Evolutionary theory as a Reification fallacy

This essay is a critique of the theory of evolution and makes the claim that the theory, that reports to be scientific, is more like the argument of a Sophist than the sober presentation of a scientist.

Just as secular philosophers want to make use of various 'transcendentals' (causation, reality, uniformity, etc.) [2.] without accepting the transcendent God who alone can give us a foundation for them - so the evolutionist wants to make use of various abstractions, and to treat them as if they were real entities. This is known as the fallacy of reification. [1.]

The theory of evolution [M2M] depends upon reifications such as; time, chance, natural selection, evolution, life, and emergence. (There are others.) It gives a creative power to entities that have none. Without these reifications the theory collapses into a mere claim (based on materialism). What is presented as evidence for evolution is little more than a collection of logical fallacies.

I want to take a brief look at some of these reifications; ones that are integral to the theory.

Time:
- Time was famously called (by George Wald) the hero of the plot. [2.] Here we see time presented as a kind of agent that can accomplish things; but time in itself (if time exists) can do nothing. It's often said by evolutionists that given enough time anything is possible. Here time is presented as having creative power; but it's not true that given enough 'time' anything is possible. An ounce of silver will never turn into an ounce of gold, or a dollar bill, or a Shakespeare sonnet. Never.

Chance;
- We're told that evolutionary events happen by chance; but chance isn't an entity that can do things. To see it this way is to reify the concept. When we speak of chance we're admitting we don't see the cause of an event, that it appears to have no cause. This however isn't the case; because we don't see the cause doesn't mean there isn't one. (Even radioactive decay has a source in entropy; as does genetic mutation.) Chance offers the evolutionist (materialist) a way to escape from the bounds of physical law.

One of the early Greek atomists explained the 'emergence' (a term often used as a reification) of living forms by speculating that some atom 'swerved' in its normal course. This is actually a quite brilliant insight, as he realized that physical law would never lead to living forms... that it would have to deviate from its normal (rigid) course to do so. He realized that 'life' depended on a violation of the laws of physics. Chance is an abstraction; to think it can do things, to speak of it as having creative powers is to reify it. Chance can't do anything.

Life;
- Life is often reified in the literature of evolutionists, and in their accounts of the origins of living organisms. We're told that life (somehow) emerged from inert matter. Life is spoken of as if it were a thing, as if it were a chick trying to emerge from a shell. Life is pictured as existing within the dead rocks and trying to find a way to emerge... to emerge from a rock the way a chick emerges from a shell. Life is seen as a goal directed entity... as being alive before it's alive as it were. It desires to come forth.

Much of this of course isn't stated as baldly as I have, it's merely hinted at in the way the word is used. I call this use reification because there is no such thing as life. What we see are living organisms; we do not see life. To speak of life as something that exists apart from concrete living organisms is reification.
(Evolutionists speak of 'life' rather than living organisms because they know how complex organisms are. They want to paint the picture of some simple thing 'emerging' first... something less complex than any known living organism.)

Natural selection;
Darwin once said, "If I have erred in giving to natural selection great power... or in having exaggerated its power... I have at least as I hope done good service in aiding to overthrow the the dogma of separate creation." [4.]

- Charles Darwin popularized the concept of natural selection. (He did not originate this idea; despite what your textbook claimed.) We might however give him the honor of being the first one to reify the concept. In his writings natural selection is spoken of, not as the abstraction that it is, but as an abstraction that has creative powers. He pulls the rhetorical switch of referring to it as an agent that can cause creative change; that can in fact create new organs and new species. Natural selection can do no such thing. It's not a real entity; it has no creative power.

What we call NS is an abstraction drawn from certain observations made of animal populations. Under differing conditions some animals prosper and some suffer decline. Changes are seen within the group; and the norm might get larger or smaller, etc. This change is then compared (by analogy) with the selection process we see take place in animal husbandry or breeding experiments. e.g. the pigeon fancier can 'create' new types of pigeon by selecting certain birds to breed with certain other birds. No such intelligent intervention (based on a blueprint and goal) exists within the 'natural' world. This makes the analogy a false one, and a meaningless one. Having said this, in no known cases does the animal involved become some other animal. (ie. a dog turned into a cat.) The animal kind remains what it was. (The pigeon remains a pigeon, the dog remains a dog.)

