-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Evolution Evidence Vs. Creation Evidence
- Thread starter gr4p34p3
- Start date
oops
Darwinian evolution doesn't require a "creator." That's the whole point. The "creator" is already absent, so there's no need to remove anything, since there's nothing there. Some people apparently don't care much for that concept. Some seem to almost take it personally - can you imagine! The whole philosophical (as opposed to scientific) debate centers on this crucial element.
Evolution never had a "creator," and evolution has yet to be proven false.
Not to mention yet another contradiction in terms.
Upvote
0
Is the same true of meterology? At one point people, even christians, believed that God was responcible for lightening. Now it is known that lightening is the result of static electricity. Does that my meterology godless and thus false?
Evolution doesn't require divine interference no more than meterology. Yet for some reason, people become outraged over "godless" evolution a lot more than they do over "godless" meterology. What is the diffence?
Upvote
0
As I pointed out on another board: Just because someone does something that contradicts your religious beliefs, does not make their motives or statements "religious".
Many religions make statements about origins. Evolution, cosmology, and a few other things contradict that. But that does not mean they are religions.
Let us make up a rather unlikely example. Let us say a Church springs up, and one of the firm beliefs of this Church is that the works of Shakespeare, especially Hamlet, are directly written works of the Devil designed to lure people to Satan.
Hamlet is taught in many high schools. Does that mean teaching Hamlet now endorses a religion, specifically that of Satanism?
Many religions make statements about origins. Evolution, cosmology, and a few other things contradict that. But that does not mean they are religions.
Let us make up a rather unlikely example. Let us say a Church springs up, and one of the firm beliefs of this Church is that the works of Shakespeare, especially Hamlet, are directly written works of the Devil designed to lure people to Satan.
Hamlet is taught in many high schools. Does that mean teaching Hamlet now endorses a religion, specifically that of Satanism?
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,917
- 1,530
- 21
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
When I think that the operation of a flashlight is a simple function of physical principles, and doesn't need to be explained in terms of God's will, does that make this a "godless religion"?
Evolution is an explanation for how things happen; it doesn't address the kinds of questions God is an answer to, so it doesn't need to refer to Him.
Upvote
0
Hi Ben Reid. As promised, something of a reply to your excellent post:
DS: I could recommend ...
BR: My initial recommendation was just a starting point. I was surprised at your response since you had already suggested www.asa3.org.
Yes, I hadn't realized that this particular article was available there. I read it, along with a couple of other Plantinga tours de farce in Robert Pennock's anthology devoted to "intelligent design." asa3.org also has an article by Pennock, I see. I'm impressed by asa3.org and any other believers that are unafraid to deal with what, in Pennock's case at least, is fairly strenuous and compelling opposition (far more compelling than Plantinga's arbitrary presuppositionalism).
BR: In listing the other responses above (along with it being a poor attempt at humour) I was trying to illustrate that the McMullin "rebuttal" was not some final debunking of Plantinga's claims like you seemed to indicate. Au Contraire.
I didn't mean to imply that at the time, but now that you mention it, I do consider McMullin's response a "final debunking" of Plantinga's fundamental error: conflating methodological and ontological naturalism. Like many creationist errors of definition this one has been "finally debunked" more times than I care to enumerate, nonetheless it continues to be perpetrated ad nauseam. Really, the crusade against the unusual and remarkable concept that nature should be studied according to naturalistic principles is based on that glaring category error.
Of course following immediately on the heels of this error come the claims equating Darwinism with philosophical materialism and with atheism and the Decline of American Morality and so on and so forth, usually bolstered by some amusing tidbit from Richard Dawkins (see below). Plantinga's project of course reflects a desire to reconcile his revealed scripture with the ongoing deluge of information obtained in accordance with methodological naturalism. If McMullin, who I understand is an equally devoted Christian, can deal with it all, he's a living counterexample that negates the need to adopt whatever it is that Plantinga is proposing.
BR: There was a whole series of dialogues and McMullins "rebuttal" was followed by a response from Plantinga (see here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/CRS9-91Plantinga2.html) which, IMO, adequately answers any objections or misunderstandings between the two of them.
Plantinga's subsequent replies concentrate more on theological disagreements. He seems to have abandoned that for which McMullin had taken him to task, at least in that series of articles. For the purposes of this discussion, those particular theological disagreements are about as interesting as anyone else's theological disagreements, i.e., not at all.
BR: There was no follow-up response from McMullin (that I am aware of).
That's true. McMullin nailed it the first time around.
BR: Anyway, if you look at it closely, you will see that there is a deeper conflict going on between McMullin and Plantinga -- the original and most serious dichotomy between Catholics and Protestants: Sola Scripture. Plantinga's appeal to Scripture as a primary source of authority is something which McMullin objects to.
Right. But whether the issue is "deeper" rests in the perception of the observer, I suppose.
DS: if you think "evolutionists" recommending talkorigins ... is analogous to recommending atheists.org as a source for info on Christianity, you might not trust me.
