Is Darwinism Self-Refuting? (was: An intelligent discussion with Intelligent Design's designer)

From: Chris Cogan (ccogan@telepath.com)
Date: Thu Jul 27 2000 - 01:08:51 EDT

  • Next message: Richard Wein: "Re: Is Darwinism Self-Refuting? (was: An intelligent discussion with Intelligent Design's designer)"

    >Stephen
    >Here is an interview in a Christian magazine of Phil Johnson, by fellow
    >IDer Nancy Pearcey.
    >
    >Johnson puts his finger on the ultimate self-refutation of Darwinism, that
    >Darwin himself in his later years came to realise, namely if Darwinism is true
    >it could not know whether it was true or false:
    >
    > "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the
    > convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind
    > of the lower animals are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would
    > any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are
    > any
    > convictions in such a mind?" (Darwin C.R., letter to W. Graham,
    > July 3rd, 1881, in Darwin F., ed., "The Life of Charles Darwin,"
    > [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).
    >
    >The atheistic evolutionists on this List talk a lot about rationality, but
    >where do they get rationality from out of random mutations and differential
    >reproduction?
    >
    >An atheist using reason to deny God's existence is like a computer using
    >Microsoft software to deny Bill Gates' existence!

    Chris
    I trust that most readers on this list realize at least intuitively just
    how *stupid* and irrational this line of "reasoning" is. If *this* is what
    Johnson thinks is an "ultimate self-refutation of Darwinism," then my
    remarks about Johnson's intellect in earlier posts stands confirmed once
    again. Johnson is an intellectual -- and *moral!* -- *pipsqueak*, making
    his career almost entirely on the basis of lies, half-truths, sophistries,
    and sucking up in a whole-hearted way to the ignorant, the unwary, and the
    stupid.

    However, many readers may not grasp just *why* the line of "reasoning"
    given by Jones/Johnson above is non-sensical, so, though I won't present
    the entire philosophical background that could be brought to bear on such
    drivel, I will present enough to enable some readers to be clearer about
    what is going on here. Others may find it a good reminder of things they
    might not have thought of.

    First, some miscellaneous quickies:

    1. Consciousness (awareness and self-awareness) is a primary. The question
    is not whether we can know anything or can be rational, but merely what the
    mechanism is and how it works.

    2. Evolution, in fact, provides a very good explanation not of the
    mechanism itself, but of why it arose and why, ultimately, we have
    *scientific* reason to trust it (it is one *hell* of a powerful survival-tool).

    3. Jones/Johnson are not in any better state than evolutionists in this
    respect, because they cannot prove that their God provides a valid
    rationality any more than evolution would. Why not? Because, to "prove"
    such a thing, they *first* need to assume that they can be rational,
    *regardless* of whether there is or is not a God. Otherwise, meaningful
    proof is impossible.

    Now for the main line

    Now, as the reader can see from the above, there is no question of
    evolution subverting rational knowledge. The question is simply how it is
    that evolution can produce a mind capable of it. The basic answer is: Bit
    by bit. We can *prove* that intelligence, rationality, and so on, are,
    under many of the conditions that early man and earlier primates lived in,
    extremely powerful survival tools. We also can prove that irrationality is,
    *in general*, contra-survival.

    Thus, given a naturalistic theory of evolution and the presence of a
    suitable environment, it is easy to predict that a brain that can manage
    self-reflective intelligence, language, and so on, will evolve. Let's
    reconsider the quotation from Darwin:

             But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the
             convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind
             of the lower animals are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would
             any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any
             convictions in such a mind?

    Obviously, *if* the monkey could ask such a question, the answer would have
    to be: Yes, *regardless* of how it came to be. The proof is in the
    *results*, not the method of arriving at the results. The fact is that the
    human mind (well, *some* human minds) *have* arrived at a stage where such
    questions can be asked -- and answered.

    Would I trust a human mind that had read a book of myths written two
    thousand years ago, had swallowed them nearly whole, and that had evaded
    nearly *every* serious question about *their* truth and rationality? No.

    And it would not matter whether I thought some sort of God existed or not.
    The *method* in such a case is simply not rational, even if it has
    superficial appearance of rationality. For an example of this type of
    thing, I suggest that the reader visit Stephen Jones' Web site and read
    his "testimony," at:

             http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/testimny.html

    I will leave the question of exactly why this "testimony" is demonstrates
    pseudo-rationality as an exercise for the reader, though I may at some
    point give a more nearly comprehensive discussion of the fundamental
    mistakes exhibited, because they are very common, both historically and in
    today's world.

    For now, it is sufficient to point out that man *is* the rational animal
    (in a basic, biological sense of "rational"), and that it is simply
    *irrelevant* how it became so. The fact of man's rationality (in the sense
    just mentioned) is undeniable, and the obviousness of the biological
    *value* of rationality in certain environments and to certain organisms is
    *also* undeniable, and this provides all the plausibility needed to
    "reconcile" our ability to discover and know things with the theory of
    evolution itself (as if such reconciliation was needed at all).

    Basically, Darwin got the question backwards, by assuming that human
    ability to know was rationally questionable and that the path or means by
    which a being came to have such ability could somehow reflect badly (or
    well) on the result. It is, as I pointed out, simply *irrelevant* whether
    man's mind came about by God's arbitrary fiat or by evolution or by a
    one-in-a-googolplex-to-the-googolplex-power chance conglomeration of atoms
    that happened to be able to think.

    Additional Comments

    I'm saddened that Darwin was bothered by such questions, but, had he a
    sufficiently better background in philosophy, he would have seen that such
    questions rest on assumptions that themselves need questioning (and *those*
    probably rest on assumptions that need questioning, and so on). Darwin
    lived over a hundred years ago, has some excuse for not seeing his way
    through such conceptual pseudo-problems. Jones, Johnson, and the lunatics
    who came up with the so-called "Transcendental Argument for God" (or "TAG,"
    as it is sometimes known), do not have Darwin's excuse, *particularly*
    since they are putting so much weight on such ideas.

    Thus we see that, instead of being an ultimate self-refutation of
    Darwinism, Jones and Johnson have merely puffed up yet another sophistry
    and flung it out to snare the ignorant, the unwary, the over-eager *and*
    unwary, or the merely stupid. Some people still accept the old communist
    line to the effect that the end justifies the means (*any* means, no matter
    how vile and monstrous). Apparently, Jones and Johnson's religious beliefs
    are *so* deeply entrenched that running rampant over ordinary standards of
    reason and honesty in persuasion are simply irrelevant to them, so, *in the
    name of God (!!!!)*, they have sunk to the level of being willing to use
    such arguments as this "evolution is self-refuting" argument, despite its
    clear and fatal unsoundness.

    Demagoguery must have its rewards, or it would not remain so popular, but I
    can't imagine wanting those rewards more than what I'd have to *give up* in
    order to be able to seek them by such means.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 01:14:22 EDT