Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[AV1611VET]

Replication means the experiment is valid.

Is the question too hard to answer?

 

[Fervent]

Why do we have to? Evolution, as you re well aware, is an orderly process. It seems not to require outside intervention at the level of contingent causality. Some theists and some athiests take the position that evolution is bereft of divine Providence.

Intervention or non-intervention is a separte question from providence, but that's a theological question rather than a scientific one. My point about a Creator is that intentionality in the underlying laws of the universe would require one, otherwise the existence of laws such that from them arise creatures capable of investigating and making intelligible inferences about such laws are inevitable is itself quite inexplicable. I forget who said it, but someone once said "Give me this one free miracle, and I'll explain the rest." And just so we're clear, I'm not implying some sort of fine tuning argument but am instead focusing purely on the epistemic elements as if evolutionary pressures alone were sufficiently explanatory for our cognitive faculties then we could only hope to have them serve a species-specific survival function rather than globally trustworthy rational capabilities.

Why would you be required to "align with atheists" on any other issues?

I wouldn't, but even when it comes to evolution I do not see it as being aligned with them. I simply see it as accepting as accurate a scientific model that has had a good deal of predictive success. I maintain that "true" or "false" are not really categories that apply to such modeling, simply useful or not.

 

[Fervent]

So far, nothing found by science contradicts the Bible. Much of science contradicts the YEC re-interpretations of the Bible. But that's not something God or science are responsible for.

This is actually something I disagree with, evolution does contradict the Bible in a lot of ways. One of the chief ones is that speciation in evolution wouldn't begin with two individuals as progenitors, but require a breeding population. That is simply one among many other challenges to a straightforward reading of the Genesis narratives created by evolution. But that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, it simply means that we need to re-evaluate how we understand the Bible and issues like what inspiration means. It's not insaliable, but denying that there are contradictions when it is apparent to those who don't believe that there are is short-sighted at best.

 

[AV1611VET]

... but denying that there are contradictions when it is apparent to those who don't believe that there are is short-sighted at best.

And what does claiming there are contradictions do for them?

 

[Fervent]

And what does claiming there are contradictions do for them?

Allows them to maintain their integrity.

 

[expos4ever]

.... but am instead focusing purely on the epistemic elements as if evolutionary pressures alone were sufficiently explanatory for our cognitive faculties then we could only hope to have them serve a species-specific survival function rather than globally trustworthy rational capabilities.

I am interested in this statement of yours, although I'm not entirely sure I understand it. Are you implying that the mechanisms of evolution do not seem to be sufficiently explanatory for the complete range of human cognitive capabilities? For example, would you argue that it is nigh on impossible to explain our ability to grasp things like general relativity based on the assumption that our minds have been shaped by evolutionary forces focused solely on survival and procreation?

 

[AV1611VET]

Allows them to maintain their integrity.

Right up to the end -- right?

 

[Fervent]

I am interested in this statement of yours, although I'm not entirely sure I understand it. Are you implying that the mechanisms of evolution do not seem to be sufficiently explanatory for the complete range of human cognitive capabilities?

To an extent, yes. And it's not a purely hypothetical question, as there have been virtual experiments done that confirm the notion of species-specific survival functions arising rather than a globally trustworthy reasoning capability. I'll have to dig up the references, which I'll do if I have time later.

example, would you argue that it is nigh on impossible to explain our ability to grasp things like general relativity based on the assumption that our minds have been shaped by evolutionary forces focused solely on survival and procreation?

Yes, though its an issue of the trustworthiness of such reasoning rather than the exercise. Evolutionary forces alone wouldn't necessarily select for truth-finding capabilities, but instead would prefer cognitive functions that serve specialized reproductive strategies regardless of their reflection of reality. In some cases, the less reflective of reality the functions become the more utility they have in increasing breeding success.

 

[BCP1928]

Have you read what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about Divine Providence and necessity vs. contingency?

Absolutely. That is more or less the basis of my position, and it is important to the theological discourse that allows the Roman Church and other Traditional Christians to come to terms with the theory of evolution. Unfortunately, that and much else of formal theology was thrown out by Protestants with the bath water of the Reformation.

 

[BCP1928]

Intervention or non-intervention is a separte question from providence, but that's a theological question rather than a scientific one. My point about a Creator is that intentionality in the underlying laws of the universe would require one, otherwise the existence of laws such that from them arise creatures capable of investigating and making intelligible inferences about such laws are inevitable is itself quite inexplicable. I forget who said it, but someone once said "Give me this one free miracle, and I'll explain the rest." And just so we're clear, I'm not implying some sort of fine tuning argument but am instead focusing purely on the epistemic elements as if evolutionary pressures alone were sufficiently explanatory for our cognitive faculties then we could only hope to have them serve a species-specific survival function rather than globally trustworthy rational capabilities.

Exactly. Which is why we have so much trouble conceptualizing ideas which develop from data beyond the range of our ordinary senses obtained from scientific instruments. Quantum mechanics, for example.

I wouldn't, but even when it comes to evolution I do not see it as being aligned with them. I simply see it as accepting as accurate a scientific model that has had a good deal of predictive success. I maintain that "true" or "false" are not really categories that apply to such modeling, simply useful or not.

 

[Fervent]

Exactly. Which is why we have so much trouble conceptualizing ideas which develop from data beyond the range of our ordinary senses obtained from scientific instruments. Quantum mechanics, for example.

That's not necessarily salient, but my point is a largely philosophical one and not strictly scientific. The issue is how we justify our confidence that anything produced by the human intellect is trustworthy, because we cannot assume that we are tuned for truth-finding or evaluation.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not necessarily salient, but my point is a largely philosophical one and not strictly scientific. The issue is how we justify our confidence that anything produced by the human intellect is trustworthy, because we cannot assume that we are tuned for truth-finding or evaluation.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had the Truth in writing?

 

[BCP1928]

Wouldn't it be nice if we had the Truth in writing?

We do, if we can learn how to read it correctly.

 

[AV1611VET]

We do, if we can learn how to read it correctly.

Maybe we need a Guide, a Bible-believing church, and some good helps?

 

[Fervent]

Wouldn't it be nice if we had the Truth in writing?

In writing? Nah, the Truth is a person. What more Truth do we need than a tautology, Truth is Truth. Everything else is up for debate.

 

[dlamberth]

Wouldn't it be nice if we had the Truth in writing?

We have the truth in God's own Creation as created by God with His own hand, which tells a very different story than the one we find in genesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

We have the truth in God's own Creation as created by God with His own hand, which tells a very different story than the one we find in genesis.

We've already been over this, chief.

And you went 404 during the conversation.

 

[AV1611VET]

In writing?

Yes.

Nah, the Truth is a person.

People write.

 

[Fervent]

Yes.

That was rhetorical. Writing has to be interpreted, and the writings we have had to be translated from ancient languages. It didn't descend from the sky.

People write.

Sure, and people also lie. And the person I'm referring to left no writing of His own I am aware of.

 

[dlamberth]

We've already been over this, chief.

And you went 404 during the conversation.

I remember having extensive conversations with you, several times over, about where one finds truth in God's own creation.