Evolution and its rivals

[salvorhardin]

Just wanted to point out that a special issue of the philosophy journal Synthese was just published, focusing on the creationism/evolution debate. Some great articles in here for anyone interested in evolution vs. creationism/intelligent design or philosophy of science, although the inclusion of James Fetzer pimping for David Ray Griffin seems odd. Gauging by the abstract alone, David Ray Griffin looks to be as bad at philosophy as he is at mechanical engineering, chemistry and physics. But the rest of the authors are fantastic, including Barbara Forrest, John Wilkins, Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit. All articles are free for download until December 31st.

Linky: http://www.springerlink.com/content/0039-7857/178/2/

Contents:
Introduction -- Glenn Branch
Can’t philosophers tell the difference between science and religion?: Demarcation revisited -- Robert T. Pennock
Are creationists rational? -- John S. Wilkins
Foiling the Black Knight -- Kelly C. Smith
Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski’s “complex specified information” -- Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit
Design and its discontents -- Bruce H. Weber
The science question in intelligent design -- Sahotra Sarkar
Intelligent design in theological perspective -- Niall Shanks and Keith Green
The non-epistemology of intelligent design: its implications for public policy -- Barbara Forrest
Evolution and atheism: Has Griffin reconciled science and religion? -- James H. Fetzer


Cross-posted to R&T.

[RagAss]

1. Science vs. Mother Goose....... I'll pass.

[Enthusiast]

8. Me too.......nt

[phasma ex machina]

2. "The deep dark secret of the ideology of scientism is that it is all based on a very flimsy"

foundation: the assertion that statements about reality must be intersubjectively validatable through sense experience.

When you look at that worldview, you might ask the same question that it asks of every other assertion: what data could validate or verify its truth. It quickly becomes apparent that ther is no such data, nor could there be. The criterion of truth being asserted by contemporary descendants of empiricists turns out to be without foundation according to its own criterion of truth.

There is no verifiable data that can validate the statement that all truth must rest on verifiable data, just as there is none to validate the notion that ethical judgments should be held in a mutually tolerant way. In other words, scientism itself is another faith, its own foundation just as tenuous or just as solid as any other spiritual or religious tradition. - Spirit Matters (link)

[FiveGoodMen]

9. Science says that gravity works.

Have "Spirit Matters" step off a bridge to prove that science isn't valid.

Then we'll talk.

[phasma ex machina]

13. Spirituality provides the insight to keep me from stepping off a bridge in the first place.

How does it work in your reality? What empirical data keeps you and your fellow creatures from stepping off a bridge?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phasma ex machina]

15. Thanks for sharing your feelings, but where's your empirical data? nt

[FiveGoodMen]

16. Step off that bridge, please.

That's your data.

[Thor_MN]

18. I've stepped off low bridges, dropped rocks off low and high bridges

I'm pretty sure it works the same... Never once have I dropped something that didn't immediately start falling.

Could you provide me with "thou shalt not step off bridges" citation that guides your reality? Or is just something that one must have faith in?

[phasma ex machina]

19. An honest answer. I like that. Thanks. Now back to my original argument.

"There is no verifiable data that can validate the statement that all truth must rest on verifiable data,"

[stopbush]

3. Is that anything like "gravity vs its rivals?"

Or "chemistry vs its rivals?"

Or "biology vs its rivals?"


:banghead:

[Orsino]

4. Yeah. Neither creationism nor ID rivals evolution.

The first two are speculative, while the lattermost is self-evident.

