Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Evolution Professor: I Was Not Talking About Teleology

They Can’t Have it Both Ways

Evolution is interesting because while it is based on religious beliefs, evolutionists insist it is all about science. Consider, for example, PZ Myers as he writes in the Los Angeles Times that God would not have created this world, while nonetheless claiming that he’s just following the scientific evidence. Or consider Jerry Coyne who goes into great detail about how this world would not have been intended by a creator, and in the next moment claims that these are scientific results. This sort of thinking goes back to Darwin and before, and it is foundational to evolutionary thought. It runs all through the evolution literature, but it doesn’t work. You can’t claim the high ground of scientific empiricism while relying on metaphysics to make your case.

A recent example of how evolutionists claim the high ground of empiricism, while literally at the same moment making metaphysical claims, came in the Nelson-Velasco debate. As we have seen Joel Velasco employed the standard metaphysical claims about how nature’s inefficiencies and dysteleology prove that it wasn’t designed and so must have arisen spontaneously.

Yet Velasco claims he was doing no such thing. In the middle of his list of nature’s flubs, Velasco explained to the audience that usefulness is irrelevant to his argument:

[39:48] There are many traits—some are useful, maybe some are not, but I don’t need to argue about whether they are useful or not. What matters is that they’re records of the past. 

This was after he discussed useless yolk sacks and embryonic arches, and before he discussed birds that that can’t fly and cave dwellers with eye sockets. As Darwin remarked, approvingly quoting Richard Owen, “There is no greater anomaly of nature then a bird that cannot fly.”

Velasco follows the long tradition of evolutionary thought which insists this world would never have been intended by any being wise and powerful enough to create it. It is all metaphysical, but according to Velasco and the evolutionists, it’s just science. As he commented here, more recently, “I was not trying to rule out design or talk about teleology at all.”

But that is, in fact, exactly what Velasco talked about. Of course he was trying to rule out design and talk about teleology. That is why he showed the audience his long list of broken designs.

So why are evolutionists so confused about their own position? The answer is that it is a tendency of rationalistic thought to take your own axioms and assumptions, not as axioms and assumptions but as truisms. Evolutionists do not view their religious convictions as religious convictions because, for evolutionists, these convictions are just so obviously true. That’s why they are convictions, after all.

It is ironic that those who are most beholden to their metaphysics are those who are most oblivious to their metaphysics. As Alfred North Whitehead observed, people take their most crucial assumptions to be obvious and in no need of justification. These underlying assumptions are unspoken and undefended because, as Whitehead put it, “Such assumptions appear so obvious that people do not know what they are assuming because no other way of putting things has ever occurred to them.”

That’s how Jerry Coyne can say, in all honesty, that it is a scientific conclusion that “No form of creationism/intelligent design can explain these imperfections.” He really believes it.

And while there is nothing wrong with holding such beliefs, what Coyne and the evolutionists fail to understand is that it is a belief. None of this comes from science.

From a scientific perspective evolution isn’t even wrong. But from a religious perspective evolution must be true.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

42 comments:

  1. Bravo, Dr. Hunter, another excellent piece. Between your blog and crev.info, you do an outstanding job of exposing the consistent ideological bias that underscores just about everything in the evolutionist's arguments. We need much more of this type of talk; unfortunately, most of our culture has been brainwashed to believe that anything that comes from the mouth of a scientist is automatically "science." And we know it most certainly is not that way. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I second that sentiment. As Paul Feyarabend once put it in Against Method", "the most stupid procedures and the most laughable result in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down to size and to give them a lower position in society."

      Delete
  2. I love this post, but I'd have to disagree on a few accounts.

    I'm baffled by your first sentence that evolution is based on religious beliefs. This is simply wrong. Evolution is a solely scientific theory, that is completely separate from religion and God. People have brought the two together because of the contradictions that evolution and the Bible have. Now religion has adopted evolution as truth, but to say that evolution is scientifically based is just wrong. Darwin could have executed his experiments and resolved the diversity of life conundrum without religion or God entirely.

    I understand where you're coming from that people are using the science of evolution to disprove God, and I'd agree that evolution shouldn't be used to make grand claims about existence. But the fact that a certain few use this claim does absolutely nothing to defend the position of God. I think that what you and many others are failing to see is that those who rely on empirical evidence to discover truth, fail to see any empirical evidence to support a God existing.

    At least for me, that's how I see it. Empirical evidence is the only proven that impacts reality. Regardless if a God does exist or not, the lack of ANY empirical evidence almost invalidates the debate over whether a God exists or not. So in a sense, it shouldn't matter.

    This is the bottom line:
    There is absolutely no evidence for a God. Even if evolutionists use invalid arguments (evolution) to disprove God, that does absolutely nothing to prove the that God does exist. All the evidence gathered about existence has repeatedly and blatantly contradicted the three major monotheisms, which I think is enough evidence to discredit and invalidate these religions, and their God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MikeY:

      What do you consider evidence?

