“We are to think of a mindless process as using technique to put things in place. Though it has no intentions, we are to conceive it as enforcing its edicts by fobbing things off on us and using ploys. Though it is incapable of purposes, we are to suppose that it designed us. And though it is insusceptible to moral judgement, we are to be scandalized by its shamelessness [...] And so the very idiom these thinkers choose to tell that God is nonexistent and nature devoid of purpose insinuates, at another level, that nature is full of wily purposes and rules as a crafty, shameless god.” – J. Budziszewski in The Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction page 81.
4 Responses to J. Budziszewski on Naturalistic Evolution
Robert April 11, 2012
And so the very idiom these thinkers choose to tell that God is nonexistent and nature devoid of purpose insinuates , at another level, that nature is full of wily purposes and rules as a crafty, shameless god.
When biologists talk about design, intent, and purpose with regard to evolution, they’re merely being figurative. It’s similar to using the hairy ball theorem (“You can’t comb the hair on a coconut”) to explain concepts in topology. Furthermore, there may indeed be purpose in nature if God exists; but it won’t be found at the level of evolution. Evolution is just something that “falls out” of chemistry – it’s merely a consequence of the way molecules behave. Chemistry in turn is a consequence of the laws of physics. When we say “evolution happens”, all we’re really saying is “these configurations of molecules always behave in this way”; and when we say “chemical reactions happen”, all we’re really saying is “these configurations of atoms always behave in this way”.
This is of course going to lead to consideration of the universe as a whole, and that’s where purpose, if it exists, will be found. Narrowing the lens through physics, chemistry, and biology won’t reveal anything other than robust behavioral models of certain phenomena.
A final point I want to make is this: if anyone is using evolution as a way to “tell that God is nonexistent”, they’re wrong. Evolution (along with the rest of science) is methodologically naturalist, but not metaphysically naturalist.
David April 11, 2012
I’m inclined to think that scientists aren’t just being figurative, but they’re explaining what they really see in nature. Patterns, intentionality, etc. The way molecules behave fits snuggly into Aristotelianism. A lot of what you said does, and I think that’s what Budziszewski is pointing out.
Robert April 11, 2012
There’s plenty of patterns, yes – but I don’t see how that can tell us anything about intention or purpose. I could roll a die six times in a row and get the rolls 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 in that order. It’s a pattern, but one occurring accidentally.
And as I said before, there might be purpose in existence as a whole, but I don’t see how we can draw that conclusion by looking at any small cross-section of existence. Evolution happens just because of the way chemistry works, etc. This is quite well understood – variation is created by gene copying errors, this will cause morphology to change, chances of that morphology being able to successfully copy genes will be affected by environment, competition for resources creates scarcity, morphology arising from some variations will statistically have a better chance to copy those variations than others, statistically better chances lead to some variations spreading in a population faster than others. That’s all that’s needed, and that’s all there is (this is admittedly oversimplified, but I don’t feel like writing a book).
What are you taking Aristotelianism to be, and how does any of this fit into it?
David April 11, 2012
I’m speaking of metaphysics–the four cause to be precise, especially final causality. I’m entirely fine with how the chemistry and biology works (I’m quite familiar with it too). However, I think we might be getting into philosophy of science, which is something Im not well versed in. The chemistry works a certain way. It produces a particular set of effects or results. This fits with final causality. Cf. Edward Feser’s blog posts on it (I’ll try and find it. But if not, I’ll maybe do a post on it later).