BR: Maybe the analogy was a little harsh. I still think that for a Christian, talkorigins is the wrong place to start looking at the issue, just as AiG or trueorigins might be the wrong place to start for an atheist.
I had no idea this so-called "controversy" even existed until I came across several creationist websites a few years ago. So for me it was the right place to start. I can honestly say that I have never come across a creationist objection to evolution that has not been either debunked or fallen prey to counterexample.
DS: And as was pointed out talkorigins contains an extensive list of links to creationist sites as well.
BR: Talkorigins selectively links to creationist sites which they are comfortable with (i.e. don't effectively point out the shortcomings of Evolution).
I can't find any merit to this assertion at all. The talkorigins links are fairly comprehensive. A couple of those links are links to creationist sites that themselves contain dozens of links to other creationist sites. More importantly talkorigins has numerous links to the "intelligent design" websites and discussion boards, which, as far as I can tell, supposedly represent the most formidable intellectual challenge to Darwinism (which isn't saying much).
If you have any creationist links that talkorigins would be uncomfortable with, or especially those that more effectively point out the shortcomings of evolution, please feel free to post them here. In fact the most effective criticisms of Darwinism, as defined by its critics, come from within the community of professional biologists, and are published in peer-reviewed journals. These concern the theoretical aspects of evolution, that is, the molecular and environmental processes by which evolution occurs, obviously a tremendously fruitful area of scientific discourse.
There are numerous objections to the current general consensus within the community of professional biologists, for example those of James Shapiro, a biologist at the University of Chicago. However Shapiro's alternative views do not appeal to supernatural intervention. After all, he is a scientist.
I can't imagine that the proprietors of talkorigins would be "uncomfortable" with Shapiro's views. But like I said if you have any previously unaddressed sources that might cause discomfort to "evolutionists," by all means post them here.
BR: I'd hardly call it an unbiased website, though their bias has become more subtle over the years.
I have no idea what you mean by that. Over the years, it seems to me, talkorigins has taken to engaging the "intelligent design" movement, and in fact the proprietors have established a new site, talkdesign.org, in order to deal specifically with this latest incarnation of creationism.
BR: Just to save you the hassle of rebuttal, I will freely admit that many Creationist sites are biased as well, and many of them contain inaccuracies and so forth.
What an understatement that is!
DS: Indoctrination involves the systematic presentation of ideas that are expected to be accepted uncritically ...
BR: I used the word indoctrination with respect to the discourse on these forums. I still stand by that.
I don't understand that. Maybe I haven't read enough threads here, but I haven't seen any "evolutionists" expecting the information they provide to be accepted uncritically. That's like a Plantinga objection, where he characterizes Michael Ruse as screaming, "Fact, FACT, FACT!"As far as I can tell the creationists here for the most part don't know what they're talking about. Many don't understand the differences among "theory," "fact," "proof," and "evidence." I find this remarkable, and amusing. Call me crazy, but I have this wacky notion that an evolution denier should display at least a passing familiarity with that which he seeks to deny, but I don't see any evidence of that around here.
As for "creationists" posting nothing more than Bible verses and/or pictures and essentially demanding adherence on penalty of eternal torture to whatever statement of "fact" they claim the verses and/or pictures represent, I have seen quite a bit of that. Thankfully I didn't feel the least bit indoctrinated by these Bible verses and pretty pictures, unlike many others, apparently.
DS:it's pretty obvious that if anyone is involved in "indoctrination" here it's the creationists, and that includes the attorney Phillip Johnson and the "intelligent design" crowd as well
BR: Of course, anyone who believes in creation or ID must be indoctrinated, right?
To take a series of myths clearly derived from a much earlier series of "pagan" myths literally, and to insist that the documentary hypothesis is false in the face of hundreds of years of scholarly analysis certainly does require a certain degree of indoctrination, no doubt about it. As for ID I see it trumpeted about here occasionally, but I've never seen it demonstrated that the trumpeters understand what the argument entails. That's not surprising since, for example, William Dembski's "argument" is so thoroughly cloaked in pseudo-scientific jargon (not to mention a certain mean-spirited petulance) I wouldn't expect too many creationists are able to make head nor tail of it.
I thought the argument from design (or to design, as many would have it) was struck dead by Hume and ultimately interred by Darwin but it still seems to be kicking around in certain theological quarters, whose inhabitants are hopefully currently forging ahead into the 19th century.
DS: I could recommend ...
BR: My initial recommendation was just a starting point. I was surprised at your response since you had already suggested www.asa3.org.
Yes, I hadn't realized that this particular article was available there. I read it, along with a couple of other Plantinga tours de farce in Robert Pennock's anthology devoted to "intelligent design." asa3.org also has an article by Pennock, I see. I'm impressed by asa3.org and any other believers that are unafraid to deal with what, in Pennock's case at least, is fairly strenuous and compelling opposition (far more compelling than Plantinga's arbitrary presuppositionalism).
