Here’s an Example of Evolution’s Unavoidable Anti Realism

_{Cornelius Hunter

September 21, 2012

Intelligent Design}

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

Though evolutionists think of themselves as realists—ruthlessly objective investigators interested only in truth—their naturalistic constraint ultimately leaves them with only anti realism. This is because any a priorirestriction of the answer might exclude the true answer. If I decide my math homework must contain only odd numbered answers, then I’ll be wrong on those problems whose correct answer is an even number. I can round up, approximate, truncate, contort or whatever to obtain an odd number, but I will be wrong. For such problems, the only way to be right is to remove the a priori restriction. But evolutionists cannot do this. Foundational to their thinking is that the world must have arisen by itself, strictly via natural laws and processes. What most evolutionists do not grasp is that their extreme rationalism leads at best to anti realism, and at worst to skepticism. Read more

Comments

Reading a Q&A hosted by Jonathon Wells at the Discovery Institute, just now, I was struck by his unequivocal assertion that so-called 'junk DNA' was, in fact, a complete misnomer. It did have a purpose. In saying this, Wells was, in fact, 'joining the dots' described by a mountain of ever-accumulating evidence to that effect. And I couldn't help but be struck by the confidence of a quite superior intellect, when actually stating the obvious (to a scientist of integrity, viewing the evidence), and the endless exclamations of delighted surprise of the myrmidons of scientism. 'Well! I do declare! Isn't that wonderful! Yet again Evolution throws up for our delectation yet another surprise!' One long, ramshackle concatenation of surprises.. leading nowhere; instead of a chain of logical reasoning based on evidentiary premises. I'm still not sure whether such exclamations are triumphalist paeans to the fecundity of the abiogenetic paradigm, or periphrastic evasions, sounding uncommonly like a low, whimpering sound. I do have my suspicions, however.Axel_{September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

CR: That is justificationism. UB: So, do you believe a thing that does not exist can cause something to happen? Or is that kind of observation unimpoertant to knowledge?
Can you justify that cause? And justify that cause's cause,? And justify that cause's, cause's cause? Ad infinitum? Do you find your inability to do this unimportant?
CR: Protocols in your argument are tRNA which are themselves modulated by knowledge laden genes. UB: Incorrect. The genetic protocols for protein synthesis are aminoacyl synthetases, and they are constructed from information recorded in genes.
Incorrect? My explanation is consistent with the observations. And it's a good explanation for those observations.
CR: So, the entire crux of the issues between Darwinism and ID is based on epistemology. UB: And your adamant denial of the observations which conflict with your views now finds its place in your erroneous conclusions. Surprise, surprise.
You continue to confuse denying observations and pointing out it's impossible to extrapolate observations without first putting them into an explanatory framework, despite being corrected repeatedly. So, if anyone is denying anything…
CR: So, the entire crux of the issues between Darwinism and ID is based on epistemology. Is knowledge justified by some authoritative source or is it created? UB: The argument you ignored was created from observation.
Is this the point where you stop asking serious questions again? Or perhaps you simply cannot recognize your conception of human knowledge as an idea that would be subject to criticism?
And once again: There is absolutely nothing that would cause you to engage the evidence I presented to you. Instead, you demand that I respond to your irrelevant topics.
I presented an explanation for the evidence and an argument for that explanation. I also disclosed my epistemology, and argued for it. Again…
Do you think that your specific epistemology could be wrong? Of course, before we could even address that question, you would have to actually disclose your specific epistemology in the first place, which is why I keep asking you direct questions designed to do just that. Your response to criticism continues to be one that ignores the issue, as if it doesn’t exist. It’s unclear how this represents being “open to criticism” when you refuse to explicitly disclose it in the first place.
This is a simple yes or no question, which is both relevant to the issue at hand, yet has continually gone unanswered.critical rationalist_{September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

That is justificationism.
sez who? and appeals to authority are not allowedMung_{September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