When Darwin claimed (with no warrant, and against all the evidence available to him) that 'natural selection' could accomplish what the animal breeder could not he was guilty of an egregious reification. He made this abstraction more creative than human beings; when in fact it has no creative power at all. The process we call NS is blind and without purpose, and has the effect of eliminating most variations.

Evolution;
- The word evolution is often spoken of in ways that constitute a reification. Evolution is spoken of as if it were a concrete entity, and one with creative powers. It's often spoken of as if it had goals, and if it had foresight. (It can have neither.) Evolution is an abstraction, not a concrete entity. We often read that some animal 'evolved' a new organ. This is more reification. Evolution isn't a process an animal engages in. It isn't some tool animals have that allow them to modify themselves. We're repeatedly told that evolution has done this or that; but e. isn't an entity that can do things. Evolution is an abstraction that brings together various observations and speculations. It's more a way of looking at the world than a real process, let alone a real entity.

- Summary; what we see in the theory of evolution is a collection of reification fallacies masquerading as concrete evidence. These reifications take the place of an intelligent creator. (e.g. God) They can't do the work they're called upon as they have neither real existence, intelligence, creative power, will, or plan. The abstract can't be a real substitute for the concrete.

In addition to all this (as if it wasn't enough) Evolution theory depends upon an evolution friendly universe; upon a world where entropy doesn't operate, where mutations don't have negative effects, where there's some kind of mystical pull up toward progress, instead of an entropic descent to death and decay. It depends upon a world where the impossible happens and physical law can be violated. No such place exists in the universe. The only place such a world exists is in the human imagination.

M. Johnson [frfarer -at- gmail.com] 3/24/2010

Notes;
1. Reification;
'Also known as hypostatisation, concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. - wiki
2. 'It is often stated by evolutionists that with enough time, anything could happen regardless of how improbable it might be. Nobel prize winner George Wald has said, "Time is the hero of the plot. Given enough time anything can happen -- the impossible becomes probable, the improbable becomes certain."
Prominent evolutionist Julian Huxley has stated that, given enough time, monkeys typing on typewriters could eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare. - Darwin's enigma/Luther Sunderland/ch.3
- Evolutionists make it sound as if time were money; as if 'accumulating' it allowed you to do more things (like take a vacation or buy a truck). Time isn't a thing that can be stored.
- the Shakespeare quote shows how desperate some evolutionists are; the claim is absurd... and an embarassment to any honest materialist. It shows the lengths some evolutionists are willing to go to to try and deceive the public. The 'illustration' could prove nothing, even if it worked... which it most assuredly would not. (The poor monkeys couldn't even type up a copy of Darwin's Origins. And where are the labor laws :=)
3. Transcendental;
(Philos.) In the Kantian system, of or pertaining to that which can be determined a priori in regard to the fundamental principles of all human knowledge. What is transcendental, therefore, transcends empiricism; but is does not transcend all human knowledge, or become transcendent. It simply signifies the a priori or necessary conditions of experience which, though affording the conditions of experience, transcend the sphere of that contingent knowledge which is acquired by experience.
3a. 'Transcendental has reference to those beliefs or principles which are not derived from experience, and yet are absolutely necessary to make experience possible or useful. - Webster's/1913
4. Quote taken from 'Darwin's Proof - by Cornelius Hunter/p.81
5. Models;
- E. theory uses various models that get reified. The famous tree of life that was 'planted' (drawn) by Charles Darwin is an example of this. No such tree exists. This is an abstraction that pretends to be real by being given an artistic representation. (That it was the only illustration in the Origins might tell us something; e.g. that it was on this point that Darwin felt his case to be the weakest, and the most in need of bolstering help.) It's fine to have models, but the model should never be taken to be real. Unfortunately this has happened with the tree of life. Evidence is examined with the assumption the tree of life exists; so that the model rules over the data. (The tree is now full of dry rot and about to collapse, showing us that it was indeed just another reification.)