Evolution/creation: the underlying dilemma; explaining order

[guest_of_logic]

In the ongoing conflict between creationists (this post is concerned with biblical creationists) and evolutionists (this post is concerned with evolutionists who are also strong atheists), I find one recurrent dynamic to be very stimulating, and that is the common challenge from the biblical creationist, "Oh, right, so you think life just sprang up out of nothing at all. Well, the Big Bang is far more 'magical' in its essence than the idea that God did it", and the retort from the strong atheist, "Abiogenesis and cosmology are separate issues from evolution - don't conflate them".

Why do the creationists insist on raising issues that the atheists dismiss as irrelevant and distracting, and do these issues and retorts point to strategies and a bigger picture behind the war? I think that they do.

In these battles, evolution is wielded as a combat-hardened sabre in an attempt to slash away the creationists' belief in God by proving redundancy: that because evolution explains the development of life so comprehensively, there is no place for a creative supernatural force behind the variety of life that we observe. This underlying strategy is what leads the biblical creationists to issue the challenge that I noted in the introduction: the challenge is a strategy in itself; an attempt to fend off the purported redundancy by pointing to areas where explanations of ultimate origins are less established when it comes to mainstream scientific knowledge: where God might yet have a role even if the theory of evolution is correct.

The war between these two world-views (and yes, the strong atheists who wage war using a scientific theory of evolution clearly share to a significant extent a characteristic world-view, just as the creationists who hold up the Bible as God's word do) began when the argument from design, also known as the teleological argument - which many of us are familiar with in the form of the watchmaker analogy, in which living organisms are compared to a watch found by chance on the ground: the argument runs that in the same way that we would infer a watchmaker for the watch, so ought we to infer a designer for living organisms - ran into the new concept of natural selection.

I'm not concerned in this post with the details and plausibility of the theory of evolution and the process of natural selection, nor with the criticisms that creationists throw at these: instead I want to step back and highlight the primary dilemma pointed to by this war. That dilemma stems from a simple observation: that existence is ordered, and that order demands an explanation (there is actually an even more primary but related explanation that can be sought - that for existence itself - but it's not as relevant in the context of the biblical creationist versus strong atheist-evolutionist war, so I won't address it in this post).

There are of course degrees of order, so it might be argued that as an unqualified word, "ordered" is not very meaningful. For those who want to mount that argument, and who don't think that the order of our universe is significant in and of itself, I will qualify the observation to this: "that existence is ordered to the degree that it has become possible for parts of existence to contemplate the order of existence as a whole, and that order of that degree demands an explanation". I expect that even thus qualified, certain folk will continue to argue against the meaningfulness of the observation, but then, there's just no pleasing some people.

This is the backdrop against which the war is waged, and the fundamental dilemma which arises is as follows. On the one hand, order requires an explanation, and the explanation that the biblical creationists propose is that of an intelligent supernatural designer (God). On the other hand, God must in turn have been highly ordered to have been capable of such a feat, which in itself demands an explanation, which seems to lead to the absurdity of an infinite regress of intelligent supernatural designers, in which case we (and in particular the strong atheist-evolutionists) are left with no explanation.

There doesn't seem to be an easy way out of this dilemma. I can think of two possibilities. The first is that God has a nature which cannot be (or at least is not yet) understood by us, and which somehow avoids the infinite regress. The second possibility is to apply the thinking of the first possibility to the "creation" rather than the creator, and to say that its nature is so mysterious that it cannot be (or at least is not yet) understood, but that perhaps science or creative and critical thinking might someday lead to that understanding.

The latter possibility, however, is not as satisfying as the first: we know what it means to intelligently design - it is familiar to us - but as to an "uncreated" universe... this type of notion is one with which we are not experienced.

That this dilemma underlies the war can be seen by reflecting on the challenge noted in this essay's introduction: the biblical creationists are not far from saying, "Look, the universe is so well ordered that it is capable of producing life: even if life was produced according to some process of natural selection, how are we to explain the order underlying that process; the order of the material upon which natural selection operates; the order of all of the variables that go in to make the universe: time, matter, energy and all of the physical laws; the order that originated the very process of natural selection?"

Please let me know what you think - in particular:

Do you agree that this dilemma underlies the biblical creationist versus strong atheist-evolutionist war?

What is your take on this dilemma, and in particular how would you go about solving it? Do you agree that the order of the universe demands an explanation? If not, why not? If so, then what is your explanation for the degree to which the universe is ordered?

[edit: clarified the description in the seventh paragraph of the fundamental dilemma]

[Blair]

There's no dilemna to it.

