TPF : Cosmology and Evolution

[Gnomon]

COSMOLOGY & EVOLUTION : Theism vs Deism vs Accidentalism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/ ... 473/gnomon

The scientific cosmology of THEISM vs DEISM vs ACCIDENTALISM

In his 2021 book, Return of the God Hypothesis, historian & geo-physicist Stephen Meyer makes a detailed case (science-based and non-scriptural) for Intelligent Design (ID) in evolution as opposed to Dumb Accidents (DA)*1. He's “comfortable with the standard evolutionary story, but with a theistic spin”(Wiki). So he is touting Christian Theism, but tolerantly admits that Agnostic Deism (intelligent but absentee design) also fits the evidence. In my view, the primary difference between Theistic Creation and Deistic Design is Teleological Evolution (front loaded with criteria set in the beginning) versus Divine Intervention (with a few miracles sprinkled into the process ; mostly done to validate prophets, but also to change social and weather patterns to annihilate unruly humans). Ignoring that proviso, his argument sets the philosophical Design *2 inference against the un-designed serendipity cosmology of Atheism.

He even quotes a Catholic theologian who makes a deist-like argument in favor of Intelligent Design . Surprisingly, Denis Lamoureux uses the term "Evolutionary Creation" in contrast to the Genesis account of Instant Creation. He says "God organized the big bang so that the deck was stacked", and "lets it unfold deterministically" to produce life. That sounds more like a cosmic computer Programmer than the magical spoken-command creation of Genesis. Ironically, the theologian also says that "to invoke a specific instance of design after the initial creation would imply a violation of natural law by invoking the activity of a 'God of the gaps' ". Hence, he thinks pseudoscientific Intelligent Design arguments should be termed "interventionist Design Theory", implying that the supposedly omniscient creator had to make post-creation corrections after his seven day opus, divinely assessed as “good” and “very good” in Genesis.

Meyer then argues against the theologian by asking "are laws creative?" Obviously, natural laws (regularities) alone would simply repeat the same patterns over & over. So he astutely concluded that "laws are the wrong kind of entity to generate the informational features of life" (e.g. DNA). However, fixed laws (criteria ; limits) plus fortuitous jostling (competition) would combine stability with variability to produce Natural Selection as postulated by Darwin. Conjecturally, randomness (e.g. energetic vibrations) shuffles the original “deck” (initial conditions) into novel combinations, then natural Laws (rules of the game), such as thermodynamics, would weed out the lawless (unfit) forms.

For a more mundane example : in a dice game of Craps (pure chance), the little cubes sitting still would spell out a fixed number of dots, up to 12. But by shaking & rolling the dice (jostling), that static combination is randomized to display alternative numbers, and if you are lucky, "seven come eleven". Hence, if evolution works as Darwin observed --- by variation & competition --- then Luck or Chance or Probability plays a role in the Selection of viable (life-possible) forms of material objects*3. Moreover, Quantum Theory has found that statistical uncertainty (probability ) is essential to the fundamental functions of Nature. But Luck alone, sans organizing influences, is not a winning strategy, even given infinite rolls of the dice.

For another instance of the role of regulated irregularity, design engineers originally programmed (initialized) their computers with specific criteria for limiting variables, in order to pre-define the output within a certain predictable range. But as the desired functions became more complex and unpredictable, they were forced to emulate Darwinian natural design. By that I mean their Evolutionary Programs*4 were set-up to use Trial & Error (stochastic*5) procedures to sift-out the "fittest" forms for whatever function the programmers intended : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna .

In Nature, the laws are by definition stable & consistent, but some destabilizing force causes material forms to change over time, to evolve. And not just random change, but progressive evolution : e.g. from simple-minded ape to philosophical homo sapiens. Physical (causal) Energy alone is aimless, except to move toward the "heat death" of ultimate Entropy. But when combined with those specifying Natural Laws (motion, conservation, etc.) the tumbling dice of evolution may occasionally hit upon a lucky (fitness) number, which will allow them to move on to the next stage of the ecological game : Darwinian selection. Darwin's implicit invisible hand then uses the lawful selection criteria (embodied in the environment) to weed-out the unfit, choosing from the various or mutated options resulting from the “antecedent” randomizing stage.

