"Does evolution even logic?" (part 1)
More specifically:
(i) "Does naturalism even coherence?"
(ii) "Do New Atheists even science?"
Please join me on what will undoubtedly be an educational, banterous, and grammerful read.
- end of fun -
As somebody who has not formally studied Biology past GCSE level I am aware that to embark on any kind of biology based discussion here would be to commit intellectual suicide. I do not wish that upon myself. Instead, I wish to explore the theory in terms of its metaphysical implications. Does evolution make sense in the context of what we feel we know about reality? If not, which system of thought should prevail, and why?
I have seen enough profound perfection and beauty in mathematics to be convinced that it is not a human creation, nor the result of inane naturalistic processes. I have witnessed enough complexity and beauty in the physical world to be convinced that there was a sentient being behind the creation and sustaining of the cosmos. For the record, I have also found enough moral truths in the Bible - and have witnessed the power of prayer frequently enough - to be convinced that there is a God who seeks relationship with us, and is imminent and active in the universe. But that is for another time...
Of course none of this is particularly subject to the scientific method. But it is the framework within which I must endeavour to fit everything else. "Why should anyone let anything other than scientific evidence determine what we believe?" I hear you cry. Why, Dawkins has trained you well.
An epitomising example of why it could be dangerous to rely solely on science is if the very method of scientific investigation is proven, by one of its own theories, to have questionable validity.
But hang on a second. Is that not exactly what evolution has done? After all, if we are made for survival then on what authority can we trust our own scientific deductions? We certainly can not claim that we are made to comprehend objective truth when it is opposed to false beliefs that will help us survive!
The renowned atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel in his recent book "Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" puts forth this very objection: "Evolutionary naturalism provides an account of our capacities that undermines their reliability, and in doing so undermines itself."
The scientific community should, therefore, not have a monopoly on truth. We should be free to question anything we fancy without fear of ridicule; in fact this is essential to nurturing a healthy academic community. We should not blindly accept theories on the basis that they are accepted by said community at large, especially when they have implications that seem contrary to what we view as self-evidently true. A couple of my own examples of such axioms of reality are "Humans have capacity to comprehend truth", and "some things are objectively wrong".
Why should these be left as axioms, unquestioned? Well, negating the former means that science, reason and logic are all fictitious and fruitless products of the collective human mind, which for me is contradiction enough. Negating the latter means that the ethics, morals and the justice system are similarly void of meaning; that there is nothing objectively wrong with even the most violent crimes. Again, this is a sufficient contradiction for me.
Regarding the former; if the naturalistic Darwinian world-view is correct, from where do we get our capacity to comprehend truth? And on what merit can we decide its infallibility? How can we claim that we can recognise truth, even in situations when it reduces our chance of survival, if comprehension of truth is simply a tool to help us survive? How can we "construct" such elaborate and functional systems of logic as found in mathematics, that entirely transcend practical application, and in fact transcend even physical reality itself in both accuracy and permanence, if we are fundamentally built to survive, and not to understand truth?
With regard to the latter point, as Dostoyevski famously said, "Without God, everything is permissible". If we are simply bi-products of evolution, then from where can we source objective morality? What is wrong, under this system where survival is the highest aim, with racism, murder, rape, and cannibalism? The answer is, simply put, nothing at all. Any society that decides that these things are to be deemed unacceptable does so, not because it is inherently right or good but simply in order that it might aid survival.
We are faced with a choice - in order that we remain consistent - between Darwinian naturalism on the one hand, and the belief in the objectivity of truth, the reliability of science, and the validity of morals on the other. Tough call.
In conclusion, a resounding no to (i) ; Naturalism does not even coherence.
Sadly the New Atheist movement has been very successful in ensuring that anybody prominent in academic circles who dares question any aspect of evolution is intellectually undermined. They talk so readily about science being held back bytheists, and of the importance of viciously normalising any existing bias in the scientific method, yet seem to completely fail to apply this logic when engaging in debates about evolution.
All too often, instead of attempting to explain as best they can exactly why the argument is wrong, the debater will brush the question away in an attempted "proof by intimidation" in a manner that is both dishonest and insulting. They emphatically despise blind religious faith, yet ruthlessly attack anyone who has the nerve to so much as question what is, let us not forget, a scientific hypothesis. Oh, and they hate hypocrites.
Any non-scientific arguments placed on the table, like that of Nagel, are dismissed with yet less appeal to reason. Prominent scientists will, with shocking naivety and sheer arrogance, make bold unjustified claims like "Faith is the great cop-out" (Dawkins) and worse still "Philosophy is dead" (Hawking).
These scientists clearly believe that they have access to knowledge and truth in measure so far superior to that of other disciplines that they can single-handedly declare entire disciplines (that they are by no means more than dabblers in, and that have been studied by millions, and for millennia) redundant, without even breaking a sweat. Can you imagine if a prominent mathematician published a paper titled "Art is pointless", or if the Archbishop announced on television that "Particle physics is redundant"? It would be scandalous.
Again, we are forced to conclude in the negative: New Atheists do not even science.
Join me for part (2) of what is surely going to go down in history as a little-read blog from some guy at University, as we discuss the following important question in the study of evolutionary biology:
(iii) Was Darwin a monkey?
Until next time, God bless.
Jeffrey Guille
All too often, instead of attempting to explain as best they can exactly why the argument is wrong, the debater will brush the question away in an attempted "proof by intimidation" in a manner that is both dishonest and insulting. They emphatically despise blind religious faith, yet ruthlessly attack anyone who has the nerve to so much as question what is, let us not forget, a scientific hypothesis. Oh, and they hate hypocrites.
Any non-scientific arguments placed on the table, like that of Nagel, are dismissed with yet less appeal to reason. Prominent scientists will, with shocking naivety and sheer arrogance, make bold unjustified claims like "Faith is the great cop-out" (Dawkins) and worse still "Philosophy is dead" (Hawking).
These scientists clearly believe that they have access to knowledge and truth in measure so far superior to that of other disciplines that they can single-handedly declare entire disciplines (that they are by no means more than dabblers in, and that have been studied by millions, and for millennia) redundant, without even breaking a sweat. Can you imagine if a prominent mathematician published a paper titled "Art is pointless", or if the Archbishop announced on television that "Particle physics is redundant"? It would be scandalous.
Again, we are forced to conclude in the negative: New Atheists do not even science.
Join me for part (2) of what is surely going to go down in history as a little-read blog from some guy at University, as we discuss the following important question in the study of evolutionary biology:
(iii) Was Darwin a monkey?
Until next time, God bless.
Jeffrey Guille
