Evolutionary biology is a scientific discipline.

Neo-darwinian materialism (Dawkins, Dennett etc) is a philosophical ideology which claims support from evolutionary biology - however that is contested.

Creationism is linked to American Protestant Fundamentalism and is a religious ideology.

Intelligent design is arguably an offshoot of creationism which claims to demonstrate the inadequacy of Darwinian theory with reference to arguments from irreducible complexity.

The debate between scientific materialism and religious fundamentalism is one of the frontlines of the so-called 'culture wars'.

There are also many divergent views from within science about the overall adequacy of darwinian principles, a recent one being Do we need a new theory of evolution? (Guardian). See also The Third Way.

An amalgamation/mash up of the two has been proposed - God got evolution going! That's the low hanging fruit and everyone zeroed in on it effortlessly! :yawn:

What general category would evolution and creationism both fall into? — TiredThinker

Natural science and religious fiction, respectively.

There’s lots of interesting work like Theistic Evolution, things like that that try to synthesize natural selection with the idea of a transcendent creator.

Evolution is a broad category and even most young earth creationists don’t doubt evolution happens on a micro scale. It’s when the model becomes stretched to macro evolution that creationists tend to disagree (though whether theistic evolution or intelligent design fall under creationism is an interesting debate, and depends what you mean by creationism).

Natural selection is not the same as naturalism (although both are compatible and often complement each other, though there are some issues with naturalism in my view). Natural selection doesn’t account for biogenesis because it already assumes a cell’s ability to replicate. My guess is theistic accounts for the origin of life probably involve probabilistic arguments about cells and DNA. A highly cited chemist at my university gave a talk about how unlikely biogenesis is under naturalism and I found it pretty compelling to be honest.

The problem is it’s very difficult for us to know or replicate the initial conditions that life began, so pretty much any theory, naturalistic or not, is basically pure speculation. One of my favorites is that the building blocks for life originated on mars, very interesting theory, and not entirely unreasonable as it sounds in my view.

Theistic Evolution — Paulm12

The term I was lookin' for! :up: Danke!

Time plays a big role in evolution. If it were possible to prove that our scientific dating methods ( :grin: ) were flawed and/or the earth is proven to be only tens of thousands of years, evolution which occurs over millions-billions of years would end up in the trash can!

I just mean as far as a locator of how life got to where it is now. I realize creationism is baseless, but its purpose is common somehow with evolution.

Looks like interesting reading. Thanks.

The philosophical issue comes down to one word: purpose. Any ideas of purpose, and therefore meaning, were jettisoned by early modern science, associated with the dreaded scholasticism. The only admissable kinds of causes were what the scholastics would call material and effiecient causes. So, in the Aristotelian sense, nothing happens in evolutionary theory for any reason, other than to propogate. And all behaviours are subordinated to, and explained by, that requirement.

A bit more reading - Evolution and the Purposes of Life, Steve Talbott.

Im not sure they do share common purpose. Creationism is an ad hoc justification for biblical writings, an effort to explain contradictions with what science has discovered. Its purpose is in direct opposition to the purpose of science, and its method.

I realize creationism is baseless, but its purpose is common somehow with evolution. — TiredThinker

The object of both is life; however, the latter explains life's variations (re: descent via natural selection) whereas the former does not explain anything ("god did it").

"god did it — 180 Proof

The best religion could do was plagiarize from potters - that was hi-tech back in the iron age it seems.

Vide Creation of Life from Clay

purpose — Wayfarer

Do you realize that anyone who objects to teleology in evolution hasta prove their point by making a Kantian phenomenon (appearance - purpose) vs. noumenon (real - no purpose) distinction.

I say to these naysayers DUCK TEST!

If it looks like a duck teleology, swims like a duck teleology, and quacks like a duck teleology, then it probably is a duck teleology. — Wikipedia

It was renamed (slightly revised) as teleonomy - apparent purpose.

A**holes! They'll bend over backwards to be right! Don't we all, don't we all!

