The philosophical problems with the theory of evolution and determinism.

[Light]

Sometimes I cringe when I hear people say something analogous to "evolution is a fact", because, it is not.  Evolution could be said to have factual basis in some aspects, but others are based on philosophy alone.   The main premise of evolution, that all life, in the material form, could be said to have decended from a common ancestor is the part I am in agreement with, because there is much evidence to support this idea.   However, the proposed mechanism, natural selection, is a philosophical idea, not a fact, and the implications of it lead to some irrational conclusions.

Evolutoin is a deterministic theory since natural selection is a deterministic mechanism.  There is no mention of free-will or conscious choice, in the attribution of the success, of an organism.  The full attribution is placed on the inherited genes, which will determine the actions and outcome of the successful reproduction of an organism.

Some may argue that evolution does not exclude free-will since natural selection can be thought of as reffering to a group of living things, rather than an individual.

But, Darwin himself did not believe in free-will, and accepted the deterministic nature of his theory, as is mentioned in this quote: ""the general delusion about free will [is] obvious," and that one ought to punish criminals "solely to deter others"—not because they did something blameworthy.4  "This view should teach one profound humility," wrote Darwin, "one deserves no credit for anything... nor ought one to blame others." [http://www.discovery.org/a/9581]

Therefore, one who accepts evolution wholly as fact, is then agreeing to the position that they have no free-will and their life is imprisoned in the deterministic casual chain.  Their awareness of conscious choice, is simply a delusion.

Although determinism can be useful in understanding certain concepts of reality, I do not believe it is applicable to reality as a whole, and will now explain why.

When a child is born, before they even develop the ability to use language, they have certain intuitive senses about the objective reality.  For instance, a baby will sense hunger, then cry.  The sense of hunger then is providing the baby with information about the objective reality, that he/she must eat or die.  With hunger, many other senses begin to develop and become more acute with time.

The sense of taste, smell, temparature, touch, physical pain, etc. all develop to help the child have intuitive knowledge about objective reality, to help ensure its survival.  Along with these senses, gradually develops the sense of agency, an identity.

The determinist will argue that the sense of agency is an illusion.  That, one may sense they are free to choose, but that sense is completely wrong.  However, the determinist will not concede that the other senses are illusions. 

Why, I ask the determinist, would all humans develop a sense of agency which is a 100% illusionary sense of objective reality, when all the other senses can be shown to give true information, to at least a degree, about objective reality?

Of course, one could argue that certain senses can be misleading at times.  Fear, is a good example.  A person fears something only to later find out there was no danger.  But without the sense of fear being correct at times about objective dangers, certainly this would lead to a very unsuccessful outcome.  In other words, there would be no humans living now if they had no sense of danger.

So then, although one could say a sense may be misleading at times,  it is not the case that any sense is illusionary concerning objective reality always.  Yet, according to the determinist, the sense of agency must be 100% illusionary.

The evolutionist, and therefore determinist, is basically arguing that all human beings are suffering from a life-long illusionary sense of agency.  Almost as if, all humans are to a degree, suffering a delusion, a psychotic symptom.   

Why would one develop a sense which is fully illusionary? Possibly to protect them from the fear of being not in control?  But if that is so, then why would one need the sense of fear to begin with?  If one has no choice, there should be no uncertainty of the outcome of their actions, and therefore no need for fear.

This premise is irrational. 

The determinist may also claim that it's useful to 'pretend' to have free will because it helps in society or day-to-day life.  But they are not pretending at all.  They are paying attention to the reality their senses bring them, just as they do if their senses tell them they need food. The actual illusion is believing that determinism is a philosophy that can be applicable to all aspects of life.

The theory of evolution is no fact then, it's a recognition that material lifeforms have descended from a common ancestor, combined with the irrational philosophy that freedom of choice plays no role in the outcome of that process.



**BTW,  thanks for taking time to read this if you have, I know, its kind of long, I tried to be concise, but had a lot to say.  **

[xSilverPhinx]

First off, it's not only natural selection that propels evolution, sexual selection plays a part as well, but I don't really see the point you're trying to make. Also, selection has been demonstrated to be a powerful cause of change, such as in artificial selection (which would be more similar to sexual selection than natural, since the best survival solution is not necessarily what's being selected for.)

