Jerry Coyne continues to demonstrate the sophistry that characterizes evolutionary thought, this time dealing with the problem of evil. Coyne begins his pretzel logic with the caution: "Now I’m no philosopher, but ..." and he ends it with: "But this is amateur philosophizing." Of course between these two ersatz caveats Coyne does not hesitate to pronounce truths. In other words, the evolutionist doesn't know what he is talking about, but talk he will. His ignorance is exceeded only by his certainty.Coyne begins by failing to state a problem. He introduces the problem of evil as the question: Why does evil exist if god is all powerful and all good? That's a question, not a problem. It becomes a problem only when we acknowledge the unspoken premise that such a god would not allow evil.
This religious premise is implicit in Coyne's problem of evil just as religious premises are implicit in evolution. Pseudogenes, the mosquito, similarities between species and the design of orchids all prove evolution. How could this be so? As always, a crucial unspoken premise lurks--god (or a designer) wouldn't create such things.
Metaphysics are ubiquitous in evolutionary thought. Evolutionists claim evolution is a fact, and all proofs of evolution are metaphysical. There are many arguments proving that evolution is a fact, and all of them entail metaphysical premises.
And yet evolutionists are in denial of their own metaphysics. They hide their crucial premises and claim that the "fact" of evolution is a scientific conclusion.
Coyne's sophmoric treatment of the problem of evil (I won't mention the other problems as they are less relevant to evolution) parallels the arguments for evolution. Religion drives science, and it matters.
How are transitional fossils based on "metaphysical premises?" Or, for example genomic comparisons? How is it metaphysical to look at a cetacean's genome and after discovering that they have remnants of genes for producing legs and for respiring on land conclude that this is good evidence that they are descended from terrestrial organisms? Furthermore, is it metaphysical to look at the limb buds they produce during development?
ReplyDeleteIt is not that the probability of the evidence on evolution is high, but rather that the probability of the evidence on creation is low. Therefore, this sort of evidence you cite dramatically increases the probability that evolution is true, using what Sober refers to as Darwin's Principle of reasoning.
ReplyDeleteIt increases the probability of evolution to the point that they can reasonably claim evolution is true. One point of consensus amongst evolutionists is that evolution is true, and that claim entails metaphysical premises (for example, used in interpreting the probability of the data given creation). For more explanation see this:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/sober-rebukes-evolutions-religion.html
If the metaphysics were left out, then evolutionists would have to use scientific reasoning. They would be left with a list of fulfilled predictions and of falsified predictions, and there would be no basis for claiming evolution is true.
How are transitional fossils based on "metaphysical premises?"
ReplyDeleteMetaphysical premise no. 1: That things that look similar and lie vertically apart in the fossil record, must have evolved from each other.
Metaphysical premise no. 2: That things that look similar and lie vertically apart in the fossil record, cannot be explained by any other theory apart from evolution
Metaphysical premise no. 3: Any explanation that does not fall under the rubric of naturalism, is to be disregarded.
While not exactly metaphysical, your statement does involve an enthymematic syllogism. As it stands your bare statement doesn’t tell you anything. It need to be filled in and should be stated as:
1. If evolution is true then there will be transitional fossils
2. Look, I can see transitional fossils
3. Therefore, evolution is true
But hang on. Isn’t the above conclusion an invalid on? Of course it is! It is a formal fallacy called Affirming the Consequent. There may well be other explanations why there are so-called transitional fossils apart from evolution being a fact, as I've already mentioned.
It has got nothing to do with metaphysical claims.
ReplyDeleteThe hypothesis is universal common descent.
Right, in the case of cetaceans, they are mammals and for them to be genealogically related to other mammals (and ultimately the rest of life) they would have to be descended from organisms that lived on land.
OK, let's test the idea that cetaceans are descended from land animals.
Prediction 1 - We would expect their genome to show signs of prior adaptation to terrestrial life.
Outcome; hypothesis confirmed, common descent not rejected.
Prediction 2 - We would expect that they still exhibit signs of terrestrial adaptation during development.
Outcome; hypothesis confirmed, common descent not rejected.
Prediction 3 - There should be a series of transitional fossils linking cetaceans to terrestrial mammals, and they should be approximately temporally arranged in the fossil record.
Outcome; fossils exist, hypothesis confirmed, common descent not rejected.
So we do have converging lines of evidence for the idea that whales are descended from terrestrial mammals. It's not 'proof' but it is fairly convincing, risky (and apparently rather counter-intuitive) predictions have been made and are confirmed.
Now, could there be some other explanation for the evidence? Sure, but nobody appears to be proposing anything here.
