Monday, November 4, 2013
The Relevance of the Origin of Species
One important scientific development unavailable to David Hume or any of his fictional interlocutors is the theory of evolution. For many people today, both theists and atheists, religious believers, scientists and intellectuals, the truth of evolution is bound up with the truth of theism. So what is the significance of evolution for the design argument? Does is it provide evidence for either side of the debate? On this 154th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's seminal Origin of Species, it is fitting to ask: where might a discussion of Darwin have fit into Hume's Dialogues?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The design argument says that the Universe is like a machine. This argues that the universe is split up into smaller machines, all the way down to the existence of humans. Although it isn't completely straight forward, I believe that it is giving evidence for evolution. Since it is mentioning the similarities between the Universe and human beings in general, as the Universe would change, so would the people. When an actual machine changes, whether it be the shape or the design, the technology behind it becomes more complex. As believed by Hume, the same thing would happen to the Universe. As the Universe advances in time, living things adapt. When there are physical changes, living things have to adapt to their surroundings, and over time would change their forms. Darwin would agree with some of what Hume was saying. He would agree that species would need to adapt to their surroundings and the changes in the Universe. As the Universe and the world becomes more advanced, so do its species; they are forced to to survive. Hume believed that God originally created everything, but then adapt on their own. Darwin would have agreed that the species change as they are forced to adapt. The design argument ultimately agrees with the theory of evolution; Hume believes that species needed to adapt to survive due to the changes in the Universe.
ReplyDeleteRather than distinguishing religion and evolution as two very different and irreconcilable schools of thought, the significance of evolution, particularly what’s stated in Darwin’s Origin of Species, for the Argument of Design is that it shows religion and evolution can coexist! They are not incompatible ideas and cannot rule each other out.
ReplyDeleteHume introduces the Argument of Design, an idea which states that the world is like a grand machine, subdivided into infinitely lesser and smaller machines. These machines work together accurately, as if they were designed perfectly, and resemble the way the human mind designs and thinks. Therefore, whatever designed these machines must resemble the human mind, however; because of the large scale of the world and its machines, the creator must have a power proportionate to this grandeur. There must be a deity that is the author of nature, and fundamentally resembles the human mind but on a very large scale. God is similar to the human mind and intelligence; therefore, God exists. The Argument of Design argues that this world was wielded in the hands of a great, intelligent maker, God, where the world was explicitly designed through this deity and according to his liking. Evolution and chance can be seen as objections to this argument, but they can actually all be considered together! When looking at the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin, Darwin never explicitly mentions God in his explanation or argument for evolution. It can thus be considered that evolution itself could have served as a tool for God in designing the world. If one were to ask what is more likely, chance operation, like evolution, or careful design by some intelligent maker as the cause of the world, one could argue that there is some randomness and some sense of chance and unpredictability in the universe. In Gould’s The Panda’s Thumb, he argues for this. A panda’s thumb is really an awkward looking extremity protruding from the panda’s hand, solely useful for efficiently eating bamboo. If there were some intelligent maker, why would he not have come up with a more efficient, better looking option for the pandas? After all this, there is thus the possibility that there was an intelligent maker who carefully designed our universe and the existence of chance and biological accidents dictating the way in which the world was created. God could have thus used evolution as a method of designing and creating the world! Evolution does not eliminate the existence of some God or intelligent maker, nor does a God eliminate the possibility of evolution and adaptations as the cause of things in the world. Therefore, a possible significance of evolution in Hume’s Argument of Design is that evolution could have well been a tool God used to create the universe. Evolution and Design are not independent ideas, rather; one can be considered as part of the other in the grand scheme of designing the vast universe we are part of today.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is viewed as a highly contested battleground in the created war between theism and atheism. One of the most common arguments in favor of theism is the idea that life is beautiful. The state of a functional life form is something very precise according to theism and thus must be created by some intelligent entity that they label God. More accurately put, the design argument argues that life works like a machine with highly precise accuracy. All machines we know are created by intelligent life (humans), however life wasn't designed by humans but by analogy, life must have been created by an intelligent being and this being is God. While this argument has various points of objection, one major objection can be found in Darwin's theory of evolution.
DeleteHowever, evolution destroys the design argument. Evolution's driving force is the survival of the fittest, or more crudely put, a series of trial and error to optimize life. Should life not be fit to survive, evolution makes it more likely that such an unfit life form would die off due to its inferiority. Thus all that is left are the beings that were fit to survive in the world and by extension, the only beings left are those we perceive as "perfect" for their environment.
Should evolution be true, the perception of the perfection of life being evidence of God is thus smashed. Instead life is seen as more of nature throwing darts at a dart board and seeing what sticks. Thus evolution begs a different question for the two theists in Hume's dialogues. If life's perfection is not adequate proof of God, then what is? Thus we must pursue one of the questions raised by evolution: How did life begin?
The design argument states that the world consists of machines that all connect to one grand or ultimate machine, that one being the universe. This universe must have an author of nature, and that author is God. The idea of evolution, however, seems to work against the idea of the design argument. Evolution is based on the idea of survival of the fittest, meaning that those who adapt better to the environment around them will survive and pass on their genes and those who do not adapt well will ultimately die out. The design argument implies, to me, that the world works simultaneously together in order for the whole machine to work. If one of the smaller machines of the world does not work, then it is possible that the whole machine would fail. However, evolution does not require everything of the same universe to work together. It is actually about how one organism’s survival, so it does not matter if one organism fails because it makes sure only the strong go on. So, the significance of evolution to the design argument is that they are contradictions to each other. Evolution says the only the strong go on, making one strong world, and the design argument says that the world is only as strong as its weakest link, because if one machine fails, the whole one can fail just as well. If evolution is true, then other questions are now raised again. The idea of evolution does not prove that there is a God, so does He exist? If not, where did life come from?
ReplyDeleteThe design argument states that the world is one big machine made up of smaller machines. And that humans create machines and these machines create machine and so on. The argument also states that God must exist because he created the world like humans created machines so there must be a deity that resembles humans. Evolution, states that everything evolved from one original source. They may sound like similar arguments, but Darwin's Theory of Evolution states that everything has adapted to survive. When something adapts, it changes over any amount of time. In Hume's universe, nothing changes over time, there are only new additions to the universe. As well, Hume's universe requires everything that is created becomes part of a system. Evolution only requires things to survive, and that whatever has survived, is fit to be in this world. Does Darwin's idea suggest a God who made the single organism everything evolved from? No it does not because everything that occurs for Darwin's Theory is scientific, meaning that the organism adapted itself. Yet, Hume is stating that a creator must have made the machine that creates the smaller machines, therefore God must exist. In conclusion, Darwin's Theory does not provide any evidence for God, in fact it almost argues against the existence of a creator. As well, it states that everything has adapted to living in our universe, not created. Hume's argument uses an idea of a creator who made a machine that ended up creating smaller machines to help run the larger one. As similar as these arguments sound, they argue completely different sides of the spectrum.
ReplyDelete