I like this quote from that article:

Haldane [in the 1930s] can be found remarking, ‘Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he’s unwilling to be seen with her in public.’ Today the mistress has become a lawfully wedded wife. Biologists no longer feel obligated to apologize for their use of teleological language; they flaunt it. The only concession which they make to its disreputable past is to rename it ‘teleonomy’.

Couldn't have said it better!

TiredThinker
443
What general category would evolution and creationism both fall into?

And has anyone proposed anything that is neither? Creationism can't really be proven, and evolution basically relies only on the first 25 years of life when we can have the most viable offspring even if our characters in our opinion are still shit. Lol. Perhaps a theory based on perfect or ideal biological structures that are clearly more efficient and accurate than others? Maybe we start with evolution because that is the bare minimum to exist in any form, but there must be other driving forces other than surviving long enough to mate? — TiredThinker

Why must there be any other driving force?

Im not sure they do share common purpose. Creationism is an ad hoc justification for biblical writings, an effort to explain contradictions with what science has discovered. Its purpose is in direct opposition to the purpose of science, and its method. — DingoJones

At least since Rome, Christianity has justified power and oppression of those who do not have it. When the Hebrew herders transitioned to agriculture and individuals owning land, instead of the communal living of herders, they came up with a system of inheritance tied to the will of a God. If there is a Satan that is when he stepped in. Rome made the religion worse.

. If there is a Satan that is when he stepped in. Rome made the religion worse. — Athena

:100: :up:

This is when literally corruption started to flourish

javi2541997

This is when literally corruption started to flourish — javi2541997

Damn you put a question in my head and I started a new thread with hopes others will express their notions of sin and morality regarding private property.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13262/sin-and-private-property

Do you realize that anyone who objects to teleology in evolution hasta prove their point by making a Kantian phenomenon (appearance - purpose) vs. noumenon (real - no purpose) distinction. — Agent Smith

I had to look up "teleology" and I see Greeks having this perspective of the notion of purpose and I see the notion of the Christian God following on the heels of Plato. Now I have a better understanding of how the Greeks got so involved with Christianity. I was really curious about why intellectual superior people got tangled up with something Roman.

It is interesting how evolution comes to an understanding of life from a position of cause rather than a notion of purpose. I never before had this understanding of the different points of view. Moments like this are why I come to this forum. It is so pleasing to see things in a whole new way.

Well their purpose can't be simply life as we are far more complex than the minimum requirement of being alive. I am curious of the other forces that guide our betterment that go beyond a guy looking good enough for pity sex. Lol.

Okay. But since creationism (religious fiction) does not explain anything, it's in no way related / comparable to evolution (natural science).

Their mutual goal isn't to either explain how we got here or where we might be going?

What "mutual goal"? IMO, they're not comparable in any non-trivial way.

:up:

What general category would evolution and creationism both fall into? — TiredThinker

Natural science and religious fiction, respectively. — 180 Proof

:up: in short

Across the two, creationists have been running an anti-science campaign for a long time:
The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism
Fortunately, some have smartened up:
Panel Discussion on Mere Theistic Evolution - EPS 2019

Well evolution does mention the color of a beetle that doesn't get eaten because it goes unseen, so purpose is addressed in general evolution thinking. But what about more subtle qualities that one could argue make little sense any other way. For example the human eye by physics must be a certain shape to focus light correctly.

Intelligent design is arguably an offshoot of creationism which claims to demonstrate the inadequacy of Darwinian theory with reference to arguments from irreducible complexity. — Wayfarer

Does it do so? Does the "Intelligent Design" argument really demonstrate the inadequacy of all versions of theories of evolution proposed so far to explain certain features in organisms, and is it necessary to have degree in microbiology to test their arguments?

Does the "Intelligent Design" argument really demonstrate the inadequacy of all versions of theories of evolution proposed so far to explain certain features in organisms — FreeEmotion

They argue that. Whether they succeed in demonstrating it is another matter.

is it necessary to have degree in microbiology to test their arguments? — FreeEmotion

How does one test such an argument?