Talk:Argument from evolution

Misc

While many scientists object that scientific creationism is wrong to mix theology with science, doing so was partly a reaction to bringing science into theology.

Could somebody explain the above sentence to me? As I understand it, the most common scientific objection to scientific creationism is that it's either unscientific or contradicted by physical evidence. Additionally, how was science brought into theology? --Robert Merkel

The positive statement that "God does not exist" is a statement about God, and therefore a theological statement. Supporting such a statement with scientific evidence would appear to bring science into the theological arena. Therefore, some have felt it necessary to find scientific evidence to support their theological belief that God does exist and created everything. --Wesley

Who has advanced this argument? What is it supposed to prove? Just that the claims of Genesis are wrong, or something deeper than that? Evolution certainly has, historically, undermined belief in God. What I want to see is evidence that it was specifically used in the way that this page implies. We shouldn't be making stuff up; we should be reporting how important scientists, theologians, and philosophers actually have argued. --LMS

Why include all the pro and anti evolution arguments here? They belong on the intelligent design and evolution entries. Fairandbalanced 04:02, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I rewrote the first paragraph for two reasons: it was poorly written, and misrepresented the issues.

Specifically, it is not true that "Darwin's theory implies that the first man was not created by dust, but rather by some human-like animal" Darwin's theory makes no claim at all about who or what created "the first man" (a notion that itself has no place in Darwinian theory). It does argue that people evolved out of some human like animals. It is true that the questio of whether the immediate antecedent of the first hominids were other animals or dust -- but this is a byproduct of Darwin's main argument, and not the main argument itself. And it is the main argument itself -- that natural events must be explained by naturtal processes, and that simple processes can produce very complex effects -- that is the main point of contention between Darwinists and creationists/ID folk.

Also, it seemed kind of tortuous to argue that scientists prefer Darwin's model because it is more scientific. If this is a point the article needs to make, it needs to explain more clearly what makes it "more scientific." This is what I tried to do.-- SR

I'm puzzled by this entry. Is the title truncated? It appears to be intended as a place for recording "arguments from evolution in support of atheism". Or, is it within the scope of intent to post arguments for theism based on evolution? Is it supposed to exclude not-origins-related "arguments from evolution" - such as, for example, "arguments from evolution" for the extermination of the genetically unfit? or, "arguments from evolution" for the assistance of the poor and handicapped? Should it be re-titled? Mkmcconn

No idea about the article history, but the title appears to be a counterpoint to the argument from design (for the existance of god(s)). -- DrBob

This is linked from the Atheism article, so I think it's intended to be "Argument from evolution for the non-existence of God", and added an opening sentence to that effect. Wesley

I think the part " [...] while not describing the process of original creation, [...]" of the appended sentence in the article can be removed, because it assumes that there was indeed an "original creation". WDYT? --snoyes 18:04 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

"Darwin's theory of evolution, while not describing the process of original creation, proposes that all living organisms are descended from a common ancestor, and that species evolve through natural processes."

speciation

"Even though no one has observed transformations from one species to another..."

I'm not convinced this is true. I remember reading an article in nature about the speciation of wallabies through hybridisation, though I can't find it now, and also this article fom the Guardian newspaper: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1264087,00.html

Not made any changes though, as I don't have solid enough evidence (in my mind) to back it up until I can find that wallaby paper... Glynn

The main evolution article links here as proof of speciation hawthorn fly hope that helps SuperAntMD 20:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, please

Seems to me that this article suffers from barely-repressed POV. The inclusion of a refutation section, for instance, is pretty hefty proof that way. --DNicholls 10:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

So work on it. Speaking of NPOV, though, I'm under the impression that few scientists actually use the term "evolutionist." It seems to be a derogatory term used by creationists.

---

"However, creationists argue that the theory of evolution itself is not falsifiable, since it is not testable by experiment."

This seems like a hasty and useless addendum. The next paragraph clearly states that microevolution is verifiable in a laboratory environment (i.e. 'testable').

"Under this view, the study of evolution is not a scientific field at all, but more akin to history."

Another meaningless statement presumably from the same contributor. Stating that the study of evolution is akin to history seems only to lend credence to it. -anetode

---

I've tried to clean up the criticism section by removing irrelevant or rambling material (creationism vs evolution arguments and counter-counter-counter-arguments, unknowability, def of "theory," justification of indirect evidence in science, falsifiability, etc). This article doesn't need to argue either for against the validity of evolution or creationism in order to coherently explain the subject, right? I've also split the two criticisms into their own sections. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 23:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Making the argument from evolution an actual argument from evolution

I have altered the supposed scientific arument from an IDer's opinion of their argument to what the title acutally claims. I urge anyone who critisized the article before to contribute to the argument.

