Intelligent Design vs. Evolutionary Theory: A Brief Comparison

I. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, called natural selection, stated that different species originated from shared ancestors, with the differences in the organisms being caused by adaptations to different environments. The environment determines which species are best fit to survive, and the traits of the organisms are passed down to new generations. With enough time, such passages of traits could lead to whole new species. This theory was developed after more than two decades of observations, studying thousands of animal and plant samples, all with extraordinary inferences drawn from observed similarities and differences.

II. Intelligent Design (ID) is essentially a negative argument: the forces at work, whether natural selection or something else, are not sufficient to bring about aspects of life which we observe, such as humans—therefore, there must have been an intelligent designer. The appearances of organisms, then, have nothing to do with the survival success of their ancestors, like in natural selection: the intelligent designer brought life about quickly in all the various forms we observe today, as opposed to the slow process theorized in natural selection.

III. Using the evidence I’ve seen for both proposals, I’ve concluded that evolutionary theory better explains the phenomena of different life-forms. I’ll establish why I think so by considering the simplicity, explanatory power, and predictive success of both ideas.

IV. In terms of simplicity, I think that evolutionary theory wins hands down. Speaking about ontological complexity, both ideas incorporate the existence of various life-forms, but with Intelligent Design one must also include the existence of the designer, as well as the tools used in the design. In addition, a problem is raised regarding the origin of the existence of the intelligent designer; since it has abilities far more complex than even the current abilities of human beings, are we to suppose that it too was designed? In respect to dynamic complexity, both theories appear to accept the reproductive capabilities of organisms (I’m not sure about Intelligent Design), but Intelligent Design is the more complex nonetheless. Natural selection would imply the existence of biological processes which explain the similarities between offspring and parent organisms; such a thing isn’t too hard to believe because we can observe reproduction in organisms, meaning that something must be functioning within them which allows for such a thing. But Intelligent Design posits the existence of design processes outside of what goes on in reproduction, which have to be more complex because such designing gives rise to not just one type of organism, like a calf, but a multitude of organisms.

V. Evolutionary theory also wins in regards to its explanatory power. Through the fossil records, the gaps between species are bridged; fossils indicate a transitional stage from one type of organism to another, just as Darwin believed would be the case. Intelligent Design cannot account for such transitional fossils, and every fossil found sheds greater light on the bridges between species and the weakness of ID’s hypothesis.

VI. ID’s argument of irreducible complexity, which argues against evolution, fails to explain life forms because certain organisms have parts which are similar to other organism’s parts, but serve different purposes which lend support to evolution. A great example of this was the bacterial flagellum, which ID posits as an organism with an irreducibly complex motor; its motor has a similar structure to a syringe-like part belonging to the Yersinia pestis bacterium, and this is because they are made of the same kind of protein, but the Yersinia simply lacks the number of proteins need for the motor. Despite missing such proteins, the structure functions as an apparatus for carrying diseases, particularly the Bubonic plague; this is hard evidence that this motor then is not “irreducibly complex.”

VII. Lastly, I think evolution sort of wins by default in regard to predictive success, even though its success is astoundingly positive. ID offers no predictions. After its initial claims regarding the designing of species, it is silent regarding the implications of such designs, if any—meaning that there is nothing for scientists to test. Whereas evolution offers a plethora of predictions, with no scientific discoveries ever found which contradict such predictions in over 150 years. Darwin’s prediction about the fossil record was proven true, and modern genetics has recently proven Darwin’s contention of a common ancestry of humans and apes. In fact, every observation and experiment made, whether in molecular biology or modern genetics, has only confirmed the truth of evolution’s theory. This shows evolution to be an argument with a high degree of predictive success.

VIII. The conclusion then is that whether one looks at simplicity, explanatory power, or predictive success, it is clear that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection trumps the idea of Intelligent Design, and demonstrates a coherent and testable prediction regarding the origin of species.

Notes and References

Some of the material for this essay is from the PBS video “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.”

Meetings and Lecture Event

For those of you who don’t know, the University of Michigan Students of Objectivism will be hosting Dr. Andrew Bernstein on April 3rd in Angell Hall Auditorium C where he will present his lecture, “Religion vs. Morality.” We hosted the same lecture back in April 2006, but I think this is an important topic to present and many members weren’t on campus for the first presentation.

Now the event is in two weeks from this Thursday, so that means we need the help of all available members to promote it. Since time is of the essence, I am canceling all UMSO Wednesday discussion meetings for the remainder of the semester in order free up time for event planning.

A flyer is currently being created, but once that is done we’ll need volunteers to help post copies around campus. Please email me directly if you are interested.

