The arguments for evolution seem to take two or three stereotypical forms:
1. The Default Argument (a la Dawkins):
i) The spontaneous origin/evolution of life is wildly improbable.
ii) However, the existence of God is even more improbable since God would have to be more complex than anything he designed.
iii) Hence, naturalistic evolution still comes out on top by process of elimination.
iv) Given (i)-(iii), even if we had no physical evidence for evolution, the theory of evolution would still be warranted. Indeed, there is no justifiable alternative.
v) Given (iv), we don’t need any physical evidence for a stepwise, evolutionary pathway. It is sufficient to postulate a hypothetical pathway.
vi) Given (iv), we don’t even need to spell out a stepwise, working model. It is sufficient to postulate that B co-opted A on the way to C.
vii) Given (iv), we can substitute computer simulations for physical evidence.
2. The Metascientific Argument (a la Lewontin)
i) By definition, the scientific method is predicated on the uniformity of nature.
ii) Creationism, whether in the form of special creation or theistic evolution, would violate the uniformity of nature, and thereby undermine the scientific method.
iii) Given (i)-(ii), the only scientific explanation for the origin and/or development of life will be a naturalistic explanation.
iv) Hence, the scientific presumption will invariably favor naturalistic evolution, even if we had no physical evidence or feasible theories for naturalistic evolution.
3. The Cumulative Argument (a la Ernest Mayr)
i) The best evidence for evolution is the fossil record.
ii) Unfortunately, the fossil evidence for evolution is underdetermined by the fossil record because the fossil record is incomplete.
iii) However, we can supplement the fossil record with other, admittedly inferior, lines of evidence (e.g. morphology, microbiology, biogeography).
Obviously evolution is false, but how do you rank these three in order of effectiveness or logical persuasiveness?
ReplyDeleteWhat forms do creationist arguments take?
ReplyDeleteBerny said...
ReplyDelete"Obviously evolution is false, but how do you rank these three in order of effectiveness or logical persuasiveness?"
The first argument is premised on Dawkins' incompetent critique of the teleological proof.
The second argument is simply question-begging.
Only the third argument makes an empirical claim, subject to empirical verification or falsification.
anon said:
ReplyDelete"What forms do creationist arguments take?"
They often take the form of:
"DUH...I dunno where it all came from. But a book says God didit. Good 'nuff for me!"
Anonymous said:
ReplyDeleteanon said:
"What forms do creationist arguments take?"
They often take the form of:
"DUH...I dunno where it all came from. But a book says God didit. Good 'nuff for me!"
***********************************
"What forms do Darwinian arguments take?"
They often take the form of:
"DUH...I dunno where it all came from. But a book by Dawkins says Mother Nature didit. Good 'nuff for me!"
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete"What forms do creationist arguments take?"
Variations on the cosmological and teleological arguments.
Berny said:
ReplyDelete"Obviously evolution is false..."
Obviously. That won me right over. After I read this, as well as Steve's devastating take-down of biology, I immediately knew you were all right, and that the global scientific community was:
i) evil
ii) ignorant
iii) locked in a conspiracy
Guys, I tried calling a few biology profs I know to let them know that evolution was false. I even visited labs and research facilities with some of the best creationist literature and arguments. For some reason, they didn't take me seriously. Some of them even laughed!
Evil, ignorant, conspiring *****!!!
They'll find out one day, won't they?!?!
What kind of variations of cosmological and teleological arguments speak to empirical evidence like fossils? It's evolution v. design, not evolution v. cosmology, right? Your 1 and 3 above are strictly about evolution and your 2 seems mostly so as well.
ReplyDeleteI don't know the details of your philosophy of science. Would you say something like:
Naturalistic evolution is an empirically adequate theory but is underdetermined. A creationist account is also an underdetermined empirically adequate theory, but I accept it for pragmatic reasons (e.g. it fits in with my cosmology; it accords with my faith; etc.).
?
Jiminy Cricket said:
ReplyDeleteAfter I read this, as well as Steve's devastating take-down of biology, I immediately knew you were all right, and that the global scientific community was:
i) evil
ii) ignorant
iii) locked in a conspiracy
*************************
Another commenter who suffers from reading incomprehension. Nothing he says is responsive to anything I said. He had a prefabricated response to critics of evolution, and he simply regurgitates that response regardless of what was actually said.
I didn't offer a take-down of biology. I merely summarized three stock arguments for evolution.
That would lay the foundation for evaluating the arguments, but, at this stage, I was presenting an exposition rather than an evaluation.
It's striking that Darwinians are so hypersensitive to any hint of criticism.
ANONYMOUS SAID:
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of variations of cosmological and teleological arguments speak to empirical evidence like fossils? It's evolution v. design, not evolution v. cosmology, right? Your 1 and 3 above are strictly about evolution and your 2 seems mostly so as well.
I don't know the details of your philosophy of science. Would you say something like:
Naturalistic evolution is an empirically adequate theory but is underdetermined. A creationist account is also an underdetermined empirically adequate theory, but I accept it for pragmatic reasons (e.g. it fits in with my cosmology; it accords with my faith; etc.).
************************************************
1. The answer depends on how broad or narrow your question. If it's limited to evolution, then it would cluster around ID-type teleological arguments (e.g. fine-tuning, irreducible complexity, specified complexity), as well as rival interpretations of the fossil record both inside and outside the evolutionary community (e.g. Gould v. Dawkins v. Chien).
2. I'm an antirealist in my philosophy of science.
3. I don't regard naturalistic evolution as empirically adequate.
4. I think that some ID arguments are more convincing than the secular alternatives. However, this can quickly get us into a very specialized debate. At that level I prefer to watch the "experts" duke it out.
5. I don't have any confidence in historical reconstructions of the distant past. That would apply equally to all sides of this debate.
6. There are some a priori arguments for creation which don't depend on empirical considerations (e.g. Kalam argument; PSR argument).
Jiminy, it was an inter-christian question. I (a Christian) am asking Steve (a Christian) to answer a question.
ReplyDeleteIs it not assumed that we'd pressupose our views as correct?
3. I don't regard naturalistic evolution as empirically adequate.
ReplyDeleteAre we both thinking "empirically adequate" in the van Fraassean sense?
So, we have humans and other animals and we have fossils of "things" that look significantly different than the humans and other animals alive today and no fossils of humans and other animals that are exactly like humans and other animals living today.
So, we wonder on the one hand, "Why don't we see any 'thing' exactly like those fossils still living?" and on the other, "Why don't we have fossils exactly like any humans and other animals living today?"
Now, we have empirically observed certain types of genetic mutations resulting in differences in animals.
So, "naturalistic evolution" simply puts this together into a theory. We don't see animals like the fossils we have because those animals no longer exist in the forms they previously did. We don't see fossils like humans and other animals living today because those humans and other animals living today did not exist in the forms they do now in the past.
An empirically adequate theory says: The "things" we have fossils for mutated into the humans and other animals living today over time.
I'm not making the strong claim that this is what actually happened (I find myself more in the nonrealist camp as well). I am simply arguing that this theory matches the empirical observations of the fossil record (no matter how "sketchy" you find the fossil record to be).
Because it accounts for the empirical evidence, I deem it to be an empirically adequate theory (again, in the van Fraassen sense).
I would also say that intelligent design is an empirically adequate theory.
My choice between them is based on pragmatic considerations (e.g. simplicity, not multiplying entities beyond necessity, etc.).
Gotta run.
anonymous said...
ReplyDelete“Are we both thinking "empirically adequate" in the van Fraassean sense?”
I assume you mean “adequate” in the sense of descriptively and predicatively accurate, even if a rival theory might be equally adequate—in that limited sense.
When I deny that naturalistic evolution is empirically adequately, I’m not limiting myself to the fossil record.
Naturalistic evolution would be empirically inadequate as special case of why naturalism in general is empirically inadequate.
For, to stay at a more specific level, it is empirically inadequate with respect to the philosophy of mind—to take one example.
***QUOTE***
So, we have humans and other animals and we have fossils of "things" that look significantly different than the humans and other animals alive today and no fossils of humans and other animals that are exactly like humans and other animals living today.
So, we wonder on the one hand, "Why don't we see any 'thing' exactly like those fossils still living?" and on the other, "Why don't we have fossils exactly like any humans and other animals living today?"
Now, we have empirically observed certain types of genetic mutations resulting in differences in animals.
So, "naturalistic evolution" simply puts this together into a theory. We don't see animals like the fossils we have because those animals no longer exist in the forms they previously did. We don't see fossils like humans and other animals living today because those humans and other animals living today did not exist in the forms they do now in the past.
An empirically adequate theory says: The "things" we have fossils for mutated into the humans and other animals living today over time.
***END-QUOTE***
This is predicated on a number of unspoken assumptions:
1.Actually, I’ve never seen the fossil record. That is to say, in my reading of the Darwinian literature, I’m never show the raw evidence laid out in any systematic fashion.
Instead, I’m offered a selective and rather one-sided historical reconstruction of the fossil record in which the gaps are filled by evolutionary assumptions, interpolations, and extrapolations in order to create a pattern of lineal descent. But that pattern is not given in the natural record itself.
In this sense, I suppose you could say that naturalistic evolution is empirically adequate insofar as the evidence is theory-laden evidence. The theory is being used to rearrange the evidence in an evolutionary pattern.
By the same token, appeal to the evidence is, in that respect, viciously circular. So it really isn’t evidence *for* evolution.
2.As you know, there are critics of evolution who deny an evolutionary trend from simple to complex.
If so, then the theory is either empirically inadequate, or must be so heavily caveated that it’s a disguised description masquerading as a causal explanation.
3.Do genetic mutations generate new organs or body plans?
4.We need to segregate the evidence for microevolution from the evidence for macroevolution. Hence, environmental variations or adaptations don’t trigger the questions you raise. Not for me.
5.I don’t see that widespread extinction is incompatible with the Biblical account of origins. Take the flood.
(I’m not making specific claims about the flood. Just that this event complicates the issue.)
Therefore, the evidence of extinct species doesn’t run contrary to my prior expectations. Hence, this phenomenon doesn’t trigger the questions you raise. Not for me.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI assume you mean “adequate” in the sense of descriptively and predicatively accurate, even if a rival theory might be equally adequate—in that limited sense.
We're on the same page here.
For, to stay at a more specific level, [naturalistic evolution] is empirically inadequate with respect to the philosophy of mind—to take one example.
I'd have to hear more to know if I agreed or not.
1.Actually, I’ve never seen the fossil record. That is to say, in my reading of the Darwinian literature, I’m never show the raw evidence laid out in any systematic fashion.
So, do you deny that there are fossilized dinosaurs or other species that aren't around today? Is the "cover-up" that extensive in your mind? Do you deny that there are no ancient fossilized homosapien remains (i.e. none that are dated the same as other ancient species like dinosaurs and wolly mammoths)?
It seems to me that that would take a tremendous cynicism, and you seem much more reasonable than that (as your conversation about Nouthetic counseling above shows). Maybe, though, you have good reasons for an extreme cynicism that I don't know.
In this sense, I suppose you could say that naturalistic evolution is empirically adequate insofar as the evidence is theory-laden evidence. The theory is being used to rearrange the evidence in an evolutionary pattern.
I might be able to hang with you on the first sentence, but I think you lose me on the second.
2.As you know, there are critics of evolution who deny an evolutionary trend from simple to complex.
Actually, I'm not that well-read in the subject. Not exactly my area.
3.Do genetic mutations generate new organs or body plans?
If evolutionary theory is true, then it absolutely does. If the theory is untrue, then it may not be the case debending on what the truth actually is.
Are you asking if this has ever been observed outside of evolutionary theory? If so, I don't know.
4.We need to segregate the evidence for microevolution from the evidence for macroevolution. Hence, environmental variations or adaptations don’t trigger the questions you raise. Not for me.
As I understand it, some evolutionary theorists say that enough changes at the micro-level add up to macro-changes, but, again, not my area.
I'm not sure which questions you are referring to. The only questions I'm aware of asking is about the fossils of, now extinct, species and the lack thereof of, now extant, species. Maybe I missed something about the micro-/macro- discussion.
5.I don’t see that widespread extinction is incompatible with the Biblical account of origins. Take the flood.
I agree with you. I think that creationism can come up with an empirically adequate theory of life. My choice between theories are for reasons other than observational anomalies (and it sounds as if yours are as well).
Therefore, the evidence of extinct species doesn’t run contrary to my prior expectations. Hence, this phenomenon doesn’t trigger the questions you raise. Not for me.
Again, I'm not sure what "questions" you are referring to. You seem to have an answer in mind for the absence of certain ancient species (possibly, the flood). A bigger problem might be to explain the absence early homosapien fossils, but I'm sure that there is some way you, or another creationist, could explain this as well.
I'm not arguing that creationism isn't empirically adequate. If anything, I'm only attempting to make the case that naturalistic evolutionary theory is also empirically adequate.
I really don't have anywhere to go with this if you admit that it is. If you did admit this, I guess we could get into reasons why you choose one theory over another and that might be interesting, but it may turn out that our reasons aren't very interesting at all.
Steve-o said:
ReplyDelete"4. I think that some ID arguments are more convincing than the secular alternatives. However, this can quickly get us into a very specialized debate. At that level I prefer to watch the "experts" duke it out."
That's a short and bloody fight, huh?
ANONYMOUS SAID:
ReplyDeleteI [Steve] said: "For, to stay at a more specific level, [naturalistic evolution] is empirically inadequate with respect to the philosophy of mind—to take one example."
He [Anon] said: "I'd have to hear more to know if I agreed or not."
I'm alluding to a couple of things:
1. Secularism is committed to naturalized epistemology. (This goes back to Quine.) And one can argue that eliminative materialism is the most consistent form of naturalized epistemology.
However, there are even secular philosophers like Nagel and Searle who regard eliminative materialism as a blind alley.
There are a lot of online resources of you're interested.
2. Secularism is also committed to evolutionary psychology. But philosophers like Plantinga (and even some Darwinians) have argued that evolutionary psychology undermines rationality.
Once again, there are online resources if you're interested.
I said: "1.Actually, I’ve never seen the fossil record. That is to say, in my reading of the Darwinian literature, I’m never show the raw evidence laid out in any systematic fashion."
He said: "So, do you deny that there are fossilized dinosaurs or other species that aren't around today? Is the "cover-up" that extensive in your mind? Do you deny that there are no ancient fossilized homosapien remains (i.e. none that are dated the same as other ancient species like dinosaurs and wolly mammoths)?"
1. If you want to have a constructive dialogue, you need to avoid these tactics. I responded to what you wrote at the time. You are now, for the first time, introducing specific examples which were not on the table before, and then imputing a cynical or conspiratorial mentality to me.
Since my original comments were not directed to your then-nonexistent examples, the imputation of a cover-up to my way of thinking represents an attempt on your part to backdate your present argument to what I was originally responding to.
If that's how you wish to conduct yourself, then there's no point continuing our exchange.
2. I was quite specific on what I meant. Your present objection is not responsive to what I said. You're welcome to introduce a new objection. But don't twist my words when I was not addressing your current example.
3. Nothing I've said implies a denial of fossilized dinosaurs.
4. I also don't deny the existence of cavemen.
5. Actually, I believe that even on conventional dating, cavemen would overlap wooly mammoths.
6. It's true that on conventional dating, dinosaurs and homo sapiens are not contempories. However, conventional dating techniques involve unverifiable assumptions about the initial conditions and uniformity of nature. These assumptions are axiomatic and utilitarian rather than demonstrable. As a Christian, I don't view nature as a closed system.
I said: "In this sense, I suppose you could say that naturalistic evolution is empirically adequate insofar as the evidence is theory-laden evidence. The theory is being used to rearrange the evidence in an evolutionary pattern."
He said: "I might be able to hang with you on the first sentence, but I think you lose me on the second."
Among other things, the following article gives some examples of how evolutionary theory often infects the appeal to fossil evidence:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=639
I said: "As you know, there are critics of evolution who deny an evolutionary trend from simple to complex."
He said: "Actually, I'm not that well-read in the subject. Not exactly my area."
See the above-cited article.
I said: "Do genetic mutations generate new organs or body plans?"
He said: "If evolutionary theory is true, then it absolutely does. If the theory is untrue, then it may not be the case debending on what the truth actually is."
See the above-cited article.
He said: "As I understand it, some evolutionary theorists say that enough changes at the micro-level add up to macro-changes, but, again, not my area."
That's what some of them claim, all right. But can they make good on their claims? Once again, see the above-cited article.
He said: "A bigger problem might be to explain the absence early homosapien fossils"
How would the absence of early homosapien fossils be a problem for creationism? Wouldn't that be a problem for Darwinism?
He said: "I'm not arguing that creationism isn't empirically adequate. If anything, I'm only attempting to make the case that naturalistic evolutionary theory is also empirically adequate. I really don't have anywhere to go with this if you admit that it is."
1. For reasons I've given, I don't think it's empirically adequate. Beyond what I've already said, there's the question of whether Darwin or neo-Darwinism made false predictions which punctuated equilibrium subsequently attempted to rectify after the fact—a form of retrodiction.
2. There's also the question of whether either neo-Darwinism or punctuated equilibrium is even descriptively accurate. Once more, see the above-cited article.
I'm not claiming that this article is the be-all and end-all of the discussion. But given your questions, it's a good place to start.
And if you want stuff on evolutionary psychology and eliminative materialism, I can point you in that direction as well.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI haven't had the opportunity to read the paper you linked yet (maybe sometimes in the near future if things let up a little), but I did have one question about your comment.
1. Secularism is committed to naturalized epistemology. (This goes back to Quine.)
Are you saying that secularism is logically committed to a naturalized epistemology or that all secularists are actually proponents of naturalized epistemology. The latter seems patently false. It also seems to me that many forms of fallibilism are perfectly consistent with secularism (e.g. reliablism).
Oh, and my question about the fossils was an honest one on my part. When I first mentioned the "fossil record" dinosaurs, etc. was what I had in mind. When you made your statement, I really didn't know your opinion and asked. I didn't intend to insult you.
Anonymous said:
ReplyDelete"Are you saying that secularism is logically committed to a naturalized epistemology or that all secularists are actually proponents of naturalized epistemology. The latter seems patently false."
That is not a self-explanatory denial.
"It also seems to me that many forms of fallibilism are perfectly consistent with secularism (e.g. reliablism)."
And what is the bearing of that on my statement about naturalized epistemology?
BTW, this thread has now disappeared into the archive, and I don't visit the archive on a regular basis.
So if you wish to continue this conversation at a later date, you'll have to carry it over to the combox of some current thread.