The Age-Old Sophism
Simply put, evolution is known to be a fact by theology. The empirical evidence, on the other hand, does not show that the world arose spontaneously. Quite the opposite—Epicureanism has not held up well. The empirical data do not support evolutionary theories.
This leaves atheists such as Jones in a bit of an awkward position. They gain their comfort from theology, but then claim it isn’t real. You can’t make metaphysical claims about God and creation, and then conclude that matter and motion is all there is. You can’t have it both ways.
Atheists like Jones have entered into a Faustian bargain. They reap a short term gain, but it is unstable. They have landed in John Lennon’s “Imagine” guilt-free land with “No Hell below us,” but they have arrived there by judging God. Their fallacy cannot endure in the long run.
Jones makes it clear as he bemoans the religious wars. For atheists, Jones explains, “religion is a force for ill.” What Jones does not explain, and no doubt has not understood, is that for atheists, there can be no such thing as ill in the first place. There can be no true knowledge of good and evil because, according to them, matter and motion is all there is. Such a world has no good and evil, only molecular configurations with no truth value.
It is the age-old sophism that we can never shake. The short-term gain is just too attractive.
...without religion we have the freedom to determine our own fate and to find our own purpose. Initial scepticism about God, often during early childhood, is consolidated later by the superior explanatory power of modern science. Science works.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, the referenced article is much more convincing than the critique by our gracious host.
Cornelius, you seem to have this belief that people believe in common descent for no good reason; that it's a religious belief.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you say to people that claim to believe in common descent for good reason? I'm one of those people, mind you; I think the conclusion of common descent is inescapable.
Glenn:
DeleteWell, can you explain, or give one or two reasons for, why you believe CD is inescapable?
Well, in one sentence: it's the fact that different species share the same patterns of similarities and differences in DNA, when that DNA has been empirically shown to be non-functional.
DeleteGlenn:
DeleteWell, in one sentence: it's the fact that different species share the same patterns of similarities and differences in DNA, when that DNA has been empirically shown to be non-functional.
OK, the "shared error" evidence. Kind of like identical typos in the homework of different students. When you have identical mutations which, for example, disable a gene, in homologous genes of related species, then CD is "inescapable."
I was more referring to studies where they induce a mutation in a gene, and then test the function of that gene. You can work out which mutations do nothing and which ones affect function. For the mutations that do nothing, you need to explain why, for example, humans and chimpanzees share the same non functional bases ( / amino acids).
DeleteI assume you're referring to GULOP? I haven't researched it in much detail, but on the face of it, it looks like pretty good evidence as well.
OK, let me resend then ...
DeleteGlenn:
DeleteI was more referring to studies where they induce a mutation in a gene, and then test the function of that gene. You can work out which mutations do nothing and which ones affect function. For the mutations that do nothing, you need to explain why, for example, humans and chimpanzees share the same non functional bases ( / amino acids).
OK, I see. I'll call it the "shared non utility" argument. Again, the problem with your argument is that you are affirming the consequent--a logical fallacy. In other words, you are moving from a successful prediction (if P, then Q. Q is true) to the conclusion that P is true (if P, then Q. Q, therefore P). That is a fallacy. P is not falsified by the finding of Q. But P is not inescapable. Do you see now?
Yes, I understand logic, thank you :)
DeleteDo you understand inductive versus deductive reasoning? Any why it means that all scientific theories are necessarily provisional?
This is not about confirming the consequent, this is about models of utility. The model of common descent explains very well why we see the patterns that we see, and a creation/design model does not.
How do you explain the data that we see, if common descent is not the model?
Glenn:
DeleteYes, I understand logic, thank you :)
But you are contradicting yourself. First you said:
I think the conclusion of common descent is inescapable.
But then you said:
Do you understand inductive versus deductive reasoning? Any why it means that all scientific theories are necessarily provisional?
So which is it?
Also, when I pointed out, in the OP, that the fact of evolution is theological you gave me push back:
Cornelius, you seem to have this belief that people believe in common descent for no good reason; that it's a religious belief. What do you say to people that claim to believe in common descent for good reason? I'm one of those people, mind you; I think the conclusion of common descent is inescapable.
But when I asked for the details, you made theological claims:
The model of common descent explains very well why we see the patterns that we see, and a creation/design model does not.
So again, science does not reveal that the world arose spontanously. Evolution's idea that the world arose via chance events is no different that the Epicurean idea two thousand years ago. Epicureanism was deeply theological, and so is evolution. Evolutionists are convinced evolution is a fact not because they have any idea how nature's wonders could have spontanously arisen (they don't), but because they know this world would never have been designed or created. This is all metaphysical. From a scientific perspective, it is ridiculous.
