Thursday, June 26, 2014

Greg Dawes Contradicts Himself

On The Same Page

It is good to see that philosophers such as Greg Dawes understand that Darwin “argued for his theory by contrasting it with the idea of special creation” which Darwin found to be “utterly puzzling.” But on the same page the University of Otago professor states that the modern sciences are naturalistic as they make no reference to non-natural agents. No reference to non-natural agents? It is yet another example of how evolutionists believe so strongly in their own religious views that they do not view them as religious.

Religion drives science, and it matters.
Posted by at
Labels: ,

19 comments:

  1. UnknownJune 26, 2014 at 4:53 PM

    I think it's always advantageous to have the context of quoted material:

    GD: Loathe though I am to agree with [Philip] Johnson, I think that certain kinds of ontological naturalism do border on dogmatism. (Williamson thinks that even some kinds of methodological naturalism do so.) But (contra Johnson) you don’t need to be a metaphysical naturalist to think that Darwinism is superior to the alternatives.

    Darwin himself argued for his theory by contrasting it with the idea of special creation and showing that there were phenomena (such as vestigial organs) that were entirely explicable, given natural selection, but utterly puzzling, given special creation. He did not dismiss special creation by claiming that science could only posit natural entities. Similarly, it seems to me, we should not dismiss something like intelligent design theory (ID) merely because it posits what might be seen as a non-natural agent. ID should be assessed on its merits. As it happens, it has few merits, so we can still dismiss it.

    We also understand that, in 19th century England, Darwin was addressing a much more religiose audience than exists today. His references to religious concepts were intended to defuse or deflect faith- based criticism that he anticipated would be directed against his theory. It was different from employing religious concepts to support a theory and remains so today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cornelius HunterJune 26, 2014 at 6:32 PM

      No Ian, Darwin argued the failure of divine creation proved evolution.

      much more religiose audience than exists today

      Then why do evolutionists continue to make the same arguments?

      Delete
    2. UnknownJune 26, 2014 at 6:50 PM



      Cornelius Hunter No Ian, Darwin argued the failure of divine creation proved evolution.

      No, he argued that, in the absence of divine creation, evolution provided the most tenable explanation.

      Cornelius Huntermuch more religiose audience than exists today

      Then why do evolutionists continue to make the same arguments?

      Perhaps because anti-evolutionists keep making the same old arguments.

      Delete
    3. Cornelius HunterJune 26, 2014 at 7:34 PM

      No, "anti-evolutionists" don't make those arguments. They're made by evolutionists.

      Delete
    4. ScottJune 27, 2014 at 8:20 AM

      Here's just one problem with your argument.

      Supposedly, criticizing theistic ideas, by assuming those ideas have consequences, makes a scientific theory religious.

      But what if theistic ideas do not conflict with scientific theories, and therefore no criticism is given? What then is the status of the theory?

      For example, despite being logically possible, I don't know of many Christians who think God intercedes everywhere in the universe to pull on objects according to their mass. After all, God, supposedly being all knowing and all powerful, would know exactly what an objects mass is, how much to pull, and would capable of pulling the exact amount regardless of how much mass. And being supposedly infinite, he could do this for all objects in the universe without, say, distracting from other duties he supposedly might have, like designing life on other planets.

      Yet, to my knowledge, this doesn't seem to happen very often, despite the fact that we know GR has made false predictions (contains errors to some degree) and is incomplete, as we lack a working theory of quantum gravity. (Does God decide to pull on objects uniformly, except at the very small scale?)

      As such, you won't General Relativitists (?) criticizing the clam that God might have created the world we observe in such a way that he pulls on objects according to their mass. It just doesn't happen in significant number to merit a response. (Because, in doing so, God would be pulling people to their deaths on a regular basis? And ideas do have consequences?)

      So, if no theists claim God is pulling on objects according to their mass, and therefore no General Relativitists criticize those claims, is GR still scientific? Had that claim been made by theists, do you think General Relativitists wouldn't have criticized those claims as well?

      IOW, If we try to take your criteria seriously, as a true account for your objections, it doesn't withstand rational criticism. The status of any theory is held hostage by whether some significant number of theists claim their God is responsible for the same phenomena.

      It simply doesn't add up.

      Delete
    5. ScottJune 27, 2014 at 10:59 AM

      Correction: As such, we do not see General Relativitists (?) criticizing the clam that God might have created the world we observe in such a way that he pulls on objects according to their mass.

      Delete
  2. SteveJune 26, 2014 at 6:33 PM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Robert ByersJune 26, 2014 at 10:39 PM

    YES. Eliminating options for origins etc is as religious or conclusion leading as a religion.
    Truth demands all options on the table.
    So explanation without the option of miracles etc is not pure investigation of nature but a skewed direction. If if the finale true answer was in that direction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownJune 27, 2014 at 6:05 PM

      Robert Byers Truth demands all options on the table.

      And do they all remain on the table forever?

      Or, on the assumption that they can't all be right, do you find ways of choosing between them. Do you find reasons for taking some of them off the table again?

      Delete
    2. Robert ByersJune 28, 2014 at 1:19 AM

      Yes. Take them off when they are failures.
      However god and supernatural things are not allowed as options when people say only naturalistic options are allowed.
      So truth is already presumed to not have some oprtions. so its a religious like for science to only accept or work in naturalistic mode.

      Delete
    3. UnknownJune 28, 2014 at 2:59 AM

      Robert Byers Yes. Take them off when they are failures.

      Perhaps that's why God and the supernatural are not on the table. As scientific explanations they're failures.

      Delete
  4. natschusterJune 27, 2014 at 10:39 AM

    I've seen evolutionist argue that God would not create life the way it looks now. I few could come with a reason why God would do things his way, then that removes that argument. Asking whether God would do something a certain way, or why He would do something a certain way are theological questions. Another argument I've heard is that "God did it" is just not allowed, since it isn't falsifiable, is too easy, is just not allowed since it isn't natural. etc. Those are philosophical arguments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownJune 27, 2014 at 6:16 PM

      Evolutionists are as capable of bad arguments as anyone else. They don't undermine the theory of evolution any more than preachers who fail to live up to the moral standards they preach to others undermine Christianity.

      "God did it" doesn't work as an explanation because it isn't a description of how it's just a claim about who.. It's like marveling at the images on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, asking "How on Earth was that done?" and being told "Michelangelo did it!". Well, yes, okay, but that wasn't what was being asked, was it?

      Delete
  5. Peter WadeckJune 27, 2014 at 2:32 PM

    I believe Dawes is correct in that science has to be naturalistic. What you get wrong is the assumption that Dawes' concludes that evolution's metaphysics is science. Nowhere does he say that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cornelius HunterJune 27, 2014 at 4:57 PM

      Gosh no Peter, if that were the case it would undercut his enthusiasm for evolution. In fact in the self-same interview Dawes criticizes such religious arguments as being susceptible to fatal flaws. For instance, he writes:

      "Explanations invoking God would be personal explanations, appealing to the beliefs and desires of a personal agent. ... But an agent who was omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect would be so different from any other agent with which we are familiar that it is difficult to make predictions about how he would act."

      Dawes is directing this criticism elsewhere, and fails to see that it applies to evolution equally well.

      Delete
  6. ScottJune 29, 2014 at 8:33 AM

    CH: Gosh no Peter, if that were the case it would undercut his enthusiasm for evolution.

    Why is that? Let me guess.

    Because the only other reason Dawes could have for being enthusiastic about evolution is if it were scientific. But that can't be the reason because evolution is not science?

    Your argument is circular. We can boil it down to "evolution can't be science because It's metaphysical. And why is it metaphysical? Because it's not science. Yet, when I ask you what kind of empiricist you are, you suddenly grow strangely silent.

    Why don't you start out by explaining how science actually works, then point out how evolutionary theory doesn't fit that explanation. Please be specific.

    Of course, I've only directly asked you to do this, oh, a dozen times or so, with no response. Is there some particular reason why you keep avoiding it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ScottJune 29, 2014 at 8:35 AM

      Perhaps you think science works because, well, that's the purpose God created it for? It works because God want's it to?

      Delete
    2. Cornelius HunterJune 29, 2014 at 8:38 AM

      Your argument is circular. We can boil it down to "evolution can't be science because It's metaphysical. And why is it metaphysical? Because it's not science.

      No Scott, evolutionists are quite clear about their religious reasoning.

      Delete
    3. ScottJune 30, 2014 at 5:08 AM

      Your response is the equivalent of "No, it's not". That's not an argument. Nor is you disclosing what kind of empiricist you are.

      Here's another question: If a significant number of theists started claiming God pulled on objects according to their mass, do you think that "general relativists" wouldn't criticize those claims?

      Would that make gravitational theory religious?

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)