Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2023 3:06 pm
As usual, it is the boneheads at either end that shout the loudest, making it look as though it's an either/or question, which in their little minds make it us and them.
Well, the "boneheads" always get the press, because the press loves extravagant and conflictual things, and finds more calm and measured folks boring. But that doesn't mean the "boneheads" are entirely wrong. One thing they're right about is that belief in human
evolution (as opposed to mere lower-animal evolution), in particular, would have profound theological consequences, and would produce a true either/or decision.
...there are creatures alive today having 'eyes' which are different transitional forms - limpets and nautilus spring to mind.
This also misunderstands the problem. The problem is not what we have today...distinct species, with distinct features. The problem is by what exact "steps" or "phases" then managed to become what they are, if we happen to think that the "survival of the fittest" routine is the right explanation. It requires us to believe in millions of years of less-than-functional stages for each adaptation, in which survival of the fittest doesn't eliminate the less-than-functional appendage or modification. And nowhere do the survival of the fittests explanations make less sense than in the many cases we have of complex arrangments like symbiosis among three or more organisms...none of which ought to have been able to survive without the others being fully evolved already.
But this is a big discussion, and actually gets quite complex and technical. One has to know a lot of particulars about things like triadic symboisis, or irreducibly complex structures, or bee orchids or flagella, or minds, or DNA. There are a ton of angles from which one can view the problem: the problem for Evolutionism, though, is very, very real.
A mutation that confers an evolutionary advantage is likely to be selected for because an evolutionary advantage basically means more opportunities to reproduce.
What about when it doesn't yet represent and advantage? Just to take a very simple example, what when the bacterial flagellum is too short in its evolution to move the cell? What when its 42 parts are not all complete, and it cannot rotate yet? How can it be selected-for when it represents not an advantage at all, but rather a dysfunction or inhibition for the organism?
Or how does the cow parasite, which needs a cow, a plant, a snail and itself all to be evolved to functional level before it can have even one life-cycle "evolve" by incomplete steps, all allegedly watched over by survival-of-the-fittest's magical hand, manage to survive in defiance of survival of the fittest?
It's in the description of these preliminary phases that the Evolutionist historicism becomes wildly implausible. There just is no good Evolution-consistent explanation of how many of these things happen. Usually, Evolutionists just issue a kind of "promissory note" when faced with such things, and say, "Well, we don't know that now; but as we progress, we'll learn that, too." But these problems are so profound that even somebody like Thomas Nagel has abandoned the effort: it's just too wild and unwarranted a promise that Evolution will explain everything, and it's too inhibiting to science to narrow itself to only that kind of explanation: so says Nagel. In truth, universal faith in Evolutionism is a religious
sort of conviction, not one premised on the evidence. It's a hope for the future, and not at all a reality now.
Nevertheless you can see examples of transitional forms on a trip to the beach.
You can't actually. What you can see is only animals one has been instructed to think of
as "transitional forms." They are not that.
Is it a conscious decision on your part to argue against "Evolutionism" rather than evolution;
"Evolutionism" is the name of the creed. Note the "ism." "Evolution" is the mechanism in which the creed believes.
How do you prove something is irreducibly complex?
Oh, that's easy: observation.
When an organism or entity has multiple parts with the function of the whole being dependent on the proper working of every single part, then one has an "irreducibly complex" case. In such cases, explaining the alleged evolutionary stages by which such a thing came to suddenly function becomes very, very difficult...or even impossible. And recognizing this, some Evolutionists have proposed that evolution cannot possibly work smoothly: it must "leap forward suddenly," in what's called "punctuated equilibrium." But such explanations don't really help, of course, since even a short-term mutation requires a phased explanation that they just can't produce. And it also requires some additional mechanism, supplemental to survival of the fittest, to dictate the punctuations. So it gets far too messy and implausible to be called "scientific", once again.
It is actually a myth that there evolution lacks evidence,
Did you not see my earlier examples of secular scientists admitting that we have no "common ancestor" evidence? Even the most ardent proponents of Human Evolutionism cannot help admitting that fact: because if they didn't, they know they'd have to produce them...and they know they cannot do that. They wish they could, no doubt; but they can't.
As it happens most physics and chemistry is about "events and processes that have already taken place"
No, those are about reproducible phenomena. So they can be reproduced and demonstrated in the lab or in the field. Evolutionism's not like that: it's a historical narrative put together to generate plausibliity, with absolutely no chance of being reproduced in the lab. It's not an "experimental" field at all, but a narrative
sort of thing. That's what Mayr is saying: and he's one of their leading proponents.
Have you read him? I have. He's not always right, but he certainly shows that at least sometimes, science gets quite corrupted by agendas. And we can show that in lots of cases.
Why does it not also explain your way of thinking?
, in theory. It's plausible. You could believe it. But whether it does
explain my way of thinking, in reality,
is a different question.
It's like the Evolutionary situation: Evolutionists insist that their processes could
explain how humans got here. They can't honestly say that they know their explanation is right. The holes in it are still huge, particularly in relation to describing the transitional forms. But they insist it could
explain what happened, anyway. And they hope that's enough for most of us to give up belief in creation and in God, and opt for their explanation and thus to regard their authority instead.
But it's really not. They don't have the requisite evidence to show that their explanation IS the right one...or even to say that it's the most explanatorily useful
one, for that matter, as Nagel noted. They just hope it's plausible enough
to get people to believe it, so the field can continue with some authority and credibility, and maybe one day manage to deliver on that promissory-note thing they're always issuing.