The vital element in the game of Life, though, is biological Information, as found in the form of complex chemical patterns (DNA). Hence, German bio-chemist Manfred Eigen concluded that "our task is to find an algorithm, a natural law, that leads to the origin of information". Yet, as Meyer noted, "the regularities we refer to as laws describe highly deterministic or predictable relationships between antecedent conditions and subsequent events". And, "potential information content mounts as improbabilities multiply". Subsequently, the probabilistic law of Entropy weeds out the impossible, allowing only the “fit” forms to pass the sieve. Thus, we know that matter can be transformed over time, as lawlike information is scrambled by competing forces to produce the lovely novelties --- formless Plasma to spiraling Galaxies, and colorless formless Amoeba to the rainbows of flittering-twittering Birds --- that science has discovered in Cosmology and Biology. [images below]

Another kind of vital Information is found in the Initial Conditions (program inputs) of the Big Bang that somehow pointed ahead to the highly-processed current conditions of our blue dot in the darkness of the cosmos. In the 20th century, based on astronomical evidence and the Big Bang theory, cosmologists began to stumble upon surprising “coincidences”*6 in 26 fundamental Cosmic Constants (“tuned” pre-settings) that appeared to be essential to evolution of Life and Mind. Based on those parameters, the so-called Anthropic Principle*7 made the emergence of living & thinking creatures seem almost inevitable*8. [image below]

The causal power of the Big Bang, and those law-like settings in initial conditions of the material world, along with the sifting mechanism of competitive selection, could be interpreted to imply that eventually something like genesis-seeking homo sapiens would evolve on a temperate planet without the necessity of remedial divine intervention. Yet Meyer still finds the miracle-working God of the Bible to be more plausible than the nature god (Logos) of Deism & Plato, and more feasible than the Fortuna (goddess of Chance) of Atheism. On the other hand, Anti-Theists seem to find the miracle of Design by Accident*9 (Creative Random Chance ) to be more believable than the notion of Platonic Logic & Intention programmed into the Initial Conditions. Perhaps more relevant to some on this forum, long prior to the 21st century evidences that Meyer analyzes --- Big Bang beginning, Abiotic theories, DNA Genetics, and Information Theory --- David Hume skeptically deconstructed the design arguments of his day*10. Which “hypothesis” do you find the best fit to explain the existence of the living & thinking creatures of the world as we know it today?

PS 1 : Apologies for the length and complexity of this introductory post. This is not a formal academic or scientific book review, but merely an amateur philosophical commentary on one chapter : Inference to the Best Metaphysical Explanation. Other constructive comments are solicited. Ad hominems and Straw Men not welcome. [my bold in all quotes]

PS 2 : For transparency, I must admit that I am skeptical of the mythical accounts (Genesis) of instant creation, and the notion of divine interventions in ongoing evolution, that are implicit in the typical Intelligent Design hypothesis. But Meyer's detailed critique of alternative pre-bang origin theories (Multiverse ; Inflation ; etc.) seem to be credible. To his credit, Meyer includes several chapters --- Conjectures and Refutations --- that respond reasonably & cogently to technical criticisms of his previous books by scientists & philosophers, including Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. But he makes no attempt to justify the scriptural basis of on-going or dispensational Interventionist beliefs.


Footnotes & Comments :

*1. Accidentalism is a philosophical theory that some events occur without a cause, or that events can happen by chance or haphazardly. It's related to other theories such as indeterminism and tychism. ___Google AI overview

*2. Design : from de- “out” + signature “to mark,” from signum “a mark, sign”.
The word design refers to something that is or has been intentionally created by a thinking agent, and is sometimes used to refer to the inherent nature of something – its design.
___ Wikipedia

