At Skeptic: Why Christians Should Accept the Theory of Evolution

_{Eric Hedin

June 17, 2022

Evolution, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Larry Arnhart writes:

American Christian fundamentalists reject Darwinian evolution for at least two reasons. The first is their belief that the Bible has revealed a clear teaching about the divine creation of the world that denies Darwinian evolution. The second reason is their belief that Darwinian evolution contradicts the foundational principle of the American creed that human beings have been created equal and endowed with rights by their Creator, as affirmed in the Declaration of Independence. In this article I will argue that both beliefs are mistaken, and that Christians should all accept the theory of evolution.

In short, religious fundamentalists reject the Darwinian idea of human evolution from earlier species of animals because they believe this contradicts what the Bible says about God creating everything, including human beings, and about God as a personal deity who hears prayers and demands faithful obedience. They think … the Bible as God’s Revelation contradicts Darwin’s naturalistic science of evolution.

Let’s see what Arnhart has to say about the evidence for intelligent design:

To all of this, the intelligent design theorist Stephen Meyer responds by arguing that although he personally believes in biblical revelation, he sees that the case for an Intelligent Designer as an alternative to materialist natural science is best made on purely scientific grounds without any appeal to biblical authority. He claims that the evidence of science based on our natural observations of the world point to the existence of an Intelligent Designer to explain the appearance of design in the natural world that cannot be explained plausibly by Darwinian evolutionary science.

Meyer’s argument suffers, however, from a fundamental sophistry. Intelligent design reasoning depends completely on the fallacy of negative argumentation from ignorance, in which intelligent design proponents argue that if evolutionary scientists cannot fully explain the step-by-step evolutionary process by which complex living forms arise, then this proves that these complex forms of life must be caused by the Intelligent Designer. This is purely negative reasoning because the proponents of intelligent design are offering no positive explanation of their own as to exactly when, where, and how the Intelligent Designer miraculously caused these forms of life. Meyer insists that the proponents of evolutionary science satisfy standards of proof that he and his fellow proponents of intelligent design cannot satisfy, because his sophistical strategy is to put the highest burden of proof on his opponents, while refusing to accept that burden of proof for himself.

The author shows an astounding lack of understanding of the positive case for intelligent design, made clearly by Casey Luskin in a series of recent articles (Common Objections, Physics, Genetics, Systematics, and Paleontology). The boundaries of science, or the limitations of natural processes, provide a positive case for intelligent design, as discussed in my book, Canceled Science.

Arnhart’s concluding paragraph:

So, there are good reasons to believe that two of the major arguments against Darwinian evolution made by American Christian fundamentalists are mistaken. There is no clear biblical revelation denying Darwinian evolution. And there is no reason to believe that the Declaration of Independence requires a creationist theology that contradicts Darwinian science.
Skeptic

It turns out that some American Christian fundamentalists may disbelieve in Darwinian evolution for the wrong reasons, but their disbelief is squarely in line with the scientific evidence.

Comments

Sev, you want to play the analogies are fallacious game. But the coded algorithms in the cell are not analogies they are instances. KF PS, Paley, in Ch 2 raised issues that directly anticipated von Neumann on the kinematic self replicator. I think it is high time he was paid a modicum of respect that is his rightful due.kairosfocus_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Seversky: Another weakness of the ID claim to scientific credibility is their aversion to investigating the nature of their proposed Designer, which should be of primary interest. Another BS assertion by someone who has no basis for the statement, not being familiar with the extended activities of any of the contributors on here. Truth is it is ironic as hell that the maker of the quote seems quite satisfied making the assertion as the assertion can be turned around and directed back, since the Designer is the ultimate cause of the contributor also. Let me toss out a proposal. Suppose there were a sacrament that when smoked just once by atheists, were to convince more than half of those atheists of a gigantic error in their worldview, and lead subsequently to their questioning the basis of their atheism. Well guess what, such a substance does exist and the psychiatric dept at Johns Hopkins has interviewed 2,561 people who have smoked this substance. So then the accusation can be turned around: Another weakness of the skeptics' claim to scientific and philosophical certitude is their aversion to the methods of investigating the nature of the Designer of the cosmos, which should be of primary interest. In other words not only are millions of people out there and in history who have explored the issue including Aldous Huxley who grouped the fruits of the related quest for knowledge under the catch-all appellation "perennial philosophy" - but that there is an enormous body of literature out there describing it and at the outset blowing scientific materialism to bits. Here is one example link on the aforementioned sacrament which converts atheists, thousands of experiencers interviewed by Johns Hopkins: https://www.iflscience.com/why-do-people-see-elves-and-other-entities-when-they-smoke-dmt-62234 For more links you can google: DMT + elvesgroovamos_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