Secondly, are you saying that either we have free will or we don't? Because I believe it's somewhere in the middle. The question would then be in what are we making a free choice and are we conscious that we're making a choice or are we conscious just of the results?

How do you define free will?

They put a few people in fMRI machines and saw that the brain had made a decision about 7 seconds before the person was consciously aware of having made that decision. That opens some rather unsettling possibilities for inquiry...did they have free will or not, even though they were not conscious of the processes that lead to their decision?

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html

[Light]

First off, it's not only natural selection that propels evolution, sexual selection plays a part as well, but I don't really see the point you're trying to make. Also, selection has been demonstrated to be a powerful cause of change, such as in artificial selection (which would be more similar to sexual selection than natural, since the best survival solution is not necessarily what's being selected for.)

The point is that the original theory of evolution was intended to be a deterministic theory with no room for free-will.

Secondly, are you saying that either we have free will or we don't? Because I believe it's somewhere in the middle. The question would then be in what are we making a free choice and are we conscious that we're making a choice or are we conscious just of the results?

No, I don't believe it's an either/or situation.  Determinism is applicable in some concepts, but I don't believe it's all inclusive.

How do you define free will?

All choices are not pre-determined by physical laws.  The sense of agency, freedom of choice, is a reflection of objective reality in some circumstances, like other senses.

They put a few people in fMRI machines and saw that the brain had made a decision about 7 seconds before the person was consciously aware of having made that decision. That opens some rather unsettling possibilities for inquiry...did they have free will or not, even though they were not conscious of the processes that lead to their decision?

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html

Interesting, I've never read it, but will have to look into it.

[DeterminedJuliet]

The theory of evolution has grown and changed over the years. Darwin may have explained it a certain way, but that doesn't it mean that his version is the only "real" version. Some people claim that Darwin "recanted" the whole theory on his deathbed. It doesn't really matter, because, even if he did, it doesn't mean the theory disappeared or became irrelevant.

So, really, it doesn't matter if Darwin says that evolution has a "deterministic" nature, or not. If we buy into certain elements of evolution, it doesn't mean we have to accept everything Darwin ever said.

Personally, I've never really thought about evolution from a "philosophical" perspective, and I'm not sure that I want to, really. There are richer sources for philosophical thought, so I don't really feel the need.

[Asmodean]

The scientific fact of evolution and the theory of evolution are what they are. If you want to agrue against them, philosophy is one of many wrong tools for the job. Try using science.

[Whitney]

Evolutoin is a deterministic theory since natural selection is a deterministic mechanism.  There is no mention of free-will or conscious choice, in the attribution of the success, of an organism.  The full attribution is placed on the inherited genes, which will determine the actions and outcome of the successful reproduction of an organism.

I think you are forgetting that not all creatures have the capacity to make conscious choices and that the capacity to make conscious choice is what free will is.  Intelligence is part of consciousness (and therefore free will) and how intelligent a being is plays a factor in survival.  So, there is no reason to conclude that natural selection being true means free will is not possible.

I personally don't think it's possible to know if true free will exists or not.  If a god is in control then we were all made to be the way we are and true free will is unlikely.  If the brain really only can make one decision in a given situation then all that we are is deterministic.  But there is no evidence of a god and we don't know enough about the brain to know about natural free will.  So, from a pragmatic point of view, our only choice is to assume that if we feel like we are making free decisions that we are.

[xSilverPhinx]

I think that the whole 'do we have free will' argument has greater implications for justice and law than for evolutionary theory.

I'm going to assume the decisions of an intelligent animal with a complex brain are based on individual and unique factors such as the number of neurons, connections and the weight given to different kinds of information while making a decision (partly instinctual and partly learned from past experience). It's not incompatible with natural selection acting upon a very large variety of choices that could bring many different outcomes. It's estimated that our neurons make a trillion connections. 

But anyways, I side more with the neuroscientists on this one. The link I've provided summarises both the scientific and philosophical debate.

I just think the philosophical's side is a bit lacking because they don't really define what they mean by 'free will'. I'm assuming it's conscious choice ???

