Except When We Use Them
As a general rule, evolutionists never allow their own ideas to be exposed to the criteria they are using to criticize the other guy. To wit, while Greg Dawes
finds there to be all kinds of problems with appeals to divine agents, including the fact that we really can’t predict what an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect agent would do, he also finds evolution to an inference to the best explanation, in spite of the fact that that inference relies on the evolutionist’s appeals to how God would create the species.
If you really believe that the theory of evolution relies in any way on an appeal to how a god might acted you don't understand the theory at all.
ReplyDeleteThere is no theory of evolution. If there is, I suggest you explain what it is.
DeleteFrom a previous comment..
DeleteThe explanation is: biological complexity emerges from variation and selection. It falls under the umbrella of our current, best explanation for the universal growth of knowledge. Common decent represents a specific example of this same explanation.
CH: Because you can’t know all the alternatives. For example, how do you know there isn’t an alternative you haven’t thought of? How do you know there isn’t a common mechanism?
As I've pointed out elsewhere, we discard an infinite number of logical possibilities every day in, every field of science, a-priori. It's unclear why your designer should be any different.
Furthermore, ID's designer is abstract and has no defined limitations. As such there it has no necessary consequences for the current state of the system we can test. For example, one such non-limitation is knowing how to build any organism that has, does or could exist. As such, ID's designer could have created organisms in the order of most complex to least complex, or even all at once. "That's just the order some designer must have wanted" is a bad explanation.
This is in contrast to biological Darwinism, which does have necessary consequences for the current state of the system, which we can test. Specifically a limitation is that the knowledge of how to build those organisms was genuinely created and did not exist previously Nature cannot produce organisms with knowledge that hasn't been created yet. As such, it's the only necessary explanation for the particular order we do observe.
So, to rephrase, no theory has necessary consequences for biology except evolutionary theory. A designer could have made griffins or chimera like creatures. But these are necessarily excluded by evolutionary theory. A designer could have made organisms appear in the order of most complex to least complex, or even all at once. On the other hand the order we observe is necessary given biological Darwinism.
In this sense, it's a hard to vary theory.
GVC There is no theory of evolution. If there is, I suggest you explain what it is.
DeleteOh, I'm sure if you poke around the Internet you'll find something that explains it all. If I remember rightly, there was a couple of fellows called Darwin and Wallace wrote quite a bit about it way back in the 19th century. You could start there..
Darwin and Wallace had speculations at best, reasonable speculations. Unfortunately speculations are not a theory. Their speculations have never been verified so it is inappropriate to say that they had a theory.
DeleteWe all have speculations and some of them turn out to be right. Unfortunately this is an instance where they were wrong. Maybe someone or a group of people in the future will validate their speculations but as of 155 years after the Origin of Species, that has not happened.
Darwin and Wallace had a theory and the evidence to support it. It has been modified, expanded and a lot more evidence accumulated in the years since it was published. That it is acknowledged and accepted as the best theory available by the vast majority of the community of biologists says far more about it than the occasional sniping from the sidelines.
Delete"Darwin and Wallace had a theory and the evidence to support it."
DeleteNo they didn't. They had evidence that species have many similarities and differ by geographic areas and that it was possible to manipulate species with selective breeding. By the end, Darwin was a Lamarckian. And as we all know now that is nonsense.
"It has been modified, expanded and a lot more evidence accumulated in the years since it was published. That it is acknowledged and accepted as the best theory available by the vast majority of the community of biologists says far more about it than the occasional sniping from the sidelines."
I am aware of all the iterations of Darwin's ideas since their inception. How natural selection was all but abandoned by the early 1900's but most still believed in evolution instead of creation. And how Mendel and genes gave it some hope and then there were the discoveries of mutations as a source of variation and the development of genetics. Then there was the discovery of DNA and its role in protein formation and how the genome can be modified by SNPs, additions, deletions, duplicate genes, transposable elements etc. But all this just made it more difficult for Darwin's ideas and as of now they have no evidence to support a mechanism for the origin of new species.
You are just presenting an argument from authority and nothing else. It is always curious that no one ever presents evidence for how evolution actually happens.
Here are two links that point to the difficulty that Neo Darwinism or whatever it is called today has a theory:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/159282.article
The author makes the curious claim that there has never been proof of any new species arising. From the article:
"In other words, the theory of evolution rests on the failure of science to show that it is false. Nevertheless, he believes the theory can be scientifically tested.
But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
and
http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com
From the home page of this website:
"The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon supernatural intervention by a divine Creator. The other way is Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems. Both views are inconsistent with significant bodies of empirical evidence and have evolved into hard-line ideologies. There is a need for a more open “third way” of discussing evolutionary change based on empirical observations."
And these people also have nothing yet to explain how new species originate. So yes, there is no theory of evolution. Only wishful thinking. Something may come up in the future but as of today there is nothing.
Ian:
DeleteDarwin and Wallace had a theory and the evidence to support it.
No, as Janet Browne explained, both Darwin and Wallace believed in transmutation, and so searched for a suitable mechanism.