To date, the discoveries of science are providing more and more evidence for Intelligent Design. As that evidence accumulates, it keeps reducing the idea that blind, unguided chance made living things. Or the universe for that matter.relatd_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

seversky:
In the case of the claim that certain phenomena could not have arisen from natural causes, the obvious question is are we entitled to make such a claim given the limitations of human knowledge?
Yes, because that is how science operates- ALL of science.
Another weakness of the ID claim to scientific credibility is their aversion to investigating the nature of their proposed Designer, which should be of primary interest.
That doesn't follow. Knowing the Wright brothers has no bearing on understanding planes. The primary interest is in understanding the design so we can properly repair and maintain it. As for analogies, at least Intelligent Design has that! All you have is your whiny, science-free posts. The science of today has to go with the knowledge of today. The science of today does not and cannot wait for what discoveries may or may not come tomorrow. And it's OK if the discoveries of tomorrow refute the science of today. THAT is how it works! The discoveries of tomorrow may also confirm the science of today!ET_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

:)) When a person affirm something(anything) we are under ID umbrella. Without reason there is no idea, no concept, no definition and ultimately no science. 1.For science you need reason. 2.For reason you need ID . 3.Therefore for science you need ID. Why atheists ask for ID evidences from science when science itself can't exist without ID? Are they aware of their own reason? If yes why are they asking for evidences? If not, they understand nothing about reality so they can't be helped with logical argumentation.Lieutenant Commander Data_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

Seversky at 26, You're starting to repeat yourself. The nature of the Designer? Here are the primary choices: 1.) God as in the Judeo-Christian God. 2.) Aliens - as if we have any aliens we can sit down with and talk to. 3.) A rock from space. A meteor carrying organic material hit the ground and life spread everywhere. ID revolves around observations similar to forensic science or crime scene investigation. There is evidence that can be seen but who left it there is part two. If God then read the Bible. If Aliens, you're out of luck regarding an explanation. If a rock from space, same thing.relatd_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

The evidence for design is basically the same as it was going back to Paley and before. It amounts to the observation that there are phenomena in nature that are analogous to human artefacts and/or such phenomena could not have emerged from natural processes. In the case of any argument from analogy, a balanced judgement of the merits can only come from weighing both the similarities and the differences. In the case of the claim that certain phenomena could not have arisen from natural causes, the obvious question is are we entitled to make such a claim given the limitations of human knowledge? Another weakness of the ID claim to scientific credibility is their aversion to investigating the nature of their proposed Designer, which should be of primary interest.Seversky_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

BO'H, kindly post an actual camera shot video of the origin of the cosmos, the solar system, life, vertebrates, man. You cannot and you know it. Further to which, the presence of record of eyewitnesses runs out about 3000+ BC. You know this too. Beyond that point, reconstructions are more and more indirect, more and more interpretive and open to challenge. I have pointed to the text discovered in the cell as a key point that needs to reshape our thinking, and it should. Newton has posed frameworks for controlling reconstructions in ways that deliberately bridle speculation, anchored on observed causal capabilities. If we had better heeded him, we would be in better shape now. KFkairosfocus_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT}

Don't you know 'evolutionary psychology' is true? :) You, yes you, have a brain that could care less about truth just survival and reproduction. Nonsense. Pure nonsense.relatd_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Jus read the article, he is right, suddenly I’m an evolutionist and I can example EVERYTHING (right or wrong) cause that’s better…….. Negative CRITICISM is well a criticism not a proof. Secondly we explain why ID is more useful to explain the Phenomena and certainly NOT like our magic dude in the sky came down with a monkey wrench and did it I mean I guess a lot of us might think it’s obvious so we don’t go into detail but a lot of the reasoning behind intelligent design is things happen to conveniently and to perfectly For me the universe is too finely tuned and the mechanics of the universe directly control the result of our existence and those mechanics could be off by just a small amount and we would all cease to exist are living in terrible hell I think the universe is a tool and it’s God’s tool that’s my personal opinion And the fact that we can perceive this and it is all around us is the reason why we don’t think random evolution accidentally bumbled onto our existence and that we evolved all of these magical traits that make us who we are by accident Another criticism we levee at evolution is the fact that it uses an incredible amount of circular reasoning especially evolutionary psychology which this guy NEVER brings up Almost 100% of evolutionary psychology is circular reasoning so we should definitely reject it right out of hand because of the same reasoning this guy rejects intelligent design right out of hand do two negative reasoning but real science is waiting for Darwin Christ to explain why I feel morally towards others which that evolved to make people like me so I’d survive! God that’s just another way of saying god of gabs is really what it is which again Darwinian evolution is also incredibly guilty of Such as the appendix “we don’t know what its function does, evolution did it, it’s nothing but evolutionary sprandel but it has not function” I mean that’s literally a god of gaps argument that genuinely happened and now the appendix has function and it’s important because we looked into it and it wasn’t just some random evolutionary junkAaronS1978_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

