Naturalism And Evolutionary Theory Is Self Undermining

But, if neo-Darwinism is true, we have no warrant for those beliefs as true. Naturalists have not demonstrated that our cognitive abilities are truth-conducive. The naturalist could argue that true beliefs are needed for survival of the fittest. But this is simply false. All an organism needs is to interact consistently with the environment. An amoeba has no concept of truth, but still can interact with the environment successfully for survival. But even if evolution could generate beliefs, (1) there is no reason we should think they are true, and (2) even if they are true, we have no warrant that they affect behavior in any way. Furthermore, “beliefs could be energy expensive distractions” in the quest for survival since it requires the development of a higher-brain function. These systems require “increased information-processing” capacities. Interestingly enough, information-processing systems are at home with the idea of an intelligent mind. If seems then, that all attempts to explain rationality bring us back to a nonsensical denial of our cognitive abilities or a denial of materialism. Materialists often prefer to leave this as a mystery, but this is by no means due to an inference from the best available

In society today there are two worldviews that tend to be complete opposites, the ideas of scientific naturalism against Christianity. These worldviews are incredibly opposite, but there may be areas that the two opposing sides could meet on. Both views have valid ideas to contribute to the argument. We strengthen our beliefs through ideological conflict with others. Both view-points are strengthened when compared to each other rather than presented separately with no alternative view to oppose it.

Adaptationism is the belief that the traits seen in organisms are the results of evolution by natural selection. There are different forms of adaptationism and many different definitions as to what an adaptation is, with some believing it is impossible to test a hypothesis about an adaptation at all. This essay will look at a) how to define adaptation b) different forms of adaptationism and c) consider the different methods of testing whether a phenotype is an adaptation.

Charles Darwin was the creator of Darwinism which is, “the theory of evolution by natural selection” (Junker 1). In school we are often taught that natural selection is survival of the fittest or the strongest wins. What seems to be a simple topic is actually one of the leading theories on the side of evolution in the highly controversial debate on Darwinism vs. Creationism. Darwinism states that certain genes in a population change through individuals. These “strong” genes are then produced more and are better able to survive making them the fittest. According to natural selection this process of evolving “usually takes place over many years, but in fast-breeding organisms it can occur rapidly, for example the spread of antibiotic resistance in some bacteria” ("Natural Selection” 1).

Naturalism as a genre depicts commonplace happenings dictated by powers larger than humans, such as nature or society. As Phillip Barrish puts it, “Literary works … traditionally identified with naturalism depict characters whose lives are controlled or ‘determined’ by immense, impersonal forces that the characters themselves can barely understand, let alone effectively resist” (116). Obviously, not all naturalist literature is created equal; different authors choose to focus on different aspects of the genre. Specifically, this study will be exploring the differences between divergent interpretations of naturalism: the first, a story controlled by the forces of nature, and, the second, a story manipulated by the power of societal structures.

Permeating academia and achieving cultural acceptance, naturalistic philosophies actively influence nearly every facet of the human experience, including the contemporary church. Writing for a Christian audience, Bush devotes significant attention to accentuating the inherent problems of advancement philosophy, while demonstrating the logical inconsistencies of naturalistic propositions and adverse implications of adopting such perspectives consistently. This critique will summarize Bush’s publication, demonstrating his success in appraising advancement ideologies, while simultaneously highlighting the importance of a proper Christian response.

It is well known that in the realm of philosophy there are a multitude of debates that have been ongoing for years, sometimes centuries or even millennia. The easiest questions have already been solved, and what we are left with are philosophers taking sides, forming groups of likeminded thinkers, and butting heads with those they disagree with. This has created a rich bed of philosophical sects to align with and even more quandaries to discuss. One such debate is the one raging on between scientific naturalists and liberal naturalists. At the most basic and simple level, scientific naturalists believe all occurring things are natural and are explainable through scientific processes, and more importantly that philosophy can be studied exclusively through a scientific lens. On the other hand, liberal naturalists do not deny the usefulness of science in philosophy, but they posit that not all things are explainable through science. That some phenomena transcend the traditional explanations of science.

The ideas that form contemporary nonnaturalist thought can be derived from the work of G.E. Moore, a philosopher who worked in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. His book Principia Ethica is considered the foundation for the nonnaturalist argument and changed the way in which philosophers approach ethics as a whole. Matthew Chrisman, a modern philosopher who teaches and researches as the University of Edinburgh, wrote What is This Thing Called Metaethics?, a textbook on metaethics covering each major school of thought regarding metaethical inquiry.

