Philosophical critique of Evolution

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

Does anyone else know of a real philosophical critique of evolution by a real philosopher?

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@RichardG

Biblically man is the image of God. Now I am not claiming that means the physical appearance, I would suggest it means that we have the powers to do the will of God, that is have dominion over, shape and ultimately “rule” the earth (within certain limits that need not be established IMO)

I can certainly attest that there are plenty of men who claim they act on behalf of God’s will, but this is far from providing reassurance. I fear this is rather like arming the citizenry and expecting their mere willingness to tote a weapon to guarantee that they can 1) recognize a bad guy, 2) actually be a good guy and 3) competently wield the weapon so as not to rack up even more unintended victims than the bad guys they imagined themselves to be aiming at.

@RichardG

I have never disputed science or claimed it somehow disproves the existence of God. I have always claimed it is just one of the hands of God that we can better understand. But Evolution does not conform to pure scientific rules and I can only prove that if people can understand the differences I see.

At least you admit upfront [where I’ve bolded] that your argument for why evolution is not really science is only expected to persuade those whose philosophy and theology already agree with your own. Now if you’d just stop making such broad sweeping pronouncements to those who you know full well do not start off thinking as you do.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

As usual this ends up personal. My opinion or beleif. A real philosopher. A qualified scientist. In any debating society I have been involved in such things are deemed irrelevant. It is not the proposer but the proposal. Not the person but the idea or argument.

Even if my ideas are correct they will never amount to anything because there is no platform in human society that would publish or accept them as valid. Truth or accuracy is not paramount, what matters is majority opinion and individual qualifications.

I think I have heard enough. You don’t want to know. You would not give it a fair hearing. I will not embarrass myself further.

Richard

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@RichardG

You don’t want to know. You would not give it a fair hearing.

Well I wouldn’t give it a fair hearing in the sense you would expect from a moderator or audience to a debate. But that is because I have no use or interest in the debate format as such. The idea of racking up the biggest pile of arguments for whichever side you happen to be assigned in order to be seen as having been more persuasive than your opponent by the audience is an appalling waste of our time. We should instead be pursuing the truth wherever that should lead. Instead of blowing smoke where points are made against what we think, we should seek to reconcile what is true in them to deepen our own understanding assuming the issue in question is anything we actually care about understanding rightly. If it isn’t we shouldn’t worry about persuading anybody else. The decent thing to do would be not to confuse others regarding anything we are unsure of ourselves.

I was an undergraduate philosophy major but I am unaware of any debates being sponsored by or engaged in by that department. Seems more like a rhetoric activity to me. Sorry to rain on your parade though. Just because debate isn’t my thing doesn’t mean it can’t have value to you and others. I’ll butt out.

[Bill_II]

@Klax

Does anyone else know of a real philosophical critique of evolution by a real philosopher?

Don’t know if you would count it as real, but a 5 second Google search found this.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Bill_II

@Klax

Does anyone else know of a real philosophical critique of evolution by a real philosopher?

Don’t know if you would count it as real, but a 5 second Google search found this .

Most real. Nothing proposed here compares with it in any way I’m sure, even though I can’t see it. I know it will not contain any philosophy. The Stanford article of course assumes evolution, it’s just kicking the linguistic, definitional, semantic tyres and so it should.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

I wonder. Did you read it?
Having had a quick perusal it echoes much if not all that I was trying to say about how Darwin came to his basic conclusions and how things have progressed on similar lines. But, what the heck, that is the way people would prefer to discuss things here. Heavens above we can’t have an original approach or thought to anything, can we!

Now I don’t know about you, but I do not need someone to tell me the philosophy that is behind how the way Evolution was formed. I can see it quite clearly for myself having read Darwin and followed, to a greater or lesser extent, the development of the theory over the years. But clearly that sort of thinking is not allowed here. Yes, I probably could find some notable philosopher to iterate my theories for me, but it would be for your benefit, not mine and it would involve more time than I can afford to do so.

At Junior school you are told what to think and what something means, as you progress you are encouraged to think for yourself so that by the time you reach college you are expected to make your own assertions using data rather than what someone else says or thinks. It seems that the mental state here is not of that nature.

See you around

Richard

[Bill_II]

@RichardG

Did you read it?

Yes I did.

@RichardG

Now I don’t know about you, but I do not need someone to tell me the philosophy that is behind how the way Evolution was formed.

So now you are an expert in the history of science.

@RichardG

I can see it quite clearly for myself having read Darwin and followed, to a greater or lesser extent, the development of the theory over the years.

Based on your posts that would be to a lesser extent. Your understanding of evolution appears to be stuck at the Junior school level.

@RichardG

But clearly that sort of thinking is not allowed here.

Has anybody shut you down? You certainly seem to be free to express your thinking.