      Delete
    2. Mike Y:

      I understand where you're coming from that people are using the science of evolution to disprove God.

      Actually that is not where I'm coming from. You read that in somehow. In fact, quite the opposite, evolutionists are not using evolution to disprove God, but rather they are using God to prove evolution.

      Delete
    3. Mike Y

      Don't you realize that you prove a minor point of this article by you absurd statement, "This is the bottom line:There is absolutely no evidence for a God."

      This is an opinion of yours. It is a basic assumption you make, but it is not true. If there was really no evidence for God then no one would argue for him.

      All you are doing is exhibiting the truth that you fall under the quote, “Such assumptions appear so obvious that people do not know what they are assuming because no other way of putting things has ever occurred to them.”

      It is really obvious to you that there is no evidence for God. The problem is, that your statement is wrong.

      Delete
  3. Excellent post. Evolutionists are indeed confused about their own position. We see this every day.. they have to be reminded about what they said 5 minutes ago, after denying they ever advanced such a claim. I think there needs to be some kind of outreach program.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mike Y, May 27, 2014 at 1:14 PM, wrote:
    I'm baffled by your first sentence that evolution is based on religious beliefs... Evolution is a solely scientific theory, that is completely separate from religion and God.
    ....

    Mike, thank you for your post.

    Dr. Hunter quoted Darwin saying, “There is no greater anomaly of nature then a bird that cannot fly.” Scientific?

    Now, either Darwin believes God would make flightless birds or that He wouldn't. If God would or even could, then a flightless bird is no anomaly.

    Therefore, Darwin's very real idea is that God would not have created a bird that doesn't fly. That's a religious belief.

    If Darwin had started with the more recognizable metaphysical assertion, for example, that God, of course, could have created a flightless bird for his own purposes (penguins, for example, are great fishermen), no doubt his peers would have decried his religious assumption.

    But, that he started with the opposite assumption (that God would NOT have created such birds or that there is no God) does not make his assertion any less a wholly metaphysical, religious, personal and unprovable statement of faith.

    This is what Dr. Hunter means when he says "Religion drives science.." Religious beliefs about the nature and purposes of God (IF there is a God) wholly underpin the theory of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Glenn J Dr. Hunter quoted Darwin saying, “There is no greater anomaly of nature then a bird that cannot fly.” Scientific?

    Now, either Darwin believes God would make flightless birds or that He wouldn't. If God would or even could, then a flightless bird is no anomaly.

    Therefore, Darwin's very real idea is that God would not have created a bird that doesn't fly. That's a religious belief.


    The passage from On The Origin Of Species from which CH cherry-picks that sentence reads as follows:

    From the facts alluded to in the first chapter, I think there can be little doubt that use in our domestic animals strengthens and enlarges certain parts, and disuse diminishes them; and that such modifications are inherited. Under free nature, we can have no standard of comparison, by which to judge of the effects of long-continued use or disuse, for we know not the parent-forms; but many animals have structures which can be explained by the effects of disuse. As Professor Owen has remarked, there is no greater anomaly in nature than a bird that cannot fly; yet there are several in this state. The logger-headed duck of South America can only flap along the surface of the water, and has its wings in nearly the same condition as the domestic Aylesbury duck. As the larger ground-feeding birds seldom take flight except to escape danger, I believe that the nearly wingless condition of several birds, which now inhabit or have lately inhabited several oceanic islands, tenanted by no beast of prey, has been caused by disuse. The ostrich indeed inhabits continents and is exposed to danger from which it cannot escape by flight, but by kicking it can defend itself from enemies, as well as any of the smaller quadrupeds. We may imagine that the early progenitor of the ostrich had habits like those of a bustard, and that as natural selection increased in successive generations the size and weight of its body, its legs were used more, and its wings less, until they became incapable of flight.

    There is not even a mention of God, let alone a claim about what a god might or might not do. It's a fantasy spun out of thin air. In fact, the whole claim about evolution's reliance on religious belief is as baseless a fabrication as that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian:

      There is not even a mention of God, let alone a claim about what a god might or might not do. ...

      Darwin approved of the remark (I'll edit to clarify that) and it isn't "cherry picked." Nor does the word "God" need to appear for the message to be metaphysical. But wait, the sentence appears in a, gasp, paragraph. And the paragraph appears on a page, and the page in a chapter, and the chapter in a book. It was cherry-picked!

      Delete
    2. Darwin was using the flightless bird thing as proof it was not created by God but must be the result of some other mechanism in nature.
      'This is true but it need not be evolution by selection.
      I think atrophy can happen without selection .
      They all went that way and right quick.

      Delete
    3. Robert:

      Darwin was using the flightless bird thing as proof it was not created by God but must be the result of some other mechanism in nature.