*3. Viable statistics :According to current scientific understanding, the probability of life emerging on a planet with suitable conditions is considered to be relatively high, although the exact odds are difficult to quantify due to the complex nature of abiogenesis, but the early emergence of life on Earth suggests a fairly significant chance of life arising given the right environment and enough time; however, the probability of intelligent life evolving is considered much lower. ___Google AI overview
Note --- Statistical Probability is not an accident, since it is predictable.
"Statistical probability is not accidental" means that when a statistically significant result occurs, it is highly unlikely to be due to mere chance; it suggests a real phenomenon or pattern is likely at play, rather than just a random occurrence.”___Google AI overview

*4. Evolutionary programming is one of the four major evolutionary algorithm paradigms. It is similar to genetic programming, but the structure of the program to be optimized is fixed, while its numerical parameters are allowed to evolve. ___Wikipedia

*5. Stochastic design method : Stochastic design uses random variables and probability to simulate long-term sequences and account for uncertainty. The word "stochastic" means randomness. ___Google AI overview

*6. Five coincidences that make existence possible :
From a hot, dense, near-uniform initial state, stars, galaxies, and living planets emerged.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... -possible/

*7. The anthropic principle is a methodological principle that states that the universe's parameters must allow for life to exist. It's also known as the observation selection effect.
The anthropic principle is based on the idea that the universe's conditions are so delicate that life would not be possible if any of the natural constants were slightly different. It's often used in cosmology to test theories about the universe. ___Google AI overview
Note --- Darwin's model for Natural Selection was intelligent farmers who bred domestic animals with the intention to improve certain features of the stock. But Who pre-selected the critical cosmological parameters, and for what purpose? “Nobody knows” is the Agnostic & Deist position. But Meyer implies, without specifying, that it was the Yaweh/Jehovah of Judeo-Christian scripture.

*8. Emergence of Life Probability : According to current scientific understanding, the probability of life emerging on a planet with suitable conditions is considered to be relatively high, although the exact odds are difficult to quantify due to the complex nature of abiogenesis, but the early emergence of life on Earth suggests a fairly significant chance of life arising given the right environment and enough time; however, the probability of intelligent life evolving is considered much lower. ___Google AI overview

*9. "Design by Accident" is a concept in design theory, primarily popularized by Alexandra Midal, which argues that significant design innovations and advancements often arise from unexpected sources, unintended consequences, or "accidents" rather than solely through deliberate, planned design processes; essentially challenging the traditional notion of design as a purely intentional and controlled activity, highlighting the role of serendipity and unforeseen developments in shaping design history and practice. ___Google AI overview
Note --- Design by Accident is literally an oxymoron. Yet, we can't deny that randomness (accident ; chance) is an essential factor in Evolution. But without the Selection factor it only results in chaos.

*10. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David Hume criticized contemporary attempts to support religious beliefs in a supernatural deity by inference from appearances of design in the makeup of the world, and then by analogy with human design of artifacts. Hume interpreted the notion of a rational step-by-step designing deity as illicitly humanizing the supernatural God of scripture. When such inferences are disallowed though, we are left with no reasonable answers to the philosophical quest for understanding of ultimate origins. Hence, Hume might advise us Principle Seekers to “shut-up and calculate”. Pragmatic scientists with here & now projects may be dissuaded by such logic, but theoretical scientists and questing philosophers cannot be so easily turned away from their whys of wisdom.
https://iep.utm.edu/design-arguments-fo ... ce-of-god/

[Gnomon]

It often feels to me that these kinds of arguments come from former devout Muslim or Christians who in the deconstruction of their faith need to salvage some notions of teleological purpose, but frame them in a scientific language to, perhaps, feel less embarrassed about the conclusion. — Tom Storm

The Intelligent Design movement did originate as a response to the aggressive New Atheists in the late 20th century. And their ID arguments were directed mainly at believers who might be swayed by the authority of well-known scientists. But in the intervening years, think-tank organizations such as the Discovery Institute have recruited practicing scientists who can reconcile scientific "facts" with their religious beliefs. Stephen Meyer is one of those experts, and he is not in the least "embarassed" by his controversial conclusions.

