Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Another tale of the tone deaf: Creationism and naturalism are both wrong


From Thomas E. Elliott at Acta Cogitate (Eastern Michigan University):

Abstract: The cultural debate about Creationism contra evolution by natural selection may be far from over, but the logic underlying it is settled. Creationism is ill-suited to take the place of methodological naturalism for the investigation of biology. In this paper, I survey how philosopher Elliott Sober uses some well-formed concepts from statistics and epistemology, including the nature of evidence, data, as well as the contemporary theory of evolution by natural selection to destroy Creationism as a viable theory once and for all. Creationism is a demonstrable logical fallacy, one that has no support biblically, or in science, but is a thoroughly political conception. I also challenge the idea that disproving Creationism means that the nature of ultimate reality is described by ontological physicalism. I argue contemporary empiricists are mistaken about the significance of the logical defeat of the erroneous system of Creationism, and that the ontological statements about unknowable facets of existence made by materialists about reality are not obviously the case. Due to the indispensability of numbers in instantiating empirical theories, I argue that numbers are quasi-Platonic abstract entities that transcend space-time. I argue that the elements of numbers are not invented, but discovered by the human mind, and are not reducible to psychological factors. More.

Creationism can certainly be wrong. After all, it depends on evidence.

But “ontological physicalism” (naturalism) can be neither right nor wrong. The idea that our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth makes such categories irrelevant.   One cannot “disprove” a successful means to irrational power.

The current crisis in intellectual freedom at universities is due to the triumph of naturalism. Conflicts between ideas are the equivalent of a fight to the death between adjacent wolf packs.

See also: Neuroscience tried wholly embracing naturalism, but then the brain got away

What great physicists have said about immateriality and consciousness


How can we defend the right to think for ourselves? You need true grit and a thick skin

In the first paragraph, "Sober contrasts evolution against the creationist’s Intelligent Design hypothesis." If he starts by conflating Creationism and ID he obviously understands neither. aarceng
A rather short paper. Surprisingly low on substance and high on hand-waving. Totally misunderstands ID arguments, and ignores all the philosophical arguments made in favor of ID. Nothing to see here. EDTA

Leave a Reply