An op-ed is also being drafted and academic departments are being contacted. Talk to your friends about the lecture, make announcements in class, simply spread the word.

I look forward to hosting Dr. Bernstein!

Meeting Tonight

There will be a meeting today at 7:00 PM in Room A of the Michigan League. If there aren’t any new members, I’d like to begin discussion on “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology,” assuming the weather stays decent. The questions we’ll cover will revolve around the “Problem of Universals (Concepts).”

Of course, all are welcome to come and participate.

Why I Removed the Free Will Essay

At around 1:00pm EST I removed my essay “The Case for Free Will: the Theory of Self-Causation.” This is because I have revised the essay (hopefully making it stronger and more clear) for submission to a philosophy journal, namely Eudaimonia: the Georgetown Philosophical Review, and so I thought it was wise to remove any previous versions of the essay from the internet in case my essay is selected for publication (I really hope it is published).

If anyone is interested, I can offer a summary of either the essay I removed or the essay I submitted, named The Theory of Self-Causation: Its Arguments and Implications. You can reach me at rodfitts@umich.edu.

Meeting Tonight, 7:00pm

There will be a meeting tonight at 7:00pm in room 2105C of the Michigan Union. We will begin with our discussion on “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.” As usual all are welcome.

A Brief Summary of Objectivism

(1431 words)

Objectivism is a complete philosophy, with positions on Metaphysics, Epistemology, Human Nature, Ethics, Politics, and Esthetics.

Metaphysics is the study of reality, asking questions such as “What is the nature of reality?” “Does God exist?” “What is the role of consciousness in the universe?” Objectivism states that there is only one reality, the reality we perceive with our senses. Everything in existence acts in accordance with causal laws, because actions are only expressions of the identities of the things acting; this is the “Law of Causality.” Consciousness is a fact of certain living things, and its function is to make the living thing aware of the existence of objects and events around it; aware, but not in unrestrained control of said things. This means that consciousness alone has no direct effects on objects outside of the living thing; meaning that you can’t, for example, consciously will for a book to no longer exist, no matter how much you may hate the book. In the philosophy, these statements about consciousness’ relationship with existence are summed up as the “Primacy of Existence” principle. A consequence of the Objectivist view of reality is that supposed supernatural Beings and realms do not exist, and therefore on Theology (study of God, His existence, etc.), Objectivism’s position is Atheist; in addition, it is A-Satanist, A-Vishnu(ist), and A-Flying Spaghetti Monster(ist), etc.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge, asking questions such as “What is knowledge?”, “Is there a real relationship between our mental concepts and the particular objects we deal with daily?”, “What is truth?” and “Can we have certain knowledge?” Objectivism states that knowledge is a grasp (an understanding) of a fact of reality (of something which exists and you are conscious of), reached by either perceptual observation (like seeing a tree) or a process of reasoning based on perceptual observation (such as inferring from the tree’s existence that it is a plant). The smallest unit of knowledge is a concept, which is a mental integration formed by observing (or thinking about) two or more units of a group which possess the same distinctive characteristic(s), not specifying (abstracting) their particular measurements, and finally creating a definition in order to retain the concept in one’s mind. A very important point about the Objectivist view of concepts is that it is predominantly a mathematical process, a process of measurement-omission, so that when you form a concept, you don’t end up with “22 inch television” or “foot-long sandwich”; the proper concept of television includes the 22 inch one and many others of varying heights (the same applies to the concept of “sandwich”). Reason is the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by our senses; this integration results in concepts (and even larger integrations, like theories). Objectivism accepts the Correspondence Theory of Truth, which means that if a statement is made, and it identifies a fact of reality, then it “corresponds” to reality—which means it is “true”; if the statement contradicts a fact of reality, then it is false. Lastly, Objectivism says that human beings can gain certain knowledge, and this occurs when the evidence for a given idea is conclusive within a certain context, all the evidence supports this idea, and there is nothing known which supports an alternative idea or theory. As a result, Objectivism rejects any other position on gaining knowledge besides reason, including faith (revelation), ESP, and emotions (though Objectivism is not anti-emotion). The philosophy also rejects Skepticism, the position that certainty or knowledge is impossible.