Consequently, they can go toe-to-toe and fact-to-fact with the New Atheists, without resorting to "thus saith the lord" assertions. So, I was impressed by Meyers' scientific acumen and his ability to construct plausible philosophical arguments from known scientific facts. However, he makes no attempt to convince the reader of any particular religious creed. Besides, I long ago concluded that the Christian Bible, which was the sole authority for my childhood religion, is not the revealed Word of God, but the tribal myths of priests. So, while I respect the book for its literary importance, I don't accept its jurisdiction in matters of scientific or historical fact.

Nevertheless, I have independently reached the conclusion that the universe, as depicted by a broad array of scientific facts, shows signs of Teleological Evolution (e.g Anthropic principle). But I doubt that the Mind behind the design is the kind of God-king depicted in the Judeo-Christian scriptures. So, while I practice no religion, and remain Agnostic about the implicit designer/programmer, for my philosophical purposes I take Teleology seriously. I have even developed a science-based personal worldview that qualifies as an "-ism" (philosophical system).

My personal "-ism" has been repeatedly attacked by the trolls on this forum, apparently because they feel the need to "salvage" their own "devout" Atheistic metaphysical beliefs. Hence, they typically resort to Ad Hominem and Straw Man arguments instead of scientific or philosophical reasoning. Yet, I posted this thread with the hope that such a hot topic can be discussed calmly and reasonably and philosophically. This assumes that few of us are experts in Physics or Biology or Cosmology. So, we need to remain humble enough to avoid haughty or supercilious attitudes.

Therefore, the topic to be addressed is not Christianity or Islam or Jehovah or Allah, but the notion of trial & error Evolutionary Creation of the current cosmos over eons from law-like Initial Conditions as discovered by Astronomers, not Astrologers. It's a modern concept that was unknown to the writers of ancient scriptures. But 1500 years ago, Greek philosophers postulated the necessity for philosophical principles, such as Logos or First Cause, long prior to our modern notions of Initial Conditions or Big Bang beginning. Can we treat this hot topic, not as a hot potato, but as a legitimate philosophical conundrum?

↪Wayfarer

[Gnomon]

I have even developed a science-based personal worldview that qualifies as an "-ism" (philosophical system). — Gnomon
Why have you found it important to do this? — Tom Storm

I explain the whys & wherefores in great detail in the Enformationism thesis and blog. As the name implies, it is based on the expanding role of Information in 21st century science, and has nothing to do with religious beliefs. Yet, the Materialist worldview seems to focus mainly on Entropy, which promises to de-evolve inevitably toward cold dark heat death. That negative attitude is contrary to the positive outlook of some religions, which are viewed as mawkishly optimistic, and needs to be suppressed by any means necessary.

However, my philosophical perspective centers on Energy (negentropy ; EnFormAction) as the causal & organizing force behind the progressive stages of evolution that modern science has discovered since the Big Bang creation event. The basic facts are well established, but the interpretation of those data points remains to be worked-out, not by pragmatic scientists, but by theoretical philosophers.

Why is it important? Ask Plato and Aristotle why they produced non-religious theories that have influenced the world for 1500 years. Like them, I remain Agnostic about the pre-bang source of Natural Laws (Logos) and of cosmic causation (First Cause). I don't expect salvation from the Entropic Reaper. But I have nothing better to do with my retirement time than to dabble in Ontological & Epistemological philosophy.

Enformationism :

This website is a place to explore the meaning and ramifications of a new philosophical and scientific hypothesis that I have chosen to call Enformationism. The term spelled with an "I" had already been used elsewhere in various contexts and meanings, so I looked for an alternative name. Since the new scientific term Enformy was already in use, with a meaning similar to what I had in mind, I simply chose to change the spelling of my proposed coinage.

This informal thesis does not present any new scientific evidence, or novel philosophical analysis. It merely suggests a new perspective on an old enigma : what is reality? The so-called “Information Age” that began in the 20th century, has now come of age in the 21st century. So I have turned to the cutting-edge Information Sciences in an attempt to formulate my own personal answer to the perennial puzzles of Ontology, the science of Existence.

I am neither a scientist, nor a philosopher, so the arguments herein carry no more authority or expertise than those of anyone else with an interest in such impractical musings. This is intended to be an open-ended thread, because it’s a relatively new and unproven concept, and because the ideas presented here are merely a superficial snapshot of what promises to be a whole new way of understanding the world : philosophically, scientifically, and religiously.
https://enformationism.info/enformation ... lcome.html

[Gnomon]

Yet, the Atheist worldview seems to focus mainly on Entropy, which promises to de-evolve inevitably toward cold dark heat death. — Gnomon
There is no atheist worldview. This is a talking point from William Lane Craig. — Tom Storm

I assume you are saying that there is no specific Atheist dogma. Likewise, there is no single Theist creed. But I was thinking about a general attitude toward the world, that varies between Theism on one end and Atheism on the other. My personal view is somewhere in the middle. As far as my Christian relatives are concerned, I qualify as a hell-bound Atheist and unrepentant unbeliever.

Atheist Worldview :
Atheism is a label that describes a person's answer to the question of whether or not they believe in a god, but it doesn't define their worldview. Atheists typically believe that the existence of a god is unlikely and that there is no good reason to believe in one. However, an atheist's worldview can vary widely, and they can hold a variety of beliefs and values. ___Google AI overview
Note --- Based on my philosophical research over many years, I have concluded that the existence of something like a First Cause/Creator is not only "likely", but also logically necessary. And Meyer's book gives some philosophical & scientific reasons for reaching that deduction from available evidence. I assume that W. L. Craig has come to a similar conclusion, but he's also a "Christian apologist", I am not. Also, due to my dabbling in Deism, the Atheists on this forum probably would not accept me into the cool-guy club.


I'm more interested in the emotional need such cosmology satisfies. It seems to me that some people need answers to certain quesions, others don't. I often wonder why that is.
Does the argument from contingency interest you too? — Tom Storm

Sounds like you are trying to put me in a fervent religious nut box. But I am by nature and by nurture a Stoic dispassionate person. So, I don't have any visceral "need" for a slam-dunk cosmology or authoritative assurances of answers to vexing questions. My intellectual rejection of the biblical basis of my childhood religion was not accompanied by strong emotions. And yet, I had been told by my religious authorities that eternal Hell was the destination for unbelievers. So, it took a while to get over that uncertainty about my eternal destiny. But I no longer worry about such mythical maybes. Do you have some "emotional need" that motivates you to post on a philosophy forum? Apparently, I do have some intellectual need to ask philosophical questions. Do you?

"Argument from contingency" ? No, I've never given that Scholastic reasoning much thought. But the scientific Big Bang theory portrays our space-time world as Contingent (e.g. not eternal): hence without a plausible First Cause, the Cosmos is open-ended and un-defined. Is that OK for you? Apparently, some scientists are bothered by that discrepancy, so they make up just-so stories about 26-dimensional String Worlds, Multiverses, Parallel Universes, and Many Worlds, none of which is scientifically falsifiable. Hence, no more valid than any God postulate.

The “Argument from Contingency” examines how every being must be either necessary or contingent. Since not every being can be contingent, it follow that there must be a necessary being upon which all things depend. This being is God.
https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences ... ogical.htm

[Gnomon]

Just as you insist on putting atheists into fanatic scientism boxes? ( that's just a quip) — Tom Storm

A quip from the hip!
No, I don't put Atheists into "fanatic scientism boxes". That would be Materialists, who imagine that they have a special relationship with Science. I have another empty box, with no label, for Atheists. My box is also empty, and labeled "Agnostic but Inquisitive".

PS___ Do you know any Atheists or Materialists, who would like to discuss the philosophical ideas in the OP, instead of just putting them in a pigeonhole that can be easily dismissed as bird-sh*t?

[Gnomon]

A monkey randomly hitting the keys of a typewriter will eventually produce something resembling all the works of Shakespeare.
These points were made by Hume, but I don't see that anything in the opening post challenges them. — Clearbury

The imaginary random monkey Bard seems to be an article of faith for some believers in providential Chance. Meyer's book does address the mathematical implausibility of the typing monkey myth. The OP does address Hume's argument, by noting the modern scientific facts that he was ignorant of.