[Stevil]

they have no free-will and their life is imprisoned in the deterministic casual chain.  Their awareness of conscious choice, is simply a delusion

I agree with this, to pose differently implies that something exists outside of material reality and that something has a sense of morality and thus makes choices based on that personal sense of morality.
In a way it is suggesting the existence of a soul and that if that particular soul were to be attached to a different body then it would make the same choice irregardless.

1. We can never perform this test.
2. I have no belief in a soul as a metaphysical entity, only as a highlevel concept.
3. I have no belief in anything outside of material reality. Once we find one system existing outside then I will consider others, but until then, this is a myth.

[Recusant]

Sometimes I cringe when I hear people say something analogous to "evolution is a fact", because, it is not.

This is an unsupported assertion. The process of evolution has been observed and documented. Cringe all you want, but you're the one who is wrong, not those who say that evolution is a fact.

Evolution could be said to have factual basis in some aspects, but others are based on philosophy alone.   The main premise of evolution, that all life, in the material form, could be said to have decended from a common ancestor is the part I am in agreement with, because there is much evidence to support this idea.   However, the proposed mechanism, natural selection, is a philosophical idea, not a fact, and the implications of it lead to some irrational conclusions.

Natural selection has been observed. So far, you've based your argument on mere assertions, and have provided zero evidence to support these assertions. I would hope that it gets better.

Evolutoin is a deterministic theory since natural selection is a deterministic mechanism.  There is no mention of free-will or conscious choice, in the attribution of the success, of an organism.  The full attribution is placed on the inherited genes, which will determine the actions and outcome of the successful reproduction of an organism.

Individuals can and do make choices, but evolution is not a description of the actions of individuals, but of the process by which groups of organisms change over time. You're trying to shoehorn something into the theory which is essentially irrelevant to it.

Some may argue that evolution does not exclude free-will since natural selection can be thought of as reffering to a group of living things, rather than an individual.

I just did, and you haven't provided any basis for disputing this.

But, Darwin himself did not believe in free-will, and accepted the deterministic nature of his theory, as is mentioned in this quote: ""the general delusion about free will [is] obvious," and that one ought to punish criminals "solely to deter others"—not because they did something blameworthy.4  "This view should teach one profound humility," wrote Darwin, "one deserves no credit for anything... nor ought one to blame others." [http://www.discovery.org/a/9581]

Why should I, or anyone else, consider Darwin's opinions on free will to be some sort of edict handed down from on high? His field was biology, and his discoveries in that field are what make him notable. His philosophical musings, even if he considered them to be grounded in his studies of biology, are perhaps of academic interest, but are like the vast majority of philosophical musings, essentially opinion.

Therefore, one who accepts evolution wholly as fact, is then agreeing to the position that they have no free-will and their life is imprisoned in the deterministic casual chain.  Their awareness of conscious choice, is simply a delusion.

This doesn't follow, as I explained above. Your argument on this point seems to consist of "Darwin said it, therefore any who agree with his basic concepts of the development of life must also agree with the philosophical conclusions he drew." I do not feel compelled to agree with the philosophical conclusions of Darwin, nor anyone else for that matter. You have not made a case which would support the idea that if one agrees with Darwin's understanding of mechanisms of biology, one must also agree with his thoughts on free will.

In addition, this quote your source has used is a mere cherry picking from Darwin's notebooks. His thoughts on free will were not so clear cut in favor of determinism as you would have it. If you read those notebooks rather than the Christian propagandist's selected excerpts from them you will see that Darwin's opinions on free will are much more nuanced.

From Charles Darwin's notebooks:
With respect to free will, seeing a puppy playing cannot doubt that they have free will. . .

Darwin believed that a puppy has free will, and he also believed that humans have free will. I will search through the notebooks to find the context of the quote that the site you referenced has used, and I think that I will find that in context it means something other than what you and the Discovery Institute's John West say it means.

It's late here, and I'll have to address the rest of your post some other time.

[Squid]

I don't remember seeing anything about "free will" in the last population genetics book I read.  I would love to expand on this but, unfortunately, I don't have the time to properly address the original post.  Stupid work interfering with my interwebs time.

