Philosophical musings on Quanta & Qualia; Materialism & Spiritualism; Science & Religion; Pragmatism & Idealism, etc.
Post 113.January 8, 2021 continued . . . .
Aristotle and Einstein
Intelligent Evolution
Although Darwinian evolution seems to follow a natural bottom-up progression, his theory astutely avoided specifically identifying the designer of that multi-level organization. How-ever, Feser notes that “Darwin affirmed the existence of a kind of natural teleology”, in which Natural Selection functions as an evaluator of fitness (goodness) for each natural niche. Yet, that feeble affirmation, “does not entail any . . . claims about cosmic progress of the kind associated with evolutionists like Pierre Teilhard deChardin”. Therefore, Darwin’s theory, and its sub-sequent improvements, have yet to discover any empirical explanation for the appearance of design in nature. So, philo-sophers are free to conjecture from general precepts to the notion of a First Cause. Hence, Feser applies Aristotle’s principle, “whatever is in an effect must pre-exist in its total cause”. If that’s true, then signs of design imply an intentional First Cause. He also extends that notion to conclude “that the forms of these new organisms are ‘virtually contained’ in their causes”. And, this kind of reasoning lends itself to the modern concept of Information as a form of Energy37, which is the formative power of the universe.
But Feser considers two different rationales to explain “the transformations between the inanimate, vegetative, and sensory or animal philosophical species”. Materialist theories assume that those radical transformations were mere statistical accidents. On the other hand, theists postulate “special divine action” to create each kind of being. Yet, Feser presents another view he cleverly calls, “Aristotelian theistic evolutionism”38. And that third theory of emergent evolution is similar to my own thesis of Enformationism. Wherein Generic Information (EnFormAction)36 – like a computer program – contains the (virtual) potential for all subsequent natural forms. Of course, we now know that evolution does not follow a direct tree-like path to the top of the pyramid of nature. Instead of flowing through pre-determined channels, nature explores a variety of options, resulting in erratic branching, like a mountain stream, or a shrub. Which looks more like the bushy diagrams in the latest images of evolutionary development. Anyway, Feser does not use the term “naturalism”, due to its assump-tions of reductive materialism, to label Aristotle’s notion of progressive evolution. Yet, although he says, “I do not describe this view as atheistic or even non-theistic”, it’s clear that the First Cause of his evolutionary process, is the Biblical God of the Catholic faith.
My own understanding of evolutionary En-Formation can be labeled as Deistic. That thesis is briefly summarized in the Intelligent Evolution39 theory in the sidebar. Also, I need to clarify that Aristotelian Physics is meaningful today, only in a historical sense. But Aristotle’s Meta-Physics is still valid 2500 years later. In the meanwhile, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein have expanded and clarified the ancient worldview into a wider & deeper understanding of Nature. Ironically, Einstein was mystified by the meta-physical implications of the Quantum Theory that sprang from the root of his own physics of mental relationships between physical things. Therefore, I must agree with Feser, that “Aristotelian metaphysics is not only compatible with modern science, but is implicitly presupposed by modern science.”
38. Aristotelian theistic evo- lutionism : Although Aristotle was not a theist, or evolutionist, in the modern sense, he assumed that some higher power was necessary to create and control our ever-changing world. Classical theism holds God wholly discrete from the world in substance. Classical theists differ over God's relation to the world. Aristotle held that God is merely a final cause, a lure who draws the universe's efficient causes into action (Metaphysics XII, 6–7). https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/god-concepts-of/v-1/sections/classical-theism
39. Intelligent Evolution : Religions continue both to render their special services and to exact their heavy costs. Can scientific humanism do as well or better, at a lower cost? Surely that ranks as one of the great unanswered questions of philosophy. It is the noble yet troubling legacy that Charles Darwin left us. ___E. O. Wilson https://harvardmagazine.com/2005/11/intelligent-evolution.html
Intelligent Evolution
INTELLIGENT EVOLUTION
The Enformationism world-view and the BothAnd philosophy are based on a composite personal under-standing of how the world works. It’s a blend of both empirical scientific facts and theoretical religious myths. It accepts the general concept of natural evolution, but offers a detailed hypothesis to explain how that cause & effect process began from an ultimate act of causation. The thesis developed from that kernel will seem un-scientific to some, and blasphemous to others. But it’s intended to be a reasonable theory derived from commonly accepted facts, plus a few notions from the cutting-edge of 21st century knowledge. http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page2.html
Aristotle’s Revenge The Metaphysical Foundations of Physical and Biological Science Edward Feser Philosopher of Metaphysics & Natural Theology
“Aristotelian metaphysics is not only compatible with modern science, but is implicitly presupposed by modern science.”
NEXT
BACK
Forum
