N
NowAgnostic
Guest
A common tactic of evolution-deniers is to claim that evolutionary science “presupposes a materialistic philosophy”, as though evolutionary science were a mere offshoot of a given philosophy rather than real science. The claim is false, and is a transparent attempt to wish away inconvenient facts and data which contradict the deniers’ **own **philosophical agenda. While many biologists or molecular geneticists are materialists, many are not, and many are theists, and unless the deniers are prepared to claim that no “true” theist would ever believe in evolution, the existence of such scientists is an undercutting defeater in itself.
But it can be also shown more rigorously the claim is false. Let E = evolution, C = special creation or spontaneous generation, G = God, g = a creator of some sort, not the philosophical God, but the existence of which a materialist would deny (though not necessarily a naturalist or atheist).
Now under materialism it is certainly true that
P(E|~G && ~g) >> P(C|~G && ~g). The only alternative to evolution is spontaneous generation, under materialism. Science clearly shows evolution by mutation and natural selection (no matter how unlikely some theists claim it to be) to be much more likely than spontaneous generation.
So, as appears to be the case for many, critical thinking disappears when there is an agenda to defend. The preceding is enough to establish that a materialist will accept evolution. It is **not **enough to establish that the acceptance of evolution is dependent on that philosophy. For that you would also need P(C|g) >> P(E|g) or P(C|G) >> P(E|G). If this were the case, then yes, acceptance of evolution would depend on acceptance of g or G. But this is not the case.
Under naturalism it is also true that
P(E|g) >> P(C|g). Why? Because g is not omnipotent nor omniscient. We assume the non-omnipotent and non-omniscient designer is operating under some constraint and without complete knowledge. If we wanted to make life ourselves (which we are in fact very close to doing) and wanted more complex forms than we were capable of designing directly, we would use an evolutionary process; in fact, it’s been shown empirically that evolutionary algorithms work quite well; an example is in the designing of proteins. Moreover, even if the designer had such knowledge and power, there would no reason for all the similarities seen. Why should all life forms (except for a very few primitive forms) share the same DNA code for proteins? Why should they fit in a nested hierarchy?
Under theism it is true that
P(E|G && NU) >> P(C|G && NU) provided that the universe is one governed by natural laws (which I have denoted NU), which is in fact what we have, as an empirical observation. If this were not the case, there could never be any evidence for or against special creation or common descent. A stork could give birth to a frog which could give birth to a human. Or, the frog and the human could have been specially created. No evidence could come forth either way. DNA sequences, if DNA existed at all, would be completely random. However, because there are natural laws, that allows us to compare the hypotheses of directed, or theistic, evolution versus special creation. (Note here that none of the “standard” arguments about how “unlikely” evolution would be can pass muster for it is now a Divinely-guided process - God would ensure, in some fashion, the “right” mutations came to pass.) Now while there many evidences available I will show the most convincing for common descent of humans and other primates from a common ancestor: the presence of endogenous retroviral insertions (ERVs) at the same place in the genome. These are easily explained under common descent, as they were inherited from ancestors. Fixation is an unlikely event in the ancestral population, but once it occurs the likelihood of their descendants inheriting it is close to one. However, under special creation, these ERVs would have not only had to have proceeded to fixation (an unlikely event in itself) but occurred at the exact same spot in the genome. This is much more unlikely.
Now, what deniers illegitimately want to do is compare P(E|~G && ~g) to P(C|G). They arrive at P(C|G) >> P(E|~G && ~g) (also illegitimately, in my view, but that’s a subject for another discussion) and then declare about how unlikely evolution is and how its science is driven by philosophy. As I have shown, this is simply a lack of critical thinking and not the right comparison.
But it can be also shown more rigorously the claim is false. Let E = evolution, C = special creation or spontaneous generation, G = God, g = a creator of some sort, not the philosophical God, but the existence of which a materialist would deny (though not necessarily a naturalist or atheist).
Now under materialism it is certainly true that
P(E|~G && ~g) >> P(C|~G && ~g). The only alternative to evolution is spontaneous generation, under materialism. Science clearly shows evolution by mutation and natural selection (no matter how unlikely some theists claim it to be) to be much more likely than spontaneous generation.
So, as appears to be the case for many, critical thinking disappears when there is an agenda to defend. The preceding is enough to establish that a materialist will accept evolution. It is **not **enough to establish that the acceptance of evolution is dependent on that philosophy. For that you would also need P(C|g) >> P(E|g) or P(C|G) >> P(E|G). If this were the case, then yes, acceptance of evolution would depend on acceptance of g or G. But this is not the case.
Under naturalism it is also true that
P(E|g) >> P(C|g). Why? Because g is not omnipotent nor omniscient. We assume the non-omnipotent and non-omniscient designer is operating under some constraint and without complete knowledge. If we wanted to make life ourselves (which we are in fact very close to doing) and wanted more complex forms than we were capable of designing directly, we would use an evolutionary process; in fact, it’s been shown empirically that evolutionary algorithms work quite well; an example is in the designing of proteins. Moreover, even if the designer had such knowledge and power, there would no reason for all the similarities seen. Why should all life forms (except for a very few primitive forms) share the same DNA code for proteins? Why should they fit in a nested hierarchy?
Under theism it is true that
P(E|G && NU) >> P(C|G && NU) provided that the universe is one governed by natural laws (which I have denoted NU), which is in fact what we have, as an empirical observation. If this were not the case, there could never be any evidence for or against special creation or common descent. A stork could give birth to a frog which could give birth to a human. Or, the frog and the human could have been specially created. No evidence could come forth either way. DNA sequences, if DNA existed at all, would be completely random. However, because there are natural laws, that allows us to compare the hypotheses of directed, or theistic, evolution versus special creation. (Note here that none of the “standard” arguments about how “unlikely” evolution would be can pass muster for it is now a Divinely-guided process - God would ensure, in some fashion, the “right” mutations came to pass.) Now while there many evidences available I will show the most convincing for common descent of humans and other primates from a common ancestor: the presence of endogenous retroviral insertions (ERVs) at the same place in the genome. These are easily explained under common descent, as they were inherited from ancestors. Fixation is an unlikely event in the ancestral population, but once it occurs the likelihood of their descendants inheriting it is close to one. However, under special creation, these ERVs would have not only had to have proceeded to fixation (an unlikely event in itself) but occurred at the exact same spot in the genome. This is much more unlikely.
Now, what deniers illegitimately want to do is compare P(E|~G && ~g) to P(C|G). They arrive at P(C|G) >> P(E|~G && ~g) (also illegitimately, in my view, but that’s a subject for another discussion) and then declare about how unlikely evolution is and how its science is driven by philosophy. As I have shown, this is simply a lack of critical thinking and not the right comparison.
. Lets say i even granted that evolution caused these people to act in such a manner (which i don’t), but say i did. You to realise that how it makes people act has NO bearing on the validity of the scientific theory. The theory stand on the evidence that supports it, no how a few nut cases interpret it.