I removed this sentence

, especially in America

Bobby1011 14:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the primary cause of the Americentric nature of that section, was that ID is primarily an American phenomenon. However, I had changed it from "many Americans..." which was utterly ridiculous as it ignored the rest of the word, and I didn't excise it as I had yet to go through all of the commentary and edits to see if there was some reason that that phrase was in there. I'm guessing that there was no compelling reason, so good riddance to that phrase.  :) Jim62sch 14:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I've just added an NPOV tag to this article, because it crosses the line on several points, and definatly argues a point in some sections, attempting to convince the reader of the author's opinion. Examples:

If astronomers just gave up after saying "circular orbits of planets are close enough to our observations," who knows what we might not have later discovered.

That is NPOV and is an attempt to insert the author's argument into the article.

This could not be further from the truth. Anyone who claims this clearly does not understand evolution (although they typically claim they understand it better than someone who believes it is true).

Claiming to know what is "typically" claimed.

There's more, but my bed is calling.

Bobby1011 14:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Had you waited untill I was done editing, you would have had no need for the tag. I agree with you about those sentences, in fact I've removed other POV stuff as appropriate. Once I'm done with this mess of an article, I'm sure you'll find that the tag can go. Jim62sch 14:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Sorry to step on your toes like that. I wasn't aware that the article was currently being edited (there are tags for that too, if you would like to avoid confusion in the future).

As for ID being something typically american, I have to take an issue with that. Ok, the term is a USAmerican neologism, but it describes something that has been around longer than the states themselves. People of non-christian religions also produce theories that point to ID rather than evolution or even bigbang thoeries.

Bobby1011 15:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the term, not to the teleological argument (which is what ID really is) because the IDists deny any connection whatsoever with said argument. Your second point was why I replaced "christian God" with the "god of the Abrahamic religions" as the ID proponents (especially DI, the only true powerhouse on the ID side) use the Wedge strategy which is aimed primarily at Christians, ad as an afterthought, a few pious Jews. Jim62sch 20:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your improvements. If you think I went too far, than I probably did. My aim was for an argument from an evolutionary biologist's perspective (which I am not). Just don't delete everything I wrote and replace it with "evolution is an attack on God" (clearly going a little to far) like Duncharris did. Also, please add stuff.

Don't worry...evolution and a belief in a deity or deities are neither mutually inclusive nor exclusive. If you have questions with any edits, post them on this page (please remember to sign each comment with ~~~~ ). Thanks. Jim62sch 20:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

rc is a scary place

does/can "evolution" argue things? anyway, in case all u people really were wondering, wikipedia is a weak place to have this fight but now that I think abuot it I see why u are here, bothering w/ it. sensible people: it's not worth your time. people who still think biology can be made into "my guess is as good as yours, therefore science teachers should mention that sometimes people guess things"-ology - have fun. WWFSMD skizzno^logic3.1 00:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Editorials

Why the editorialization? 99% of scientists oppose Creationism, and that is what this article is supposed to explain & detail. As a creationist, I believe that the article should say as much, and should explain their reasons for so doing. Yet one finds everywhere editorial statements such "Intelligent Design should not be taught in school", "cannot deceive an "average" observer", etc. It would have sufficed to write that a majority of scientists, biologists, or whoever the contributing author should wish to mention regard the argument of Intelligent Design as deceitful. That would be correct. All statements are "alleged" unless unanimous, and the article must be equally informative to people of different points of view. The Only subject which merits agreement is the *representation* of both sides' arguments. As long as both sides believe that the statements in Wikipedia actually represent their true opinions on the matter, the article is balanced. Otherwise, it is not a true encyclopedia article worthy of the name.

First off, you should sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).

Second, what editorialization? Did you bother to look at the footnotes? The first sentence you mention, "Intelligent Design should not be taught in school", is not even in the article, neither is the second. Precisely what are you looking at?

What, praytell, does this mean: "All statements are "alleged" unless unanimous"? If you are offering this as a piece of advice, you are completely wrong. Unanimity is not required, and the disagreement of one person is not a cause for changing the article.