[salvorhardin]

5. Except a lot of people think ID/Creationism does rival evolution

Explaining why we should preference evolutionary theory as an explanatory model for life over ID/Creationism fails on the science alone simply because most people lack any knowledge of the underlying philosophical framework which allows us to confidently say that science has greater explanatory powers than religious belief. It may be self-evident to us, but without an understanding of, and the ability to communicate, the difference between science, pseudoscience and nonscience or the arguments of people who counter methodological naturalism then we fail too and allow the opponents of rationality to gain ground. Remember, it was the philosophy of science that triumphed in Dover over ID/Creationism and not science per se. If Barbara Forrest had not been able to convince Judge Jones that ID/Creationism wasn't science then his decision may well have not been as favorable to science as it was. So the response to my posting of this special issue of Synthese here is, at the least, frustrating and seems to indicate that while DUers may be supportive of science, they are largely willfully ignorant of it.

[stopbush]

7. It all comes down to the willful ignorance you mention.

[Orsino]

10. Those people are conflating evolution with abiogenesis...

...in addition to elevating dogma to the level of observed phenomena.

[montanto]

6. QED and its rivals.

lol. OMG that's hilarious. Your computer is just a box of faith.

and with a prayer: *post message*

[Bucky]

11. I'd argue continuing yakity-yak from Creationists is a strong argument against natural selection.

[struggle4progress]

12. I glanced at a few of the articles, but don't see the philosophers shedding much light on this

(1) I do not consider that there is any irreconcilable conflict between my religious views and my scientific views

Based on what I think I "know" about the natural material world, and according to what I have "learned" from reports summarizing hundreds of thousands or millions of human-hours of labor in examining the natural material world as-it-is or as-it-seems-to-be, I regard evolution as "obvious" and I have a deep emotional attachment to it as a profound and beautiful synthesis, that really seems to me to enhance my "understanding"

So I can say without difficulty, "I believe in evolutionary theory"

But that use of the word "believe" seems to me to differ substantially from my regular use of the word "believe" in church when I say the creed, I believe &c&c

In fact, not every important issue can be resolved by observations of, or reproducible experiments with, the natural material world. There are circumstances in which one must choose to say, Here I stand, and I cannot do otherwise, having not the luxury of delaying until everything can be worked out "rationally" on the basis of assumptions and syllogisms that every "reasonable" person will accept

(2) The so-called "creationists" have a particular authoritarian political agenda. Their ideal is that everyone would give intellectual assent to a particular literal reading of certain old texts, and people like Dembski want to provide an intellectual "foundation" for such readings. Dembski starts from the conclusion he wants to reach and tries to argue towards it, which is a dull and uninteresting approach to any question. If one wanted to argue, in a "scientific" manner, that humans were "created" by some higher being, then (of course) one should want natural material evidence for that argument and not merely philosophical speculation: one should want (say) to find traces of the crafter, tools, and/or workshop

[saras]

17. It's not 'religion', it's 'fundamentalist Christianity'.

"Spirituality provides the insight to keep me from stepping off a bridge in the first place. How does it work in your reality? What empirical data keeps you and your fellow creatures from stepping off a bridge?"

Personally, I learned it as a little kid by stepping off of rocks, tree branches, piles of lumber, etc. Spirituality told me I could fly if I believed hard enough.

"the ideology of scientism..."
So don't practice it - practice science instead, which is big on "we don't know" and "try to prove yourself wrong, so others won't have to".

"Is that anything like 'gravity vs its rivals?'
Or 'chemistry vs its rivals?'
Or 'biology vs its rivals?'"
Yep. Sure is.

"If one wanted to argue, in a "scientific" manner, that humans were "created" by some higher being, then (of course) one should want natural material evidence for that argument and not merely philosophical speculation: one should want (say) to find traces of the crafter, tools, and/or workshop"
Brilliant summary.

"Evolution and atheism: Has Griffin reconciled science and religion?"
Why do they always say 'religion' when they mean 'fundamentalist Christianity'? Has he reconciled science and Sikhi? Native American spirituality? Discordianism? Aztec religion? Buddhism? Islam? Taoism? Jainism? Whatever one calls belief in the ancient Greek gods?

And where's Lamarck? He had the only reasonable alternative hypothesis to Darwinian evolution.