@RichardG

Yes, I probably could find some notable philosopher to iterate my theories for me, but it would be for your benefit, not mine and it would involve more time than I can afford to do so.

It took me like 5 seconds to find that on Google and the results page included others. A whole lot less time than you have spent posting here.

@RichardG

At Junior school you are told what to think and what something means, as you progress you are encouraged to think for yourself so that by the time you reach college you are expected to make your own assertions using data rather than what someone else says or thinks.

I was told once, “The more you know the more you know what you don’t know.” While I can understand the basics of the arguments using DNA there is no way I would try to reproduce those results using the data. I tend to trust the Christian biologists that have no problem accepting evolution. Since you admit you can’t understand the basic arguments what we have here is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. None of your arguments are based on the data, just your intuition.

@RichardG

It seems that the mental state here is not of that nature.

I strongly disagree. The general state of mind around here is to accept the empirical evidence and ignore the rationalist arguments.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

No the general state here is only to accept what can be verified by one of the following:

1 Proven academic credentials of a high standard
2 Verification by a person who has achieved recognition by his/her peers
3 A document that conforms to the above

Although ironically you will accept Wikki or other Internet material that does not have to conform to the above.

Have you never heard of the notion of chewing the cud, or tossing around an idea? Silly me, I thought that was the whole idea of Forums.

My wife has told me for a long time that I am wasting my time. Perhaps I should agree. But then again she has absolutely no experience of Forums. The closest she has ever got is Facebook ( I will let you decide if that is sufficient). Perhaps I should find someone with the appropriate academic qualification or standing? (if they exist)

I can tell you for nothing that there is not one topic here for which I would qualify to those standards… Even my 40 years of preaching and all that entails is deemed inadequate. And, of course, there is no such thing as being self-taught. Tell that to Brian May of Queen.

Richard

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@RichardG

You are assuming that Evolution can produce the relevant population without guidance or assistance. And clearly you would not mind, or see any problem, if Evolution had made you a reptile or even a crustacean.

Nope. I don’t assume any such thing. The logic and measurements say that it can, just as the math says you can roll twenty snake eyes in a row. However, we can judge it is unlikely and thus believe God did guide and assist. The last sentence is incoherent to me. I don’t believe in any pre-existence. God didn’t make me INTO anything. I exist because of what God made. If God makes something different, how could that be me? You sound like the atheists who suggest that you could have been born in a Hindu or Muslim country and family.

@RichardG

Evolution does not really address cognisance, as far as I can tell other than as some sort of progressive capacity formed by a deviation.

Evolution does not address a lot of things. The Bible does not address a lot of things. Neither address auto mechanics either. I don’t know what you think that proves. This is a typical dishonest tactic of creationists – criticizing the theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. But the theory doesn’t attempt to explain any such thing. It is not about auto mechanics or the origin of life. It is about the origin of the species.

@RichardG

I do not see how you can claim puppetry on my life because God actually created me instead of leaving it to chance. (and I am not talking about the immediate circumstances of my birth, I am talking about the human race)

I made no such claim. YOU are the one who made the claim that evolution was incompatible with your understanding of God. You made no explanation so I tried to flesh that out. By all means, explain this claim yourself.

@RichardG

Your theology seems pretty close to how the devil justifies his existence. (He thought/thinks God is too much in control)

Your theology has you worshipping the greatest of liars and that would make it the devil. And it is the devil who wants to control everything – not God. God clearly does not need to control everything because He created life and free will – beings who grow, learn, and make their own choices. Nor is the story in the Bible one of a God who has to control everything – quite the opposite. It is the story of a God who is disappointed by the choices of the free living beings He created.

@RichardG

Evolution has little or nothing to do with sin.

…nor God or auto mechanics either. I does NOT deny the existence of God – certainly not the God of Christianity. It does dispute with the watchmaker God of Deism as I explained.

[gavin_kemp]

First let me commend you for you perseverance. Its not easy to jump into an environnement in which you don’t really have allies. Whilst we disagree on the facts, I think it’s an admirable quality.

Yes, indeed people have used evolution to “disprove” God, that doesn’t make them right. People have used the big bang for the same thing in spite de the fact that the big bang seem to confirme the cosmological argument as noted by the person who first proposed it.

The thing is by fighting evolution, as opposed to the premise that evolution disproves God, you are falling into their trap because in essence you are agreeing that evolution disproves God. And beyond the extremely hard challenge of disproving a lot of the science that the world runs on, you have also just implied that God is not almighty. And your interlocutor or at least some of them are fully aware of this. This is in fact something that theologians warned against in like the 4th centuries AD, long before evolution was a thing.

Now I understand the position of opposing evolution. It would be very satisfying to be able to say atheism doesn’t work and this proves it. I have to an extent the same issue with the multiverse, I would be happy that we prove the universe doesn’t existe and say “see, I’m the rational one”. But this is dangerous and probably sinful. First by doing this you are having an approach for personnel satisfaction as opposed to one of love, this is arguably a sin and second if you are wrong you just been trapped.

[Bill_II]

@RichardG

Proven academic credentials of a high standard

Sorry if I take a person with a PhD in Molecular Biology, who also happens to be a Christian, word over yours.

@RichardG

Verification by a person who has achieved recognition by his/her peers

Verification by peer reviewed papers is a good thing.

@RichardG

Although ironically you will accept Wikki or other Internet material that does not have to conform to the above.

Every hear of https://scholar.google.com/ or do you not accept peer reviewed papers?

@RichardG

Have you never heard of the notion of chewing the cud, or tossing around an idea?

or iron sharpening iron. You seem to think the argument can only go one way.

@RichardG

Even my 40 years of preaching and all that entails is deemed inadequate.

Does your 40 years of preaching qualify you to perform brain surgery? Why not?

@RichardG

And, of course, there is no such thing as being self-taught.

Being self-taught would require that you actually read a book by a qualified expert. Something you have said you will not do.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Bill_II

Does your 40 years of preaching qualify you to perform brain surgery?

It’s responses like that, that are driving me away. But, I will leave you to try and understand why.

Richard

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@gavin_kemp

Now I understand the position of opposing evolution.

Forgive me but I am not sure that you have fully grasped my position. I don’t oppose all of Evolution by any means. And, although this seems to be not accepted, I understand both what the principles are, and how they were derived. However, I have seen no evidence that my protagonists understand the principles behind the whole theory, nor the principles that were/are used to formulate it. Nor do I see evidence that they understand the ramifications of the principles either in terms of the practical application (historical progressions) or the conflict with the concepts of God that the exclusion of HIm.produces.
Furthermore, any attempt to delve into the philosophical arguments surrounding Evolution is met with the posts you have seen here. I have not even cited one, and it is already dismissed as fallacious.
It is clear that the idea of the proof being in the eating cannot get past the qualifications of the cook, the nature and heritage of the ingredients and the authenticity of the recipe
Oh dear, that was an analogy!. (original and unverified)

Richard

[Bill_II]

@RichardG

I can tell you for nothing that there is not one topic here for which I would qualify to those standards… Even my 40 years of preaching and all that entails is deemed inadequate.

@RichardG

It’s responses like that, that are driving me away.

You said your 40 years of preaching “qualifies” you to critique godless evolution. What I was asking, tongue in cheek for sure, is why do you think that particular skill set, while certainly good for some things, would qualify you to critique godless evolution?

[DanielK (Daniel)]

Hi Richard,

Which principles are you referring to in terms of the theory? Some of us here have backgrounds in biology and even operate in that field and have studied it in depth.

Again for ramifications. We currently use and have used evolution in multiple fields.

Please state your argument in completely in its logical form.

[gavin_kemp]

@RichardG

I have not even cited one

I think this is your problem.

You seem claim that we don’t understand the evolution on its consequence on the character of God but you haven’t issued challenge. How are we supposed to answer if we don’t know what the problem is. It sounds like you are wanting debate yet you are not throwing asking questions or challenging us. its like you called us to a ring then asked us to show you our moves and you’ll then evaluate if you would win. Why would you expect us to comply? and If we do comply why do you expect us to fight differently than with any other typical challenger ? You haven’t provided any evidence that you are different

Next in what way do you think philosophy is different from science. Philosophie comes from the greek “philien” which means love and “sophia” which mean wisdom or knowledge. the Ph in PhD means philosophie not physics as one might expect. Philosophie has a broader scope than science but science is definitely part of it. You might be wanting something more theological like what does evolution say about god. But once again you’ll get much more positive and useful answers if you ask your question. If its a good one, it will spark a debate amongst us.

If you have an issue on what evolution says about God states it and we will respond.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Bill_II

You said your 40 years of preaching “qualifies” you to critique godless evolution

No I did not. I said any topic, not every topic. My qualifications might qualify me to speak on the Bible and Christianity if they were acknowledged as sufficient. Your comment was a very badly concealed insult to my intelligence. To suggest that Preaching has anything to do with Brain surgery? Really!

Richard

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@gavin_kemp

If you have an issue on what evolution says about God states it and we will respond.

Funny I thought I had. Not here of course because this thread has very little to do with God. This thread has to do with a philosophical crit of the way Evolutionary theory came to be. That is what the analogy would be about, but clearly I do not have the qualifications to construct such a thing myself. So be it.

Richard

[gavin_kemp]

So you need an explanation on the scientific method ? And how over the year this was applied and brought us to evolution ?

If this is the case, I do have some knowledge on how this happened.