In case anyone was mislead by the above, it was Erasmus Darwin that believed in transmutation, not Charles. Lamarck believed in transmutation as well.
DeleteDawes, trained as a Jesuit, makes some fundamental mistakes about God. He imposes his own view of what God should be. He says
ReplyDelete"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. "
But then immediately says this
"My own view is that we can make predictions about how God would not act. He would not, for example, act in such a way as to create gratuitous suffering. This makes theistic explanations falsifiable"
Saying how God would not act is equivalent to saying how He would act. He directly contradicts the sentence immediately before it.
This assessment of how he believes God should act, affects his science.
The theodicy issue is at the heart of the evolution debate.
Good points.
DeleteGVC: The theodicy issue is at the heart of the evolution debate.
DeleteNo, theistic responses to the theodicy issue illustrates the problem with using God as explanation for phenomena, including biological complexity.
Theists want to have it both ways. In the context of the problem of evil, God's supposed mysteriousness is used to deflect criticism. But then they turn around and claim God's actions are the best explanation for specific phenomena.
That's the contradiction.
Again, it would seem that ideas have consequences, except when they do not.
I haven't a clue as to most of what you are saying so I will respond to this:
Delete'No, theistic responses to the theodicy issue illustrates the problem with using God as explanation for phenomena, including biological complexity. '
I was pointing out how one's science can be determined by religious/philosophical issues and not the science itself. I believe this is one of Dr. Hunter's theme. Dawes exhibits this. His science is determined by metaphysical issues or else he would have rejected Darwinian processes as leading to anything meaningful in terms of evolution.
For myself, the problem of so called "evil" is not an issue. I will follow the science. And right now there is no science that explains evolution and most certainly not Darwinian processes. So one must entertain alternative explanations. There could be in the future a yet undiscovered naturalistic mechanism for evolutionary change but nothing available today has promise.
Why doesn't Dawes admit this and why doesn't the biological community admit it. That is the interesting question.
From the statement which I claim that there is no science that explains evolution, do not take from it that the process of mutation and change over time of genomes due to selection does not exist. It is just that it is limited in what it can do.
So Dawes view of the world is influenced by his a priori elimination of God as a source of any cause due to the theodicy issue. So in order for him to accept some alternative explanations, he must come to deal with that. He is not the only one to bring up the theodicy issue. Darwin also did and it apparently changed his thinking substantially.
GVC: I was pointing out how one's science can be determined by religious/philosophical issues and not the science itself.
DeleteYou're ignoring Dawes' point.
But if our ability to make judgements about God is so limited, he doesn’t look like a good candidate for a scientific explanation. After all, we want scientific explanations to be testable. Testing a hypothesis normally means asking what would follow if it were true and then seeing if it does. What the sceptics suggest is that we cannot judge what consequences would follow, if God exists.
This is the contradiction. They want it both ways.
GVC: Dawes exhibits this. His science is determined by metaphysical issues or else he would have rejected Darwinian processes as leading to anything meaningful in terms of evolution.
That's a false dilemma that Cornelius keeps presenting.
First, what is or is not science is a question of the philosophy of science, not science itself. If it were, that would be scientism. So, to suggest that we must reject it because it's not science is, well, a philosophical claim about how scientific knowledge grows, which Cornelius hasn't argued for. Apparently, Cornelius is an empiricist of some sort. However, we've made progress since then. The very objections that he is making are based on key aspects of empiricism that we have discarded because they do not survive rational criticism.
Second, I don't care about reconciling God's sovereignty, etc., with what we observe. God is a bad explanation because, he is easily varied, which is a philosophical issue about what makes a good explanation and not limited to theology. See my example about a perfectly evil God in the comment below.
Third, another philosophical reason why I discard God as an explanation is because it implicitly includes the flawed philosophical idea that knowledge comes from authoritative sources or that we should judge ideas based on their source, not their content. Again, we've made progress since then.
Lastly, you seem to have confused incredulity or an inability to understand the explanation behind evolutionary theory, with no such explanation having been provided. These are two different things.
Again, the response to the theodicy issue is where the contradiction lies. Deflecting criticism by suggesting we cannot judge what consequences would follow if God exists conflicts with the idea that God is a good candidate for explaining phenomena.
Note: an explanation is not the same as a logical possibility. However, we discard an infinite number of mere logical possibilities every day, in every field of science.
It's unclear why your designer should be any different.
Thanks GVC, for pulling out the quotes.
DeleteI don't know how anyone could fail to see the point Dr. H is making here. Evolution's defenders talk out of both sides of their mouths and they think that is perfectly OK.
Ian proved the point to saying, "If you really believe that the theory of evolution relies in any way on an appeal to how a god might acted you don't understand the theory at all."
Of COURSE the theory depends on God would or would not act! The quotes you pulled from Dr. Dawes and your insightful comments are about as plain as plain can be.
Glenn: Evolution's defenders talk out of both sides of their mouths and they think that is perfectly OK.
DeleteThe ones who are talking out of both sides of their mouths are theists. We're criticizing those claims.
On one hand, theists deflect the problem of evil by claiming God is too mysterious to know what would follow if God exists. But, on the other hand, they say God is supposedly a good explanation for phenomena.