And John, your first two metaphysical premises are just flat wrong, and your third one needs to be altered in order to be accurate.
"It has got nothing to do with metaphysical claims."
ReplyDeleteOf course it does. You cannot take a theory that has substantial scientific problems, call it true by virtue of metaphysical premises, and then say you have nothing to do with metaphysical claims.
"OK, let's test the idea that cetaceans are descended from land animals.
Prediction 1 - We would expect their genome to show signs of prior adaptation to terrestrial life."
That's a false retrodiction. Evolution would not be harmed if no such evidence of adaptation was found.
Prediction 2 - We would expect that they still exhibit signs of terrestrial adaptation during development.
Ditto.
"common descent not rejected."
True, because evolutionists ignore falsified predictions and substantial scientific problems.
"So we do have converging lines of evidence for the idea that whales are descended from terrestrial mammals."
True, when the evidence is carefully selected.
"It's not 'proof' but it is fairly convincing, risky (and apparently rather counter-intuitive) predictions have been made and are confirmed."
Evolution is not "fairly convincing." It is "true." Remember? Why is it that evolutionists always move the goal posts when skeptics come around?
Please have a look at the post on the Sober paper:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/sober-rebukes-evolutions-religion.html
I have always thought that arguments about 'bad designs' and such things were terrible. It really is not convincing to say "a designer would not have done it this way." The fact is we simply have no idea how a designer would have done it (much less one with unlimited supernatural powers we can't even imagine), and that is why I don't think design is a scientific hypothesis. Scientists should simply focus on evolution and what it predicts; transitional fossils, genomic patterns etc. We do know what evolution should look like; we can test the idea for example that the chimpanzee genome and the human genome were once both the same (in a common ancestor) and as far as I can see from testing this there are no grounds for rejecting it. Pondering how a supernatural being might have been involved in producing what we see is just impossible; there is no way to tell one way or the other.
ReplyDelete"I have always thought that arguments about 'bad designs' and such things were terrible."
ReplyDeleteMy concern is not so much with the evolutionists' metaphysical assumptions, but with their denial.
Anon,
ReplyDelete1."Scientists should simply focus on evolution and what it predicts"
The normally understood definition of 'predictions' - and science is no exception - are events or phenomena which WILL happen, not things which have happened. It's awfully difficult to "test" the past whe no one was there to witness it in the same way you test, say, something in the lab which can be done over and over again. You're talking about history, not science.
So what are some testable predictions based on evolution which are yet to happen?
2. "we can test the idea for example that the chimpanzee genome and the human genome were once both the same (in a common ancestor) and as far as I can see from testing this there are no grounds for rejecting it."
Just how do you genetically test (and test generally) for a putative ancestor of chimps and man when it putatively died off millions of years ago? How do you falsify such a statement as yours?
The key is not so much similarity - all things have common characteristics and a common genetic code - but proving as a matter of past history that one thing evolved from another.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteRe your 3 cetacean predictions, can you provide the conditions under which these 3 would be falsified? This would make evolution a much more robust explanation. Also, just in case evolution isn't true, then we would be more alert to this possibility. After all, isn't that what science demands?
Evolution only addresses the development of life. It does not address origins. Yet naturalists are content with the answer "we hoep to have an answer for yuo someday" one the questions of origins. They prefer no answer to one that is not rigidly naturalistic. That's a philisophical position.
ReplyDeleteI am a bit confused, Anon. I'm not talking about the very beginning of life i.e. X bya, but when life was branching, according to the evolutionary tale.
ReplyDeleteSo, would you like to take a crack at my challenges?
It is my understanding that the pelvis of the whales serves to support the reproductive organs, they currently serve another purpose. And the vestigal genes might serve some purpose not yet known. This appears to be the case with most of the junk DNA.
ReplyDelete1. And the transitional fossils are not actually the transitional species. The details of their anatomy make them unlikely candidates for the ancestors of modern whales. They might have the ancestral condition, but the real ancestors are still missing. This often happens with transitianl fossils. Just recently IDA was demoted from human ancestor to side branch. Archaeopteryx is no linger considered a link between theropods dinsaurs and birds because of significant differences in anatomy. The real transition is unknown.
And there are anywhere 2 to 10 million species trhat exist now. There are anywhere from 20 million to 1 billion species that are now extinct. If each one was the product of evolution, I would expect to see a lot more transtional fossils than the 3 dozen or so known.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteI'm confused. Did you not rhetorically ask: "How is it metaphysical to look at a cetacean's genome and after discovering that they have remnants of genes for producing legs and for respiring on land conclude that this is good evidence that they are descended from terrestrial organisms?"
If you did, can you provide me with the documentation for this claim?