First Cause - Newton's Deism vs. Evolution vs. - ?

Palomar · 2002-07-06 09:19:35

*I read of Sir Isaac Newton's ideas on the subject of deism last evening, in _The Portable Enlightenment Reader_; the chapter is entitled "The Argument for a Deity". The book's editor, Isaac Kramnick, makes the following comment prior to quoting Newton: "In these two selections, which anticipate much Enlightenment deism, Newton insists that the design apparent everywhere in nature proves the existence of an intelligent and omnipresent Supreme Being. The first excerpt is from Newton's _Opticks_ (1704), and the second is from a letter written in 1692 to the Reverend Dr. Richard Bentley."

Okay, Newton believes that First Cause proves the existence of a Supreme Being. By the way, deism, as defined by 18th century standards, did *not* include belief in miracles, the divinity of Jesus Christ, an afterlife, heaven and hell, etc.; Voltaire said that the existence of the clock proves the existence of the Clockmaker -- and that was as far as his religious sentiment went [including that of most of his colleagues].

I've thought over creationism [not exclusively of the Judeo-Christian version] versus evolution. To me, they both wind up at dead ends. If one believes a Supreme Being created everything...well, who created It? How did It come into being? If one believes purely in evolution, we go back to the same sort of questions: How did the process start? How could something come from nothing? Isn't it illogical to think that something -- anything -- could come from *nothing*?

Comments? I know no one here as "the" answer, but this is a subject which gets to me sometimes.

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2002-07-06 13:22:02

'lo Cindy.

I've thought over creationism [not exclusively of the Judeo-Christian version] versus evolution. To me, they both wind up at dead ends.

Creationism is actually 99% belief 1% fact. Evolution is 99% fact 1% uncertainty. Creationism attempts to use science to ?prove? the existance of a deity. This question, of course, is neither provable or unprovable, so all creationism is doing is depreciating the science of evolution in the name of a creator.

If one believes a Supreme Being created everything...well, who created It? How did It come into being?

I think the common argument is that It has always Been. And therefore it just Was and always will Be. So time is irrelevant with regard to a Supreme Being. Which is why it's funny that anyone would use science to prove Its existance. Especially doing so only depreciates their ?case.?

If one believes purely in evolution, we go back to the same sort of questions: How did the process start? How could something come from nothing? Isn't it illogical to think that something -- anything -- could come from *nothing*?

That's the thing. Evolution doesn't profess to say how we got here. For all we know we were ?seeded? here many millions of years ago by an alien civilization. Evolution just defines how things have been going for awhile. You can call evolution the biological study of time, if you want. It does not, and it cannot answer the Ultimate Question of the Universe. Nothing can.

(It should be noted, however, that we have been able to recreate complex organic molecules in the laboratory... out of formally inorganic chemicals...)

Phobos · 2002-07-06 15:25:07

If one believes purely in evolution, we go back to the same sort of questions: How did the process start? How could something come from nothing? Isn't it illogical to think that something -- anything -- could come from *nothing*?

Well, the fact that we are here proves that some kind of process brought nature into being. Who knows what happened before the big bang or whatever event brought us about, but once we did come about, there's no reason why evolution couldn't have taken place based on what we can observe of the here and now. I get the feeling that once we truly understand what happened before the big bang or whatever, it will blow away our common sense notions of causality the way quantum physics blows away just about every common sense notion about the macroscopic world.

JGM · 2002-07-06 15:55:03

I've thought over creationism [not exclusively of the Judeo-Christian version] versus evolution. To me, they both wind up at dead ends.

I've just finished reading Steven Jay Gould's Bully for Brontosaurus. One of the points he makes repeatedly is that evolution does not make any statement regarding how life began. It simply describes a process (natural selection) which there is plenty of evidence for in the fossil record. Creationists love to make the argument that evolutionists are claiming that evolution describes the origin of life and that there is insufficient evidence for such a claim. This mistake was made explicitly by Justice Scalia in his dissenting opinion to the landmark decision in 1987 which ended the Creationis-favored equal time clause for teaching of "creation science" in public schools in many states. It's also interesting how even those who favor evolution forget it's not about origins- just about the way organisms change through time.

