Skip to main content

Some questions

I would direct these toward one who thinks of evolution as leading away from theism.

Isn't evolution beautiful?
Isn't beauty good?
and
Isn't the source of that goodness likewise good?

Comments

Unknown said…
Actually, I would argue that evolution is not beautiful. It requires death and extinction in order to work. Or, for example, is a scorpion beautiful?
1:26 PM
Leo White said…
Okay, then try this one: evolution is part of a whole that is beautiful. Beautiful wholes can have parts that, in abstraction, seem ugly, even while the whole seems beautiful. For what it's worth, that's what Augustine argues when discussing the problem of evil.
11:24 PM
Unknown said…
I agree that an ugly part does not an ugly whole make. But it's critical that beauty does not require ugliness. In the case of evolution, the ugliness is necessary.
11:15 PM
Leo White said…
That's fine. But the very existence of the material living beings--with or without evolution--requires ugliness too, says Augustine. In other words, for him, the existence of animal pain/death is not necessarily a result of sin.
6:40 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

what is an organism?

How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
13 comments
Read more