Jim elegantly writes:

> This implies that the
>  Creator had a purpose for this life.  Most theologies are formed to discern
>  this purpose, which is usually some higher goal that lies outside mankind.
>  Thus we have the eight-fold path, the ten commandments, the Hammurabic
Code,
>  etc. (ethical/moral laws) because adherents are trying to find out what
>  standard of conduct the Creator intended for its creation to meet.
>
>  Evolution says that there was no Creator, no outside force whatsoever, that
>  had any hand in creating life.  Life just began by pure, blind chance.  Not
>  only that, but each step up the evolutionary ladder was also the product of
>  pure, blind chance.  Since there is no purpose for the creation of life,
>  then there can be no standard of conduct for that life and one set of
>  standards is pretty much as good as any other.  There can be no
>  ethical/moral law, only a law of consensus or societal constraints that
have
>  no absolutes to call upon.

The problem remains, that like Laplace, we can say, "Sire, I have no need of
that hypothesis." The thermodynamics of the evolutionary process are now
sufficiently well understood that Jim's reversion to a Creator is
unnecessary. It's not outlawed of course, as Ted said, it's simply
unnecessary.

But more importantly, Jim repeats a common mistake, saying that: "Life just
began by pure, blind chance.  Not only that, but each step up the
evolutionary ladder was also the product of pure, blind chance." It's not
that the essence of what Jim writes is wrong, but that it is only half the
story.

Evolution is a process of variation *and* selection. The processes are not
separable. While random variation is the necessary propellent of evolution,
it is selection that is editor of that variation, measuring what is good or
bad, and is thus the creative force of evolution. But even more than that, it
is the process of selection that imbues purposivity into the evolved
structures.

The purpose of a hand, an eye or a wing is self-evident. Not only are these
evolved structures magnificient creations, gracile, acute, and
extraordinarily efficient, they embody purpose throughout their being. But
there is no a priori reason to suspect that the evolution of behavior,
including a sense of morals, fairness and justice, is any different.

When I used to teach animal behavior as a graduate class, I used to tell the
students that when we get this all worked out, it is my strong suspicion that
all we're going to find ourselves right back at the beginning, recapitulating
the profound morals of the Bible, Shakespeare and the proverbs of Portuguese
fishwives.

Certain structures are inevitable. There are very few ways to design a wing,
and in all of the times that the wing has been independently invented, in
pterosaurs, in birds, in insects, in bats and in our mechanical contrivances,
the wings look very much alike and work virtually identically, taking into
account differing factors such as fluid density and Reynolds numbers.

If we could rewind the tape of the evolution of life on this earth and repeat
the experiment a thousand times, I'm sure that we would end up in every one
of those runs with a sense of morality, fairness and justice in the most
sentient creatures extant indistinguishably different than what we now strive
for.

Wirt Atmar

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *