Backwards reasoning

TOUCHSTONE SAID:

“The rationale science uses is completely different than the one you've used. They note that humans exist now, and work backwards. Since humans come from earlier humans -- their parents -- they like all living things form a chain back into history.”

No one denies that. Both YEC and OEC affirm that.

“Evolutionary theory supposes that this back chaining leads to convergence, if you go back a long ways, were humans were less evolved, and had a shared developmental path with other species - primates most recently, others in the more distant past.”

Yes, we understand that.

“Some closely-related hominids *didn't* make it. There are no more Neanderthals around any more, so they obviously didn't have what it takes to survive in some regard.”

Once again, we already understand that aspect of the theory.

“This paradigm gives a means for understanding man's history on earth. So far, the dirt evidence that we have fits nicely with the model.”

That’s a matter of interpretation.

“The only way I can see that one would suppose we got here without a biological history…”

That's a straw man argument. No one denies that we (human beings) have a biological history. Both YEC and OEC affirm that we have a biological history.

“Is a scenario in which something happens that goes against the physics, the natural processes in place for God's creation. That's where YEC ideas come into the picture.”

I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. Fiat creation doesn’t go “against” physics or natural processes.

Rather, fiat creation is what puts the cycle of natural forces and processes in place.

“In their view, man's organizational and commercial skills provided the selective advantage that pushed the Neanderthals out of the picture.”

Two problems:

i) To my knowledge, YEC (and OEC) classifies Neanderthals as a subspecies of modern man. Hence, Neanderthal would have a full complement of human faculties.

ii) According to evolutionary theory, this stage is very late in the game. The fact that Cro-Magnon man had various survival skills doesn’t explain how he survived prior to the evolution of those survival skills.

“Your argument is different, though. You are making a claim that man *could* not possibly have survived.”

No, my claim is not that strong. My claim points out major obstacles to the survival of early man, given evolution, and then demands corresponding evidence for how he overcame those obstacles.

Now the Evangelutionist plays his trump card:

***QUOTE***

The rationale science uses is completely different than the one you've used. They note that humans exist now, and work backwards.

Man *did* survive, because, well, we're here, and in large numbers. That's very strong evidence that we've had what it takes to make it thus far. If we didn't have what it takes, how did we get here?

But the basic assumption of evolutionary theory is sufficiency for survival by implication: we know we were able to survive because we did survive.

So, in a nutshell, here's the rationale from evolutionary theory, which I think is the best one available:

Man had what it takes to survive because he *did* survive.

That's the rationale you seek. It should have been obvious, it's basic evolutionary theory.

***END-QUOTE***

Thanks for clearly stating the primary argument for evolution. That helps to show how utterly vacuous the argument for evolution really is.

It’s true that the actual implies the possible. It’s also true that the present implies the past.

But that does absolutely nothing to prove a particular theory how we survived.

An atheist could use your logic to prove atheism, viz. a secular scientist observes that the universe exists as of now, and works backwards. It did arrive at this point because, well, it’s here. That’s very strong evidence that the universe had what it takes to make it this far. If it didn’t have what it takes, how did it get here?

Thus, the basic assumption of secular cosmology is sufficiency for existence by implication: we know that the universe did exist because it does exist; thus, it had whatever it needed to make it this far.

So, in a nutshell, here’s the rationale from secular cosmology: the universe had what it takes to get here because it did!

That’s the rationale you seek. It should have been obvious since it’s basic secular cosmology.

We could apply the very same reasoning to prove naturalistic evolution. Evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary ethics.

Yet the inference is completely invalid. Yes, you can infer the possible from the actual or the past from the present.

But all you can infer is the generic truth *that* whatever is actual is possible, or *that* the past is real given the reality of the present.

This in no way implicates a specific theory of *what* the past was like, or *how* the possibility of the past renders the present possible.

And, what is worse—not only is the inference invalid, but it can also be just plain wrong.

For example, we all use logic. Logic is undeniable.

But someone may propose a reductionistic ontology that ends up removing thevery truth-conditions which make logic possible—much less necessary and universal.

The necessity of logic doesn’t retroactively warrant just any ontological theory of logic.

A particular ontology may completely undercut the necessity and universality of logic—in which case the theory is self-refuting.

Same problem with eliminative materialism.

So, yes, you can reason from the present to the past, or the actual to the possible. But that only satisfies a necessary condition of any existential proposition. It is hardly a sufficient condition.

The fact that we are here today, in which case it was possible for us to make it this far, does nothing whatsoever to justify the inference or assumption that it was possible for us to survive according to a set of evolutionary postulates.

To the contrary, evolution may stipulate such restrictive conditions that survival either impossible or highly unlikely. And one would need very specific evidence to overturn that presumption.