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

From: John E. Rylander (rylander@prolexia.com)
Date: Thu Jul 27 2000 - 09:37:19 EDT

  • Next message: John E. Rylander: "RE: Is Darwinism Self-Refuting? (was: An intelligent discussion with Intelligent Design's designer)"

    I don't have time to get involved in an argument over this with Chris, and
    in my experience he'd rather argue with Steve Jones, but if you want a
    sophisticated version of this argument, see either
    _Warranted_Christian_Belief_ by Alvin Plantinga (Oxford, 2000), or his
    forthcoming article, "Naturalism Defeated" -- not even sure where it's
    forthcoming, and it might even be out now.

    Suffice it to say that your passionate screed here doesn't engage the
    serious philosophical argument.

    John

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu
    > [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Chris Cogan
    > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 12:09 AM
    > To: evolution@calvin.edu
    > Subject: 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 - 09:37:26 EDT