      Exactly. Proof might be putting it a bit strongly, but that is the argument Darwin was building up, in this case. But it's important to understand this really wasn't about Darwin. He did a great job of collecting and synthesizing ideas, integrating them with his substantial biological knowledge, and telling the story, so to speak. So not to take away from Darwin, But he built upon a religious and metaphysical foundation that was already largely in place.

      Delete
    4. Ian, thank you for the quote from Darwin: "We may IMAGINE that the early progenitor of the ostrich...etc., etc.."

      Why not imagine that God created the ostrich just the way Darwin found him?

      Doesn't one metaphysical underpinning rule out the first imagination and the mirror of that metaphysical underpinning rule out the second?

      What's obvious without any metaphysical underpinnings is that the ostrich appears perfectly designed for its environment.

      In my experience, design always implies a designer. That actually is not metaphysical. It is common observation. Only a metaphysical predisposition rules out the possibility of a designer. "NO one would have designed THIS coffee-pot the way it is; we can imagine a couple of wires getting tangled in the junkyard, then a hot plate appearing..."

      Delete
    5. Glenn: In my experience, design always implies a designer. That actually is not metaphysical. It is common observation.

      First, explanations of how knowledge grows is a form of philosophy. And, apparently, Cornelius is using the term metaphysics interchangeably with philosophy.

      Second, there are several good criticisms of this particular philosophical explanation. One of which is rather simple.

      I would also point out that it's also a common observation that designer you've ever experienced had a complex material brain. Yet, I'm guessing you do not think that all designers have material brains, right?

      IOW, if we try to take that line of "logic" seriously, it seems that even you do not use it, in practice.

      Glenn: Only a metaphysical predisposition rules out the possibility of a designer.

      We're not ruling it out. We're discarding it because it fails to meet a more general criteria for what constitutes a good explanation.

      For example, human beings are good explanations for human designed things, precisely because of our human limitations.

      Delete
    6. Glenn J Why not imagine that God created the ostrich just the way Darwin found him?

      There's no reason at all why you shouldn't imagine God or anyone else doing whatever you like but, to be useful in science, it needs to be more than just flights of fancy.

      Doesn't one metaphysical underpinning rule out the first imagination and the mirror of that metaphysical underpinning rule out the second?

      As far as I'm concerned, God is not ruled out by metaphysical underpinnings but simply by the lack of any good reason to invoke Him as an explanation. As Laplace is reputed to have said, "I have no need of that hypothesis."

      What's obvious without any metaphysical underpinnings is that the ostrich appears perfectly designed for its environment.

      You can say it appears perfectly designed for its environment but you are assuming something which is not yet in evidence, namely, that it was designed at all.

      Only a metaphysical predisposition rules out the possibility of a designer.

      No, w can't rule out the possibility of the designer but neither has anyone come up with a good reason to rule one in.

      Delete
    7. Glenn J Why not imagine that God created the ostrich just the way Darwin found him?

      There's no reason at all why you shouldn't imagine God or anyone else doing whatever you like but, to be useful in science, it needs to be more than just flights of fancy.

      Doesn't one metaphysical underpinning rule out the first imagination and the mirror of that metaphysical underpinning rule out the second?

      As far as I'm concerned, God is not ruled out by metaphysical underpinnings but simply by the lack of any good reason to invoke Him as an explanation. As Laplace is reputed to have said, "I have no need of that hypothesis."

      What's obvious without any metaphysical underpinnings is that the ostrich appears perfectly designed for its environment.

      You can say it appears perfectly designed for its environment but you are assuming something which is not yet in evidence, namely, that it was designed at all.

      Only a metaphysical predisposition rules out the possibility of a designer.

      No, w can't rule out the possibility of the designer but neither has anyone come up with a good reason to rule one in.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. Scott, Ian...
      You fault me for "imagining", yet you give Darwin a pass for imagining; Darwin: "We may IMAGINE that the early progenitor of the ostrich...etc., etc.."
      Evolutionists imagine all manner of mechanisms to tweak their Ptolemaic theory. If it's allowed for evoltutionists, why shouldn't it be allowed for their detractors.

      But I don't use imagination to recognize design. When I look at a hemoglobin molecule, it bears all the marks of design just the same as my pitiful coffee pot.
      Scott tries to limit my ability to recognize design to "human" design and then goes on to complain that my reasoning is philosophy not science. I say that Scott's effort to limit my ability to recognize design to classes of objects that fit his theory is not only very bad philosophy, but it is entirely circular in nature.

      Delete
    11. Glenn J You fault me for "imagining", yet you give Darwin a pass for imagining; Darwin: "We may IMAGINE that the early progenitor of the ostrich...etc., etc.."

      No, I didn't "fault" you for using your imagination, I pointed out that there's a lot more to science and a good scientific theory than just imagination. Darwin was well aware of that which was why he spent a lot of his time in the field gathering samples and making observations to back up ideas.

      Glenn J But I don't use imagination to recognize design. When I look at a hemoglobin molecule, it bears all the marks of design just the same as my pitiful coffee pot.