Rather than write screed full of inaccuracies, I strongly suggest that you stick to factual criticisms, and point out specifically what currently existing statements you think are problematic. Thank you. Jim62sch 15:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I should very much like to point out two things: Firstly, the line to which I referred has since been removed by persons less biased than the original editor. Secondly, an encyclopaedia article, even when describing something so mundane as the argument against a flat Earth, should state what scientific consensus is and identify it as such, not "factually" state that Intelligent Design is an argument whose object is to "deceive" average observers. The article also states that Occam's Razor supports evolution, which is definitely argued by scientists, but the opposite is argued (whether correctly or incorrectly) by Creationists against evolution. Since it so happens that the Rt. Hon. Mr. Occam is deceased, it is of course impossible to refer to the source, but it is the use of the encyclopaedia page to state as a fact things which are supposed to represent a position that perturbs me. As I previously stated, it is perfectly accdeptable (In fact the only thing to do) for an encyclopaedia to state that 99% of scientists oppose I.D., but it another thing altogether to state the said assertion in much the same terms as might a newspaper editorial, which is the essence of my complaint. On a final note, I must apologize for not signing with the tildes, but I have not invested (and perhaps ought to) invest time in learning the Wiki protocol. My complaint was lodged moreover, as a letter to the "Editors" as a disgruntled reader. 24.152.169.237 04:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What happened?

This page no longer describes the argument from evolution anywhere, except in the introduction to call it a "A common misconception". Intelligent design theory has next to nothing to do with it, so why has the entire page been transformed into an off-topic pov rant against it and all information about the actual argument from evolution been removed? The previous versions of the page weren't particularly good, but at least they didn't entirely change the subject in the first sentence. [1] The argument from evolution isn't "that intelligent design is not a verifiable scientific theory." The argument from evolution holds that evolution disproves (or is evidence against) a creator God. [2] [3] The only thing that ID has to do with it is a single sentence at most: "The theist may circumvent the argument from evolution by asserting that independent evidence exists that living things were intelligently designed, rejecting the premise that they evolved at all." Such a point already existed in the previous (less innaccurate) version, though. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 04:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You arn't serious are you? You are clearly a creationist/IDer who knows nothing about evolution. You actually believe that the only purpose of the existance of evolution is to disproove God?

Please don't put words into my mouth; I said absolutely nothing of the kind. I said that the phrase "argument from evolution" describes the use of evolution as evidence against God. I never said that I agreed with the argument, just that that's what the phrase describes and that the article is, therefore, completely innaccurate. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 20:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This Page is a carbon copy of the one found at TalkOrigins

TalkOrigins heavily favors evolution. This article is not NPOV at all. It's so biased that nothing can be saved. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.70.202.17 (talk • contribs) .

Some examples of use of this term

As the meaning of this term does not seem very clear in the article, I decided to gather some examples of the term's use. I have listed them below. From them, and other examples, hopefully we can get a sourced, citeable definition for the phrase: "Argument from evolution".

These are all from the first two pages of google results I got:

• as an argument for metaphysical naturalism; "no contemporary atheist philosopher has used evolution as evidence for atheism. Indeed, the only philosopher who has formulated an argument for the claim that evolution is evidence against theism and for metaphysical naturalism is agnostic philosopher Paul Draper. / Draper defends an evidential argument from evolution for metaphysical naturalism" http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/evolution.html
• Two sarcastic proofs of the existance of God, titled: "ARGUMENT FROM EVOLUTION". The first is: "(1) Most indigenous folks all over the world started believing in gods independently. / (2) Belief in God is thus natural. / (3) Atheist: Many indigenous folks started eating each other, also independently. / (4) The Christian god forbids eating our fellow humans. / (5) Therefore, God exists." http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
• An apparently serious example of an argument referred to as the "argument from evolution" proving the existance of God; "arguments for the existence of God ... namely, (1) the argument from evolution" http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-pigliucci7.html
• Another reference to the argument(not sure where it was given in full, maybe someone can find it) from a different page on the same site; "I then gave the argument from evolution and pointed out that apart from God it's just too improbable to think that natural selection and genetic mutations could have resulted in the sort of biological complexity that we see." http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-pigliucci5.html
• An example of the use of the term in reference to an argument about altruism or egotism; "That mothers have these altruistic desires is clearly a good evolutionary strategy for a species, or for a bunch of genes. Altruistic mothers have a better chance of passing on their genes to offspring than totally selfish mothers who have no desire to sacrifice themselves for their offspring. So the argument from evolution is just unsound." http://spot.colorado.edu/~oddie/pego.html
• As an argument against absolute standards for morality: "The Argument from Evolution: Natural selection can account for morality as it is a survival mechanism for society. The society that did the best to its members survived." http://www.souldevice.org/ethics_morality.html
• as an argument for strong atheism: "Argument from Evolution—An argument by Kyle J. Gerkin, which argues that evolution was not possible before the universe existed, and that no other mechanism could explain a god’s intelligence." http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/
• "The third argument against the reality of psi, the argument from evolution," http://google.com/search?q=cache:www.drmichaellevin.org/evolution_psi.pdf+%22Argument+from+evolution%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=17
• as an argument for the existance of God; "He first looks at “the argument from evolution,” which holds that the evolution of increasingly complex organisms implies the existence of God, who designed the evolutionary process for this purpose." http://www.equip.org/free/DS703.htm

From this small, and probably unrepresentive sample, there seems to be a very large degree of variation in the meaning of the phrase "Argument from evolution". However, the existance of God does seem to be more common than other topics, although the division between the phrase's use to refer to an argument for the existance of God, and it's use to refer to an argument against the existance of God, seems to be about equal.