God created the universe, and thats all there is to it, you stupid shitbag.

Like it or lump it.

[guest_of_logic]

Prince, I'm a theist too, just searching for understanding beyond blind belief. You seem to be big on adamant claims but short on explanations. I'd be interested in seeing a fuller response from you to my OP.

[Dan Rowden]

Prince has devolved from an interesting troll, to an idiot troll. His writing is on the wall. Maybe he'll spot it before it's too late.

[Jason]

Do you agree that the order of the universe demands an explanation?

Sometimes.

If not, why not?

Because of the order of the universe.

If so, then what is your explanation for the degree to which the universe is ordered?

My explanation for the degree to which the universe is ordered, of course.

[guest_of_logic]

Hmm, your responses seem very tautological, Jason - your post is somewhat obscure and cryptic to me. Perhaps you'll elaborate.

[Jason]

Perhaps.

[Robert]

Do you agree that this dilemma underlies the biblical creationist versus strong atheist-evolutionist war?

How are you defining a 'strong atheist-evolutionist'? Do you mean someone who believes scientific materialism will provide the answer to the origins/order question?

[Jason]

Hmm, your responses seem very tautological, Jason - your post is somewhat obscure and cryptic to me. Perhaps you'll elaborate.

An explanation(of the order) of the universe, is, itself, part of the universe. How, fundamentally, is any progress made by explaining the universe with the universe?

[guest_of_logic]

How are you defining a 'strong atheist-evolutionist'? Do you mean someone who believes scientific materialism will provide the answer to the origins/order question?

Not necessarily, but they often tend towards that belief. Here's my working definition: "An individual who believes positively and strongly that there is no God, who believes strongly that the theory of evolution is true, and who uses that belief in evolution as part of his/her justification of his/her belief that God does not exist."

An explanation(of the order) of the universe, is, itself, part of the universe. How, fundamentally, is any progress made by explaining the universe with the universe?

So in your opinion no explanation is possible?

[Robert]

To give a complete explanation of the order of the universe (as defined here as the All), you'd have to account for all causes. Since such an action is impossible, no explanation is possible.

[guest_of_logic]

To give a complete explanation of the order of the universe (as defined here as the All), you'd have to account for all causes.

I don't see that you'd have to do that. Order is abstract - it's not the All, it's a property of the All. To explain a property, you don't necessarily have to account for all causes of the entity to which it is attached, merely the relevant ones.

[Robert]

To give a complete explanation of the order of the universe (as defined here as the All), you'd have to account for all causes.

I don't see that you'd have to do that. Order is abstract - it's not the All, it's a property of the All. To explain a property, you don't necessarily have to account for all causes of the entity to which it is attached, merely the relevant ones.

You're asking for an explanation of what we perceive as order in the universe. It doesn't make any difference if you're a theist or not, such a complete explanation is impossible. Incomplete and provisional explanations of properties are the only ones available to us.

[guest_of_logic]

Robert, do you mean in principle or just to the best of your knowledge?

[Robert]

Robert, do you mean in principle or just to the best of your knowledge?

You're asking a question about the empirical nature of properties, so by default any of our best explanations will be in principle incomplete.

[guest_of_logic]

You're asking a question about the empirical nature of properties, so by default any of our best explanations will be in principle incomplete.

So, "incomplete" and "provisional", but do you think that a "sufficient" explanation is possible?

[Robert]

You're asking a question about the empirical nature of properties, so by default any of our best explanations will be in principle incomplete.

So, "incomplete" and "provisional", but do you think that a "sufficient" explanation is possible?

"Sufficient" explanations already exist in the sense that they suffice for particular purposes, but may be insuffcient for others. Like Jason said, a complete explanation of the order of the universe is necessarily itself part of the universe, which renders the question kinda meaningless, or at least circular. Granted, it's a useful enough question to ask in that it encourages generations of mathematicians and physicists to maybe find some practical applications for what they come up with.

[guest_of_logic]

Like Jason said, a complete explanation of the order of the universe is necessarily itself part of the universe, which renders the question kinda meaningless, or at least circular.

It's in a unique category, yes; along similar lines: an explanation of order will itself be ordered - that's just the nature of explanations. I think "circular" comes closer to describing that situation than "meaningless", but that's just my opinion. Something similar applies to explanations of language, which are made in language... circular but not meaningless.

[Robert]

Like Jason said, a complete explanation of the order of the universe is necessarily itself part of the universe, which renders the question kinda meaningless, or at least circular.