BR: In listing the other responses above (along with it being a poor attempt at humour) I was trying to illustrate that the McMullin "rebuttal" was not some final debunking of Plantinga's claims like you seemed to indicate. Au Contraire.
I didn't mean to imply that at the time, but now that you mention it, I do consider McMullin's response a "final debunking" of Plantinga's fundamental error: conflating methodological and ontological naturalism. Like many creationist errors of definition this one has been "finally debunked" more times than I care to enumerate, nonetheless it continues to be perpetrated ad nauseam. Really, the crusade against the unusual and remarkable concept that nature should be studied according to naturalistic principles is based on that glaring category error.
Of course following immediately on the heels of this error come the claims equating Darwinism with philosophical materialism and with atheism and the Decline of American Morality and so on and so forth, usually bolstered by some amusing tidbit from Richard Dawkins (see below). Plantinga's project of course reflects a desire to reconcile his revealed scripture with the ongoing deluge of information obtained in accordance with methodological naturalism. If McMullin, who I understand is an equally devoted Christian, can deal with it all, he's a living counterexample that negates the need to adopt whatever it is that Plantinga is proposing.
BR: There was a whole series of dialogues and McMullins "rebuttal" was followed by a response from Plantinga (see here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/CRS9-91Plantinga2.html) which, IMO, adequately answers any objections or misunderstandings between the two of them.
Plantinga's subsequent replies concentrate more on theological disagreements. He seems to have abandoned that for which McMullin had taken him to task, at least in that series of articles. For the purposes of this discussion, those particular theological disagreements are about as interesting as anyone else's theological disagreements, i.e., not at all.
BR: There was no follow-up response from McMullin (that I am aware of).
That's true. McMullin nailed it the first time around.
BR: Anyway, if you look at it closely, you will see that there is a deeper conflict going on between McMullin and Plantinga -- the original and most serious dichotomy between Catholics and Protestants: Sola Scripture. Plantinga's appeal to Scripture as a primary source of authority is something which McMullin objects to.
Right. But whether the issue is "deeper" rests in the perception of the observer, I suppose.
DS: if you think "evolutionists" recommending talkorigins ... is analogous to recommending atheists.org as a source for info on Christianity, you might not trust me.
BR: Maybe the analogy was a little harsh. I still think that for a Christian, talkorigins is the wrong place to start looking at the issue, just as AiG or trueorigins might be the wrong place to start for an atheist.
I had no idea this so-called "controversy" even existed until I came across several creationist websites a few years ago. So for me it was the right place to start. I can honestly say that I have never come across a creationist objection to evolution that has not been either debunked or fallen prey to counterexample.
DS: And as was pointed out talkorigins contains an extensive list of links to creationist sites as well.
BR: Talkorigins selectively links to creationist sites which they are comfortable with (i.e. don't effectively point out the shortcomings of Evolution).
I can't find any merit to this assertion at all. The talkorigins links are fairly comprehensive. A couple of those links are links to creationist sites that themselves contain dozens of links to other creationist sites. More importantly talkorigins has numerous links to the "intelligent design" websites and discussion boards, which, as far as I can tell, supposedly represent the most formidable intellectual challenge to Darwinism (which isn't saying much).
If you have any creationist links that talkorigins would be uncomfortable with, or especially those that more effectively point out the shortcomings of evolution, please feel free to post them here. In fact the most effective criticisms of Darwinism, as defined by its critics, come from within the community of professional biologists, and are published in peer-reviewed journals. These concern the theoretical aspects of evolution, that is, the molecular and environmental processes by which evolution occurs, obviously a tremendously fruitful area of scientific discourse.
There are numerous objections to the current general consensus within the community of professional biologists, for example those of James Shapiro, a biologist at the University of Chicago. However Shapiro's alternative views do not appeal to supernatural intervention. After all, he is a scientist.
I can't imagine that the proprietors of talkorigins would be "uncomfortable" with Shapiro's views. But like I said if you have any previously unaddressed sources that might cause discomfort to "evolutionists," by all means post them here.
BR: I'd hardly call it an unbiased website, though their bias has become more subtle over the years.
I have no idea what you mean by that. Over the years, it seems to me, talkorigins has taken to engaging the "intelligent design" movement, and in fact the proprietors have established a new site, talkdesign.org, in order to deal specifically with this latest incarnation of creationism.
BR: Just to save you the hassle of rebuttal, I will freely admit that many Creationist sites are biased as well, and many of them contain inaccuracies and so forth.
What an understatement that is!
DS: Indoctrination involves the systematic presentation of ideas that are expected to be accepted uncritically ...
BR: I used the word indoctrination with respect to the discourse on these forums. I still stand by that.
I don't understand that. Maybe I haven't read enough threads here, but I haven't seen any "evolutionists" expecting the information they provide to be accepted uncritically. That's like a Plantinga objection, where he characterizes Michael Ruse as screaming, "Fact, FACT, FACT!"As far as I can tell the creationists here for the most part don't know what they're talking about. Many don't understand the differences among "theory," "fact," "proof," and "evidence." I find this remarkable, and amusing. Call me crazy, but I have this wacky notion that an evolution denier should display at least a passing familiarity with that which he seeks to deny, but I don't see any evidence of that around here.