Can I not criticize the religious beliefs of others without holding them personally? If not, why?
It wouldn't happen to be due to the theistic claim that God is too mysterious to know what would follow if God exists, would it? And, therefore, any idea about God is purely faith, not a necessary consequence? Is that why we cannot differentiate between criticizing religious claims and actually holding them as personal beliefs?
If not, then why is it impossible to criticize the religious beliefs of others?
Glenn: Of COURSE the theory depends on God would or would not act!
What theory wouldn't depend on how God would or would not act?
For example, is the claim that you wrote the above post religious? I'm asking because God could have chosen to create the world we observe 30 minutes ago, complete with the appearance of age, false memories, etc. At which point God would have been the author of the comment I'm responding to, not you.
IOW, following that "logic", anything logically possible could depend on if God would or would not act. So, everything would be "religious". Including the claim that you wrote the comment I'm responding to. Do you see how this is problematic?
"X depends on whether God would or would not act" is a bad criticism because it applies to all ideas. So, you cannot even use it in a critical way.
He's pointing out the contradiction I've pointed out here several times. I've highlighted the paragraph in bold.
ReplyDeleteThere may, of course, be other problems with explanations that appeal to a divine agent. Here’s one. Explanations invoking God would be personal explanations, appealing to the beliefs and desires of a personal agent. (God, like any rational agent, would act because there is a goal he wants to achieve and this action is the best means of achieving it.) 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.
My own view is that we can make predictions about how God would not act. He would not, for example, act in such a way as to create gratuitous suffering. This makes theistic explanations falsifiable. But of course there are philosophers who dispute the force of this reasoning. “Sceptical theists,” for example, draw attention to the limits of our knowledge, arguing that we cannot reliably judge any instance of suffering to be actually gratuitous. They may have a point. But if our ability to make judgements about God is so limited, he doesn’t look like a good candidate for a scientific explanation. After all, we want scientific explanations to be testable. Testing a hypothesis normally means asking what would follow if it were true and then seeing if it does. What the sceptics suggest is that we cannot judge what consequences would follow, if God exists.
This means that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot ward off the argument from evil by invoking the mysteriousness of God and then claim that the existence and action of God is the best explanation of some phenomenon. So a scepticism of this kind undermines at least some alleged proofs of God’s existence.
"This means that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot ward off the argument from evil by invoking the mysteriousness of God and then claim that the existence and action of God is the best explanation of some phenomenon. So a scepticism of this kind undermines at least some alleged proofs of God’s existence."
DeleteThere is a confusion here. We have so called "evil" and a claim that there is no good reason for it, and then we have phenomena that have no naturalistic explanation but could be explained by the existence of an unknown intelligence of vast power. Why are they linked?
There is a non-sequitur here. Why does so called "evil" limit the power of an unknown intelligence. It only has relevance for the Christian God because the Christian God is all good. So if Dawes wants to be consistent, he would rule out the Christian God and not a massive mysterious intelligence and accept the possibility of some other form of creator. Why does he not entertain this?
As I said for me, the issue of "evil" is not an issue. It is a red herring. So I can entertain the existence of the Christian God with no problem from the theodicy issue. The theodicy issue is a flawed argument in many ways.
Dawes: You cannot ward off the argument from evil by invoking the mysteriousness of God and then claim that the existence and action of God is the best explanation of some phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteGVC: There is a confusion here. We have so called "evil" and a claim that there is no good reason for it and then we have phenomena that have no naturalistic explanation but could be explained by the existence of an unknown intelligence of vast power. Why are they linked?
There is confusion, but it seems to be on your end. Again, the problem is a contradiction between the idea that God is mysterious while also suggesting that God is a good explanation for phenomena.
Again, to quote Dawes...
After all, we want scientific explanations to be testable. Testing a hypothesis normally means asking what would follow if it were true and then seeing if it does. What the skeptics suggest is that we cannot judge what consequences would follow, if God exists.
Furtermore, "There is no possible explanation" is not the same as "no good explanation has been provided". It is logically possible that some explanation exists, but we can't know about it because this intelligence of vast power is mysterious.
I'd also point out that we could just as easily assume something completely different is true, in realty, despite the same observations. For example, it's also logically possible some explanation could exist for why a perfectly evil intelligence of vast power would allow us to experience good things.
For example, one could claim that for us to truly know suffering we would have to know what good things we're we would never ever experience again while being tortured for eternity. As such, one could say it would be necessary for a perfectly evil intelligence allows us to experience good things before we die.
Why don't you consider this unknown intelligence of vast power?
GVC: So if Dawes wants to be consistent, he would rule out the Christian God and not a massive mysterious intelligence and accept the possibility of some other form of creator. Why does he not entertain this?
Because the more abstract this mysterious intelligence becomes the more we cannot judge what consequences would follow if it existed. Becoming more mysterious isn't a feature.
GVC: As I said for me, the issue of "evil" is not an issue. It is a red herring.
Yes, you've said as much, but haven't explained why it's not an issue. So, again, it appears that ideas have consequences, except when they don't.