It's in a unique category, yes; along similar lines: an explanation of order will itself be ordered - that's just the nature of explanations. I think "circular" comes closer to describing that situation than "meaningless", but that's just my opinion. Something similar applies to explanations of language, which are made in language... circular but not meaningless.

Laird, would you then agree that this "underlying dilemma" between creationists and atheists is in fact contrived and based on false assumptions?

[guest_of_logic]

Laird, would you then agree that this "underlying dilemma" between creationists and atheists is in fact contrived and based on false assumptions?

I wouldn't go that far, but I would go so far as to agree that it might not be formulated as well as it could be if I were omniscient. What false assumptions did you have in mind?

By the way, after some reflection it seems to me that "self-referential" is a better term in this context than "circular".

[Ryan Rudolph]

Guest of logic,

The fundamental question here seems to be does the 'relative' order we observe in the universe require an explanation? And if so, what are the rules we should use in trying to come up with an explanation. For instance: Scientists only find explanations useful if they are testable, and can be confirmed by knowledge/evidence within reality itself.

An explanation for order that deviates into the supernatural will always seem lacking as long as one relies solely on logic and reasoning alone. There is too much of a leap in reasoning to conclude that the order we observe in the universe implies a divine creator or metaphysical spirit presence. It is too much of a stretch in my opinion.

Not to mention, that the entire notion of order is very fuzzy, and open for debate - For instance: the earth is seems incredibly lucky for life to emerge at all, which implies the universe is quite inefficient at creating sentience. Also, our earth is quite a mess - many of the industrial systems we have in place to keep us alive are in fact destroying us in the process. The chemical age of progress seems to be the equivalent of us shitting our bed so to speak. Survival is hellish and difficult, Not to mention, the species is incredibly feeble and animal like, with a short life span, and so many limitations that I do not even want to begin listing them all. How is all that order? Perhaps we have evolved to find 'order' in the world in order to cope with the disorder around us, and then we ignore the disorder, while elevating the order as something divine and all encompassing.

[Robert]

What false assumptions did you have in mind?

The strong atheist-evolutionist may believe that science can provide a complete model of order and origins, the creationist theist may believe that scriptural ideology is complete and inerrant in its model of order and origins. Like you said, without omniscience, it would be foolish to think that either position is solid.

[guest_of_logic]

Ryan,

Thanks for your thoughts.

The fundamental question here seems to be does the 'relative' order we observe in the universe require an explanation?

Agreed.

And if so, what are the rules we should use in trying to come up with an explanation. For instance: Scientists only find explanations useful if they are testable, and can be confirmed by knowledge/evidence within reality itself.

Right - so to put that into my own words: by which criteria should we judge an explanation of the universe's order as being sufficient?

Right now I don't have an answer that isn't very tautological ("by the criteria that it sufficiently explains the universe's order"), and I don't even know whether an explanation would be testable, but I suspect that at best it would be not so much directly testable as a whole as induced from the preponderance of evidence.

An explanation for order that deviates into the supernatural will always seem lacking as long as one relies solely on logic and reasoning alone. There is too much of a leap in reasoning to conclude that the order we observe in the universe implies a divine creator or metaphysical spirit presence. It is too much of a stretch in my opinion.

So then how would you explain it?

Not to mention, that the entire notion of order is very fuzzy, and open for debate

Yes, although I tried to address that issue in my OP: granted, there is a lot of chaos in the world, but despite that it can't be denied that sufficient order exists for parts of the universe (i.e. sentient human beings) to contemplate how ordered the universe is, as we are doing here, which seems to me to be an incredible amount of order.

[Pincho Paxton]

There are other theories that are in-between these two theories of Evolution, and God. For example the theory that the electrons created everything. If that were true, then nature would include a God in Evolution, and that God would be the electrons.

[guest_of_logic]

guest_of_logic: What false assumptions did you have in mind?

Robert: The strong atheist-evolutionist may believe that science can provide a complete model of order and origins, the creationist theist may believe that scriptural ideology is complete and inerrant in its model of order and origins. Like you said, without omniscience, it would be foolish to think that either position is solid.

Oh, in the original context it seemed that what you meant was that the dilemma itself was predicated on false assumptions, and not just that those who chose one side or other of the dilemma were (or might be) making false assumptions. Perhaps I misunderstood you, or perhaps you changed your mind.

There are other theories that are in-between these two theories of Evolution, and God. For example the theory that the electrons created everything. If that were true, then nature would include a God in Evolution, and that God would be the electrons.

Pincho, would you agree though that electrons are ordered, and that in and of themselves they can't be an explanation of order?