Typing monkey would be unable to produce 'Hamlet' within the lifetime of the universe, study finds
https://phys.org/news/2024-10-monkey-un ... verse.html

Richard Dawkins’s Weasel Program Is Bad in Ways You Never Dreamed
The program “evolves” a string of gibberish letters into a line from Hamlet: “Methinks it is like a weasel.”
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/dawkinss_weasel/

[Gnomon]

But for me as a non-scientist, non-philosopher, I do not have the luxury to speculate about the nature of reality. I leave that to the people with qualifications and stratospheric IQ's. My own preference is that the nature of reality is mostly unimportant and has no bearing on how I conduct my life. — Tom Storm

OK. I apologize for disturbing your "dogmatic slumber".

“I freely confess: it was the objection of David Hume that first, many years ago, interrupted my dogmatic slumber,” says Kant in the Preface to the Prolegomena

[Gnomon]

However, do you agree 'there is a naturalist (or anti/non-supernaruralist) worldview' of the few in contrast to 'the supernaturalist (or anti/non-naturalist) worldview of the many'? — 180 Proof
Yes, I think that's fair. I dislike The Atheist Worldview because it belongs to those ignorant talking points of Muslim and Christian apologists who have to turn the discourse into a team sport. — Tom Storm

Do you agree with 180's slur that anyone who discusses the nature of Nature on a philosophy forum is a "New Age nut", or perhaps a "Muslim and Christian apologist". Is that an Ad Hominem or a Red Herring or some other fallacy, used to avoid grappling with difficult questions? Are Ontology & Cosmology disallowed in your philosophy? Both attempt to view Nature from the outside.


Cosmology is the study of the universe's nature, including its origin, development, structure, history, and future.. Google AI overview

In philosophy, a "privileged viewpoint" refers to a perspective or standpoint that is considered to provide a more accurate or complete understanding of a situation due to the unique position or experience of the person holding that view, often implying that this perspective is superior to others due to their specific access to knowledge or insights not readily available to others; this concept is closely tied to "epistemic privilege" where someone has privileged access to certain knowledge, like their own thoughts, through introspection. Google AI overview
Note --- Both Muslims and Christians claim to have access to a "privileged viewpoint" on questions of Epistemology and Ontology. Gnomon does not make such a claim.

[Gnomon]

I don't think I know any materialists. I would avoid the word materialists and swap it with naturalists, as most would now describe themselves - materialism being understood as too reductive. I would probably consider myself a methodological naturalist but not a metaphysical naturalist. I have not ruled out idealism, for instance. — Tom Storm


Sure you do. You just don't like to rudely call a spade a spade. Do you see the deficiencies of metaphysical Materialism (Energy is physical but immaterial), that are glossed-over in sensable
Naturalism?

From a biased perspective of Methodological Naturalism, any super-naturalism would be invisible and unthinkable. Does the supernatural Multiverse hypothesis make any sense from your perspective? Does Plato's Idealism expand your perspective to include General Principles that are known only via rational inference instead of sensory perception?


Energy is considered a physical quantity that describes the ability to do work, but it is not a material substance; meaning it cannot be physically touched or seen, unlike matter, and is only observed through its effects on objects or systems. ___Google AI overview

As I’ve often said, belief in gods—or in any supernatural guiding principle—is more like a preference, akin to sexuality. — Tom Storm

For philosophers, such as Plato & Kant, General Principles are inferences, not preferences. Whether they are "guiding" may be more like a gender preference. For Gnomon, they are like Laws of Nature : known only by inference from observing the behavior of the dynamic world.

[Gnomon]

Hmm, the borrowed quote is not quite right. Slumber is fine - do you know how difficult it is to get a good sleep? Dogmatic - no. I have no inflexible commitments to any particular account of reality as explained. — Tom Storm

Sorry! I was not calling you "dogmatic", only hinting that your chosen philosophical perspective might be missing something that is right under your naturalist nose, so to speak. I appreciate the moderation of your posts. Some other methodological Naturalists are so dogmatic that I don't waste my time dialoging with them.