-random process that lions are so good at hunting, antelopes so good at running away from lions, and fish are so good at swimming.
Source
This is, of course, quite correct in one sense; there are a finite number of outcomes possible, and many random changes are in any case non-viable and immediately fatal. However the philosophical implication of evolutionary theory seems to me that it elevates 'survival' to a very high position indeed in the development of the human species. So now we have these efforts, which do border on the ideological, to explain all of our rational abilities and 'higher powers' in terms of characteristics which helped us to survive.
Now obviously, we have to survive. But I have always felt that evolutionary theory does not address the difference between 'living' and 'surviving'. And most human culture dwells in that gap. So while there is probably nothing wrong with the theory as a biological account of evolution, what has happened in the modern world is that it is actually being used to discredit, disparage and undermine any type of human attribute or ability which cannot be directly rationalised in evolutionary terms. Dawkins in particular is the supreme exemplar of this: he demands a Universe within which everything and every cause is explainable in his terms, something which in fact or in principle he can understand. It is the idea of mystery that really enrages (actually, I think, frightens) him, and which he continually seeks to defuse with his so-called rationality.
Finally, and fundamentally, the attempt to rationalise the human mind in purely evolutionary terms really must not be used to undermine the foundation of Western philosophy, which is, that the human mind can perceive a transcendent truth, a truth which is true for all people and all times. Above, I provided a detailed argument for 'number' as a truth of this kind. However I believe the Western tradition extends this principle to the ethical realm as well. The attempt by biological science to subsume this ability under its theory of biological evolution is, I believe, misguided and incorrect, and must be resisted.