      The hemoglobin molecule doesn't look particularly much like it was designed to me and a lot of other people so it looks like like it is only in your imagination. Of course, you can always prove us wrong by finding incontrovertible evidence of non-human design and the existence of a non-human designer. That's what scientists would try to do.

      Glenn J Scott tries to limit my ability to recognize design to "human" design and then goes on to complain that my reasoning is philosophy not science. I say that Scott's effort to limit my ability to recognize design to classes of objects that fit his theory is not only very bad philosophy, but it is entirely circular in nature.

      Scott is perfectly right. Unless you have some alien technology you're not telling us about, the only confirmed examples of design come from us. You have nothing else to go on. Design theorists can speculate all they like about there being universal properties of design which are common to all designed things regardless of the source but, without examples of alien design to test that idea against, it is just speculation.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  6. CH: You can’t claim the high ground of scientific empiricism while relying on metaphysics to make your case.

    The claim that science is based on empiricism is philosophy. And bad philosophy at that.

    Empiricism was an improvement, because it promoted the importance of empirical observations in science, but it got the role those observations play backwards. So, in a sense, it is false because, like all theories, it contains errors and is incomplete. However, as I mentioned earlier, being a false philosophy doesn't necessarily make it bad.

    It was only until people started taking empiricism seriously, as Cornelius is now, that it became bad philosophy, since in doing so he denies or impedes the growth of knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Darwinism isn't science because....

    01. Science is defined by what scientists do and Evolutionists are not scientists?

    Who is or is not a scientist is based on the philosophy of science.

    02. Our explanation for how science works is X and evolutionary theory doesn't fit that explanation?

    Our explanation for how science works is based on the philosophy of science.

    03. Evolutionists explicitly make arguments about what God would or would not do, so it's not science?

    The problem with this argument is that most theists do not make claims that God directly intercedes in absolutely everything. If they did, scientists would also explicitly argue that we discard God as an scientific explanation for X because we have no good explanation as to why God would do that, either.

    For example, unless perhaps they are a fundamentalist Muslim, most theists do not claim that God is directly pulling on objects according to their mass, except at the small scale, in which God simply decides to do otherwise because "that's just what he must want to do". Should a theist make such a claim, they would also be met with the argument that we have no good explanation why God would do that, either.

    So, the end result would be that only things theists claim that God directly intercedes on would not be science because only those claims would be explicitly countered by scientists that God is a bad explanation for them.

    However, if theists and scientists agree, for different reasons, and no explicit argument is made because of it, that's science?

    ReplyDelete
  8. CH: It is ironic that those who are most beholden to their metaphysics are those who are most oblivious to their metaphysics. As Alfred North Whitehead observed, people take their most crucial assumptions to be obvious and in no need of justification.

    Indeed. That evolution isn't science is a philosophical claim about science, which you haven't argued for.

    You appear oblivious to your assumption that the term "science" in your arguments is obvious, in need of no explanation and is itself not subject to criticism via the philosophy of science. Apparently everyone knows science based on empiricism. However, observations of what scientists do, like all other observations, are theory laden and need to be interpreted.

    You appear oblivious to your assumption that we cannot criticize the beliefs of theists without personally holding those beliefs themselves. For example, I don't need to believe that Superman exists to criticize the idea that a female injured by regular rounds of ammunition while thwarting a back robbery was not Superman. However, one could appeal to general purpose strategies to deny anything to avoid that criticism. Namely, there could be some good reason why superman allowed himself to be injured by regular rounds of ammunition that we simply cannot comprehend. After all, he is super, and we're not. Nor can we positively rule out that appearing as a human female isn't a power Superman acquired after being exposed to our yellow sun for over 40 years, etc.

    You appear oblivious to the idea that God, being capable of anything logical possible, could choose to create the same world we observe in a ways that could conflict with any scientific claim, not just evolutionary theory, which would render the entirety of science a "religious belief".

    However, if these assumptions are not obvious and in need of of justification, then where is your response to these criticisms?

    ReplyDelete
  9. CH: That’s how Jerry Coyne can say, in all honesty, that it is a scientific conclusion that “No form of creationism/intelligent design can explain these imperfections.” He really believes it.

    The fatal flaw in your argument is the assumption that the only possible interpretation of Coyne's statements is a personal theological belief about God, rather than a criteria for what is a good explanation, which both creationism and ID fails. This is particularly ironic from someone who constantly points out there is more than one possible interpretation of sequences of DNA, fossils, similarities in biological adaptations, etc.

    Specifically, what is or is not a good explanation, scientific or otherwise, is a philosophical question. "God wanted it that way" is a bad explanation for reasons I've outlined elsewhere.

    So, of course it's not science. But it's not necessary religious either. That's a false dilemma.

    In fact, this sounds oddly similar to your own objection of evolutionary theory. You have't proven it's actually religious. You're merely "disproven" that it's scientific, which is uncontroversial.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cornelius, Joel Velasco here. It hardly seems worthwhile to try, but let me say why I think that the kinds of traits that I mentioned are really good evidence for common ancestry independent of what one believes about God. My goal is the talk was to try to argue for common ancestry. As I said in response to a question during the Q&A I think that if you are a Christian, you should believe in common ancestry (and if you are a Muslim and if you are an atheist and ...) because the evidence is that this is what happened. I also happen to have some beliefs about God and design and teleology, and I happen to think that there is evidence for common ancestry along these lines, but I was trying to avoid this discussion during the debate.

    Now you start your post by talking about what 'evolution' is based on and what 'evolutionists' believe. Most of our theories in biology are based on lots of different evidence and even particular claims (like common ancestry) can be defended in lots of different ways. To claim it is based on religion I take it that you are saying that this is the only kind of evidence. I disagree. And obviously I am not Jerry Coyne and so while in his book he is clear that he is making an argument based on theology (a good one I happen to think) I was not trying to make exactly the same argument. Even if I were Jerry Coyne it would still be possible to make an argument for common ancestry that is not based on religious arguments. The reason that shared traits are evidence for common ancestry over separate ancestry is roughly a common cause argument. If they were related, this is part of a good explanation of why blind cave fish have eyesockets. Now just talking about limbs and feathers and eyes is some evidence for common ancestry, but eye sockets without eyes is even stronger evidence. Why? Think of it this way - during the debate Paul said that we could explain the shared tetrapod limb by pointing out that it was optimal for various kinds of things (by the way, obviously not for swimming for the whale so this point doesn't help him...). If a trait is very helpful for the organism, then it could well come about through selection on different lineages and convergence. But a trait like eye sockets in an animal with no eyes is not plausibly explained by natural selection or constraints on development (something else he mentioned) or anything like that. Thus it strengthens the case that the reason they have eye sockets is that their ancestors have eyes. Just like a whale or a bat having five phalanges is evidence for common ancestry.

    Now I am sure that your response is that to believe that eye sockets are evidence that their ancestors have eyes requires you to believe that God didn't just create them that way hence it is a religious argument. I do happen to believe this. I could have also argued that if you think that there is a God and you think that he created the world and ... then you should think that God worked through common ancestry. But no, you don't need to explicitly rule out God as being impossible or to believe the conditional that if there is a God then he created via common ancestry in order to say that eye sockets with no eyes is strong evidence for common ancestry. Similar things hold of the laryngeal nerve, birds that can't fly, etc. --

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joel:

      I am not saying that arguments for evolution are necessarily religious or metaphysical. No question one can make arguments for evolution without including undue metaphysical premises (beyond the usual metaphysics of uniformity, parsimony, etc). Similarly one can make scientific arguments for the flat Earth or geocentrism, for example.

      But evolutionists are not in the business of merely making arguments for evolution. They make overwhelming arguments that leave no choice but to conclude for the fact of evolution, beyond all reasonable doubt. It has always been core to evolutionary thinking that we are not merely kicking around an interesting idea, albeit heroic and unlikely, but rather that evolution is compelling and undeniable.

      Now you start your post by talking about what 'evolution' is based on and what 'evolutionists' believe. Most of our theories in biology are based on lots of different evidence and even particular claims (like common ancestry) can be defended in lots of different ways.

      I’ve read most all of the apologetics for evolution—every one I can get my hands on. So I’m familiar with the arguments. Yes there are many different evidences, but not many different ways of using the evidences.

      You could say the field outside your window is flat, therefore you have evidence for a flat Earth. True, but it is not a very strong or compelling argument. All the compelling arguments for evolution are either theological or philosophical (the intellectual necessity of evolution, miracles don’t happen in history, evolution is required to avoid an infinite regress, etc.).


      Even if I were Jerry Coyne it would still be possible to make an argument for common ancestry that is not based on religious arguments.

      Agreed, but it would be weak and not overwhelming or compelling. There’s a reason why metaphysical arguments are used--they are very persuasive.


      The reason that shared traits are evidence for common ancestry over separate ancestry is roughly a common cause argument.

      This is a rational reconstruction a la Lakatos. Historically this argument has not been a player in evolutionary apologetics. It has not been influential in the acceptance of evolution, and proclamation of it as fact. And there’s a good reason for that. More below …

      Continued …

      Delete
    2. Joel:

      But a trait like eye sockets in an animal with no eyes is not plausibly explained by natural selection or constraints on development (something else he mentioned) or anything like that. Thus it strengthens the case that the reason they have eye sockets is that their ancestors have eyes.

      That is very interesting logic. You are saying that a trait, by virtue of it not being a good design, is therefore more likely to have evolved. The trait doesn’t improve fitness therefore that strengthens the case it evolved from an ancestor. Hmm.

      What if it did have eyes? I can’t imagine you would have a problem with that. You’d just say, “Oh, look, a similarity to an ancestor that also had eyes.” I think you need to work on this one a little bit as your logic doesn’t seem to follow.

      In fact, evolution and common ancestry would have no problem removing the eye socket, nerves, etc., as well as the eye. After all, it created everything. It is capable of all kinds of incredible changes, new body plans, new fantastic designs, and so forth. So it doesn’t make sense to think that eye sockets without eyes are a strong sign of evolution / CA.

      Also, if these organisms did evolve from ancestors with eyes, then this would be a loss, not gain, of a design in the species. One could easily accept that some species lost their eyes (e.g., via epigenetic control, directed mutations, blind mutations) without this suggesting that all species are related via evolution / common descent.

      But of course the power of this argument comes from the underlying metaphysics. You say this evidence “strengthens the case,” for descent from ancestors with eyes. That is a mild claim compared to your presentation in the debate, where you said the evidence is overwhelming and there is no question about evolution and common ancestry. That’s not just strengthening the case. The metaphysics makes it overwhelming. Otherwise the argument doesn’t work very well.


      Just like a whale or a bat having five phalanges is evidence for common ancestry.

      The strength of this argument also comes from the metaphysics. Without the metaphysics you are left merely with a bad design. The fact that it is a bad design weakens the common ancestry explanation, because as it stands common ancestry is quite capable of reconfiguring designs and, indeed, creating de novo designs whenever needed. So why would common ancestry allow for this bad design to propagate? We’re talking about crucial functionality: digging, climbing, grasping, etc. If this is a lower-fitness design then surely common ancestry would have fixed it. What you are left with is special pleading: “Well in this case common ancestry was able to modify and adapt the design, so in fact it is not so bad, and works pretty well. This was easier than doing a reconfiguration or de novo design.” But this is subjective. It is not evidence for the theory, it is an interpretation of the evidence according to the theory. Furthermore, it concedes the “bad design” premise. So it is not a bad design after all, but rather a recurring design, and now selection is back on the table.

      Secondly, the pentadactyl pattern is inconsistent with common descent. So evolutionists must employ auxiliary explanations—it was lost, regained, independently evolved, sometimes there are different numbers of digits, etc., etc. The whole idea was that this trait falls right into the common descent pattern. But it doesn’t. And it is way outside the noise level.

      So as positive evidence for evolution, this argument has completely broken down. Again, the strength of this argument comes from the underlying metaphysics: This pattern would not have been intended or designed. The same type of argument was used for cosmic evolution (i.e., solar system evolution) in the 18th century.

      Continued …

      Delete
    3. Joel:

      To summarize, in the debate you consistently made the point that the structures are inefficient, broken, useless, nonsensical, etc. You can say usefulness is irrelevant to your arguments, but the fact is the evidences you presented are the traditional failed design examples, and your message was clear—they’re bad/broken designs, it rules out the alternatives, and this is overwhelming evidence for evolution.

      I think what is happening here is that evolution is so dominant, and evolutionary metaphysics are so baked in, that we sometimes lack the perspective needed to critically examine the arguments. IOW, you are operating in a post-Darwin world where evolution is taken as undeniable fact. Everybody is on your side, arguments are accepted uncritically, and the metaphysical apologetics that won the day can now be sanitized in a reconstruction that kind of vaguely rehearses the evidences while posing as empirical science.

      This reminds me of Ken Miller’s testimony in the Dover trial. Outside the courtroom, Miller was abundantly clear. He made all kinds of religious and metaphysical pronouncements that design must be false and so evolution must be true. But once in the courtroom, suddenly the self-same evidence and arguments were sanitized.

      Delete
    4. I'll again ask: are dinosaurs merely an interpretation of our best explanation of fossils? Or are they *the* explanation for fossils? If not, then it's unclear how you could consider fossils to represent empirical scientific evidence for or against evolutionary theory.

      CH: But evolutionists are not in the business of merely making arguments for evolution. They make overwhelming arguments that leave no choice but to conclude for the fact of evolution, beyond all reasonable doubt. It has always been core to evolutionary thinking that we are not merely kicking around an interesting idea, albeit heroic and unlikely, but rather that evolution is compelling and undeniable.

      Let's exchange evolutionists with paleontologists.

      But paleontologists are not in the business of merely making arguments that dinosaurs are merely an interpretation of our best explanation of fossils. They make overwhelming arguments that leave no choice but to conclude the fact that dinosaurs actually existed millions of years ago, beyond all reasonable doubt. It has always been core to paleontologist thinking that we are not merely kicking around an interesting idea, but rather that dinosaurs as *the* explanation for fossils is compelling and undeniable.

      Of course, nothing is undeniable in the sense that one can employ general purpose methods to deny absolutely anything. After all, there are an infinite number of rival interpretations that accept the same evidence, yet suggest that dinosaurs never existed millions of years ago. In which case, the fossil record would not be even remotely relevant in the question of evolution.