As for "creationists" posting nothing more than Bible verses and/or pictures and essentially demanding adherence on penalty of eternal torture to whatever statement of "fact" they claim the verses and/or pictures represent, I have seen quite a bit of that. Thankfully I didn't feel the least bit indoctrinated by these Bible verses and pretty pictures, unlike many others, apparently.
DS:it's pretty obvious that if anyone is involved in "indoctrination" here it's the creationists, and that includes the attorney Phillip Johnson and the "intelligent design" crowd as well
BR: Of course, anyone who believes in creation or ID must be indoctrinated, right?
To take a series of myths clearly derived from a much earlier series of "pagan" myths literally, and to insist that the documentary hypothesis is false in the face of hundreds of years of scholarly analysis certainly does require a certain degree of indoctrination, no doubt about it. As for ID I see it trumpeted about here occasionally, but I've never seen it demonstrated that the trumpeters understand what the argument entails. That's not surprising since, for example, William Dembski's "argument" is so thoroughly cloaked in pseudo-scientific jargon (not to mention a certain mean-spirited petulance) I wouldn't expect too many creationists are able to make head nor tail of it.
I thought the argument from design (or to design, as many would have it) was struck dead by Hume and ultimately interred by Darwin but it still seems to be kicking around in certain theological quarters, whose inhabitants are hopefully currently forging ahead into the 19th century.
Upvote
0
BR: Richard Dawkins has humbly informed us that "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not go that far.)" (New York Times)
Ah yes. Dawkins' "humility" is not readily apparent from this particular quotation, which creationists love so dearly. However Dawkins' humility in the face of nature (which is his main concern, not the irritating obfuscations of the creationists that he occasionally lambastes) is indeed readily apparent in his numerous brilliant books on the subject. I wonder how many creationists on this board have actually read any of Dawkins' books. Anyway Dawkins was obviously taking his cue from Theodosius Dobzhansky, who wrote in 1973:
"Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to the evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms."
Dobzhansky's entire article from The American Biology Teacher is here:
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution
For what it's worth, Dobzhansky was a devout Christian. Why is it, I wonder, that one of the greatest population geneticists of the 20th century had no problem reconciling his beliefs as a Christian with his discoveries as a scientist? In fact this is another reason why I find Plantinga's scribblings utterly specious and pointless.
BR: I see where you're going with this train of thought. Creationists do not think critically or logically, if they did, they would immediately accept Evolution.
I never said that. As you know logic is a deductive system and deductive systems proceed from a set of axioms. One could, following Euclid or Spinoza, construct an elaborate and beautiful system of deduction. But if the axioms are false, or bunk, or arbitrary statements of sectarian faith, or non sequiturs or whatever, you have a problem. All the correct deductions in the universe can't save faulty axioms, by definition.
BR: Since I accept Creation, that means I do not think critically or logically. If some of my objections and doubts about Evolution appear valid, then it is my credibility which needs questioning. To do this, you'll ask me what my qualifications are. I will tell you that I have two degrees which are not directly related to biology, you'll say, "See, I knew it! He's not an expert in this area, so obviously his ideas are bunk."
No, I'm not interested in doing any of that. In any case I've never seen any of your objections and/or doubts about evolution.
BR: Sorry if you think if that is an unfair caricature. I've seen it happen way too many times and I've learned my lesson. That's the reason I have chosen not to go in-depth on these forums. If I wanted my ideas attacked by 10 or more people at once, all out to disprove or discredit me in any way possible, I would have just gone straight to the talk.origins newsgroup.
Fair enough.
<snip some agreeable comments for brevity>
DS: Plantinga presupposes a special, elevated position for Christians evaluating science as opposed to non-Christians evaluating science, or, for that matter, as opposed to Christians setting aside their spiritual beliefs in favor of practicing the methodological naturalism that has characterized scientific inquiry for several centuries
BR: Plantinga doesnt presuppose a special "elevated" position at all, he simply gives his opinion on how a Christian should approach these issues. There is nothing "elevated" about it all, it is just different to those who subscribe to methodological naturalism.
Of course you're right, but that's just how it comes across to me, which doesn't really matter since he's apparently not addressing non-Christians. I just find it hard to swallow that Plantinga is "equally enthusiastic" about reason. If he really was, he wouldn't be a Christian, but that's just my opinion: Plantinga's remark smacks of cognitive dissonance. I also find it interesting that Plantinga is often careful to qualify his references to Christians in general by referring to "Reformed Christians" and "serious Christians" and "well-intentioned Christians" and "sensible Christians," as opposed to "Orthodox Christians," "frivolous Christians," "Christians with bad intentions" and "nonsensical Christians," I guess. I find that funny too, but that's just me.