Are you trying to get me to say something like "common descent cannot be proven in a mathematical or logical sense"? Because if that's what you want, there it is. The caveat is that I can say that about the vast majority of what mankind would consider "scientific knowledge". Virtually all our scientific theories are produced inductively, and applied deductively. That's a given for me. Do you want a scientific discussion or a philosophical one? I prefer a scientific discussion - philosophical discussions tend to stray too far from the topic at hand.
DeleteOnce again, you've called my claim a theological one, and called evolution a "deeply theological" idea. I'm not sure what your definition of "theological" is, but my definition references concepts of God and religion. Neither concept has anything to do with common descent. I know that's kinda the point of your blog, but that's the issue I'm putting in dispute.
Also, be careful conflating common descent with evolution (and/or abiogenesis). When I say common descent, I mean common descent. I don't make the positive claim that "nature's wonders" (do you mean "life"?) arose spontaneously, even though I believe it to be the case; it is simply not part of my argument. So, to clarify, I don't "know that this world would never have been designed or created", but I consider it "knowledge" that, for example, humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor; and more broadly speaking, all life on earth is related.
So, assuming it's a scientific discussion you want, please tell me how a creation/design model accounts for the data.
Glenn:
DeleteEarlier you wrote that the "creation/design model does not" explain "the patterns that we see" very well. Yet you continue to say you are not making theological claims. You write:
Once again, you've called my claim a theological one, and called evolution a "deeply theological" idea. I'm not sure what your definition of "theological" is, but my definition references concepts of God and religion.
So you reference concepts of God and religion, while claiming to do no such thing. So how is it that concepts of God and religion are not always concepts of God and religion?
What you are saying is not making a whole lot of sense.
DeleteAre you saying that there is no such thing as a scientific model of creation/design? That it's a purely religious idea?
If there is such a model, then it must have some level of explanatory power. Does the creation/design model have explanatory power or not?
Please use your model to explain why we see these patterns.
Glenn:
DeleteWhat you are saying is not making a whole lot of sense. Are you saying that there is no such thing as a scientific model of creation/design? That it's a purely religious idea? If there is such a model, then it must have some level of explanatory power. Does the creation/design model have explanatory power or not? Please use your model to explain why we see these patterns.
I'm not making sense? You made a theological claim and you are in denial about it.
You said creationism does not explain the patterns that we see in this world very well, and therefore common descent is inescapable--it is "knowledge" that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor; and more broadly speaking, all life on earth is related.
That is a theological claim. As you put it, it references concepts of God and religion.
You say that your claim is not theological because the creationism model you refuted is scientific and has explanatory power. Fine, whatever. You can say whatever you want about it.
It references concepts of God and religion. The fact you are in denial about this, and say that I'm the one who is not making sense, is typical of evolutionists. For example:
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-jerry-coyne-liar-or-just-in-denial.html
Let me ask some very basic questions here, just to make sure I understand you. Please answer yes or no:
Delete1. Do you think "common descent is demonstrated by the evidence" is a theological claim?
2. Do you acknowledge that the Intelligent Design movement does not aim to identify the designer (that is, it could hypothetically be some alien race or something)?
3. Is intelligent design a scientific model?
4. Is there such a thing as a scientific model of creation?
(And no, I did not say "creationism doesn't explain the patterns _THEREFORE_ common descent". Please read carefully)
Let me ask some very basic questions here, just to make sure I understand you. Please answer yes or no:
Delete1. Do you think "common descent is demonstrated by the evidence" is a theological claim?
When the evidence is religious, yes.
2. Do you acknowledge that the Intelligent Design movement does not aim to identify the designer (that is, it could hypothetically be some alien race or something)?
Yes.
3. Is intelligent design a scientific model?
That is hotly debated. The problem is "scientific model" is ambiguous, with different people pouring different meanings into the term.
4. Is there such a thing as a scientific model of creation?
Same as #3.
Thank you! So clearly #1 is where we disagree.
ReplyDeleteQuick change of topic, just so we can clarify what you mean by "religious":
When one camp say that the earth is warming and it is due to man's activities, and the other camp say that the earth is cooling (or warming, but due to natural processes), is one camp making a religious argument, and the other a scientific argument? Which is which, and how can you tell?
(Note: I don't expect you to know anything about climate change - I certainly don't - just trying to see what the distinction is)
Glenn:
DeleteWhen one camp say that the earth is warming and it is due to man's activities, and the other camp say that the earth is cooling (or warming, but due to natural processes), is one camp making a religious argument, and the other a scientific argument? Which is which, and how can you tell?
Whether or not anyone is making a religious argument depends on the details of the argument--particularly the premises. Your definition of theological arguments above was a good one.
Okay, so you think that my interpretation of the evidence references the concepts of God (or lack thereof) and religion ... ?
DeleteHate to break it to you, but it's all just genetics to me. In my mind, the only way the concepts of God and religion come into common descent is when religious people say it's wrong.
