Scott
Puritan Board Graduate
More thoughts arising from the lecture series. Pre-Darwinian views of evolution are interesting and relevant to the creation/evolution debate. Some early Greek philosophers affirmed undeveloped forms of evolution on the basis of philosophy, as opposed to observation. Anaximander is one example. These philosophers were materialists. That is to say, that believed that the world could be explained in purely materialistic terms. The origins of creatures posed problems to their philosophy. "œBiological origins posed problems for Greeks intent on devising purely materialistic explanations for natural phenomena. Creation implied a creator; to deny a creator, Anaximander and the atomists proposed crude theories of evolution." From a purely materialist view, there were not many other options. Aristotle chose the only other viable one, namely that species were eternal.
Belief in evolution as a consequence of belief in a naturalistic philosophy was revived during the Enlightenment, particulalry in France. Larson notes that this renewed interest in evolution was associated with a breakdown in religious authority. Committed materialists, such as Denis Diderot and Baron d´Holbach, proposed that all living forms developed by chance mutations from spontaneously generated organisms. They held these views as as a consequnece of a priori commitments, not observation. It was generally agreed that the evidence of the time pointed in another direction (creation). The closest evidence, suggested by William Herschel, was polyps. If you cut them in two, each would grow back into an individual creature. He thought that this evidenced evolution.
It is interesting to see how early forms of evolution were based on a priori commitments to materialism. They were not based on evidence. Once a person accepts a matrialistic starting point, there aren´t really many options on origins. Creation is ruled out in advance, based on philosophical considerations (we still see this today when people say that creation is, by definition, inconsistent with science). descent from a common ancestor is an option. The eternality of species is another (Aristotle's choice).
Anyway, I think that this historical excerpt is useful for demonstrating that materialism tends to produce belief in evolution, irrespective of the evidence. The fact that guys like Diderot and d´Holbach held to evolution without evidence highlights the importance of dealing with worldview commitments in discussions about evolution.
[Edited on 3-23-2006 by Scott]
Belief in evolution as a consequence of belief in a naturalistic philosophy was revived during the Enlightenment, particulalry in France. Larson notes that this renewed interest in evolution was associated with a breakdown in religious authority. Committed materialists, such as Denis Diderot and Baron d´Holbach, proposed that all living forms developed by chance mutations from spontaneously generated organisms. They held these views as as a consequnece of a priori commitments, not observation. It was generally agreed that the evidence of the time pointed in another direction (creation). The closest evidence, suggested by William Herschel, was polyps. If you cut them in two, each would grow back into an individual creature. He thought that this evidenced evolution.
It is interesting to see how early forms of evolution were based on a priori commitments to materialism. They were not based on evidence. Once a person accepts a matrialistic starting point, there aren´t really many options on origins. Creation is ruled out in advance, based on philosophical considerations (we still see this today when people say that creation is, by definition, inconsistent with science). descent from a common ancestor is an option. The eternality of species is another (Aristotle's choice).
Anyway, I think that this historical excerpt is useful for demonstrating that materialism tends to produce belief in evolution, irrespective of the evidence. The fact that guys like Diderot and d´Holbach held to evolution without evidence highlights the importance of dealing with worldview commitments in discussions about evolution.
[Edited on 3-23-2006 by Scott]