At any rate you are correct, Plantinga isn't addressing me. But Plantinga is something of a spiritual godfather to the "intelligent design" movement in the U.S. This is what steams me. Rather than proposing a positive scientific research program, the ID people are generally performing a religious, philosophical, and especially political end-run in order to move their agenda forward. I have a serious problem with that, and that is why I view Plantinga's musings with a greater degree of skepticism than they may facially warrant.
BR: As for Christians setting aside their spiritual beliefs for methodological naturalism, you are asking the impossible.
Why? Scientists who are Christians do it all the time. I am positive there are many Christians that seek to pursue scientific findings under the same methodological criteria as atheists, and simply beyond that the Christian finds nourishment for his faith in the marvels of nature uncovered by method. This is what I am talking about. In science all practitioners regardless of faith can find common ground in methodological naturalism. Beyond that everyone is free to draw whatever philosophical inferences feel right.
BR: It would be like me asking a atheist to set aside his or her belief in naturalism or materialism. IMHO, a Christian must, by necessity, reject a sole reliance on naturalism for his explanation of things internal to the universe (though Van Till might disagree with me here) and reject it altogether for things external (e.g. it's value, governance and purpose -- nearly all Christians would agree on this). Christian theism and perennial naturalism are incompatible.
Oh well. It's not me you need to convince of this. It's McMullin, Dobzhansky, Kenneth Miller, etc., etc. Although there is no question that Darwinism has raised profound philosophical and theological concerns they are not strictly speaking inherent in either the method or the observations. That the sky is blue is a fact upon which we can both agree. That the sky is blue due to a combination of the properties of light and the earth's atmosphere and so forth can also be explained to our common satisfaction. That you might conclude that the fact the sky is blue is evidence of the magnificence and beauty of the Christian God's special creation is fine too, but it has nothing to do with science.
<snip more clarifications of Plantinga's views, upon which we agree>
BR: But why shouldn't schools in America be allowed to teach Creation or ID if they wish to?
Private schools in America can teach whatever they like. But private schools that teach creationism run at least two risks: They will not receive academic accreditation, and they produce scientific illiterates unequipped to enter university biology programs. However the Constitution forbids the endorsement of particular religious views by government schools. Since creationism by and large proceeds directly from so called holy scripture, creationism has been deemed inappropriate for inclusion in public school biology curricula by the courts on numerous occasions.
If I'm not mistaken the courts have yet to directly address the issue of "intelligent design," since it hasn't been incorporated into any public school biology curricula yet. A couple of years ago the state of Kansas amended its science standards to delete references to evolution (and big bang cosmology and even the age of the earth) and attempt to incorporate "intelligent design" within those standards. The elected representatives that did so were turfed out in the 2000 Republican primaries, since, among other things, they had made Kansas an international laughing stock (according to even the Governor of Kansas, and prominent members of the state business community, by the way), and the previous science standards were ultimately reinstated.
I don't know how familiar you are with American politics, but the Republican Party is the main haven for social conservatives, among whom one will find the most virulent strain of anti-evolutionist. The interesting thing about the Kansas debacle is that the anti-evolutionists on the Kansas board of education were Republicans, and were themselves defeated by other Republicans in the primaries, that is, the process by which political parties select their candidates for various offices. So despite all the ridiculous assertions by anti-evolutionists of every stripe that Darwinism represents some sort of evil liberal indoctrination plot, it was the embarrassment within this party of social conservatives itself that led to the overthrow of the anti-evolutionist board members.
Ah yes. Dawkins' "humility" is not readily apparent from this particular quotation, which creationists love so dearly. However Dawkins' humility in the face of nature (which is his main concern, not the irritating obfuscations of the creationists that he occasionally lambastes) is indeed readily apparent in his numerous brilliant books on the subject. I wonder how many creationists on this board have actually read any of Dawkins' books. Anyway Dawkins was obviously taking his cue from Theodosius Dobzhansky, who wrote in 1973:
"Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to the evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms."
Dobzhansky's entire article from The American Biology Teacher is here:
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution
For what it's worth, Dobzhansky was a devout Christian. Why is it, I wonder, that one of the greatest population geneticists of the 20th century had no problem reconciling his beliefs as a Christian with his discoveries as a scientist? In fact this is another reason why I find Plantinga's scribblings utterly specious and pointless.
BR: I see where you're going with this train of thought. Creationists do not think critically or logically, if they did, they would immediately accept Evolution.
I never said that. As you know logic is a deductive system and deductive systems proceed from a set of axioms. One could, following Euclid or Spinoza, construct an elaborate and beautiful system of deduction. But if the axioms are false, or bunk, or arbitrary statements of sectarian faith, or non sequiturs or whatever, you have a problem. All the correct deductions in the universe can't save faulty axioms, by definition.
BR: Since I accept Creation, that means I do not think critically or logically. If some of my objections and doubts about Evolution appear valid, then it is my credibility which needs questioning. To do this, you'll ask me what my qualifications are. I will tell you that I have two degrees which are not directly related to biology, you'll say, "See, I knew it! He's not an expert in this area, so obviously his ideas are bunk."