      For example, there is the rival interpretation that fossils only come into existence when they are consciously observed. Therefore, fossils are no older than human beings. As such, they are not evidence of dinosaurs, but evidence of acts of those particular observations. (A bad interpreation of quantum mechanics)

      Another interpretation would be that dinosaurs are such weird animals that conventional logic simply doesn't apply to them. (Some things, but apparently not others, are too weird to be explained)

      One could suggests It's meaningless to ask if dinosaurs were real or just a useful fiction to explain fossils. (Instrumentalism)

      Not to mention the rival interpretation that designer chose to create the world we observe 30 second ago. Therefore, dinosaurs couldn't be the explanation for fossils, because they didn't exist until 30 seconds ago. (A variant of Creationism and the current crop of ID)

      In all of these cases, observations of the fossil record tell us nothing, one way or the other, unless we first put them in an explanatory framework.

      However, these general purpose means of denying anything represent bad philosophy.

      CH: You could say the field outside your window is flat, therefore you have evidence for a flat Earth. True, but it is not a very strong or compelling argument.

      I would agree. The question is, why isn't it a compelling argument? What makes a compelling argument? What is good philosophy?

      CH: All the compelling arguments for evolution are either theological or philosophical (the intellectual necessity of evolution, miracles don’t happen in history, evolution is required to avoid an infinite regress, etc.).

      You've got it backwards. For the most part, all of these arguments represent criticisms of bad philosophy (general purpose means of denying anything) employed by creationism and the current crop of ID. They are represent bad philosophy because they deny or impede the growth of knowledge.

      Delete
  11. Cornelius Hunter claims:

    I’ve read most all of the apologetics for evolution—every one I can get my hands on. So I’m familiar with the arguments.

    Apologetics? Arguments? I see why you manage to so consistently misrepresent the theory of evolution. Science, biology, evolutionary theory is based on evidence. The observation, measurement and investigation of real phenomena. Apologetics indeed!

    My advice to Dr. Velasco. Reasoning with Cornelius Hunter is about as satisfying as banging your head against a brick wall. It's much less painful when you stop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alan:

      Apologetics? Arguments? I see why you manage to so consistently misrepresent the theory of evolution. Science, biology, evolutionary theory is based on evidence. The observation, measurement and investigation of real phenomena. Apologetics indeed!

      There is no negative connotation with the word "argument." It is simply a statement advocating an idea or conclusion. Same with "apologetics." The evolution literature falls into several categories, many of which take the fact of evolution as a given. There is one category that does not. It's goal is to explain and persuade that evolution is a fact. Jerry Coyne's book *Why Evolution is True* is a recent example, but there has been a steady stream of such works since Darwin. And of course Darwin's book falls into that category. Darwin called it "One long argument." If you want to understand why evolutionists think the species spontaneously arose, then you go to this body of literature. You seem to be suggesting that evolution is simply a brute fact that is self evident in the data.

      Take, for example, the pentadactyl structure. It doesn’t fit the expected common descent pattern. So evolutionists say, “well here it was ‘lost,’ and over here is independently evolved, over there it converged, etc, etc.” No matter what the pattern, they can explain it with a variety of arbitrary mechanisms. Whatever we find, it evolved. That’s not evidence for evolution, it is a tautology.

      Or again, evolution says that the biological world spontaneously arose. And it says that is a fact. But science tells us that sort of thing is unlikely.

      So evolution is by no means something that simply springs out from the data.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Or again, evolution says that the biological world spontaneously arose.

      It says no such thing. Darwin's (now much evolved) theory was called "On the Origin of Species" not "On the Origin of Life". Nobody knows how life got started on Earth and evolutionary theory is an explanation for how life subsequently diversified.

      I'm sure this is not the first time this has been pointed out to you. Why do you persist in repeating this misrepresentation?

      Delete
    4. If you want to understand why evolutionists think the species spontaneously arose, then you go to this body of literature.

      I understand the concept of speciation. When a population splits into two (most often through geographical isolation) accumulated minor changes in the two gene pools can lead to genetic isolation and thus speciation.

      You don't have to believe this is what happens (science only deals in provisional hypotheses that can be modified in the light of further evidence) but some might take you more seriously if you appeared to have some idea how the theory of evolution is supposed to work.

      Delete
    5. Alan:

      It says no such thing.

      Of course it does. You’re not familiar with the thing you are defending.


      Darwin's (now much evolved) theory was called "On the Origin of Species" not "On the Origin of Life".

      The issue here is not Darwin’s book OOS. The issue is evolutionary thought. Even Darwin, later, posited how life may have begun naturalistically. That was by no means shunned or ignored as “not within the purview of evolutionary thinking.” Indeed, an entire field has arisen addressing this problem. The origin of life has its own research journal, is consistently presented in textbooks, popular books, and so forth. For example, here is what the National Academy of Sciences said back in 1999: “For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells.” And of course evolutionary thought is by no means limited to the species, life and the biological world. It also says the cosmos arose spontaneously.


