tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post2188973411376885739..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: You Won’t Believe Who Denies Evolutionary BeliefsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35379987240017973182012-04-10T06:07:35.115-07:002012-04-10T06:07:35.115-07:00jeffblue101:
Plantinga is against the view that e...jeffblue101:<br /><br /><i>Plantinga is against the view that evolutionary theory can only be understood from a naturalistic perspective.</i><br /><br />Yes, but if you read the comments by Plantinga that Richards was responding to, you'll see that Plantinga admits that any scientific theory <i>can</i> be legitimately understood a-theistically. Plantinga is defending the position that because scientific theories - including the theory of evolution - <i>involve no theistic assumptions</i> they don't rule out theism.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-23265731363325790432012-04-09T18:16:48.775-07:002012-04-09T18:16:48.775-07:00CH: "What is a problem is 'denying' t...CH: "What is a problem is 'denying' the religious reasoning"<br /><br />How else are we supposed to criticize claims made by theists and ID proponents, other than taking their claims seriously, as if they are true in reality, and that all observation should conform to them? <br /><br />In fact, it's unclear how any other means would be reasonable or even rational. <br /><br />Are we not allowed to criticize claims about the biosphere? If so, why? That we're unable to criticize theories about biological complexity would be a claim in itself, which would be subject to criticism as well. <br /><br />Or are you claiming this assumption cannot be criticized as well?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21407212885157797422012-04-09T16:48:01.330-07:002012-04-09T16:48:01.330-07:00Jeff: what I believe that Hunter is saying is that...Jeff: what I believe that Hunter is saying is that evolutionist are denying that they are using metaphysical arguments to prove their theory.<br /><br />We do deny this. However, as we keep pointing out, he has the emphasis wrong.<br /><br />Problem solving is about finding and discarding errors in our theories, not positively proving any particular theory is true using observations. That would be a hold out of logical positivism or represent some form of prophecy.<br /><br />Rather, we create knowledge by forming theories though conjecture, then we test those theories for errors using observations. This is a form of criticism. Specifically, we criticize a theory by taking it's clams seriously, as they were true in reality, and that all observations should conform to it. <b>We then tentatively accept those theories that survive significant criticism.</b><br /><br />How would any other means of criticism be reasonable or even rational? What's the alternative? <br /><br />If there is no alternative, then it appears Hunter is claiming the biosphere was created in such a way that makes a theory of biological complexity impossible. However, this would be like claiming that atoms were created in such a way that makes atomic theory impossible, or that objects move in such a way that makes a theory of gravity impossible, etc. <br /><br />We cannot prove any of these theories "true" anymore than we can a theory of biological complexity. Yet, this doesn't prevent us from tentatively accepting them as our current, best expansion for these phenomena. <br /><br />Why is the biosphere any different?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30815829150368526162012-04-09T14:39:51.880-07:002012-04-09T14:39:51.880-07:00Scott:
"How *are* we supposed to criticize a ...Scott:<br />"How *are* we supposed to criticize a theory other than assuming it's claims are true, in reality, and that all observations should conform to them?"<br /><br />Hunter:<br />"What is a problem is 'denying' the religious reasoning"<br /><br />what I believe that Hunter is saying is that evolutionist are denying that they are using metaphysical arguments to prove their theory.jeffblue101https://www.blogger.com/profile/13193338660540518848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54881367454631168442012-04-09T13:30:03.541-07:002012-04-09T13:30:03.541-07:00I'd also point out that mere logical possibili...I'd also point out that mere logical possibilities and un-conceived explanations are not theories. They are neither true or false as we cannot criticize them. <br /><br />As such, we discard them as we do with a near infinite number of logical possibilities and un-conceived explanations in every day, in every field. <br /><br />It's unclear why you think we should make an exception in the case of the biosphere.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87946233237145433182012-04-09T13:22:10.498-07:002012-04-09T13:22:10.498-07:00Cornelius,
It's unclear to the purpose of yo...Cornelius, <br /><br />It's unclear to the purpose of your post. <br /><br />How *are* we supposed to criticize a theory other than assuming it's claims are true, in reality, and that all observations should conform to them?<br /><br />In fact, it's unclear how any other means of criticism would be reasonable or even rational.<br /><br />In other words, exactly what other method should we use? <br /><br />Or perhaps you're claiming the biosphere was created in such a way that any theory of biological complexity must be equal since such a theory cannot be criticized?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24567638422283241152012-04-09T11:06:06.698-07:002012-04-09T11:06:06.698-07:00Is there a form of agnostic naturalism?Is there a form of agnostic naturalism?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-43855353224547170092012-04-09T10:43:26.198-07:002012-04-09T10:43:26.198-07:00Pendant
"Plantinga's views about evolutio...Pendant<br />"Plantinga's views about evolutionary theory seem to have evolved:"<br /><br />You are confusing atheistic naturalism with evolutionary theory. Evolution and naturalism have a whole host of different meanings depending on the context. Plantinga is against the view that evolutionary theory can only be understood from a naturalistic perspective.<br /><br />Jay Richards examines Plantinga's viewpoint here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/04/so_where_does_t058281.htmljeffblue101https://www.blogger.com/profile/13193338660540518848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44268724314622245032012-04-09T08:39:35.666-07:002012-04-09T08:39:35.666-07:00We sure didn't have to wait long for your own ...We sure didn't have to wait long for your own stupid entrance, did we, bonobo face?Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49903864969401229682012-04-09T08:23:14.888-07:002012-04-09T08:23:14.888-07:00Plantinga's views about evolutionary theory se...Plantinga's views about evolutionary theory seem to have evolved:<br /><br /><i>I am certainly not arguing that evolution is false or can’t sensibly be accepted.<br />...<br />It is not a conclusion of my argument that evolutionary theory is unreliable and should be rejected; as I say, I have no objection to current evolutionary theory.<br />...<br />Since there is powerful evidence for evolution, therefore, you should give up naturalism.*<br /><br />*In my argument I take naturalism to be the claim that there is no such person as God or anything like God—no angels, demons, or anything else supernatural. Naturalism is therefore stronger than atheism; you can’t be a naturalist without being an atheist, but you can be an atheist without rising to the full heights (or descending to the murky depths) of naturalism.</i><br /><br />From http://ichthus77.blogspot.com/2012/02/wilkins-and-eaan-reply-by-dr-alvin.html#morePedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4934916603230325252012-04-09T07:15:35.211-07:002012-04-09T07:15:35.211-07:00Cue Batspit77's entrance, followed by several ...Cue Batspit77's entrance, followed by several thousand words of C&Ped blithering nonsense and OT links.<br /><br />Wait for it....Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-63749026245170923452012-04-09T06:43:37.607-07:002012-04-09T06:43:37.607-07:00Which argument of Burnet is the most important to ...Which argument of Burnet is the most important to modern evolutionary theory ,in your opinion?velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.com