No, I'm not interested in doing any of that. In any case I've never seen any of your objections and/or doubts about evolution.
BR: Sorry if you think if that is an unfair caricature. I've seen it happen way too many times and I've learned my lesson. That's the reason I have chosen not to go in-depth on these forums. If I wanted my ideas attacked by 10 or more people at once, all out to disprove or discredit me in any way possible, I would have just gone straight to the talk.origins newsgroup.
Fair enough.
<snip some agreeable comments for brevity>
DS: Plantinga presupposes a special, elevated position for Christians evaluating science as opposed to non-Christians evaluating science, or, for that matter, as opposed to Christians setting aside their spiritual beliefs in favor of practicing the methodological naturalism that has characterized scientific inquiry for several centuries
BR: Plantinga doesnt presuppose a special "elevated" position at all, he simply gives his opinion on how a Christian should approach these issues. There is nothing "elevated" about it all, it is just different to those who subscribe to methodological naturalism.
Of course you're right, but that's just how it comes across to me, which doesn't really matter since he's apparently not addressing non-Christians. I just find it hard to swallow that Plantinga is "equally enthusiastic" about reason. If he really was, he wouldn't be a Christian, but that's just my opinion: Plantinga's remark smacks of cognitive dissonance. I also find it interesting that Plantinga is often careful to qualify his references to Christians in general by referring to "Reformed Christians" and "serious Christians" and "well-intentioned Christians" and "sensible Christians," as opposed to "Orthodox Christians," "frivolous Christians," "Christians with bad intentions" and "nonsensical Christians," I guess. I find that funny too, but that's just me.
At any rate you are correct, Plantinga isn't addressing me. But Plantinga is something of a spiritual godfather to the "intelligent design" movement in the U.S. This is what steams me. Rather than proposing a positive scientific research program, the ID people are generally performing a religious, philosophical, and especially political end-run in order to move their agenda forward. I have a serious problem with that, and that is why I view Plantinga's musings with a greater degree of skepticism than they may facially warrant.
BR: As for Christians setting aside their spiritual beliefs for methodological naturalism, you are asking the impossible.
Why? Scientists who are Christians do it all the time. I am positive there are many Christians that seek to pursue scientific findings under the same methodological criteria as atheists, and simply beyond that the Christian finds nourishment for his faith in the marvels of nature uncovered by method. This is what I am talking about. In science all practitioners regardless of faith can find common ground in methodological naturalism. Beyond that everyone is free to draw whatever philosophical inferences feel right.
BR: It would be like me asking a atheist to set aside his or her belief in naturalism or materialism. IMHO, a Christian must, by necessity, reject a sole reliance on naturalism for his explanation of things internal to the universe (though Van Till might disagree with me here) and reject it altogether for things external (e.g. it's value, governance and purpose -- nearly all Christians would agree on this). Christian theism and perennial naturalism are incompatible.
Oh well. It's not me you need to convince of this. It's McMullin, Dobzhansky, Kenneth Miller, etc., etc. Although there is no question that Darwinism has raised profound philosophical and theological concerns they are not strictly speaking inherent in either the method or the observations. That the sky is blue is a fact upon which we can both agree. That the sky is blue due to a combination of the properties of light and the earth's atmosphere and so forth can also be explained to our common satisfaction. That you might conclude that the fact the sky is blue is evidence of the magnificence and beauty of the Christian God's special creation is fine too, but it has nothing to do with science.
<snip more clarifications of Plantinga's views, upon which we agree>
BR: But why shouldn't schools in America be allowed to teach Creation or ID if they wish to?
Private schools in America can teach whatever they like. But private schools that teach creationism run at least two risks: They will not receive academic accreditation, and they produce scientific illiterates unequipped to enter university biology programs. However the Constitution forbids the endorsement of particular religious views by government schools. Since creationism by and large proceeds directly from so called holy scripture, creationism has been deemed inappropriate for inclusion in public school biology curricula by the courts on numerous occasions.
If I'm not mistaken the courts have yet to directly address the issue of "intelligent design," since it hasn't been incorporated into any public school biology curricula yet. A couple of years ago the state of Kansas amended its science standards to delete references to evolution (and big bang cosmology and even the age of the earth) and attempt to incorporate "intelligent design" within those standards. The elected representatives that did so were turfed out in the 2000 Republican primaries, since, among other things, they had made Kansas an international laughing stock (according to even the Governor of Kansas, and prominent members of the state business community, by the way), and the previous science standards were ultimately reinstated.
I don't know how familiar you are with American politics, but the Republican Party is the main haven for social conservatives, among whom one will find the most virulent strain of anti-evolutionist. The interesting thing about the Kansas debacle is that the anti-evolutionists on the Kansas board of education were Republicans, and were themselves defeated by other Republicans in the primaries, that is, the process by which political parties select their candidates for various offices. So despite all the ridiculous assertions by anti-evolutionists of every stripe that Darwinism represents some sort of evil liberal indoctrination plot, it was the embarrassment within this party of social conservatives itself that led to the overthrow of the anti-evolutionist board members.