I would really appreciate further examples of the use of this term, from non-online sources if you have them available, or on-line if not. The use of the term is clearly not only limited to one argument. Thanks to everyone for all your good-faith contributions to the 'pedia! JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that summary. I was aware of most (but not all) of those uses. My primary point was that the only use described in this article is not one of them. The sentence "The argument from evolution states that intelligent design is not a verifiable scientific theory and is, in fact, pseudoscience" is, imo, an attempt to use Wikipedia to create a new definition, rather than an explanation of what the term actually means. In the end, probably several of the above meanings should be incorporated. Probably the arguments for and against the existence of God are the most notable. I was just trying to point out that the page as it currently stands doesn't seem to describe anything by the name "Argument from evolution" that actually exists outside of the page itself. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 02:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the page should just go over the arguments of an dagainst the existance of God. Otherwise, the terms seem to be unique to the people using them. --Switch 13:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Those two conclusions(God exists, God does not exist) do seem to be the most popular uses of the term, I agree. And Loompa is quite correct that the page currently doesn't address them, and it should. Hm. I think the next step is to generate a list of the structures of the various arguments used to reach the two conclusions(God exists, God does not exist), then we can get to work on writing up a NPOV explanation of them. Anyone else interesed in taking this on? If not, I'll get to it eventually. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Noteworthy enough?

This phrase "argument from evolution" only gets 187 unique hits on Google, many of them directly from Wikipedia and its mirrors. I also don't see any evidence that it's noteworthy in any of this page's references, which just seem to generally deal with scientific criticism of intelligent design (a more standard style of title). What makes this specific title noteworthy enough? -Silence 11:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The title is very uninformative. Any suggestions? --Roland Deschain 22:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Very bad intro

This article has a very bad introduction:

"The argument from evolution states that intelligent design, (ID), is not a verifiable scientific theory and is, in fact, pseudoscience[1], with evolutionists noting that "IDers" have theological rather than scientific objectives."

• It's the scientific and philosophical community that states that ID is not science. This is much clearer than an abstract term such as argument from evolution.

"Science, via evolution, provides sound explanations for the origin and diversity of life, and the origin of the Universe."

• Evolution offers no explanation for the origin or life or the universe. "via evolution" should be removed from this sentance.

"Using the concept of parsimony, scientists note that it is far more likely that the universe is a result of natural processes rather than of creation."

• First, I cannot find this statement in the citation that is offered with this statement.
• This is a wrong statement regarding parsimony. Parsimony is usually used to derive the least convoluted hypothesis, but following the principles of parsimony has no effect on the probablity of something happening. (Note: May be used in conjunction with Occam's Razor to arrive at such a conclusion --Switch 03:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC))

--Roland Deschain 22:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That isn't even what the article is supposed to be about. See the above discussion; the article needs a complete rewrite and refocus, but no one appears to have gotten around to fixing it yet. In fact, I had forgotten about it until just recently. --Switch 03:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read the article and I'm very confused about your comment. What is this article about. If it's not about the biological Theory of Evolution, this point needs to be made very clear right in the intro before all the false statments are made which I have pointed out.--Roland Deschain 19:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is about biological evolution, but the argument proposed in the article is a) invalid, b) generally not a recognised theological argument, c) not called the "argument from evolution" anywhere else. See the above discussion (Examples of use of this term) for what the article should be about. --Switch 03:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

ID "only Abrahamic Religions"

"According to intelligent design, life is too complex to have been a result of evolution, and must have been designed by an intelligent agent, who most supporters believe to be the God of Abrahamic religions" -This is clearly incorrect, and invalid. It's not only Abrahamic relgions that believe in a God of ID. For example, Hindus believe in a creator side to GOD: Bramha. This article requires a cleanup

Not only that, but ID theory also suggests that life isn't complex enough to allow for the margins of error that would allow chance to work. That is to say that whenever chance is at work, the result is death. There is nothing in the fossil record or other historical evidence to suggest that "nonessential elements" exist in sufficient quantities. Hackwrench 03:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Pure objectives?

That's part of the problem. Nobody does anything with pure objectives. The argument that ID proponents have other objectives fails to be useful on that basis. Hackwrench 03:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)