Does scientific naturalism successfully explain the origin of life? The answer is yes, and no. Scientific naturalism explains how life functions quite well, but it fails miserably in explaining how and where life came from. Nobody who understands biology will argue that evolution does not occur, in the narrow understanding that certain changes happen naturally. Johnson reminds us of a famous piece of evidence for Darwinism that most of us learned about in science class. It was a study of an English peppered-moth population consisting of both dark and light-colored moths. During the industrial revolution, smoke from the factories darkened the surrounding trees with soot. This caused the percentage of dark-colored moths to increase, due to their advantage in hiding from predators. The light-colored moths were obviously at a disadvantage and their numbers decreased.

but is it God or natural evolution? How does evolution take place? I will explain many of the facts that have been found by thousands of scientists. It is very interesting how scientists discovered fossils and how they can basically draw out a picture of the animals that used to live in the world we now inhabit just by simply studying a fossil from millions of years ago! It also caught my attention how mutations take place and how organisms that possess a harmful trait would be less likely to provide their DNA to future generations.

A movement in the late 19th century arose wherein drama would be used to portray people and events as they actually are. Looking at ordinary people in situations that would actually happen. In Europe, France specifically, this meant the Naturalism movement. Naturalism is a similar idea to that of realism in wanting the drama to reflect reality as much as possible. However, naturalism was built around a theory that builds further from the goals of realism.

Naturalism plagues the world of business in a culture where postmodernism is steadily on the rise. Worldviews underlie presuppositions that infect daily life. In the world of business, the desire to increase profit margins takes precedence over many moral and ethical principles. This goal to maximize profit propels job creation, business deals, investment, advertising, etc. Money is deeply valued and desired in business, making profit an essential need for personal and corporate survival. The roots of Naturalism flood the profit-driven mindset, causing those in the financial world to operate out of autonomy, with disregard for any god or moral code. A worldview is a person’s philosophy of life, which in turn influences their decisions and outlook on life itself. The naturalistic worldview fuels the businessman’s presupposition of the business goal; he values profit over people.

The theory of natural selection was developed in two different instances by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. Stating that the progeny of an organism with traits better suited to the environment will survive, and will continue to evolve following random adaptation – natural selection opposed the strongly held conviction in divine intervention. However, the theory of natural selection would not have been able to secure a foothold for secularism and naturalism without the aid of all those that came before it. The theory of natural selection cannot be seen as independent from its history because it was formed upon the theories and the social environments created by previous scientists and thinkers.

The foundations of the argument for biological causes of crime lies predominantly with the work of Lombroso, who believed that criminological theory should focus on scientific explanations of criminal behaviour. Due to the archaic nature of biological theories, their methods and results can seem basic in comparison to modern day expectations, however their work proved vital in beginning to explore the reasons why violence occurs. Over time and due to technological developments, the biological debate has evolved to incorporate genetics, hormones and neurological dysfunctions. Socialisation theories began to emerge in the early 20th century and focused on the idea that all behaviours were learnt from the environment and people around us. These theories provide a solid argument for the idea that those who experienced violent behaviour in their childhood will go on to commit violent offences. It is also important to note social factors such as mental health, which often provide an interesting perspective on the debate, especially when focusing on the idea that a woman is either ‘mad’ or ‘bad’. Socialisation theories have been more widely and critically researched than biological theories, which in present day seem simplistic, often being critiqued for ignoring any form of social influence. Primarily, this essay aims to assess and evaluate the validity of both biological and social theories of violent female offending, but it is clear from extensive research that social learning

I would like to begin this short review of our seminar readings regarding Naturalism with a few personal considerations. First of all, I have to confess that, mainly because of my background in Idealistic Philosophy, I struggle to see what the charm of any kind of Reductivism and/or strong (ontological) Naturalism might be. In general, I agree with what seems to be Cunningham’s main point, that is, that Naturalism can be posited only thank to a rather bad miscomprehension of the metaphysical load of our existence. In particular I share his suggestion that even the seemingly unproblematic reference to matter requires a minimal metaphysical committment, at least if we want to make sense of some features of matter such as change (Cunningham, p. 3).