Sad that the word "fundamentalists" appears so often. As if 'those people' are incapable of rational thought, and doesn't everybody know that the Bible is wrong about origins/creation? :) It's clear that God created. That is not debatable. As more and more is discovered regarding functional elements in living things, the odds for chance being the correct answer drops by orders of magnitude.relatd_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

First, Polistra: The language you used in your first post is offensive to me. I don't see the need for it. There's plenty of other ways of expressing what you want to say. Thanks for being sensitive to this. :) Second, as to Arnhart's argument----there's problems. The first problem is simply this: take the quote below and simply exchange "intelligent design theorists" with "evolutionary biologists," and vice versa. Then the following---
Meyer’s argument suffers, however, from a fundamental sophistry. Intelligent design reasoning depends completely on the fallacy of negative argumentation from ignorance, in which intelligent design proponents argue that if evolutionary scientists cannot fully explain the step-by-step evolutionary process by which complex living forms arise, then this proves that these complex forms of life must be caused by the Intelligent Designer. This is purely negative reasoning because the proponents of intelligent design are offering no positive explanation of their own as to exactly when, where, and how the Intelligent Designer miraculously caused these forms of life. Meyer insists that the proponents of evolutionary science satisfy standards of proof that he and his fellow proponents of intelligent design cannot satisfy, because his sophistical strategy is to put the highest burden of proof on his opponents, while refusing to accept that burden of proof for himself.
becomes something like this: "Evolutionary biologists depend completely on the fallacy of negative argumentation from ignorance, in which evolutionary biologists argue that if intelligent design theorists cannot fully explain the step-by-step intelligent process by which the intelligent designer brought about changes in living forms, then this proves that these complex forms of life must be caused by materialistic laws of nature. This is purely negative reasoning because evolutionary biologists offer no positive explanation of their own as to exactly when, where, and how the Laws of Nature miraculously caused these forms of life [to emerge and diversify]. Evolutionary biologists insist that the proponents of Intelligent Design satisfy standards of proof that they cannot satisfy. And so, the sophistical strategy of evolutionary biologists is to put the highest burden of proof on their opponents, while refusing to accept that burden of proof for themselves." This transposition of the argument is as equally valid as the original, if not more so. To me, Arnhart employs what amounts to an empty argument. It proves and demonstrates nothing--a waste of time, as I see it. But, there's more. Later, Arnhart writes this:
Ham refers to the famous case of Anthony Flew, the British philosopher who argued for philosophic atheism until he was persuaded to accept the argument for intelligent design, and he became a deist.Ham observes that since Flew never accepted the clear revelation in the Bible of God as Creator and Jesus as Savior, he died “as a Christ-rejecting sinner who sadly will spend eternity in Hell.” So, in Ham’s interpretation, those who fail to receive the correct revelation of Biblical creationism will go to Hell!
Isn't it interesting that Arnhart chooses to focus on Ham's theology rather than on the scientific side of all of this. He thinks, I suppose, that Ham is a brute because he's condemning Anthony Flew to Hell. But the real point of all of this is that a British philosopher who had argued for atheism his whole life, nonetheless is "persuaded to accept the argument for intelligent design." Further, Flew's acceptance of this argument had NOTHING to do with any understanding he had of the Bible. This pertinent understanding is, in fact, made abundantly clear since Ham is ready to put Flew in Hell precisely because Anthony Flew doesn't accept what Ham sees as the essential theological underpinnings of the intelligent design argument. In other words, what Arnhart writes here is a direct refutation of the very argument he's trying to make. Anthony Flew began to believe in God not because the Bible convinced him of it, but because he found the argument for Intelligent Design so persuasive. This points out the fallacy in Arnhart's thinking: he mistakes Meyer's true argument--which is that Intelligent Design can EXPLAIN more than Darwinian theory, with a pseudo-understanding of the argument--that Meyer comes to his view on Intelligent Design based solely on evolutionary biologists' inability to provide evidence for a "step-by-step" process by which higher forms of life arose. As Eric points out in his thread: "the author shows an astounding lack of understanding of the positive case for intelligent design."PaV_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