      I'm sure this is not the first time this has been pointed out to you. Why do you persist in repeating this misrepresentation?

      I’m not the one making the misrepresentation.

      Delete
    6. Alan:

      I understand the concept of speciation. When a population splits into two (most often through geographical isolation) accumulated minor changes in the two gene pools can lead to genetic isolation and thus speciation.

      Your premise is the existence of species, which is what needs explaining. Furthermore, this doesn’t explain how new designs are created, new body plans arose, new biological mechanisms arose, and so forth. Which is why even evolutionists admit that macro evolution is an outstanding problem. The question then Alan is, how and why do evolutionists insist evolution is a fact. How do they know that the world spontaneously arose when they can’t even explain, beyond vague, unfounded speculation, what the causes are? It doesn’t come from science.

      Delete
  12. Dr. H.
    This has been one of the top 10 comments sections in all your many years of blogging. I am thrilled Dr, Velasco chose to contribute to this discussion. I think his comments really helped clarify for me just how "baked in" are the evolutionary presuppositions.
    Unlike many commentators, Dr. Velasco seems to make an honest effort to express his evolutionary arguments in terms that seem fair and reasonable to him.
    It's as if he has never considered the metaphysical underpinnings of evolutionary dogma even though he employs them back and forth in all of his comments.
    This comment section is a classic.
    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cornelius - about the evidential value of deleterious traits: I say: But a trait like eye sockets in an animal with no eyes is not plausibly explained by natural selection or constraints on development (something else he mentioned) or anything like that. Thus it strengthens the case that the reason they have eye sockets is that their ancestors have eyes.

    You say: That is very interesting logic. You are saying that a trait, by virtue of it not being a good design, is therefore more likely to have evolved. The trait doesn’t improve fitness therefore that strengthens the case it evolved from an ancestor. Hmm.

    You say: What if it did have eyes? I can’t imagine you would have a problem with that. You’d just say, “Oh, look, a similarity to an ancestor that also had eyes.” I think you need to work on this one a little bit as your logic doesn’t seem to follow.

    -- I just wanted to point out that actually, I don't need to work on the logic of this as this is one of the best understood principles in comparative anatomy and phylogenetics. It is the reason that neutral traits are the best traits to use for building phylogenies - namely, selection tends to confound the evidence for ancestry. Yes, similar advantageous traits are some evidence, but neutral traits are better evidence, deleterious traits are the best. Darwin recognized this in the origin. As I said, the basic reason is that certain other possible explanations are made even more improbable. Yeah, seems weird that a fish with eyes would lose them and keep the sockets. But it is even more unexpected to evolve the sockets without the eyes which is what they would have to do if they did not have ancestors with eyes. In response to some similar comments before, you said that this was contrastive reasoning as if that was somehow bad. I take that as a good mark since the logical structure of evidential claims is typically contrastive.

    -- If you want to see some philosophical discussion of the logic of how the fitness of traits affects evidence for ancestry, I recommend looking at Elliott Sober's Evidence and Evolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joel:

      you said that this was contrastive reasoning as if that was somehow bad. I take that as a good mark since the logical structure of evidential claims is typically contrastive. -- If you want to see some philosophical discussion of the logic of how the fitness of traits affects evidence for ancestry, I recommend looking at Elliott Sober's Evidence and Evolution.

      I read (and reviewed) Evidence and Evolution when it first came out. I don’t think evidential claims being typically contrastive means that contrastive reasoning is necessarily a good mark. What if you said the core of Saturn is clearly made of cheese since that makes the probability of the evidence so much higher than if it were made of butter?

      You are saying that fish evolved and then lost their eyes because that makes the evidence so much more probable than the hypothesis that fish evolved with no eyes, to begin with. So you are comparing two unlikely hypotheses with each other, and concluding one is true because it is better than the other.

      You could say, “No, all I’m saying is that the eyeless fish descended from ancestor fish with eyes. I’m not saying anything about how that ancestor fish came about.”

      But if that were true then all you have is the loss of a design. That does not help the evolutionary / CD case as you argued it did.

      You still would be guilty of artificially narrowing the set of alternative hypotheses. For example, could the eyes have been lost according to some sort of genetic control system, such as epigenetics? “Implausible” you say? Actually we see all kinds of major structural changes due to environmental changes (e.g., the stickleback fish). These are essentially instantaneous adaptations, caused by genetic control systems directly responding to environmental requirements, rather than blind mutations. In that case it would not be the sort of useless, senseless structure you portrayed it to be.

      Nor would it be powerful evidence for the evolutionary / CD paradigm, as you presented it to be. Clearly, an argument or evidence for the *loss* of a design isn’t going to help much in trying to explain the *origin* of the design.

      So yes, you were using contrastive reasoning, but I still think it needs work as it breaks down under a little probing.

      Delete