Let's put it another way: Let's say that you believed that common descent did NOT conflict with the concepts of God and religion. Would you still believe that those that claimed it was true were making a theological argument?
Glenn:
DeleteOkay, so you think that my interpretation of the evidence references the concepts of God (or lack thereof) and religion ... ?
You said creationism does not explain the patterns that we see in this world very well, and therefore common descent is inescapable--it is "knowledge" that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor; and more broadly speaking, all life on earth is related. That is a theological claim.
Hate to break it to you, but it's all just genetics to me. In my mind, the only way the concepts of God and religion come into common descent is when religious people say it's wrong.
Epicureanism and evolution are fascinating for many reasons, one of which is the denial. They promote their religious beliefs in the guise of science, and then not only deny doing any such thing, but say that those “religious people” are the ones doing that.
Let's put it another way: Let's say that you believed that common descent did NOT conflict with the concepts of God and religion.
I do believe that. I’ve discussed this many times.
No, I did not say that "creationism is wrong, therefore common descent is right" as if it somehow wins be default. This is the second time I have corrected you on this.
DeleteYou keep saying my claim is a theological one, and I keep saying it is not; we're going around in circles. I conclude common descent is true because the data fits that model, and I don't see anything religious or theological about that. Scientific models that I believe ARE religiously based, like creationism and/or inteligent design, do not fit that data.
So, you believe that there is no inherent conflict between common descent and God/religion. If that's the case, what is your objection to common descent? Happy to accept answers in the form of previous blog posts ...
*beep*?
DeleteNeither the Big Bang theory in cosmology nor evolution in biology rest, in any way, on theological claims. Where Darwin refers to God and his alleged role in Nature, it is either to appease his audience by making a standard and expected genuflection to their religious sensibilities or it is to anticipate and counter theological criticism of his work.
ReplyDeleteFrom one perspective, however, religion is simply irrelevant. If theories about the relationship between electricity and magnetism developed by Maxwell, Faraday and others had been wide of the mark we would not have radio, TV, radar and computers. Even if that work had been deemed theologically sound by the religious authorities of the day, it would have made no difference. It would not have worked and that is what matters in science.
Whatever Darwin may or may not have believed, and it's clear those beliefs changed over time, was simply irrelevant to the theory he was proposing and I suspect it is fear of irrelevance, at least in terms of understanding the natural world, that drives religious attacks on science.
+1 for using genuflection in a sentence.
DeleteOh yes those irrational people believing with wonderment in the unspeakable genius behind the structures of nature and mathematics. Those irrationalists like the mutually devout Faraday and Maxwell. Irrationalists such as yours truly, with "The Calculus Wars" on the shelf, written about Newton and Leibniz: those two irrational, devout attackers of science. Yeah you guys so got it right, attackers of science everywhere, threatening your peace, all times of day and night. Oh and I was of the impression that what mattered was the motivation behind the giants of science named here. Why don't you genuflect on that, with ample references to what motivated these men to get up every morning and do what they did? Or is wallowing in the shallows too comfortable?
DeleteLess waffle, more 'point-making', please.
DeleteOh so cute.
Deletewaffle: to speak or write equivocally.
"The Calculus Wars" unequivocally on my shelf. About two men unequivocally driven every day by the intelligence they saw all around them plainly manifested as the brilliance of nature.
So you see, "religious attacks on science" I think has been a POINT raised ad nauseum, an echo chamber phrase, Not only here but in the mass media every day. In other words science used as a political sledge hammer. And the pushback on this blog does make certain kinds upset enough to come here to post again and again. Do you get my multiple POINTS.
Waffle: lengthy but vague or trivial talk or writing. Syn: prattle, verbiage, drivel, gibberish.
Delete"Do you get my multiple POINTS."
No. But maybe it's hidden in there somewhere. I just can't get past the bit where you boast about buying some snooty book off Amazon.
In fact I bought it at a used bookstore, Half Price. And see, thing is, the author admits that there are more scholarly historical documents than the one he wrote for a wide audience so actually not snooty at all. But if you are ignorant of the calculus, and think it a snooty subject, maybe you're dealing with something better handled by self examination than what you do here. And see, thing is, bitter people come on here, and instead of acknowledging that there is a debate going on about serious philosophical points, those folks like to get pretty snide, like I'm seeing now. You can come back with something different or you can continue the schoolyard taunting like we see every day online and we actually enjoy it when some lose the ability to debate because of their personality issues.
DeleteBTW something different might be like acknowledging the the greatest scientists in history didn't have an attitude like the one you guys manifest here.
Quite proficient at calculus, thanks! If you dig around Google enough, you might even be able to see that my math ability is a matter of public record :D
DeleteWhat I've seen so far is that you've used rather lofty language and "elegant prose", but have only *hinted* at topics that are only *vaguely* related to the discussion.
Bon voyage!