CR,
That is justificationism.
So, do you believe a thing that does not exist can cause something to happen? Or is that kind of observation unimpoertant to knowledge?
That is denying that your conception of human knowledge is subject to criticism.
And that is a merely tool you use to justify your denial of empirical observations which conflict with your views.
Protocols in your argument are tRNA which are themselves modulated by knowledge laden genes.
Incorrect. The genetic protocols for protein synthesis are aminoacyl synthetases, and they are constructed from information recorded in genes.
So, the entire crux of the issues between Darwinism and ID is based on epistemology.
And your adamant denial of the observations which conflict with your views now finds its place in your erroneous conclusions. Surprise, surprise.
Is knowledge justified by some authoritative source or is it created?
The argument you ignored was created from observation. And once again: There is absolutely nothing that would cause you to engage the evidence I presented to you. Instead, you demand that I respond to your irrelevant topics. Upright BiPed_{September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

UB: Therefore evolution cannot be the source of their existence.
That is justificationism.
Instead, you demand that I respond to your irrelevant topics.
That is denying that your conception of human knowledge is subject to criticism. Protocols in your argument are tRNA which are themselves modulated by knowledge laden genes. So, the entire crux of the issues between Darwinism and ID is based on epistemology. Is knowledge justified by some authoritative source or is it created?critical rationalist_{September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

CR, So you entered a conversation which was explicitly based upon empiricism (i.e. logic verified by observation and/or experimentation) and it was not your intent to engage the argument, but only to question if logic verified by observation was a valid form of creating knowledge. Great. But you did not stay outside of the observations:
Knowledge must first be conjectured and then tested. This is what Darwin’s theory presented from the start.
To which I responded in the context of the discussion:
Darwinian theory is fully dependent on the arrangements of matter being described here, which I have referred to as “representations” and “protocols”. It is their material existence that is being observed and presented (by extension) as the necessary material conditions for evolution to occur. Therefore evolution cannot be the source of their existence.
And to this moment you refuse to assimilate this fact. Like I said:
There is absolutely nothing that would cause you to engage the evidence I presented to you. Instead, you demand that I respond to your irrelevant topics.
Upright BiPed_{September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Your argument assumes that there is only one valid form of epistemology, which is that knowledge is justified by authoritative sources, rather than being created via emergence.
I don't see that as an either/or proposition. And it looks to me as if you are confusing the subject of how knowledge is justified with where knowledge comes from or how knowledge is attained.Mung_{September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

UB, My argument is that your conclusion depends on your specific epistemology. As such it is parochial. I then gave an example...
If you prefer a more formal approach, take the following argument.. P01. John has a favorite ice cream flavor. P02. John has a favorite ice cream shop. P03. John just ordered his favorite ice cream flavor at his favorite ice cream shop. C01. John just ordered vanilla ice cream. Does the conclusion follow from the premises? No. Why not? Because there is an implicit premise that John’s favorite ice cream shop only serves one flavor of ice cream: vanilla. Furthermore, all one needs to do is point out John’s favorite ice cream shop offered him significantly more than one flavor.
Your argument assumes that there is only one valid form of epistemology, which is that knowledge is justified by authoritative sources, rather than being created via emergence. However, I've argued that justification is impossible for reasons I've pointed out elsewhere. So, when you say...
UB: This is then matched to the crux of your counter-argument to me; which quickly boils down to “do you understand you could be wrong”. Well, duh. That’s a common denominator we all share, and the only valid resolution is argument and evidence, which you will not engage.
Do you think that your specific epistemology could be wrong? Of course, before we could even address that question, you would have to actually disclose your specific epistemology in the first place, which is why I keep asking you direct questions designed to do just that. Your response to criticism continues to be one that ignores the issue, as if it doesn't exist. It's unclear how this represents being "open to criticism" when you refuse to explicitly disclose it in the first place. Of course, having explicitly disclosed my specific form of epistemology, presented arguments for it, in detail, and being open to criticism, feel free to actually explain how justification is possible, rather than merely stating that "everybody knows we use induction / justification / etc."critical rationalist_{September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

CR: So, again, are you suggesting that genes do not play a causal role in whether they are replicated? Joe: No, I am suggesting that genes are not replicators.
A replicator doesn't play a causal role its own replication?critical rationalist_{September 27, 2012
September
09
Sep
27
27
2012
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

It has probably not escaped anyone's attention that I prefer mockery. ;)Mung_{September 25, 2012
September
09
Sep
25
25
2012
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

I was fairly distracted when I replied last evening, and I realized that I did not say why I mock you. I mock you because you are non-responsive to any empirical observations which conflict with your narrative. You do this while you promote yourself as looking for contrary observations to your views. It's a total sham. This is then matched to the crux of your counter-argument to me; which quickly boils down to "do you understand you could be wrong". Well, duh. That's a common denominator we all share, and the only valid resolution is argument and evidence, which you will not engage. Therefore, the actual content of the conversation is rendered pointless. There is absolutely nothing that would cause you to engage the evidence I presented to you. Instead, you demand that I respond to your irrelevant topics. Silence or mockery become my choices. And silence is looking better all the time.Upright BiPed_{September 25, 2012
September
09
Sep
25
25
2012
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

critical rationalist, how do you know that you exist? how did you gain that knowledge?Mung_{September 24, 2012
September
09
Sep
24
24
2012
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

Cr. I was not quote mining you in #10, I was mocking your defensive strategy. The reason I mock you is because you appeared on a thread which was discussing the observed material consequences of recorded information transfer. This as not an isolated perspective, but is based upon what we as a species have come to know through experience and study of the subject. There was a challenge attached to that thread. That challenge was to show a flaw in the material observations or to show that the conclusions did not logically flow from the premises. Unable to rise to that challenge, you immediately sought to superimpose your belief system on the material evidence. Your observations did not subsume nor alter (in any way) the observations made in the argument. You were respectfully corrected on the matter several times, and with each round, you simply added a new layer of inconsequential observations to the mix. Still unable to engage the material evidence presented, you then began to produce labels directed at me, and eventually suggested that I took my position on the evidence (the very same evidence which you could not anagage) in a manner that was "regardless of reason". Still unanble to address the argument at hand, you then began to dig deeper in your bag os tricks and followed with a laundry list of assumptions, including such meaningless sidetracks such Darwinism, Popper, and creationism. I then noticed that you were following the same pattern, repeating the same talking points, seemingly regardless of the context of the conversation or the person you were talking to. I even went so far as to post the number a number of the instances where you were repeating yourself to various conversation partners. Yet, nothing seems to get through. This includes youor comments on this thread, we you continue to ask me to respond to your unsupported assumptions. Apparently, this gives them credence in your eyes. So, I mock you.Upright BiPed_{September 24, 2012
September
09
Sep
24
24
2012
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

Joe, you are the one who claimed “genes are not biological replicators”, However, even a single gene that played a causal role in its own copying to would be sufficient to deduce that the mere statement that “genes are not replicators” is false.
No, it wouldn't. It would support what I said: Genes get replicated as part of the cellular replication process, but they are not replicators. Do you really think I forgot that I said that just because you ignored it?
So, again, are you suggesting that genes do not play a causal role in whether they are replicated?
No, I am suggesting that genes are not replicators.Joe_{September 24, 2012
September
09
Sep
24
24
2012
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

Joe: Umm genes are not biological replicators. Genes get replicated as part of the cellular replication process, but they are not replicators. CR: [Joe, are you suggesting] genes do not play a causal role in whether they are replicated? Joe: Which genes? Please be specific. Or is vague all you have?
Joe, you are the one who claimed "genes are not biological replicators", However, even a single gene that played a causal role in its own copying to would be sufficient to deduce that the mere statement that "genes are not replicators" is false. So, again, are you suggesting that genes do not play a causal role in whether they are replicated? Or perhaps you are retracting your statement or making it more specific, such as not all genes are replicators?critical rationalist_{September 24, 2012
September
09
Sep
24
24
2012
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

CR:
UB: Let me guess CR, Cornelius refuses to acknowledge that his justificationist conception of human knowledge is an idea subject to criticism?

CR: Neither you or Cornelius are under no obligation to *accept* that your conception of human knowledge is subject to criticism. In fact, what I’ve done is conjectured the specific objections to Darwinism we observe here are explained by just such a refusal to accept it. And, as a critical rationalist, I’m looking for evidence that would be inconsistent with that conjecture, rather than support it. [my conjecture, for everyone's convenience:]
In some cases, it’s the very same theory, in that specific types of knowledge, such as cosmology or moral knowledge, was dictated to early humans by supernatural beings. In other cases, parochial aspects of society, such as the rule of monarchs in governments or the existence of God, are protected by taboos or taken so uncritically for granted that they are not recognized as ideas. While empiricism is an improvement it still depends on inductivism, so it still shares the same fundamental flaw. Is there something in the above you disagree with? Better yet, wouldn’t such a conception explain objections to Darwinism? And not just any objections, but specific objections that we see here and elsewhere? If someone thought the knowledge of how to build the biosphere could only come from some ultimate authoritative source, would it come as a surprise they would conclud the biosphere cannot be explained without a designer? And if Darwinism were true would, would they not then conclude there could be no knowledge? Everything would simply be meaningless and random and astronomically unlikely, which is a commonly argued strawman of evolutionary theory. Finally, since everything is not random and meaningless, would they not conclude Darwinism must be false?
What better inconsistent evidence could we have than your explicit denial that you think knowledge is justified by authoritative sources[]. Along with you or KF actually responding to the actual substance of Popper’s criticism, rather than common misconceptions or repeating the claim that “everyone knows we use induction”
CR: So, despite literally asking for inconsistent evidence to my own theory, repeatedly, no one has provided any, even though it would be completely trivial to do so. What’s going on here?

UB
CR: So, despite literally asking for inconsistent evidence to my own theory [that your (UB, KF, et al.) authoritative, justificationist conception of human knowledge explains your specific objections to Darwinism ], repeatedly, no one has provided any, even though it would be completely trivial to do so. What’s going on here?
UB: You were given evidence. Not only do you refuse to integrate it, you refuse to even engage it in earnest. No one is going to hold your hand. Certainly not me.
Wow. I mean, really? Apparently, UB would rather transparently attempt to quote mine my comment rather than provide evidence that would be inconsistent with the above theory even though it would be completely trivial to do so? Again, what's going on here?critical rationalist_{September 24, 2012
September
09
Sep
24
24
2012
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT}

So, despite literally asking for inconsistent evidence to my own theory, repeatedly, no one has provided any, even though it would be completely trivial to do so. What’s going on here?
You were given evidence. Not only do you refuse to integrate it, you refuse to even engage it in earnest. No one is going to hold your hand. Certainly not me.Upright BiPed_{September 24, 2012
September
09
Sep
24
24
2012
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

Joe, are you suggesting genes do not play a causal role in whether they are replicated?
Which genes? Please be specific. Or is vague all you have?Joe_{September 24, 2012
September
09
Sep
24
24
2012
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Joe: Umm genes are not biological replicators. Genes get replicated as part of the cellular replication process, but they are not replicators.
Joe, are you suggesting genes do not play a causal role in whether they are replicated?critical rationalist_{September 24, 2012
September
09
Sep
24
24
2012
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

UB: Let me guess CR, Cornelius refuses to acknowledge that his justificationist conception of human knowledge is an idea subject to criticism?

CR: Neither you or Cornelius are under no obligation to *accept* that your conception of human knowledge is subject to criticism. In fact, what I’ve done is conjectured the specific objections to Darwinism we observe here are explained by just such a refusal to accept it. And, as a critical rationalist, I’m looking for evidence that would be inconsistent with that conjecture, rather than support it. What better inconsistent evidence could we have than your explicit denial that you think knowledge is justified by authoritative sources would be just such inconsistent evidence. Along with you or KF actually responding to the actual substance of Popper’s criticism, rather than common misconceptions or repeating the claim that “everyone knows we use induction”
So, despite literally asking for inconsistent evidence to my own theory, repeatedly, no one has provided any, even though it would be completely trivial to do so. What's going on here?critical rationalist_{September 24, 2012
September
09
Sep
24
24
2012
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Umm genes are not biological replicators. Genes get replicated as part of the cellular replication process, but they are not replicators.
Genes do not play a causal role in whether they are replicated?
They don't? Which genes do not play a causal role in whether or not they are replicated? Which genes do play a causal role?
To reiterate, biological replicators do not have a concept of “problems” in the same sense that we do.
We are not biological? Or we are not replicators?Joe_{September 24, 2012
September
09
Sep
24
24
2012
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

a clarification:
[] To reiterate, biological replicators do not have a concept of “problems” in the same sense that we do. Their only “problem” is playing a casual role in getting themselves copied into the next generation. So, inconsistent evidence in the case of variants of biological replicators is that they fail to [solve] some problem they cannot conceive of, let alone attempt to solve, or fail to solve that problem better than some other variant.
critical rationalist_{September 24, 2012
September
09
Sep
24
24
2012
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

Joe: Umm genes are not biological replicators. Genes get replicated as part of the cellular replication process, but they are not replicators.
Genes do not play a causal role in whether they are replicated?critical rationalist_{September 24, 2012
September
09
Sep
24
24
2012
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT}

Biological replicators (genes)...
Umm genes are not biological replicators. Genes get replicated as part of the cellular replication process, but they are not replicators.Joe_{September 24, 2012
September
09
Sep
24
24
2012
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT}

To clarify... The contents of a theory we conjecture not constrained by observations, but constrained by whether it's contents are thought to solve a problem. An example of this is electrons. We conjectured electrons as the contents of a theory not because we had "observed" them doing things that "resembled" the phenomena in question (or had observed them doing anything at all, for that matter) but because they represented a conjectured solution to the problem at hand. Nor would we have known were to look for "traces" that electrons supposedly left unless we first conjectured the theory of electrons in the first place. So, how would we induced the thoery of electrons from the traces we assume they leave? IOW, you seem to have confused your subjective feelings about induction, with logical questions and criticism.critical rationalist_{September 24, 2012
September
09
Sep
24
24
2012
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Mung, Critical rationalism is a universal theory that explains the growth of knowledge. The growth of knowledge is itself a problem we actually care about because as our explanation about how knowledge grows become more accurate our ability to make progress as a whole grows as well. We make progress in regards to those solutions when we criticize those solutions. So Critical rationalism is a conjectured explanation about how knowledge grows, which represents explanatory knowledge about a specific problem. People (Human beings), namely Popper, created this theory, along with conjectured improvements by Bartley, Deutsch, et al. So, what makes people unique on our planet is that we are universal explainers in respect to specific problems. The term people would also be applicable to some form of non-human life that are also universal explainers, such as alien civilization which has reached a equivalent level of development as ours. This is why I'm using the word "people", rather than "human beings" Biological replicators (genes) do not conjecture theories to solve problems because they do not have awareness of problems in the sense that people do. Nor could they create explanatory theories to solve them if they did, as they are not people. But this does not meant they cannot create non-explanatory knowledge to solve problems when imperfectly replicated with some finite probability (conjectures that are random to any particular problem to be solved) and the resulting variants are tested by its environment (refuted by natural selection). However, to reiterate, biological replicators do not have a concept of "problems" in the same sense that we do. Their only "problem" is playing a casual role in getting themselves copied into the next generation. So, inconsistent evidence in the case of variants of biological replicators is that they fail to some problem they cannot conceive of, let alone attempt to solve.
Also, in the case of humans, I still don’t believe you. Either that or your being imprecise in your language again. Perhaps we conjecture a theory, but to say we conjecture theories is a stretch.
Why would I ask you to believe *me*? That would be justificationism. I'm asking for inconsistent evidence, such the guidance that induction supposedly provides when we supposedly induce theories.critical rationalist_{September 24, 2012
September
09
Sep
24
24
2012
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

What we do is start out with a problem, conjecture theories as solutions for those problems, then look for evidence that is inconstant with those theories.
We? Is that you and the mouse in your pocket? Actual scientists look for confirming evidence. Neil Shubin went looking for confirming evidence when he found Tiktaalik. Obvioulsy you have no clue as to how science operates. As for progress, well no one is making any progress wrt evolutionism. Ya see the concept is too vague to allow for progress.Joe_{September 24, 2012
September
09
Sep
24
24
2012
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

While I realize you might find this hard to believe, science doesn’t actually come grinding to a halt because you cannot comprehend how or refuse to accept that we actually *can* make progress.
Evolutionism is NOT scienceJoe_{September 24, 2012
September
09
Sep
24
24
2012
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

Critical Rationalist- Thank you very much. Nothing says darwinism is totally worthless like your useless bloviations. Nice job.Joe_{September 24, 2012
September
09
Sep
24
24
2012
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

critical rationalist:
What we do is start out with a problem, conjecture theories as solutions for those problems, then look for evidence that is inconstant with those theories.
Humans, you mean. What about non-human entities? How do they conjecture theories as solutions and then look for evidence that is inconsistent with those theories? Also, in the case of humans, I still don't believe you. Either that or your being imprecise in your language again. Perhaps we conjecture a theory, but to say we conjecture theories is a stretch.Mung_{September 23, 2012
September
09
Sep
23
23
2012
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply