Thursday, March 11, 2010

Evolutionist Say the Darndest Things, Part II

Evolution, say evolutionists, is both fact and theory. It is a fact in the sense that we know it occurred. It is a theory in the sense that we don't know how it occurred. The theory part seems obvious enough. The biological evidence reveals many problems for evolution and so we don't know how it could have occurred. But if we don't know how it occurred, how is it that we know that it did occur?

The answer to this question is obvious. For two thousand years Christians have debated the relative importance of primary versus secondary causation--miracles versus laws. Evolutionary thought arises from the secondary causation camp. It is a rather extreme position, mandating that the world's origins must have occurred strictly via naturalistic causes. From Roman Catholics such as Nicolas Malebranche to Anglicans such as Thomas Burnet and John Ray to Lutherans such as Gottfried Leibniz and Christian Wolff, seventeenth and eighteenth century evolutionary thought was not merely growing, it was supremely confident. Here is a typical example of this sentiment, as expressed by Wolff, a leading Lutheran theologian between Leibniz and Kant:

The natural way, as the superior way, must always be preferred over the way of miracles, and therefore miracles cannot occur except where God cannot achieve his goal in the natural way.

And by the way, as Wolff explained, there are no such instances except in the initial creation act. Enlightenment thinking mandated evolution, one way or another. Darwinian thought was the result. It lies safely within this genre of thought, and Darwin rehearsed the many Enlightment mandates for naturalism in his arguments for the new theory of biological origins.

Today nothing has changed. Evolutionists share the metaphysical certainty of their progenitors from earlier centuries, and their proofs are based on those same Enlightenment beliefs about what god would and wouldn't do.

None of this is speculative. Anyone can read what the evolutionists have been saying. From Thomas Burnet three centuries ago to Ken Miller and Jerry Coyne today, the writings of evolutionists are available for all to see. They are certain of evolution, and their reasoning is religious. Evolutionists give plenty of proofs for their certainty, and the proofs always entail metaphysical assumptions which are imposed on the science.

But a curious thing happens when evolutionists are confronted with their own words. When you repeat back what they have been saying for centuries, and what their proofs are based on, they suddenly deny their entire thesis. None of this, according to evolutionists, is relevant. All those arguments for why evolution is a fact, they were just an aside. All those metaphysical interpretations of the evidence that contorted biology, they are meaningless.

Upon sober reflection, it seems that all the theological and philosophical arguments, used for so many centuries, actually have nothing to do with evolution. Those statements, after all, were made in haste. And those evolutionists who made them were simply lazy, or angry, or both. And weren't those statements merely retorts to those creationists in the opposing camp?

Certainly you will find no such statements being made today by serious evolutionists. Wrong. Certainly you will find no such statements being made today in serious textbooks. Wrong. Certainly such statements play no role today in evolutionary thought. Wrong.

Of course evolution's metaphysics are in opposition to the creationists. That's the whole point. Evolution's traction arises in its contrastive reasoning. The creationists are wrong, so we're right. It is not the metaphysics that are irrelevant, rather, it is the evidential problems that are irrelevant.

Evolutionists are certain of their theory, and their certainty arises from their metaphysical position. They cannot then drop the metaphysics and maintain the certainty.

34 comments:

  1. Oh, and you are oh-so-open minded, aren't you! You just say the same thing over and over again, in post after post, with no subtlety, no consideration of the various things that a particular evolutionist might mean by a statement, no consideration of whether or not a particular statement is reasonable. You've condemned even totally standard statistical hypothesis testing, used in all of science not just in evolution, as being unjustified metaphysical and religious dogma.

    Now you're calling people in the 1600s evolutionists. Good luck with that!

    ReplyDelete
  2. And, by the same logic, physicists are also repeating the seventeenth-century philosophical musings. After all, physics is all about secondary causes!

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Now you're calling people in the 1600s evolutionists."

    Especially the ones that believe the earth must be hollow to contain the water from Noah's flood. Clearly a Darwinian prediction....

    ReplyDelete
  4. "You've condemned even totally standard statistical hypothesis testing, used in all of science not just in evolution, as being unjustified metaphysical and religious dogma."

    Statistical proofs for the evolution of complexity from a non-living matter all the way to a complex organism are speculative at best, mostly likely wrong at worst. In fact, most "proofs" for evolution are equivocations such as, "natural seleciton exists, therefore it was the mechanism that evolved complexity". That's about as lame as saying throwing rocks at automobiles modify them, thus throwing rocks is the mechanism that created the complexity of automobiles....

    I'll give you a statistical test that can be carried out in principle. How many new proteint-protein binding sites are being created by evolutionary processes in the the current year versus the number being lost (include all species). A sampling method might do.

    I presume the empirical result will show a decrease in protein-protein binding sites over time. If so, evolution isn't working so well now. Why then would anyone expect it on scientific grounds to have worked in the past.

    This is reasonable evidence a different mechanism was in play in the past. One which we may not have access to. At the very least, Darwinism is not the primary mechanism.

    What I see from Miller and Coyne and Darwin are theological arguments. Not scientific deductions like one would see for the accepted laws of physics.

    Even if there is no intelligent designer, the major claims of Darwinism are unlikely to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As is often the case, defenders of Darwinism seem unable to understand metaphysical or epistemological criticism of their world view. Thus the circularity of their reasoning is invisible to them.

    Assuming that a naturalistic world view is correct, evolution by natural means is the only possible explanation for the phenomena we observe. Since the naturalistic explanation is necessarily correct, it confirms the world view that produced it.

    Since the world view is confirmed, no recourse to metaphysics, epistemology, or -horrors! - religion is required or even relevant. Evolution by natural means is a fact. The naturalistic world view is a fact. Each proves the other. But only to true believers.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I'll give you a statistical test that can be carried out in principle. How many new protein-protein binding sites are being created by evolutionary processes in the the current year versus the number being lost (include all species). A sampling method might do.

    I presume the empirical result will show a decrease in protein-protein binding sites over time. If so, evolution isn't working so well now."

    Well, that is ridiculous with today's knowledge and technology (1. Define all binding sites 2. Sequence the total genome of all organisms over time), but why don't you and some of your buddies at the DI actually do that experiment?

    Since that actual experiment is absurd, you could infer the result from phylogenetics of sequenced organisms, like actual scientists do all the time. Ill give you a hint-most of the novel protein-protein interfaces come about following gene duplication and divergence. This is why modules like PHD fingers, TPR repeats, etc., etc., are so prevalent.

    As a second hint, loss of function of anything essential or selected for probably won't be observed on a population level, so maybe you'll need to look at individual dead embryos or something. You see, those mutations get selected out.

    But hey, go ahead-doing either would beat whining over how actual scientists doing actual experiments are so horribly theological.

    I await the results.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "As is often the case, defenders of Darwinism seem unable to understand metaphysical or epistemological criticism of their world view. Thus the circularity of their reasoning is invisible to them."

    "If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
    -Hume

    Ahh yes-I should reject actual data for your metaphysical objections.

    There is a reason one can be a Theistic Evolutionist, or be a Atheistic Evolutionist, or neutral, or whatever. That is because evolutionary biology is a scientific program unconcerned with these things. That is not to say that these are worthless questions, but as Papper put it--metaphysical statements are not meaningless statements, but rather not fallible, testable or provable statements

    That is, neither empirical observations nor logical arguments could falsify metaphysical statements to show them to be true or false. Hence, a metaphysical statement usually implies an idea about the world or about the universe, which may be reasonable but is ultimately not empirically testable.

    Design, theistic evolution, atheism, etc. fall under these. Perhaps some philosophers and scientists have used what is understood about evolution to discuss metaphysical claims, or to refute others when pressed. Apparently, these have touched a nerve.

    However, to call the whole endeavor of evolution, built on methodological naturalism a religion, is absurd. We should make no recourse to religion in teaching or studying biology, astronomy, physics, or economics, for that matter.

    What people profess elsewhere, on both sides, is their own business.

    By the way, it is funny how each new guest to the site parrots the same line. Do you guys have talking points, or are you taking the same class somewhere? "Circular logic, metaphysical, strawman, therefore evolution is religion blah blah..."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dr Hunter

    The creationists are wrong...

    At last something we can agree on! The evidence that the Earth is over 4.5 billion years old is incontrovertible.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Of course evolution's metaphysics are in opposition to the creationists. That's the whole point. Evolution's traction arises in its contrastive reasoning. The creationists are wrong, so we're right. It is not the metaphysics that are irrelevant, rather, it is the evidential problems that are irrelevant."

    If one understands 'creationism' and 'evolutionism' in the broadest senses:
    *) 'creationism' as "God did it"
    *) 'evolutionism' as "God didn't do it"
    then, clearly, one is right and one is wrong. So, if one can establish that one or the other broad -ism is incorrect, then one has established that the other is correct.

