Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

DRC466 on Plato vs Aristotle


DRC writes:

Evolution postulates that the History of Life is due to gradual evolution of form generating novel features and functions, which has been a result of strictly naturalistic random mutations and variations of genetic material.

This cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory.
This cannot be illustrated from fossils in the fossil record.
This cannot be proven false.

Proving me wrong should be a simple exercise. Simply point to a single experiment, performed over the last 150 years of evolutionary experimentation and investigation, that shows random unguided mutation resulting in a completely novel function (e.g. a rat growing wings, a fruit fly that can spin webs, e.coli. becoming not e.coli.).

Your response will no doubt take the form of “there isn’t enough time to perform such an experiment”, or “we don’t know the right conditions or causes of such mutations that would result in the generation of novel features”. And these are, as far as they go, possibly valid explanations.
However, the end result is the same – RM Gradualism cannot be demonstrated, experimented, or empirically illustrated in a lab or in the fossils.

In fact, every experiment attempted to provide evidence for it has instead shown that random mutations accumulate to destroy life, not provide new function.

Since you don’t like “grecian science”, perhaps a better way of putting it is Plato as opposed to Aristotle. Reason over empiricism.

If you don’t feel empirical evidence is required for us to accept Evolution, I would refer you to the pre-modern “sciences” of aether and spontaneous generation.

Responses from our Darwinist friends???

related stuff: http://crev.info/2014/02/evolutionary-explanations-add-illogic-to-speculation/ JGuy
On topic of the magic show where evolutionists are 'reasoning' for evolution... I'd like to recommend this book: http://saintpaulscience.com/about.htm JGuy
Excellent post. Its ludicrous that evolutionists dont want ID to be taught as science yet they have no problem with the PHILOSOPHY of evolution being taught in a science class. Heck they were even crying about ID being taught in a philosophy class a few months back. Eveolution taught as science sounds like something I would see in some of my old favorite Rod Serling Twilight Zone episodes. wallstreeter43
DRC gives an excellent summary of the limits of historical science that Ken Ham talked about in the debate. Nice job! tjguy
Barry, I figured DRC meant REASON in terms of a systematic approach to discovery of knowledge based on reason. I'm assuming even if reason alone were sufficient, and then honing in on what actual reasoning has been given and finding it entirely insufficient and so incomplete. However, I don't think reason alone can work anyway. Even the reasoning used incorporates or borrows some empirical observations to carry out the reasoning process. Off topic: This all reminds me of some questions I've had about Christian apologetics. Assuming the dichotomy is accurate, Which is superior apologetic method (if either): evidential or pressupositional? (perhaps this is akin to reason v. empiricism?)... My position so far is that presuppositional apologetics has a much stronger basis , BUT I think neither is exclusive...and that they arguably require one another. For example, for one to use presuppositional reasoning, it seems one needs to come to understand their presuppositions. But how does one realize his/her pressupositional basis without evidence of it, even if that evidence is logic and reason itself. And of course, the evidentialism has a more obvious requirement of presuppositions. I'm not sure if I'm communicating my ideas effectively, but anyway... the OP topic reminded me of this. JGuy
DRC is saying that we have come to a pass in which Darwinists have reverted to an empirical-confirmation-be-damned Aristotelian epistemology.
Actually the opposite: DRC is saying that we have come to a pass in which Darwinists have reverted to an empirical-confirmation-be-damned Platonic epistemology: We know from reason what must be true. That, however, is 'reason', not reason itself, as JGuy points out. Ian Thompson
JGuy, I take it that when he uses the term “reason” DRC is not speaking of a particular application of reason, but of an epistemic approach. The standard narrative since the time of Francis Bacon has been that the Greeks (as represented by Aristotle) believed they could “think” their way through to conclusions about nature and there was no need to test their conclusions empirically. In contrast, Bacon championed a system (which we now call the scientific method) in which we have ideas and then test those ideas through experiments. DRC is saying that we have come to a pass in which Darwinists have reverted to an empirical-confirmation-be-damned Aristotelian epistemology. It is an interesting idea. Barry Arrington
May I suggest a new first paragraph:
“Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
from Darwinism, Design and Public Education UD Editor: Joe's point is well taken. I understand that DRC is speaking in shorthand, but I was practically certain that the Darwinists' first response would be "Darwinian Evolution is NOT NOT NOT random." You don't understand what you are talking about, so there is no need to address the larger point you are making. Joe
Excellent comment by DRC. I'd only add that I don't think even satisfying reason is used by Darwinists. So, not only is there a complete lack of empirical evidence. It lacks a completed set of reasoning. Not much different than reasoning that a man can eventually jump to the moon because his first two jumps are consecutively higher. JGuy

Leave a Reply