Does Evolutionary Theory Need a Rethink?

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@GJDS

I am not sure I understand you - the foundation of science is based on first principles, and from these we endeavour to understand the various disciplines. Your paradox is hardly in this area of science - we all admit that the human species is vastly different from any other species, as ~7 billion souls would show, with cities, vast tracks of land for food, the sky and ocean at the “mercy” of humanity, wars that can exterminate vast tracks of the earth and its inhabitants, magnificent animal close to extinction, environments and eco-systems all but exhausted or destroyed - the list goes on. How can evolutionary biologists claim that this is merely the work of a clever ape?

We are clever apes, but we aren’t just apes. We are not merely clever apes. So where else do we see paradox in science? Frankly, almost everywhere. Consider embryology…

@Swamidass

We see evolution the same way you probably see embryology. Science has a description of how babies are made that includes only natural laws and randomness. Scientifically speaking, this is description entirely excludes God. Yet, we also, at the same time hold that God “knits us together in our mother’s womb” and that He “knew us from before the foundations of the earth were laid.” These things are true too, and not in the scientific description.

Also consider general relativity and quantum mechanics. We hold both theories to be “correct” in important and salient ways, even though they produce entirely contradictory predictions in important questions (e.g. dark energy). So we have, here, two mutually exclusive theories that we simultaneously hold to be provisionally correct.

If non-contradiction was science’s highest value, this would be impossible. Rather, it isn’t. Science holds mutually contradictory theories simultaneously if they both have strong explanatory power. This is almost exactly the definition of a paradox.

Also see how science thinks about truth…

theories in science are never accepted as absolutely true. During hypothesis testing, only two results are possible: the scientist can reject the hypothesis if it did not make an accurate prediction, or the scientists can fail to reject the hypothesis if it did make an accurate prediction. The important point is that the scientist cannot accept the hypothesis.
From the Archives: Evolution as a Scientific Theory | The BioLogos Forum

This again is a paradox. We place high confidence in “provisional truth,” in fact science ignores absolute truth to focus just on absolute truth. There is paradox here, because we place high confidence in scientific theories, even as we simultaneously admit that they are not correct. They are simultaneously true and untrue.

I could go on and on from here. Another great example is emergent phenomenon (complexity arising from simple systems) and also consciousness. Regularly, here, simultaneously “true” theories contradict one another. Science works so well because it doesn’t care. Non-contradiction is not the most important guiding principle of science. It embraces the paradox.

Paradox is everywhere in science.