Yes and thank you for doing our work for us. I came back quickly to see if your behavior is like a certain Mr. Thornton who seemed to be checking every hour for my posts, holidays included. So it does appear that there is some kind of obsession with you guys and this blog. We have a lot of young folks watching. And when I make a point of the profound belief in intelligent design by the most famous scientists in history, and smartass comeback is the response we get instead of thoughtful engagement, all we have to do is ask the young ones if they want to see their own intellectual life unfold in that way.
DeleteBTW the everyday charge of "religious attacks on science" was not brought into the discussion by yours truly; my posts addressed that charge directly not by hinting but showing that I and Cornelius approach the wonders of nature in a fashion very congruent with the four giants of science mentioned. Which is salient point you can only answer in your snide avoidance comebacks.
I have no idea who Mr Thornton is.
DeleteI was more referring to a quote from a few years ago: "These are the guys who can calculate 42 times 832 in their heads".
So, from what I can gather, your point is that Faraday and Maxwell, Newton and Leibniz, all believed in intelligent design.
DeleteBoth of the former were at the end of their careers when Darwin published Origin of Species, and the latter were several hundred years prior.
Even if they lived in the current day and made their respective discoveries, they'd still be wrong about rejected common descent. No relevance, Your Honour.
I've read arguments by evolutionists along the lines of "God wouldn't do it that way." That's a religious arguments, not a scientific one. There's nothing wrong with religious arguments, but then religious answers should be allowed. And I've read evolutionists argue that saying God did it is cheating since it isn't falsifiable, testable, or doesn't lead to further research. These are metaphysical arguments, not scientific ones. There's nothing wrong with metaphysical arguments but these seem kind of arbitrary. I mean, who gets to make the rules?
ReplyDeleteI think the only time I would use that "God wouldn't do it that way" argument is if someone said "Common descent is wrong, God made the animals the way he did with only the APPEARANCE of common descent".
DeleteIt would be absurd and completely ad hoc.
But then if we can think of a reason why God would create things so that they have the illusion of common descent, then that would admit God did it as an explanation.
DeleteBut then if we can think of a reason why God would create things so that they have the illusion of common descent, then that would admit God did it as an explanation.
DeleteLet me know when you think of one. "To intentionally deceive and mislead" is a good one ... ?
Delete*beep*?
DeleteMaybe God didn't create things intentionally to mislead, but rather for another reason. For example, maybe the broken genes in different species may actually serve some purpose.
ReplyDeleteMy argument is not about pseudogenes (even though I think it's pretty good evidence). My argument is about shared mutations that have been shown empirically to have no function.
DeleteAre the mutations in functioning genes? I was under the impression that mutation don't have any function. They might have an effect.
ReplyDeleteYes, the mutations are in functioning genes - Cytochrome C is the example that I usually use.
DeleteThese mutations don't have an effect. Scientists have induced individual mutations in the gene, and then tested the function of that gene. Some mutations affect function and some don't.
It's the patterns of similarities and differences in non functional bases that makes common descent the only plausible explanation.
I understand that different genes actually give conflicting signals. So maybe common descent isn't really an adequate explanation.
Delete"I understand that different genes actually give conflicting signals."
DeleteThat's true, but only to a fairly minor extent. I suggest that you get an understanding of population genetics and incomplete lineage sorting before you dismiss common descent.
I read that the conflicting signals are all over the place. Anyway, if a theory needs epicycles like incomplete lineage sorting, and horizontal gene transfer, than it basically means that it works except in places that it doesn't. It isn't a very ggod theory.
DeleteIf you think that incomplete lineage sorting is an "epicycle" then I can 100% guarantee that you don't understand it. Incomplete lineage sorting is bound to happen in all but the tiniest of populations.
DeleteHorizontal Gene Transfer in eukaryotes is an incredibly rare event, but it does happen. The documented cases generally concern gene transfer between a parasite and its host.
Many years ago, I held the same simplistic view as yours - that the phylogenetic trees needed to be perfect. It wasn't until I dug a little deeper that I realised I should actually expect IMperfection. ILS and HGT aren't just terms to throw around if we see a discordant tree, or a gene that looks like it shouldn't be there.
If we never saw a gene that doesn't belong, then we would say that common descent explains everything with no need to come on to ILS and such. So it looks like evolutionists just make stuff up as they go along to explain away any problem.
DeleteAs I said, if that's your take on it, then I can guarantee that you don't understand it. There's a decent explanation over at BioLogos if you want a "non-hostile" source?
DeleteEvolutionists are convinced evolution is a fact not because they have any idea how nature's wonders could have spontanously arisen (they don't), but because they know this world would never have been designed or created.
ReplyDeleteNature's wonders? Please define.
This is all metaphysical.
How?
From a scientific perspective, it is ridiculous.
From what perspective? Is there an authoritative scientific perspective? How does one join that club?