    However, simply saying, "They're stupid! So we're right!" (as most evolutionists, and some creationists do) does nothing to establish which broad -ism is correct and which incorrect.

    ===
    Amusingly, the Word Verification for this post was "sinful"

    ReplyDelete
  10. Alan Fox (engaging in "quote mining"): "{Dr Hunter:] The creationists are wrong...

    [Alan Fox:] At last something we can agree on! The evidence that the Earth is over 4.5 billion years old is incontrovertible.
    "

    Well! Since "the evolutionists" are transparently dishonest, I guess "the creationists" win!

    ReplyDelete
  11. STJones: "As is often the case, defenders of Darwinism seem unable to understand metaphysical or epistemological criticism of their world view. Thus the circularity of their reasoning is invisible to them.

    Assuming that a naturalistic world view is correct, evolution by natural means is the only possible explanation for the phenomena we observe. Since the naturalistic explanation is necessarily correct, it confirms the world view that produced it.

    Since the world view is confirmed, no recourse to metaphysics, epistemology, or -horrors! - religion is required or even relevant. Evolution by natural means is a fact. The naturalistic world view is a fact. Each proves the other. But only to true believers.
    "

    And the DarwinDefenders are the smart set (we can know this is so because they continuously tell us so).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well! Since "the evolutionists" are transparently dishonest, I guess "the creationists" win!

    So how old do you think the Earth is, young jedi? 6,000 years?

    PS Your interjections of cool logic and rationality are sorely missed at ARN forum.

    PPS Well spotted on the quote mine; not much slips past you!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Robert opined "By the way, it is funny how each new guest to the site parrots the same line. Do you guys have talking points, or are you taking the same class somewhere?"

    No, it's because the criticisms are inherent in the theory's flaws and they remain consistently unanswered.

    I guess it would be boorish of me to point out that Darwinists always show up with the same old talking points and they all parrot the same party line.

    Darwinists routinely claim that ID is equivalent to creationism because the science and the philosophy embrace a single related concept. If that claim is valid, then it is equally valid to assert that Darwinism is equivalent to atheism because both embrace materialism. Since neither creationism nor atheism has a valid scientific foundation, the same can also be said for the pseudo-science each promotes, be it ID or Darwinism.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dr Hunter

    The creationists are wrong, so we're right. It is not the metaphysics that are irrelevant, rather, it is the evidential problems that are irrelevant.

    There is an evidential problem for a 6,000 year old Earth which wouldn't personally call irrelevant. How old do you think the Earth is, Dr. Hunter?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Since that actual experiment is absurd, you could infer the result from phylogenetics of sequenced organisms, like actual scientists do all the time. Ill give you a hint-most of the novel protein-protein interfaces come about following gene duplication and divergence. This is why modules like PHD fingers, TPR repeats, etc., etc., are so prevalent. "



    Ahh, more circular reasoning used as proof. Laughable.

    Supposed phylogenies prove evolution. Why are supposed phylogenies true, because evolution is true.

    Thus by circular reasoning you conclude the number of protein-protein binding sites has multiplied since the supposed phylogenies say so. And the supposed phylogenies are believable because evolution is true, and evolution is true becuase phylogenies are true....

    Pathetic! You call such circular reasoning science. Pathetic.

    And no, the actual experiment I proposed is not absurd since I suggested a sampling technique.

    It is far more reasonable than the extrapolation of the Kettlewell butterflies and Grant Finches experiment which are hardly even much of experiments.

    Most of the rest of evolutionary theory is built on the force of circular reasoning such as that you just put forward. And on top of that you boast that this is what evolutionary "scientists" (cough, puke) do all the time. PATHETIC!

    ReplyDelete
  16. OT -- Salvador, are you the Salvador I know from ARN?

    ReplyDelete
  17. So Sal,

    Your alternative to common descent (supported by evidence from the near universal genetic code and much more) is special creation? What evidence leads you to that view? How old do you think the Earth is, these days, by the way?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Alan Fox,

    SO, are you incapable of reasoning/arguing logically?

    The logical error in your last post has been explained on this very blog multiple times in just the past few days.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The logical error in your last post has been explained on this very blog multiple times in just the past few days.