Human Nature studies the metaphysical facts about human beings, the universal facts about us all, asking questions like “Are human beings free, or are they determined by outside factors beyond their control?”. The Objectivist position is that human beings possess free will, which is our ability to choose (make a decision) among a set of alternatives. The primary form of free will is the choice to focus or not, to raise your degree of mental awareness, or to let your mind slip into a fog (or actively evade the need to focus). It is the choosing of focus over non-focus that leads to the many other choices available to human beings, such as thinking and writing blog posts. A key statement about free will (volition) is that it is reason, the conceptual faculty; they are one and the same thing. Concept-formation, to take an example, is a volitional (chosen) process, it is not involuntary, like some parts of perception and your ankle jerk reflex are. Humans do have involuntary responses to stimuli, like the ankle reflex, but not all actions are involuntary; some are volitional. Because we possess free will, we must choose to gain knowledge about the world and act according to our knowledge, if we want to live; this means that reason is our basic means of survival. Objectivism therefore rejects Determinism, the idea that every action, even human ones, are involuntary and Indeterminism, the view that volitional actions exist but are uncaused; within Objectivism, humans are the cause of their volitional actions.

Ethics studies “the good” and proper ways of acting. It asks questions like “Why does man need a code of values?” “What is good?” “What is the correct moral theory?” In short, the Objectivist answer to the first question is: to survive. Because we are beings with our own lives and minds who need to act on our own knowledge to survive, the good is that which promotes or furthers the life of a rational being, and the evil is that which hinders or destroys such a life. It is these observations (and many others) which leads to an advocacy of rational egoism, meaning that we should follow reason to sustain life, and the life we have to sustain is our own individual lives; the egoist is the person who makes the choice to sustain his own life. Objectivism therefore rejects Altruism, the view that it is one’s moral duty to live for other people, Moral Nihilism, the view that nothing is morally good, bad, right, etc. and the Nietzschean view of ethics, which claims that you should lead a fulfilling life by ruling over others.

Politics is the study of proper human relations, which means a study of social systems. It asks questions such as “How should people interact with one another?” “Is Individualism or Collectivism the proper position to take in judging social issues?” and “What social system should be set up?” The basic social principle within Objectivism is the ban on the initiation of force–the initiation of physical force by someone to take, damage, or otherwise appropriate a value from someone else (assault, theft, fraud, murder, etc.). Force can only be used morally in self-defense, in retaliation of those who initiate force. The proper way for humans to deal with one another is through trade, which involves mutual consent to mutual benefit; this is known as the Trader Principle. Due to Objectivism’s view on reason, free will, and their respective roles in human life, the philosophy upholds individualism, the view that in social issues the individual is the unit of value; an individual cannot be morally used for the political ends of others. The only social system which is individualist and bars the improper use of force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. (Laissez-faire) Capitalism is the system which recognizes individual rights, including property rights, and the role of government within Capitalism is only to protect individual rights. Objectivism in consequence rejects collectivism, the view that individuals can be used as ends for the benefit of “the group”; this means that Objectivism rejects collectivist systems such as socialism, fascism, anarchism, and theocracy. Also, it rejects the current “mixed economy” of today’s American economy (and those of other semi-free countries).

Esthetics is the study of art, asking questions such as “What is art?” “What is the value of art?” Objectivism states that art “is the selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments”[1]; art displays what the artist thinks is important/significant about reality and/or man. By doing so, it allows men to contemplate their concepts directly (perceptually) by observing the art-work. Art is the technology of the soul; literature in particular is capable of presenting an ethical ideal in concrete terms, where ethics is comparable to theoretical engineering. Ayn Rand originated the school of art (literature specifically) known as Romantic Realism: “I am a Romantic in the sense that I present men as they ought to be. I am Realistic in the sense that I place them here and now and on this earth.”[2]

References
1. Rand, Ayn. The Romantic Manifesto: A Philosophy of Literature, second revised edition, New York: Signet, 1975, p. 19

2. Ayn Rand, quoted in “The Essentials of Objectivism,” included in Signet’s 1992 edition of her novel Atlas Shrugged

Links to Other Introductory Objectivist Material
Introducing Objectivism

Brief Summary of Objectivism

Essentials of Objectivism

Ayn Rand and Objectivism: An Overview

Comments would be appreciated.

Roderick Fitts is the current Vice-President of UMSO and a sophomore majoring in Philosophy.

Meeting Tonight, 7:00pm

There will be a Students of Objectivism meeting tonight at 7:00pm in Room A on the 3rd floor of the Michigan League. We will have an open discussion and welcome any new attendees who signed up at Winterfest.

Meeting Canceled

I apologize for the short notice, but our meeting tonight, January 23rd, has been canceled. We will resume weekly meetings next week on January 30th.

Also, we need some more student volunteers willing to sit at our Winterfest table this Thursday, January 24th anytime from 4:00pm to 8:00pm. Email me at sardone@umich.edu if you are interested.

Meeting Tonight, 7:00pm

A quick reminder to everyone, we have a meeting tonight at 7:00pm in Room A on the 3rd floor of the Michigan League. This will be an introductory meeting with preliminary planning for a speaker event this semester as well as an open discussion.

As usual, all are welcome.