Upvote
0
BR: ID is a testable hypothesis, not by Popperian Falsification, but by Probabilistic inferences which conform to the standards of quantitive research methodology (see this article: Is Creationism Scientifically Testable?).
Interesting article, containing an absurd statement equating evolutionary biology with Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxism in terms of Popperian Falsificationism. This is a clever but entirely misleading restatement of Popper's objections to the former two systems in light of his comparisons with contemporary experiments that lent empirical credence to Einstein's theory of gravitation. Of course evolutionary theory can be falsified, not least by, to quote J.B.S. Haldane's famous example, the production of one pre-Cambrian rabbit.
If you can come up with some evidence from the fossil record or from molecular studies that even remotely contradicts, let alone falsifies, common descent, we'd all like to see it.
As for your assertion that "ID is a testable hypothesis," show us one article from the peer-reviewed literature that presents such a hypothesis. I can save you the trouble: there aren't any. If you have access to the literature databases you can perform an experiment yourself by searching for "intelligent design" or "design theory" or "irreducible complexity" or what have you. You'll come up with little more than a handful of negative reviews of Darwin's Black Box. More importantly you will find an article from Philosophy of Science by Shanks and Joplin, in which the authors, a biologist and a philosopher of biology, carefully following Behe's criteria, provide an effective and detailed counterexample to Michael Behe's claims. Behe's subsequent response in the same journal is telling as well, in which he lamely adjusts the definition of certain components of his "irreducible complexity" model. In fact this is what Behe has been doing for the last seven years: shifting the goalposts, in the best tradition of creationist "thought."
Although the epistemological musings of philosophers of science is a fascinating field of inquiry it's worth noting that the best test of what science is can be derived from observing what scientists do. Even Thomas Kuhn, another of the creationists' favorite philosophers of science (for all the wrong reasons), stressed the existence of refereed journals as evidence of what science is. That the ID proponents have utterly failed to present a positive research program in the pages of any of the hundreds of related journals speaks volumes for the fact that the ID program is solely a theological and ultimately, at least in the U.S., political project.
BR: Maybe it belongs in the logic or statistic curriculum (as the previous article suggests), but in any case, I see no reason, especially in a predominately Christian society why students should not be exposed to ID. In fact I would object if they were not exposed to it and were taught that Evolution was a "scientific" fact instead, and would vote with my feet, just as you might do if the school did the opposite.
I totally agree that these issues should be presented in the public school curriculum. They are suitable topics for comparative religion and philosophy classes. But until the ID crowd presents a positive research program, or presents hard evidence in support of its claims, it has as much business in a biology class as the creation myths of the Sumerians or the Navajo.
BR: It seems slightly arrogant to me to insist that ID should not be taught in a country like America where the overwhelming majority of people are Christians.
That the overwhelming majority of Americans are self-described "Christians" has little to do with constitutional principles. The United States is not, strictly speaking, a democracy. James Madison, the framer of the First Amendment, which contains the establishment of religion clause, dealt at length with the issue you raise in Federalist # 10.
Your statement, however, is precisely the reason the "intelligent design" crowd deliberately avoids scientific peer review, preferring instead to make populist appeals to the widespread ignorance of most Americans on issues related to the philosophy and methods of science. Does it seem quite as arrogant to you, given perhaps that the overwhelming majority of Americans may believe that the geometry of the cosmos controls their earthly destinies and love lives, that astrologers are not teaching physics classes in American universities? To me the question is directly analogous.
<snip for brevity>
DS: It's important to know where the overwhelming majority of devotees to the latest incarnation of creationism, "intelligent design," are coming from: arbitrary Christian presuppositionalism.
BR: Intelligent design is not a new incarnation of Creationism, it is a formation of one particular part of Creationism into a testable hypothesis (via Probabilistic inferences) as a response to the claims that there is no way to test for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
As far as I know the "intelligent design" crowd has been at it for at least ten years, or two hundred if you count William Paley, and thus far have utterly failed to provide such a "testable hypothesis." If you read the so-called "Wedge Document" you will find that the IDers have completely ignored their "Phase I" strategy, and have instead concentrated on a political and religious public relations campaign.
Additionally they have heavily relied on largely specious legal arguments, and at a recent ID conference in the U.S. an ID proponent (an attorney - for some reason they have more attorneys than scientists at their disposal) declared that it if ID efforts currently underway to incorporate ID into the science standards of Ohio fail, IDers will seek legislative relief and ultimately expect the issue to be decided by the federal courts. I have read some philosophy of science, but I have never come across this particular strategy before.
<snip for brevity>
BR: Has it occurred to you that maybe the fact that the overwhelmingly majority of people in the world believe in the supernatural is evidence that it does exist?
No. And frankly I'm surprised that an intelligent observer such as yourself would invoke this rather egregious logical fallacy. Surely you have better arguments than this. In fact I know you do.