JGM · 2002-07-06 16:25:27

'lo Cindy.
I've thought over creationism [not exclusively of the Judeo-Christian version] versus evolution. To me, they both wind up at dead ends.
Creationism is actually 99% belief 1% fact. Evolution is 99% fact 1% uncertainty. Creationism attempts to use science to ?prove? the existance of a deity. This question, of course, is neither provable or unprovable, so all creationism is doing is depreciating the science of evolution in the name of a creator.
If one believes a Supreme Being created everything...well, who created It? How did It come into being?
I think the common argument is that It has always Been. And therefore it just Was and always will Be. So time is irrelevant with regard to a Supreme Being. Which is why it's funny that anyone would use science to prove Its existance. Especially doing so only depreciates their ?case.?
If one believes purely in evolution, we go back to the same sort of questions: How did the process start? How could something come from nothing? Isn't it illogical to think that something -- anything -- could come from *nothing*?
That's the thing. Evolution doesn't profess to say how we got here. For all we know we were ?seeded? here many millions of years ago by an alien civilization. Evolution just defines how things have been going for awhile. You can call evolution the biological study of time, if you want. It does not, and it cannot answer the Ultimate Question of the Universe. Nothing can.
(It should be noted, however, that we have been able to recreate complex organic molecules in the laboratory... out of formally inorganic chemicals...)

Evolution doesn't profess to say how we got here. For all we know we were ?seeded? here many millions of years ago by an alien civilization. Evolution just defines how things have been going for awhile. You can call evolution the biological study of time, if you want. It does not, and it cannot answer the Ultimate Question of the Universe. Nothing can.

Just after posting the comment taken from Gould's book I saw that Josh had already made the same point here. Taking off from Josh's point about having been seeded here, it sounds a lot like panspermia. There's a good way to get under a creationist's skin. "In a galaxy long long ago and far far away God created bacteria..."

Palomar · 2002-07-07 00:03:16

'lo Cindy.
That's the thing. Evolution doesn't profess to say how we got here. For all we know we were ?seeded? here many millions of years ago by an alien civilization. Evolution just defines how things have been going for awhile.

Hi Josh:

Yeah, I guess I temporarily lost sight of what you so adequately point out. ???

I've found myself wondering how Newton, Voltaire, and like-minded colleagues of the Enlightenment era would have differed in their deistic sentiments if Darwin had preceeded them, i.e. how the theory of evolution may have changed their viewpoints and perhaps compelled them to become atheists...or perhaps may have pushed them in the other direction. The Enlightenment ideals did, for the most part, center around the belief that mankind is superior to all other creatures on Earth. I wonder how the idea of us evolving from monkeys would've been received by them...and how that theory would've effected the Enlightenment itself. It'd be the height of irony, IMO, if deism [and the belief in mankind as being created in the image of a Supreme Being, and thus being direct partaker in the glory of the Supreme Being and therefore considered the greatest living creature on earth] in great part fueled what was an era of rebellious, freethinking skepticism and critical thinking...and if perhaps the theory of evolution would've stifled the Enlightenment's influence, thrust, etc.

I can imagine Voltaire passing out cold at the notion of us descending from monkeys! In fact, he had a monkey once as a pet [and a bear -- that's another story]. He named the monkey "Luke." One day Luke bit his hand...from that point on, he referred to the monkey as "Frederick" [Frederick the Great, with whom he'd been a correspondent, at whose Court he lived for 3 years, and with whom he had a nasty and bitter falling-out]. Sorry for the digression! I'm in a chatty mood...

Anywho, I'm not going in favor of creationism -- even in a deistic fashion -- so don't get me wrong; I'm a bonafide agnostic. I'm just thinking "aloud." I like taking into consideration consequences, and how one thing influences/effects another.

We are all impressed upon by our culture, society, etc.; theirs was particularly religious, and to be a deist back then was as close as one could get to being branded an atheist...regardless, they were radical freethinkers for their time

If there is any knowledge which could be imparted to me, I'd opt for knowing how all **this** came to be.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-07-07 02:19:56

Not to be a knitpicker, but we didn't actually evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and other primates branched off from a common ancestor millions of years ago and followed their own individual paths of evolution (since you prolly already know that I'll apologize in advace ). I guess you could call that ancestor a monkey if you want, but it wouldn't be your modern day chimp or ape. Anyways, I think Voltaire would have made some witty comment about how obvious it is that we share a common ancestory with monkeys based on human nature. People like Voltaire and Newton probably wouldn't have had much of a disagreement once they heard all of the evidence Darwin had collected. They were, after all, some of the most reasonable people of thier era.

Palomar · 2002-07-07 11:13:27

Anyways, I think Voltaire would have made some witty comment about how obvious it is that we share a common ancestory with monkeys based on human nature. People like Voltaire and Newton probably wouldn't have had much of a disagreement once they heard all of the evidence Darwin had collected. They were, after all, some of the most reasonable people of thier era.