[Light]

The scientific fact of evolution and the theory of evolution are what they are. If you want to agrue against them, philosophy is one of many wrong tools for the job. Try using science.

Science is full of philosophy.  You can take all the empirical data you want, but it doesn't mean much until you apply philosophical ideas such as rationalism. Clearly you must not have read the post, since I just pointed out how your 'fact' of evolution has philosophy integrated within it.

[The Magic Pudding]

The evolutionist, and therefore determinist, is basically arguing that all human beings are suffering from a life-long illusionary sense of agency.  Almost as if, all humans are to a degree, suffering a delusion, a psychotic symptom.   

If free will is a delusion it is a healthy one, perhaps it would aid survival.
I'm OK with the universe being deterministic, it doesn't make me feel small and ineffectual.  There have been people here that suffered some anxiety because of it, maybe they were ex theists.  I don't think grandiose expectations are very healthy, so I'm a mere speck from a god's perspective, so what, being a speck is OK.   It seems silly, some misunderstanding of scale, zoom in on a krill and it might look scary but it would be silly to be scared of it.  If you zoom out and the big picture looks scary, well that's silly too, the world as we know it hasn't gone away.

[Light]

This is an unsupported assertion. The process of evolution has been observed and documented. Cringe all you want, but you're the one who is wrong, not those who say that evolution is a fact....

Natural selection has been observed. So far, you've based your argument on mere assertions, and have provided zero evidence to support these assertions. I would hope that it gets better.

I'm not saying the whole theory is not based on evidence. But certain aspects, specifically natural selection was philosophical. So I shouldn't need empirical evidence, if that's what you're referring to,  to talk about a rationalistic aspect of a theory.

...[Darwin's] philosophical musings, even if he considered them to be grounded in his studies of biology, are perhaps of academic interest, but are like the vast majority of philosophical musings, essentially opinion.

Philosophical musings? Maybe, but I think that's an understatement unless you think the link I referenced is simply propaganda?

From Charles Darwin's notebooks:
With respect to free will, seeing a puppy playing cannot doubt that they have free will. . .

Darwin believed that a puppy has free will, and he also believed that humans have free will. I will search through the notebooks to find the context of the quote that the site you referenced has used, and I think that I will find that in context it means something other than what you and the Discovery Institute's John West say it means.

It's late here, and I'll have to address the rest of your post some other time.

If that's the case then my interpretation of Darwin may be off.  However, I still personally interpret the theory as having deterministic elements, as I've read many similar interpretations, so I don't believe it an irrelevant point to bring up, or even simply determinism alone, which is fine to talk about also.

[Light]

they have no free-will and their life is imprisoned in the deterministic casual chain.  Their awareness of conscious choice, is simply a delusion

I agree with this, to pose differently implies that something exists outside of material reality and that something has a sense of morality and thus makes choices based on that personal sense of morality.
In a way it is suggesting the existence of a soul and that if that particular soul were to be attached to a different body then it would make the same choice irregardless.

1. We can never perform this test.
2. I have no belief in a soul as a metaphysical entity, only as a highlevel concept.
3. I have no belief in anything outside of material reality. Once we find one system existing outside then I will consider others, but until then, this is a myth.

How about reason and meaning?  Can anyone here explain the meaning of a math problem in terms of the atoms and molecules which make up the ink and paper it's printed on? 

[Stevil]

they have no free-will and their life is imprisoned in the deterministic casual chain.  Their awareness of conscious choice, is simply a delusion

I agree with this, to pose differently implies that something exists outside of material reality and that something has a sense of morality and thus makes choices based on that personal sense of morality.
In a way it is suggesting the existence of a soul and that if that particular soul were to be attached to a different body then it would make the same choice irregardless.

1. We can never perform this test.
2. I have no belief in a soul as a metaphysical entity, only as a highlevel concept.
3. I have no belief in anything outside of material reality. Once we find one system existing outside then I will consider others, but until then, this is a myth.

How about reason and meaning?  Can anyone here explain the meaning of a math problem in terms of the atoms and molecules which make up the ink and paper it's printed on? 

Conceptual, not metaphysical.