    Just copy and paste the best example or link to it, if you would be so kind, Ilion.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Still wondering if you had a view on the age of the Earth, Ilion? I think it is around 4.5 billion years old. Perhaps I am making a logical error about that, too?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Supposed phylogenies prove evolution. Why are supposed phylogenies true, because evolution is true."

    Phylogenomics supports evolution, and recapitulates trait-based phylogeny.

    Molecular Phylogenies are true because of the underlying sequence data.

    Quotes from yours focus on microbes-which admittedly, have quite a "bush" rather than a tree, as a result of horizontal gene transfer. But phylogenetics works quite nicely in "higher" organisms.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Alan Fox:
    At last something we can agree on! The evidence that the Earth is over 4.5 billion years old is incontrovertible.

    Actually the evidence just shows the Earth is made of materials that are that old or have decayed rapidly to appear that old.

    Rapid decay just means heat. And heat can be lost in many ways.

    IOW Alan it all depends on how the earth was made...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Alan Fox,

    The near universal genetic code can point to a common design also.

    Anything that Common Descent can explain can be explained by common design.

    What Common Descent cannot explain is those physiological and anatomical differences observed.

    No one knows if those differences can be explained by genetic changes.

    No evidence...

    ReplyDelete
  24. "The evidence just shows the Earth is made of materials that are that old or have decayed rapidly to appear that old."

    "Anything that Common Descent can explain can be explained by common design."

    The earth could just appear to be older. Creation could just appear to have evolved. And you wonder why we call you out as creationists.

    Could, could, could.....anything is possible. Not everything is scientifically falsifiable, nor useful to consider.

    And if we point out that bending the laws of physics, or special creation aren't exactly scientific, or that things don't exactly look designed, why, that is a horrible atheist argument that proves we our positions are religious.

    Nice game you've got going....

    ReplyDelete
  25. Intellectually Dishonest Couldist: "Could, could, could.....anything is possible. Not everything is scientifically falsifiable, nor useful to consider."

    Of course, the (ahem) arguments and (ahen) evidence presented for Darwinism are always heavy on the "coulds" and speculations. Darwinist couldism is so common that there is even a term for it: Just-So Stories.

    So, Robert is intellectually dishonest on the count that he's trying to disallow Joe G's use of "could," even as he's quite copasetic with his own use.

    BUT, Robert is misrepresenting Joe G's point … so, unless Robert really is unable to reason, or really is incredibly ignorant, he’s intellectually dishonest on a second count.

    Joe G was not actually speaking in the couldist Just-So Story mode so favored by the DarwinDefenders. Rather, his point is that scientific theories and hypotheses are underdetermined.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ilion-

    If you could define for me how creationism is a scientific hypothesis, and common descent is not, that would be great.

    Otherwise my point stands (not that your crude sniveling trolling has ever accomplished anything).

    ReplyDelete
  27. Age of the Earth, anyone? Dr. Hunter, Joe, Ilion?
    Bueller? Anyone?

    I think the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old.

    Does anyone disagree?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Good for you Alan.

    Just how can you verify your claim?

    I say the best you can do is show some of the materials on Earth are 4.5 BYO- but that comes with a host of assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Robert,

    Common Descent, if it happened, occurred in the untestable, unrepeatable past.

    If anything it belongs in a history class not science.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Last week I built my daughter a desk.

    I used wood from a tree that was over 100 years old.

    Is the desk 1 week old or is the desk over 100 years old?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Age of my daughter's desk anyone?

    Alan?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Joe G: "Age of my daughter's desk anyone?"

    Your question gets to an issue that materialists nearly always seem determined to not understand -- To say what a things is made of is not necessarily to say what the thing is.


    Does the desk even really exist independently of your/our imputing of existence to it?

    I don't mean this question as in the stereotypical sophomoric BS session question. I'm asking a question relevant to the "Perseus' Ship" paradox, and the proposed solutions to it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ilion:
    "Does the desk even really exist independently of your/our imputing of existence to it?"

    My daughter is sitting at it right now- perhaps she doesn't really exist.

    Cool then I don't have to take her to piano lessons- which reminds me- Saturday I built her a piano bench with a hinged top so she can store her books in the bench.

    The wood for the legs and frame are from a Hemlock that was alleged to be also over 100 years old.

    How old is that piano bench?

    ReplyDelete
  34. I'm sure that your daughter exists. And I'm sure that the matter of which her desk is made exists.

    I'm just not sure that the non-living things of which we customarily speak really do exist, for they have no identity except that which we atribute to them.

    ReplyDelete