At any rate there is no need to reply to any of this, Ben. However, thank you very much for your extremely thoughtful remarks. I must say you are far and away one of the more articulate and informed participants at this board.
Interesting article, containing an absurd statement equating evolutionary biology with Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxism in terms of Popperian Falsificationism. This is a clever but entirely misleading restatement of Popper's objections to the former two systems in light of his comparisons with contemporary experiments that lent empirical credence to Einstein's theory of gravitation. Of course evolutionary theory can be falsified, not least by, to quote J.B.S. Haldane's famous example, the production of one pre-Cambrian rabbit.
If you can come up with some evidence from the fossil record or from molecular studies that even remotely contradicts, let alone falsifies, common descent, we'd all like to see it.
As for your assertion that "ID is a testable hypothesis," show us one article from the peer-reviewed literature that presents such a hypothesis. I can save you the trouble: there aren't any. If you have access to the literature databases you can perform an experiment yourself by searching for "intelligent design" or "design theory" or "irreducible complexity" or what have you. You'll come up with little more than a handful of negative reviews of Darwin's Black Box. More importantly you will find an article from Philosophy of Science by Shanks and Joplin, in which the authors, a biologist and a philosopher of biology, carefully following Behe's criteria, provide an effective and detailed counterexample to Michael Behe's claims. Behe's subsequent response in the same journal is telling as well, in which he lamely adjusts the definition of certain components of his "irreducible complexity" model. In fact this is what Behe has been doing for the last seven years: shifting the goalposts, in the best tradition of creationist "thought."
Although the epistemological musings of philosophers of science is a fascinating field of inquiry it's worth noting that the best test of what science is can be derived from observing what scientists do. Even Thomas Kuhn, another of the creationists' favorite philosophers of science (for all the wrong reasons), stressed the existence of refereed journals as evidence of what science is. That the ID proponents have utterly failed to present a positive research program in the pages of any of the hundreds of related journals speaks volumes for the fact that the ID program is solely a theological and ultimately, at least in the U.S., political project.
BR: Maybe it belongs in the logic or statistic curriculum (as the previous article suggests), but in any case, I see no reason, especially in a predominately Christian society why students should not be exposed to ID. In fact I would object if they were not exposed to it and were taught that Evolution was a "scientific" fact instead, and would vote with my feet, just as you might do if the school did the opposite.
I totally agree that these issues should be presented in the public school curriculum. They are suitable topics for comparative religion and philosophy classes. But until the ID crowd presents a positive research program, or presents hard evidence in support of its claims, it has as much business in a biology class as the creation myths of the Sumerians or the Navajo.
BR: It seems slightly arrogant to me to insist that ID should not be taught in a country like America where the overwhelming majority of people are Christians.
That the overwhelming majority of Americans are self-described "Christians" has little to do with constitutional principles. The United States is not, strictly speaking, a democracy. James Madison, the framer of the First Amendment, which contains the establishment of religion clause, dealt at length with the issue you raise in Federalist # 10.
Your statement, however, is precisely the reason the "intelligent design" crowd deliberately avoids scientific peer review, preferring instead to make populist appeals to the widespread ignorance of most Americans on issues related to the philosophy and methods of science. Does it seem quite as arrogant to you, given perhaps that the overwhelming majority of Americans may believe that the geometry of the cosmos controls their earthly destinies and love lives, that astrologers are not teaching physics classes in American universities? To me the question is directly analogous.
<snip for brevity>
DS: It's important to know where the overwhelming majority of devotees to the latest incarnation of creationism, "intelligent design," are coming from: arbitrary Christian presuppositionalism.
BR: Intelligent design is not a new incarnation of Creationism, it is a formation of one particular part of Creationism into a testable hypothesis (via Probabilistic inferences) as a response to the claims that there is no way to test for the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
As far as I know the "intelligent design" crowd has been at it for at least ten years, or two hundred if you count William Paley, and thus far have utterly failed to provide such a "testable hypothesis." If you read the so-called "Wedge Document" you will find that the IDers have completely ignored their "Phase I" strategy, and have instead concentrated on a political and religious public relations campaign.
Additionally they have heavily relied on largely specious legal arguments, and at a recent ID conference in the U.S. an ID proponent (an attorney - for some reason they have more attorneys than scientists at their disposal) declared that it if ID efforts currently underway to incorporate ID into the science standards of Ohio fail, IDers will seek legislative relief and ultimately expect the issue to be decided by the federal courts. I have read some philosophy of science, but I have never come across this particular strategy before.
<snip for brevity>
BR: Has it occurred to you that maybe the fact that the overwhelmingly majority of people in the world believe in the supernatural is evidence that it does exist?
No. And frankly I'm surprised that an intelligent observer such as yourself would invoke this rather egregious logical fallacy. Surely you have better arguments than this. In fact I know you do.
At any rate there is no need to reply to any of this, Ben. However, thank you very much for your extremely thoughtful remarks. I must say you are far and away one of the more articulate and informed participants at this board.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