*Yes, they were exceptionally reasonable people. Still, I wonder how the theory of evolution would've changed the scope and thrust of the Enlightenment era; how different the Enlightenment would've been if, say, Darwin had lived and published his material around 1750. It would definitely have disrupted the course of the Enlightenment as we now know it [not that that in and of itself would have necessarily been a bad thing..........except that Darwin might've been hung or burned]. It's pointless to speculate, of course, but again -- it'd be the height of irony for me if Deistic beliefs/concepts are what, in great part, fueled the Enlightenment! Geez! ???

Then again, Voltaire & Co. might have embraced Darwin's theory after careful, critical study of it...they could, I suppose, easily chalk it [evolution] up as the process of the clock being built by the Clockmaker.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-07-07 19:38:28

Then again, Voltaire & Co. might have embraced Darwin's theory after careful, critical study of it...they could, I suppose, easily chalk it [evolution] up as the process of the clock being built by the Clockmaker.

Such ideas of God creating life through evolution are believed by a lot of Christians today. For such a supreme, omniscient being as God would be, creating life via evolution seems like a messy and chaotic way to go about putting creatures together. Oh well, I guess nobody's perfect.

Palomar · 2002-07-07 22:28:59

Then again, Voltaire & Co. might have embraced Darwin's theory after careful, critical study of it...they could, I suppose, easily chalk it [evolution] up as the process of the clock being built by the Clockmaker.
Such ideas of God creating life through evolution are believed by a lot of Christians today. For such a supreme, omniscient being as God would be, creating life via evolution seems like a messy and chaotic way to go about putting creatures together. Oh well, I guess nobody's perfect.

*Your reply brought to mind a "Farside" [Gary Larson] cartoon I once saw: God standing at a work table, making snakes out of putty. He was briskly rubbing his palms together, with the putty enlongating between them while thinking, "These things are a cinch to make!"

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-08 08:18:15

If one believes a Supreme Being created everything...well, who created It?

If we hold that the Supreme Being is the creator of EVERYTHING, that would neccessarily include itself- otherwise, the Being that created the Supreme Being that created Everything is the actual SUPREME Being.In my mind, this is an irrelavant issue since the concept of the Supremem Being is what is the question- who the Progenitor of all is won't help us any.

How did It come into being?

I would imagine that It came into Being becuase to do otherwise was yo Not Be- a contradiction in terms- how can a Being Not Be? Either It IS, or It IS NOT. If It IS, then the question is, what is It when it is Being.

What we see and experience is what It is in the act of Being.

I like to think of it as Us being in the belly of the Whale, or God.

If one believes purely in evolution, we go back to the same sort of questions: How did the process start?

The process, or life started, becuase there are only two states of Being, just like the Supreme Being can only be either Being, or Not- life can only Be, or Not Be. If life did not start, then this line of questioning would be moot- for none us would be here to ask. Since life started, all we can derive is that life exsists- that is the fact upon which we can conclude.

Why it exsists implies that life has a purpose, that there is a reason- the facts do not support that there is a reason. The facts only support that life exsists becuase it can. "the why" is humanity trying to make some MEANING out of all of it- to better understand everything- but the meaning is arbitrarty- it dosen't exsist.

How could something come from nothing?

What is nothing? Nothing is the absence of Something. If you can have Nothing, then you hold that at some point you can have Something. So either you have Nothing, or you have Something- if Nothing, then it is a moot point- If Something, then it obviously resulted in US.

The law of thermodynamics holds that energy can be neither created not destroyed- having something spring from nothing violates this fundamental law that supposedly governs our universe. Maybe it is better to think of it as "Always was" instead of nothing or something...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-07-06 09:19:35

Re: First Cause - Newton's Deism vs. Evolution vs. - ?

#2 2002-07-06 13:22:02

Re: First Cause - Newton's Deism vs. Evolution vs. - ?

#3 2002-07-06 15:25:07

Re: First Cause - Newton's Deism vs. Evolution vs. - ?

#4 2002-07-06 15:55:03

Re: First Cause - Newton's Deism vs. Evolution vs. - ?

#5 2002-07-06 16:25:27

Re: First Cause - Newton's Deism vs. Evolution vs. - ?

#6 2002-07-07 00:03:16

Re: First Cause - Newton's Deism vs. Evolution vs. - ?

#7 2002-07-07 02:19:56

Re: First Cause - Newton's Deism vs. Evolution vs. - ?

#8 2002-07-07 11:13:27

Re: First Cause - Newton's Deism vs. Evolution vs. - ?

#9 2002-07-07 19:38:28

Re: First Cause - Newton's Deism vs. Evolution vs. - ?

#10 2002-07-07 22:28:59

Re: First Cause - Newton's Deism vs. Evolution vs. - ?

#11 2002-07-08 08:18:15

Re: First Cause - Newton's Deism vs. Evolution vs. - ?

Board footer