And the The explanatory filter refutes you, Bob.ET_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
Because you use it to say ” There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce such systems. “. That’s a negative argument.
Wow. Just wow. So, in Bob's mind a positive argument is actually just a negative argument because in fact the positive argument is saying there isn't anything else that can cause it. Yet that is what archaeology and forensic science does! All design inferences have to first eliminate blind and mindless processes before intelligent design can be determined.
No they don’t.
It's called PARSIMONY, Bob. If a geologist can demonstrate that geological processes can produce what archaeologists say is an artifact, the geologist wins.
You don’t need to rule out JFK dying of a heart attack before you can say that he was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Actually, the cause of death needs to be determined in every case. And natural processes take precedence. Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning, refute you, Bob. Parsimony refutes you, Bob. Occam's Razor refutes you, Bob.ET_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

SA @ 12 -
ID is not making the case that Lee Harvey Oswald did it but that there was a shooter with intent.
But it doesn't even do that. It only gets as far as "guns can be shot", but never tries to make a positive case that a phenomenon was a specific instance of design. kf @ 14 -
You know full well the actual past of origins beyond our record is an unobservable and is by definition unique.
That'd like arguing that we can't say that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot JFK because we don't have video evidence. But we can, at least, infer things about the past even without direct observation.
Your demand boils down to direct observation, which you know cannot be met by any present practitioners.
No it doesn't. I'm happy with less direct evidence, but where the evidence is from the phenomena you are investigating. ET @ 16 -
How do you figure that an argument from our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships is a negative argument?
Because you use it to say " There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce such systems. ". That's a negative argument.
All design inferences have to first eliminate blind and mindless processes before intelligent design can be determined.
No they don't. You don't need to rule out JFK dying of a heart attack before you can say that he was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald.Bob O'H_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Bob O’H- Cause-and-effect relationships. For example, all of our knowledge says that only intelligent agency volition can produce coded information processing systems. And living organisms are ruled by coded information processing systems. THAT is the POSITIVE argument, Bob. There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce such systems. And there isn’t even any way to test the claim that nature can do so. And science MANDATES that negative aspect of the design inference. I though you understood science, Bob? Clearly not.ET_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
you’ve reverted to a negative argument.
How do you figure that an argument from our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships is a negative argument? All design inferences have to first eliminate blind and mindless processes before intelligent design can be determined. This is obvious from Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning. Meaning all design inferences contain a negative aspect, even if that aspect is the mere fact that there isn't any evidence that blind and mindless processes are up to the task. It seems that Bob O'H doesn't understand how to investigate an effect, scientifically.ET_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

BO'H, see the above PS, which answers your just doubled down hyperskepticism. KF PS, I can go further, noting that we have chain of custody and text on text, in every cell in our bodies. The text is not narrative but algorithmic. That allows us to write a key contribution to chapter zero of world history, a chapter that speaks of sophisticated design.kairosfocus_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

More Science 101 from Newton, Opticks, Query 31:
As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For [speculative, empirically ungrounded] Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. [--> this for instance speaks to how Newtonian Dynamics works well for the large, slow moving bodies case, but is now limited by relativity and quantum findings] By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover'd, and establish'd as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving [= testing, the older sense of "prove" . . . i.e. he anticipates Lakatos on progressive vs degenerative research programmes and the pivotal importance of predictive success of the dynamic models in our theories in establishing empirical reliability, thus trustworthiness and utility] the Explanations. [Newton in Opticks, 1704, Query 31, emphases and notes added]
Where we start. KF PS, B O'H, selective hyperskepticism. You know full well the actual past of origins beyond our record is an unobservable and is by definition unique. Your demand boils down to direct observation, which you know cannot be met by any present practitioners. Newton pointed out that if we can identify characteristic signs per present observation, we can responsibly infer causes. And he pointed out that if a proposed cause is not observed capable of the like effect, it should not be entertained. The living cell has complex coded algorithms and associated molecular nanotech execution machinery. We are exploring nanotech, and we know codes and algorithms are cases of language and goal directed stepwise processes, and we know these are produced by intelligently directed configuration. In fact, on now trillions of cases [Internet and wider ICTs], we know there are no observed cases where once we can watch the cause, we see blind chance and mechanical necessity producing such. Blind needle in haystack analysis similar to underlying issues of statistical thermodynamics, readily show why that is plausible. So, what you are actually doing is denying and dismissing the evidence we can and do have, to demand what you know we cannot have. That's not Cricket.kairosfocus_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

ET @ 9 - you've reverted to a negative argument. The OP was trying to argue that ID isn't just a negative argument, so you're not helping.Bob O'H_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H
At best he only presents the first step in a positive case. But without a lot of other steps, he doesn’t have a case. It’s a bit like making the case that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK by just stating that last week you saw someone fire a gun.
ID is not making the case that Lee Harvey Oswald did it but that there was a shooter with intent. If ID is limited to that first step in a positive case - that intelligence can produce the effect and that a mindless natural cause cannot, then that has quite a lot of value. "Ok, ID is the best inference we can draw from this. I am open to evidence that refutes it, but thus far the ID case is the best we've got". You don't have to be sold on ID to at least say something like that.Silver Asiatic_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

Four Rules of Scientific Reasoning from Principia Mathematica
Rule 1 We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Rule 2 Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes. Rule 3 The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever. Rule 4 In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.
Science 101ET_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

Perhaps someone should first formulate a scientific theory of evolution. Until then there isn't anything for Christians to accept, duh.ET_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H- Cause-and-effect relationships. For example, all of our knowledge says that only intelligent agency volition can produce coded information processing systems. And living organisms are ruled by coded information processing systems. There isn't any evidence that nature can produce such systems. And there isn't even any way to test the claim that nature can do so. I though you understood science, Bob?ET_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Here is the pattern of reasoning I see so often: 1) ID criticizes Darwinism because **that is required** for challengers of the predominant theory. You have to show BOTH why you are right AND why the other theory is wrong. 2) ID critics notice that the negative case is perfectly solid, and they can't really argue against it 3) Therefore, they ignore the positive case and say that ID is entirely negative reasoningjohnnyb_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

As to:
"In short, religious fundamentalists reject the Darwinian idea of human evolution from earlier species of animals because they believe this contradicts what the Bible says about God creating everything, including human beings, and about God as a personal deity who hears prayers and demands faithful obedience. They think … the Bible as God’s Revelation contradicts Darwin’s naturalistic science of evolution."
First off, 'modern science', in its foundational presuppositions, is not now, nor has it ever been, 'naturalistic'. In fact, modern science was uniquely born out of the Judeo-Christian worldview, and was certainly not born out of the "naturalistic" worldview.
The Judeo-Christian Origins of Modern Science - Stephen Meyer - video - (April 2022) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss-kzyXeqdQ
Moreover, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of 'methodological naturalism'.
,,, from the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Again, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism.
Moreover, assuming 'methodological naturalism', instead of Judeo-Christian Theism, as one's starting philosophical presupposition for 'doing science', (far from being a 'requirement' for doing 'good science'), actually drives science into catastrophic epistemological failure instead of facilitating scientific discovery.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than methodological naturalism, and/or "Darwin’s naturalistic science of evolution", has turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Secondly, although Arnhart apparently believes that human evolution is such a well established scientific fact that he hardly needs to put up any defense of it in his article, the 'scientific fact' of the matter is that the "Darwinian idea of human evolution from earlier species of animals" is contradicted by the science itself at every turn.
Jan. 2022 - Fossil Record refutes human evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-fox-news-adam-and-eve-are-compatible-with-evolution/#comment-744141 The evidence from genetics, directly contrary to what Darwinists claim, simply does not support the Darwinian ‘narrative’. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740245 Darwinists simply have no evidence that morphology, and/or biological form, is reducible to mutations to DNA. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740247 Population Genetics falsifies, instead of confirms, Darwinian claims for human evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/christian-darwinists-must-now-backtrack-re-adam-and-eve/#comment-741335 Human exceptionalism falsifies Darwinian claims for human evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evangelical-scientists-getting-it-wrong/#comment-740249 Darwinists, (in what makes the ‘problem’ of explaining the origin of the human species pale in comparison), have no clue whatsoever why I, as an individual person within the human species, should even come into existence as a person with unique individual subjective conscious experience https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/casey-luskin-the-mytho-history-of-adam-eve-and-william-lane-craig/#comment-740568
Thus in conclusion, Arnhart need not worry about reinterpreting the Bible for Christians, and/or reinterpreting the Declaration of Independence for them, to make it more compatible with "Darwin’s naturalistic science of evolution", instead Arnhart needs to 'reinterpret' his own metaphysical presuppositions to see exactly where and why he is so far out of line with what the science is actually saying.
Genesis 1:26-27 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.… ,,, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,,, - per Declaration of Independence
bornagain77_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
03:17 AM
3
03
17
AM
PDT}

Meyer's "positive" argument is that intelligent agents can do things. But he doesn't provide any evidence that intelligent agents actually did the things ID is supposed to be interested in explaining. At best he only presents the first step in a positive case. But without a lot of other steps, he doesn't have a case. It's a bit like making the case that Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK by just stating that last week you saw someone fire a gun.Bob O'H_{June 18, 2022
June
06
Jun
18
18
2022
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT}

PPS, Arnhart should not venture on phil of sci, he fails to observe that Meyer is a PhD in phil of sci and knows a thing or two on the epistemology of science. As a result he sets up and knocks over a strawman. First, the design inference is not argument from ignorance but inference to best explanation on tested, reliable sign. Specifically, on trillions of observed cases, without exception and backed by blind needle in haystack search challenge, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information beyond 500 to 1000 bits [FSCO/I] comes about by intelligently directed configuration. There is no other actually observed cause of FSCO/I, apart from this currently acting cause.Where, there is no good reason to infer that humans exhaust possibilities for designing intelligence, and where the cell has copious algorithmic, alphanumeric code in D/RNA, pointing to purpose and language using intelligence with deep knowledge of polymer chemistry antecedent to cell based life on earth. Where, too, the cosmos exhibits complex fine tuning that supports c chem, aqueous medium cell based life. Such points to cosmological design and to extracosmic designer of great power. We need only point to logic of being issues and why a necessary being root of reality is needed to explain worlds. Ideological imposition dressed in a lab coat as we see from Lewontin does not count. Inference to best explanation on sign goes back to the founder of medicine, Hippocrates, and is one of the first established scientific methods; try the sign of death. Further, the design inference is not a Biblical interpretation, but is a longstanding inference on evidence to signified cause, Plato in The Laws Bk X makes the first on record. Wikipedia and similar ideologically tainted sources are not credible as a basis for writing on ID.kairosfocus_{June 17, 2022
June
06
Jun
17
17
2022
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT}

F/N: As a political scientist, Arnhart should be able to parse this:
[Lewontin:] . . . to put a correct [--> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people's heads
[==> as in, "we" the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . where of course "view" is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]
we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [--> "explanations of the world" is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised "demon[ic]" "supernatural" being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
Likewise, as an educated person, he should be able to appreciate the basic fact that our rationality transcends gigo constrained computational substrates, rearranging J B S Haldane, co founder of the neo darwinian synthesis:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For
if [p:] my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes; notice, "my brain," i.e. self referential] ______________________________ [ THEN] [q:] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. [--> indeed, blindly mechanical computation is not in itself a rational process, the only rationality is the canned rationality of the programmer, where survival-filtered lucky noise is not a credible programmer, note the functionally specific, highly complex organised information rich code and algorithms in D/RNA, i.e. language and goal directed stepwise process . . . an observationally validated adequate source for such is _____ ?] [Corollary 1:] They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence [Corollary 2:] I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. [--> grand, self-referential delusion, utterly absurd self-falsifying incoherence] [Implied, Corollary 3: Reason and rationality collapse in a grand delusion, including of course general, philosophical, logical, ontological and moral knowledge; reductio ad absurdum, a FAILED, and FALSE, intellectually futile and bankrupt, ruinously absurd system of thought.]
In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]
KF PS, broken window theory applies, let us not invite a spiral to the gutter.kairosfocus_{June 17, 2022
June
06
Jun
17
17
2022
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

Who is Larry Arnhart, from wikipedia: Larry Arnhart (born January 13, 1949) is a Distinguished Research Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois. He lives in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Arnhart has been described as one of the most prominent advocates of contemporary classical liberalism along with Friedrich Hayek and Thomas Sowell.[1] His areas of teaching and research include the history of political philosophy, biopolitical theory, and American political thought. Arnhart is the author of five books and more than forty peer-reviewed articles.[2] :)))))) So ... A professor of political science is trying to convince me, a 21st century engineer, that fully autonomous self-navigating self-replicating flying systems self-designed, and that i should accept it, because a bunch of natural science graduates say so ... But i don't blame this Darwinian clown ... not only he does not know what he is talking about, but he doesn't even realize how ridiculous and confused he is ...martin_r_{June 17, 2022
June
06
Jun
17
17
2022
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply