(I restored the question, which I had deleted.)

T'was the topic of Midgley vs Dawkins, Nietzsche, Hobbes, Mackie, Rand, Singer...

Glorious!

It's not just Dawkins she eviscerates; Nietzsche, Hobbes, and Mackie are countered with Socrates, Christ, Darwin and Jane Goodall, retrieving justice from mere self-interested egoism. But we might adopt her strategy to displaying the triviality of Peter Singer or Ayn Rand. — Banno

This:

There is now no safer occupation than talking bad science to philosophers, except talking bad philosophy to scientists. — Midgley

...sums up this thread. It is doing a disservice to the forums.

There is now no safer occupation than talking bad science to philosophers, except talking bad philosophy to scientists.— Midgley

...sums up this thread. It is doing a disservice to the forums. — Banno

:100:

The best way to prevent proliferation of poor threads to ignore them. I tried to steer it towards a discussion of the philosophical issues, but the response clearly indicated that I was wasting my time.

//ps another of my stock articles on the theme.//

What's curious here is the way appears to think he is making a philosophical point while making such a dreadful mash of it. He doesn't understand the process involved in evolution, happily claims not to be interested in science while pretending to be critical of it.

When I were a lad, we had a term: "Pseudo intellectual fuckwit yobbo".

I trust I am demonstrating the level of respect I have for such posts.

There's also a fair amount of latent hostility to anything that sounds vaguely religious on this forum. (As per Thomas Nagel's comments in 'Evolutionary Biology and the Fear of Religion', which I've posted previously.)

It's like tossing bloodied meat into the Piranha River. :cool:

When I were a lad, we had a term: "Pseudo intellectual fuckwit yobbo". — Banno

Geez, you must have been a prodigy! I wouldn't have been able to say this, much less understand it. :smile:

...a fair amount of latent hostility... — Wayfarer

Well deserved, give the quality of so many of the posts on religious issues; yours being a notable exception.

So at the risk of being on topic, is there a coherent, sound argument that can be made that is sympathetic to the intuition so poorly expressed in the OP? A way to rescue teleology?

i doubt it.

I wouldn't have been able to say this, much less understand it. — jgill

It was carved into my favourite fold-out desk in the back row of the Hayden-Allen lecture theatre at the ANU. I must have committed it to memory during a lesson on calculus. It's long been a title I crave.

So at the risk of being on topic, is there a coherent, sound argument that can be made that is sympathetic to the intuition so poorly expressed in the OP? A way to rescue teleology? — Banno

Might await another OP on the topic. But my sympathy here is not because of the quality of the argument, but the sense of existential dread. It may not be well expressed but I think it is well founded.

Dread or despair?

There was a study published a few moths ago that grouped papers from one of the general philosophy publishers by the way they referenced each other. It found three, instead of two, associations. In addition to the usual congregation of analytic and continental papers there was a third, which the authors of the study described as having a scientific rather than analytic leaning.

One can see a tendency towards what we might call scientistic thinking in many of the contributors here.

There's also a fair amount of latent hostility to anything that sounds vaguely religious on this forum. — Wayfarer

Well, "vaguely religious" comments do tend to be more mystifying than anything else. Yet de-mystification and clarification have priority in philosophy, no? Dialectically giving and taking reasons rather than substituting "faiths" – dogmas – for dialectics, Wayf, seems to me the manifest purpose of this site. Says a famously "God-intoxicated" thinker:

Philosophy has no end in view save truth; faith looks for nothing but obedience and piety.

I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of established religion. — Spinoza

Critically challenging 'beliefs', while possibly disturbing, isn't "hostility" – welcome to the examined life! The alleged "latent hostility to anything ... vaguely religious" is only so in the eye of a true believer. :mask:

I wasn't responding to the opening post in this thread because it was somewhat confusing but I defend the right to raise questions about evolution, its scope, falsifiability coherency, applicability and impact and so on.

People like Dawkins and Dennett did a fair bit to make discussions of this issue toxic and become a religion versus atheism schism and to push for nihilist implications of evolution.

I think it can be argued that believing in concepts like survival of the fittest, natural selection and animal hierarchies etc has been more harmful than not believing them.

This is an elegantly presented video of the influence of racism on Science and thought.

Yet de-mystification and clarification have priority in philosophy, no? — 180 Proof

You and I might think that. Others hereabouts express a different view through their comments.

I think it can be argued that believing in concepts like survival of the fittest, natural selection and animal hierarchies etc has been more harmful than not believing them. — Andrew4Handel

Survival of the fittest and animal hierarchies are perversions of evolution, not tenets.

Here is an academic article on The Nazi beliefs on Evolution.

https://www.csustan.edu/sites/default/files/History/Faculty/Weikart/Darwinism-in-Nazi-Racial-Thought.pdf

"Historians disagree about whether Nazis embraced Darwinian evolution.By examining Hitler’s ideology, the official biology curriculum, the writings of Nazi anthropologists, and Nazi periodicals, we find that Nazi racial theorists did indeed embrace human and racial evolution. They not only taught that humans had evolved from primates, but they believed the Aryan or Nordic race had evolved to a higher level than other races because of the harsh climatic conditions that influenced natural selection. They also claimed that Darwinism underpinned specific elements of Nazi racial ideology, including racial inequality, the necessity of the racial struggle for existence, and collectivism."

(I myself mentioned their euthanasia propaganda films early like Alles Leben is Kampf (All life is struggle and Das Erbe The Inheritance)

"In his writings and speeches Hitler regularly invoked Darwinian concepts, such as evolution Entwicklung), higher evolution (Höherentwicklung), struggle for existence (Existenzkampf or Daseinskampf ), struggle for life (Lebenskampf ), and selection (Auslese). In a 1937 speech he not only expressed belief in human evolution, but also endorsed Haeckel’s theory that each organism in its embryological development repeats earlier stages of evolutionary history. "
........

People like Darwin and Dennett (The Universal Acid proponent) have strongly advocated that evolution should change how we view life and ourselves. They apparently are un aware of the is - ought barrier that Hitler et al crossed. If evolution is true should we respond in anyway are we obliged to?

People like Darwin and Dennett — Andrew4Handel

You really are a cutie-pie!

I think it can be argued that believing in concepts like survival of the fittest, natural selection and animal hierarchies etc has been more harmful than not believing them. — Andrew4Handel

I should point out that survival of the fittest means the survival of those best fitted to their environment. And they will not necessarily be the strongest or fastest. And natural selection simply means that our offspring are not clones. I don't see anything harmful about either of those.

And animal hierarchy? Maybe you mean evolutionary trees. Cladistics perhaps. Which would be harmful to a literal interpretation of Genesis I guess.

People like Darwin and Dennett (The Universal Acid proponent) have strongly advocated that evolution should change how we view life and ourselves. They apparently are un aware of the is - ought barrier that Hitler et al crossed. If evolution is true should we respond in anyway are we obliged to? — Andrew4Handel

As in 'because it's true then we ought to ensure we understand it properly and not reimagine it to serve racist tendencies'?

Here is some Polemics From Richard Dawkins Describing us as Gene machines and Robots:

"Now they swarm in huge colonies, safeinside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control.

They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines.”

And a Dawkins quote on his apparent general philosophy"

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the populationuntil the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

So yes he has a charming prognosis for us that we should be eager to embrace.

I should point out that survival of the fittest means the survival of those best fitted to their environment. And they will not necessarily be the strongest or fastest. And natural selection simply means that our offspring are not clones. I don't see anything harmful about either of those. — Bradskii

Well it has been accused of either being a banal tautology (ie anything that survives is fit) or a dangerous prognosis and value judgement (we should weed out the unfit to improve a species) That powered Social Darwinism.

Darwin Himself said in the descent of man:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

His Son Leonard:

“Of all the problems which will have to be faced in the future, in my opinion, the most difficult will be those concerning the treatment of the inferior races of mankind.”
― Leonard Darwin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

"The Committee of Union and Progress in the Ottoman Empire adopted Social Darwinist ideology. Belief that there was a life-or-death conflict between Turks and other ethnicities motivated them to carry out genocides and ethnic cleansing campaigns against the Armenians. Social Darwinism enabled them to view extermination of entire population groups and the murder of women and children as a necessary and justified course of action"

As in 'because it's true then we ought to ensure we understand it properly and not reimagine it to serve racist tendencies'? — Bradskii

Understand it in what sense?
As a history of our origins up to this date?
As something that should guide future human development?

There is a limit to the scope of validating (or falsifying) explanations of things that happened before we existed or developed modern technology. It becomes narrative that then quickly becomes and became ideological.

Is The theory make us stop believing in gods? Is it supposed to make us become physicalist/materialist naturalists? Are we supposed to reevaluate the status and value of humans and other animals?

Let's look at the parts or things you mentioned: minds, DNA, ecosystems, society. How do these relate to each other? They have an order of dependence; society depends on minds, minds depend on DNA, and DNA depends on ecosystems. Each is made of the other. Is there a pattern? — punos

We've had quite a few discussions here about the hierarchical nature of science, e.g physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology. @apokrisis has a lot to say. Higher levels in the hierarchy have to be consistent with lower levels, e.g. biological phenomena have to be consistent with chemical principles. But biological principles are not derivable from chemical principles, e.g. if you know chemistry, you can't derive biology. One point that Apokrisis stresses is that higher levels affect, constrain, lower levels as much as lower levels constrain higher levels.

Evolution happens everywhere not just in biology. Nature has elevated man above the animals on this planet, above biology. If you were an animal maybe you'd be in trouble, but lucky you that you're part of the human enterprise. — punos

Perhaps, but evolution by natural selection, which is what Darwin and Wallace studied, is primarily biological.

While it is true that If the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 1 million, it doesn't matter how many others play, my odds remain fixed, but the more I play, the higher my odds of winning.
— Hanover
Gambler's fallacy. :roll: — 180 Proof

@Hanover's right, as much as it hurts me to say that. If I one ticket, my odds of winning are 1 in a million. If I buy two tickets, my odds are 2 in a million. That assumes each ticket has a different number.

The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

So yes he has a charming prognosis for us that we should be eager to embrace. — Andrew4Handel

Well, you have your choice. You can accept the universe as it is, and our insignificant position within it. Or you can claim that it was all made for us and we are the pinnacle of existence. I can see why you'd prefer option 2. We all want to feel significant and be loved.

My point was that a soul is irreducibly complex. — Gregory

Sez you, with no evidence that I can see. Maybe evidence is one of those things one doesn't need once one rejects science. If so, what is the basis of your knowledge. Perhaps I missed it in one of your posts.

If you don't believe philosophy has insights that transcend the physical and make it null, you're still at the beginning. — Gregory

Philosophy is a process more than it is a body of thought. Somewhere in some branch of philosophic thought, there are "insights" claiming just about anything. Everything. Buy all of your nones at once and explode into space.

Well it has been accused of either being a banal tautology (ie anything that survives is fit) or a dangerous prognosis and value judgement (we should weed out the unfit to improve a species) That powered Social Darwinism.

Darwin Himself said in the descent of man:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health — Andrew4Handel

Don't listen to people who would term it a banal tautology. They are exhibiting a lack of knowledge of the process. You'll learn nothing from them. And definitely don't listen to those who think they can use it as a means to further racial superiority. Evil be there...

And make your mind up if you want to continue talk about the theory of evolution or you want to start a separate discussion on social Darwinism. Another thread would be my suggestion.

you are just an accidental and random result of a disinterested process. — Bradskii

I'm am overstepping the boundary of my knowledge, but it is my understanding that saying "accidental and random" is an overstatement. Much of what happens is influenced by self-organization. Scientists think that living cells develop out of chemical/catalyst cycles that develop naturally. Don't bother to ask for details, because I'm already on thin ice. I refer you to "Life's Ratchet" by Hoffman.

I agree with the rest of what you've written.

So those two species of dog will head off in different evolutionary directions. — Bradskii

All domestic dogs are considered the same species.

Well, you have your choice. You can accept the universe as it is, and our insignificant position within it. — Bradskii

I don't see our position as insignificant.

The universe apparently doesn't know it exists

but we do because of our individual consciousness that allows to imagine concepts such as infinity and allows us to see and experience a huge range of phenomena.

As with Descartes Cogito ergo sum I can only be certain that I exist. Everything else is filtered through individual consciousness.

But you seem to have highlighted the theories need to denigrate the human position. Evolution does not explain consciousness which is the only reason we care or know anything
and it hasn't reduced that to brute mechanism so i see a lot of room for skepticism and value outside of brute reductionism.