I don't have time to get involved in an argument over this with Chris, and
in my experience he'd rather argue with Steve Jones, but if you want a
sophisticated version of this argument, see either
_Warranted_Christian_Belief_ by Alvin Plantinga (Oxford, 2000), or his
forthcoming article, "Naturalism Defeated" -- not even sure where it's
forthcoming, and it might even be out now.
Suffice it to say that your passionate screed here doesn't engage the
serious philosophical argument.
John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Chris Cogan
> Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 12:09 AM
> To: evolution@calvin.edu
> Subject: Is Darwinism Self-Refuting? (was: An intelligent discussion
> with Intelligent Design's designer)
>
>
>
> >Stephen
> >Here is an interview in a Christian magazine of Phil Johnson, by fellow
> >IDer Nancy Pearcey.
> >
> >Johnson puts his finger on the ultimate self-refutation of
> Darwinism, that
> >Darwin himself in his later years came to realise, namely if
> Darwinism is true
> >it could not know whether it was true or false:
> >
> > "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the
> > convictions of man's mind, which has been developed
> from the mind
> > of the lower animals are of any value or at all
> trustworthy. Would
> > any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if
> there are
> > any
> > convictions in such a mind?" (Darwin C.R., letter to W. Graham,
> > July 3rd, 1881, in Darwin F., ed., "The Life of Charles Darwin,"
> > [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).
> >
> >The atheistic evolutionists on this List talk a lot about
> rationality, but
> >where do they get rationality from out of random mutations and
> differential
> >reproduction?
> >
> >An atheist using reason to deny God's existence is like a computer using
> >Microsoft software to deny Bill Gates' existence!
>
> Chris
> I trust that most readers on this list realize at least intuitively just
> how *stupid* and irrational this line of "reasoning" is. If
> *this* is what
> Johnson thinks is an "ultimate self-refutation of Darwinism," then my
> remarks about Johnson's intellect in earlier posts stands confirmed once
> again. Johnson is an intellectual -- and *moral!* -- *pipsqueak*, making
> his career almost entirely on the basis of lies, half-truths,
> sophistries,
> and sucking up in a whole-hearted way to the ignorant, the
> unwary, and the
> stupid.
>
> However, many readers may not grasp just *why* the line of "reasoning"
> given by Jones/Johnson above is non-sensical, so, though I won't present
> the entire philosophical background that could be brought to bear on such
> drivel, I will present enough to enable some readers to be clearer about
> what is going on here. Others may find it a good reminder of things they
> might not have thought of.
>
> First, some miscellaneous quickies:
>
>
> 1. Consciousness (awareness and self-awareness) is a primary. The
> question
> is not whether we can know anything or can be rational, but
> merely what the
> mechanism is and how it works.
>
> 2. Evolution, in fact, provides a very good explanation not of the
> mechanism itself, but of why it arose and why, ultimately, we have
> *scientific* reason to trust it (it is one *hell* of a powerful
> survival-tool).
>
> 3. Jones/Johnson are not in any better state than evolutionists in this
> respect, because they cannot prove that their God provides a valid
> rationality any more than evolution would. Why not? Because, to "prove"
> such a thing, they *first* need to assume that they can be rational,
> *regardless* of whether there is or is not a God. Otherwise, meaningful
> proof is impossible.
>
> Now for the main line
>
> Now, as the reader can see from the above, there is no question of
> evolution subverting rational knowledge. The question is simply how it is
> that evolution can produce a mind capable of it. The basic answer is: Bit
> by bit. We can *prove* that intelligence, rationality, and so on, are,
> under many of the conditions that early man and earlier primates
> lived in,
> extremely powerful survival tools. We also can prove that
> irrationality is,
> *in general*, contra-survival.
>
> Thus, given a naturalistic theory of evolution and the presence of a
> suitable environment, it is easy to predict that a brain that can manage
> self-reflective intelligence, language, and so on, will evolve. Let's
> reconsider the quotation from Darwin:
>
> But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the
> convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind
> of the lower animals are of any value or at all
> trustworthy. Would
> any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if
> there are any
> convictions in such a mind?
>
> Obviously, *if* the monkey could ask such a question, the answer
> would have
> to be: Yes, *regardless* of how it came to be. The proof is in the
> *results*, not the method of arriving at the results. The fact is
> that the
> human mind (well, *some* human minds) *have* arrived at a stage
> where such
> questions can be asked -- and answered.
>
> Would I trust a human mind that had read a book of myths written two
> thousand years ago, had swallowed them nearly whole, and that had evaded
> nearly *every* serious question about *their* truth and rationality? No.
>
> And it would not matter whether I thought some sort of God
> existed or not.
> The *method* in such a case is simply not rational, even if it has
> superficial appearance of rationality. For an example of this type of
> thing, I suggest that the reader visit Stephen Jones' Web site and read
> his "testimony," at:
>
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/testimny.html
>
> I will leave the question of exactly why this "testimony" is demonstrates
> pseudo-rationality as an exercise for the reader, though I may at some
> point give a more nearly comprehensive discussion of the fundamental
> mistakes exhibited, because they are very common, both
> historically and in
> today's world.
>
> For now, it is sufficient to point out that man *is* the rational animal
> (in a basic, biological sense of "rational"), and that it is simply
> *irrelevant* how it became so. The fact of man's rationality (in
> the sense
> just mentioned) is undeniable, and the obviousness of the biological
> *value* of rationality in certain environments and to certain
> organisms is
> *also* undeniable, and this provides all the plausibility needed to
> "reconcile" our ability to discover and know things with the theory of
> evolution itself (as if such reconciliation was needed at all).
>
> Basically, Darwin got the question backwards, by assuming that human
> ability to know was rationally questionable and that the path or means by
> which a being came to have such ability could somehow reflect badly (or
> well) on the result. It is, as I pointed out, simply *irrelevant* whether
> man's mind came about by God's arbitrary fiat or by evolution or by a
> one-in-a-googolplex-to-the-googolplex-power chance conglomeration
> of atoms
> that happened to be able to think.
>
> Additional Comments
>
> I'm saddened that Darwin was bothered by such questions, but, had he a
> sufficiently better background in philosophy, he would have seen
> that such
> questions rest on assumptions that themselves need questioning
> (and *those*
> probably rest on assumptions that need questioning, and so on). Darwin
> lived over a hundred years ago, has some excuse for not seeing his way
> through such conceptual pseudo-problems. Jones, Johnson, and the lunatics
> who came up with the so-called "Transcendental Argument for God"
> (or "TAG,"
> as it is sometimes known), do not have Darwin's excuse, *particularly*
> since they are putting so much weight on such ideas.
>
> Thus we see that, instead of being an ultimate self-refutation of
> Darwinism, Jones and Johnson have merely puffed up yet another sophistry
> and flung it out to snare the ignorant, the unwary, the over-eager *and*
> unwary, or the merely stupid. Some people still accept the old communist
> line to the effect that the end justifies the means (*any* means,
> no matter
> how vile and monstrous). Apparently, Jones and Johnson's
> religious beliefs
> are *so* deeply entrenched that running rampant over ordinary
> standards of
> reason and honesty in persuasion are simply irrelevant to them,
> so, *in the
> name of God (!!!!)*, they have sunk to the level of being willing to use
> such arguments as this "evolution is self-refuting" argument, despite its
> clear and fatal unsoundness.
>
> Demagoguery must have its rewards, or it would not remain so
> popular, but I
> can't imagine wanting those rewards more than what I'd have to
> *give up* in
> order to be able to seek them by such means.
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 09:37:26 EDT